The Soviet Union vs The British Empire

Lord Waddell

The British Empire vs the USSR...if Britain had sufficient forces on the ground at the time of the Soviet attack then they could beat them off. If we had an empire, then I assume that our armed forces would be much bigger than they are now.

The British Empire never had a large army, where as the SOviet Union always had one of the largest (maybe the largest) land armies in the world.

The Royal Navy would probably sink most of a Soviet invasion force bound for the British Isles, but we may not be able to hold onto outlying colonies. Of course the same could go for the USSR as many of their puppet states and constituent republics could try to rebel against Moscow while they are engaged elsewhere.

Why didn't that happen during WWII? The Soviet Union was one big mass of neighbouring repulics, which were much easier to control than Britain's far flung Empire.

Reply 22

TheVlad

The British Empire never had a large army, where as the SOviet Union always had one of the largest (maybe the largest) land armies in the world.

Quite true- that is why WWI bankrupted the nation when the UK was forced to maintain a large army.

However, theoretically the Empire would have the largest army in the world since it could draw on India's population and especially the warrior class that were always happy to fight for Britain, although underused in both WWs due to racial tension.

Reply 23

Lord Waddell

TheVlad

The British Empire never had a large army, where as the SOviet Union always had one of the largest (maybe the largest) land armies in the world.

The British Army and military would still be much bigger than it is now if we still had a British Empire. And remember, size is not everything. If war broke out, then we would introduce conscription and then would have a very large army.

Why didn't that happen during WWII? The Soviet Union was one big mass of neighbouring repulics, which were much easier to control than Britain's far flung Empire.

Perhaps because of the Nazis stupid racial policies. They regarded all Slavs as sub human and tried to enslave them. I certainly can't see Britain doing that.

Reply 24

Lord Waddell

The British Army and military would still be much bigger than it is now if we still had a British Empire. And remember, size is not everything. If war broke out, then we would introduce conscription and then would have a very large army.

But the Soviets would already have a far larger military with trained troops. There is no way that Britain could compete with Russia in manpower and land warfare.

Perhaps because of the Nazis stupid racial policies. They regarded all Slavs as sub human and tried to enslave them. I certainly can't see Britain doing that.

I doubt that many people in the Soviet republics would be able to discern between the two. The propaganda machine would make sure that they saw the British as mini-antichrists coming to suck the brains of the peace-loving citizens of the Soviet socialist republics. And the large military would ensure firm control.

Reply 25

Lord Waddell

TheVlad

But the Soviets would already have a far larger military with trained troops. There is no way that Britain could compete with Russia in manpower and land warfare.

They didn't show much evidence of being well trained during World War II and Afghanistan. The British would also have troops from the Dominions and the Imperial Indian Army, and if they were being attacked (I assume that the Soviet Union would start off the war) British and Dominion troops would fight all the more fiercely.

I doubt that many people in the Soviet republics would be able to discern between the two. The propaganda machine would make sure that they saw the British as mini-antichrists coming to suck the brains of the peace-loving citizens of the Soviet socialist republics. And the large military would ensure firm control.

Well there were so many people in the old USSR who wished to break away. The Georgians, Ukranians, Baltic people...you know the rest. And I think that the people would be able to discern between propaganda and real happenings. Many people got quite adapt at it when the only newspaper around was Pravda. The puppet states like Poland and Hungary would also quite like to break out from under the thumb of the Soviets, at a time when the Red Army was engaged elsewhere.

Reply 26

Lord Waddell

They didn't show much evidence of being well trained during World War II and Afghanistan. The British would also have troops from the Dominions and the Imperial Indian Army, and if they were being attacked (I assume that the Soviet Union would start off the war) British and Dominion troops would fight all the more fiercely.

The Red Army would still be larger and better coordinated in its nature as it wouldn't have to rely so much on foreign troops (most would be Russian).

Well there were so many people in the old USSR who wished to break away. The Georgians, Ukranians, Baltic people...you know the rest. And I think that the people would be able to discern between propaganda and real happenings. Many people got quite adapt at it when the only newspaper around was Pravda. The puppet states like Poland and Hungary would also quite like to break out from under the thumb of the Soviets, at a time when the Red Army was engaged elsewhere.

But Russia would find it easier to control its dominions than Britain. And even if some nations like Georgia or the Baltic states do rebel, the effect would be minimal. If Britain loses India, however, she's screwed. Russia wins the war, puts down the rebellions and gets ready to start on the rest of the world. Proletariat of the world unite.

Reply 27

an Siarach

15

Howard

Are you kidding? In a straight fight (without allies and forgetting nukes) the Russians would make short work of the UK. Good God, we only have around 96'000 soldiers in the Army; the Russians probably have 10 times that number.

Using that thinking the Chinese/India would easily defeat any nation on Earth.

And their equipment, is easily as good as ours

Nope.

......Christ.....we're still using cell phones as our major means of front line communication :rolleyes:

and can't even collect enough desert gear together for a poxy contingent of 8000 in Iraq.....

We have the odd bit of administrative incompetance which results in embaressments such as that you mention but our forces are far more professional and better equiped than the ruskies.

Reply 28

an Siarach

Using that thinking the Chinese/India would easily defeat any nation on Earth.

They would defeat Britain and probably the Russia of today.

Nope.
We have the odd bit of administrative incompetance which results in embaressments such as that you mention but our forces are far more professional and better equiped than the ruskies.

Yes at the moment British forces are better equipped because the Russia of today cannot afford to supply their military with the weapons, for which the technology exists. However in the hypothetical situation where the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed and the economy continued to prosper until 2010, the military would get first pick of the money and would therefore have the same if not superior equipment.
And even if not, the sheer masses of Russians wearing nothing but their fur hats swimming across the Baltic and then the North Sea would easily overpower British forces.

Reply 29

TheVlad

The Red Army would still be larger and better coordinated in its nature as it wouldn't have to rely so much on foreign troops (most would be Russian).

WWI is a perfect example here.......

Germany started the war with an army 40 times larger than the Empire's- they lost and never really had any chance of winning.

Just because the UK has a small peacetime army does not mean it cannot recruit a large one.

The USSR had a perpetual war economy that had a large army as a necessity- the UK never has.

When the Empire did enter into a 'total war' it could provide the largest army in the world.

TheVlad

But Russia would find it easier to control its dominions than Britain. And even if some nations like Georgia or the Baltic states do rebel, the effect would be minimal. If Britain loses India, however, she's screwed. Russia wins the war, puts down the rebellions and gets ready to start on the rest of the world. Proletariat of the world unite.

Russia can't do anything without a navy.

The USSR was a continental power and relied on marching across thousands of miles of territory to achieve anything.

The only reason the Empire lasted so long and was so economically viable was because it was easy to control with efficient sea routes and a powerful navy.

The navy is the only thing that would matter in a war with the British Empire and noone in the world could ever match that.

Reply 30

Trier

WWI is a perfect example here.......

Germany started the war with an army 40 times larger than the Empire's- they lost and never really had any chance of winning.

Germany was defeated by several allies and because it was starved by the British Navy. This wouldn't bother the Soviets who were self sufficient.

Just because the UK has a small peacetime army does not mean it cannot recruit a large one.

The USSR had a perpetual war economy that had a large army as a necessity- the UK never has.

When the Empire did enter into a 'total war' it could provide the largest army in the world.

Was it the largest? I'm sure Russia could manage more.

Russia can't do anything without a navy.

The USSR was a continental power and relied on marching across thousands of miles of territory to achieve anything.

It can take India and starve Britain

The only reason the Empire lasted so long and was so economically viable was because it was easy to control with efficient sea routes and a powerful navy.

The navy is the only thing that would matter in a war with the British Empire and noone in the world could ever match that.

I think the Soviets could try and do what the Germans tried to in WWII - bomb the isles into submission. The loss of India and the superior Soviet Airforce should do it.

Reply 31

TheVlad

Germany was defeated by several allies and because it was starved by the British Navy. This wouldn't bother the Soviets who were self sufficient.

Germany was principally defeated by Britain.

The only major question over WWI is why it took so long for Britain to win when she was so clearly superior.

My point was that Britain could rapidly mobilise a large army.

Self-sufficiency is stretched to it's limit by war.

TheVlad

Was it the largest? I'm sure Russia could manage more.

Really?

One sparsely populated nation against a quarter of the world's population?
(It would actually be more than a quarter if we used the current population figures)

TheVlad

It can take India and starve Britain

Attack the principal military base of the Empire?
The muster for the largest army on the planet?

Starving Britain would be no easy task without a strong navy.

TheVlad

I think the Soviets could try and do what the Germans tried to in WWII - bomb the isles into submission. The loss of India and the superior Soviet Airforce should do it.

Yet the Germans learnt that such a tactic was flawed.

Invading the British Isles is also notoriously difficult- and if we continue this idea of the Empire continuing on at the height of its power (which is why this is a ridiculous basis on which to argue) surely the British airforce would be the equal of the Russian one?

India would also be very hard to lose.

Reply 32

MonsieurE

I don't know what you're thread is asking because for one, there is no British Empire or Soviet Union. Thus, is it Britain v Russia, and why would that happen? Not as if they hate each other, or Russia is a real threat anymore.

- Why do people really have to take it this seriously, the person who started this thread just wanted some light-hearted political speculation. What are some people like?!
And anway Britain would obviously win :smile:

Reply 33

Rex Imperator

OP

EamonnHF

- Why do people really have to take it this seriously, the person who started this thread just wanted some light-hearted political speculation. What are some people like?!
And anway Britain would obviously win :smile:

Exactly! But though I wanted some light-hearted geo-military speculation, I certainly don't mind the seriousness of it all. I mean, this thread has revealed such great information from both "sides of the Channel". Imagine if black budget spending was allowed by Parliament, we'd have the opportunity to really whip the British and Imperial Armies into shape.

If we had such a magnitude in terms of national will and resources (the latter being graciously approved by Parliament), then would not the Armed Services at the least be able to challenge the Soviet Union on a more or less even footing? India would be crucial in Imperial Defence. We could draw upon a nearly endless supply of men to launch our own offensive into southern Russia, with enough left over to cover Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. We just need the national (and perhaps Imperial) will to do so, coupled with the material means.

Reply 34

an Siarach

15

TheVlad

They would defeat Britain and probably the Russia of today.

*shrugs

Yes at the moment British forces are better equipped because the Russia of today cannot afford to supply their military with the weapons, for which the technology exists. However in the hypothetical situation where the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed and the economy continued to prosper until 2010, the military would get first pick of the money and would therefore have the same if not superior equipment.
And even if not, the sheer masses of Russians wearing nothing but their fur hats swimming across the Baltic and then the North Sea would easily overpower British forces.

If you had the USSR at the height of its power against the Britain of today then yes the USSR would win. If ,however, you stay true to the original premise of the thread which was the British Empire at the height of its power vs the USSR at its height the British Empire would win quite easily. Bigger,richer,more man power etc.

Reply 35

an Siarach

*shrugs

If you had the USSR at the height of its power against the Britain of today then yes the USSR would win. If ,however, you stay true to the original premise of the thread which was the British Empire at the height of its power vs the USSR at its height the British Empire would win quite easily. Bigger,richer,more man power etc.

Dude, the British Empire never felt capable of fighting Russia on even terms. Thats why she pursued alliances, first with Germany and then with Japan in late 19th century to counter Russia's large army. When the Germany thing didn't work out (they had some disagreement over China) the British decided it was time to make friends with France in Russia. The British Empire would never be able to defend her Asian interests against a Soviet advance because even with colonial troops because of her small land forces. The Indian population never considered themselves to be British and I doubt that large numbers of them would be prepared to die for an Empire of which they would be getting pretty tired by 2010.
Oh and I'm not taking this seriously... I'm just always this intense.

Reply 36

TheVlad

Dude, the British Empire never felt capable of fighting Russia on even terms. Thats why she pursued alliances, first with Germany and then with Japan in late 19th century to counter Russia's large army. When the Germany thing didn't work out (they had some disagreement over China) the British decided it was time to make friends with France in Russia. The British Empire would never be able to defend her Asian interests against a Soviet advance because even with colonial troops because of her small land forces. The Indian population never considered themselves to be British and I doubt that large numbers of them would be prepared to die for an Empire of which they would be getting pretty tired by 2010.
Oh and I'm not taking this seriously... I'm just always this intense.

At the time of the Empire, Russia was a non-entity.

Russia was defeated by Japan- not even a remote threat to Britain who thought of Japan as insignificant.

Incidentally- large numbers of Indians did enlist in WWI and would certainly have defended India.

Reply 37

Rex Imperator

OP

Trier

At the time of the Empire, Russia was a non-entity.

Russia was defeated by Japan- not even a remote threat to Britain who thought of Japan as insignificant.

Incidentally- large numbers of Indians did enlist in WWI and would certainly have defended India.

Yep. Tsushima pretty much ensured Russia's humiliation at the hands of what supposedly was second-class power. Oh man.

In addition, realising Japan's potential power and growing hegemony, Britain concluded an alliance with that country. Britain, the Mistress of the Seas, chose to regard Japan as a real power. Oh well.

As for that bit about Britain never fielding a large land force, we sent around 450,000 troops to South Africa during the Boer War. During the height of WWI, there was at any one time over 1 million British troops from these home islands.

Reply 38

Trier

At the time of the Empire, Russia was a non-entity.

Russia was defeated by Japan- not even a remote threat to Britain who thought of Japan as insignificant.

Incidentally- large numbers of Indians did enlist in WWI and would certainly have defended India.

False, Russia was one of the major European powers. True she wasn't as highly industrialised as Britain and Germany, but she had comparable military technology and a massivley greater population.

How large are these large numbers of Indians? A couple of Ghurka regiments is not enough to repel the Red Army.

Reply 39