Patton is set loose on Russia
Posted: 2003-03-01 10:30pm
In a twist of fate, Ike cuts loose and sets Patton on the Reds right after the fall of Germany.
What happens?
What happens?
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14149
The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.Shinova wrote:How bout US now, without nukes, vs USSR then at height of military power, no nukes?
He said the USSR at the height of it's military power- not the USSR of 45.Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.
On the field, modern troops absolutely slaughter the mass armies of WW2. A US heavy corps could destroy ten thousand soviet tanks and artillery pieces in days.
Actually I DID mean USSR 1945, but without all the losses it took in that war. 1945 tech, full numbers.Vympel wrote:He said the USSR at the height of it's military power- not the USSR of 45.Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.
On the field, modern troops absolutely slaughter the mass armies of WW2. A US heavy corps could destroy ten thousand soviet tanks and artillery pieces in days.
Actually by 1945 the difference wasn't that marked. The T-34/85 was definitely the superior fighting design, and it's main gun was better, but most Shermans at the time were armed with the long 76mm gun, which was plenty capable of holing the T-34/85 hull (though the turret was a far more uncertain proposition). Of course, the T-34/85 could hole the M4/76 anywhere it wanted to.Coyote wrote:I think the USSR of the Brezhnev era was more powerful.
But riht after WW2, it would have been a hard fight. The Sherman was a piece of paper compared to the T-34, and it'd be a long time fore we got enough Pershings in there to make a difference.
Where were the Panther and King Tiger factories? For all I know, they were in Soviet occupied Germany. Regardless- I don't think they'd help much. The same thing applies as it did throughout the war- too complicated, too expensive, too little, too late.Ironically, we'd have to take over production of existing King Tiger and Panther facilities and crew them into battle.
Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.Our USAAF would be able to wear down the Red Air Force but it would be difficult... although a Stormovik vs a Thunderbolt might be interesting to watch.
The Soviet Navy wouldn't even bother coming out of its ports.The US Navy would utterly dominate the seas of any Soviet ships...
I don't think the Soviets would submit. This whole thing is pretty much scenario impossible- but really I don't think anyone would have the resolve for such a conflict.Basically, we could neutralize them in air and sea, but the ground forces would be unable to get anywhere due to troop strength and equipment inequalities. We'd essentially siege them into submission. An ugly way to go.
That's an exaggerationTed wrote:There is also the fact that a 37mm anti-tank gun could take out a Sherman.
The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...Vympel wrote:Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.Our USAAF would be able to wear down the Red Air Force but it would be difficult... although a Stormovik vs a Thunderbolt might be interesting to watch.
Still, Germany produced millions of panzerfausts capable of knocking out any Allied tank-they could just use them. The Soviets started picking up a lot of them and using it- and the concept for the next generation Panzerfausts eventaully evolved into the RPG series.Sea Skimmer wrote:At ranges under 50 meters the 37mm could destroy quite a few things with a shaped charge stick bomb, but only from the flanks or rear. In such a situation a rocket launcher works far better.
That's one thing the US would rapidly field, the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. It easily destroyed T-34/85's in Korea. It was ready fro service in 1945 but with Germany defeated production plans where shelved. After the normal Bazookas proved ineffective five years later, it was quickly gotten into full scale service.
The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.Vympel wrote: Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.
Almost certainly. But there would likely be a range penaltyphongn wrote: The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...
Were the Pe-2s and Tu-2s used in such a way though? I thought they were more of a tactical bomber than a CAS aircraft.Sea Skimmer wrote:
The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.
The 3.5 inch rocket launcher was effective at much greater ranges then the panzerfausts. Panzerfausts is what you shoot at the tank passing your alley, while the 3.5 is what you use to knock up the one several blocks down.Vympel wrote:Still, Germany produced millions of panzerfausts capable of knocking out any Allied tank-they could just use them. The Soviets started picking up a lot of them and using it- and the concept for the next generation Panzerfausts eventaully evolved into the RPG series.Sea Skimmer wrote:At ranges under 50 meters the 37mm could destroy quite a few things with a shaped charge stick bomb, but only from the flanks or rear. In such a situation a rocket launcher works far better.
That's one thing the US would rapidly field, the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. It easily destroyed T-34/85's in Korea. It was ready fro service in 1945 but with Germany defeated production plans where shelved. After the normal Bazookas proved ineffective five years later, it was quickly gotten into full scale service.
Hardly a war winner in any case tho. Using AT rockets takes balls. I'd also take a Soviet tankist over a NK crew anyday.
Depends on the Panzerfaust. Panzerfaust-30, 60, 100, or the projected 150 and even 250?Sea Skimmer wrote:
The 3.5 inch rocket launcher was effective at much greater ranges then the panzerfausts. Panzerfausts is what you shoot at the tank passing your alley, while the 3.5 is what you use to knock up the one several blocks down.
I'm sure you could, but why would you want to?phongn wrote: The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...
The Pe-2 was pretty much all level with some dive bombing. But the Tu-2 had a pair of 20mm cannon in the wing roots to use on CAS missions. If it conducted many such missions with the Il-10 around I dont know.Vympel wrote:Were the Pe-2s and Tu-2s used in such a way though? I thought they were more of a tactical bomber than a CAS aircraft.Sea Skimmer wrote:
The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.
Actually, there's one part of that statement I have to disagree with. By 1945, the differences between the Sherman and the T-34 were more marked than they had been during those two vehicles' earlier phase of production and service, and were more heavily tilted in the Russian tank's favor.Vympel wrote:Actually by 1945 the difference wasn't that marked. The T-34/85 was definitely the superior fighting design, and it's main gun was better, but most Shermans at the time were armed with the long 76mm gun, which was plenty capable of holing the T-34/85 hull (though the turret was a far more uncertain proposition). Of course, the T-34/85 could hole the M4/76 anywhere it wanted to.Coyote wrote:But riht after WW2, it would have been a hard fight. The Sherman was a piece of paper compared to the T-34, and it'd be a long time fore we got enough Pershings in there to make a difference.