Soviet Russia VS the United States

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-20 07:14am

If the Soviets and Americans would have actually gotten into an all out war, who do you really think would have won? Honestly, I know Russia was very nuclear capable, but could they have brought the United States down?

What do you think?

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-06-20 07:16am

Superman wrote:If the Soviets and Americans would have actually gotten into an all out war, who do you really think would have won? Honestly, I know Russia was very nuclear capable, but could they have brought the United States down?

What do you think?

Russia would probably be destroyed, but the U.S. would be devastated by Russia's nukes.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-20 07:17am

Yeah, I think so too...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 07:22am

Mostly depends on the era, anything before 1949 US nukes the hell out of em. After that however, until that brief time in Cuba, the Soviet nukes couldn't reach the US, only Western Europe.

Once the USSR gets long range bombers it basically MAD.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-20 07:24am

Oh, my bad. Let me give a time frame. Let's say the year is 1980.

Darth Phoenix · Post by **Darth Phoenix** » 2003-06-20 07:26am

In a conventional war without nukes the Americans would win altough with heavy losses.
In a nuke war it is anyones guess...

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-20 07:29am

The American navy is more than twice as big as the Soviet one was at its peak. The USA also generally had a higher level of technology than the Soviet Union, so I'll say they have an advantage.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 07:29am

Superman wrote:Oh, my bad. Let me give a time frame. Let's say the year is 1980.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

See: Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-20 07:38am

Gandalf wrote:Mostly depends on the era, anything before 1949 US nukes the hell out of em. After that however, until that brief time in Cuba, the Soviet nukes couldn't reach the US, only Western Europe.

Once the USSR gets long range bombers it basically MAD.

Russia's long range bomber fleet was never a credible threat until the 1980s, when they built 100+ new-build Tu-95MS BEAR-H cruise missile carriers (each carrying 16 200kt each cruise missiles with 3,000km range) and began production of the Tu-160 BLACKJACK (both of which expected to serve with upgrades until 2030-40).

It was basically MAD when Russia got credible ICBMs. Heck, more than credible, Russia's ICBMs haved kicked major ass since the 70s- still do. Very survivable, accurate force.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-06-20 07:52am

Gandalf wrote:
Superman wrote:Oh, my bad. Let me give a time frame. Let's say the year is 1980.
Mutually Assured Destruction.

See: Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe.

I think I will.

Z-Ha-Dum · Post by **Z-Ha-Dum** » 2003-06-20 02:32pm

I recall the Soviet Union having the advantage of advance intelligence. I believe the U.S. did have a spy scandal in the navy around the early 1980s (correct me if I'm wrong). The KGB also had the Ames fellow as a mole in the CIA and was able to identify several major operatives inside the iron curtain that gave the US a disadvantage.

Intelligence could tip the balance in war. But I don't know how significant it could have been.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-20 02:34pm

Anyone else ever read The War That Never Was?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-20 11:42pm

Z'Ha'Dum wrote:I recall the Soviet Union having the advantage of advance intelligence. I believe the U.S. did have a spy scandal in the navy around the early 1980s (correct me if I'm wrong). The KGB also had the Ames fellow as a mole in the CIA and was able to identify several major operatives inside the iron curtain that gave the US a disadvantage.

Intelligence could tip the balance in war. But I don't know how significant it could have been.

Both sides probably had a good deal of intel on each other, as people could be smuggled into USSR through East Berlin. And once you left the USSR it was easy to get into the US.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-06-20 11:50pm

Gandalf wrote:
Both sides probably had a good deal of intel on each other, as people could be smuggled into USSR through East Berlin. And once you left the USSR it was easy to get into the US.

Zha'dum is correct. The Soviets had an amazing lead, intel wise. They could read every Goddamn Navy transmission.

If war broke out in 1980, they would be able to land on the USN with both feet.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-20 11:51pm

Unfortunately for the Soviets, they didn't weigh enough to truly kill off the USN.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-06-21 12:08am

Howedar wrote:Unfortunately for the Soviets, they didn't weigh enough to truly kill off the USN.

They could read ours and Commonwealth intercepts. If war broke out, the USN would be hosed. It is truly amazing the amount of knowledge they gained about our procedures, capabilities, doctrine, patrol patterns, etc.

The Akula SSN was the result of the Soviets finding out how easily we could track their subs. The Akula being signifigantly quieter than previous classes. I cannot underestimate the danger we would have been in if war broke out prior to the breaking of the Walker spy ring.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-21 12:15am

Lonestar wrote:
Howedar wrote:Unfortunately for the Soviets, they didn't weigh enough to truly kill off the USN.
They could read ours and Commonwealth intercepts. If war broke out, the USN would be hosed. It is truly amazing the amount of knowledge they gained about our procedures, capabilities, doctrine, patrol patterns, etc.

The Akula SSN was the result of the Soviets finding out how easily we could track their subs. The Akula being signifigantly quieter than previous classes. I cannot underestimate the danger we would have been in if war broke out prior to the breaking of the Walker spy ring.

As good as the Akula is, it wasn't even competition against the LAs and barely could hold its own against the Sturgeons. Even then its Sonar suites weren't very good. While being able to read the Navies mail was important, they still could not have seriously hurt it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-21 12:58am

Alyeska wrote:
As good as the Akula is, it wasn't even competition against the LAs and barely could hold its own against the Sturgeons. Even then its Sonar suites weren't very good

Not true. The Sturgeon is ancient compared to Akula, and the Los Angeles and Akula are basically the same in terms of capability. A little history- the Project 945 SSN (callsign Sierra) was meant to be the Soviet's premiere SSN- it had a titanium hull that made it very costly, so only four were built, but it is credited as equivalent to the LA but with a superior non-acoustic detection system and integrated acoustic countermeasures system. The 971 SSN (callsign Akula) was basically the same as the 945 except it had a steel hull, making it cheaper to produce. The Improved Akula and the Akula II are of course more improved models- the Akula II is credited by Western experts as quieter than the 688i. The Sea Wolf is probably still the most quiet.

While being able to read the Navies mail was important, they still could not have seriously hurt it.

That's true, but only because only over a dozen Akulas were built compared to the huge fleet of LA and Sturgeon subs. The Victor SSNs that made up the majority of the Soviet SSN fleet sucked ass.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-21 01:11am

Vympel wrote:The Improved Akula and the Akula II are of course more improved models- the Akula II is credited by Western experts as quieter than the 688i.

I've never heard this. Which Western experts?

*EDIT* I'd also question the effectiveness of Soviet submarine crews compared to those on a 688. I'm not questioning a Soviet crewman's dedication or innate skill, but AFAIK the Soviet Union simply didn't train their crews as well as the USN.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-21 01:54am

The outcome of such a conflict is highly dependent on the year and scenario. Say if the two nations go to war in 1962 the US could win without perhaps a half dozen nuclear weapons striking its soil while Russia enjoyed several thousand.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-21 02:13am

Howedar wrote: I've never heard this. Which Western experts?

It is in numerous mainstream Western reports back in 2001, when the Akula II SSN Gepardwas commissioned (it wasn't the first to be commissioned, but it was important enough to warrant coverage). The Akula II is known to be 4m longer, has advanced quietening tech, and increased automation (crew reduced from 71 to 53).

From an article on Akula:

Although Western military buffs are often quick to dismiss the former Soviet Union as technologically inept, the Akula class has raised serious doubts of who is leading whom.

This turnaround was painfully evident when US officials recently acknowledged for the first time that US submarines could not readily locate an Akula submarine operating off the coast of the USA. "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said. Other military experts sounded the alarm as early as 1988. Anthony Batista, senior staff member of the Armed Forces Committee declared, "The Akula is the best submarine in the world today." A recent report from the Office of Naval Intelligence noted that the improved Akula submarines could indeed surpass the quieting of the Los Angeles class at tactical speeds. On August 9, 1995, during a lobbying effort on behalf of the Seawolf and the following Virginia class submarines, retired Vice Admiral E.A. Burkhalter announced that the $7 billion-per-year Russian program had produced "the Akula submarine, which is quieter than Seawolf." In an effort to raise public awareness, Martin Marietta, a leading defense contractor, ran ads featuring the Akula class in a number of newspapers including the San Diego Union-Tribune. While it may be difficult to separate the hype military supporters chronically use to "talk up a potential threat, in order to justify their own building programs" from the actual capabilities obscured by Russian secrecy, one impression remains: America can no longer claim uncontested dominance of the oceanic strata.

Basically, Akulas capabilities came as a shock. It was blithely assumed that the US would always have the accoustic advantage in SSN technology; the Russians managed to pretty much close the gap in that regard- and of course defense contractors take advantage (like jeezus, running an AD?), but that doesn't mean they're bullshitting.

*EDIT* I'd also question the effectiveness of Soviet submarine crews compared to those on a 688. I'm not questioning a Soviet crewman's dedication or innate skill, but AFAIK the Soviet Union simply didn't train their crews as well as the USN.

True. Another factor to consider. I just wanted to emphasize the Akula is a mean ass boat.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-21 01:26pm

Quiet as the Akula is the crews are piss poor and the sonar is even more pathetic. Furthermore, the Akula is NOT the best submarine in the world. That title is clearly reserved for the Sea Wolf class thank you very much.

Any war between the USSR and the US in the 1980s would not favor the Soviets at all in the submarine business. The Akula was in very limited numbers and with its poor sonar capability Sturegons would be comparable while 688s would blow it away. Sure the improved Akula and the Akula 2 are nice, but those are 90s era subs.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-21 02:09pm

Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite military fiction novels. Its a story about a limited-theater war between NATO and the Soviets in 1988, taking place in central europe and the atlantic.

Ends kinda in a stalemate, but it is very good reading. The invasion of Iceland was masterful.

Anyone else read it?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-21 02:30pm

Alyeska wrote:Quiet as the Akula is the crews are piss poor

They're not as skilled. Piss poor is an entirely new ballgame.

and the sonar is even more pathetic.

The sonar is worse than piss poor? It's sonar is only 1/3 as sensitive as the Los Angeles class, reportedly (how they know this I don't know, but anyway). That hardly qualifies as piss poor. It's just not as good.

Furthermore, the Akula is NOT the best submarine in the world. That title is clearly reserved for the Sea Wolf class thank you very much.

Didn't say it was, and I know the Sea Wolf is currently the best. Whether the 885 Yasen runs off with it's title is another question

Any war between the USSR and the US in the 1980s would not favor the Soviets at all in the submarine business. The Akula was in very limited numbers and with its poor sonar capability Sturegons would be comparable while 688s would blow it away. Sure the improved Akula and the Akula 2 are nice, but those are 90s era subs.

Sturgeons are *not* comparable to the Akula. At all. Period. It's like saying the F-4 Phanom is a match for the MiG-29. The first Sturgeon was commissioned in the late 60s, for fucks sake. The Akula is an entire generation ahead in technology.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-21 02:33pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite military fiction novels. Its a story about a limited-theater war between NATO and the Soviets in 1988, taking place in central europe and the atlantic.

Ends kinda in a stalemate, but it is very good reading. The invasion of Iceland was masterful.

Anyone else read it?

Tom Clancy's best work, IMO.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Soviet Russia VS the United States

Soviet Russia VS the United States

Re: Soviet Russia VS the United States