WAR: Eurasia vs. America

[Colonel Olrik]

Small or half-deployed (half-dispositioned) armies can't defend wide fronts. Proved. By Blietzkrieg.

The Blietzkrieg wasn't instantaneous. If Poland and France had, from the start or after a few days, the U.S Hyperpower of today backing them up, they wouldn't have fallen. I'm not questioning that the Russian+French+Germany coudn't invade Spain. I'm question that "instantly" of yours. If tanks are enough, please do tell how the U.S war with Iraq has already lasted for a week, and they still don't possess half the territory. Guess: the Iberian peninsula is larger, and not constituted by nice easy rolling deserts.

The U.S already has military in the peninsula. would it take more than a few days to start pouring reinforcements?

[K. A. Pital]

Colonel Olrik
If we assume we are merciful (like the US are) we'll take a few weeks. Blietzkrieg was not instantaneous, of course. But in such a war elimination and annihilation come into play. We'll try to move forces in a number of days. In fact, train from Siberia, Russia - Germany takes a week. Train can carry but 50 tanks. 100 trains - 500 tanks. You'll have me sitting in a T-80 next week guys!

If Poland and France had, from the start or after a few days, the U.S Hyperpower of today backing them up

France was powerful enough on itself (unlike Spain), and it received British exp. force. Good try. Itogue? Dunkirk. Think of a better example.

If tanks are enough, please do tell how the U.S war with Iraq has already lasted for a week

Why only tanks? We'll have fighter planes and MI helicopters (WoooHOOO!, and sorry for emotions, cause I flew one) kick into action in a few hours. MI is the best transport in the world. You'll have problems faster than you think.

would it take more than a few days to start pouring reinforcements?

Presumably, few days. By air. Right. This is the beginning of war. Once you receive reinf. you have to move into position... which is already occupied. The tactics are same; they don't change much, only with technology like a-bomb.

[RedImperator]

The B coalition can't possibly win. They have zero effective sealift capability, and the A coalition navies control the seas. China can't invade Taiwan, Russo-European forces definitely cannot invade Great Britain, to say nothing of Japan, Australia, and North America. South Africa can easily hold off any sub-Saharan nation that throws in its lot with the B coalition. South Korea can smash Kim Jong Il's half-starved army, especially if the North Koreans aren't allowed to use their nuclear toys. The PLA can offer cannon fodder for human waves and crews for surplus Russian equipment, but there's exactly one railroad line between the Russo-Chinese frontier and Moscow, and though the rules of the scenario specify it, it's pretty damned unlikely that the Russians are going to let millions of Chinese troops cross their territory. Have fun crossing the Pyrennes. The B coalition might be able to get past them, but they're going to get murdered along the way. Bringing up Blitzkreig is irrevelant--Spain is not Poland. And as for reinforcements, the A-C has total control of the seas and has presumably already pulled its forces back from Germany and Eastern Europe into the Iberian Peninsula. If Italy joins the A coalition, then you've got A coalition forces within a few hundred miles of Berlin, and an invasion of Italy, especially with the US 6th Fleet in control of the Med, is going to be even more difficult than an invasion of Spain. You could potentially bring some Latin American countries into the B coalition to open up a land front against the United States, but until I see the victorious Mexican Army rolling through Dallas, I won't lose too many nights sleep worrying about them.

Now, on the other hand, if it's impossible for A to outright lose, it's going to be difficult as a motherfucker to win. A only has one land front with B, two if Italy joins, and the problems involved with crossing the mountains going south don't vanish if you're moving north. We can put an amphibious force down anywhere we please, but keeping it there in the face of overwhelming numbers of older Russian equipment crewed by the minor B allies intermixed with first-rate Russo-European armor and infantry is going to be damned difficult without overwhelming air superiority, and even with stealth I don't have any delusions the A-C will be able to wipe out or even seriously damage modern Russian air defenses the way we have blown up half-rusted junk in Iraq and Afghanistan. The South Africans could rampage through southern Africa, but that doesn't hurt the B-C at all. South Korea could drive the North Koreans into the Yalu river all other things being equal, but how many Chinese units will be on the Korean peninsula? Japan has no real force projecton capability save for harassing Russian shipping around Vladivostok, and if the USN is doing its job, there will be precious little of that.

All in all, a giant cock-up that costs a trillion dollars or more and gets hundreds of millions of people killed for no good purpose.

[phongn]

We'll have French and Germans begin the attack as soon as they can, then kick in with a huge number of troops.

Our countryside is hell to dominate, chains of mountains which will have their tunnels blown and lots of very large rivers with bridges that will no longer be there.

Right: no one counts for communications in wars. Bridges are built within 5 minutes nowadays, and tunnels are not the only way.

Don't be daft, Stas. Once Spain blows the bridges you'll have to make do with pontoon bridges and other mobile ones to cross, and they carry nowhere near the load that a true one can. Do you seriously think Spain is going to let the B Powers invade with impunity?

Well, they have been named. They are tanks. Leo, Leclerc, T-80 and T-90. I that is not enough, I wonder aren't you the war center of the world...

It'll take quite a bit of time for them to get into position and the neccessary supples built up, and then thy have to be supported. This will be enough time for the A Power reinforcements to move in.

Small or half-deployed (half-dispositioned) armies can't defend wide fronts. Proved. By Blietzkrieg.

And tbe Blitzkrieg is vulnerable to attacks on their supply line. It isn't invincible.

[Axis Kast]

There is a bunker network which can easily deliver from Berlin to Poland. There is a network in France, although less advanced. Stalin's bunkers after the war are not yet wholly explored.

What the fuck are you smoking?! You’re trying to tell me that there are underground transit lines on which to move war materiél the likes and size of which the world has never seen?

We’re talking about bunkers that are most between the European nations themselves. Much of the Atlantic wall has crumbled and is now covered in grass. This isn’t Hitler’s Fortress Europe we’re talking about – not that we can’t knock out such ridiculousness from air, sea, or land (ie, the UK).

Wha-at? Minimal terms? 200 tanks instead 3...

Those two hundred tanks aren’t exactly going to tip the war in your favor.

Delive them to Europe, we have the Leopards, T-[x], Leclercs and SPA kick them. Deliver to Russia, we have T-[x] and SPA kick them.

The same will be true in Spain, Italy, and on the British isles. Most of Russia’s T-series tanks are inferior to our own from a technological standpoint. And what were you smoking that allowed you to make a fair comparison of Russian conscripts with professional American or British ground forces? The disparity in quality training is huge.

One question: are the factories there, ready for work?

In South Africa? Yes, there are. They produce such lovely fighting vehicles as the Ratel, Eland, Rooikat, Olifant, and Rooivalk – or haven’t you heard? Australia is chock full of mines.

Don't bullshit me! I was talking about Spain, not US. And particularu in Spain, we'll out number you.

Not enough to make it count. We can reinforce immediately.

What a lie. Raise troops? Spain and Italy will fall instantly, I suppose, but then what troops will you get? Australians overseas? Thanks. We got a shitload of Russians right here.

British troops. Americans. Italians. Spaniards. Portuguese. Canadians. Again, “instantly?” I doubt it.

We deploy no worse than you, if not better.

Hardly. Russia’s forces are rusting away. At best, France and Germany will respond on par with the US and UK.

Well, they have been named. They are tanks. Leo, Leclerc, T-80 and T-90. I that is not enough, I wonder aren't you the war center of the world.

Try M1A2, Challenger II, Leopard 1A5, Ariete, and an upgunned Centurion on the Sho’t and Olifant models.

[phongn]

The Russian amphibious force is not up to the task of defeating the British Isles. For that matter, their fleet isn't up to the task of real offensive operations: most of NATO was optimized for defense against the Soviet fleet (except the USN, of course).

Exactly what I said, they will defend the supply lines for the invasion.

No, they are going to get crushed by the Royal Navy, the Spanish Navy and the US Atlantic Fleet. The Russian Baltic & Northern Fleet and French fleets are the only real blue-water navies on the B Coalition, and they'll get soundly defeated.

The Russian AF can use heavy transport planes of the Il series to supply the forces once they are secure and established.

The Russian transport fleet can supply on the order of 5000-7000 tonnesper day for each division on the British Isles? Wow, I'm impressed! (Numbers for heavy fighting, moderate fighting is about 3500, advancing unopposed is 2500; source is a Colonel in the Royal Thai Army).

Maybe... look here, at the Pacific Fleets count:
Japan: 10 AC, 10 battleships, 18 battlecruisers, 18 LC, 113 destroyers, 63 submarines.
In comparison:
The USA: 3 AC, 9 battleships, 13 battlecruisers, 11 LC, 80 destroyers, 56 submarines.
The Allied total Pacific power: 3 AC, 11 battleships, 14 battlecruisers, 100 destroyers, 69 submarines.
So what? Is Japan not the supreme naval power in the world in 1941?

Nice strawman. You've completely ignored the US Atlantic Fleet and for the Allied totals ignored any forces outside the Pacific. Why don't you get the numbers for the entire USN and RN and come back?

Japan, which is a presumably A-C power, does.

Does Japan really have the power? What is it?

The JMSDF is the second most powerful navy in the Pacific, next to the USN. It is also very modern.

but Japan and the United States are virtually untouchable.

Japan can be kicked if whe use the Chinese and Korean platzdarm.

Japan can only be kicked by missiles, which can be defended against. Invasion is impossible with the sealift capabilities the DPRK and PRC have on hand.

The USA... hard... very hard... impossible, I have to admit. Only if war will last for a few years.

If the war lasts a few years the US Navy is probably big enough to handle anything you attempt to throw at us.

And how are you going to move all of these resources? Train? That's not a very efficient way of doing things - ships are how you move bulk cargo

Wait, are we not in Eurasia? Of course by train or truck.

Train or truck is inefficient for moving truly large amounts of cargo; ships work better. Much better.

using missiles to hit strategic targets in Europe.

Then explain, WHAT will you hit with these missiles?

Railway marshalling yards, C4I nodes, all sorts of things that are useful to hit.

The French Mediterranean Fleet and the Russian Black Sea Fleet are no match for the US Sixth Fleet.

They don't pretend to be - they just secure the waters at a small region.

They can't even do that.

[phongn]

Note on war production: while the US needs produced tanks and other delivered to Eurasia, Europe produces right on place.

Indeed. You forget there's a tank production plant offshore of Europe (the UK), which can send stuff quickly.

Given the puny 22 tanks a day and some 15 planes a day from a train factory (the output which was achieved in WWII), we'll have them supply lots of AFVs and such really fast.

WW2 tanks and aircraft were much, much simplier than modern AFVs and aircraft. You aren't getting anywhere near 22 tanks a day from a factory.

We have AC and submarines at the place. Bad, but sufficient.

Two French CVs and one Russian CV isn't enough, not when you have various American CVs (which are more capable) and the small Spanish and UK CVLs.

As for submarines, the only ones of any worth in blue-water combat are the Russian ones, and they don't have that many to spare. The French SSNs aren't very quiet, and the German ones are little more than mobile minefields (all SSKs are)

[NecronLord]

Of course they will. No matter that the disproportion in forces is much smaller than in the present Iraqi war, still going on, and that we already have many american resources in military bases (for example, Azores)

I am reminded of Blackadder:

Percy: I'd like to see the spaniard who could get past me...

Blackadder: Go to spain then, there are millions of them.

[lance]

The sides don't seem all too clear to me. Could some one say who's all on each side?
for A There seems to be USA, Canada, UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, SK, Australia, and SA.
Would there be any on else on A team? Such as Isreal, Mexico or Chechnya?

Side B seems to be Russia, Germany, France, China, NK. Is there any that I missed that should be included, maybe one of the former USSR members.

2 more things,
1 how would Poland and such react to Russia passing through?
2 where would Turkey and Greece fall on this? In a previous thread it seemed like they had good enough militaries to be a factor in this. They are also at odds with each other.

[Vympel]

Would there be any on else on A team? Such as Isreal, Mexico or Chechnya?

I guess they're sitting it out, as the scenario is defined- I'd expect Israel to be on A team, but they wouldn't be able to do anything anyway.

Side B seems to be Russia, Germany, France, China, NK. Is there any that I missed that should be included, maybe one of the former USSR members.

I'd say instead of just Russia, the entire CIS should be included.

2 more things,
1 how would Poland and such react to Russia passing through?

Not very kindly- however, since Poland is just so easy to invade, they'll pretty much be a speed bump. Especially since Germany will probably go in from the other side.

2 where would Turkey and Greece fall on this? In a previous thread it seemed like they had good enough militaries to be a factor in this. They are also at odds with each other.

Heh, they'd proably both sit it out- if they had to take sides, I think Greece would go with Eurasia and Turkey would go with America.

[Axis Kast]

I agree with Vympel's reasoning. I took a lot of this for granted.

As for Poland? I think they'd bloody up the enemy a bit. They've got some Leopards and a decent air force of their own.

[Vympel]

Missed this

I thought that was the T-80. This changes the equation only in minimal terms however. The M1As and Challenger series are around in sufficient force to counter large-scale deployments on Russia’s part.

The T-80 series has been around since the 1980s- Russia has over 5,000 T-80 tanks, most of them being the T-80U variant- 1989- easily upgraded to T-80UM version.

A lot of the European armies will be itching to put new men in their ranks. They’ll raise troops before they can build the equipment. Russia’s got it stockpiled out of the wazoo.

True, but Russia would probably unload it's stocks of T-72s and T-64s to them, rather than T-80s. 50,000 T-72s have been produced (naturally, quite a lot have been exported, but Russia still has massive stocks of them) and 13,000 T-64s (2,000 in Ukraine's possesion, the remaining 11,000 in Russia- in storage, probably behind the Urals, to comply with the CFE treaty). And then there's the T-55s and T-62s.

As for Poland? I think they'd bloody up the enemy a bit. They've got some Leopards and a decent air force of their own.

Their army may be improved- but it's still quite small with only a very small amount of modern equipment, combined with geographic that screams 'perfect for blitzkrieg'.

[Axis Kast]

I was referring to the T-72s when I said that Russia might arm German or French units with stockpiled equipment.

And I agree that Poland will lose. But that doesn't mean it will inflict some damage of its own on the attackers. It won't just roll over.

[Vympel]

I was referring to the T-72s when I said that Russia might arm German or French units with stockpiled equipment.

Yup.

And I agree that Poland will lose. But that doesn't mean it will inflict some damage of its own on the attackers. It won't just roll over.

At best, it'd be minor. Partisans might be an issue. Of course- the Russians may get a military access agreement, or might just get to where they need to go via one of the other countries on the border.

[aerius]

Somehow I'm reminded of a Trek vs. Wars debate with more conditions and strings attached than I want to know about. Also like one of those debates, some are so set in their positions that it's worthless to discuss things.

[The Dark]

Axis Cast
See, USSR is no more but we have acces to the resources it had. They are all still there, in the ground. All the factories and elevators are there. Come and dig. And we will

Production capability will only matter if the training is there for crews. Givern Russia's current economy, it's not. The conscript armies are far less efficient than professional armies, and even now the infantry is undertrained, let alone armor crew.

Russia will try to pull huge quantities of T-72 and T-64 MBTs out of storage and put them into use with crews from both the Federation and Europe proper.

Russia will use ALL and simply get anyone who messes with Europe kicked. Sorry.

Even though it would be very simple for Britain to transport Challenger IIs to Spain for its defense, to add to the 971 tanks currently in use by Spain. Despite the American B-2 and F-117 capability to strike at night with virtual impunity, destroying vital nodes of supply and communications. Despite the ability to carry SLAMs and HARMs to eliminate armored vehicles and radar sites. Yes, American armored forces would take time to reach Spain. However, I highly doubt Russia could cross all of Europe quicker, and the Leos and LeClercs are unlikely to punch through on their own, given the terrain that will need to be crossed.

Submarines are “shit?” Okay, you keep thinking that while we sink your surface fleet and bombard Moscow from afar with cruise missiles fired in the White Sea.

So can we, that is of little strategic importance. Read the sub debate in the Skimmer vs. Me thread and the Sd. net comment on subs.

For commercial warfare, sure, they're not much use here. Considering each Ohio-class can carry 98 Tomahawk cruise missiles, I'd say they could raise some merry hell with the B Coalition.

Canadian, American, British, and Australian troops are at least equal to the French, Germans, and Russians.

Equal? We kick you up just with NUMBERS, if not with superior training.

Hmmm...USA's military: 1.4 million. Spain's military: .24 million. Britain: Army of 104,000 (other branches undetermined). Total for three nations: ~1.75 million. Total in Europe: more than 344,000 (RN, RAF, Royal Marines not included in initial 344,000).
Russia: 1.17 million (according to Sergei Ivanov). Germany: 323,000 deployable outside of Germany (1 million more on defense only, being decreased to 240,000 and 100,000 respectively). France: 60,000 deployable, 350,000 total. China: 1.51 million deployable, 60% infantry. Total: 3.06 million. Total in Europe: 383,000

We’d make them a garrison.

If B is quick enough, it's possible to conquer them before you come.

Assuming a T-80 drove without needing to refuel, it would take over 35 hours to get from Moscow to Paris at top road speed in a straight line.

but there’s so much more land to cover and defend

Haven't I said the words Ostwall and Anlantikwall? Europe has defences all over it. You will be beaten.

[/quote]Because Fortress Europe showed how well static defenses could hold in WWII . The age of static defense is over. Speed and mobility are the defense of the present, and the A Coalition has more flexibility in units than the B Coalition. Carriers and converted ballistic missile submarines allow the capability to strike anywhere in the world. As opposed to the idea of "let's smash their front line," an A Coalition attack would more likely begin with Tomahawks destroying key portions of Moscow, Beijing, Paris, and Berlin. I'm uncertain as to exactly how such a war would go, but it would either end in stalemate or an A Coalition victory.

[The Dark]

And I just realized I ignored the Canadian and ANZAC forces, along with the ROK and NKs (though the Koreas should negate each other unless China or Russia chooses to withdraw forces from the European front to take out a minor sideshow theater).

I don't know what size the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand forces are, but they could also be added in on the A Coalition side, definitely pushing it over 2 million soldiers. The Canadian military may be underequipped (as I've seen written by other people), but another Lend-Lease Act should remedy that situation.

And a war that scale would probably convince Congress to get off their lazy asses and procure the F/A-22 and F-35. With supercruise, stealth, and some rather impressive weapons loads, those aircraft would be a serious thorn in any B Commander's side.

[Vympel]

Despite the American B-2 and F-117 capability to strike at night with virtual impunity destroying vital nodes of supply and communications

Against modern air defense instead of over-the-hill 1960s SAMs? Not as clear.

Despite the ability to carry SLAMs and HARMs to eliminate armored vehicles and radar sites.

Land attack missiles and anti-radar missiles are hardly the sole preserve of America. Russia's HARMskis are better. And you don't use SLAMs on tanks.

Yes, American armored forces would take time to reach Spain. However, I highly doubt Russia could cross all of Europe quicker, and the Leos and LeClercs are unlikely to punch through on their own, given the terrain that will need to be crossed.

This scenario is just plain ill-defined. In any military conflict, there would be a build up period. If the Russians aren't ready, America won't be either.

So can we, that is of little strategic importance. Read the sub debate in the Skimmer vs. Me thread and the Sd. net comment on subs.

For commercial warfare, sure, they're not much use here.
Considering each Ohio-class can carry 98 Tomahawk cruise missiles, I'd say they could raise some merry hell with the B Coalition.[/quote]

There's only four of them- is this scenario future tense, or what? Because it seems as everyone's doing an awful lot of cherry-picking.

Because Fortress Europe showed how well static defenses could hold in WWII . The age of static defense is over.

Who says?

Speed and mobility are the defense of the present,

Again, who says? That's what everyone said after the German blitzkrieg, yet that stopped once they reached *serious* opposition in Russia. Considering that the only enemies America has fought over the past few years have been totally outlcassed, outnumbered, and outgunned by an order of mangitude, I hardly think anyone can make such a determination.

and the A Coalition has more flexibility in units than the B Coalition. Carriers and converted ballistic missile submarines allow the capability to strike anywhere in the world. As opposed to the idea of "let's smash their front line," an A Coalition attack would more likely begin with Tomahawks destroying key portions of Moscow, Beijing, Paris, and Berlin. I'm uncertain as to exactly how such a war would go, but it would either end in stalemate or an A Coalition victory.

Tomahawk missiles are pinpricks- in WW2 you had factories getting blasted repeatedly and still churnign out the stuff- not to mention that modern air defense systems, especially SA-8 GECKO, SA-15 GAUNTLET, and Pantsyr-S1 are well-capable of shooting down such missiles. They will have little, if any effect, on the outcome of the war. It's a stalemat IMO. The A-Coalition doesn't have a chance in hell of victory,and neither does B.

[K. A. Pital]

RedImperator

All in all, a giant cock-up that costs a trillion dollars or more and gets hundreds of millions of people killed for no good purpose.

Agree.
phongn

Do you seriously think Spain is going to let the B Powers invade with impunity?

Did French seriously think Germans would kick them? The success of such an attack is upon mobility - and on the continent B are the power. So it's all about fast deployment.

It'll take quite a bit of time for them to get into position and the neccessary supples built up

Right, it takes 6 days for a slow passenger train to arrive in Germany. What will stop war trains, planes and trucks deliver tanks in overwhelming numbers?

and then thy have to be supported.

With this point B has no problem, the support problem is more of the isolated Britain and USA business.

This will be enough time for the A Power reinforcements to move in.

Even if so, they will be simply overwhelmed and outdone. We have the ground. You will need a few month to make military build-up and deploy all reinforcements at proper positions.

And tbe Blitzkrieg is vulnerable to attacks on their supply line. It isn't invincible.

You're right. It's almost invincible. The Blietzkrieg sucked in Russia because of large distance and lond, exhausting fights. Huge territory and prolonged battles are the worst thing for a Blietzkrieg. But it's not like you have it.
Axis Kast

You’re trying to tell me that there are underground transit lines on which to move war materiél the likes and size of which the world has never seen?

Not war material: war personnel. Machines are useless without people, you know. Try to pass through the AFP network. You will have the same bloody mess as USSR vs. Finland, except this time you will be in minority on the enemy ground.

Much of the Atlantic wall has crumbled and is now covered in grass.

Huh, why not? Grass is fine - armor is still there Open the door, put a dude with machine gun - here, you have some sort of AFP.

not that we can’t knock out such ridiculousness from air, sea, or land (ie, the UK).

Air is secured. Land is secured. Kick from the sea? A few km. Then you'll have trouble.

Those two hundred tanks aren’t exactly going to tip the war in your favor.

Of course not. But the difference is not minimal

Most of Russia’s T-series tanks are inferior to our own from a technological standpoint.

You suck. They are inferior to the latest Abrams. Don't say you could deploy them faster than we move a few thousand and crush Spain and Italy.

The disparity in quality training is huge.

Prove it. I never served the USA army, but I don't think it's much differend from Europe's and Russia's training. The Iraqis are not a worthy example.

Not enough to make it count. We can reinforce immediately.

Bullshit. We can reinforce immediately on the continent, not you. We are the continental powers. Why you keep insisting on the absurd statement?

Again, “instantly?” I doubt it.

Are you familiar with the very concepts of Blietzkrieg.

Hardly. Russia’s forces are rusting away.

Bullshit. Just shut up. If you never served the Russian forces and think no one will notice the lie, you are mistaken. They are not rusting away, but upgraded and expanded.

Try M1A2

Tried in Iraq. It's not the very best, and it will be availabale in less numbers since it's hard to deploy fast overseas.

Challenger II

Hell, I don't think so.

Leopard 1A5

We have this one, too.

Ariete

Kicked.

and an upgunned Centurion on the Sho’t and Olifant models.

Sorry, never heard of these... What exactly are they?
phongn

The Russian Baltic & Northern Fleet and French fleets are the only real blue-water navies on the B Coalition, and they'll get soundly defeated.

They will probably get defeated if they are foolishly moved into a fight. If deployed accurately in certain regioins (not like ship deployment of WWII), then they will be able to survive.

[Vympel]

Hardly. Russia’s forces are rusting away.

The time of the rot is past. Like Stas Bush said, every arm of the military is getting upgraded- Army, Navy (especially Navy) and Air Force. They are more formidable now than they were in the 1990s.

Sorry, never heard of these... What exactly are they?

Puny upgraded tanks- no match for the LeClerc or the Leopard 2, the latter of which Germany has in the thousands.

The Leopard 1 is obsolete- I don't see it as being a large factor- and the Ariete is just a joke Italian design.

Fact of the matter is- if we're talking tanks and armored vehicles- B-Coalition has many times more, and that's all there is to it. The preponderance of numbers and the fact that they are the continental power means A-Coalition will not have what it takes to make any meaningful gains on the continent- that's if they aren't thrown into the sea from teh get go.

The Russian Baltic & Northern Fleet and French fleets are the only real blue-water navies on the B Coalition, and they'll get soundly defeated.

[Pcm979]

Sooo, A-coalition has the sea advantage and B-coalition has the land advantage?

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel

Puny upgraded tanks

Thanks for clearing it up. I was expecting something like this.

and the Ariete is just a joke Italian design

Yeah, that's true. This one will not last for long.
phongn

The Russian transport fleet can supply on the order of 5000-7000 tonnesper day

Have you heard of the Grazhdanskaya Transportnaya Aviatsya? It's all for the war, ready and loaded. In fact, I think ships and planes could supply such numbers only if the sea is secure, so I'm not optimistic at all. Securing the sea will be a tough job.

Nice strawman. You've completely ignored the US Atlantic Fleet and for the Allied totals ignored any forces outside the Pacific. Why don't you get the numbers for the entire USN and RN and come back?

Sorry. This are of course not the proper numbers. The USA had 17 battleships, 8 AC, 37 BC in September 1941, and since that, it outdoes the Japan navy. The USA was supreme to Japan.

The JMSDF is the second most powerful navy in the Pacific, next to the USN. It is also very modern.

We won't be battling it until we have secured Europe.

Invasion is impossible

Straight away - yes. I don't think it's possible to handle so many invasions at once. We'll have to kick Spain and, possibly, Italy, then try to get done with Britain (the most dangerous platzdarms are they).

If the war lasts a few years the US Navy is probably big enough to handle anything you attempt to throw at us.

We'll probably use secure channels through the ocean. It will not be easy. I already admiteed it's impossible unless some freaking accident occurs or we suddenly capture some huge part of one's navy.
BTW, big is not all there is. Conspiracy and precision also mean a lot.

Train or truck is inefficient for moving truly large amounts of cargo; ships work better.

Don't try to bullshit me. We have a train from Moscow reach enemy borders faster than any ship. Or have cargo ships aquired the ability to fly over the continent more than hundred km per hour? That's exactly why reinforcements for you are a problem.

all sorts of things that are useful to hit.

Missiles are a weapon of both sides. In fact, Russia has superior missiles, so if we will suffer from bombardment, you will have the same.
NOTE: Missile bombardment was ineffective in WWII. Although missiles are now more advanced, so are the defences and masking systems.

They can't even do that.

Why not, secure a 50 mile long way?

Indeed. You forget there's a tank production plant offshore of Europe (the UK), which can send stuff quickly.

The same problem we have with invasions. Send stuff quickly - around Europe, not through it. And if you mean from Britain you can launch an invasion...

You aren't getting anywhere near 22 tanks a day from a factory.

Maybe not - because it's not wartime.

Two French CVs and one Russian CV isn't enough

Why not enough? For a crush-kill-destroy battle, no. For holding defence - yes, if the strateges won't suck.

the only ones of any worth in blue-water combat are the Russian ones

We'll actually need German and French mines, so Russia will not go on it's own.
lance
[qutoe]or Chechnya?[/quote]
Damn, Chechnya is not a military power, and it's not rebellious but the terrorists. Chechyens voted to be a part of Russia recently - I don't think looking at the USA agression they will change their mind.

maybe one of the former USSR members.

All of them. The CIS has ties which ensure military alliance. It's closed.

1 how would Poland and such react to Russia passing through?

Vympel answered quite well, I'll add: being surrounded by war-engaged countries, Poland will probably give no fight or even ally with B. They don't want a second Blietz, for sure.
Vympel

The T-80 series has been around since the 1980s- Russia has over 5,000 T-80 tanks, most of them being the T-80U variant- 1989- easily upgraded to T-80UM version.

Russia has more than 8,000 I think, and some more on the way.

naturally, quite a lot have been exported, but Russia still has massive stocks of them

Some of the importers of T-72 will also probably ally with Russia.

And then there's the T-55s

This one should be in limited use.
The Dark

and even now the infantry is undertrained, let alone armor crew.

What the hell do you brag about? You think russians are undertrained? In fact, Russia enabled military training even in ordinary medium-schools. Specialized tank schools have thousands of perfect armor crews.

Even though it would be very simple for Britain to transport Challenger IIs to Spain for its defense

Did you ever consider that the Challenger is inferior to what the B (Germany, France, Russia) has? And that B can deliver forces faster than you can blink?

Despite the American B-2 and F-117 capability to strike at night with virtual impunity

They will be shot down. It's not so hard to shoot down a stealth from modern Russian AA platform.

However, I highly doubt Russia could cross all of Europe quicker

In a matter of days.

and the Leos and LeClercs are unlikely to punch through on their own

Wha-a? They will crush through Spain like a through a cigarette paper.

Considering each Ohio-class can carry 98 Tomahawk cruise missiles, I'd say they could raise some merry hell with the B Coalition.

So can the subs of the B. But LR missiles were not really effective, as it proved in WWII and afterwards.

.24 million

Tah... Using the million where it is 240.000 is not a good thing really.

Total: 3.06 million.

Nearly two times, and it's OUR contintent you're invading. Now watch: if you're going to invade the continent, you don't have the numbers. If we are pushing on our continent, we at least have it.

Assuming a T-80 drove without needing to refuel

WHAT are you saying? T-80 is transported, it's not going on it's own...
It's ever faster on a train.

would more likely begin with Tomahawks destroying key portions of Moscow

This is utter bullshit. We can also say we'll have London bombed. So what? The missiles are both somewhat scary and ineffective.

but it would either end in stalemate or an A Coalition victory.

The A cannot win. It's plain impossible. The vast spaces of B are unconquerable, considering the force that holds them.

but another Lend-Lease Act should remedy that situation

True. This time the US will be more grateful.

those aircraft would be a serious thorn in any B Commander's side.

If invading Eurasia, they will be a prey for AA defences. If battling over sea, you'll probably win.

[Frank Hipper]

Herr Bush, it's as though I can you licking your lips in anticipation.

[Vympel]

Missiles are a weapon of both sides. In fact, Russia has superior missiles, so if we will suffer from bombardment, you will have the same.

If you're referring to the Kh-101 that I mentioned, it sure is one mean cruise missile. But sheer amount of precision guided munitions, the US wins hands down- but this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, and US aircraft certainly won't have the luxury of flying high and safe, bombing individual formations with GPS guided bombs at their leisure, unopposed by even the most rudimentary air defense. Every Russian formation (and French and German, though the Russian AD system for its units is by far the best) is accompanied by an obscene amount of AD systems, from company level (Igla) all the way up to Army(S-300V). And that's not even mentioning the AD systems of the air defense units tasked with defending strategic targets. No F-16 with a JDAM is getting anywhere near a target worth defending without being blown out of the sky by an S-300PMU about 100km out. Strategic attacks will be a major effort of large numbers of aircraft and will take big losses, not a turkey shoot.

What the hell do you brag about? You think russians are undertrained? In fact, Russia enabled military training even in ordinary medium-schools. Specialized tank schools have thousands of perfect armor crews.

Don't go to far, Stas Bush- I would agree that the standard of Russian training is currently much lower than that of the West, however, the Russians aren't doing all the work, and inferior individual crews didn't save Germany from the masses of T-34s. A-Coalition is facing a tremendous disadvantage in numbers, and when you're invading the continent, that's just not doable- no matter how many strategic targets you manage to hit.

This is a stalemate that can't be resolved- B-Coalition doesn't have the ability to invade A, but A certainly doesn't have what it takes either- their air superiority is by no means assured (we're talking the combined air arms of Russia, France and to a lesser extent Germany, along with huge numbers of some *seriously* tough mobile air defense systems of both France/Germany and Russia which the USAF has never had the displeasure of trying to defeat- they're all very proud when they're blowing up a dinky little third world countries puny numbers of SA-3 and SA-6 launchers- but the latest generation? Totally different kettle of fish).

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Someone reminded me of something today, it's a rumor, but it MIGHT be likely practical.
[rumor]Tip from the US to Taiwan: Blow up the SanXia Dam, and let the Yangtze flood Southern China.[/rumor] And marching into Northern China via Korea isn't very hard, MacArthur almost did it once. Whats left in Coalition B would be crushed from both sides.