Cold War Strategy: You Decide.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-25 07:51pm

The Last Rebel wrote:I would try to maintain parity in conventional forces with the Red Army in Europe, instead of the thin green line we had in Western Europe. Match them man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane.

There is no way you can quantitatively match the Red Army without wrecking the Western economies in the process.

Have theatre nukes on standby just in case they use theirs first, though. We are not going to let them bastards sack Bonn or Amsterdam.

After a certain point, Bonn and Amsterdam are going to be hit by Soviet IRBMs anyways.

Make the best tanks we can. Try to develop gunships faster.

Gunships are unlikely to be survivable on the European Front, and it is unlikely you'll be able to best the Soviet tanks for quite awhile.

Keep the BUFFS, build the B-70 Valkyries instead of the B1s or 2s.
If a Mach 3 capable bomber can`t penetrate Soviet airspace, I don`t know what could.

The B-70 probably could have penetrated Soviet airspace at least at IOC..

Develop a decent ABM system that works.

Could be done, Nike-Zeus and Nike-X were effective and could have been deployed as far back as the 1960s.

Make it a act of treason, punishable by death, for ANYONE to give any support for the Soviet Union and its leaders, be it financial, *VOCAL*, technological, or otherwise.

Vocal support? There's this little thing called the First Amendment, you know.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-25 08:21pm

Vympel wrote:Attacking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.

Unless you could provoke the Reds into attacking first, as I beelive Patton had wanted to do.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-25 08:34pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Vympel wrote:Attacking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.
Unless you could provoke the Reds into attacking first, as I beelive Patton had wanted to do.

I do not think Stalin would be so stupid as to be goaded into attacking the US.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-02-25 08:36pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Vympel wrote:Attacking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.
Unless you could provoke the Reds into attacking first, as I believe Patton had wanted to do.

Thus accident, US patrol with "accidental" firings; the USSR opposite forces fire back, and we have Patton's Dream.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-25 09:58pm

The Last Rebel wrote: If a Mach 3 capable bomber can`t penetrate Soviet airspace, I don`t know what could.

Simple: Something the Soviets can't see, like the B-2: Besides, the B-1 and B-2 are pretty good "bomb trucks" in their own right. They can carry up to 80 and 84 Mk-82 500lb bombs respectivly, although their maximum payload weight is lower than the B-52.

BTW, the Soviets eventually deployed SAMs such as the S-300 (SA-10) that could hit a Mach-3 aircraft.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-25 11:01pm

Churchill actually had a plan prepared for the invasion of Russia immediately following 1945 involving U.S. bombers. Foolish Russian tanks can not beat our invinceble B-52s and if this is in the 4 year period before 1949(when Russia tests first nuke), adios Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-02-26 02:00am

Guardsman Bass wrote:Churchill actually had a plan prepared for the invasion of Russia immediately following 1945 involving U.S. bombers. Foolish Russian tanks can not beat our invinceble B-52s and if this is in the 4 year period before 1949(when Russia tests first nuke), adios Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we didn't have B-52s in 1945. We didn't even have B-47s (the first prototype Stratojet flew in 1947), and the first B-36s started rolling off Convair's plants in September of 1945.

Of course, those could easily carpet-bomb the Russians into oblivion, given sufficient air support.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-02-26 02:10am

acking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.

The Soviets had by then CLEARLY ignored Yalta, in refusing to free Poland- Stalin didn't even adhere to the under-the-table concessions FDR had made.

Would it have been possible to call them on it?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-26 03:22am

Thirdfain wrote:
The Soviets had by then CLEARLY ignored Yalta, in refusing to free Poland- Stalin didn't even adhere to the under-the-table concessions FDR had made.

Would it have been possible to call them on it?

I just don't think either American or British people (and forget the French heh) were ready to go back to war against an enemy far more formidable than Germany ever was *just* after they finished off Germany (and Japan) and were allies with the Soviets for 4 years. IMO, it would take several years to whip the population into a frenzy enough to support it. And what about rebuilding Europe while this is going on? Something's gotta give.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-26 12:07pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble, but we didn't have B-52s in 1945. We didn't even have B-47s (the first prototype Stratojet flew in 1947), and the first B-36s started rolling off Convair's plants in September of 1945.

Of course, those could easily carpet-bomb the Russians into oblivion, given sufficient air support.

The early Peacemakers had quite a few teething problems, though (the B-36A was still more or less a prototype), and it'd probably be awhile until combat-ready ones could enter service in strength. Escorts probably won't really be needed.