72 replies to this topic

[̀̀̀̀█]

You can't forget the sheer number of civilians that can make IEDs, and a good fraction can make better bombs than china wold bring... (FAB FTW)
America would be next to impossible to invade. Sure you can get in, but your not staying very long. Americans really have no qualms over bombing on their own land. None of it is "Sacred", none of it would be considered important. That is the one thing I like about america, in a time of crisis the people band together to make one of the most insane forces you will ever see.

[Kris]

SAGE WINS:

Edited by Chris, 25 September 2007 - 02:07.

[Zeke]

lol @ pic

I also vote for SAGE

[Whitey]

Yep. SAGE > All

URGH! I posted. God dammit.

Edited by Boidy, 25 September 2007 - 04:08.

[Rot Front]

The topic should be named 'Have USA any, even little chance against China?'
IMO, answer is only 'NO'
Why? Not becuase of Chineese numbers, not because of unadavantages of mythical American 'technological superiority', even not because of chineese are narrow-eyed
Just because of possible guerilla warfare tactics. USA lost in Vietnam, lost in Korea... Just because of this. Of corse you can have best in the world F-22 fighters, you can kill civilians with chemical weapons and cluster bombings. But where you will shoot if you don't know who you enemy is? When the bulled or shell can flew from everything. Add to quantity of regular Chineese army quantity of many possible partisan armed formations... Well, then ask yourself, 'CAN USA WIN?'

P.S. Here is the chance that Russia can take the Chineese side. Some years are negotiated possible strategical military axis between China, Russia and India. In that cause impudent American "conquerors" will not dare to move their fat asses to Asia

P.P.S.Yes, I'm back and ready to spam&flood&flame. Plz ban me again LOL

Edited by Rot Front, 25 September 2007 - 06:06.

[Rayburn]

"Just because of possible guerilla warfare tactics. USA lost in Vietnam, lost in Korea... Just because of this. Of corse you can have best in the world F-22 fighters, you can kill civilians with chemical weapons and cluster bombings. But where you will shoot if you don't know who you enemy is? When the bulled or shell can flew from everything. Add to quantity of regular Chineese army quantity of many possible partisan armed formations... Well, then ask yourself, 'CAN USA WIN?'"

Actually, you'll get no argument from me on this one. Most western nations, not only the Americans, might have problems fighting against insurgency. Iraq, Vietnam, heck even the Nazis had massive trouble with Russian partisans during Operation Barbarossa. They had to annihilate entire villages because they hoped that this would change even a bit. That's why I still stand by my original point. You can't control such a big country with such a huge population. There'll ALWAYS be an opposition, a resistance, an insurgency. It's very naive to think that everything will be fine if you just take over Beijing and throw over the government. You can establish some provisory government that follows your orders but try to tell that to the population. You would need tremendous numbers yourself to occupy and control every, even the tiniest farming town because the country is so huge. If China was the defensive side in this war, it would win. The US could throw over the government but they'll never be able to control the country. High tech weaponry performs surprisingly bad against a well organised resistance, Vietnam showed that.

Edited by Rayburn, 25 September 2007 - 07:02.

[narboza22]

Hasn't that already been established? You are just repeating what was already said, which was that neither side could, or realistically would, invade the other. Its far more likely to be a conflict about Taiwan, where it would be military vs. military, not communist guerrillas or NRA hunting parties fighting.

[Rayburn]

Blame the topic creator then because the introduction was simply China Vs. USA, No Nukes which is already unrealistic.
The whole opening part is just too damn vague for this. Also, yes, Taiwan would be a possible reason for such a war but wouldn't it be possible that it would spread?
Let's say China invaded Taiwan and the US managed to drive them back. Would they say "Nanana, China, please don't do this again" and leave or would they threaten the government with sanctions, leading to the possibility of further aggression? I guess it would be the latter...

Edited by Rayburn, 25 September 2007 - 07:57.

[Alias]

The Americans would accuse China of having too large a stockpile of WMD's (more than 1)... and then we'd have a massive war, bla bla. North Korea and China would combine (with possibly insurgent organisations of some sort) and would down the US as it's their homesoil.

[Rot Front]

btw, what about compare US and Russia's strengh? :minigunner:

Three words: Russia Owns Everything Nothing to say more

[narboza22]

lol, you people are crazy. The US would have nothing to gain by doing anything other than attacking China's conventional forces. China nuclear stockpile isn't going anywhere, just the same as the US's, Europe's, or Russia's.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Rot Front, on 26 Sep 2007, 0:09, said:

btw, what about compare US and Russia's strengh? :minigunner:

Three words: Russia Owns Everything Nothing to say more

As an Indian who love the Russian toys that we get on a regular bases i would say your nationalism is blinding you. No matter how hard you try USA has a technological superiority that is unmatched. Any war thats only air based and with USA having full access to supply routes will mostly lead to US domination of airspace and probable destruction of ground capability. But they still do not have the capacity to ground invasion and occupation. So it depends on the scenario. Shock and Awe tactics, USA win but if you needs Boots on the ground then China will pwn your ass.

[Ilves]

Quote

Any war thats only air based and with USA having full access to supply routes will mostly lead to US domination of airspace and probable destruction of ground capability

Hmmm... The problem of US is that they didn't met a country with an AA capable of bringing their "advanced" planes down before they can do a lot of mess. I say without any nationalism - we do HAVE such AAs

Quote

No matter how hard you try USA has a technological superiority that is unmatched

Technologically unmatched, you say? Ok, list where US is so "techologically unmatched" :smile: . Maybe, the more correct word would be "money-capable"?

I personally can't remind any field of military technologies where they were more advanced then USSR before 1990's. Of course, when the country became robbed, destroyed and techologies stolen (that was during Eltsin's seat in Kremlin) it's quite hard for it to compete.

Edited by AL_Hassan, 26 September 2007 - 06:23.

[narboza22]

AESA, Link16, 2 way missile data link, low observable technology just to name a few.

[AZZKIKR]

actually, the chinese army is the largest with 2.2 million people. US has around 480000, including those in peace missions. the chinese airforce is the largest counting number of pilots, but the US airforce has largest counting number of planes. but now china has a lot of russian equipment, some old, some new. for example S300, said to be the best anti-air in the world. does this topic include allies?

(not old topic)

[General Kirkov]

In the end the US would win a Naval confrontation hands down especially with NATO help. The air aspect is iffy at best. But if the US were to land in China or even a neighbouring country (with their support) then move into the mainland thats a whole different question. Regardless of "Chineese inferior technology" they would win in that scenario.

Why? Numbers, the Soviets won the "Great Patriotic War" based sololy on numbers. The Germans had the tech the Russians had the numbers and the motivation.

China would not and could not invade the U.S. They lack amphibious ships if they did, the ROC would not exist anymore.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 03 October 2007 - 01:33.

[AZZKIKR]

but russian patriotism vs usa is another thing. reminds me of movie "sum of all fears"

[Ilves]

Capt. Kirkov, on 3 Oct 2007, 4:33, said:

Why? Numbers, the Soviets won the "Great Patriotic War" based sololy on numbers. The Germans had the tech the Russians had the numbers and the motivation.

Let me make it correct.
I won't agree with you, my friend. This is a well-spreaded myth, but not reality.
We had better tank technology and as a result - better tanks during the whole war except it's very beginning, when we had lots of T-26 and few KV's against Pz.III and Pz.IV. And even at the beginning of war there were accidents when 1 KV-2 being stuck in mud destroyed whole German tank groups, because it was invicible for German guns and had the largest gun in the world.
Then later we mass produced T-34's and the German were so shocked of it that they tried to copy it to match up with the Soviets. However, German technology didn't allowed to produce rounded turrets, so they made it squared, but with much fatter armour. The result is the infamous Panther - better at armour but worse in price\efficiency parameter.
You, may say "why are you talking about Panther? Germans had the Tiger!". Yes, the Tiger. But we soon introduced KV-85 and IS-2 tanks. KV-85 was similar to Tiger and IS-2 was such big threat for Tiger, that German commanders were give instruction to avoid meeting with it if they hadn't got more Tigers then the enemy has IS-2's.
Also we had aquired the best infantry weapons for whole WWII - PPSh-42 and PPS-44 submachineguns.

Some words about tactics. If in the beginning of war were had titanic casulaties when facing assaulting German forces, then by the end of war the situation was the contrary - Germans suffered big losses against few ours.

However, we were backdrown in aircraft and submarine technologies comparing with the Germans.

Now it's clear?
Sry for off-topic

[General Kirkov]

AZZKIKR. the kicker of ass, on 3 Oct 2007, 7:49, said:

but russian patriotism vs usa is another thing. reminds me of movie "sum of all fears"

Which did not follow the book at all. If you want to get pissed at Clancy read Red Storm Rising. (the title of my fan fic is coincidental )"Red Storm" and all sequals Copyright Capt. Kirkov 2007. The Sovs should have won that Scenario hands down.

As for As_Hassan. I stand by my previous statement. You have to look further than what your teachers thought you in school. The Russians were getting their ass kicked until 43-44 the tanks you mentioned did not take out whole squadrons of Panzers and if they did it, they fought to the death. A panzer commander would have backed off and called in the Stukas. Yes the T-34 was the best tank of the war, but it came as the tide was turning and it definatly finished the Germans off for good at the end of the war.

It was called the Great Patriotic War for a reason. Thats another word for whole scale slaughter of your younger generation for Comrade Stalin the guy who killed 20 million + Russians.

Back to China. You cannot have a conventional war without the loosing side threatening nuclear retaliation. Barring that possiblility, if China were to land in the continental U.S. They would not regard the value of human life as most of us do (this is not meant to be racist). If a Chineese soldier were to be injuered or killed by a civie. A large number of US citizens in the town would be rounded up and shot as a model/example.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 04 October 2007 - 01:00.

[Nerdsturm]

In WWII Russia's army was more technologically advanced than Germany, especially in tank combat early in the war because of the weak guns and armor on Pz. IIIs and IVs at the time, in fact the best tank they used in the invasion of France was Czech. However, Soviet leadership and preparation for the war was so pathetically mismanaged they really were left to win the war with sheer numbers, shown by the fact that the Russians did continue to suffer severe casualties against the Germans even once they had the upper hand, such as at Berlin. Had Hitler not done an equally poor job of occupation of eastern lands he may have been able to hold his ground. However, a war with China would not quite present the same problems. There is not nearly the level of unrest that was present in the USSR in China, but it is not as if the US could not recruit from within China in regions such as Tibet as Germany was able to do in the Ukraine despite their horrific actions there.
In any case the US's army is set up as a defense force--it can make surgical strikes anywhere in the world and is unmatched in convention warfare, combining to make it highly effective at defeating an enemy army or overthrowing a government quickly if it becomes a threat. It isn't set up to conquer lands, and when it tries, as shown by Iraq, it has until relativily recently lacked any equipment to deal with civilian forces. I'm confident that the US could force China into a state of disorganization from which it would be incapable of striking at other continents, but it could never truly defeat the country.

[AZZKIKR]

and the soviets invented a system mounted on T-28 which enhances accuracy when on the move

[Ilves]

Quote

I stand by my previous statement. You have to look further than what your teachers thought you in school

Teachers? What teachers? Have you met a lot of teachers telling about tanks and submachineguns?

Quote

The Russians were getting their ass kicked until 43-44

Incorrect! Again! You lose
The whole Europe was ass kicked by Germans until we crushed them (although the Germans had advantage in numbers) near Moscow. The years 43-44 are just the years when we start attacking instead of defending.

Quote

the tanks you mentioned did not take out whole squadrons of Panzers and if they did it, they fought to the death

Guy, I was talking about KV-class tanks =)
It's not neccesary to have all tanks being a kind of Rambos. It would be enough if your medium tank can take out 3 enemy medium tanks. And T-34 was that kind of tank (especially the T-34-85 modification)

Quote

, shown by the fact that the Russians did continue to suffer severe casualties against the Germans even once they had the upper hand, such as at Berlin

Really? Were had you read such dumbshit? Go & study history untill you'll be freed from this Anti-Russian propaganda mess.
Operation Bagration. Battle of Budapest. Capture of Koenigsberg. Battle of Halbe. And much more. Just a few examples where we made severe casulties to the enemy with much less of our own.
And looks like you're totally brainwashed if you think that we had "sever casulties" at Berlin. Berlin was a triumph, even though it was reinforced by forteresess, flak-towers, most of the German army that was rest, militia, traps, Me-262s, other features. But however we had got much less casulties than German. Compare the figures:

Soviet casulties: 361,367 soldiers including Polish were down by various reason. Only 81,116 were killed
German casulties: 458,080 killed + 479,298 captured.


And now remind how hardly sucked the Allies in Ardenns even though they were facing only 1\7 of the German army and mainly consisting of schoolboys and pensioners, with poor air support and low on fuel. However, this hadn't stopped the Allies from running away from Ardens like babies and receiving tytanic casualties
The side that REALLY fought using only big mobs were the Allies, my friend, despite the popular anti-Soviet myth.

And stop playing Medal of Honour, it sux.

Quote

Had Hitler not done an equally poor job of occupation of eastern lands he may have been able to hold his ground.

Oh, believe me, Hitles wasn't a dumbass and made a lot of job there. He built the Eastern defense line, hunted the population that could resist him, supported the anti-Soviet traitors and so on.
The population on Eastern land was foe to Germans from the very beginning of war, Hitler was only reducing it by physical method, despite of another anti-Soviet myth.

Quote

as Germany was able to do in the Ukraine despite their horrific actions there.

What % of population defected to Germans in Ukraine? 0,7% IIRC?
Do you know but what way pro-German traitors enlisted new soldiers? They just went into a village and shoot all who didn't agree to join them.

Quote

Yes the T-34 was the best tank of the war, but it came as the tide was turning and it definatly finished the Germans off for good at the end of the war.

T-34 invented in 1939. Put in mass production in 1941. Upgraded up to T-34-85 in January 1944. Have you seen this clearly enough? It was only UPGRADED in 1944, actually it was in service since 1940.
And by the end of the war (early 1945) we represented the IS-3 tank that was the best serial heavy tank for 15 years. Maybe you mean it?

Quote

Thats another word for whole scale slaughter of your younger generation for Comrade Stalin the guy who killed 20 million + Russians.

Another bullshit myth that can be found on pages of American history learning books. I'm got bored of disproving other stupid myths, so here will be short: that's not true . All deaths that happened during Stalins time were necessary to transform a ruined country with no industry and whatever into world's #1 superpower.
Sever times require sever sacrifices and it's only up to great leades. Napoleon, Emperor Qin, Chingis-han, Alexander the Great, Mao Zedong, Bismark also took a lot of lifes, but had built super-Empires, you just don't know about it clearly because blaming this dudes has no use for modern propaganda.

Edited by AL_Hassan, 04 October 2007 - 14:02.

[General Kirkov]

Al_hassan said:

Incorrect! Again! You lose
The whole Europe was ass kicked by Germans until we crushed them (although the Germans had advantage in numbers) near Moscow. The years 43-44 are just the years when we start attacking instead of defending.

I do not lose you just corroborated my oppinion EVERYONE was getting their asskicked even the Russians, you can't just say: lolz everyone was losing!!! And neglect to say that Russia was chief among them. BTW Europe lost in 39-40.

Once again who gives a shit about the KV line of tanks they were not used efficiently thats why the Germans made it to Moscow. Seriously don't get me started. The Germans owned the air and the land at the start of Operation Barbarossa. When I say the Germans had better kit I mean it. The early Panzers were nothing more than MG carriers, those are not the ones they sent to Russia. The yaks were not a match for the Focke Wulfs or the Me109s. Stukas and the HE series of medium bombers reduced your cities to shit. And most of the small arms you used came from the allies.

When I said the Russians won because of numbers and motivation. The Germans were not motivated.

Al_Hassan said:

Teachers? What teachers? Have you met a lot of teachers telling about tanks and submachineguns?

I presume you had History class in the Union or in Russia depending when you were born? Think about it, were your teachers objective when they talked about the war? I know mine sure as hell weren't, thats why you have to read additional material and seperate the bullshit from both and draw your own conclusions. Not just wave the flag 24/7. I have my opinion of my country and it is a positive one. I have my opinions about the US and generaly it is positive. I have my opinion of Soviet Russia and modern Russia well my opinion tends to waver when you look a certain leaders of your Country mate. Same as mine same as most countries in the world.

Typoes corrected.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 04 October 2007 - 14:12.

[Alias]

Capt. Kirkov, on 5 Oct 2007, 0:11, said:

When I said the Russians won because of numbers and motivation. The Germans were not motivated.

I wouldn't say the Russians were awfully motivated either.

Edited by Alias, 04 October 2007 - 14:38.

[Ilves]

Quote

I do not lose you just corroborated my oppinion EVERYONE was getting their asskicked even the Russians, you can't just say: lolz everyone was losing!!! And neglect to say that Russia was chief among them.

I said clearly: everybody losed, we also, until winter 1941 near Moscow. At that battle we proved the world that Germans could be beaten.
Don't forget that all European contries resisted only maximum for weeks and then surrendered. Even though Czech and Yugoslavian had enough numbers to defend themselves, and French - even to attack. But they were:
a) cowards
b) bad motivated cowards
c) and bad-commanded also

Quote

When I say the Germans had better kit I mean it.

What kind of kit? :wahhhhhaa: I can remind only Me-262 and Volksjager - this were truly things, against wich we hadn't got any answer.

Quote

The early Panzers were nothing more than MG carriers, those are not the ones they sent to Russia.

Small numbers of Pz.I took part in the beginning of Barbarossa and very soon were all loosed completely. Pz.II were used for some longer period but also proved themselves useless even against our worst tanks and were very soon redone into self-propelled artillery pieces and flamethrowers.

Quote

The yaks were not a match for the Focke Wulfs or the Me109s.

Non-sense. Yak was a very good fighter with high upgrade potential, while the German fighters having near the same battle capabilities were already unupgradable.
The reason why our aircraft sucked at early war is that the Germans bombed our airfields by first hand, not because the aircraft on them was bad.

During the whole war we had one flying thing that Germans feared until they surrendered - it's Il-2 Sturmovik. Such succesful anti-tank plane hadn't got any side in WWII.

Quote

Once again who gives a shit about the KV line of tanks they were not used efficiently thats why the Germans made it to Moscow.

KV tanks are anti-bunker breakthrough vehicles, not for defence. Also they had a problematic engine that often turned them into a static position with a gun.

Quote

Stukas and the HE series of medium bombers reduced your cities to shit.

Junkers Stuka is a dive anti-tank bomber, it's not city destroyer in any way. Neither is He-111.
Neither Germans neither we didn't use bombers to devastate cities, it were Americans the first ones to discovere how fun is to turn cities into ruins. That's why they and British were only the nations that built super-heavy-bombers during WWII.
Get yourself familiar with the militytech before talking about it, plz

Quote

When I said the Russians won because of numbers and motivation. The Germans were not motivated.

Hm?
Didn't you hear that the SS were the most highly-motivated soldiers from the whole Western world? They defended single buildings in Berlins to death, not even thinking about surrender.
The most part of the German army was motivated at least not bad.
It's only now Bundeshwehr is a bunch of cowards dreaming only about money like any other Western force, the old German army was forge of heroes. As was the Soviet.

Quote

Think about it, were your teachers objective when they talked about the war? I know mine sure as hell weren't, thats why you have to read additional material and seperate the bullshit from both and draw your own conclusions

You think that everybody who doesn't think that "Russia sux" is brainwashed?
Or, belive I read more historical books then you can even imagine. All the thing that I said right now can't be found in any school program.
I read as pro-Soviet books, as pro-American and as independent ones. Enough material to see what's going on really.

Quote

I have my opinion of Soviet Russia and modern Russia well my opinion tends to waver when you look a certain leaders of your Country mate.

Don't know what you think there on the west, but most of us are proud that we had such a leader as Stalin and we have enough brains and wisdom to understand the price, that was given for the survivement and glory of Soviet union.
Not only the Soviet union. Neither Europe neither America may had not existed today if we didn't faced and destroyed the Third Reich. Why - I can tell in other topic, enough of flood for this one.

Edited by AL_Hassan, 04 October 2007 - 14:54.