Could USA defeat USSR before the WW2 begun?? - Page 5




 
--
 
December 3rd, 2004  
airmanpatroler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanpatroler
Well the Russians would have a really hard time BEFORE WW2 to fight anybody I man they really didnt have a decent army or air force or navy for that matter.
They had the biggest of all of those except navy. At least double that of anybody else. 3 times as many tanks as anyone else. 3 times as many combat aircraft. They had a terrifying military force actually. Most of the world had no idea how gigantic their military truly was.
Well they have had numbers, but were they trained, aor equiped, supplied effectivly? And American pilots were a heck of alot better than soviets and the KoreanWar proves quanity over quality does not always win a war.
December 3rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The transition of the US Army from tiny to huge: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWusaA.htm
Quote:
Before the outbreak of the Second World War the US Army was a small professional force of 175,000 men.
That force included barely any tanks or and a relatively small number of combat aircraft. Though people like General Patton were around, they're ideas were ignored in favor of "traditional" ideas. The concept of Mechanized Warfare was extremely poorly understood by the US Army.

Now we know that the USSR had a minimum of 10,000,000 men in the Red Army as of 1939, more than 10,000 tanks and more than 10,000 combat aircraft. They had a much more developed concept of Mechanized and Tank Warfare.
This is my post from earlier in the thread. The Red Army would have had the USA for breakfast if there had been a war anytime pre-1939. Yes they were well equipped and well enough trained. Their biggest problem was that Stalin had killed off all their officers.
December 3rd, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Before WWII? H*** no.

We were just getting out of a depression and we had an army of what? 350,000 troops about? I know we were very low but by the end of the war we had something like 7,000,000 men in the Army.
--
December 3rd, 2004  
Earling
 
Logistics decree that the odds of either side defeating the other were slim to nonexistant.

Trying to logistically support forces across the atlantic without some "safe" landing ground is impossible.

If the US had some sort of ally in europe, who the soviets couldn't immediately run over then perhaps, but its doubtful.
Likewise, if the Soviets had some sort of ally in the America's, who the US couldn't immediately run over.

But in both instances, there would need to be a good year or two of building up before hand and most likely it simply would not have been possible. (Consider all the logistical build up for D-day)

Most likely, they would have simply faced too great odds due to the "home" advantage of which ever was attacked. They would have man power, food, ammunition, petrol.. wheras the attacker would have to wait for it to be moved half way around the world.
December 3rd, 2004  
Darcia
 
Yeah the main thing is the fact Russia would have had to get a landing location and be able to get enough supllies to that location to keep the war going.
December 3rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earling
Logistics decree that the odds of either side defeating the other were slim to nonexistant.

Trying to logistically support forces across the atlantic without some "safe" landing ground is impossible.

If the US had some sort of ally in europe, who the soviets couldn't immediately run over then perhaps, but its doubtful.
Likewise, if the Soviets had some sort of ally in the America's, who the US couldn't immediately run over.

But in both instances, there would need to be a good year or two of building up before hand and most likely it simply would not have been possible. (Consider all the logistical build up for D-day)

Most likely, they would have simply faced too great odds due to the "home" advantage of which ever was attacked. They would have man power, food, ammunition, petrol.. wheras the attacker would have to wait for it to be moved half way around the world.
Well, you're thinking in terms of the Atlantic Ocean, which makes no sense for either side. The Bering Strait into Alaska is simple, quick and easy, the only drawback being its a tad cold up that way.
December 4th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Yeah and the fact most of the water is unbreakable Ice didn't help the fact it is WW1, Not yet WW2 technology we are talking about. Breaking throug Ice was not thier strong point.
December 4th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dameon
Yeah and the fact most of the water is unbreakable Ice didn't help the fact it is WW1, Not yet WW2 technology we are talking about. Breaking throug Ice was not thier strong point.
Not who's strong point??
December 4th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The Ships, The Russian can do that part fine.
December 6th, 2004  
airmanpatroler
 
 
Again it all has to do with supply and logistics.