USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 2




View Poll Results :USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?
USSR 12 46.15%
Western Allies 14 53.85%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
November 26th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dameon
The USA would have cut supplies to the Russians and would have weakened them by that then mass bombing runs could take place. Since the Nazi's did a good job of destroying parts of Russia it wouldn't be hard to starve them.
I saw a report that told how much of the Soviet supplies came from the US' lend lease programs, something like 89% of their oil came from the United States and something like 50% of their Iron Ore came from the US. It was not the United States Military that saved the world from Hitler, it was our Industrial Capability, the Arsenal for Democracy.
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Those Numbers are even larger than I thought they where, so look at it like this. They may hev the largest tank force but if you don't have the oil/gas to move them then they aren't going to do any good now are they?
November 26th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
even if the us win, they will be beaten in a few years

The soviets would most likely to start a gureilla warefare, then move on with concventional field armies, then they would win
--
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Probably if you realy got into it no one would win, every would lose in the end.
November 26th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
not really, the us and allies would be exhausted with the war, they would be thinly spread out in russian which gives way to gurella fighters, and then field armies will be formed as the basis of conventional warafare, then after the defeat, it will be the russians who will triumph: they ought to feel proud after defeating USnUK and Germany in less than 1o years.

Though the war will be very benefical: which means the chinese civil war will be easier to finish off with since us will be concventgrated in russia
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
But the American Allies would cut supplies to Russia wich would make it so the Russian army couldn't move and the people would starve. Then without having to fund Russia America could go into even larger amounts of production. Besides this is WW2 we are talking about. To say America would not summon up even more Atomic Bombs is hilerous thier was talks of using more Atomics in the Korean War less than 6 Years after the end of WW2.
November 26th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
a confucious phase: a starved horse is still larger than a donkey

it means that even though russia i sin the pits, it is still bigger and powerful and therefore could in fact retillate american control

under american military occupation, the soviets will still produce crops??? unless the us wont allow russians grow food????

some food will go to raise a small gurella army, and success after success willbring mroe hatred...

soon us will be toppled in russia

DOnt underestimate the average IVAN, they are way better fighters than any US soldier, they could starve for weeks and still march in -40 weather, they will charge for their country will the might and will for theri motherland

spilling blood is something russians are willing to do ....

anyways, us bombers would have a hard time in russia, first because russia has alot of oil in theri captian field and siberian reserves, their metal production has tripled since 1942, nd the factories are located in siberia, whcih the planes cant reach and therefore contiue production
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The Last Part Kinda gets off the point, we are talking about what if they did it in the 40's and 50's .


Also who ever said anything about an occupation force? Wasn't me.
November 26th, 2004  
Aguy201
 
Well um ive read all of your replies and i think, the winner would be russia, welll with out suplies to move the tanks... they can still shoot right... well theyd be in fixed positions witch no doubt the US air corps's would most definetly trie to destroy them... do you ppl realize the masses of AA the russians had then?? And even if the the tanks are out of buisiness what about the Artillery and man power, and what of american troops lack of will to fight the war against them, and the russians extreme pride and if the americans get to russia and enter the borders assuming they wanted to go that far, gurreilla's russian winter... But assuming the americans are smart and use the right gear to fight in the area, theyve had to deal with german guerrillas before so they should now what to do blah blah blah cant think of anything else, um I am all for the Allies but im trying to face facts...
November 26th, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguy201
Well um ive read all of your replies and i think, the winner would be russia, welll with out suplies to move the tanks... they can still shoot right... well theyd be in fixed positions witch no doubt the US air corps's would most definetly trie to destroy them... do you ppl realize the masses of AA the russians had then?? And even if the the tanks are out of buisiness what about the Artillery and man power, and what of american troops lack of will to fight the war against them, and the russians extreme pride and if the americans get to russia and enter the borders assuming they wanted to go that far, gurreilla's russian winter... But assuming the americans are smart and use the right gear to fight in the area, theyve had to deal with german guerrillas before so they should now what to do blah blah blah cant think of anything else, um I am all for the Allies but im trying to face facts...
What? If America had the will to fight Germany why wouldn't they have the will to fight a weaker enemy. Not to mention US troops were way better trained than the Russians. I dont consider being patriotic as having a gun pointed at the back of your head telling you if you take one step backwards you will be shot.