Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA vs USSR in 1945

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by merk666 View Post
    Better while not perfect. It still lists some operational concepts under strategy.
    Strategy is a combination of military, diplomacy, economy, politics
    Machiavelli approach is a strategic one, Sun Tzu, well it depends of what part you read (half of the Sun Tzu writtes are tactical or operational concepts)
    Napoleon was never a good strategist. Excellent tactician, yes, but not a strategist at least after Tilsit. The strategist with him was Talleyrand, a diplomat for instance.
    A few are missing too : Mao wrotte strategical concepts dedicated to asymetrical warfare
    Bismarck had strategical concepts
    etc etc ...............................

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
      Better while not perfect.
      then this -
      http://militera.lib.ru/science/svechin1/pre2.html

      Comment


      • Selective fire rifles like the Fedorov Avtomat which in hindsight could be classified as prototypical assault rifles. However, 6.5x50mm Arisaka is still very much a full-powered rifle cartridge, only slightly weaker than 7.62x51mm NATO.

        From wiki. Sorry.

        Comment


        • "Strategy without tactics is the slowest road to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat" - Sun Tzu

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Negan View Post
            "Strategy without tactics is the slowest road to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat" - Sun Tzu
            Wow, how apt.

            Guy was sure a genius for making all these observations and giving all this insight thousands of years ago; before the advent of war documentaries, historiography and historians, internet forums and all the rest of it.

            Comment


            • On second though, no.

              Huh.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by flamming_python View Post

                Wow, how apt.

                Guy was sure a genius for making all these observations and giving all this insight thousands of years ago; before the advent of war documentaries, historiography and historians, internet forums and all the rest of it.
                Fact is that Sun Tzu is less studied and appreciated than Machiavelli and Clauzewitz in China. As i said its book is a mongrel of half tactical half strategical advices. Macchiavelli/Clausewitze are another league.
                To sum the differences :

                Tactic level is to win a battle
                Operational level is to win on a theatre
                Strategic level is to win a war
                Last edited by Mordoror; 11-01-2017, 05:11 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kilgor View Post
                  Selective fire rifles like the Fedorov Avtomat which in hindsight could be classified as prototypical assault rifles. However, 6.5x50mm Arisaka is still very much a full-powered rifle cartridge, only slightly weaker than 7.62x51mm NATO.

                  From wiki. Sorry.
                  Never interrupt their moment. Reminds me of the Russian General sent to buy Gatling guns and had brass plates affixed to them as Gorloff(Gorlov) guns. Cue tsarist russian newspapers claiming Gatling stole the invention

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Linedoggie View Post
                    Never interrupt their moment. Reminds me of the Russian General sent to buy Gatling guns and had brass plates affixed to them as Gorloff(Gorlov) guns. Cue tsarist russian newspapers claiming Gatling stole the invention
                    The Fedorov was an assault rifle at least by Russian terminology; the first in the world to see action.
                    The Winchester 07 going by Wiki was apparently modified for automatic fire by the production batch of '17/'18; which nevertheless makes that variant of it a later one than the Fedorov - which was automatic from the beginning, produced starting from 1915 and used in combat in 1916.

                    Comment


                    • An "assault rifle" uses an intermediate cartridge. Less powerful than a rifle more than a pistol. Simple math.

                      A battle rifle fires a rifle cartidge. Also simple math.

                      The Russians can call it what they wish, but by definition it was a battle rifle.

                      Comment


                      • Any war in 1945 would be quick one, not allowing either side to put on the field more prototypes and weaponry. The Soviets if attacked would push back quickly towards French border and uprisings and strikes would cripple France, Italy and UK. USA could use atom bombs on Soviet HQs and logistic centers but the Soviets could counter-attack with chemical weapons against Western soldiers, lowering the potential of atomic weapons as "magic bullet". The front would probably stabilize on French border with Soviets gaining control of Germany and Italy.

                        Post-1945 would be interesting as I wonder if the Soviets had enough assets to fully control the communist movement in whole of Germany and Italy plus Eastern Europe.

                        Perhaps ironically the Cold War would end earlier as Beria would be able to push forward normalization of relations after Stalin's death.

                        Comment


                        • Speaking about late 40s / early 50s military technologies the Allies had better computing hardware. They used analog and hybrid computers more widely. The first electronic super-computer Colossus was introduced in 1944. For comparison Soviet counterpart MESM went into service in 1950. Allies had more advanced radars and radio communication. Plus they had radio navigation systems like Gee and LORAN.

                          On the other hand Soviets had moved forward in rocket science. They introduced R-1 in 1950 and R-2 in 1951. Theoretically these missiles might have been used against Allied radars and radio navigation stations behind the frontline.

                          Comment


                          • Those early rockets were very inaccurate and no chance of hitting a tactical target . They were what they were, to terrorize civilians in large cities.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kilgor View Post
                              Those early rockets were very inaccurate and no chance of hitting a tactical target . They were what they were, to terrorize civilians in large cities.
                              Yes and no.
                              They were accurate enough to hit theatre targets of importance (airfields, railroad hubs, tanks depots, log hubs). After all they weren't worse than the Scud/Frog derivative that were intended precisely for that in the 60s.
                              Just that the doctrine of use was not written in 45.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Smokey View Post
                                Any war in 1945 would be quick one, not allowing either side to put on the field more prototypes and weaponry. The Soviets if attacked would push back quickly towards French border and uprisings and strikes would cripple France, Italy and UK. USA could use atom bombs on Soviet HQs and logistic centers but the Soviets could counter-attack with chemical weapons against Western soldiers, lowering the potential of atomic weapons as "magic bullet". The front would probably stabilize on French border with Soviets gaining control of Germany and Italy.

                                Post-1945 would be interesting as I wonder if the Soviets had enough assets to fully control the communist movement in whole of Germany and Italy plus Eastern Europe.

                                Perhaps ironically the Cold War would end earlier as Beria would be able to push forward normalization of relations after Stalin's death.
                                Chemical Weapons wouldnt be nearly as effective against Modern (by that I mean had protective gear since 1918 unlike the USSR) armies. it would however have been very effective against the CivPop and the allies also had significant Chem stocks in response to a possible nazi Chem strike which never happened

                                So the US had the Atomic Bomb AND Chemical Weapons (including already in theater) and the British had larg stocks of chem weapons

                                also don't forget Napalm for use against the Urras....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X