Could Russia win a war against NATO?

More likely it says something about their missions. If the F-16 is fully loaded with JDAMs and carrying only a pair of AIM-9s for self-defense, and is tasked with destroying a railroad bridge 100 miles behind the FLOT that's vital to the enemy's logistics, then he is going to avoid any aerial engagement with anything because it will interfere with his primary tasking, which is to destroy the bridge. If he doesn't have to punch off his bombs to maneuver, he'll use so much fuel he won't be able to reach the target and get back home. On the other hand if he's configured for air-to-air, there would be no reason for him to avoid a fight with a Fulcrum. A Flanker might be a different story, depending on the situation.

 

Napoleon took Moscow and the Russian burned it to the ground. They would do the same again if anyone took the city and retreat to their cities east of the Urals. As for the Germans in WW2 their first phase didn't work as well as they had hoped and they changed strategy after the first phase went less well and then changed again. It was a total screwup. If they had went straight for Moscow they would have left millions of Russian troops behind them and the Russians would have hit them from both sides. The first phase was the problem. As for other silly ideas that the Germans could have invaded through the Middle east, logistically not possible. I don't know what the Germans could have done differently apart from waited and built up more vehicles to help them encircle the Russian troops in the first phase. They could also have moved more troops to Finland from Norway. The British still being in the war was a major issue. Both for Napoleon and Hilter, it could well have saved Russia both times.

 

Yeah, don't forget to mention that preparations took a year.

Stop BSing the public. They had pretty equal armor to all M1A1s remained in service.


Besides, arn't half of your post is repeating of what I have said/mentioned?

 

What's interesting about the idea of Germany invading through the Middle East is that Rommel's goal in North Africa, which he almost did, was to take Egypt, and from there high command wanted Germany to enter a second front in the Middle East against Russia, and link up with the Jappenese, presumbly also helping the Jappenese with their drive on British India. If this happened, with the help of Vichy French, and the oil resources of the Middle East, things would of been much different.

 

Taxcutter says:
Could Russia, China, or all of Europe do it with a decade to prepare?

Taxcutter says:
Yup. ISIL had armor more than equal to old M1A1s that had no fuel, ammunition, spare parts or crews with any guts.

But don't let that stop them. I'm sure the Iranians will provide worthy foes.

 

Yet it is the USA that acts most provocatively and boasts the vast majority of NATO's military power.

It is the USA that will initiate an armed conflict with Russia, should the USA's covert, corrupt powers-that-be decide it shall be so. Perhaps they already have, and all we're seeing is the strategy being played out to initiate such a war. Perhaps that war is being fought already. And perhaps.. Perhaps Snowden and Syria were also a part of said war. Perhaps the die was cast long ago.

 

Perhaps...the United States will incorporate Zimbabwe into the fold, use it as a central base to invade all of Africa and expand into Asia from there. With the support of our Area 51 "Allies", we would quickly create the Galactic superpower envisioned by Delzar in the alpha quadrant who began the initial Gorgon movement in 3011RGE.

 

Ukraine. It's a mess. A US-sponsored mess.

 

Taxcutter says:
The Germans could have:
1. Concentrated on punching out the British in 1941. Try to get a German presence in Badhdad/Mosul/Kirkuk, if not all of Mesopotamia.
2. Delayed the attack on the USSR til 1942.
3. Accumulate new vehicles/equipment.
4. Build up twelve railroad repair units instead of the four they used historically.
5. Laid in a stash of cold weather gear.
6. Start the attack in the first week of May (when the ground firms up) rather than diddy-wopping around for six weeks.
7. Put more Wehrmacht in Finland. Drive to the White Sea and cut off Murmansk. Drive south and cut off Leningrad from the rear.
8. Rest of Wehrmacht go fang-out for Moscow. Forget Kiev. Screen the north edge of the Pripet Marshes,
9. In October, shorten the lines and be ready for winter.
10. If punching out Britain gets a German presence in Mesopotamia, launch bombing attacks against Baku. Mine the lower Volga.

 

"1. Concentrated on punching out the British in 1941. Try to get a German presence in Badhdad/Mosul/Kirkuk, if not all of Mesopotamia"

Hitler was more aggressive than the German High Command. Rommel, who was in charge of German forces in North Africa, wanted to press forward towards Cairo, but his superiors thought that he'd become overextended. Rommel appealed to Hitler, who let him continue, overriding OKW, or German High Command. This was costly, and he was defeated at El-Alemain, and eventually in North Africa. He should of waited for more reinforcements, but Hitler constantly told him he could not give him reinforcements, that they were needed in Russia. He essentially abandoned Africa Korps.

"2. Delayed the attack on the USSR til 1942.
3. Accumulate new vehicles/equipment"

For 2, this need not be done. The USSR was in the process of rebuilding and stil hurt from Stalins purges. More calculated would of been to issue winter clothing, amass more men and equipment, and invaded earlier in 41'. Waiting till 42' would of risked the Russians knowing about it, who already had some inkling, and more officers would be in for the soviets and men.

"5. Laid in a stash of cold weather gear."

Should of been done in the first place but wasn't, in 41.

"6. Start the attack in the first week of May (when the ground firms up) rather than diddy-wopping around for six weeks."

The ground gets more muddy in the summer, but it's not too bad for the time and place, as there was plenty of roads. This is what Hitler originally planned for, but delayed it for the purpose of amassing more men and tanks. It would cost him the war, probabily.

"7. Put more Wehrmacht in Finland. Drive to the White Sea and cut off Murmansk. Drive south and cut off Leningrad from the rear."

This leaves men under-staffed in the center and south. The south and center had the industries, the north not a lot. Hitler wanted Stalingrad in the south as it had more political purpose (Stalin's city) and industry as well. To be fair, most of the industries would be moved deep into Rusisa anyway to protect against German bombing.

"8. Rest of Wehrmacht go fang-out for Moscow. Forget Kiev. Screen the north edge of the Pripet Marshes,"

Hitler's generals told him to do so, but diverted men towards the south as it was industrial and had oil. He should of tried for Moscow fang out, as this would be disasterous for the Red Army's morale. Stalin may of been killed to, as he stayed in Moscow for the battle of Moscow.

"9. In October, shorten the lines and be ready for winter."

If he'd done some of the things you said and I said, he wouldn't have to do this. This is bad, as it allows the Russians to regroup better, send in reserves. This what happened by default in the winter of 41' as Moscow took reserves from Seberia to reinforce them

"10. If punching out Britain gets a German presence in Mesopotamia, launch bombing attacks against Baku. Mine the lower Volga."

Would of been great. Also allows the Germans to link up with the Jappenese.

 

Moscow alone, no, but taking Moscow earlier in conjunction with not being sidetracked by an obsession with taking Stalingrad with only infantry instead of sticking to the original plans of driving on the oil fields and cutting off both the Soviet fuel and oil supplies and the resupply routes via Persia would have shut down the Soviets ability to counter attack, and left their touted production capabilities irrelevant. They would have had to sue for terms or be strangled very soon. Moscow itself was close and within striking distance to many factory complexes further East, and without fuel the southern flank could have been rolled up without a lot of fuss. Moving their factories further East wasn't an option, they simply had few locomotives left to accomplish that sort of evacuation again, not to mention without oil and lubricants it didn't matter how much stuff they produced, as it would be useless.

As it was, they wouldn't have gone anywhere without American Lend-Lease; they would have still been at the Vistula by 1945 without American and British shipments. One interesting little thing was the Soviets reliance on American locomotives; we shipped some 980 or so of them, while their own production was around 30 of them. Much of their 'production miracle' was because they could focus on producing tanks and the like and not all the industrial capital needed. They relied on imports of octane booster for their aircraft, for instance, without which half their air force would have remained grounded or ineffective and just easy prey.

http://eiaonline.com/history/bloodforoil.htm

http://ww2-weapons.com/History/Production/strategic-raw-materials.htm

No counterattack at Kursk, either, as they would have been frantically covering their southern flank and not launching offensives. Even at Kursk they concentrated their American and British armor in the pocket there. Hitler beat himself, and in large part did so at Stalingrad and by worrying too much over the Greek partisans and waiting for that issue to be resolved, thus delaying the offensives too long.

 

What makes you think they can't?

Impossible, no connection wia land and zero chances to do it with British Navy hurrasing their supply lines wia water.
They have failed to take Malta, yet you think it would be possible to gain a foothold in Messopotamia?

Oh, they would be really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up with a decision like that. In 1941 USSR was in process of rearmament, in 1942 it would have new equipment in massive numbers. It doesn't matter how many equipment Germans would collect, they would face infantry, equipped with PPSh-41 and SVT-40 instead of Mosin-Nagant, airforce, equipped with IL-2, Yak-1, Lagg-3 and MiG-3 instead of outdated I-16, tank armies with T-34 and KV instead of T-26. Basically, inferior on land and equal in the skies. Attacking USSR in 1942 instead of 1941 would have led to inevitable defeat in medium term.

Oh, nice plan indeed, leaving millions of enemy troops right at your flank. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

 

Taxcutter says:
They never have. Russia and China are continental, not maritime powers.

 

Punching out Britain starts in the summer of 1940 with German and Italian paratroopers along wiyth a couple of Italian Alpini divisions invading Malta.

There is only one small port of the south end of the island, but in July and August of 1940, British defenses are at 10% of TO&E strength. Two battalions of elderly reservist - mostly coastal artillery - all centered at Valletta's Grand Harbor.

German paratroopers take Hal Far airfield (it has three (count 'em three) Gloster Gladiators and four .303 AA machine guns to defend it and zero infantry). Aircraft mechanics are no match for paratroopers. Even the somewhat depleted German paratroop divisions take Hal Far in a matter of a couple hours. Then Tante Ju (Ju-52 transports) begin bringing in assault engineers, light infantry and ground service personnel.

The Italians take the port at the south end of the island. This will take awhile, as this port is only big enough to accommodate a half-dozen boats at a time. But there was no garrison, and the Valletta garrison cannot counterattack as the Hal Far lodgment blocks them and the old codgers at Valetta don't have either the will, vehicles, or the ammunition to counterattack. So in a few days at Italians land a couple of Alpini divisions and some more assault engineers.

Malta is within Stuka and Bf-109 range of airfields in Italy. The old Gladiators are wiped from the sky in the first raid (Goring has to divert a staffel of Bf-109Es from the Battle of Britain few a couple days and maybe a geschwader of Ju-87s and one of Ju-88s.)

Stukas, Ju-88s and the Italian Navy pound the Grand Harbor forts, all but one of which date back to the nineteeth century. After some aerial and naval bombardment the old forts are assaulted from the landward side. The outcome is inevitable. Given the general low quality of the Italian forces the Grand Harbor forts surrender in four days, max. More Germans make it quicker.

In imminent danger of invasion of Britain proper, the British cannot reinforce Malta from either direction. As I said, once Hal Far is taken, its over. Malta is gone.

Once Malta falls. Alexandria is a very long pull for the British to resupply.

In the winter of 1940 the Germans reinforce the Italians with maybe four panzer divisions and some Luftwaffe air forces. The Western Desert Force is 28 battalions, with few tanks, fewer effective anti-tank guns and nowhere near enough trucks. The Italians, without the Malta thorn in their side can bring in supply through Tobruk as well as Tripoli.

Once Rommel - now with a double-sized Afrika Korps - passes El Alamein, Alexandria falls. Egypt (having no other ports)is untenable so the British bug out.

Once Egypt is overrun, the Italians take over occupation duties and Rommel starts up the Levantine coast. First objective is Beirut, but there is really nothing in that part of the world to stop him. The Vichy French can only surrender.

Next stop is the port of Latakia in northern Syria. Then the Germans follow the railroad to Aleppo where the junction to the Berlin-to-Basra railroad is. Deals are cut to allow German supply train to roll through the Balkans and Turkey.

The British, on the other hand must reinforce their Kuwait garrison through a port not designed for break-bulk imports in any quantity. They cannot supply more than a couple battalions operating in the Tigri-Euphrates valley. Rommel drives them back. The only thing slowing him down is his own increasingly long supply line. Maybe he stops when Basra/Kuwait/Abadan are in Bf-109 range. The -109sweep out the fighters and Stukas are excellent ship-killers.

Churchill has to come to the peace table to maintain at least a fraction of his Persian oil output.

The Germans now are sitting within bomber range of Baku.

 

Did invasion of Iraq require to be a maritime power? Having half of it's neibours' territories avaliable for deployment...

It is a cool story. The thing is - they were trying to do so in reality, but they have failed. Malta was one of the most intensively bombed places during WW2. Britan, Italy and Germoney lost about 1,5 thousand planes over there, not some misterious "3 Gladiators" you are talking about.

Malta was a strategic position and Brits would hold it no matter what the cost since losing Malta=losing all African colonies. They had anough of naval and airborn firepower to defend it as all those Axis failed attempts to capture it have proven.

No chances to do it in 1940. As if they've concentrated on building massive amounts of ships and planes intead of tanks and rifles, they would have been able to capture it or even British isles. As of 1940-1941, Germans lacked numbers to succesfully invade Malta, let alone the metropoly itself, especially taking into account weak performance of their navy.

 

Did the British Navy fall into a wormhole and cease to exist? The British had aircraft carriers in the Med and any effort to cease Malta would face serious interdiction and blockade.

 

Taxcutter says:
Every ounce of the supply came in by sea.

 

Taxcutter says:
Hitler was taken in by his own success. He thought he could buffalo Britain into coming to the peace table after France fell but before the Battle of Britain. If Chamberlain or Halifax had been PM, he might have been right, but Churchill was made of sterner stuff.

That Axis lost a lot of planes there because they started too late. The first reinforcement/resupply convoy didn't get to Malta until September 1940. The Malta garrison was so weak the Italians could have probably taken it themselves, but they were scared to death of the British.

Malta is mega-strategic and without it, Egypt and the Middle East is probably untenable.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Maybe because I am a American and the US is the unquestioned master of logistics, I can see the lost opportunity. From postwar writings, I don't think the (continental power) Germans ever saw the opportunity they declined.

 

Taxcutter says:
The RN was pinned down protecting the British Isles from a cross-Channel invasion.

Yes, the RN had two obsolete (circa 1914) battleships, some "D" class light cruisers (dating back to 1916), and the HMS Eagle stationed at Alexandria. The Eagle was an interesting carrier. It had no arresting gear. It relied on an air wing of specially trained Hurricane pilots who could land on the ship without needing a tailhook. But the planes had to be very light. Four .303 machine guns instead of the eight a land Hurricane would mount and necessarily a small amount of fuel. In reality, once the balloon went up this specially trained air wing attrited away. The Eagle was on its way to Britain to be converted into a conventional CVE with arresting gear when an Axis submarine torpedoed her.

 

I like historical "what-ifs" as much as the next guys, but the fact that Hitler and Mussolini blew a golden opportunity has nothing to do with the fact Putin could blow through the rump NATO (that is...less the US) like they weren't even there.

NATO is less prepared for war today than France and Britain in 1940. They couldn't handle Libya without US help, for Pete's sake.

 

The only logical conclusion is that you'll need a number of cargo ships. You don't need to be a maritime power for it.

What makes you think they could started earlier? Italy wasn't capable of commiting such operation by themselves, equpment-wise. Deploying German stuff to the Medditarinean would require(required) some time.

And for a good reason. Their army performed very poor against the British.

Yay! Chest-trumping!

RN was massively outnumbering German navy and had much more expirence and way better tactic. They (Nazi Germoney) have a few new Battlecruisers and one Battleship (Bismark being shamefully lost in it's first journey). Not exactly a force to threat RN existance.

Even if you had left only a fraction of RN, cross-channel invasion still would be impossible, unless Germany air supermacy comes on the table. Alas, Hitler didn't have guts for it.

Same thing can be said about Italy, most of their navy dated back to WW1. And, of course, no chances for German ships to pass Gibraltar.


----------------------------------------
Speaking about previous Abrams conversation. It seems ISIL now have one.

 

The T-90 is waterproof and more versatile. The T-90 has some cool upgrades, such as being manuverable (they did this as they realized the earlier T's weren't good in urban combat), and the ability to cross rivers without any add ons. The problem they ran into in Checnya was that the tank, well all tanks, can't fire upwards into a building easily and can become stuck in derbis. If a tank gets shot at in a street with RPGs, it's a bad situation. The T-90 adresses these concerns. The T-90 has longer range and can knock out an M1, M1A1, or M1A2, before any of these knows it there. The T-90 has good armour, reports in Checnya say that one tank survived seven shots with an RPG. An M1, I doubt could withstain that damage without being damaged. The M1 was destroyed, well put of action by RPGs in Iraq many times. This shows the T-90 is better with armour. It has longer range. A T-90 could knock out an Ambrams. The Russians just don't have this tank in high enough numbers, the only have several hundrend. The T-90 as is, is better than the Ambrams as is, in urban combat.

 

"Cross channel invasion"

You mean that thing that the German had zero capability to pull off?