Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

USA invades Russia

  • 03-05-2016 9:46pm
    #1
    Site Banned Posts: 3


    Could they defeat and occupy Russia, assuming nuclear weapons don't exist?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Defeat, yes. Occupy, no. Assuming they could teleport all the required units over for the shindig.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    The USA's own hypothesis I read of last year was that, yes... barely but at vast cost.

    But things are fluid.... 2 years from now the answer would be No.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,716 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    17,000,000 sq kms. Never been achieved in history. Even the Russians don't properly occupy Russia.

    If your question is, could a mechanised armed force,comprised of the men and assets that currently make up the US military in its post war order of battle, enter Russia, defeat its standing army and conscripts and functionally occupy its centres of power and strategic bases and sites to effect regime change, then i would suggest it could not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    NATO could not and likewise the Warsaw Pact could not occupy Western Europe. Lines of supply are too long.

    There is a good documentary on YouTube about how a WW3 in Europe might have played out.

    USSR invades West Germany. Gets pushed back to halfway across Poland by NATO. Goes nuclear. End.

    Its well made using real speeches from world leaders. Need to look for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    http://youtu.be/PCblCImmgu8

    This is it.. Well worth a watch.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    The Red Storm Rising scenario?

    As well, the Russians have a long history of Guerilla war. From the era of the Mongols, resistance to Napoleon and during the Great Patriotic War. So whilst the USA is the first premier military power, its operation against non-state actors has been less than successful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Manach wrote: »
    The Red Storm Rising scenario?

    As well, the Russians have a long history of Guerilla war. From the era of the Mongols, resistance to Napoleon and during the Great Patriotic War. So whilst the USA is the first premier military power, its operation against non-state actors has been less than successful.

    Yes and no. I'd argue that the main failings of the US's COIN operations of late has been on the political side, rather than the military. The network driven model they've developed has proven to be extremely effective at degrading insurgent organistations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The USA's own hypothesis I read of last year was that, yes... barely but at vast cost.

    But things are fluid.... 2 years from now the answer would be No.

    Do you have a link to that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭teddyhead


    The US hasnt 'won' a war since 1945 and that was with Russian help and nukes(or at least 'atom bombs'). So the obvious answer is no.
    Mindless chanting of 'USA,USA,USA' will only take you so far, militarily. It takes more than that to actually win a war.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Do you have a link to that?

    I wish I could, I've tried.

    I remember reading it on the US Naval institute site, a general responding to a question at a congressional hearing.

    There was no details outlined, just the response.
    I can't find it though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    teddyhead wrote: »
    Mindless chanting of 'USA,USA,USA' will only take you so far, militarily.

    If that was all they did they could save a lot of money!

    Can you elaborate further?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Manach wrote: »
    The Red Storm Rising scenario?

    As well, the Russians have a long history of Guerilla war. From the era of the Mongols, resistance to Napoleon and during the Great Patriotic War. So whilst the USA is the first premier military power, its operation against non-state actors has been less than successful.
    Not just the Russians but all the other ethnic groups would be involved, I doubt the Americans could hold the Caucasus let alone the rest of the country. The question would be if they would need to though, a defeat of central moscow power and guarantees of some sort of independence and support to those who take it could reduce the need to occupy troublesome areas, but at the cost of these areas quickly becoming unstable.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.


    Bernard Montgomery


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.


    Bernard Montgomery

    The Mongols didn't seem too phased by such obstacles back in the day :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    The US could only barely keep control in the third world countries they usually pick on. The chances of them successfully invading then holding the largest country in the world are nil. The Russians have displayed that they can take huge casualties and still maintain high morale. Not a hope the US could do the same.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    17,000,000 sq kms. Never been achieved in history. Even the Russians don't properly occupy Russia.

    The Mongols had effectively occupied Russia for about 250 years (their empire was about 6 million km I think).
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    If your question is, could a mechanised armed force,comprised of the men and assets that currently make up the US military in its post war order of battle, enter Russia, defeat its standing army and conscripts and functionally occupy its centres of power and strategic bases and sites to effect regime change, then i would suggest it could not.

    Why couldn't they? 90% of Russia's population lives in the western portion. Of course it would be a bloody, vicious thing and there'd be hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides, but it would be possible methinks (the US has ~6500 MBTs, the EU has ~7700).


    Is it ever likely to happen? I doubt it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    The US could only barely keep control in the third world countries they usually pick on. The chances of them successfully invading then holding the largest country in the world are nil. The Russians have displayed that they can take huge casualties and still maintain high morale. Not a hope the US could do the same.

    If you think the US is going to tie its hands behind its back with RoE like Afghanistan, you're delusional.

    If America was trying to occupy Russia, they'd make Grozny look like a fireworks display.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,750 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Depends, if the US went all Orwellian, Middle East/North Korea zero tolerance dictator style governance it possibly could. But, it would have to be very brutal, and I don't think they'd have the stomach for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    The Russians have displayed that they can take huge casualties and still maintain high morale. Not a hope the US could do the same.

    Not quite.

    WW2 was the choice between dying before a german gun, or the gun of their own dictatorship.

    A repeat of that slaughter would not occur, the RuA would certainly collapse if they were being also attacked by Putin's new private army.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Why couldn't they? 90% of Russia's population lives in the western portion. Of course it would be a bloody, vicious thing and there'd be hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides, but it would be possible methinks (the US has ~6500 MBTs, the EU has ~7700).

    Those kind of numbers would actually be an irrelevance.

    the US-army has only 10 armoured combat brigades, each of which comprise of about 90 MBTs.... and of those 10, only 3 are technically capable of deployment.
    So, at most, the maximum tank force brought to bear would be ~1000.
    It would take 2-3 years to stand up more formations.

    A hypothetical war between Russia & the US would be fought in the sky & on sea....
    That fight the US would (eventually) prevail.
    After that, Russia's superiority on land would be of much less importance.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Bit of a moot discussion; if it eve looked like the USA were to achieve ground dominance, those rather large bullets with inverted triangular yellow and black warning symbols on them would get used. Likewise on the flip-side in the event of an uncontained Russian invasion of Europe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Lemming wrote: »
    Bit of a moot discussion; if it eve looked like the USA were to achieve ground dominance, those rather large bullets with inverted triangular yellow and black warning symbols on them would get used. Likewise on the flip-side in the event of an uncontained Russian invasion of Europe.

    Well, the OP asks on the prerequisite of no nukes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Well, the OP asks on the prerequisite of no nukes.

    Ah, so they did. My bad.


Advertisement