If the cold war had got hot! …who would win east or west?

[Amorphos]

If the cold war had got hot! …who would win east or west?

Lets imagine for a moment that both sides realised that nuclear weapons were futile, in that if they were used no one would win. Then that both sides wanted to win without total destruction.

Lets imagine say 1970 as a test year as the cold war went on a long time.

I just wonder what an almost conventional war between east and west would have been like, with vast tank backed armies slamming into one another etc, etc.


Forgive if this debate has already be done.

[Barry Ferguson]

Had it gone hot prior to the 70s, the Soviets would have won. After that, their equipment and tactics were no match for the west

[Amorphos]

Had it gone hot prior to the 70s, the Soviets would have won. After that, their equipment and tactics were no match for the west

I cant wait to hear answers to that. I think there are a lot of variables, the tech of each pushed the other further.

It depends if the U.S.S.R had Mongolia on their side or not.

Tehe would they attack with their horse archer armies [jk]
btw i am including china too ~ with the U.S.S.R, the whole eastern block VS the whole western one.

[Barry Ferguson]

I cant wait to hear answers to that. I think there are a lot of variables, the tech of each pushed the other further.

American technology developed a huge lead from the 70s to the 80s. Most of the Soviet tanks which had caused fear amongst Allied commanders were later found to be absolute death traps

btw i am including china too ~ with the U.S.S.R, the whole eastern block VS the whole western one.

China wasn't allied with the Soviets if I remember right

[Lysimachos11]

American technology developed a huge lead from the 70s to the 80s. Most of the Soviet tanks which had caused fear amongst Allied commanders were later found to be absolute death traps

Soviet tanks were absolutely on par with Western ones. You fail to understand the emphasis the Soviets placed on offensive warfare. Soviet tanks were not built to be safe for their crews in case of hits, which allowed them to be smaller and have lower silhouettes. In case of a knocked out Soviet tank, thousands more were standing ready to push further. The West simply placed more emphasis on the survivability of its tanks because, being democracies, they felt they could sustain less casualties.

In case of conventional war I think the Soviets would probably overrun Europe. After that it's uncertain.

Looking at the date however (1970): Czechoslovakia in 1968 had shown the Soviets had a lot of unexpected difficulties mobilizing their forces and supplying them. This is hard data. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 however, showed a very succesful mobilization and logistical support for the Soviet forces. In 1970 it's questionable whether the Soviets could have mounted a large scale operation succesfully since they performed poorly only 2 years earlier.

[il padrino]

Tehe would they attack with their horse archer armies [jk]
btw i am including china too ~ with the U.S.S.R, the whole eastern block VS the whole western one.

you forgot them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement


and also Israel won because of its airforce(mostly).And the soviet equipment for export is usualy inferior to the one they keep for themselfs.

[Ojf]

It depends if the U.S.S.R had Mongolia on their side or not.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Indeed, China was on not the best of terms with Moscow as far as I know. I doubt they would have wanted to help the Soviets unless the Americans invaded China itself.

[dogukan]

who knows?

Outcome of war could change with every move from either side....

[Carl von Döbeln]

Impossible to say.

[Amorphos]

China wasn't allied with the Soviets if I remember right

Well in such a war perhaps for ideological purposes there would come a point where they would change their minds ~ or even have to! If Russia was loosing then china would have the potentiality of being the only large communist nation left, and that would not be a strong position once Russia [ussr] was defeated. _________________-

calculations based on armour, air power, soldier numbers ect anyone?

[hellheaven1987]

Well in such a war perhaps for ideological purposes there would come a point where they would change their minds ~ or even have to! If Russia was loosing then china would have the potentiality of being the only large communist nation left, and that would not be a strong position once Russia [ussr] was defeated.

Impossible, China at that time was fighting several border skirmish against Russian and nearly started a full scale war. I don't think they would suddenly became friend from that.

Overall, USSR would overrun Europe (according to NATO's calculation at that time), but unable to attack Britain and America directly; the war would drag on until both sides bankrupt.

[Amorphos]

The East would have trouble controlling the air space and the seas and would have likely lost control of both in short order.

The sees probably don’t matter so much to Russia, they could storm over Europe and then consolidate their position. Perhaps their capacity to build more aircraft [i dont mean more than the west] would keep them in the air just enough to achieve that, perhaps it would be unnecessary to even attack america. I wonder how many aircraft america would be willing to use in the European theatre.

keep in mind china won't help USSR, they broke up as allies in 1960s

it may have felt the necessity to regain that alliance or be left as the only communist state left?

Impossible, China at that time was fighting several border skirmish against Russian and nearly started a full scale war. I don't think they would suddenly became friend from that.

Things would change quickly I feel, certainly if Russia was loosing and they had the threat that the west would control most of the world. As soon as war would have been declared, minds and alliances would change very quickly imho.

[Barry Goldwater]

If we're talking about the early Cold War, the West would win - they had both more missiles & delivery systems than the East.

After that, nobody could really win as both sides had the power to destroy the Earth multiple times. Europe, Russia and possibly good chunks of America would have been turned into irradiated, burnt-out wastelands by the war and the flying nukes.

China would probably 'win' such a conflict, as they would stay neutral and not get blasted too badly.

[RuleBritannia]

Despite two of the major world powers being on the UN's side (US and UK), I'd say the Soviet Union and its allies would win. Soviets had, though not as technologically advanced, a better army overall than the US, and their tanks were the equivalent of Germany's Panzers. They also still possessed Tsar Bomba technology, capable of creating the most powerful explosive weapons in history.

[Barry Ferguson]

Despite two of the major world powers being on the UN's side (US and UK), I'd say the Soviet Union and its allies would win. Soviets had, though not as technologically advanced, a better army overall than the US, and their tanks were the equivalent of Germany's Panzers.

Later Soviet tanks (T-62 onwards) were not very good. Look at the Arab-sraeli wars where the Anglo-American equipped Israelis repeatedly crushed the Soviet equipped Arabs

They also still possessed Tsar Bomba technology, capable of creating the most powerful explosive weapons in history.

The Tsar bomb wasn't a paticularly useful piece of kit. One nuclear bomb is much like another. The Tsar bomb was built solely for propaganda purposes

[Amorphos]

Look at the Arab-sraeli wars where the Anglo-American equipped Israelis repeatedly crushed the Soviet equipped Arabs

Was that as much to do with bad tactics? The Israelis got stuffed when the Arabs first used anti aircraft missiles, if I remember correctly. Would the Russians and Chinese not have had better tactics and armour or would have altered it rather quickly in wartime.

I am unsure how much we can take from those wars when we can imagine that to some degree they were playgrounds for testing out equipment.

[Sirota]

Later Soviet tanks (T-62 onwards) were not very good. Look at the Arab-sraeli wars where the Anglo-American equipped Israelis repeatedly crushed the Soviet equipped Arabs

The Tsar bomb wasn't a paticularly useful piece of kit. One nuclear bomb is much like another. The Tsar bomb was built solely for propaganda purposes

So large-scale experiments are conducted solely for propaganda purposes? Interesting...

[Barry Ferguson]

So large-scale experiments are conducted solely for propaganda purposes? Interesting...

There was no practical reason to develop a bomb as powerful as the Tsar

[RuleBritannia]

There was no practical reason to develop a bomb as powerful as the Tsar

Considering a bomb like the Tsar could wipe out most of the US thanks to a massive explosion and the massive amounts of nuclear fallout (they reduced the Tsar's bomb power by half fearing that much of Russia would be affected by fallout), there was plenty of reason to develop such a bomb.