 |
| |
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Not really. The missile gap was a pipe dream. The fact was that in the early 60's the US was FAR ahead in number of warheads and our ability to deliver them, since Strategic Air Command was in business BEFORE the soviets got ICBM's;
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/n...02nukenote.html
note, in 1960 the US had 20,000 nuclear warheads, the Soviets 1,600. In 1968 it was the US 28,880 to USSR 9,399. IN fact, the Soviets did not surpass the US in actual warheads until 1978. By which time both side had more than dequate delivery systems.
Given what you said, I am sure I have read far mnore book on the subject that you. Heck, it took a simple google search to prove you wrong. |
deliverable warheads != missiles, they did have something like between 300 and 500 more missiles then us. but yea, our nuclear pile dwarfed theirs.
[edit] also I think you are counting pile, not deliverables, the US has never had more then around 12k deliverable bombs, and the USSR never had more then 8k deliverables.[/edit]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
deliverable warheads != missiles, they did have something like between 300 and 500 more missiles then us. but yea, our nuclear pile dwarfed theirs. |
although they had (and continue to have) considerably more fissionable material than us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Sure.. but fissionable material is effectively the potential for the number of bombs that you *could* make... thus the importance... and the worry by NATO...
However... we obviously passed the point of overkill very early on, so this is an entirely theoretical discussion of superiority. After a few hundred warhead detonations, and you might as well forget about life on the surface for a few millenia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
OK, but why would you need to blast through a mountain range? It only takes one bomb to hit a city and kill 3 million people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. The US did not have superior armored forces until the latest generation of tanks and AFVs came along in the late 1970s. In terms of quantity the Warsaw boys held the lead until the end. From 1945 to 1975 the two sides competed closely in terms of the quality of their fighter aircraft, with sometimes Russian craft being better, and sometimes western planes being better. After 1975 Western fighters were technologically superior, but in some regions the copmmunists held sufficient numerical superiority to give the free world a run or their money.
Western bombers were superior throughout the era. At the time of the first Berlin crisis the communists were willing to bet that the US wouldn't risk destroying precious western European territory in order to engage the Russian armies. The US managed to convince Stalin that American bombers did indeed have the capability of reaching deep into Russian territory, a capability which the Russians could not reciprocate. As long as the US was the primary adversary during this conflict the Soviets were forced to contemplate the very distasteful prospect of coming against a foe whom they could not touch, but whom could hurt them dearly.
Without nukes the Warsaw Pact forces could very likely have taken the rest of continental Europe any time they had pleased, but the US held an overwhelming nuclear trump card right up to the mid-1970s. There were points during the cold war when the US and its NAYO allies didn't know with certainty how much a lead in nuclear forces they had. The days of the Cuban missle crisis were one of them. The US sincerely did not know what a hollow threat the Soviet ICBMS were. After the fall of the Soviet Union Yeltsin admitted that they had only a paltry dozen operational missles in 1962. The US OTOH had hundreds of srtrategic bombers capable of reaching the USSR and had even equipped their bombers with nuclear anti-aircraft missles  to clear a path to their targets.
Had nuclear weapons not been available after WW2 I think that WW3 might have broken out in 1948, 1950, or 1962. |
According to McNamara, we knew we had a huge advantage in ICBMs, but we did not know that there were any warheads in Cuba to go along with the missiles. We thought the warheads were still in transit.
Thus, we almost went to war with Cuba with a possible response that Khruschev could have launced up to 90 nukes at US cities wiping out 100 million people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
deliverable warheads != missiles, they did have something like between 300 and 500 more missiles then us. but yea, our nuclear pile dwarfed theirs.
[edit] also I think you are counting pile, not deliverables, the US has never had more then around 12k deliverable bombs, and the USSR never had more then 8k deliverables.[/edit] |
We are talking about the ealy cold war here. The USSR got ICBM's first, but as was explained already, they were few, inefficeint, and the US had, unlike the soviets, the option of using long range bombers at the time. SO, at NO point in the cold war did the USSR have a superior capability to deliver strategic warheads than the soviets did, which was the point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
ON soviet tanks being better: How?
For example, a SU122 had heavier armor and much bigger gun than a Panther tank, yet all in all, the Panther, with its mobility, sufficient gun, better equipment (like a radio, better gunnery equipment), and speed was a great tank and capable, in the right hands, of taking out a SU122.
A M28 in good hands could take out any soviet tank of the time-certainly the M48 could as well, and the M60. The centurion was certainly adequate.
Now, this is not to say western tanks were superior-they were not- a T62, or better yet a T64 in good hands could have taken out any of these vehicles as well.
So I would not claim any significant TECHNOLOGICAL superiority on either side in tanks warfare until the late '70's when the NATO tanks gained an advantage. Who would win in the central front would have been a matter of doctrine and the size of the forces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
A M28 in good hands could take out any soviet tank of the time-certainly the M48 could as well, and the M60. The centurion was certainly adequate.
Now, this is not to say western tanks were superior-they were not- a T62, or better yet a T64 in good hands could have taken out any of these vehicles as well. |
Which underscores my point of the importance of training and doctrine, areas in which the US had an advantage throughout the Cold War.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
An M60 was a piece of junk that couldn't survive long on the battlefield because it was too high. Vast target. The T-72 would have the advantage of cover. Consider GePap that the state of the art in electronics was the laser range finder, and both sides had em. Also, the armor on the M60 was slab sided. Even the later varients were not much better because of the height of the thing. On the other hand the cold-rolled armor or the T-72 was of better quality as well as a heck of alot better sloped, making it a much harder kill. The guns were about equal, with the T-72's being slightly larger bore. 115 vs 120? Something like that.
So I do think a T72 will win out more often than not when put one on one with an M60 or the later varients. However it is moot as the ratio was 5 or 6 to 1 in Warsaw Pact tanks compared to NATO tanks. 3-1 in aircraft. NATO launching a conventional attack into to Warsaw Pact is a ludicrous suggestion. Our aim was survival. The border guard units mission was to slow the advance of the WP for 24 hours. In this time we were expected to recieve 80% casualties, ie be wiped out. THe 24 hours we were to buy the main line divisions were to be used to bring them on line and up to speed, and bring the reforger divisions over from the US. Even with these divisions NATO was seriously outnumbered and almost inevitably in wargames NATO was forced to use tactical nukes to contain WP armored breakthroughs. NORTHAG was expected to be obliterated in the first 72 hrs (north German plain) while CENTAG was up in the air and SOUTHAG was expected to hold.
Anyway the notion of NATO attacking is absurd! We trained to stop em, and that was best case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Wasn't the M-60A3 upgraded to include modern technology? And in any case, they were fighting the freakin' Iraqis!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What about the Backfire? |
First flight, not later than 1969 A model. B model probably 73. Enter service probably 74.
The "Backfire" would probably qualify as the greatest of the West's Cold War bugbears. Few aircraft have been as feared or as mocked, as overestimated or as dismissed. Soviet Military Power, the US chronicle of the USSR in the 1980s. Considered the Tu-22M to be a long-range strategic aircraft. However, both it and the 'Blinder' have only ever been used in the medium-range theatre role.
Source Modern Military Aircraft Anatomy. I also have the book Soviet Military Power.
Last edited by Joseph on 10-03-2004 at 07:40
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2004 10:01
|