Who would win?

[Dichotomy]

when it was all over, these would be the survivors

Don't forget

[gyrene81]

Good argument Ty, but you have ignored more modern and much larger russian tanks, like the T-10, which were specificly build for combat in europe, and you also forget that Russia had plenty of combat experience in Afghanistan, as for carpet bombing B-52's, the losses would be irreplaceable due to SAM's, as far as logistics, how far is Russia away from the rest of europe compaired to the US Soviets would have it easy for supply's, as opposed to the US which would have long waits for ships and large aircraft (which risk getting shot down, and ships risk getting suck by suppirior Soviet submarines), as far as combat experience and atrition, WW2 has proven that no matter how many people you kill, planes you shoot down, or tanks you destroy, we will always have 30 more to replace them, and Russia is not alone, we have China, north Korea,mongolia, cuba, and vietnam to our back on the pacific side of things, so in all out man power russia wins in europe, I am trying to come at this from both sides but I really just cant see an over extended US+Nato force taking on at most a 5.3 million man army on its home turf using wepons that were designed to be used on that said turff

you really think russia was all that and then some during the cold war...what you seems to forget is that under nikita khrushchev the russian military machine was quantity over quality...huge mobile nuclear capable arsenal but, with conventional weapons they were lacking...the 9 year war against afghanistan that started in 1979 showed the weakness of the russian army...the chinese would have gotten better results through sheer manpower...and considering the communist regime at the time, would have been a more dangerous threat to the u.s. than russia.

those t-10s were slow open country heavy tanks...great defensive armament but not suited for offense...very vulnerable to aerial attack...which during the time period you specified the u.s. would have established air superiority, exactly the same way we did in korea and vietnam...speaking of those lovely sam missiles, they were one of the reasons for the way the b-52 was built...the effect on long range bombing in vietnam where the nva used russian/chinese built sam's proved ineffective due to the tactics and technology used to knock them out.

you need to look at actual history to get an idea of what could have happened...in korea, the superior numbers of the chinese backed prk failed to defeat the american forces sent there, and without the interdiction of china and the threat of all out war against china, north korea would have fallen...similar situation occurred in vietnam...politics got in the way of defeating north vietnam out right when the opportunity was there...another thing...if russia and its allies declared war in europe, almost every democratic country in europe, middle east and africa would have become an ally to the u.s. and britain...russia and china would have been forced to use nukes in order to win...

[AAJagerX]

Read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising".  Aside from a few details, it'd probably go about like that.

[dedalos]

I think the Russians would have taken Europe and it would have ended there.  The US would not have risked the end of the world and the Russians would not have risked losing what they had gained.  Although, I can see how the US/NATO might have taken over some other territories to equalize resources.

However, I don;t know how they would have handled the people.  It is nearly impossible to occupy a country and have the people be productive.  Sure they would have taken resources but it would have been impossible to build any kind of industry there.  There would have been sabotage after sabotage and the US/NATO would have been funding the opposition.  I think eventually they would have to get out but the people cost in the occupied countries would have been huge.

[Tyrannis]

Good argument Ty, but you have ignored more modern and much larger russian tanks, like the T-10, which were specificly build for combat in europe, and you also forget that Russia had plenty of combat experience in Afghanistan, as for carpet bombing B-52's, the losses would be irreplaceable due to SAM's, as far as logistics, how far is Russia away from the rest of europe compaired to the US Soviets would have it easy for supply's, as opposed to the US which would have long waits for ships and large aircraft (which risk getting shot down, and ships risk getting suck by suppirior Soviet submarines), as far as combat experience and atrition, WW2 has proven that no matter how many people you kill, planes you shoot down, or tanks you destroy, we will always have 30 more to replace them, and Russia is not alone, we have China, north Korea,mongolia, cuba, and vietnam to our back on the pacific side of things, so in all out man power russia wins in europe, I am trying to come at this from both sides but I really just cant see an over extended US+Nato force taking on at most a 5.3 million man army on its home turf using wepons that were designed to be used on that said turff

you said the setting was 1965-1970. thats why i didnt include afganistan. that war happened in the 80's.
and i didnt even know the russians had the T10 lol.

but i still see america winnning the tank war with support from her allies. britain and france all had there own battletanks. vietnam and korea didnt so russia would have to supply them with her own which would take away tanks from her own army.

back then i dont think sam's could reach the b52's max altitude. all the times ive heard of them being shot down in vietnam it was because they were flying too low.

and the U.S army wouldnt be hard to supply ether. France and Britain are right there in europe. just start using some of there factories to produce american equipment and they can be supplied just as good as russia could.


and if the era's 1965-1970, vietnam wouldnt be able to directly support russia because the war in vietnam would still be going on. and china&russia have never really seen eye to eye so if it came down to it, i see china helping vietnam out before it came to any aid for russia.

 i cant say anything about the submarines tho. i dont know much about submarine warfare lol.

[Reschke]

and the U.S army wouldnt be hard to supply ether. France and Britain are right there in europe. just start using some of there factories to produce american equipment and they can be supplied just as good as russia could.

Do you know anything about manufacturing? You can't just retool a modern manufacturing facility in a matter of days. That is one reason that the NATO forces all have common weapon ammunition. IF you loose or your weapon gets destroyed you can pickup a brit weapon and use 5.56 in it just like you can with an M-16. Same thing with the 7.62 weapons for the soldiers.

I think it would have gone along the lines of Red Storm Rising...but who can say for sure.