|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jun 27, 2017 8:01:37 GMT
Yunno what would be amusing? Ikea having a major worldwide sale just to rake in some cash to support their country of origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jun 27, 2017 8:14:46 GMT
I think Russia would win. Eventually. Since the only attacks can go through the Pacific and Russia's main cities are all in the east, the USA is gonna be in for a grind. A continent-wide grind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jun 27, 2017 8:40:53 GMT
If we are returning to situation 1, there is also the thing about terrain warfare eg. Plains warfare, Mountain warfare, etc.
Say the initial phase begins with Russian invasion of Alaska and the Northern part of the Pacific ocean, we only know that there is only so long the Russians can go on without US Pacific troops returning to turn the tide.
Note that official overseas bases can be used. So if a naval campaign occurs, it's best for the Russians to hold a defensive at:
(a) the area south of Alaska but still close enough to the mainland that a smaller/weaker navy can receive support from while trapping a large foe (US) between a jut of Alaska (west) and Canadian soil (east).
(b) The area between Hokkaido and the jut of Russian land north of Hokkaido, the area being small and the islands can act as filters to thin out the US vanguard.
(c) The sea between the jut of Russian land (east) and "Mainland" Russia (west).
Then, factoring Russian familiarity with weather, the Russians gain a slight edge over those who cannot/find it hard to adapt.
All in all, here's where the real debate comes in IF Russia advances first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 28, 2017 23:44:03 GMT
DREAMING SNIP SNIP DREAMING The Russian navy trapping the American Navy? You're dreaming! The USN is the world's foremost experts on warfare for waters surrounding the islands in an ocean. Pretty much so since WW2. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 28, 2017 23:53:23 GMT
Hmm, it seems the US is OP in that last round. Next: UK and Germany VS Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It's time for the Scandinavians to unite once more! Conditions: No nukes. No NEW allies. And all their troops overseas can be recalled to join the war. Attacks may or may not be coordinated. WHO. WILL. WIN? already addressed the military spending of the Anglo-Germanic alliance, but I'd also like to bring up the fact that you issued the condition of "No New Allies." Germany and England are two of the most prominent members of NATO giving them help from the USA, France, Italy, Spain, and more. I'm pretty sure the Scandinavians wouldn't even be able to last for a few months. A bit different ofc, but the same idea about the Scandinavianic-centric point. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jun 29, 2017 0:03:36 GMT
To add to Desophaeus' answer: 1. Modern naval combat doesn't happen in close range. Destroyers have missles and carriers have planes. Even the naval turret has more range. If you can snipe the enemy from afar, no positioning would help that. Case in point: Pearl Harbor. The US would play its cards well and not pursue a direct attack. In a long-range engagement, US would win. Better missles (Tomahawk), better missle defense system (AEGIS), and more numerous ships. 2. Air supremacy would sweep the Russians away. However close they are to the mainland, if ports get bombed and resupply convoys sunk, logistics will remain a problem. Combat support would also occur. Carrier aircraft and normal aircraft would just bomb the defending navy. 3. "Russian familiarity to weather" is useless here. Both have the ability to gain adequate winter gear, which really puts both at an equal spot. The problem that beset invading armies against Russia before was bad or no winter gear, not the Russians being some winter-resistant superhuman. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 29, 2017 0:48:13 GMT
I think Russia would win. Eventually. Since the only attacks can go through the Pacific and Russia's main cities are all in the east, the USA is gonna be in for a grind. A continent-wide grind. I'm sorry what? You meant to say Russia's main cities are all in the west right? You'd actually be slightly wrong on that, because Novosibirsk, the third largest city in Russia, is situated in Siberia. Thus neither side of Russia owns ALL of the main cities. Still, the vast majority of Russia's population is in the west, Asian Russia is actually just 38 million people, barely more than Canada and with less density. Wouldn't it make the most sense for USA to still "win" this war? Russia might not be able to gather the strength to push out the Americans, so the americans just take over Siberia or at least the Far East coastal provinces. Use the Ural mountains as defence against missile assaults. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jun 29, 2017 1:22:44 GMT
I think Russia would win. Eventually. Since the only attacks can go through the Pacific and Russia's main cities are all in the east, the USA is gonna be in for a grind. A continent-wide grind. I'm sorry what? You meant to say Russia's main cities are all in the west right? You'd actually be slightly wrong on that, because Novosibirsk, the third largest city in Russia, is situated in Siberia. Thus neither side of Russia owns ALL of the main cities. Still, the vast majority of Russia's population is in the west, Asian Russia is actually just 38 million people, barely more than Canada and with less density. Wouldn't it make the most sense for USA to still "win" this war? Russia might not be able to gather the strength to push out the Americans, so the americans just take over Siberia or at least the Far East coastal provinces. Use the Ural mountains as defence against missile assaults. IMO, it depends on the objective. Now, OP has said the objective is just outright annexation. I don't know the exact extent of US Amphibious landing forces, but I suppose a grind through Siberia would be possible. Especially with air superiority. Still, Russia's biggest asset is its army. It's lovely going to cause numerous casualties, and likely even a draw. I think the US could gain enough of an advantage (by taking population centers in the East and bombing the ones in the West) to force the Russians into the negotiating table, but not outright annexation. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 29, 2017 1:44:26 GMT
I'm sorry what? You meant to say Russia's main cities are all in the west right? You'd actually be slightly wrong on that, because Novosibirsk, the third largest city in Russia, is situated in Siberia. Thus neither side of Russia owns ALL of the main cities. Still, the vast majority of Russia's population is in the west, Asian Russia is actually just 38 million people, barely more than Canada and with less density. Wouldn't it make the most sense for USA to still "win" this war? Russia might not be able to gather the strength to push out the Americans, so the americans just take over Siberia or at least the Far East coastal provinces. Use the Ural mountains as defence against missile assaults. IMO, it depends on the objective. Now, OP has said the objective is just outright annexation. I don't know the exact extent of US Amphibious landing forces, but I suppose a grind through Siberia would be possible. Especially with air superiority. Still, Russia's biggest asset is its army. It's lovely going to cause numerous casualties, and likely even a draw. I think the US could gain enough of an advantage (by taking population centers in the East and bombing the ones in the West) to force the Russians into the negotiating table, but not outright annexation. True enough. The US landing capability is apparently a shadow of its old self, but I imagine like its old self it would drastically increase when needed. Plus the US might be able to force the coasts through time and preparation if nothing else. From one thing I read, the Russian military is overall (counting reserves and paramilitary) larger, but another thing I read suggests that the Russian army is smaller, which seems weird. I find it quite possible if landing is achieved that the East would fall, so while USA cannot win under the annexation scenario it should still be considered overall winner. Then again USA might lose its superpower status after all the fighting while Russia has less to lose. Well....Chinese Siberia, anybody? Edit: forgot to mention. If morale is unrealistically considered not an issue, than USA wins hands down methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jun 29, 2017 2:45:33 GMT
I'm used to Russia being eastern Europe, I forgot it'd be west from the Asian side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh III of Burgundy on Jul 4, 2017 18:14:20 GMT
IMO, it depends on the objective. Now, OP has said the objective is just outright annexation. I don't know the exact extent of US Amphibious landing forces, but I suppose a grind through Siberia would be possible. Especially with air superiority. Still, Russia's biggest asset is its army. It's lovely going to cause numerous casualties, and likely even a draw. I think the US could gain enough of an advantage (by taking population centers in the East and bombing the ones in the West) to force the Russians into the negotiating table, but not outright annexation. True enough. The US landing capability is apparently a shadow of its old self, but I imagine like its old self it would drastically increase when needed. Plus the US might be able to force the coasts through time and preparation if nothing else. From one thing I read, the Russian military is overall (counting reserves and paramilitary) larger, but another thing I read suggests that the Russian army is smaller, which seems weird. I find it quite possible if landing is achieved that the East would fall, so while USA cannot win under the annexation scenario it should still be considered overall winner. Then again USA might lose its superpower status after all the fighting while Russia has less to lose. Well....Chinese Siberia, anybody? Edit: forgot to mention. If morale is unrealistically considered not an issue, than USA wins hands down methinks. I don't think the US would invade Russia through the East. While Siberia is resource rich, the US forces would have to cross a long distance to reach any major Russian city. Any invasion of Russia would probably be done from Europe(through Norway, Ukeraine, or Belarus). |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jul 4, 2017 18:55:16 GMT
Hugh III of Burgundy, You are probably correct, but the creator of this thread specified that the war takes place in the Pacific. Thus Siberia is the obvious point of entry. I've noted that the third largest Russian city is in Siberia, but NOT the Far east coast so you have a point of sorts. Still, I think that just as its hard for USA to hit European Russia this way, it will be hard for the Russians to reinforce Siberia. Then again, they managed to get the Siberians over to Europe in ww2...
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 4, 2017 18:58:47 GMT
How about invading from the Arctic Circle? I kid... I kid...
But let ve honest, from a polar projection perspective, USA (including American miltary installations in Canada) and Russia do share a huge border in the Arctic ocean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh III of Burgundy on Jul 4, 2017 19:03:01 GMT
Hugh III of Burgundy , You are probably correct, but the creator of this thread specified that the war takes place in the Pacific. Thus Siberia is the obvious point of entry. I've noted that the third largest Russian city is in Siberia, but NOT the Far east coast so you have a point of sorts. Still, I think that just as its hard for USA to hit European Russia this way, it will be hard for the Russians to reinforce Siberia. Then again, they managed to get the Siberians over to Europe in ww2... There isn't much in Siberia for US to take. Although US aircraft carriers can be sent in support the army, there simply is too much area for the US to secure and defend. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jul 17, 2017 8:52:21 GMT
New Topic:
ALL of PRC's border neighbours, excluding Russia and North Korea, and ALL of South East Asia/ASEAN VS PRC and North Korea.
Conditions: No nukes. No NEW allies. And all their troops overseas can be recalled to join the war. Attacks may or may not be coordinated.
Just take your time if you really ARE interested. No need to rush.
|
|
