Hypothetical US vs Russian war

In an imaginary world where nuclear weapons were never invented, but everything else is the same (which is impossible I know, since nukes and events such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings shaped the timeline that has led us to where we are today - but try to run with the idea anyway please) if the US and Russia engaged in a furious war how do you think it would go, and how would it end up?

What if it was an engagement in some third country halfway between the US and Russia and in the waters around and air over it?

What if it was a Russian assault on something close to the US. For example in the Caribbean?

What if it was a US assault on something close to Russia. For example in the Black Sea?

Warships can traverse the Bosporus, yes? I don't know how it ends, except for "very badly for the countries in the middle."

Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancey.

Ultimatum, by Richard Rohmer. Not quite the usual set up.

Although if it was an overland thing between the US and Soviets, They'd get ya with the scorched earth/we have more bodies than you have bullets maneuver.

Is this before or after La Raza invades LAX?

I don't buy that. Russian machinery has been overrated for a long long time. Those cool looking aircraft that perform so well at airshows have an absolutely pitiful combat record. They'd lose the air in short order and then lose everything else.

Umm, I think that was inferred by scorching of earth and endless waves of pitchfork waving fodder. Note the keyword "overland".

I saw this on the front page and I thought to myself, I bet anything that Midnight Funeral started this thread.

I was right.

Couldn't you just have played Red Alert?

It could've also been Starguard, JohnM, or Dayton.

That looks like Enterpriser in that picture.

I imagine a world where you don't start retarded threads.

Too simplistic. Soviet/Russian military philosophy differs from the West. The West focuses on high tech ultra accurate low numbers equipment. The Russians focus on low tech highly tough high numbers equipment. While it takes hours and ultra special equipment to maintain US aircraft, Russian birds can be maintained with a hammer, screwdriver and pliers. While they will not be nearly as good as the US their numbers are much higher and they have a much lower maintenance time than the US counterparts. In short, it would be brutal numbers game, betting our kill ratio against their vastly superior numbers.

"Quantity has a quality all its own." ~ Joseph Stalin

But our equipment has a lot more software driven.....oh crap.

Which is funny, because without our brilliant wartime manufacturing, they'd have shit to fight with. Somehow, I think we'll be fine when their shit breaks down.

Russia's 4th generation fighters (MiG-29, Su-27 family) fighters are the equal of our 4th generation fighters (F-15s, 16s &18s). Their tactics though, if they haven't changed form the classic Soviet ground-control style, are a big Achilles' heel.

That's good to know, considering we're starting to field our 5th Gen fighters.

Russian export stuff is generally heavily castrated compared to what they keep for themselves.

Then there's the Indian air force, which has a force of Su-30 MKI fighters - Su-30s with a different avionics package designed to integrate easily with western data networks and missile systems. A wargame a couple of years ago between the IAF and the USAF (in F-15's) resulted in the USAF getting smeared all over the sky.

Yeah, all one hundred of them.

And we'd only have to have a 50:1 kill ratio to beat Russia with the very goddamn few we have!

Like what?

Yeah, since most Americans consider a 1:1 kill ratio getting "smeared".

If I recall correctly, the odds were drastically stacked in the Indian's favor in those exercises.

A 1:1 kill ratio is horrible. That would be a disaster. A total victory for the enemy if their crappy ass planes could take ours out on a 1 to 1 basis.

You don't win wars with a 1:1 kill ratio in anything.

Nope. The F-15's were without AMRAAMs and AWACS. This is ridiculously unrealistic. Let's not forget that the F-15, which has an undefeated combat record over 30+ years of service (in the two most combat experienced Air Forces in the world, Israel and USA), is perhaps the best air superiority fighter ever fielded.

The low maintenance thing might apply to their infantry gear, but their aircraft are crap when it comes to that. Their engines are traditionally inefficient, unreliable, and have short life spans. Also, that military philosophy is outdated. The American military may have gone smaller, but the firepower is tremendous across the board. Having a numbers advantage just means more targets. It's also never a good idea to underestimate a good technological advantage like stealth. The USAF has the ability to destroy a good portion of Russia's aircraft while they are still on the ground.

All those T-34s we built for th... oh wait.

Less chance of missing when there are so many of them

Hm? The Lend-Lease program kept the Russians afloat until 1943 at the least, and they stole more than a few of our designs during/immediately after the war.

American strategy has never been dominance in the initial engagement, especially one with the Russians. Ours has always been to hold if possible for reinforcements and factories to switch over to wartime production.