I've seen the comparison that the American is like a chess setup with one line of queens, while the Soviets had two lines of rooks and bishops. The Americans were more focused on making smaller numbers of all-purpose weapons and vehicles, while the Soviets had more specialized units.
tl;dr Who would win in a fight?
>Who would win conventionally
The soviets had a period in around 1945-1965 where they likely would have won or at least been able to contest allied forces on somewhat even terms, past that america and NATO began to slowly gain a technological advantage that they maintained and grew upon until the soviet collapse. Soviet Deep Battle was a brutal slow crushing machine that was intended to use wave upon wave of mechanized troops to wear down NATO defenses, again it was a doctrine that would have been much more effective in the early 50's along with the experienced generals that russia could draw on post WW2, sophisticated ATGMs and much more effective CAS would've done pretty terrible things to such an advance in 1975 and onward.
Realistically things would've gone to the nuclear table before long in a conventional conflict, I doubt either side would back down if the soviets are steaming right across west germany in force and american casualty figures on the news start to show up back home. In a purely conventional slugging match, the soviets would probably have been able to push through west germany but it's hard to see a situation where they could ever possibly keep up that momentum. Eventually the advance would be bogged down and NATO would go into a full gear war footing and successfully push back, much like the german advance into russia.
>>5955
NATO doctrine and conventional weapons were terrible until AirLand Battle. The main weapon of war being the tank, the Soviets held a massive advantage in armored technology until the Leo 2 and M1 Abrams. Even the Abrams didn't really grow into what it is today until the M1A1 upgrade.
Until AirLand Battle Europe was considered essentially indefensible with conventional weapons and despite all the political handwaving of no first use policy the plan was always to use tactical nuclear weapons to slow down the Soviet advance.
>>5095
No nuclear weapons used, the Warsaw Pact would have steamrolled all Europe with ease. They had overwhelming armoured and infantry superiority.
However, NATO doctrine was fir using nuclear warheads once the soviet had overrun the defenses in the Fulda gap and Hannover. It was also French doctrine to tactical nuke anything coming close to their Rhine border in that scenario.
>>5955
>The soviets had a period in around 1945-1965 where they likely would have won or at least been able to contest allied forces on somewhat even terms
>>7648
>They had overwhelming armoured and infantry superiority.
Good luck having any sort of productivity without the specific American lend leases.
The soviet industry was so immature they couldn't even produce something like specific types of screws, motor parts... They had to make exact copies of American factories to get anything running.
They overwhelmed Nazi Germany due to the latter's considerable shortcomings, such that America did not suffer from.
At the end of the war the Soviet manpower was also down the shitter. And it's agricultural production on par with Saudi Arabia
>>7648
>It was also French doctrine to tactical nuke anything coming close to their Rhine border in that scenario.
This, all laughing at frogs aside, they were pretty serious with force de frappe
>>9178
>all laughing at frogs aside
> force de frappe
frenchfag please. You don't need to create a false consensus to make up for the fact that people only remember your country for it's defeat and collusion in WW2.
>>5095
Warsaw pact would have steamrolled continental Europe, then they'd sit on their asses.
Their plan was to reach Lyon in 9 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
>>9737
yes, pushing directly through the center of germany would have certainly gotten them to lyon in 9 days.
>>9737
This, it would have been an utter massacre
>>7408
I dont think AirLand battle happened in real life
>>9737
I think this plan is about as delusional as the soviet leaders
>>10048
I like the bit where they mostly ignore southern Germany and basically just contain it while the majority of their troops just blitz through and cut off the ports in Denmark, the Low Cunts, and Northern France, breddy crafty.
Even without nukes though, it's a bit far fetched in that they'd have to secure a fair few airbases mostly intact to be able to stop the inevitable massive amounts of freedom bombers with any efficiency.
>>7648
>the french were willing to nuke invaders
consider me surprised
>>5095
>The Americans were more focused on making smaller numbers of all-purpose weapons and vehicles
Explain? Cause I honestly thought it was the opposite. For instance, rather than developing a separate attack and transport helicopter, the Soviets made one helicopter that could do both.
>>10543
In terms of air power, NATO had all kinds of niche shit and had massive numbers, on the ground it was the opposite.
The soviets did have dedicated transport helicopters, but yeah, the based hind was both.
>>10048
>Delusional
In the event of a full scale attack, it wasn't even a matter of 'if' NATO forces in West Germany could repel Warsaw Pact forces but 'for how long can they obstruct, dilate and generally molest soviet advance' until the bulk of american forces can be deployed in Europe for a real chance in a conventional war.
>>10660
>on the ground it was the opposite.
They didn't do the effort. Their manpower was considerable if needed. With higher industrial capacities than Germany, and oil. That would have been a massacre.
