United Sates and Allies vs Soviet Union and Allies; Read Op!

United Sates of America and Allies

vs

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Allies

Rules.

1. No in fighting at all
2. War begins After WW2
3. No prep.
4. Leaders/General staff right after ww2
5. Win by surrender or complete destruction.
6. No Nuclear bombs.

Starting area of the War; It can expand into the USA and or the USSR if need be, and america has access

People Whom might be interested please do vote it helps create improved fights for the future.@detrolord@tparks@deadmanwalkin@reikai@doom_phd@boringperson@diredrill@force_echo@umbranox@citizensentry@jwwprod@killerwasp@jmarshmallow@eisenfauste@dottiestmoon@cjdavis103@vortex14@thedailybagel@wolfrazer@okayalright_44@i_like_swords@penderor@imboredletsdebate@wut@monsterstomp@jestersmiles@black_of_shadow@nickzambuto@dark-nihilus@gizmorino@hulkv99@olaf_silvermane@thekillerklok@thevivas@jestersmiles@mandarinestro@claymore1998@cmcmcmcm@vortex14@spartankobe

Leaning towards USSR and allies

Murica.

I think it ends the same way the Cold War ended in real life, with USSR bankrupt and us victorious.

Murica

Without the Nuclear deterrent the war would never have stalemated into a political, societal, and economical "debate."

In a case of ongoing war the Soviets had an economic system so focused on the war effort that this massive military industrial complex would have kept chugging onwards, inspiring revolts, and destabilizing areas until their only recourse would be to join into the Soviet Union.

How they'd ever launch a successful invasion of America would be a much better question. Still, Europe, Asia, and Africa would all fall under communist influence.

This economy could never actually support itself at one point and an entire hemisphere would fall into corruption and poverty.

America would still win, by virtue of two oceans, a lot of populated land, and the great distance from other countries. General Winter has nothing on the defensive practicality and logistics nightmare that is "from sea to shining sea."

Russia wins.

America doesn't start fighting until 3 years have past.

Russia drowns the American forces in all the mansauce their nation can put out.

America Wins.

The Russian Navy got its ass kicked by Japan, United States Navy sunk every Battleship and Aircraft carrier the Japanese had.

United States had the most powerful Navy at the end of the war more powerful than all of the allies Navies combined.

28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

The Soviet Union would have been at the mercy of relentless airstrikes from Aircraft carriers and devastating bombardent from Battleships of anything within 22 miles inland.

Submarines would have sunk any and all cargo ships headed to the Soviet Union.

It would have been a blood bath

America could almost solo.

@fadadio: still do. America has as many battle ships and aircrafts as the rest of the world combined.

Shouldn't this be moved to the off-topic board since it doesn't feature any fictitious characters in the OP?

Stalemate easily.

After WW2, both the Communists and Capitalist blocs have exhausted their war resources, most especially manpower. Russia is the only one with the slightest chance of winning, as American, Canadian, and British forces remaining after D-Day would have to invade Russia and will wage a war of attrition.

However, if they manage to put up a great struggle there is a high chance anti-Stalinists would use this as a reason to rally the masses and launch a coup. But since the Western Allies aren't allowed to use nuclear weapons, this is far from happening as Russia still had several million servicemen left after taking Berlin. Soviets also will definitely have a reason to rally former Nazis into the Soviet cause as the Western Allies would definitely try to take Berlin first.

I can see this ending up in a bloody stalemate, with America's European allies especially the United Kingdom demanding to end the war. Stalin will definitely use the leverage of Communist partisans spread all over Europe and pressure the governments into ending the war.

I can see them fighting at most for a year and then everyone gets too tired to continue, signing a peace treaty. Harry Truman, however, is the real loser of this World War III.

After WW2 without nukes, the Soviets win.

England and France were done after WW2.

Every statistic around (even Russia) says that America is still on top by a long shot. They have the most of just about everything and their equipment is more advanced than anyone elses.

@betarayz8317: The USA has already spent all it has in D-Day and Japan. Nobody is soloing anybody. The American Navy is not yet as powerful as it is in the Cold War.

@fadadio: False. The Navy is a non-factor in this war. Patton and the combined forces of USA, UK, and Canada were already on mainland Europe anyway, after D-Day. Russia has no navy to attack, and at this moment America is not yet able to launch a massive scale invasion as it did in Iraq. The real problem here is the UK and France pressuring the USA into ending the war. Moreover, Harry Truman isn't going to risk giving the Democrats a bad name.

@mandarinestro: You are very wrong my friend. Our Navy is so strong and so stacked with aircraft carriers, it is the second largest Air Force in the world. US Navy has the second largest Air Force in the world, only behind USA.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-powerful-navies-the-planet-10610

http://www.toptensworld.com/2013/10/01/top-10-naval-forces-in-the-world/

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/spectacular-photos-of-the-us-navys-most-powerful-battle-1594490934

I could do this all day.

@mandarinestro: With no Navy to attack, the United States Navy could focus on beating down Russian land forces.

Battleships would lay waste to any land targets within their 22 mile 16 inch gun range, Aircraft carrier planes would strike targets much deeper into Russian territory. This would give the allies a huge advantage of Naval gunfire support in landings and air support for targets further inland.

The allies take this

Sorry guys, the wild Kane appears.

Brotherhood of Nod is used.

Russia is fainted

United States is fainted

Allies is fainted

USA is still ranked highest in the world based on Army, Air Force, and Navy. They spend more on their military than the next top ten countries combined. What could anyone do to them?

Stalemate

After World War 2

US was almost bankcrupt While USSR is kinda in the same situation

USA should win it with ease for their team. Their military is just too stacked. The USSR even knows that America has the strong military. USA would avoid a war at all costs though.

@fadadio: wrong again.

After WWII, he United States does not have the resources or manpower to invade Russia. They were almost bankrupt after WWII. Do you even know how big the USSR is, including all the Communist puppet states? Moreover, the Republicans and the United Kingdom will pressure Truman into ending the war and Truman will comply because he cannot risk becoming the Democrat version of Herbert Hoover.

Russia will push inwards into Western Europe, and the US Armed Forces will not be able to resupply Allied troopers in time to fend off an invasion by several million barbarians. Do you know how many American families will be losing their loved ones and lobbying Truman into ending the war? Hundreds of thousands.

You can masturbate the United States all you want, military strength does not equal to instant victory when your men don't want to fight.

Wrong again. The battle takes place in 1945, not in modern day. Read the OP for goodness' sake. Those links are navies of the modern day.

The Navy will be useless if Truman is under constant pressure to end the war. Moreover, invading Russia is just as fatal as invading Vietnam due to its size and extreme terrain making it easy for attrition-guerilla warfare.

Russia will push inwards into Europe, Communist partisans and the Labour Party in the UK will pressure Churchill into ending the war, Churchill pressures Truman to end the war, the Republicans rally the parents losing their children in Europe and use this as an excuse to attack the Truman administration.

Stalin, meanwhile, has majority fanatical support from Russians and former Nazis as long as he can show that the Allies are just a bunch of incompetent tryhards. The former Nazis will side with him because Berlin is under his control and another invasion by the Allies is the last thing they will want. Stalin has millions of people to expend, the Allies left with several hundred thousands.

@mandarinestro: This is a match up that pits army against army, there are no imaginary scenarios of Nations pulling out due to voting. This is a straight up war.

Dont think you can assume what the United States or other nations would vote for or do

Lol you are the one jacking off over Russia which is clearly outmatched by the United States alone, and this is the United States and its allies.

You have lost, goodnight

@fadadio: Lol, wrong again. If the US was so powerful why did it lose to Vietnam? Or North Korea?

War isn't just about who has the most powerful military, also factoring in the terrain in which they battle.

The USA does not have the manpower to invade Russia due to large terrain, they were almost bankrupt. And lol, guess what? The Allies? Britain was pretty much a ghetto after WWII, out of manpower, planes, tanks, and ships lol. And France? They have lots of white flags left over from 1942 lol.

You have lost the argument via idiotic American patriotism. Good day, sir.

@transformers1024: ....................... No.

@fadadio: Did you read the op?

@mandarinestro: You do know that the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the United States and its allies actually pushed back the North Koreans and Chinese hence they got the last laugh.

You cant assume what a nation will vote on especially since as the OP stated it is

1. Win by surrender or complete destruction.

There is no voting out in this situation, this is a war until the end, United States and its allies has this won, all you can do is come up with nonsense arguments involving voting...lol you are pathetic.

United States and Allies win.

Go home

@mandarinestro: we didnt lose korea are you high? we had a stalemate and then decided a truce, technically both south and north korea are still at war. Also we lost Viet nam ourselves, the viet cog and NVA did do good, but they weren't winning, also if you had noticed most of the fighting was to defend against the North, not attack. We barely launched attacks in north viet nam. Nice try though.

Anyway as for this @aressword i could see it being a stalemate honestly, if you are implying that both armies are pissed off and such, and want to fight it out it could prolly be a stalemate. The russians had an excellent tank, poor infantry and poor airforce, while we simply lack the numbers in infantry, and airforce over there to fight against them, due to most of our air being used in the Pacific Front, however patton would give Georgy Zhukov a run for his money imo.

@fadadio: Lol, sure keep jerking off. Surrender is just the same as voting out, use your common sense son.

If the US is so powerful they should have been able to destroy the Korean Communist Party entirely lol. And yet what were those guys doing in the Vietnamese forests now? Getting hooked up with Viet Cong prostitutes and and their asses on fire lol.

And btw, you still do not have evidence that the USA can invade Russia and completely destroy the USSR.

Go ahead, come up with more retarded cop-outs. I'll be here all day :)

@mandarinestro: lol and guess who ended up losing the cold war in the end?

Oh right Russia did.

go crawl back up Putins ass

United States had money to spare and shored up 13 billion to help rebuild Europe after WW2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Soviet Union was in a shitty situation after WW2 to help rebuild it had to get credits from Britain and Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II#Soviet_Union

You have no argument whatsoever.

This is over

@aressword: Change OP that everyone starts at their country. Otherwise soviets destroy the USA forces in Europe. Make for example that USA and Allies starts in the West Europe and whole America and Soviets and Allies in Asia and West Europe. Current area seems too chaotic.

Thats extremely hard to call. Russia has more men, more experience and better tanks. USA has air power and ships.

@fadadio: The Soviet Union ended up losing the cold war due to chronic corruption and weak leadership. Are you really saying that the Chinese and North Korean army matched the USSR? My grandfather fought in that war, for the communist Chinese, and their main weapons were from WW1, they barely got any help from the Soviets, they were so desperate a main tactic was literally to run at the UN forces and wait for them to run out of bullets mowing the Chinese forces down, yet the UN forces still failed to defeat the Chinese forces in Korea. The US might of had money to spare but not the will to fight. In the US at the time you could protest against the war, refuse drafts etc However in the Soviet Union you would of been shot. And the Soviet navy was never destroyed by the Japanese, that was the Imperial Russian navy waaaaay before.

Russians FTW!

@fadadio: Wait anyone remember America bombing Russia in the Cold War? Remember when Britain and USA landed on Vladivostok and marched to Moscow? Remember when NATO invaded Volgograd and took down Lenin's statue? Oh right, they didn't lol. Bill Clinton was just sitting his ass out in the White House xD Gorbachev did it by himself. And guess what? The OP says battle takes place after WWII and no nuclear weapons allowed! Wow, apparently I'm arguing with an iliterate man lol!

Now, if you want to use some common sense, explain to me again how the USA, a bankrupt nation whose World War II cost them 120% of the GDP, would be able to launch a land invasion of the USSR. Please do so, not just "lol we got more ships we just bomb dem moskow derp"

Americans, my country has an ironclad relationship with America ever since 1940s.

@mandarinestro: I already provided you with the proof that the Soviet union was bankrupt and needed credits to help rebuild.

Incase you are to much of a moron to understand, Russia was destastated by the war with the NAZI's since they were infact invaded by them where as america was untouched and had money left to spare at the end of the war and shored up 13 billion to help rebuild europe and even offered Russia some of that money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Effects_and_legacy

United States would have bailed out its allies and the Soviet union would not have gotten the credits it needed to rebuild. We would have bombed the Soviets into oblivion and turned their already wrecked country into even more of a post WW2 wasteland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II#Soviet_Union

Its no contest, United States and allies would have taken this.

go crawl back up Putins ass, soviets lost the cold war

@penderor: USA was still a big player in europe, the USSR would of pushed them out if they thought they could take them.

@mandarinestro:

IIRC Russia just did a scorched earth campaigne on their own country burning anything the Germans could use and thus what they could use betwine the eastern front and stailengrad. and they lost countless people in the bloody land war.

right after WW2 the US experainced a big boom in their econemey why? because they where the only nation whose mainland was untouched.meaning their indistry was untouched by the war .

Now the battle starts in germany so i'm going to assume that means the forces that took berlin are going to be involved here.

Now rthe land war will favor the Russians as they push west till they hit the margionet Line ( which was still standing IIRC) which will stall them while Allied air power bombs Russain supply lines. Russia's main problem on the European front will be Supplying their men. they are a Long way from home and not prepare for a long war so they could face massive supply issues.

The longer the french and Allies hold the margionte Line the more problems the russians will face. but i am under no illusions eventaily the line will collapse. that said they will grind to a halt somewhere south of paris.

Now the main issue for the Russians is that they are the only one of their allience who can make Tanks and guns at a strategic level where as all the allies can produce arms and armor and they have acess to world wide resources.

Now on the second front the US will not have the resources to launch a full land war in russia but they do have the soldures and planes from the pacific campaign right next to a functionally unguarded Russia. this means they can establish Air bases and launch bombing runs into Russia further damaging their infrastructure and makeing Russain moral plummet.

Russia is fighting a war on 2 fronts they will eventaily go down

Came here to say Murica solos but then I read the OP.

This is tough but I say Team 1 barely win.

Should the United States and the Soviet Union go to war immediately after WWII, the Soviet Union should have a slight advantage over the US. This time period was before the formal establishment of defensive alliances such as NATO and SEATO, so it isn't possible for the US to force the other Allied countries such as Britain and France (who will definitely NOT go to war again) as well as the other countries in NATO/SEATO scattered about the globe through contract. Allied countries greatly suffered from the blunt of the physical war damages in Europe as well as economic damages to the point where the US had to send foreign aid packages to W. Europe; these countries will likely back out of the fight.

Initially, Sir Winston Churchill had been quite openly clear that he greatly opposed Bolshevism (Communism) since after the first World War, comparing Lenin's Bolshviki policies to a disease; however, during and after the second World War, he still chose not to take any action against the Soviets other than public denunciation; this was done to keep the peace, as after the 1930s it can be shown that Churchill no longer wished to destroy Communism completely as he had in the early 1920s, but only to contain it, no longer believing it was the highest evil after witnessing the dangers of Fascism in Western European countries. Only the first World War's aftertaste alone had managed to keep a battle-damaged Great Britain from intervening a rising Nazi Germany; after the end of the second World War, it is doubtful they will have a change of mind, with the death toll of WWII being an entire 6 to 8 times higher than the Great War (WWI).

Now the decision turns to France; after Churchill's warnings to attack Germany out of fear of Hitler's gov't, France focused on a defensive strategy, denying Britain's cause against Germany in the late 1930s. During the war, France was divided, which now left them weakened in all aspects. After the war, their gov't was only a coalition, with officials with split ideals and split decisions, resulting in slow progress forward. Not just that, but France was fighting many of their colonies' wars for independence, a problem that Britain also faced.

This is especially important because the Soviet Union and its allies are a lot more unanimously deciding as a result of the USSR setting up communist gov'ts all over Eastern Europe; the Soviet Union was growing stronger while the Allied nations were weakening under pressure. So, should the Soviet gov't decide to go to war, their allied countries (that would eventually become the Warsaw Pact) will likely join them, giving the Soviets a large advantage over the US in manpower. Adding on the fact that the US were already targeting their own people out of paranoia within their own gov't to be worried about an actual outside threat, I'd say the Soviet Union takes this once they are able to make it on the continent of North America with sheer willpower and manpower (the Soviets aren't afraid to throw themselves at the enemy gunfire, even after years and years of fighting; something that the US has shown to be difficult to do, as evident by the Vietnam War protests). The cost of foreign aid and many other non-military programs will also leave the US at a disadvantage -- the Soviets were focusing a large majority of their treasury funds to military improvements and budgeting, which puts them a step ahead of the US.

The Soviet Union may not be as heavily funded as the US, but the fact that they pool all of their resources into the military compared to the US, as well as a large advantage in enrollable manpower and large amount of territory and lack of a willingness to surrender, the USSR should win after a long, exhausting battle in which the US public will cause the gov't to pull back and appease the USSR, just like the Vietnam War.

Now I'd like to let you all know that I am, in fact, American, so there is no bias here.

The only thing standing in the way of the States would be conventions and treaties other countries might try to enforce to try and stay neutral. Which would be quickly taken of.

It's not a question of who, but when the US would win.

Operation Unthinkable is a go! Churchill would be happy!

I'm going to have to sat the Western Allies, because after the fall of Berlin and the surrender of Germany, the bulk of Russians veterinarian soldiers were moved over into Manchurian to curb stomp the last major Japaneses strong points within mainland Asia, they're missing the a major part of their experienced fighters force including over a million and a half troops, over 5000 tanks, and 5000 aircraft and other important supplies that would be vital to fight back against the Western Allies. Not to mention that the Russian economy is currently at its limits and was only able to be sustained from Canadian/American convoys through the north as well as supplies from India and Africa through the south, without these supplies there is no way they can even begin to hope and survive the winter of 45/46.

Now Russia does have some new tech that might give the Allies a run for there money like the new tanks such as the IS-3 heavy tank or the T-44 medium that had just entered production and were just beginning to be fielded. The IS-3 alone was able to give the Israeli forces a hell of a time in 1967 while they were fielding tanks such as the M48 Patton, I can only imagine the chaos such a heavily armoured tank would cause in 1945. But with low production numbers at this time they shouldn't have any major outcome other then in small isolated battles.

Victory for the Western Allies, hands down.

@ms-lola said:

Actually it was American President Truman who was happy to appease the Russian and held back Prime Minister Churchill who was ready to go invade the USSR if he had the support.

@aressword: Soviets WOULD push americans if they wanted from Europe. When the attack on the Germany began, the communists had 2,500 000 soldiers. They would have overwhelmed USA like nothing.

@penderor: See thats the problem, it took the soviets quite a bit of time to take on the German militia/ citizens with those numbers, on top of that the Americans were just waiting for the Soviets to take berlin becasue they sat there and simply observed due to our president at the time. We had a million or so in Europe as well, and unlike the Soviets the 2,500,000s were all over the eastern front.

Russians obliterates everything.