Grouchy Imp said:
Teddy Roosevelt said:
Grouchy Imp said:
Vault Citizen said:
One thing, how does the fact that while China has a bigger army it is not as technologically powerful of the US factor into this?
The Eastern Front during WWII - German armoured columns made up of high-tech Panzer tanks are wiped out by the 'cheap and cheerful' Russian T-34, because the Russians had more of them.
The Germans had 3.5 million men, thereabouts. Russia fielded 7-8 million, while the Germans, throughnout the eastern front, might have had 5... probably less. China outnumbers us by less, and out ability to hit them at home with precision and speed plays its role.
Oh, no doubt, I was merely making an observation for the purpose of discussion. In fact the main reason the T-34s had the edge over the Panzers was due to their modular construction (allowing them to be rapidly repaired in the field), whereas the Panzers featured a fully integrated design (which required extensive rebuilding of the tank to fix even minor damage). This innovation did not go unnoticed by tank designers, and today all modern tanks like the American M1 Abrams, our Challenger 2, and the German Leopard are all built around the principle of modular design.
I can't help feeling that all of this is academic, however. Partly because this is a hypothetical (if very interesting) thread, but mostly because in all probability modern warfare between national superpowers will bypass armies entirely, and boil down to who's got the most nuclear subs off who's coast.
True.
Actually, while it's fresh in my mind, have you by chance watched the "World at War." Excellent documentary.
Another show said that, around the time of Kursk, some German Tigers (and, I assume Panthers as well) could kill 18 Soviet T-34's each day, but the USSR could replace them and then some, with ease, mind you, and supply the manpower for each crew.
Anyhow, that also depends on the situation. Nuclear weapons seem to many people like a first wave type of weapon, however, it's quite the opposite. They are more strategic, and everyone knows the massive drawbacks of using ICBM's and such like one might use, say, and infantry battalion. It's no secret that nuclear war essentially means that nobody wins. Conventional war could still happen, but it would be very quick. For instance, Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising takes place for about two months once the shooting war starts, but then of course the nukes are prevented by a coup in Moscow led by the Soviet Army commander in chief in Europe. Regardless, conventional war would still happen, but it would be before the nukes start flying, and, if you think about it, the development of modern SDI's and various ABM defenses would actually turn nuclear war, potentially, into a more destructive form of conventional war than an apocalypse, given that one side would target nukes with other nukes and such, rather than wiping out the country, if you get what I mean.
