1945- Soviets continue the drive west!

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#46

Post by LeoAU » 07 Feb 2003, 10:36

Mark, as I said, ports can be bombed and mined, not that they would. :) Before that I have actually said, that although US had longer supply lines, there would be little Soviets could do to destroy them, ok? By saying little I mean that something would be attempted. But 'even' I wouldn't bet on its success.
SU submarines ?? - against Allied seapower ?? - - not a single mine would be planted near any major harbour - Soviet Union was 10 years behind Western Allied in submarine and anti-sub technology, in experience level and training they could not even be compared. In numbers (WA antisub and Soviet sub) Soviets were hopelessly outnumbered.
To lay a mine from a submarine, you don't need to be an expert in anti-sub technology. As for the training what makes you think they were severely behind? Numbers alone are irrelevant as well, cause US subs won't be fighting with Soviets subs.
Also, 10 years behind - are they still are or cought up?

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Re: a piece of junk?

#47

Post by LeoAU » 07 Feb 2003, 10:43

Victor wrote:
When the IAR-80 appeared it was superior to some of the Soviet fighters like the I-15 and I-16 (in all their variants). It was less faster than the MiG-3 and Yak-1, but at low altitudes I think it would have outperformed the MiG. Indeed the Yak-1 was superior, but not much more superior in order to call the IAR-80 a piece of junk.
I'll take your word that in 30's it was better than I-16's. I remember comparison of I-16's later models and Hurricane, the first was better.
Well, maybe IAR waas better than a Hurricane then.
At low altitudes, many planes could outperformed Mig, but that's because it was designed for high altitudes and Yak for lower.
I was talking about cituation of 45, 'comparing' 'inferior' new Soviet types to IAR, that's all.


User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#48

Post by Victor » 07 Feb 2003, 14:49

quote="LeoAu"] Without interruption of the USAF, Soviets reach Atlantic in 2-3 weeks, and the war is over. And for me it is as obvious as for you is Allied air superiority. [/quote]

It took the Red army almost one and a half months to advance from the Vistula to the Oder. That is about 400 km. Yet in 2-3 weeks it would throw the Western Allies back into the sea? :? The distance from the Elbe to Paris is about 700 km. That is more than one and a half than from the Vistula to the Oder. And in front of Zhukov and Koniev (and Rokossovsky IIRC) are not German infantry "divisions" backed by a small number of motorized reserves, with very little air support. This time they would face a much, much stronger enemy, which had proper artillery and air support, as well as full-mobility and excellent logistics. Something the Germans could only dream about.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: a piece of junk?

#49

Post by Victor » 07 Feb 2003, 14:52

LeoAU wrote: I was talking about cituation of 45, 'comparing' 'inferior' new Soviet types to IAR, that's all.
Well, you should have mentioned that.
The IAR-80 was already obsolete in 1944. But in the hands of a good pilot it could still bite. Just like the old Chayka and Rata (forgot the Russian name for the I-16) did in 1941. But nobody said that they were crap. Get it.

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 23:13
Location: Norway

#50

Post by wotan » 07 Feb 2003, 19:04

Hell of Stalingrad or Kursk answers this just fine
Didnt see those russian defending stalingrad advance much ;).. The armies that actually attacked was not "disturbed" by artillery..

Much the same case in Kursk.. albeit USSR outnumbered the germans in field artillery and tanks during that battle.. GER generals state that the russian soldier did cope with artillery attacks just fine when being on the defensive but when hit by it on offence they sufferd heavely.. and we are speaking about offensive actions by the USSR here.. not defensive.

Leningrad didnt crumble to the bombardment but they never managed to break out either..[/quote]
Plenty examples! Germans as well as Soviets advanced without achieving total air superiority many times.

LOL :) give me some??? not minor skirmishes but real victories .. The last german victory was in 43 after that it was defeat after defeat.. Same for the ruskies.. defeat after defeat until 42/43 when they managed to get air superiorerty.
people will say that Soviet captured Belrin without having total air domination, but they did it
make up your mind.. was the USSR airforce good or bad in ww2? earlier u state that the USSR airforce would give the allies hell but now you state that it even couldnt dominate the skies over berlin..
In jet engine aircraft at THAT time, yes. In normal piston engine aircraft - no way I would agree to that. As I said some of the types they had were the best
In number and tactics (and also in overall quality) the USSR af was far behind the US and GBR..
how many years would they need to locate them
maybe the russians used years to locate a airfield.. but thats them..
Have you thought about that
Yes.. and the result would be destruction of the USSR airforce.. then the USSR mighty tank armies would be in deep shit.
Russian still have combined arms as well as tank armies
The russian armoured div. today are nothing close the huge and clumsy tank armies in the end of ww2..
There were designed and performed well in deep breakthrough, they did their job
Not when u regarde the immense resources put behind the efforts.. deep breakthroughs ? when did the russians do that? The only good tactical plan the russians came up with during ww2 was stalingard. albeit after that immense success they went back to the snowplough tactics.. just pushing the germans back on a large front.
destroyed how many - 20 AFV or something? And Yugoslavian army was practically intact
Are u and milosevic the only ppl left in the world that thinks that Yogu. won the war against NATO?
Facts: The Yogu armie was immobilised, couldnt move so for all it counts it rendered useless. Yogu airforce was destroyed and didnt even scratch the thousands of planes that attacked. So much for USSR anti-air equipment.

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#51

Post by IAR80 » 07 Feb 2003, 19:45

"I did. Every 6th soldier in that area was from an Ost batallion, and the reliability of them was very low. That half of dozen of divisions in the area was of lower combat readiness and overall quality, that is a fact, because Germans were expecting the landing in a different location where they kept their best forces, is it new for you?? "

Hmm... I would describe the reliability of every german serviceman that fought on the eastern front as anything BUT "very low", considering the odds they were up against. And also, it doesn't really take much skill in just aiming a machinegun and keep firing now does it?

"There nothing new. However, as I said Soviets did manage to advance that far, ie Berlin, do you think that Germans were so stupid to leave intact bridges all over the place? Or perhaps, they tried to destroy them, but Soviets managed to work around the problem, which if a logic is applied would be the case with our scenario. "

Work around them? Exactly how could the soviets manage to "work around" in the tighter confines, so to speak, of the Low Countries? In the case of the Eastern Front, yes, the vast expanses of the theatre, german front lines and supply lines stretched thin, it is feasible. But comparison with our scenario is impossible.

"I am sure you are aware of Stalingrad battle and the fact that Soviets supplied their forces without any bridges? And under total German air superiority. You perhaps heard that whole divisions were moved in a matter of hours, and we are talking about 10000 men plus supplies and equipment. "

Yes, I am aware of that, I am also aware that the Volga is the single major river that could pose transportation problems for the soviets resupplying from the east, the rest was an unending expanse of steppe. The bridges over the Ural river was far away from the range of the german bombers. Also the "total german air superiority" was no that "total", actually "dispersed" and "undersupplied" would be the correct adjectives.

"Leningrad, how about this one? Supplying the whole city, millions of civilians alone. Yes, those civilians didn't get much, because most of the stuff went to the front. "

I remember how you boasted that the people of Leningrad were so tough they could survive by eating plaster off the walls. I would hardly call that "supplying" a city. Yes a few supplies got through, just enough to keep the people hoping, but nowhere near enough.

"If this doesn't prove anything, then nothing will and you just keep on insisting how a destroyed bridge will stop advance. If it was the case, then there would be no war, since a destroyed bridge stops it"

A destroyed brdige won't stop the war, but it will stop the kind of war you have in mind.

"I am underestimating the nonexisting fighting spirit of a totally defeated, destroyed army. They had a chance, they lost it, they got tired of the war. really tired. Who wanted to resist was dead by then"

I wouldn't call the german units trapped in Scandinavia, Northern Italy and the POW's the allies captured "dead"...

"You do not make any sence. They tried just that. They failed."

Faced with the prospect of the soviets "returning the favor", wouldn't it make much more sense to try again?

"Right... hm... what can I say? Actually at that point of time it was more like a German=Nazi. It still is Russian=Soviet, back then every German was hated. If you believe conc capms didn't add to it, you are wrong. If you think this alliance wouldn't hurt US -other allies relationship, you are wrong. If you think Poland, or Czehoslovakia would be happy about this, you are wrong.If you think many GI's would understand that, you are wrong.
And I am talking not only about official alliance, even creating ethnic German units under US command wouldn't be welcomed. "

Right... I seriously doubt the GI woudl grumble about the guys that is fighting next to him, just as long as he fights, after all, WWIII would be no walkover. The GI would either have to choose to accept the germans or surrender to the soviets. I wonder what would he choose?

"Really? It rained only when Germans were advancing? And stopped with the Soviet offensive? "

You are saying this as if the germans had everything from proper equipment in sufficient numbers to full and constant supplies.

"Really? After defeating Soviet before the winter they were hoping it would be warm again? They were not ready for such a scale of operation, ie it wasn't their weight category and they lost. Their supply system failed, not that Germany din't have enough warm cloth. "

Weight category... Yes, they did bite off more than they could chew, but that alone does not speak a word about quality...

"I.E. they weren't prepared and couldn't handle this cituation, EXCACTLY what I said before, Germans were good at some type of war. "

I don't this they had a chioce, given the limited reserves in just about everything...

"DO your home work. And this 300K Soviet losses - do you at least know that it wasn't the number of killed? Do you know that the number of Germans POWs only was higher than total Soviet casualties in that operation? "

My bad about the killed... Yes, the soviets captured about 130.000 of the 200.000 defending Berlin. Considering the kind of hell on earth unleashed unleashed by the soviets it is quite a high number. Second, these units were surrounded with no hope of ever surrendering to the allies... There was nothing else to do...

"They are not a world apart. Germany + all of the axis provided soldiers, you didn't forget that, right? Plus occupied territory with around 80mln Soviet citizen, i.e more than a third. No manpower shortage? You are joking, right? Soviet population was less in 42 than German+axis, or you are not aware of this fact?
Plenty of territory to fall back? Exactly where? Most of the industrial and agricultural lands were lost, so, retreate where??? "

And of the 80 mln, how many do you think the germans managed to keep an eye on? How many of these were partisans that caused huge problems to the communication lines? Like I said before, the theatre was simply too large for the german army to cover, and soviet units could and did get left behind. My point is that the german army could not fully control the vast area it conquered.
Just a few dozen kms to the east, Astrakhan, Kuybishev, Kazan, the german army would have literally disintegrated. The germans could not have advanced further than Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, while the Red Army could have survived long enough at the foot of the Urals or even behind them so they could reorganize and launch they counter-offensive roughly "on-schedule" from a historical point of view.

"Unless you do some further reading, this is pointless. Most of the Soviet lost tanks were not destroyed by German tanks, BUT by artillery and personal antitank weapons and mines. Strange that such a common fact is unknown by you.
If you don't prove me wrong, we'll just assume I am correct. If you need some fugures, ok, I'll find them for you. "

Don't worry, I can look them up myself, and I'll post them if they do not match your views...

"Temporary, which further advance proved. Are you saying they couldn't advance any further no more? Well, they did some time later.
They did, which proves you are wrong, so, this example just proves me right, Soviet supply lines weren't overstretched, thank you very much. "

Temporary... As in "Let me catch my breath?", temporary? "Just gimme a second here?" stuff? That sounds like overstretched supply lines to me.

"What partisan movement? Where? Did they meet any in Germany? Poland? Would they face the same communist movement in France, the one Germans faced? Obviously not, US would have to deal with them. Do you know that it was quite strong in France? "

In Germany? Every able bodied man was drafted, there was no one left to become a partisan... And in Poland... the russians were viewed as liberators at first, naturally...

And about communism in France. Strong? How strong? In numbers, not the volume of their rantings, extremists are particularaly noisy...

"Do you understand that Soviets had around 12 mln battle experienced men. Do you understand that US Marines would've met guards tank armies.
Would you like me to tell you what would've happend with all those commandos etc? The point you are trying to make is superiority of western soldiers, the mistake Germans once made. "

Of course, the question can go the other way: What the men of the 5th Guards, for example, would do if they faced the Marines? Also, I belive LILLEBROR is trying to say that the western soldiers were no pushovers, NOT that the soviets are somehow inferior soldeirs. The soldiers of both sides were veterans, mostly, anyway.

"There was simply nothing what could've stopped them in 45. "

Nothing except another army, right? You cannot be serious about that, now can you? Do you honestly think that if the situation was so, Stalin would not have taken advantage of it?

My point... The soviets were not stopped by the germans that NEVER:
1) Had enough supplies
2) Had enough men
3) Had enough tanks that could match the soviet ones
4) Had enough tanks, period
5) Had enough transportation for those supplies
6) Had total air superiority (striking anywhere, anytime) (of course, except for the first weeks or so, before the front widened)
5) Had an artillery that was numerous enough to be employed in roles other than pinpoint bombardments

This is the army that the soviets faced, this is the kind of army the soviets defeated, this is NOT the kind of army the soviets would face in this scenario. I am not minimizing the struggle of the soviets, I am showing what the soviets did overcome: a very motivated and highly trained enemy, but one that had serious drawbacks in war material and number of men.

Also, when was the last time and what were the conditions when the soviets tried and accomplished the kind of close air support tactics you so boldly support?

And Victor, very good points, BTW.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#52

Post by Mark V » 07 Feb 2003, 20:48

Hi Leo,
LeoAU wrote:But 'even' I wouldn't bet on its success.

OK, we can agree here.
LeoAU wrote:To lay a mine from a submarine, you don't need to be an expert in anti-sub technology.

Against Allied antisub forces Soviet subs would met their end. Crew of any Soviet sub approaching south North Sea or French Atlantic coast would not even know what killed them. Remember - Allied force had previously (before it was fully matured) destroyed really respectable adversary - German U-boat fleet. The scale and ferocity of that world-wide battle was such that my statement of 10 years advantage was very moderate one. Allied had swarms of antisubmarine vessels and ac, all equipped with state-of-the-art technology and manned with seasoned ASW veterans.

LeoAU wrote:As for the training what makes you think they were severely behind?
Well, for example because Soviet subs in Baltic were virtually stuck to their piers between late-42 to late-1944 (actually from late-1941 when we are talking meaningfull numbers) - in years when Allied accumulated a wealth of experience in ASW. Subs in Pacific didn't gather too much combat experience :D - and those in Arctic and Black Sea didn't either had too much opportunities (OK- there weren't too much targets either) to show their skill - at least they never had fought against anything like Brit/US ASW machine.

LeoAU wrote:Numbers alone are irrelevant as well, cause US subs won't be fighting with Soviets subs.
I did write: Soviet subs and Allied antisub - i think those numbers do matter. Remember that Allied had won German U-boats before the huge DE and Jeep-carrier program really got underway. 1945 is for submarine waaayyyy tougher than 1943 ever was. And Soviets were at that time million miles behind German level of submarine technology and crew training - that Allied had beaten. In such circumstances there is just one end result.

LeoAU wrote:Also, 10 years behind - are they still are or cought up?
Actually - little later they were even more behind. In 1960s US sub-crews only problem when shadowing SU nuclear subs was trying to avoid hearing loss of crew when listening the huge noise levels of Soviet subs with their advanced passive sonars... :lol:

OK - today (some) Russian subs are much, much better - i would compare the situation to Soviet aircrafts - excellent platform perfomance - excellent durability - excellent weapons - but little behind of US/British in average level of crew training and sensor equipment. Lack of money is the real problem. But, they could be described to be quite respectable enemy.

Still, don't forget that US Navy and RN have been in last decade seriously scaling down their submarine and ASW force and budget - if they would be in full gear of development - they would be still today absolutely superior compared to Russian submarine technology.


Regards, Mark V

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#53

Post by Xanthro » 07 Feb 2003, 22:31

Look, the dead horse has arisen and needs another beating.

First, let me say that the Soviet soldier was a fine fighter and able to fight effectively in a variety of situations, and he was backed by good equipment.

Then let me conclude that this said fine solider would be quickly ground down and defeated in any conflict with the West at the end of WWII.

Reasons for this is simple. The Soviet soldier for all his valor was trained and set up to fight a German style enemy. This is hardly experience for fighting a Western one.

Points Working in Favor of the Soviets.
Excellent Tanks.
Excellent Artillery.
Reasonable flexible command structure
Excellent low level aircraft.
Highly trained and tough soldier.

Points working against the Soviets.
Practically ZERO high altitude air combat capability.
Complete inability to project power beyond areas already under control
A supply system dependend on US made equipment and materials.

Some of the Pro-Soviet people in this thread like to reduce the contribution of strategic airpower in the War. While it could be said that it literally took years for the bombing campaign in the West to be decisive in victory, that doesn't really apply in a fight against the Soviets.

Much of the airfleet had to be built and the air crews trained, by 1945 this was complete. Plus, the strategy involved changed as the war went along, it was a new method of fighting, and it continually improved. By 1945 this strategy was exceedingly advanced.

Instead of looking at Europe, compare what happened to Japan. In a mere three months, Japan was destroyed as an industrial nation. He ability to produce arms needed to continue offensive capability was eliminated. This with only one half the airfleet available to the United States.

The combined strategic firepower of the Pacific and European airfleets, coupled with the British airfleet would quickly destroy all productive offensive capability of the Soviet. Factories would be demolished, and they bombers would be unhindered by high altitude intercepts, because the Soviets lacked such aircraft. Every bridge, every railroad junction would be destroyed, nearly DAILY.

Oil production would be destroyed, iron production destroyed, the ability to move remaining strategic assets, destroyed. There wouldn't be an Soviet airbase within 1500 miles of the front that wasn't bombed into oblivion.

There would be no spot in the Soviet Union that couldn't be hit by B-29 bombers from air bases that already existed. The first B-29 bases were in China.

The Soviet airforce would put up a valiant fight at low altitudes, until their airbases were destroyed, until it became immpossible to get fuel and parts.

The Soviet soldier might even have initial success in attacking, but again would quickly be hampered by a lack of supplies.

Logistics wins battles and decides wars, and it is in this key area that the Soviets are completely at the mercy of the West. The West could attack Soviet logisitical support at will, while the Soviets would be hard pressed to attack Western logistical support at all.

Xanthro

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#54

Post by Victor » 07 Feb 2003, 23:57

Xanthro wrote: Points working against the Soviets.
Practically ZERO high altitude air combat capability.
Complete inability to project power beyond areas already under control
A supply system dependend on US made equipment and materials.

Xanthro
You left out "practically ZERO night fighter force".

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 22:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

#55

Post by IAR80 » 08 Feb 2003, 19:36

Way to go rubbing salt into the wound, Victor. Than has GOT to hurt... How much punishment can a man's convictions take,?

Anyway, I must warn you, Xanthro that LeoAU will surely raise the question of FINDING the industrial complexes, bridges and airbases first, so it would be wise to pre-emptively answer the question of HOW these strategic objectives would be found in the vast russians and spare us from another LeoAU "rant-attack"...

User avatar
Sieger
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 14 Jan 2003, 21:39
Location: exiled in siberia

#56

Post by Sieger » 08 Feb 2003, 22:43

Victor wrote:
Xanthro wrote: Points working against the Soviets.
Practically ZERO high altitude air combat capability.
Complete inability to project power beyond areas already under control
A supply system dependend on US made equipment and materials.

Xanthro
You left out "practically ZERO night fighter force".
I think the best example of what Western airpower is to site the damage that they inflicted on the Germans in the months after D-Day. They shredded the Panzer divisions to bits, by around september the German had around only 100 in the entire western theater not including Italy.

Yaks and Migs don't are so overmatched by P-51 and spitfires.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Re: a piece of junk?

#57

Post by LeoAU » 09 Feb 2003, 02:00

Victor wrote:
LeoAU wrote: I was talking about cituation of 45, 'comparing' 'inferior' new Soviet types to IAR, that's all.
Well, you should have mentioned that.
The IAR-80 was already obsolete in 1944. But in the hands of a good pilot it could still bite. Just like the old Chayka and Rata (forgot the Russian name for the I-16) did in 1941. But nobody said that they were crap. Get it.
Plane vs plane, it was worse, I-16 vs Bf-109 that is. Which makes it kind of 'crap'. Same with IAR. Of course in the hands of a good pilot it would fly. Any way, forget the whole IAR crap thing, it was just a reaction on IAR-member saying that Soviet planes weren't good.
I-16= Ishak, Donkey.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#58

Post by LeoAU » 09 Feb 2003, 02:29

Ok, hips of posts to address. I am leaving for a week - business trip to NZ.
The first thing I do when I come back - post a couple of replies in this thread.

P.S. For people like Xanthro - change the tone. If you can't keep it civil - don't participate. If you think the whole idea that Soviets could do something against US is stupid why bother to post something?

P.S. 2. If US and allies had such clear advantages, air force with no match, jets, atomic weapons etc etc , why they didn't take advantage of USSR's situation - destroyed, country in ruins, 20mln plus casualties, supply lines overstretched, huge potential partisan movement, 100's of millions of Russians 'willing' to overthrow tyran Stalin, WHY not? What stopped them? Surely not peace loving.

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#59

Post by Xanthro » 09 Feb 2003, 04:30

LeoAU wrote:Ok, hips of posts to address. I am leaving for a week - business trip to NZ.
The first thing I do when I come back - post a couple of replies in this thread.

P.S. For people like Xanthro - change the tone. If you can't keep it civil - don't participate. If you think the whole idea that Soviets could do something against US is stupid why bother to post something?

P.S. 2. If US and allies had such clear advantages, air force with no match, jets, atomic weapons etc etc , why they didn't take advantage of USSR's situation - destroyed, country in ruins, 20mln plus casualties, supply lines overstretched, huge potential partisan movement, 100's of millions of Russians 'willing' to overthrow tyran Stalin, WHY not? What stopped them? Surely not peace loving.
We've had this discussion before, you disappeared for months afterward.

Tone, saying a dead horse? Please, it is a dead horse, every issue has been debated with you once already.
Soviets could [not] do something against US is stupid why bother to post something
I didn't say the Soviets couldn't do anything, in fact, I said the opposite. What I did point out, and what you can't refute, is that there are key areas in which the Soviets would be unable to mount an effective defense. The lack of high altitude fighters, high altitude flak make it impossible to stop mass bomber attacks. It's as simple as that. There would be no time to produce them, since the very same bombers would be destorying industrial capacity.

Why should the US attack the Soviet Union after the war? There is a difference between peace loving and war mongering. By the time the western world decided that the Soviets were a threat and relations had greatly detoriated, much of the Western worlds military had been greatly reduced. Those overwhelming advantages I spoke of are not so overwhelming in 1947.

But this topic was, what if the Soviets kept going west. This makes it 1945, when the Soviets were at a huge disadvantage.

Xanthro

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 01 Oct 2002, 00:53
Location: DC

#60

Post by Korbius » 09 Feb 2003, 04:48

LeoAU wrote: Do you think it would or might've been used the way Soviets used, I mean if US suffers a million+ casualties, you think they would keep on sending man to that distant war? Think about Vietnam.
Why does everyone mention Vietnam here for the US casualties? Whats ur point, that people in the SU didn't care about their soldiers and they were just robots to be used in expanding SU? Tariq Aziz and Mullah Omar said the same thing as u did about US not affording casualties and guess what, in both cases US went and kicked a*s, no matter what it would take. If US goes full throttle on something, it always achieves its goal, unlike Vietnam which was a "limited war"

Post Reply

Return to “What if”