What is "absolutely necessary". I can see the United States not want to get involved, seeing that their addition may well lead to nuclear war and that's not much of a win for anyone. Perhaps their hope is that Europe wins? Of course, this would likely mean NATO won't get up the spine, but let's keep to the scenario.

First, this war is going to be the best thing that happened to the Russian Army since the Soviet Union. All those crummy instituniks who suggested than an army prioritize fighting "low intensity conflicts" over conventional war will be discredited, if not shot.

Second, assuming NATO actually puts together an attack, Russia is going to have NATO armies penetrating to operational depths. The problem is a sheer lack of quantity, which virtually eradicates any possibility of a real defense. Do you see FIVE combined-arms (motorized rifle or tank) brigades, even if they were brilliantly armed and equipped, guarding the whole huge Moscow Military District? The other military districts are all in similar shape (Leningrad has 3), and even piling every division and brigade onto the Western frontiers still leaves it very porous.

It is not like NATO got a huge number of divisions either, but they still got more than Russia. Just Poland got 4 divisions. Germany got another 4. The Brits got about 1 or 2. Italy got a whole bunch of brigades. The other countries can probably squeeze out a few brigades. This is a simplistic "rifle count" - but remember I'm not counting all the problems the Russians have either.

When the defense is that hollow in comparison to the ground it has to cover, the normal advantage of defense is invalidated and the offensive with its ability to pick its spots dominates. With so much potential ground to use, unless NATO decides to go only for the big roads it has a lot of space to maneuver. The end result would be a large number of meeting engagements (not even hasty defense versus hasty attack). While's NATO orientation is not offensive operational level manuever, it does have tactical level attack ability which will serve it well in those engagements.

The end result would be a farce. NATO does not have the troops to occupy even marginally such a large area of ground. Just the same, they can raid Western Russia to operational depth at will, simply due to the lack of defenses. However, they won't be able to raid to the strategic depth except by air or SF because they don't have to troops to safeguard supply lines. What will probably happen is that the Russians will eventually mobilize and make a comeback, and then the border gets "plugged". Peace comes at about this point - as Haplo said, NATO is probably starting to miss its oil by then.

The Russians will be wary of going onto the attack because then NATO will be forced to mobilize. And while it is not hard to see America missing out on a war invading Russia, if Russia starts going deep into Western Europe (perhaps because NATO expended all its regular formations in the attack on Russia and now the Russians are advancing into no man's land), the Americans might feel obliged to make some gesture.

Probably what would happen, if the going gets good for Russia, is that they'll take a chunk out of Poland and those frontier states to call it their win and buffer, then cement a peace. Nobody wins this war, unless you count the Russian military, which will likely get the funds it needs even if it means breaking their citizen's backs. That's why it won't be fought.

How about Europe and Russia attack the US? :)

If anyone felt seriously threatened it would go nuclear.
No one will have the logistic back-up for an invasion of anywhere after that
for quite some time.

Small tactical incursions mights be possible, but no one is going to try and
occupy the nuclear wasteland or the smaller cities that remain relatively
intact.

Airwar was mentioned above - NATO, outside the F-22 or B-2, has absolutely no penetration capability. Their fighters were built for defense. Only the B-2 and F-22 remain the only offensive types air platforms in existence.

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. There is no getting away from them. You are dead by flying into enemy territory. Huge air losses would result with NATO's aircraft wiped out in the first week.

Why do you think America build the F-22 and B-2? Without it, there is no platform capable of any enemy penetration. Period.

-S

Only thing that would happen probably is that russia would get alaska... which isnt mutch, some polarbears... maby alittle oil

Youall would have to ship troops over... we have them already here...

Unless youall nuked us... then we would fire all are nukes more that likely.
thats how it would go.

president would go into his bunker... say im sorry sukas to all of us... and press the big red button...

... thats my guess.:yep:

we dont know what the us has made over at area 51... they may have something that can outrun a SAM...
If we could destroy the SAM sites... then there out of the pictures

If NATO is stupid enough to start a war against Russia, then they deserve to lose...

Yea, biggles would have to learn russian... cause your right near the border...:yep:

Sweden ain't in NATO mate, but I can see your point:D:shifty:

Trust me... once russia gets the ball roaling... The wont stop till they own all of europe...:yep: Im sure they could have down it in ww2 if they would have declared war on the rest of europe.

I don't think so. Patton was convinced he could have them back over on their die of the fence in a couple months. He was not allowed to proceed however.

-S

Russia is not communist anymore, so they gain practically nothing in invading other European countries (Unless they're after annexing them, which I doubt).

In WWII, when they were still communists, they would have gladly gobbled up western Europe if given the chance.

I doubt it would have been as easy as that, the Red Army in 1945 was huge and highly experienced. They also had superior equipment in several categories, like tanks.

Hilarious! :haha: Germany had that same superior equipment! I guess airpower didn't factor into the bill.

-S

You can't win a war with only airpower, and what if all the airfields were taken/neutralised?

This is irrelevant to the thread btw...back to topic?:DL

Air power? Ever heard of the Yak-9? The Il-2 Sturmovik? The Yak was at least good enough to hold its own against the P-51.

Sure, we overcame superior German equipment, but the Russians had something the Germans never had: Numbers. The Russians had more T-34's than we had Shermans, and the T-34 was vastly superior.

The Soviets never bothered building strategic bombers, but I'm not sure the US superiority there would have done much. Given the massive devastation in Eastern Europe, there wasn't much left there to bomb. The Russian factories were all behind the Urals and out of bomber range. Even the atom bomb wouldn't have made a huge difference. We could only produce a few of them, and given the strength of Russian air defenses getting them to the target would have been no guarantee.

An inferior product built for numbers. And even though it was built for numbers, those numbers were significantly less than allied numbers.

Need I remind you that the allies were starting to field jets at this time?

How about medium and heavy bombers?

A German Tiger tanks greatest fear was aircraft. He could take on other tanks, but had no defense against bombs.

I'm trying to figure out how exactly the Soviets would have not got their asses kicked back to Russia at this time? There was no chance they could have held their ground. They were built to take on the Germans - a very focused approach. Their army was not built to take on the allies.

-S

Was the allies built to be able to fight the russians? It's a sincere question, I really don't know.

Nor was the Allied army built to take on the Red Army.

HunterICX

This is something that touches on a deep problem that NATO nations are facing at the moment during the 'War on Terror' and that's a reassignment of duties.
NATO nations spent the last fifty-sixty odd years preparing (and preparing very well) for a defensive war in Western Europe. For a European role, NATO kit is very well created, for a desert role, well, we've seen some of the difficulties faced in the intial months of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Only now, are things getting put in place to offer better protection against the new environment, vehicles with better IED protection, with RPG cages and such forth.
It's not anyones fault, it's just the changing face of war. We spent years training to fight the Soviets and then one day there were no Soviets! :haha:
So, we spent the 1990s cutting military budgets like it was going out of fashion, and the 2000s regretting it as we geared up for the desert wars.

I think one of the biggest factors overlooked in the Patton's "let's take on the Russians next scenario" is simply one of troop morale. You've got all these weary Allied soldiers who by April 1945 can see the end of the war in sight and are now looking forward to going home alive or at least a break. You can't just tell them overnight to forget it and that the end of the war lies in Moscow without some serious morale and political ramifications.