Jump to content

dbsapp

Members
  • Posts

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

126 profile views

dbsapp's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

41

Reputation

  1. I would agree with you that "binary" view is example of amateurishness. The thing is I don't recall any of it in my words. I never argued that the US was interested in the actual war with USSR or was trying to initiate it first for whatever reasons. I guess, if, as you proposed, we put aside the nuclear equation for a minute, NATO would invade USSR with high probability. But since in real life it's not as easy to put aside several thousand nuclear warheads as at internet forum, it was highly unlikely. The nukes serve as a very strong deterrent, so I doubt that in those circumstances any American decision maker thought seriously about making the first move ever. It would be suicide. What I merely said is that the same goes for USSR. Soviet Union never considered the probability to initiate "invasion", despite all the billions and billions of $ that Washington spent on propaganda to prove the opposite and receive $ trillions in defense budget. Well, this link totally proves my point - the share of military spending in GDP of the USSR was higher than in GDP of the US. That precisely means that for the USSR military spending was much heavier burden than for the US.
  2. True. But it doesn't change the whole picture.
  3. The better example of your thesis would be Japan. They knew they are going to start a war with a superior enemy and that they are doomed to lose in a long term, but decided to attack anyway. The main reason is that they were driven to corner and had no other options left, but either to back down and lose face, or gamble and engage in suicidal attack. That's why they tricked themselves into believing that Americans are weak and debauched nation, that would ask for peace after the first heavy blow. I hope you understand, that the framework of gaming forum doesn't allow to go much further than, as you put it, "amateur interpretation". I don't think it is necessary to develop my argument beyond that with a wall of text that nobody would read. But it's curious if you noticed that your thesis is a classical Cath 22. Country "X" poses a threat either way: its strong, so it's a clear indication that it's aggressive and can attack. Or it's weak, so it's even more suspicious, because this weakness could lead to outbreak of aggression. Hence always peaceful nation "Y" is stymied to defend itself by building military bases around "aggressive" neighbor, or even to launch a preemptive strike. With the best intentions, of course. It's hilarious, that Cuban missile crisis is considered a classical showcase of Soviet aggressive posture. US lost its $hit because USSR tried to do what US routinely did - to have the military base near opponent's borders. While US had dozens of military bases with nukes near Soviet territory, it announced that having Soviet base on Cuba "crosses the red line" and threatened the world with nuclear war. USSR complied and withdrew the rockets. As for kilotons of USSR tanks it hardly proves anything. Should we compare quantity (and quality) of navies, airforces, submarines and nuclear warheads (nuclear parity was achieved only in the late 70s), we would inevitably find out that those tanks are not that frightening at all. As the last chief of stuff of USSR Akhromeev said during "glasnost" period, USSR decided to build that many tanks because it was the only (imperfect) way to counterbalance the Western superiority in the rest of the areas. Quite a cheap solution, by the way. To build the navy or airfleet of the same quality and quantity would be much more expansive.
  4. I had no intention to discuss any "inner qualities" of any people, including peoples of the Soviet Union (who - as everybody at this forum well aware of - have no soul, inherently sinful and live with single purporse in life, e.g. invading peaceful democracies of Europe and crossing Pacific to destroy prosperous US, because they hate Americans for their freedom). I merely tried to draw attention to the simple and quite obvious, but usually omitted fact, that from demographical, economical, technological and geographical standpoint USSR was in disadvantageus position, which clearly undermines the claim that it had any agressive intentions towards Western countries. USSR in the face of superior and quickly expanding Western militaries tried to build up military power to prevent the repetition of catastrophic German invasion of June 22 in 1941, but the goal of achieving parity with combined Western armies proved to be too overwhelming for the economy.
  5. Never thought that such level of ideological indoctrination is possible outside of laboratory environment, but you proved that I was wrong.
  6. Well, it took me 6 episodes to achieve what you made in 38 years😁
  7. Theoretically each side must have all scenarios on the chief of stuff's table. It doesn't change the fact that Soviet side was the weakest part of this struggle, technologically, economically and geographically seriously inferior to US. It was surrounded by US bases from Germany and Turkey to Japan and Philippines. It didn't have direct land access to US territory, where as US had hundreds of ways to the terrotory of USSR. By invading Europe (NATO wet dream) it would achieve nothing at best and commit suicide at worst. Still, the myth of "mighty USSR invading weak NATO" alive and well till the present day, and made itself comfortable even in CMCW.
  8. Everybody is an expert in Chernobyl and nuclear power since HBO aired its tv-show!
  9. Lol "Wo made large scale scary exercises that threatened our opponent and could lead to thermonuclear war, but it something that Russian WOULD DO" I like how you automatically frame it. And Chernobyl happend in 1986.
  10. It's very probable since US had 10 times more nukes, capable airfleet of bombers that Moscow didn't posess, while USSR had literally zero interest in invading, instead it was focused on rebuilding crippled economy when US economy flourished. That's why they first created NATO and only after that Warsaw pact.
  11. No. I wonder if they will make any difference since hundreds of artillery shells including clusters don't impress mighty bradlies at all.
  12. I double-checked it. No, you don't have airpower from the start.
  13. Well, they are under the sight from the hill and are getting hit by artillery and air in the second mission, but I can agree - it was not hard, especially when my ATGM BRDM performed a true miracle, cured itself from blindness and killed some tanks on the hill. Apart from this incident my ATGMs remain loyal to total darkness and can't see even the enemy found by their team spotters hour ago. I really see no options to clear the enemies from the hill in the third mission, since my artillery is as useless as my ATGMs vehicles. I placed all of my artillery exactly at m2 locations, but it doesn't bother them at all. Even the dirt from explosions doesn't stop them from firing TOWs. The best I could do is to use smoke cover. It definitely helped with the first wave, but the rest were not so lucky and the road to mission exits doesn't look attractive at all.
  14. The third. I don't know if I gather enough mental health and persistence to march further, because watching my reinforcements arrive directly under the enemy fire for the third time (after the same trick in the first and second missions) seems too much even for me.
×
×
  • Create New...