Cold War

[Captain Smith]

This has been proclaimed as one of the best graphics ever. It documents Napoleon in and out of Russia:

https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters

This answers the question of conquering Russia.

[big_adventure]

This has been proclaimed as one of the best graphics ever. It documents Napoleon in and out of Russia:

https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters

This answers the question of conquering Russia.

Yup, it's an amazing graphic, that means absolutely jack squat in a world with planes, trains, automobiles, missiles, explosives, insulating fabrics, electricity, etc.

[Captain Smith]

Yup, it's an amazing graphic, that means absolutely jack squat in a world with planes, trains, automobiles, missiles, explosives, insulating fabrics, electricity, etc.

No, look what happened to the German who had all those. Did they get out of Russia unscathed?

Three million were captured. How many dead?

[The Dork Knight]

No, look what happened to the German who had all those. Did they get out of Russia unscathed?

Three million were captured. How many dead?

By that logic, no French were actually captured in Russia itself, Moscow was burned and there was no decisive victory for the Russians. Did the presence of modern technology actually hinder the Germans?

Or was it because of a two front war that meant the full resources could not be deployed, and a number of other factors.

To be sure, winter in Russia is a big factor but using a campaign from the early 19th century to show why later ones failed kinda ignores the context for both situations, which share similarities but are far from identical

[Captain Smith]

The initial battles in Russia were not as yet part of a two front infantry war. Significant battles were not going on in the same scale in the West. The Middle Eastern and North African battles were much smaller. Stalingrad was well before the D-Day invasion. Invasion of Italy wasn't till Sept. of 1943. The Germans were in trouble in Russia way before that as in the Kursk salient.

The major point is that a land war against Russia in Napoleonic times or in WWII show that the large expanse of the country, it's resources and weather make a land conquest a horror show and we could not pull it off, with WWII or today's resources.

[big_adventure]

There's a MASSIVE, UNPEAKABLE difference between early 19th century and mid-20th. And perhaps an even LARGER difference between 1940's and 1960's/70's/80's.

For WWII, the Germans had already taken Poland, Belgium, France and engaged in North Africa at that time. They were engaged in a shipping war with allied forces. Hitler had made his biggest STRATEGIC error (yes, strategic is VERY highlighted there) in declaring war on the US when he was under zero obligation to do so. So yeah, this was a multi-front war done by a country with a FRACTION of the resources and a FRACTION of the population of the US. And using a conscript army: not exactly a hotbed of talent development, yo.

For Bonaparte's happy winter funtime hike, dude, they were walking. Through Russia. In winter. Poorly equipped. And 80 freaking years before pasteurization, so food was a SERIOUS problem. Starvation and thirst took a HUGE amount of the soldiers. That's simply not a thing anymore, at least not in the context we're talking here.

EDIT: to be fair, Appert presented and won the prize for canning food, specifically for the French military, but that was AFTER the Russia invasion. He started research in like 1795, but didn't present until 1810.

[Captain Smith]

So you think, the USA by its lonesome could win a land invasion of Russia? In the 70's or now? The ship yards that produced the vessels to get the forces to Europe do not exist now. We are reliant on so many international producers of materials and products that we could not build the forces and logistic train by ourselves.

[k von doom]

I don't think a protracted land invasion of Russia is possible for any army, just because of the inhospitable conditions. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of transporting a million troops via the North Pacific, which could be the main combat theatre; or through Canada to Alaska and invade through the north, which would also be heavily fortified; or brave the North Atlantic passage to St Petersburg, which, again would be heavily fortified. And Russia would have a harder time landing in the US seeing as their navy has nowhere near the numbers of the US.

[big_adventure]

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good idea, at all. It would be STUPIDLY more expensive to invade Russia then it would be to just buy everything you'd get from Russia on the open market. And that's before counting the cost of lost lives.

Think of Iraq: the US has spent FAR FAR FAR more fighting a stupid war and an idiotic holding action in that country than the combined value of every single asset that country has. The US literally would have spent less by just buying every single barrel of oil in every single reserve Iraq has, and it's not particularly close. So there is no way it makes any sense ever for the US to invade Russia.

For that attack path : Russia has lots of long borders, most of them poorly defended or undefended. It would be VERY possible to invade from from more than one place. Most of their neighbors would get right the hell out of the way: they don't like Russia either, and they sure as hell wouldn't want the US to decide to conquer them first.

So the US COULD invade. It would be TITANICALLY stupid. The loss of life and the economic cost would be insane. But sure, they could blow on up into Moscow, raise the flag over the Kremlin, and parade through Red Square. However, the US people and the global community wouldn't tolerate the kinds of shit they'd have to do to keep Russia. So it would be a very expensive, very Pyrrhic victory. And the US would be more less forced to mount right back up and go home.

The US has only two borders, and neither would be a peach to invade. Plus both of those countries depend nearly totally on the US market for economic success. Neither would just get out of the way. The Russian Navy lacks anything like the capacity to launch a direct amphibious assault on even Canada, much less Mexico or the US, and the US would JOYFULLY move the point of defense to beaches in those countries, all of which are within easy range of US air power to boot. The US also has stacks of carrier battle groups floating around to both project power and to defend as needed.

[Captain Smith]

Aviation Week and Space Tech. magazine had an article a few years ago that said in a major peer enemy conflict, we are out of ammo, esp. the high tech stuff in a couple of months.

If you read orders for missiles for example, you will see countries buying a couple of hundred missiles for their planes. Stocks are so low for a sustained war and the complex systems take so long to manufacture.

Russia has long undefended borders. If you land there - you are in the middle of nothing and would take long amounts of time to get anywhere that counts.

We really don't have stacks of carriers anymore. There are 9 or 10 depending and only about 5 are combat ready at a given time. The others are being repaired, usually. The carriers are incredibly vulnerable to submarines. While not publicized, subs take them out in exercises all the time. Even old diesel subs or old French nuclear subs in exercises with allies.

No conceivable power combo existing today could successfully invade the USA mainland. I think if you told the 4th Airborne battalion of any country that you were going to land in the DFW metroplex, they would vote to stay home. Any third world force would desert and become Uber drivers or open restaurants.

[Pendaran]

Like I say, this is a conflict that basically destroys the sides fighting it.

[big_adventure]

Like I say, this is a conflict that basically destroys the sides fighting it.

Oh yeah, no doubt about it.