In WWIII which Army would win?

[Il Medico]

I was thinking, out of the three major world powers, China, America and Russia, which would win in an major world war? I say China's PLA would win. Just want to know what other leftist think.

[Angry Young Man]

China.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Me.

[Killfacer]

China. Or comrade joe

[Angry Young Man]

Who'd win in a fight between China and Cmde. Joe?

[Il Medico]

Does Comrade Joe have Tanks?

[Kamerat]

America would win. With a population of over 900 million and the worlds greatest arsenal of weapons including largest number of nukes.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No I have a collection of lesbian porn and a drive to drink cider in the park no matter the cost (unless its over six quid for a pack then il buy it from somwhere else).

Take that motherfucker

[Angry Young Man]

Given that they're warring with another nuclear power, America might be reluctant to launch a nuke. Plus, China has the largest population in the world, and you saw the opening of the Olympics - if they use that kind of discipline to make a drum-light-spectacular, ... you get the idea.

Plus, the USA will sink dramatically when they can't exploit Chinese labour.

[Killfacer]

Comrade joe would be sick in china's parks.

[Kamerat]

We are talking about the whole of Amercia from Chile to Canada (unless the OP need to be more specific). There is not much diffrence 1.2 billon and 0.9 billon people.

[Brother No. 1]

America would win. With a population of over 900 million and the worlds greatest arsenal of weapons including largest number of nukes.

We are not talking about the Whole North/South America for obviously not one of those Elite goverments in either continent can agree/help each other. Russian Federation was the most nukes in the world as a single country for it got most of the Nuke cake when the USSR spilt up.

If there was a WW3, which could = nuclear war, then no one would win if it was nuclear war but if we talk about Army/Navy/Air force vs Army/navy/Air force then the "Peoples Liberation Army" would win.

[An archist]

The Black Block, because the black block can defeat anyone!

[Kamerat]

Im just trying to say America do not equal United States of America, its a part of America not the whole. I am just trying to be difficult:laugh:.

[S.O.I]

the empire

[Il Medico]

Im just trying to say America do not equal United States of America, its a part of America not the whole. I am just trying to be difficult:laugh:.
Difficult you are I was talking about the USA. What other countries in the Americas claim to be America? Hell America has a movie that's most famous quote is "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!"

[Il Medico]

As the OP I feel I need to specify, America=USA and WWIII= Conventional war.

[Guerrilla22]

Guatemala

[Pogue]

comrade joe in a lesbian black bloc from china

[frozencompass]

Either DPRK, or some socialist state (if any at that time), or /b/.

[S.O.I]

china and russia are allies man

[NecroCommie]

A video says more than a thousand words: The best military parade of our epoch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru-xQac_sWw

Look at the discipline!

[Killfacer]

china and russia are allies man

No they aren't.

[Il Medico]

No they aren't.
Yes. However, even if they were, the scenario is a free for all between the three.

[Killfacer]

Yes. However, even if they were, the scenario is a free for all between the three.

This is a bullshit misconseption. In fact, i seem to remember China condemning Russia's involvement in georgia. This isn't the 80's.

[Sam_b]

America would win. With a population of over 900 million and the worlds greatest arsenal of weapons including largest number of nukes

Seeing as they're pretty much losing right now to the Afghani resistance I doubt they would fare better in a world war.

[Brother No. 1]

This isn't the 80's.

Russia and China were only allies from 1949-1956.

But even if they were "allies" now they would not hesitate to attack each other. If its a Russa vs China thing then its winner takes all loser becomes dust.

[LeninBalls]

Seeing as they're pretty much losing right now to the Afghani resistance I doubt they would fare better in a world war.

America would fare a lot better in conventional war.

Opening months of Iraq?

[NecroCommie]

You think there would be no guerrilla war in WW3?

Besides: it's unfair to compare republican guard to the two huge and modern armies of Russia and china. Even moderately modern army would give american forces a hard time, if not even kick their asses. The initial success in the Iraq was due to the american doctorine of "shock and awe", which basically means demoralizing enemy troops by awesome displays of firepower and ordnance. Guerrilla warfare gives no chance to use that kind of strategy. Russia can seriously compete with US when it comes to high-tech wargear, and China outguns US army with ridiculous numbers.

[LeninBalls]

The OP said if this ww3 was conventional, who would win.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seeing as they're pretty much losing right now to the Afghani resistance I doubt they would fare better in a world war.

Despite their technological advantage, American military doctrine is still heavily biased towards conventional warfare. The American military hierarchy has yet to fully shake off the Cold War approach.

Complicating matters of course is the prospect of future conventional warfare, which makes military types loath to shrug off what has been known to work in the past.

As for the OP, I think it depends on whether it's mainly a war on land or on sea. If it's on land, then it's mainly a contest between China and Russia, with Russia at a disadvantage both on the attack (China is surrounded by difficult terrain on the majority of it's land borders) and on the defence (China has about twice as much personnel). Both Russia and China can swamp the US with troops, and would likely band together in the event of the US attacking, as I doubt it would be in Russia or China's interests to have fucktons of American military materiél right next door to them if one of them got invaded.

If it's mainly a sea war, then both Russia and China go down in flames as their relatively pitiful navies get raped six ways from Sunday by American carrier groups and SSBNs.

In an all-out war where the Americans attack either Russia or China, the Americans could easily cross the oceans to get boots on the ground, but how well they would fare against superior numbers, I have no idea. Russia and China could probably get their troops on US soil if they manage not to take too many losses getting past the US Navy, and then the US would be in quite a sticky situation as hundreds of thousands of foreign troops pour into the homeland.

A foreign occupation of the US would no doubt be very costly for the aggressor due to partisan activity. I'm not sure about the corresponding situation in Russia or China, but the Yanks would certainly be at a disadvantage due to their relatively limited amount of troops available to occupy Chinese or Russian territory.

In short, who wins will depend on a number of factors as I detailed above. I'm no military strategist, so that's my best guess, for what it's worth.

[Angry Young Man]

You're thinking that Cmde. Joe's fighting with China, but then he does a Pedigree and America pins China.

[redSHARP]

america hands down!!!

america has the means to annihilate massive amounts of people with out nukes

has the logistics support to move the troops

has the navy and airforce to neutralize any invasion attempt

and has the weapons that outclass any chinese and russian weapon

[Rusty Shackleford]

Russia and China were only allies from 1949-1956.

But even if they were "allies" now they would not hesitate to attack each other. If its a Russa vs China thing then its winner takes all loser becomes dust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

Central Asian union type deal...

as for who would win, conventionally USA, PLAN would not be able to reach the west coast. USN is too powerful. The United States has the benefit of being a separate Continent whereas Russia and China share borders. and, if USA were attacked, NATO would join in by contract. so RUSSFED would have 2 fronts, possibly 3 with china. china would have 2 and USA would have 2.

but this is silly talk. we all know Luxembourg will win this.

[swampfox]

China would not be a major or independent force in World War III. Their military is dwarfed compared to America's and Russia's. Hell, they only have one submarine...from twenty years ago.

Sure they have a lot of people, but they have no transports for cross-ocean warfare, not enough weapons for all soldiers, and their air force is pretty much a joke. Even if America was scaled back during the Obama administration they would still wipe the floor with Chinese forces.

Russia on the other hand is another story. Yes, Russia has nukes, a mid-sized Air Force and a decent army, but they do not have the strategic capabilities of the American Army nor the methods of moving vast amounts of troops across their nation (remember World War II and World War I?) not to mention they would have the European Union next door to them.

[NecroCommie]

China would not be a major or independent force in World War III. Their military is dwarfed compared to America's and Russia's. Hell, they only have one submarine...from twenty years ago.

Sure they have a lot of people, but they have no transports for cross-ocean warfare, not enough weapons for all soldiers, and their air force is pretty much a joke. Even if America was scaled back during the Obama administration they would still wipe the floor with Chinese forces.

Russia on the other hand is another story. Yes, Russia has nukes, a mid-sized Air Force and a decent army, but they do not have the strategic capabilities of the American Army nor the methods of moving vast amounts of troops across their nation (remember World War II and World War I?) not to mention they would have the European Union next door to them.
Russia would wipe the floor with EU. And comparing russian army with the red army of the WW2 is madness. Red army was not modern to its own time, was not well equipped for its time, and modern russian army is both. Modern Russian army is also large, and has the largest elite formations second only to american ones. Then we have to remember that the russian army outguns US army in both numbers and quality. Russian tanks are even today the best in the world, and now we are talking about the old ones.

Sure their air force and navy are small, but then again wars are not won by controlling seas alone.

[Led Zeppelin]

China would not be a major or independent force in World War III. Their military is dwarfed compared to America's and Russia's. Hell, they only have one submarine...from twenty years ago.

What? The Chinese Navy only has one submarine from twenty years ago?

I have no idea where you got that from, it's not true: Chinese Navy (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/vessel.asp)

They have 8 Nuclear Subs and 58 Diesel-Electric Subs.

Also, this thread is lame because neither of these nations would "win" a world war against one another, it would be mutually assured destruction given the amount of nukes they have. That's why the Cold War never got "hot".

[NecroCommie]

Once again, the discussion is about a hypothetical ww3 which would be conventional warfare only! No nukes here.

[swampfox]

What? The Chinese Navy only has one submarine from twenty years ago?

I have no idea where you got that from, it's not true: Chinese Navy.

They have 8 Nuclear Subs and 58 Diesel-Electric Subs.

Also, this thread is lame because neither of these nations would "win" a world war against one another, it would be mutually assured destruction given the amount of nukes they have. That's why the Cold War never got "hot".

My apologies, I had it submarines confused with aircraft carriers. :lol:

[Comrade B]

China controls waaayyy too much of the US military production, they also are the only other country with the submarine technology that the US has, they have the largest army in the world, and their leaders couldn't give two fucks about wasting lives.

Russia has weak bonds between government and military, as seen with the coupe a while ago. They also have less nukes than the US, and are less internationally popular.

The US is tired of war, their people will oppose another long war, also, I am quite sure the people of the US are not prepared to have a war on their soil, they are not used to it, and they will be shocked by it. Fuck, the left countries of South America could win a war against the US, just fire artillery into a civilian area, somewhere that the war has a lot of support, or place full of rich people. Kill a celebrity. The country is cowardly, they like to hear about people that they don't like dying, but become terrified when the people they are fighting kill over 100 of their people.

[Comrade B]

Russia and China were only allies from 1949-1956.

But even if they were "allies" now they would not hesitate to attack each other. If its a Russa vs China thing then its winner takes all loser becomes dust.
Didn't Mao have all the grass removed from Beijing except from around the Soviet Embassy because he thought the bugs in it carried disease?

[communard resolution]

The Vietcong.

[redSHARP]

China controls waaayyy too much of the US military production, they also are the only other country with the submarine technology that the US has, they have the largest army in the world, and their leaders couldn't give two fucks about wasting lives.

Russia has weak bonds between government and military, as seen with the coupe a while ago. They also have less nukes than the US, and are less internationally popular.

The US is tired of war, their people will oppose another long war, also, I am quite sure the people of the US are not prepared to have a war on their soil, they are not used to it, and they will be shocked by it. Fuck, the left countries of South America could win a war against the US, just fire artillery into a civilian area, somewhere that the war has a lot of support, or place full of rich people. Kill a celebrity. The country is cowardly, they like to hear about people that they don't like dying, but become terrified when the people they are fighting kill over 100 of their people.


cause that worked for the japanese in 1941, September 11th, or any other time in history when someone tried to fuck with america. best thing to do is bleed them out in guerrilla warfare or fight a conventional war out of the USA border area, NEVER bring the war to American soil.

[Communist Theory]

america hands down!!!

america has the means to annihilate massive amounts of people with out nukes

has the logistics support to move the troops

has the navy and airforce to neutralize any invasion attempt

and has the weapons that outclass any chinese and russian weapon
Sounds a bit nationalist.
Anyway China if America decides to take the fight overseas I doubt they want foreign armies on their land but if it was on American soil I would say America would win due to the fact I'm pretty sure every American owns a gun and would probably start roaming around with them shooting every person that doesn't look American. Then I wouldn't doubt it that the DPRK would want to get in on the action you should have included them. Either that or the DPRK launches all their nukes and kills everyone. :lol:
They're the wild card.

[Communist Theory]

Although Spetsnaz did beat the Green Berets on Deadliest Warrior.

[mykittyhasaboner]

8 people chose the American military?

[Killfacer]

8 people chose the American military?

read what noxion said. He seems to know about this kind of thing.

[Jazzratt]

Anyone still breathing.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Im back from my world wide stabbing tour in which I single handedly stabbed every American , Russian and Chinaman/woman in exsistance

[mykittyhasaboner]

Perhaps, but let's face it. American military technology can only go so far when you have almost the entirety of people inf the world against you, with Russia and China being huge components of the population.

If we rule out the factor of nuclear devastation, which is completely reasonable and feasible, because neither side wants to turn into ashes; then I think it would be safe to say that Russia and China could hold up against everything the US can theoretically throw at them.

If there was a war between the US and China/Russia, then both sides would obviously be at a huge disadvantage in any strategy involving occupation and attacking the enemies land. The only advantage the US would have is it's Navy, but that can't stand up to the ground forces of China and Russia. So the US could never win such a war, because they simply can't deal with the enemies numbers and size. But neither could Russia and China defeat the US, because they lack the ability to severely attack the US on their turf due to naval dominance.

So in all probability, the war would end up in kind of a stalemate character, and the winning side would be determined by who gives way economically and politically first (which would most likely be the US).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

read what noxion said. He seems to know about this kind of thing.

I have yet to vote, since I think the only way to get any half-way decent idea of who would win in this scenario would be to wargame it out.

I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, however.

[Killfacer]

I have yet to vote, since I think the only way to get any half-way decent idea of who would win in this scenario would be to wargame it out.

I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, however.

Sounds like fun but also a lot of effort.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I have yet to vote, since I think the only way to get any half-way decent idea of who would win in this scenario would be to wargame it out.

I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, however.

World In Conflict: Soviet Assault. :laugh:

It actually coincides with your prediction that US naval power would play a key role in defending against attack, as well as partisan activity against a foreign occupation in the US. But it pretty much ends in a stale mate, with not much accomplished by either side, except for the US regaining lost territory, and Soviet capture of West Berlin.

But seriously, if we were going to try and simulate this than we would need something akin to Balance of Power, but with a more realistic and dynamic framework.

[Il Medico]

I have yet to vote, since I think the only way to get any half-way decent idea of who would win in this scenario would be to wargame it out.

I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, however.
I think the best bet would be to use a Civ game. Set up a private online game, set it up were the three countries in question are at current strengths. I would use either III or IV. Then all out war.

[Killfacer]

I think the best bet would be to use a Civ game. Set up a private online game, set it up were the three countries in question are at current strengths. I would use either III or IV. Then all out war.

I think it would be difficult to take in every equation involved using Civ.

Perhaps a kind of "balance of power" but more combat based as opposed to political. I'm up for it if anyone else is.

[Il Medico]

I am up for a war game, but don't have balance of power, were can I get it?

[Killfacer]

I am up for a war game, but don't have balance of power, were can I get it?

Don't worry, it's an online kind of text based game people play. I'm waiting for Noxion to get back to us, because it would be pretty difficult without someone as knowledgable on the subject as him. Unless there is anyone else with an equally good footing in this kind of stuff.

I have some basic knowledge but....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not really familiar with Balance of Power, and from what I've seen it looks to me to be more along the lines of a roleplay than a simulation.

What's needed is a system that takes into account the strengths, weaknesses and other qualities of the different units fielded by the various sides, rather than one that has generic units for all sides, like Civilisation 2, the only Civ game I'm familiar with.

One of these systems (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/index.php?page=modern) ought to be able to do the job, especially one focused on the strategic level rather than tactical, otherwise we'd have to run a campaign, and that could take some time.

Actually, while it would be possible (and a whole lot easier) to run a game that uses generic units, it would involve a (possibly significant) sacrifice in accuracy.

Our choices seem to be thus:

1: Find a suitable startegic wargame that simulates the advantages and disadvantages of the various armies to an acceptable level of detail. I'm afraid I have very little idea of how to go about this, since I'm more familiar with science fiction wargames such as Warhammer 40,000. I know places where I can ask, though.

2: Modify a pre-existing game. I know it's possible to modify Civ 2 in order to get custom units and scenarios, although there may be a modifiable game with more detailed stats (since the stats in Civ 2 are pretty basic if I remember correctly). Either way, this involves more work.

3: Use a pre-existing game with it's standard (maybe generic) units. As I mentioned above, this could involve a loss in accuracy, probably significant depending on the game/system in question.

Thoughts?

[Spasiba]

sans nukes, America. China could put up and probably win most fights in and around China, but going much further than that they would fail. Europe would sign with the US and that would do the rest in. The US would also easily resist invasion, China too, but with the technology the US has it has the advantage and could at least keep China within its borders. Russia wouldn't stand a chance.

[Comrade B]

NEVER bring the war to American soil.
They have united when there is one attack, add a couple more in, make a daily bombing in the street, or bring the fight to the suburbs.
Pearl Harbor was a military base
The people of the US still don't really support the wars that came as a result of September 11th.
I would say regular terror in the US could eventually win, if there were a definite group which was causing it.


I'm pretty sure every American owns a gun and would probably start roaming around with them shooting every person that doesn't look American.
I would like to see these mother fuckers with their buck shot try taking down a tank... or a plane...

The people of the US only think they are so brave because they have watched too many of their country's movies. Let me give you an example of the typical American Hard ass I have met.

Mother fucker comes up to me in a cafe, hears I am a communist, tries to pick a fight, I walk him outside, he doesn't take another step away from the building when he finds out I am serious

Mother fucker pulls a pocket knife out on me in a concert, I whip out a buck knife, he backs down

Kid wearing red punches a guy in the face while he is riding by on a bike, a large crowd of people from a nearby concert gather around and start yelling threats at the kid, he calls for an SUV to swing by and pick him up

People like to talk shit here when they see no way they can lose, but the second a real threat comes up, they back down. Maybe this is only the young population, or my demographic, but people tend to back down to the bigger gun

[Black Sheep]

soviet russia

[Q]

Belgium.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Kent.

[Pawn Power]

Everyone would win since we would all be blown to smithereens.

[Il Medico]

I'm not really familiar with Balance of Power, and from what I've seen it looks to me to be more along the lines of a roleplay than a simulation.

What's needed is a system that takes into account the strengths, weaknesses and other qualities of the different units fielded by the various sides, rather than one that has generic units for all sides, like Civilisation 2, the only Civ game I'm familiar with.

One of these systems (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/index.php?page=modern) ought to be able to do the job, especially one focused on the strategic level rather than tactical, otherwise we'd have to run a campaign, and that could take some time.

Actually, while it would be possible (and a whole lot easier) to run a game that uses generic units, it would involve a (possibly significant) sacrifice in accuracy.

Our choices seem to be thus:

1: Find a suitable startegic wargame that simulates the advantages and disadvantages of the various armies to an acceptable level of detail. I'm afraid I have very little idea of how to go about this, since I'm more familiar with science fiction wargames such as Warhammer 40,000. I know places where I can ask, though.

2: Modify a pre-existing game. I know it's possible to modify Civ 2 in order to get custom units and scenarios, although there may be a modifiable game with more detailed stats (since the stats in Civ 2 are pretty basic if I remember correctly). Either way, this involves more work.

3: Use a pre-existing game with it's standard (maybe generic) units. As I mentioned above, this could involve a loss in accuracy, probably significant depending on the game/system in question.

Thoughts?
If you want a game were we can create custom unit for each, Civ 3 is the best. In map maker/editor you can easily make custom units, I not that good at it though.
However, for pure simulation, what about whatever system they use on deadliest warrior? Probably not practical but it would factor in skill and weapons, and if it can be used to simulate squad on squad action, I see no reason it could not simulate army on army action.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm not really familiar with Balance of Power, and from what I've seen it looks to me to be more along the lines of a roleplay than a simulation.
It is more of a role playing game, hence why a mentioned "a more dynamic and realistic framework". An actual RTS or other kind of strategic war game would be more suited, then that would be preferred; however with a 'role playing' type game like Balance of Power, we could be much more accurate in "simulating" (through text, and pure probability of course) a predetermined conflict.


What's needed is a system that takes into account the strengths, weaknesses and other qualities of the different units fielded by the various sides, rather than one that has generic units for all sides, like Civilisation 2, the only Civ game I'm familiar with.
One of these systems (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/index.php?page=modern) ought to be able to do the job, especially one focused on the strategic level rather than tactical, otherwise we'd have to run a campaign, and that could take some time.Interesting, 21st Century Skirmish seems to be the be more suited for this type of sim. I'll take a good look at it.




Actually, while it would be possible (and a whole lot easier) to run a game that uses generic units, it would involve a (possibly significant) sacrifice in accuracy.Im not sure what you mean by generic units.




1: Find a suitable startegic wargame that simulates the advantages and disadvantages of the various armies to an acceptable level of detail. I'm afraid I have very little idea of how to go about this, since I'm more familiar with science fiction wargames such as Warhammer 40,000. I know places where I can ask, though.World In Conflict /WIC: Soviet Assault. This game involves exactly the three countries we are talking about, except China plays a (so far, as there are certainly going to be more games, as "the war" didn't end) very minor role, in fact they aren't playable; but are allied with the Soviet Union.

Im not sure whether or not were talking about the Russian Federation or the Soviet Union, but either way it gives us a great start, as the strategy and story is pretty realistic. If you wan't to know how the game pans out, out of curiosity, or relevance to what were discussing, I'll be happy to summarize.


2: Modify a pre-existing game. I know it's possible to modify Civ 2 in order to get custom units and scenarios, although there may be a modifiable game with more detailed stats (since the stats in Civ 2 are pretty basic if I remember correctly). Either way, this involves more work.



3: Use a pre-existing game with it's standard (maybe generic) units. As I mentioned above, this could involve a loss in accuracy, probably significant depending on the game/system in question.You can create custom missions, as well as a multiplayer mode with WIC. I'm not too familiar with those features yet though.

[Angry Young Man]

Kent.

Kent sucks Yorkshire would totally piss you! It'll piss on any county!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kent sucks Yorkshire would totally piss you! It'll piss on any county!

Only because they haven't invented the toilet.

[Il Medico]

I bit off topic don't ya think?:laugh:

[Angry Young Man]

Only because they haven't invented the toilet.

Well, the toilet was invented by one man. I don't quite know how a whole province is supposed to go about inventing sanitary furniture.

[Il Medico]

Can we get back on topic, war games?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Captain Jack, this is Chit-Chat. Topics are almost irrelevant.

[Il Medico]

:(, just when I thought there might be something fun starting, they start fight about football. They claim to be internationalist yet they still hold regional rivalries over football, amazing! Love the Sport, I am just saying....

[Angry Young Man]

Wait... did I miss something? I don't remember anything about football.

But I find out today that political divides were often the source of football rivalries. Apparently Manu used to be the left-wing team in Manchester.

[Il Medico]

Sorry I misunderstood your argument.