Who would win this war ?

[Gazz]

Today - rather randomly - my mate (who is Polish) and I hypothetically came up with the scenario of Russia and UK going to war - for whatever reason I dont know.

We discussed possible developments in the course of war - for example, allies who would join either side, etc and what would the final outcome of the event be.

Personally I thought Russia would win and the UK would finish in 2nd place .

However he thought that the UK would win, which really surprised me since in the past his country has been slapped about by Russia/USSR so he should know better than most, what they are capable of.



So, who do you think would win ?

[P.addy]

North Korea.

[tatters]

opps wrong era
____________________
Past:NRG50,AF1125(x2),NSR125RR,ZZR250,CX500,VFR400,KR1S,ZZR600(x2),CB400N,YZF1000(x2),KH125,Z200,FX400R,CBR954RR(x2)GPZ500S,GT550,VFR750F(x2),RD350N,XR650R,CBR600F,CB250,KDX250,YZF750R,CRM250,400EXC,KLR650,TTR600RE,DR350S,R100GSPD,RGV250,VMAX1200,DL650,KZ750 Present:G650XC,C12,CRF450X,1190ADV

[Itchy]

The Russians would walk over us.

They can turn off the gas and boom Europe is toast, or rather an ice ball.

Hell they have a carrier still we don't even have one
https://tinyurl.com/2c38pyx

Their Kirov battlecruisers can eat RN destroyers for breakfast, they have 5 of them. Our gold plated weapons have been eroded with numbers AND asymetric advantage.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[The999Kid]

Russia wins hands down

this country is halted by large quantities of frozen water... we're f*cked!
____________________
NDB 19/10/1989 - 1/11/2010 |Nowhere.Elyseum wrote: I get the distinct feeling that Tim should be our secret weapon for future trolling. I don't know many people that can rip the piss in Iambic pentameter

[tatters]

[Redoko]

Weren't the Japanese subject to a nuclear 'test run' in WW2?
____________________
"Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing."
Sudika Sportsman SK50QT > Gilera DNA50 > Honda CBR125 RW7 > Kawasaki Zephyr750 > Suzuki GSXR600 > Honda Hornet CB600F '51

[pinkyfloyd]

Russia would win unless the UK hired Chuck Norris.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.

[Redoko]

[Ariel Badger]

where would the battle field be? during the Cold war it was the forests of Germany and Mit-Europa but since the fall of the wall all has changed.
Also you need to define what constitutes "Victory", is it last man standing or territorial gain?
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.

[pinkyfloyd]

[pinkyfloyd]

[c_dug]

[Redoko]

[Frost]

It depends on the war really...
If it were some strategic war for some territory, or to occupy the other nation then thats very different to a war of annihilation. For example the UK has 160 nuclear missiles, most on the vanguard sub's. Russia has 4,650. That's plenty enough to ensure not a single thing could live on UK soil for a good long while.

[MattJ]

[colin1]

Without looking, I would have thought russia had far more personnel but its not as much as I thought.

Russian armed forces have 360,000 personnel we have about 190,000.

Alone we would get whipped, but if Russia attacked a member of NATO, all of NATO would attack back, so we would win.

In Nuclear war, there are no winners, everyone is toast.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[c_dug]

[Frost]

Russia wouldn't invade the UK, it has zero benefits for them and a lot of near certain grief. The soviet union didn't invade as britain had little to offer and had strong allies. If sure allies didn't exist and it was our shitty little island Vs the world biggest country, we're fucked. In a nuclear war, we can't launch ALL of our nukes at once as the sub's can only fire at a limited rate, plus you've got the targetting issues. Even then the limited range and huge size of russia would stop us getting all their cities and military.

Wikipedia might say the russian army isn't much bigger than ours, but at a time of war you draft everyone.

Russia
Manpower available for military service:
males age 16-49: 34,850,217
females age 16-49: 35,693,977 (2010 est.)


UK
Manpower available for military service:
males age 16-49: 14,732,445
females age 16-49: 14,118,320 (2010 est.)

So we'd be farked.

[Phoenix]

[MinhDinh]

[hmmmnz]

i think the uk would win,
not because the uk is strong in any way shape or form, but the fact it actually has allies, really in the world stage, who would back the Russians??
it would end up being the western world against Russia, i would almost hazard to guess the chinkies would side with the uk as they don't even like the Russians,


if it was strictly the uk, (and not including the commonwealth) vs the Russians then,

well at over 1 million soldiers, and 3/4 million in reserve , its pretty safe to assume the Russians would eat the poultry 200000 troops the uk have, but they both spend about the same each year, so i dare say the brits have far superior gear,

i suppose it'll depend on who drops what bombs where, at the end of the day
____________________
the humans are dead
I kick arse for the lord
Wiring Diagrams BIDNIP it bitches

[MarJay]

[Im-a-Ridah]

OK, this is pretty much how it stands.

Whilst its easy to pick figures from the internet, most websites that host such information are highly inaccurate. Most of the Soviet gear is junked, Russia is moving its forces towards a massively downsized, high quality western style force.

Russia has very little capability for projection warfare, if its not on their land border then generally they can't do much. They have a contract for a couple French assault ships, but that would maybe be enough for a small Georgia operation, but not much more, and certainly no threat to the UK.

Russia could attempt a blockade with surface ships, but their numerical advantage isn't particularly impressive, most of the old Soviet gear isn't going anywhere and it would be more effective to just build new stuff than try to bring it back into service. Any such blockade would be pretty easy to defeat as the Russian ships would lack air cover, and whilst we have lost the Nimrod, we can still nail them with helicopter launched missiles, or against ships lacking high ceiling SAMs (thats most of them), then just fly a Tornado/Eurofighter nearby and glide them a few LGBs killing pretty much everyone onboard. They could use their submarine force, but thats a two way street, both having nuclear powered submarines with the ensurance to cruise around looking for months for good targets.

The Russians have bombers which they could send our way, but they don't have very many (under 50 IIRC) and most would be easy targets, which means they would be restricted to sending long range cruise missiles, which they would soon run out of, and which can also be shot down.

In terms of nuclear the Russian's have vastly more warheads than they need to finish off the UK, even taking into account the fact that many of them are in storage or having little maintenance. The UK has around 200, though again its pretty much overkill against Russia. Allocate 12 warheads to Moscow, 3 to each of the next 14 largest cities. Thats one submarine load of 16 missiles, 2 of which could be loaded with 6 warheads, the rest with 3 for a total of 54 warheads. We've only allocated 25% of our stocks and most things worth anything Russia are history. There are 4 SSBNs in total, one is in refit, one waiting to cycle with one at sea, and two available for distant patrol. The one at dockside can still be used for warning shots, but won't survive a first strike. Also, those warhead loadouts aren't maximums, the treaty limit would work out as 144 warheads per missiles IIRC, and ignoring treaties its 198 warheads per submarine. If there is a buildup to the war, there is also no reason AWE couldn't produce more warheads, there's plenty of material even just in the military stocks, let alone the civilian stocks.

The Russians really don't want a major war with a powerful country, as they have a lot of natural resources and a very resource constrained neighbour that would love to "expand", namely China. India, if Russia was weak enough, probably wouldn't pass up the chance either. A war with a major European country will weaken them up massively, and make the chances of a Chinese landgrab a near certainty.

[MarJay]

I think we'd win, because we'd send James Bond over who would hanglide in, kill all the guards and stop the missile launch countdown with 007 seconds to go...


____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.