Could America have won against Ukraine 1991 army?

Composition and armament ofthe.Armed Forces in 1991 Thetotal numberof personnel was over800,000; more than 9,000 units oftanks, more than 11,000 units of armored infantry andlanding vehicles, about3,000 aircraft, of which 1,090 are combat aircraft (Su-27 fighters , MiG-29; Su-24M bombers, Su-25 attack aircraft; strategic heavy bombers 25 units. Tu-95 MS and 19 units. Tu-160 as wellas about200 units. otherbombers, in particular Tu-22 bombers ofvarious modifications; reconnaissance Su-24MR, military transport aircraft, etc.), 900 helicopters (attack Mi-24, multi-purpose Mi-8, etc., of which 330 are combat), more than 850 ships and support vessels. Ukraine also had at least 2,883 tactical nuclear weapons.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes
    hide thread

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, there would have been nuclear war, obviously. Without nukes, maybe

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thinking about it, large parts of the DIB for a sustained war are in Russia, so Ukraine would have issues replacing ammo

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let's exclude nukes.
      This is a way larger army than Iraq but with good soviet air defense and massive fleet.
      Any American invasion would have ended up much worse than current Russian invasion without air superiority.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I suspect so. The Wehrmacht needed an enormous force to conquer the capitol. There would certainly be the need for some conscripted soldiers. I think the US has all the main logistics hubs for a sustained war in the region ready though. Back then, the DIB in the US was massive and there were factories ready to mass produce large quantities of artillery ammo

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US could have won against the whole USSR in 1991, let alone a single (albeit well armed) SSR.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The US could have won against the whole USSR in 1991
      You have no air superiority
      Your navy is pointless in a land war
      Can you imagine the massacre that it would have been if you had to invade iraq without destroying everything with your airforce?
      Now multiply that x100

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You have no air superiority
        Implying that the 1991 USAF wouldn't have wiped the floor with the Soviet air force? Yeah sure they have some SAMs too, but that only delays the inevitable. Every NATO battle plan for fighting the WarPact relied upon and assumed eventual air superiority. I don't see any reason to pretend that wouldn't have been the case.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Implying that the 1991 USAF wouldn't have wiped the floor with the Soviet air force?
          You would need to enter the airspace without being wiped out first my boy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what are harms and beyond the horizon aa missiles

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >looks at USAF performance in the first Gulf War
            >concludes that it proves the United States would have "no air superiority x100" in Ukraine 1991
            Seriously? AIM-120 A block had just entered service; the first (utterly underwhelming) iteration of the Vympel R-77 is several years away. How's a Soviet pilot going to get a MiG close enough for target lock against a US fighter who's got Fox Three capability? It would have been a turkey shoot for the United States.
            >muh SAM spamming
            AGM-88 HARM means every Soviet radar operator knows a single sweep could be his death sentence. And the F-117A is b***hslapping high value targets left and right the whole time.
            >but the Serbs-ACK
            Never managed to repeat the trick, did they? The operator even admitted he got freakishly lucky. Winging one F-117A didn't save Belgrade and it wouldn't have saved the Soviets. Moreover, once the Soviet command was incapacitated, the vast majority of Ukrainians would have welcomed the West as liberators from Muscovite oppression -- you know, just like the Baltics, the Warsaw Pact, and everybody else under Russian domination did.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And? That's trivial. Soviet AA is shit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Turn on SAM radar
            >Immediately spotted by every air asset in theater
            >Die

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and who do you think provided the AA equipment in the first gulf war that the US utterly destroyed moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You would need to enter the airspace without being wiped out first my boy
            outsourced ziggers worst ziggers

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh it would have been a massacre alright. Several of them probably. American troops like taking trophies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >implying USAF alone wouldn't curb stomp, teabag their corpses and shit on the graves of soviet army, air force and air defense

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >no air superiority
        yeah, the US didn't have anything in the works in 1991 that could've been fast-tracked for a hot war against the soviets.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This had a top speed of Mach 4.3 and was used as a target drone in 1951.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        These were in use in 1991 and had no peer anywhere in the world. Serbs only managed to get one because the pilots kept flying the same route, the Serbs kept moving their radars, and one radar happened to be turned on exactly when an F-117 had its bay door open.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This was also flying in 1991 and still has no peer to this day. The closest are the changs but their version is still worse and the B-2 is being replaced.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        American aircraft have always been superior to other countries because we invented heavier-than-air flight

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so russia is losing. "but it totally would've happened to you too"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You have no air superiority
        Its not like we weren't prepared for the possibility. In fact, AirLand Battle doctrine assumed we wouldn't have air superiority against the Soviet Union.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Your navy is pointless in a land war
        2500km-range Tomahawk Land Attack Missile goes fwooosh

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ukrop sea drone goes frick your half a trillion dollar ship b***h

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine had sea drones in 1991?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Implying that the 1991 USAF wouldn't have wiped the floor with the Soviet air force?
        You would need to enter the airspace without being wiped out first my boy

        https://i.imgur.com/74dxzlA.jpeg

        Seeing as 2,000 dead is evidently enough to make Uncle Sam throw in the towel these days, no.

        Ukrop sea drone goes frick your half a trillion dollar ship b***h

        holy frick, the browns aren't sending their best. what a shameless frickwit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >holy frick, the browns aren't sending their best. what a shameless frickwit.
          Plot twist, these are their best.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how in the world would ukraine afford to maintain all that in a long war?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soviet Ukraine could've
      Not bourgeoisie Ukraine

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if desert storm was anything to go by for the period, easily. people forget just how competent the Iraqi's were at AD, but that doesn't matter when the enemy runs constant SEAD for weeks, and if the SEAD is working, you eat bombs to every military installation. the SEAD campaign could be entirely ran from the other side of the bosphorus strait without even entering the black sea so that you wouldn't even have a naval contest. between the F-14's that would still be in service being able to drop any fighter that takes to the sky from outside of their engagement range, and the Growlers eating any SAM site that turned on it's radar, B-2's and F-117's would get to cripple any prepared position, depot, storage, and bunker that they wanted to. this is my thinking without even accounting for allied nations like germany being able to get bullied into supporting the US here.

    >however, nukes
    that's the biggest problem here really, now i don't think america would prove an existential threat to ukraine here, the policy would be impossible to pass by the american people at the time, so it'd likely be an invasion to 'de-nuclearize' ukraine in that case, something that russia would probably at least tacitly support. it's possible following the SEAD, or during, a series of strikes are carried out on the nuclear stockpiles, which is a stupid plan, but it was the one that was held for dealing with a nuclear armed country that you invade at the time. if the goal is to 'de-nuclearize' i can easily see a peace deal being worked out at this point, probably with a whole lot of UN hemming and hawing about it. if they have to pull a land invasion, that gets harder. by it's very nature, multiple carrier groups moving through the bosphorus strait would be a really bad look for turkey, since you're not supposed to be able to pass it if you're at war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >forget just how competent the Iraqi's were at AD
      because they weren't
      It's just that Iraq at the time was unreasonably hyped up much like Russia until recently. But unlike Russia, Iraq folded in so quickly that no one even had time to fully realize just how utterly shit their military was. And then burgers kept on feeding that delusion anyway just to farm that little bit extra street cred for beating "the strong guy".

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seeing as 2,000 dead is evidently enough to make Uncle Sam throw in the towel these days, no.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't, though. 20+ years of nothing getting done is.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >thinking a 20 year police action in bumfrickistan is equivalent to a near peer invasion

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      AAAAAH OOOOOH IVE BEEN DEMORALIZED! PULL ALL SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE NOW!!!

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dafuq is that bottom left pic

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just consider Ukraine's military at the time as Iraq on hyper steroids. Much better equipped, much better trained, much better organized, just bigger. Ultimately result would be the same, but this time it would've actually cost US shitload of casualties, both in personnel and equipment, not just handful like in gulf war.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    xaxaxaxa amerimutts would lose to great Belarusian SSR

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US military was several times that size in 1991.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Patsocs? Won. Leftypol? Lost.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    idk but after this shitstorm I'm positive that Soviets with their east euro vassals like Poland, Czechoslovakia, DDR would actually win conventional war against west back in the 70s and 80s.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    commie goy

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does OP think that Ukrainians think they could have defeated the US in 1991?
    What's the point of this thread?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please clarify, are we discussing the United States and Ukraine going to war in 1991 or the United States Army in 2024 fighting 1991 Ukraine?

    Because the United States Army in 1991 and the United States Army in 2024 are completely different beasts.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are we talking about post soviet Ukraine in 1991?
    Because the US could have just bought all theri equipment for like 10% of their military budget.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most important question is: WHY is the USA going into Ukraine?
    Are they ousting some soviet holdouts and then instituting a west-friendly government top to bottom? Or are they just going in with some half-wienered political strategy and no actual plans?
    If the former, easily. If the latter, still yes but the moment they pull out Ukraine will just implode into itself.
    >but nooks
    This either means that the USA isn't getting involved or the stakes are so high they're getting involved anyway. With the way OP's post is laid out, I'm assuming this is absolutely happening even with nukes flying. Nukes don't get used in battlefield conflict, they are city/airfield eliminators and permanent land deniers, they're not going to turn the tide in favor of Ukraine.

    Also Ukranians are still slavs and can't into Air Power so they're going to still get mopped, and nazbolism is unbearably cringe and you should continue taking a category EF4 tornado to your skull.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *