What the Republicans need to do

[Tech_Esq]

Considering Germanys ability to defend itself:

1: From whom?

There are only two countries in the world that have the force projection capacity to reach Germany with significant forces, the name of one country is the USA. Germany happens to be allied with them.
The only other contender is Russia, who is not going to get military access from Poland anytime soon.
Politics are not a Computer Game, any declaration of war will have a buildup of tensions first. Germany can easily built its own nukes in about a year, or we could just buy them from France.

Secondly, lets have look at what the German Army is: the current manpower is at some 250.000. If an invasion looms, Germany could easily recruit fairly large numbers (total number of persons fit for service is 15.25 million, between a third and a half of them have received military training) since we do have a compulsory military service which produces large amounts of reservists.
From what I have seen during my time in the German Army, our army (Heer) is propably technologically at least equal to slightly superior to the American one. German forces have a clear lead in small arms, a (very) clear lead in Self propelled artillery, will soon have a lead in Armored personal carriers (simply becaue the Puma is about a 2 decades newer) and are about equal in main battle tanks. The US has better Attack Chopters, and propably an edge in MLRS systems. The technological lead would disappear if the US decides to go for a serious modernisation, which was attempted in f.e. the Crusader project. However that failed.
Germanys Airforce is off worse technogically, the whole Eurofighter buisness was likely a shot in the leg. The not so great Germany navy would propably not play a huge role in a Russian invasion.

Bottom line, Germany is quite fine, tank you

You are fooling yourself if you believe what you profess in that post. Although I agree for the most part with your relative analysis of the quality of German military equipment, you clearly have no concept of what they would be facing should a Russian attack come.

Having been stationed in Germany during the crescendo of the cold war and having been through countless command exercises of probable attack scenarios, the Germans would be lucky if they could achieve a minor slowdown at the Main river. Given the current status of preparedness (and even planning), it's unlikely that the old REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany) plan could be effectuated. I'm sure prepositioned equipment for that has long since been liquidated. So forget about any "real" American assistance in anything like time to save Germany.

If Russia was going to attack Germany, they would likely want to attack Poland for the same reason, so I would look at Poland as a speed bump rather than a buffer. The best thing for Germany to do would be lurch forward and try to fight as much as possible in Poland rather than Germany. The biggest problem Germany would face is not their inability to defeat the forces arrayed against it, but a lack of logistical supply. You would not be able to keep your combat forces adequately supplied with ammunition to stem the tide of Motorized Rifle Divisions flooding over the border. Remember the Russian have always traded numbers for quality and ground for time. Their tanks are not as good as NATO, but they have so many of them, it won't matter, they are "good enough." Add a lack of crucial Air Superiority, and Germany is finished. Only if the US participates (don't count on that now) and can move enough fighters over to achieve air supremacy over the battle area would Germany have a fighting chance. Keep in mind, where there are air forces involved, nobody has been successful on the battlefield if the other side has air superiority over them since WWII.

No, Germany is not "quite fine" by itself. The Bundeswehr is a critical part of a combined NATO land force. Placed into combat as a part of that force, it would acquit itself admirably, there is no doubt. Standing alone against either the US or the Russians, there should not be any doubt in your mind about the outcome. It would be swift and decisive.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are we neighbors? LOL! One other issue should not be part of GOP-intelligent design, lord help us!

I'm not anti-evangelical, but they have been too dominating for too long.

I definitely agree with all of those points. People need to understand that those issues, if they are supported by the party, do not even deserve the level of being a plank in the party platform. If the party generally has support for those issues, that's plenty. What are the hard-core adherents going to do, vote for the people that are diametrically opposed to their point of view?

On the other hand, there is a cost associated with that viewpoint, and that is that the party loses the foot soldiers in the ground game and that has to be replaced somehow.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The GOP will be reconstructed on the sanctity of Marriage, which is the rejection of the normalization of faggery... along with the respect for human life in the inevitable over-turning of the abomination that is "ROE."

And it should be noted that once the left rises up and takes to the street demanding that to which they've been convinced they are entitled, triggering the looming civil war... We, the Americans that will put that rebellion down will not find a distinction between the Democrat left and the GOP left that handed them power...

Seriously, overturning Roe, misses the point entirely. The case you should want overturned is Griswold not Roe. If there is no Griswold, there is no Roe. Griswold is the case in which the Supreme Court "created" an addition to the Bill of Rights out of thin air. The announcement the "penumbra" of the rights -- in the words of Mr. Justice Douglas:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.

And so these GRAND EMANATIONS are made to trump what actually was written in the Constitution. Now their is a Right to Privacy, that exists nowhere in the Constitution except as the cosmic rays of emanation from actual rights. And when the invented right comes in conflict with a right that was written in the Constitution, what happens?

Why the invented right wins. (For those that are not sharp enough to get this reference, take for example when groups peaceably assemble in front of an abortion clinic.)

None of this should be taken to mean that I am anti-abortion. I'm not. I agree with Justice O'Connor as to my reasoning on the subject. (For those that care or know what that is.) However, I object strongly to using the anti-democratic means of getting a policy accomplished through the courts that you cannot get in the legislature just because your side is so sanctimonious as to think you know better than everyone else. Elitist fucks.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, in 1945 the US could have nuked moscow, but definitly not conquered it.
Considering the enourmous problems US troops had with (more or less second tier at best) North Korean forces, we should all be thankfull that a direct conventional clash with the Red Army at its prime never happened.
You may want to read up on Kalchin Gol (pre WW2 battle between Japanese Elite Formations and a hastily assembled Soviet-Mongolian force, decisive Russian victory) and on Operation August Storm (Red Army conducted a multi pronged Blitzkrieg on Japanese Manchuria, an area as big as western Europe, 1 million Japanese were, although fighting bravely, not able to even delay them).

Combined Arms Research Library
Battle of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It looks like you may need to review the history of the Korean war. The only time the North Koreans had success against US forces was when they outnumbered the US forces about 50-1. Namely in the early part of the war when there were about 30k or less US forces in South Korea. After the invasion at Inchon, where the US forces arrived en masse, the US forces chased the North Koreans back to the Yalu River (in other words, the fuck out of Korea and into China). It was only the Chinese Communist intervention in the form of human wave attacks that saved the North Koreans from an utter and irretrievable loss to the American led UN force.

As for Patton's idea. It would have been a hell of a fight. We would have had something that Germany didn't have though. We had the ability to attack from the Pacific in Large and well supported numbers. This would have forced Russia to attempt to fight a war on two fronts. Additionally, we had the strategic bomber capability that was unparalleled by either the Russians or the Germans. Our fighters at the time were also unmatched by the Russians. Within a relatively short time (but bloody no doubt) they would have lost their ability to produce enough equipment to resist. We probably also had the naval power to invade and support an Army in the Crimea and cut off oil supplies to the Soviet army. Once that was done and their industry pounded by bombing, it would have only been a matter of time.

 

[editec]

Remember the Russian have always traded numbers for quality and ground for time. Their tanks are not as good as NATO, but they have so many of them, it won't matter, they are "good enough."

Quantity has a quality all its own

Joseph Stalin​

 

[Toro]

False... Roe is not valid law dumbass. It cites a right which, given the principles on which the US was founded CANNOT EXIST.

You have no right to take human life where that life is not a threat to your own... PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE.

Western jurisprudence has long since established what IS and is NOT a valid justification for the taking of human life and 'CONVENIENCE" is NOT ONE OF THEM.

The rights of the individual are the basis for Western jurisprudence to legalize abortion. That is why abortion is legal in the Western nations of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the US.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

Oh, and BTW, before you go off on your typical psychotic rant, I'm generally against abortion. But your concept of Western jurisprudence is, unsurprisingly, wrong.

 

[Toro]

I do.

Economic nationalism.

That's what the Republican Party stood up for from Abe Lincoln's time until Reagan's time.

Get back to that, and the american people, and this Republic will start thriving again.

Continue the destruction of this nation by economic trade (right along with the Democratic leadership) and this nation is hosed.

I disagree strongly with this. Open trade and free commerce are perhaps the most important factors for wealth generation.

 

[Turboswede]

I disagree strongly with this. Open trade and free commerce are perhaps the most important factors for wealth generation.

Regan was a big economic nationalist too, with the bailouts of Chyrysler, the S&Ls and Harley Davidson. The Democrats have been more of a "free trade" party in the recent past.

Free trade does work and NAFTA has been a great sucess. Its weird how Republicans believe in supply side economics domesticly but not internationaly.

 

[mightypeon]

I do.

Economic nationalism.

That's what the Republican Party stood up for from Abe Lincoln's time until Reagan's time.

Get back to that, and the american people, and this Republic will start thriving again.

Continue the destruction of this nation by economic trade (right along with the Democratic leadership) and this nation is hosed.

I would concur, countries like China stuck to their on economic nationalism while "oracles", "geniuses" and what not preached the mantra of unregulated Free markets.
I daresay they are a lot better of because of that.

 

[mightypeon]

It looks like you may need to review the history of the Korean war. The only time the North Koreans had success against US forces was when they outnumbered the US forces about 50-1. Namely in the early part of the war when there were about 30k or less US forces in South Korea. After the invasion at Inchon, where the US forces arrived en masse, the US forces chased the North Koreans back to the Yalu River (in other words, the fuck out of Korea and into China). It was only the Chinese Communist intervention in the form of human wave attacks that saved the North Koreans from an utter and irretrievable loss to the American led UN force.

As for Patton's idea. It would have been a hell of a fight. We would have had something that Germany didn't have though. We had the ability to attack from the Pacific in Large and well supported numbers. This would have forced Russia to attempt to fight a war on two fronts. Additionally, we had the strategic bomber capability that was unparalleled by either the Russians or the Germans. Our fighters at the time were also unmatched by the Russians. Within a relatively short time (but bloody no doubt) they would have lost their ability to produce enough equipment to resist. We probably also had the naval power to invade and support an Army in the Crimea and cut off oil supplies to the Soviet army. Once that was done and their industry pounded by bombing, it would have only been a matter of time.

I am indeed no expert on the Korean war, but I disagree on the strategic bomber part. First, strategic bombing was not the decisive thing even against germany, whose industries where heavily concentrated in single areas. Even in spite of enourmous bombings, the German industries kept working and supplied the Wehrmacht until they were physically occupied. Strategically bombing Russia would be by far harder for a number of reasons:
1: Space, reaching the Russian industrian base in the Urals is not trivial and requires a long flight over hostile territory.
2: Air defense, Russia had a very good air defense at the end of WW2, bad air defenses do not survive against the Luftwaffe
3: Russia had the edge in Tanks and numbers.

Am I correct that you would propose to use the American Strategic bombers too:
1: Attack Russian rearlines in Germany/Poland
2: Support an invasion of the Crimea
3: Support an invasion in the Russian far east
4: Launch a strategic bombing raid in the Urals?

The US/UK Air force in WW2 was big but not that big.

 

[N4mddissent]

Speak for yourself. LIFE begins at conception. Why is this so hard for people to understand? The minute the egg and sperm meet, the cells begin to divide, then redivide, then redivide, etc. That is life and since humans give birth to humans . . . it's human life.



If I took you, as you are right now completely unprepared, and plopped you down in the middle of Siberia how long would you last? You wouldn't, you would die. If you take a baby out of the womb before they are prepared, they die. Just because they cannot survive outside of the womb does not mean they are not human.

As much as you'd like it to, the abortion issue - and those who are against it - will never go away. There are millions who will fight for the right to life . . . forever.

Ok. So what about when cells divide but sperm and egg don't meet? Replace the nucleus of an egg cell with a complete nucleus from any other cell in your body and it will divide and grow. It's called cloning. Is that life? I suppose we should also prosecute any doctor or family who "pulls the plug" on someone on life support. Who cares that they are completely brain-dead and have no prospects of recovery. They are, after all human life.

Perhaps we should issue a death certificate for every single miscarriage. Since about 1/3 of all preganancies in America end in miscarriage, we'd better jump on that quick. After all, if we are not going to make a distinction between human life at the moment of conception and human life outside of the womb, it would be necessary for consistency.

 

[mightypeon]

You are fooling yourself if you believe what you profess in that post. Although I agree for the most part with your relative analysis of the quality of German military equipment, you clearly have no concept of what they would be facing should a Russian attack come.

Having been stationed in Germany during the crescendo of the cold war and having been through countless command exercises of probable attack scenarios, the Germans would be lucky if they could achieve a minor slowdown at the Main river. Given the current status of preparedness (and even planning), it's unlikely that the old REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany) plan could be effectuated. I'm sure prepositioned equipment for that has long since been liquidated. So forget about any "real" American assistance in anything like time to save Germany.

If Russia was going to attack Germany, they would likely want to attack Poland for the same reason, so I would look at Poland as a speed bump rather than a buffer. The best thing for Germany to do would be lurch forward and try to fight as much as possible in Poland rather than Germany. The biggest problem Germany would face is not their inability to defeat the forces arrayed against it, but a lack of logistical supply. You would not be able to keep your combat forces adequately supplied with ammunition to stem the tide of Motorized Rifle Divisions flooding over the border. Remember the Russian have always traded numbers for quality and ground for time. Their tanks are not as good as NATO, but they have so many of them, it won't matter, they are "good enough." Add a lack of crucial Air Superiority, and Germany is finished. Only if the US participates (don't count on that now) and can move enough fighters over to achieve air supremacy over the battle area would Germany have a fighting chance. Keep in mind, where there are air forces involved, nobody has been successful on the battlefield if the other side has air superiority over them since WWII.

No, Germany is not "quite fine" by itself. The Bundeswehr is a critical part of a combined NATO land force. Placed into combat as a part of that force, it would acquit itself admirably, there is no doubt. Standing alone against either the US or the Russians, there should not be any doubt in your mind about the outcome. It would be swift and decisive.

I did not intend to make a point that Germany could, on its own, hold of Russia or the USA, it cant. What I wanted to point out was:
1: Germany is quasi Nuclear, this is a fairly strong deterent for foreign aggression.
2: Germany is surrounded by countries that are not going to invade it and would likely support it in a major war.
3: Germany propably has the 5-6th strongest army of the world, after US, Russia, China, UK and (maybe a tie) France.
4: Some of Germanys units are the among best in the world, some others obviously are not.
5: German manpower is quite significant.
6: In a defensife war, its main shortcomings, which are logistics and force projection, would not play such a big role.

Apart from that, the Russian Air fleet is not exactly what used to be, also logistics will usually heavily favor the defender.

Actually I think that Russia could bag Germany quicker (but less sure) than the USA. The latter would want to avoid unneccesary casulties from going toe to toe with an operative Bundeswehr on its homeground and likely launch a preemptive bombing campaign to eliminate the most dangerous Bundeswehr assets before going in with ground forces. That may work but will take a while.
Russia can take casulties better and does not have the air force to conduct an aerial campaing on that scale using only air forces, so they would go in for a massive combined assault. Which would be very costly but quicker.

Please bear in mind that the Cold War allies of Russia are no longer there too, and that attacking someone is a fair bit more difficult if you cannot place your forces right next to him prior t hostilities.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I am indeed no expert on the Korean war, but I disagree on the strategic bomber part. First, strategic bombing was not the decisive thing even against germany, whose industries where heavily concentrated in single areas. Even in spite of enourmous bombings, the German industries kept working and supplied the Wehrmacht until they were physically occupied. Strategically bombing Russia would be by far harder for a number of reasons:
1: Space, reaching the Russian industrian base in the Urals is not trivial and requires a long flight over hostile territory.
2: Air defense, Russia had a very good air defense at the end of WW2, bad air defenses do not survive against the Luftwaffe
3: Russia had the edge in Tanks and numbers.

Am I correct that you would propose to use the American Strategic bombers too:
1: Attack Russian rearlines in Germany/Poland
2: Support an invasion of the Crimea
3: Support an invasion in the Russian far east
4: Launch a strategic bombing raid in the Urals?

The US/UK Air force in WW2 was big but not that big.

As it so happens, I'm just about to conclude a re-reading of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich so I have the material fresh in my memory. If you haven't read it, I would recommend it for it unique perspective. You are correct that the strategic bombing of Germany was not decisive from the point of view that it did not reduce overall productivity of the German war economy. However, the reason this is so is because of increased productivity of factories located in Northern Italy, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Romania. Dortmund, Hamburg and eventually most of the Ruhr was put out of commission in 1943 and 1944. But for the strategic bombing campaign, Germany may well have been able to make good its material losses on the Eastern front. If the factories in Germany proper had been able to continue running, that may well have been true.

A strategic bombing campaign in the East would have been to support the initial invasion and cut the supply lines to the remote (from industry) Eastern front. Strategic bombing to inhibit and strangle the armies sent to fight in the East. Initially, the US would have been in a stronger position with shorter supply lines than the Russians. We would have had, in short order, Air Dominance. Their armies on the ground would have been logistically strangled, pounded with medium bombers in their near rear areas (field trains and combat trains) and had their front areas strafed constantly. I don't know that their was a bunch that strategic bombing could have done in that theater aside from assuring that supply lines stayed down.

In the Crimea, flying from bases in Iran and aircraft carriers, strategic targets would have included isolation of the battle area. Supply line (rail and road) destruction. Any available factories, though I don't recall any in an area that we could easily get to even with B-29s. We may have thought to drop some nuclear bombs in special missions to remove the industrial capacity in the Urals. It would have been remote enough and we did not know much about the effects of nukes except they were VERY effective. If we were successful in the Crimea, we would have strangled the petroleum flow powering the Soviet Army everywhere.

Finally in the West, the first mission would have been to achieve air dominance. You are correct about the tanks, but remember the Soviets would have had to now defend 3 battle fronts with those same tanks. Or we would just have a field day. Sure, unless we used nukes, they would have continued to produce more, but time is every thing. They would have needed to rail load at least 25 Divisions of tanks, men and equipment to make an 8,000 mile trip to the east from Germany and Poland. (That would be assuming that we used the available Army and Marine troops available in the Pacific Theater. The US had 16 million troops under arms in WWII. We might have had to surge up a little for the Soviet mission.

With their forces reduced to handle the other fronts, the Soviet tank armies become a lot more manageable. American factories could turn out as many planes as necessary indefinitely without fear of bombing. Air dominance would come, if not immediately, sooner rather than later. Once that happened, the Russian tanks would have been finished. Oh, there would have been bloody fighting and it would not have been easy, but reduced supplies, reduced replacement and 3 fronts would have been too much for them. The Russian winter would have been a problem for American troops, especially equipment-wise. But unlike the winter of 1941 with the German troops, there would have been no Siberian surprise waiting in a redoubt. They would all be fighting in Kamchatka.

The Soviet position by that time was perilous. Between Stalin's collectivization, the purges of the 1930s and WWII the Soviets had lost over 40 million people. The pressure that a US attack would have had on them would have been enormous. As I said, bloody, not easy, but unless the US quit, it would have been a win.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I did not intend to make a point that Germany could, on its own, hold of Russia or the USA, it cant. What I wanted to point out was:
1: Germany is quasi Nuclear, this is a fairly strong deterent for foreign aggression.
2: Germany is surrounded by countries that are not going to invade it and would likely support it in a major war.
3: Germany propably has the 5-6th strongest army of the world, after US, Russia, China, UK and (maybe a tie) France.
4: Some of Germanys units are the among best in the world, some others obviously are not.
5: German manpower is quite significant.
6: In a defensife war, its main shortcomings, which are logistics and force projection, would not play such a big role.

Apart from that, the Russian Air fleet is not exactly what used to be, also logistics will usually heavily favor the defender.

Actually I think that Russia could bag Germany quicker (but less sure) than the USA. The latter would want to avoid unneccesary casulties from going toe to toe with an operative Bundeswehr on its homeground and likely launch a preemptive bombing campaign to eliminate the most dangerous Bundeswehr assets before going in with ground forces. That may work but will take a while.
Russia can take casulties better and does not have the air force to conduct an aerial campaing on that scale using only air forces, so they would go in for a massive combined assault. Which would be very costly but quicker.

Please bear in mind that the Cold War allies of Russia are no longer there too, and that attacking someone is a fair bit more difficult if you cannot place your forces right next to him prior t hostilities.

Yep, that's about right.

 

[mightypeon]

Glad we agree on the modern day issue.
I still think you underestimate Russian Air defense assets, Russia did not use strategic bombing since, as the German strategic bombing did not work on them, they assumed it is not going to work on their enemies either.

May I suggest that you read up on operation August Storm?
(Leavenworth paper link: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp)They needed 3 months to move, prepare and deploy sufficient forces to utterly obliberate the Japanese in North China, although 1945 Kwantung army was not what it was supposed to be, they still where a formibadble force which however ceased to exist in short order.
I think that the Russian soldier (especially in 44/45) is easily the most commonly underrated one of WW2.

 

[Turboswede]

I think that the Russian soldier (especially in 44/45) is easily the most commonly underrated one of WW2.

Absolutly correct.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Glad we agree on the modern day issue.
I still think you underestimate Russian Air defense assets, Russia did not use strategic bombing since, as the German strategic bombing did not work on them, they assumed it is not going to work on their enemies either.

May I suggest that you read up on operation August Storm?
(Leavenworth paper link: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp)They needed 3 months to move, prepare and deploy sufficient forces to utterly obliberate the Japanese in North China, although 1945 Kwantung army was not what it was supposed to be, they still where a formibadble force which however ceased to exist in short order.

I think that the Russian soldier (especially in 44/45) is easily the most commonly underrated one of WW2.

Thanks for the citation. I took a look at it enough to get the flavor of the analysis. There are some factors, which weren't the focus of the paper that should be thrown into an analysis of the relative strength of the Soviet army. First, that battle did not occur in a vacuum. The Japanese soldiers were at the end of losing the war. This could hardly make for a very motivated force. The Soviets on the other hand were taking a victory lap. They had won the war and now were sliding into the Eastern campaign to try to get some of the spoils of war. Their moral was extremely high. Although the paper doesn't talk about it, I would suspect that the relative quality of the troops was VERY different. The Russian-Chinese border was not a very active one during the war. I doubt the Japanese had their best troops manning this backwater fixed fortification, depending more on the fortification than the troops.

Lastly, could the forces employed be anymore overwhelming? Did you see that order of battle? WOW! I think the point of the paper was more about the tactical employment of Soviet forces in the attack and the manner in which that employment in unlikely area and massive scale influenced the battle. But these were commanders at their best. It takes a while to learn how to use a tool. No less an army in combat. These Russian commanders had just fought their armies on a massive scale across Europe for 3 years and were at the height of their skill in understanding how to employ an army in the offense. They understood how to cross rivers, mountains and other terrain that lesser generals may not have attempted because of their experience in the European theater.

As far as the match up, I don't think the Japanese would ever have been a match for the Russians in a set piece force on force battle. They were really never a match for the American army once it got going. Their advantage was the nature of island hopping warfare and the limitations on amphibious assault forces combined with their tenacity. I'm sure the Japanese tanks would never have been a match for the T-34.

Concerning the air defenses, I'm not sure how effective the AAA would have been against SuperForts flying at 30,000 ft +. My guess is that some of their stuff might have been able to hit it, but their gunners wouldn't have been used to shooting at that height and would have had a lot of work to do to get good at it. Of course the ultimate edge was Atomic weapons. It really would have depended on what the US decided to do with them. I can guarantee we wouldn't have lost the war. If the Soviets took the initiative, we'd have bombed them, regardless of how we felt about it.

***

I think that the Russian soldier (especially in 44/45) is easily the most commonly underrated one of WW2.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, from what I got the Japanese were quite annoying at Iwo Jima,
but from what I read elsewhere, they had a lot of very severe leadership (Seppuku? WTH? Is there any reason to spare the enemies ammunition? Assuming you dont know sensitive informations, even becoming a POW serves you country better since the enemy has to use forces to at least guard, propably even feed you!) problems, especially concerning innovative tactics as well as the indepedent initiative that even the basic soldiers will need on a modern battlefield.

Another battle between Japanese and Soviets, Khalkhin Gol, took place in 1939, which featured fairly even numbers, although the Russians obviously had the better commander.
Unfortunatly I did not find a good paper on Kalkin Gol (there are a number of publications in Russian, however not on the web, and translating the language used by some of this military historican is neither easy nor particularly funny)