Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA vs EU
gixxxerking    1/6/2005 6:13:25 PM
This is the mood in the Fighters forums so I thought I would just declare war here instead. C'mon all you armchair generals, who wins this fight?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
USN-MID    RE:WHY!?   1/10/2005 8:21:08 PM
Every month this happens. FS claims he'll tacnuke the US fleet, and that the subs will mop up what's left. The UK posters assert their independence, while also getting pissed when they have to be on the same side as the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. The US war hawks start talking about how our awesome systems can blow anything the EU has out of the water. Great, but it all misses the big picture: This is a retarded scenario. Some points: 1st: Why is the US being stupid enough to invade? Any sane person could tell you it's physically impossible. It's not about fighting ability. It's about resupply, and the fricking continent being too fricking big. 2)Why is it always the US that has to become stupid and invade? You're welcome to come over to our side of the pond and take your shot at it. 3)Tacnukes...you're an idiot. You're opening up a HUGE can of worms unless your survival is threatened. In which case, we KNOW you have nukes, and will not make an attempt in the first place. 4)All the EU nations come together in harmony against the US. Yeah, right. Love to see that work out. I'm quite certain that the UK, Italy, Spain, and say Germany probably wouldn't be too happy about that, to name a few. The US against the EU actually has the US against a small clutch of pissed off EU nations. The other EU nations frankly could care less. So if France is getting pissy with us, the UK honestly probably would not give a damn, except to consider how they'd come out of the exchange economically/politically. 5)All the EU assets magically get integrated perfectly? Seriously, how the hell does that work? Somebody please explain to me how different nations with different roles, doctrines, and languages will put up a defense that equals the sum of the parts. This scenario requires stupidity on the part of all the participants. Even given the intelligence of politicians, this really isn't very likely at all. Btw, threatening US civilians IMO would lead to absolute RAGE. You'd hear clamoring for the ICBMs to launch. And finally, SLBMs are wonderful retaliation weapons. That's why we have so many ABM programs in the works. We don't like being held hostage by nukes either.
 
Quote    Reply

IAFbestinworld    RE:Goths    1/10/2005 8:51:46 PM
I would hesitate to say that France has a better Air Force than Israel. Israel, with their upgraded f-15's along with AMRAAM and Python 5's make the Israeli air force extremely powerful. Furthermore, Israel has fought wars where she has been outnumbered and has still managed to win. In addition, Israel will be receiving the f-35 in 2008/2009. To say that the EU has a better military than the US is ridiculous. What, they won't fight against the dismal Iraqis, but they WILL fight against the world's only superpower? come on now.
 
Quote    Reply

IAFbestinworld    RE:Goths    1/10/2005 8:54:54 PM
Furthermore, Israel is routinely ranked the 3-4 most powerful military in the world. Assuming that USA is first, do you really believe that France is second or third?
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    philip k. dick novel   1/10/2005 9:25:41 PM
i agree with IAF. the scenario is too unreal to discuss at all. what would be possible is a flashpoint somewhere in africa where EU and US interests clashed; there would be a conventional conflict between US and EU forces, say in Africa where former colonial powers (France and Belgium) once had a stake. the discussion would be thus which side could better fend for itself and supply itself in such a limited conflict. which side has the best mobile forces. this would be realistic and could be discussed. the spectre of the US attempting an amphibious invasion of europe... or the other way around... it's like a philip k. dick novel i once read.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Response to Alexis and RM-NOD   1/10/2005 10:27:37 PM
Disagreement ... and agreement ? - to Gixxxerking 1/10/2005 11:35:20 AM "on some of these issues we have to agree to disagree" Fair enough. As you said, there is no way anybody here could prove whether this "stealth" bomber will be detected or that aircraft carrier will survive SSK strikes. However, there must be some areas on which even you would agree ? Namely : - that no matter how much "surprise strike" you factor in, no matter how little respect you have for Triomphant or Vanguard SSBNs, the US could not sink them all or destroy all in port during Day 1 of OEF (operation European freedom) --gixxx--I dont think the US would be guaranteed to get any of them on Day 1. But according to my plan Day one is not when they would be attacked. Reconaissance missions to locate the patrol zones would begin well in advance of the shooting war. Once located, these subs would be attacked. Also these submarines operate and recieve orders from Satellites. The USAF would be tasked to destroy the EU satellites that relay instrutions to these boats. Thus they would be in complete darkness unless they attempted to raise a mast and establish RF contact with EU command This would make their detection easier. Still not a guarantee but reasonable to expect some good successes. - that no matter how much surprise attack you factor in, there is no way for the US to destroy all ASMP missiles and the Mirage or Rafale or Super Etendard to carry them during Day 1 of OEF] --gixxx--Not by day 1 but within 30 days US could achive air superiority over Europe. In no way do I think we could get all Rafale, Etendard or ASMP on day one. But a majority yes. But would EU initiate nuclear hostilities on Carriers first? Not likely. And if you did ASMP is not anti-ship missile. Correct me if I'm wrong. And even if it is. It would have little chance to get through Aegis in the numbers required to ensure destuction of the Carrier. -Therefore, on the eve of Day 2, you've got a very p*ssed of collection of European countries, along with much surprised European (and American ...) opinions. --gixxx--Pissed off Europeans who have no coordinated defence. So US attack would be a coordinated as a ballet while you have the Tower of Babel. Assuming that the US president is not impeached and sent into mental health institution on the evening of Day 1 (a huge assumption, which I'm not sure even you would be prepared to make), assuming further that European classical Navy and Air forces are so much at a disadvantage as you paint them to be (which I do not believe, but that's not the point), US invasion could be prevented if by no other strategy then by the following : - Conserve all surviving Triomphant and Vanguard at sea while giving them orders to launch a special distress message if they were attacked, and to launch all missiles at US population centers if a single such message is detected. Of course, make very public the fact that such a defensive strategy has been chosen --gixxx--Assuming a method for communication would still exist. - Use ASMP to terminate any US beachhead if one is conquered, even if that occurs in a population center. However, make public the fact that for each European nuke that has to be fired over European territory in that way, 10,000 US tourists (which are now housed in detention centers, in case I forgot to tell you) will be killed. Of course, if it's a US nuke that fires at a European population center, then one among the European SSBNs will have to be sacrificed. But its 16 SLBMs with several tens of warheads will have created havoc among CONUS military targets, while its little sisters safe at sea will ensure that the probable US follow-on nuclear strike will avoid European cities --gixxx--Somebody tried the human shield option on us before. We found him in a hole. Also there are many Europeans here too! Also the use of a nuclear ASMP would be suicide. The US would retaliate with SLBM or ICBM. Also Aegis, Patriot or AMRAAMs could stop it. - In addition, make sure the US leadership understands that if the US has not stopped its attacks on the evening of Day 7, Islamist terrorist groups all over the world will have been provided with a few tens wallet nukes --gixxx--We are already dealing with that threat. It didnt stop us from going to war in 2001 or 2003. In the very unlikely event that the US president is not yet impeached on the evening of Day 1, he will be assassinated by American patriots on Day 2 or 3, and the attack will be called back. --gixxx--The scenario assumes a legitimate reason for war. And US Patriots dont assasinate Presidents. Or what would be your response to that ? Remember, you're the US president in that scenario because the US president only would have the authority
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:WHY!?   1/10/2005 11:22:50 PM
If you've followed the post you will se that gixxxerking started the thread and claimed complete US superiority, most of the posters that are now responding did not do so until gixxxering started making silly things like we should be honoured that he thinks we're worthy. So please don't call me stupid because I get sick of this poster's arrogance and respond with sound reason.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Response to Alexis and RM-NOD   1/11/2005 12:11:42 AM
Think what you?re saying, what does Russia having more subs have to do with anything? Did the USN actually ever engage them? No it didn?t, how can you use an event that never occurred as any sort of proof? On the issue of submarines, no they are not impossible to detect but they are close. I will bring up the Falklands again and how many problems the Argentine SSKs caused to the RN. And there were only around 3 of them. The fact is the EU has a large number of submarines and the US could not hope to destroy them all. I?m repeating myself now but the EU has to get lucky just a few times whereas the US has to stay lucky throughout the engagement. It doesn?t matter how long you?ve been doing it either. How does the US enjoy better C4ISR? They have only what is onboard there carriers; Europe has its entire force. As for the EU not being coordinated the large proportion of the EUs force is NATO interoperable and routinely works and exercises together; not to mention that having your continent attacked makes cooperation seem very appetising. I agree with your point about nuclear weapons but if you want to make that argument then you moot this entire post, the US would not risk attacking the EU in the face of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. ?Until US Military destroys comsats...lol...day 1.? Again how, the links you provided are links to studies not in service weapons I believe. Further more the ASAT(s) you have posted were intended for low orbit satellites only anyway. Onto TLAM strikes; yes you?ve got a big volume of water to fire from but you?ve also got a massive number of ships, submarines, and aircraft patrolling those waters. How could you possibly hope to survive very long? ?Only 1000lbs, not effective? Are you insane?? Actually no they?re not that effective. Read up about how many weapons were fired in conflicts in the past. I believe in Iraq some 4000 missiles were fired and that was with air support and without an advanced enemy. ?Utter nonsense. You may detect some but not all. And the detected ones could slip away if you are not in position to get firing solution.? I never said they would be destroyed when they fire but that they would be detected. Radar alone would be enough to detect a launch, once the area that the SSN is operating in is known EU assets would be there very quickly. Either this would destroy the SSN or at the very least stop it from firing any missiles. You?re also disregarding mines. ?D) The USN SSN force would be out numbered. --gixxx--Oh really? Lets check. link Still think so? At least try to be factual.? Err yes I do still think so, the EU has around 80 submarines, if you can count you can see that there are 60 SSNs in the USN. If you?re going to be y at least make sure you?re right first. ?US always operates on Enemy territory. And we are quite familiar with European waters thank to the Soviets.? Are you as familiar as the Europeans? I highly doubt it, that?s the point. And please stop talking about always operating in enemy territory because you know very well that you can?t compare the enemies the US has dealt with in the past few years with the EU. ?USN has much larger fleet of more powerful ships with longer ranged weapons.? No it doesn?t. Where are you getting these facts from? You have a point on the more powerful ships but nothing else. The USN has 109 DD/FF/CG fleet whereas the EU has around a 160 strong DD/FF fleet. Factor in the logistics the US would need to get it?s entire force out and you?ll realise that the US does not have enough support to do that. ?Makes no sense.? Well then if I have to spell it out. Your SSN is supposedly wondering around firing TLAMs at us, it can only do this from 500km at most. USN surface comes within 500km of the EU coast equals suicide, therefore no surface ships to support USN submarines. ?their intended role...lol? I know exactly what there role is but the fact is that anti-stealth technology has come a long way since it was designed. Your link addresses none of my points. ?wrong? Why? I love your reasoning, its jus whatever you say goes isn?t it. Gives some reasons for what you say instead of just pure opinion. I mean look at what you?re saying, the USN carriers will be fine, reason ? the Russians had lots of subs. That?s not a reason, that?s just an irrelevant fact.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Response to Alexis and RM-NOD   1/11/2005 1:55:21 AM
RM-NOD, You are obviously convinced you could hold us off. I am definately convinced we could force your surrender within 60 to 180 days. So lets just agree to disagree. No that I'm conceding anything to you. I just dont want this to degenerate into an infinate loop arguement.
 
Quote    Reply

El Gringo Said    RE:Response to Alexis and RM-NOD   1/11/2005 6:06:32 AM
"I dont think the US would be guaranteed to get any of them on Day 1. But according to my plan Day one is not when they would be attacked. Reconaissance missions to locate the patrol zones would begin well in advance of the shooting war." Gixxerking, SSBN patrol zones are a proverbial needle in a haystack. With the USSR is was slightly easier, because the Soviets intended to operate its SSBN's in bastions, because they couldn't guarrentee either the weapons safety or security. Thus NATO had a much smaller area (but highly guarded area to search). The US with less boats would have to search a much bigger area, since the endurance on the Vanguards at least is massive and they can pretty much strike the US , this side of the western world. Trying to recce any of these zones, would at best, damage relations and infact be a covert act of war. As for attacking aforementioned SSBN's, you've got to find them. And you dont have enoguh to conduct searches, whilst conducting ASW, ASuW, SIGINT or Special Ops. Whoops. Not to mention firing on a Nations deterrent is an overt act of war, which will result in Nuclear strikes. Nuclear war, end game. Gix, you dont know anything about Nuclear warfighting, so just leave this subject alone from your schoolyard analysis. "Also these submarines operate and recieve orders from Satellites. The USAF would be tasked to destroy the EU satellites that relay instrutions to these boats. Thus they would be in complete darkness unless they attempted to raise a mast and establish RF contact with EU command This would make their detection easier. Still not a guarantee but reasonable to expect some good successes. " Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Firstly, whilst Satelites are used to relay orders, its not common practise for a SSBN to converse with HMS Northwood, for that very reason... Suffice to say in the absence of orders from HMS Northwood and the lack of BBC World Service, Missiles would get launched. Kind of scary don't you think? That one of the ways of verifying that Mother England is still functioning, is listening to the radio... "Not by day 1 but within 30 days US could achive air superiority over Europe." You dont have the planes. Sorry. The USN would be extremely dangerous, but at best you could expect air parity. Given all your other commitments, it simply not possible IMO. "In no way do I think we could get all Rafale, Etendard or ASMP on day one. But a majority yes. But would EU initiate nuclear hostilities on Carriers first? Not likely. And if you did ASMP is not anti-ship missile. Correct me if I'm wrong. And even if it is. It would have little chance to get through Aegis in the numbers required to ensure destuction of the Carrier." Listen you burke. One missile flies, they all fly. Simple as that. BTW the main ASuW asset of the Royal Navy and I assume the MN (along with the USN) is their SSN's. Dont worry about missiles. Worry about the lack of effective deepwater and littoral ASW. "Pissed off Europeans who have no coordinated defence. So US attack would be a coordinated as a ballet while you have the Tower of Babel." Ahem... Who are the members of NATO, other than the US? And given the level of tension to have built up for this attack, there wil have been plently of time and reason to justify a proper EU defense structure. "Assuming a method for communication would still exist." Before satiltes, the primary means of communications was ELF communictions. Satelites haven;t changed this much. "Somebody tried the human shield option on us before. We found him in a hole. Also there are many Europeans here too! Also the use of a nuclear ASMP would be suicide. The US would retaliate with SLBM or ICBM. Also Aegis, Patriot or AMRAAMs could stop it. " Sorry, weren't you the person who advocated limited tactical Strikes in their second post? again, one Nuke flies, they all fly. "The scenario assumes a legitimate reason for war. And US Patriots dont assasinate Presidents. Or what would be your response to that? Remember, you're the US president in that scenario because the US president only would have the authority to order such a surprise attack ! Therefore, you have every reason to find a solution QUICKLY ;-)" I have the one outcome to your ty little topic. The RN and USN both head to the Bahamas for a quiet or not so quiet drink and wait for cooler heads to prevail. And a surprise attack would again more than likely result in a Nuclear war. You dont just attack Nuclear powers... "The Russians had more Subs. US Carriers can defend against Subs." The Russians Did indeed. They also had poor subs with badly trained conscript crews. US Carriers were also expected to operate behind or just beyond the GIUK Gap, where it would be alot safer for them to operate. You have neither luxury here. "True, but they are not impossible. We have been doing that for over 100 years." Have you talked to any Skimmers or sub d
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    El Gringo Said    1/11/2005 8:49:47 AM
good post. I would add that : Aegis shield is blinded after a nuke explosion. Impossible to make an efficient defense against a staturating attack. ASMP is not purely antiship but can hit the sea nearby a moving carrier and an underwater explosion of 300kt at few km at worst ,is deadly . No reprisal on EU civilian population is to fear from US as long we still have 5 SSBN.So we can use tactical nukes.You will it us with tactical nukes also and what? we defend our territory and we can still defend it if all our ships are nukes as airbases.While US can not attack from US after their carriers are out. A technical error: our SSBN receive orders by ELF not satellites. France use Astarte transall as SSBN flying command post with ELF emitters to pass orders.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy