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
Bluewings    Giving up with Gixxx   1/11/2005 9:15:38 AM
He 's just an idiot and a wanker , but probably a master with Google at finding irrelevant links who gives nothing conclusive . Give up with him ... worthless . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

mr_rok    RE:Hahahaha   1/11/2005 9:32:29 AM
Hahahahaha incredibly funny thread full of ego superlatives and utter nonsense;
 
Quote    Reply

Lightning Rod    RE:RM-Nod Can we not muddle the scenario please,   1/11/2005 1:05:02 PM
Fair enough. In that case the US could not invade the EU and win. Not if theywere working together with the UK on their side. No way no how. If they were splintered The US could just maybe take them out one at a time. Even in that manner the cost would be too high. While I can't imagine a case where the US would get in a war with either the UK or France or Germany it is even harder to come up with some way to get into a war with all three. No offense to the rest of the EU but the majority of the power is with those three so they get the attention. The US could probably get troos on the ground in Europe but the distance would be to great and these countries too strong if united to be successful. Now they could make a lot of noise and break things but to take over these countries if the people didn't want us there? I don't think so.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Bluewings, EL Gringo And European Posters   1/11/2005 1:27:29 PM
Im an idiot because you dont agree with me? Its funny to see who cracks under pressure and resorts to insults and name calling. My scenarios are all plausable and while not guaranteed of success are concievable. So just stick to the ebate and stop getting personal. If you ont agree thats fine. But you Europeans are the ones who got nasty. Why? Because I wont back down to your propaganda and dis/mis-information. I remember argueing with people about Afghanistan before that deployment "oh you arrogant Americans, you will never be able to invade...". What ever. Bottom line, if you post garbage and I see it, I'll call BS. If you ont like it, tough. And since we are getting personal Its very entertaining to listen to someone from a country that has been TAKEN TWICE in the same century talk about how strong they are to a country that has been decisively kicking asses and rescuing Europe for a century. Now can we be friends again and discuss military matters without the personal attacks please? Thank You. And for those of you who think this topic is stupid I am very surprised! WW I was the war top end all wars. WW II was not suppossed to ever happen. But it did. Russia was an ally in WW II an turned into our(Europeans included) greatest enemy for half a century. And to say that is not possible because nuclear powers would not fight? Wow! So then lets not even plan for nuclear war, since it can never happen. Hell I guess I waste a lot of peoples time with all the NBC training I conducted over the last decade. Nuclear weapons have a lot of mythical qualities left over from the cold war. But our generation is growing old. And people have short memories. Nuclear weapons will be used in anger again. Its only a matter of time. So it is not a waste of time to discuss these issues. Especially judging by the number of post here. If I rubbed anyone they wrong way, It wasnt my intent but you probably had it coming.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    To Gixxxerking ... Four Questions   1/11/2005 3:01:53 PM
In your answer to me, you stated that you preferred the scenario to be for the US people agreeing to agression and conquest of the EU, for whatever reason. Alright, just remember that this scenario precludes a surprise attack. During the months necessary for the US leadership to rally their nation in their EU conquest project, EU forces would have had plenty of time to prepare for defense, notably to disperse their assets. In this scenario, I have four questions for you. I would appreciate if you either find a detailed answer to each question or admit openly that you have none and that the aim the question proposed to reach can probably not be attained by US forces in this scenario. If you're not ready to admit that you don't have the answer to an objection and instead retreat into "yours is your opinion and mine is mine" mode, that makes the game far less interesting and people will grow bored of this scenario. Also, depending on your "score" of questions you find a solution to / you don't, we might be able to assess the consequences as for the following course of that splendid little war of words we're having ;-) ... - You want to organize "Reconnaissance missions to locate the patrol zones" of EU SSBNs in advance of the shooting war. Hello ? What is it that you mean ? Locating SSBNs cannot be by plane, therefore you must be speaking of SSNs chasing SSBNs. Problem is, the sea is VAST, potential patrol zones are just as large. You got the "needle in the haystack" problem, compounded by the fact that for a SSN to be the first to detect the SSBN rather than the other way round is dubious at best. Triomphant and Vanguard are at least as stealthy as US SSNs, and a SSBN on patrol will be even stealthier because of low speed compared with the SSN traveling the seas looking for it. Out of four UK / French SSBNs on patrol (up to six in case of international crisis like America gearing up for EU invasion), you got a very small but not completely negligible probability of getting lucky just once. That's all. Therefore, the Europeans retain their secure second strike ability. Therefore, they have every freedom to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield, because a US blackmail to then use nukes on EU cities is just hot air : no matter how much the US population wants to conquer Europe, they are not massively suicidal (if your scenario states that they are, then I agree the US could destroy Europe, while Europe would destroy the US) QUESTION 1 : How could US forces locate 4 (four) European SSBNs in the vast oceans ? - "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." Satellites are not the only way to establish communication with boomers. This fact was already presented to you by other posters. Not counting that the fact that no OPERATIONAL US ASAT is publicly known to exist. Also, RF contact would not need a mast to be established. In short, SSBNs can remain in patrol while having contact with the ground. The ways to do that are diverse enough that the US would have negligible chance to succeed in breaking them all. QUESTION 2 : How could the US block communications between national authorities and their SSBNs ? - About ASMP and other aircraft-carried nuclear weapons, the scenario you have chosen (NOT surprise attack) leaves enough time for more to be produced, either to be mounted on an ASMP, or on existing Storm Shadow cruise missiles, or on heavy torpedoes ... You're not headed against ASMP only. I did not prop up the aircraft carrier nuke attack because other posters already challenged you on that, but what about the question I asked, that is actual CONQUEST of land ... how do you do that when each time you land with any success the debarked troops are burnt in a nuclear burst ? QUESTION 3 : How do you succeed in a landing when under nuclear fire ? - You think that the US would be able to establish air superiority over European airspace ... a fair question would be : how ? You should remember that the surge capability of the US carrier fleet is 7 ships at the same place, which is about 600 aircrafts. That's not enough for air superiority over Europe (regardless of whether these carriers would survive long in European waters, a question other posters are puting you to task on). Remember by the way that Rafale have been proven in exercises to be superior to both F14 and F18C/D. Not superior as in "we once got lucky and won a dogfight" but in "A F14 will last two minutes against a Rafale, a F18C/D 2 to 5 minutes depending on its pilot's skills". As for F22, they are not carrier capable. QUESTION 4 : How do you establish air superiority when you're both at strong numerical disadvantage and partly at quality parity (with Mi
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:To Gixxxerking ... Four Questions   1/11/2005 3:36:16 PM
Good job Alexis to precise that this guy is unable to evaluate. In his scenario he would probaly attempt to conquer Iceland or North Africa to get F22 or F15 based but again nukes to respond. Moreover to get 12 carrier for Europe means no carrier anymore to deter China or other threats. It is impossible today to get air superiority in Europe from US based aircraft and to protect bombers.And B2 is vulnerable to Europe means and density of fighters. Second strike is the key and it is why UK and France invest in SSBN.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    Absurdity   1/11/2005 4:00:23 PM
Guy's, this entire thread is off base. Looking at the tech. specs. for this widget or that widget does nothing for the examination of the hypothesis. What really counts is motivation and moral. Old Europe does not have this at this time. Not much motivation and not much moral. The sanguinary days of western European hutzpa are long gone. Most of the old sod cannot even breed sufficiently to replace their population decline. The EU cannot even get rid of the miserable mullahs and imans that infest a once wonderful place. So, welcome to Eurarbia.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    RE:Absurdity   1/11/2005 4:02:06 PM
That should be "Eurarabia".
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:To Gixxxerking ... Four Questions   1/11/2005 4:51:01 PM
QUESTION 1 : How could US forces locate 4 (four) European SSBNs in the vast oceans ? - "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." Satellites are not the only way to establish communication with boomers. This fact was already presented to you by other posters. Not counting that the fact that no OPERATIONAL US ASAT is publicly known to exist. Also, RF contact would not need a mast to be established. In short, SSBNs can remain in patrol while having contact with the ground. The ways to do that are diverse enough that the US would have negligible chance to succeed in breaking them all. --gixxx-- I would use intelligence agencies to locate patrol zones of the SSNs theough espionage. USN Seals could also be used to infiltrate SSBN bases to sabotage Subs. And if there was a period of tension, lets say a year like OIF, I would have time to use SSNs to monititor SSBNs as they leave port and Shadow them. Since I am the aggressor, I have the initiative in deciding when to attack. If for some reason I cannot locate the EU SSBNs prior to the start of hostilities with one of the previous methods, I will rely on my own nuclear deterent to prevent you from firing. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you have 4 SSBNs at sea. If my methods could find even two of them I will attack simultaneously if possible. You will lose the boats in port. So these would be some of my opening shots of the war. Also the USAF ABL is near its IOC. So if we had a period of tension. The ABL could be deployed and tasked with the destruction of SLBMs. Combined with US missile defense system, Land based interceptors and AEGIS ship equiped with interceptors. US has at least a limited ability to stop ballistic missile attacks on homeland. QUESTION 2 : How could the US block communications between national authorities and their SSBNs ? - About ASMP and other aircraft-carried nuclear weapons, the scenario you have chosen (NOT surprise attack) leaves enough time for more to be produced, either to be mounted on an ASMP, or on existing Storm Shadow cruise missiles, or on heavy torpedoes ... You're not headed against ASMP only. I did not prop up the aircraft carrier nuke attack because other posters already challenged you on that, but what about the question I asked, that is actual CONQUEST of land ... how do you do that when each time you land with any success the debarked troops are burnt in a nuclear burst ? --gixxx-- I trust Aegis/E-2C to be successful in tracking/destroying Any ASMP. The MAX range is 300km. Picket Ships and properly positioned E-2C would give sufficient early warning of ASMP capable aircraft closing to that range. And if you initiated Nuclear hostilities then we would respond with more. US has superiority in nuclear weapons. So perhaps that would deter your first use. If not, then we do nuclear war scenario. US would likely prevail then. If amphibious operation is underway. AEGIS is within 50nm of your coast providing air cover. 300Kt ASMP has lethal radius of 5km to 7km against exposed troops. So you would have to launch a good number of them to stop a dispersed landing. As you know, for landing to take place local air superiority would be a must. So F/A-18E and F-14D on CAP would extend early warning time and require Eu aircraft to fight their way to launch point. QUESTION 3 : How do you succeed in a landing when under nuclear fire ? - You think that the US would be able to establish air superiority over European airspace ... a fair question would be : how ? You should remember that the surge capability of the US carrier fleet is 7 ships at the same place, which is about 600 aircrafts. That's not enough for air superiority over Europe (regardless of whether these carriers would survive long in European waters, a question other posters are puting you to task on). Remember by the way that Rafale have been proven in exercises to be superior to both F14 and F18C/D. Not superior as in "we once got lucky and won a dogfight" but in "A F14 will last two minutes against a Rafale, a F18C/D 2 to 5 minutes depending on its pilot's skills". As for F22, they are not carrier capable. --gixxx-- I do not have to invade EU on land to win. I would obviously prepare to do that. Especially since I would not have to worry about EU invading US. But with enough firepower, the US could force a EU surrender and move occupation forces in after your surrender. And dont say "we would never surrender". History shows that you would under the right conditions. Being bombed into oblivion is the right condition QUESTION 4 : How do you establish air superiority when you're both at strong numerical disadvantage and partly at quality parity (with Mirage 2000 or
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Carriers   1/11/2005 5:08:22 PM
4 to 6 carriers would be enough. And FS stop saying "nukes to respond". As if that would be the end of it. You would be signing your own death warrant by usng your nukes. Also you are assuming PAC-3 or CAP doesnt shoot down your nuke en-route. Also it is utter non-sense to think the B2 cant attack Europe. Sure its not invisible or invincible. But it would reduce your radar coverage so mush that it could sneak through gaps in coverage with ease. Also with a build up of tension, 21 B2 could become 40 B2 within a year. Not to mention 60 B-1B and 80 B-52 each sending over 12 ALCM into Europe. Lets say half of these are dedicated to EU war and average 12 ALCM each. 840 cruise missiles. Say 4 Carrier Strike Groups also fire TLAM. Thats another 2000 cruise missiles. Lets say 30 SSN are also going to fire. another 360. And then Ohio SSGN fire. Another 600 cruise missiles. Thats almost 4000 cruise missiles. With a year to prepare we could probably bring more. And that does not even add the hundreds of fixed wing tactical aircraft that would also be firing JDAM, JSOW and JSSM. Your command and control, communications, airfields, early warning radar, airfields, ports and WMDs would be savaged. All your air defense fighters at the same time could not stop that attack.
 
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