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
El Gringo Said    RE:Umm, forgetting something?   1/12/2005 5:45:38 AM
"You forgot a few things, When your SSKs have to SNORKEL long befor they are in range of the Carriers, Seahawk, P-3s, Seawolves, Los Angeles Class Blast them out of the water." SSK's shouldn't (read, wouldn't, except in your twisted mind) be anywhere but in Brown Water, which to strike at the heart of Europe, your CSG's are going to have to be. IOW, your CSG go to the carriers, not vice-versa. "Rubis is SSN and hunted down by USN ASW. Since Period of tension arises prior to hostilities it is safe to assume USN Carriers are near attack positions. Just prior to firing, They sprint towards lauch points that are sanitized by waiting SSNs. When SSK tries to move int to catch !up. ADCAP." Are you always this insightful...? First thing Skimmer ASW is always going to be at a major disadvantage against Subs. ASW is a worst ineffective and at best a deterrent and probably balnced, a counter attack. Its not that good. The USN has already identified its short commings in Littorial ASW, but it will be at least 10 years before anything is done about it. Your grasp of SSK warfare is somewhat tenous, even by this forum standards. That is to say, non exsistant. SSK's dont 'sprint', they stalk... You could not keep an airforc that large on alert for very long. And even then it would take time to scramble all of them. "You could not keep an airforc that large on alert for very long. And even then it would take time to scramble all of them." How old are you? You really dont have a clue, do you? Firstly, NATO was kept at that stage of alert for about 40 years! Takes time to scramble? About 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes. Not too mention those on BARCAP. "And with 4000 Cruise missiles racing towards Europe." ... Words fail me. Do you know how many TLAM's were launched in OP DS and OIF? Kosovo? And yet you 'think' (for want of a better term) that 4000, IOW, $4 Billion USD is going to head towards Europe on in one night, ignoring the sheer impossibility of the Logistics and planning. Not too mention that 4000 still wouldn't touch the amount of targets needing to be serviced. Hell you probably couldn;t do it with Nukes either. BTW I like you idea of racing. At the furthest range, TLAM will take 2, 2.5 hours to reach a target. Racing. "Your interceptors would lauch first. Before even a third of them are airborne Runways are cratered trapping the rest on the ground." Cratered with what exactly? I dont know how many TLAMs are configured -D, but certainly not very many at all. Given that in OP DS, F-111's and GR.1's had to service the runways. BTW, it takes a trained engineer company all of, not very long to repair a runway. About as long as it takes quick drying cement to go hard. Its not a threat thats new, again, NATO had to prepare against this very threat for 40 years... But you are suggesting that 1000lb of HE can crater a runway? heres a hint. Durandal can crater a runway. JP-223 can crater a runway. iron bombs with delayed fuses can crater runways. 1000lb exploding as an airbrust will crack the tarmac. Its not the weapon of choice. Its not even a weapon which capable of performing Counter runway missions. "But I will allow for 70% of the interceptors to take off before runways are cratered. Meanwhile cruise missiles are killing the trapped aircraft and taking out EW radar. " You will, will you? How kind. Suffice to say, since your reasoning leading up to this point is wrong, this point is somewhat moot. For taking about a HAS (a relic of a 40 year cold war), you would need one each, or probably 2, given they are rated to withstand 2000lb bombs going off outside. "Each of your 4 AWACs is assigned to a pair of F-22s from CONUS. These F-22s are refueled inflight. And carry 8 AMRAAMS. EACH AWACs is attacked by 6 AMRAAMS. Escorts are ignored because the F-22s simply supercruise away to their secondary targets, your Tankers. " So basically you are suggesting that the F-22's fly all the way over from CONUS, IFR (because your tankers are suddenly immune from attack...) then fly straight down the pickle barrel to (being generous) 50 miles within a ultra high powered radar, without being acquired and engaged? Hmmmm... the rest of your points going by this reasoning is therefore moot again... "However they are largely blind as to the locations of USN because prowling Raptors have removes AWACS and Sea Recon Planes. " Disregarding the loss of 11 AWAC's of the RAF and Armee De Air, Germany AWACs, plus the 18 Sentrys in Belgium, and the MPA suddenly being downed, what about subs? "In a stroke of luck, a Trafalgar-class has crippled one of the 4 US carriers before slipping away. It is adrift and requesting tow back to CONUS for repairs. Trafalgar has radio coordinates of SAG and EU strike force is directed by surviving ground control to the location. EU pilots must use manual navigation techniques as EU global positioning Satellites are off line." Errrm, After
 
Quote    Reply

mr_rok    RE:@ Gringo   1/12/2005 5:56:29 AM
I admire you for taking the time...;)
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    To Gixxxerking ... Four Questions : and Lost Answers !   1/12/2005 6:06:25 AM
Your post in response to my "Four Questions" post is unreachable, by contrast to every and all posts before and after it. Could you please re-post it ? Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    sprinting SSK's - gixxxerking   1/12/2005 6:20:45 AM
I wonder if Perisher is teaching everyone to "sprint" into battle. ;) Comments like this are good for comedic relief, but have no link to reality. The best sub killer is another sub - and to kill a sub travelling at circa 8+ knots, you'd be an underwater noisemaker - if not to a deaf sub AWO, then certainly the SBA (in a likely traffic area) will be having a field day hearing a sub "sprinting" to battle. You're conveniently ignoring all the internal data on how the USN views the conventional sub threat. The only person who would be absolutely confident about taking out all the conventionals so easily would be a congenital idiot who's never been near a ship/boat in the first place. The basic issues of logistics and associated impositions also seems to have been conveniently trivialised. For someone who professes or alludes to be in the game, you're getting some of the fundamentals horribly wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Umm, forgetting something?   1/12/2005 7:21:27 AM
Ok then I lied, I can?t resist. ?You can nit pick all you want.? Nit pick? The definition of nit picking is the point out all of the small flaws in something; in war it?s the nits that kill you. I have a few points and some questions, please answer all of them, plainly please. No more ?well I?ll do this and then this and then this?, I?m sure we all know that there?s an infinite number of ways of going about war. Let?s look at this from a book keeper?s point of view, let?s figure out what the odds of the US being able to do X is, we?ll do this by stating what the reasons are that the US would be able to do X. First point ? The longest range air to ground missile available with the USAF is the JASSM-ER with a range of 500nm, the intercept radius of a Tornado F3 is 1000nm. So in order to hit even the beaches of Spain or Ireland you have to be halfway into the range of just one of Europe?s interceptors. What reason is there to believe that any significant number of bombers could release there weapons before being intercepted? Second point ? You still have the US parked off the coast of the EU without the EU doing anything about it. What makes you think the EU would not send submarines to park themselves right under your carriers? Or God forbid actually watch what the USN is doing. Think about this logically, there is tension between the EU and US, and then the US dispatches 4 carrier groups to sit off the EU coast. Why would the US be able to do this without reaction from the EU? Third point ? Raptors do not have unlimited range, in fact even if they did in terms of fuel the pilots would still be fatigued. From a US base to just the coast of the EU is nearing 7000km, the range of the Raptor is around 3000km, so lets say that they are refuelled the very second they?re about to run out. That gives them an extra 3000km range, which means they?re very close to the EU but not quite there. And that?s all there is to it. As soon as a Raptor got within 1000km of the EU it would run out of fuel and die. Added to the fact the Raptor isn?t in service yet either you?ve got a few problems. Where are your tankers coming from by the way? Fourth point ? SSKs are generally much quieter than SSNs and I don?t know if anyone?s told you but that usually means they?re harder to detect. And as pointed out even if the US can destroy 85% of the Europe?s submarines that still means that 12 have got through and killed all of your carriers, and even if the USN manages to kill 95% of the EU?s submarines that still means that all 4 of the US carriers sent have been sunk. Not to mention that 85% and 95% are nearly, if not actually, impossible figures to achieve. Your statement to qualify your confidence has only been ?US subs dont have to match less capable SSKs sub for sub. Thats why they are so big and carry many more weapons and far more advanced sensors. They are more efficient killers.? In other words you are saying that the US is better so they would kill as many EU subs as is necessary. That is not proof. What suggests to you that the USN could above 95% success rate against European submarines? Fifth point ? If years of cold war cooperation means you know how the EU operates do you not think that it also means the EU knows how you operate? Sixth point ? USN boats can?t operate anywhere undetected, why do you say this? How is a submarine going to stay hidden when it?s firing dozens of TLAM? Seventh point ? The USN operates 51 Los Angeles classes, each armed with up to 22 TLAMs and Torpedoes so around about 10 TLAMs optimistically. 2 Sea Wolves with around 25 TLAMs 1 Virginia with 12 TLAMs 2 Ohio classes with 154 TLAMs I don?t know if you?ve done your maths lately but that comes to 880 TLAMs capable of getting any where near the EU coast without detection. Remember what I said before, that to effectively target coastal targets of just the Western EU you would have to be within 500km of the coast and to hit deeper you would need to be as close as 300km. That area would be patrolled around the clock by a large number of both ships, submarines and aircraft, being able to actually fire without being discovered would be very difficult; getting surface ships into position would be suicide due to the fact that the USN would be out numbered in every way and generally by a wide margin. What reason is there to believe that the US could strike enough relevant targets to subdue a large number of EU aircraft, ships, radar stations etc? (IIRC the US only bought 4,170 TLAMs anyway) Eighth point ? With an average air group your four carriers would have only 192 fighter aircraft, maybe 300 if you have Harriers on a couple of Wasps. This would be against around 2000 EU fighter aircraft; you would be out numbered by nearly 7 to 1, even if you destroy 50% of them on the ground you would still be out numbered by over 3 to 1. Granted that not all 2000 aircraft would be available at any one time but neith
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Period of tension!!!   1/12/2005 11:34:20 AM
Me and some of the EU posters set up the scenario with a period of tention. If you are going to jump in the arguement please read the ENTIRE thread so you will know WTF is going on! El Gringo, F*&k you. If you want to get nasty and insulting then I'll ignore you. I have proven myself under fire so I could give a sh*t what you think. This is just a game. FUN WHILE I ENJOY SOME TIME OFF. Nothing to get nasty or mad about. If you think I dont know what I'm talking about then fine. Dont reply. pretend this is a science fiction topic you dont like and go away. Go get laid or something. Unless you have some legitimate question or counter strategy In your reply you will be ignored. Comments like "this can never" happen will also be ignored. That is the most foolish statement any military planner could ever make. OK, thats enough time wasted on some of the fools here. To everyone else who had the courtesey to reply to my post, thank you and I will get back to you shortly.
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    gixxxerking   1/12/2005 12:04:51 PM
The US vs EU scenario has been alredy proposed already twice in StrategyPage in the last year, if I recall correctly. Honestly, I can't see any value in this particular kind of thread besides wargaming, watching RM-Nod and French Stratege agreeing in something or Trans-Atlantic "My d*ck is longer than yours" contests. I'm anxiously waiting your replies addressing the points raised by other posters... Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:gixxxerking   1/12/2005 12:48:22 PM
OK well i havent been a member for more than a few months so forgive me if its old news. I just ask that if you are not interested, think its stupid or have nothing but personal attacks to please ignore the thread.
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:gixxxerking   1/12/2005 1:03:25 PM
Personal attacks? *Every poster except gixxxerking* "Sorry gixxxerking, that doesn't make sense, here are some fact's you've missed." *gixxxerking* (and I quote) "F*ck off. I don't give a sh*t." Is there a method for voting someone be barred from the forum for antagonising everyone, being rude and generally wasting bandwidth?.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:gixxxerking - Tercio   1/12/2005 1:20:42 PM
Personally I don't mind these threads as long as they don't start repeating themselves and get stuck in a loop. Hell in the past few posts I've discovered three very interesting documents on my computer that I had totally forgot about; not to mention the little bits you learn. Plus it's good to air out the things you take for granted every now and then; and stuff like that.
 
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