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
gixxxerking    RE:F18 tankers   2/14/2005 3:14:20 PM
Dont need to. USAF have own tankers and can reach targets from Iceland or CONUS.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Aircraft Database --oldbutnotwise   2/14/2005 3:16:24 PM
Anyone who doubts that the French would be speaking German today if the U.S. had bailed on the European war is simply smoking dope. I don't think anyone's disagreeing I think what people are saying (other than gix) is that the same is true if you said that the UK and the Commonwealth or Russia had bailed. Without any of these key events would not have happened and key possitions would not have been available; imagine if there were no Eastern front, no European help with the A Bomb, Nazis owning the Med and North Africa and Middle East, no Britain to base from, etc etc The point being the US did it's bit but could not have done it alone, which is the same for any allied nation.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    RE:Aircraft Database --oldbutnotwise   2/14/2005 3:17:25 PM
Ehran, Sorry, that does not happen to be the case. At the time the UK was flat broke and the resources required for the project simply were not there. Further, the first gasseous diffusion technique (the only one in hand early on) required a significant amount of the TVA to power it (hydropower). Today this is available in Canada but at that time such resources were underdeveloped. Read the Making of the Atomic Bomb. Best, wjr
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:F18 tankers   2/14/2005 3:17:56 PM
I don't think the US can use Iceland, I don't care what you think I decide what the facts are not you; and I decide who's plan works. So you're wrong. :)
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:F18 tankers   2/14/2005 3:25:22 PM
I dont care what you think. In my scenario Iceland is taken until someone comes uo with a reasonable way of stopping it. WHICH NONE OF YOU HAVE.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    RE:Chalk River   2/14/2005 3:40:12 PM
Actually the British involvement in the bomb was, largely, Jewish expats from middle Europe. The British had some world class physics types but there were not so many in the high energy physics area. Still, they had some good folks there ? like Fuchs who sold the whole thing to the Russians. Bohr (Dane), Heisenberg, Einstein, Pauli, and on and on ? largely Hungarian, German and Nordic (some Americans and Brits (Rutherford ? king of physics in the 19th century)) really dominated the theoretical side at the time. Although Einstein is associated most closely with the bomb (due to his letter to FDR) the person who was the greatest physicist of the age was Bohr (IMHO). Further, Fermi (the first chain reaction, University of Chicago) really set the pace initially for the movement from theoretical physics to experimental physics and then to engineering. BTW, much of the pitchblende used as the starting point for both the U235 and the plutonium gadgets came from Canada as it was easily obtained there. This was the largest science project ever in the history of the world up to that time. No one could afford it but the U.S. BTW, the German effort would have failed or at least have been only successful much, much later that the U.S. At least that is the opinion of the post war assessment of it by the U.S. government. They started at the wrong point ? at the separation of heavy water ? and this implies a hydrogen weapon rather than an atomic weapon. Best, wjr
 
Quote    Reply

IsoT    RM-Nod   2/14/2005 3:41:29 PM
HEy IT WAS I IsoT Whio decided that Gixx cant use Iceland as I have planted there three brigades of Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian troops. Along with three/four mobile batallions of coastal artillery coastal artillery and missile batteries. So that it is utterly impossible for marine corps to assault. plus the required air assets.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    Iceland   2/14/2005 3:44:34 PM
"I dont care what you think. In my scenario Iceland is taken until someone comes uo with a reasonable way of stopping it. WHICH NONE OF YOU HAVE" Are you stating that the entire might (or lack there of, depending on your point of view) is incapable of rendering the FIVE paved airstrips in Iceland inoperable, in your opinion? If that is actually the case, then indeed the war is over before it starts. As a side note, where are you sheltering the vast air armada that is going to br based there? A few cruise missiles with cluster munitions and there goes whatever is parked out in the open or non-hardened hangar. From your plan, of I use X number of TLAMS on X number of UK bases = UK out of the war. How is the counter of I use a few dozen missiles on each of those 5 airstrips as soon as a significant number of US aircraft land there not a valid response? The only use the ground forces you have on Iceland are for apparently keeping SOF from causing the air force problems. Which you've tied down some of the better formations in the US military doing guard duty. Obviously, the air strips are the key, what makes them invulnerable while the 300 some odd paved strips in the UK are fodder?
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:RM-Nod   2/14/2005 3:45:35 PM
lol ok then, but Gix says it won't work so looks like us Euros are up the creak without a paddle again lol.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Iceland   2/14/2005 3:52:39 PM
Joe, welcome back. It seems every one is under the impression that Iceland is garrisoned slowly over time. This is not the case. Other than some F-15 squadrons, P-3s and increased base security it will be left alone until almost right before the attack. The EU will have 18 to 72 hours to react to the rapid reinforcement of Iceland. They cant move men and materials as fast and in the numbers the US can. Just to get Iceland they will have to START A WAR as US is already there. But again, no one can come up with a way to get more troops there as fast as me. Because the EU lack power projection.
 
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