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
french stratege    gixxxerking    1/14/2005 3:09:07 PM
For detecting stealth aircraft , I said HUNDREDS of km not one hundred: read text and links. Our plane have data transmission for ground C3I stations. Our SSBN justification is for second strike and ability to let us use tactical nuke without fearing retaliation on our cities. Even without nukes it is still difficult. Europe armies are close to 3 million men , trained and with modern equipement for most. Europe industry is two magnitude order bigger than Iraq in Gulf war 1.And troops and quality a magnitude. You took two month of bombing in gulf war 1 to soften outdated Iraqis forces with 1800 fighter close to their borders and you will do that easily in Europe with few hundreds? You can not win a land war with 40 F22 (no operational yet) and 20 B2 WE CAN LOCATE!. For carrier they are useless without planes and yours would be shoot down in days (or carrier sink before). Any operation with military result against Europe need a massive preparation! US have superiority for force projection and navy but can not fight currently an airland battle with us. German or Austrian industry for example is far away from Atlantic borders as Italian (puting US carrier in Med sea is madness).
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RM-NOD You wanted links   1/14/2005 3:18:21 PM
I give you links: link link And no I wasnt wrong. So there is a lot of hot air comming from you EU guys too!
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:gixxxerking    1/14/2005 3:18:50 PM
What make you think you are a brilliant military strategist whose plan could outiwt that of seasoned British and European Generals? What is your military background? Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:Links   1/14/2005 3:23:00 PM
Here is one piece from the UK vs US thread where it was eventually concluded that some countries including the UK are impossible to defeat never mind whole continents link Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:gixxxerking    1/14/2005 3:25:27 PM
Hard to have good C3I when you lose GPS and COMSATs Nukes not an option I am not talking about ground invasion. BUT IF we wanted to. US industry could build faster than EU and put more men on the ground and beat you on your soil. Admittedly it would be bloody. We demonstrated this in WW II. Also just like Hitler you would not be able to bomb US infrastructure in any effective way without nukes. And as I said, not an option. We do have the ability to bomb you from middle east, conus and USN. Not as quickly as with Iraq but within 6 months to a year.
 
Quote    Reply

Nemesis1    RE:gixxxerking    1/14/2005 3:29:15 PM
Another reason why this is inpracticle is what makes you think all countries in the EU would support the EU. Best example UK Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Links   1/14/2005 3:29:33 PM
Thanks for the link. I am going to read it. One immediate fault that stands out to me is that you need 4 to 1 as an attacker to win. We didnt have those numbers in Iraq and it worked.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:gixxxerking    1/14/2005 3:31:33 PM
I dont think the UK would support the EU. But some of the EU posters stipulated it earlier. I disagreed but since it was hypothetical I relented.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:From one American to another: to gixx   1/14/2005 3:50:43 PM
You started with a stealthy carrier and Greenland-based bomber attack. Neutralizing their command with strikes and superior intel. Targets, effects, mission and strategy unspecified. You then realized there is no surprise but thought "Rangers" would take out the Azores; then you realized larger amphib forces are needed on the way across the Ocean. You assured us no carriers would be lost; then, perhaps 2; then, really zero. You also assured us that US submarines and aircraf are so superior that we could out fight even 6:1 odds. You have, regrettably left a number of technical questions unanswered; presumably because you cannot. Now you have given up on your strike strategy and are enagaged in mine warfare; emulating Vietnam? Mission, purpose unspecified. Obviously I am pleased to see you have opened an Atlas, but you will need a smaller scale to avoid laying mines inland (Paris and Bonn). Unfortunately, you do not explain how these mines wil be deployed and you do not seem to realize that mine warfare has been practiced in European waters for 100 years; they are very well equipped to deal with it. If you were an officer you would know the old adage that "time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted". You would also know that a Combat Appreciation and Threat Reduction Exercise need to be completed as part of your planning. And you would have presented your strategy in such a format. These require you to know your enemy and his weapons and predict his likely intentions. This supposes that you know something of EU defense; it also requires you to know something of NATO Atlantic strategy or even basic geography. You claim that most Americans agree with you; not so. Your patriotism is laudable. But claiming that America must win because America is the "best" and has the best of everything is not credible: "we're America dammit! We must win!" I'm sure the guys in Nam in 1965 felt the same way. There are some really good guys who have had the courtesy to make points and be patient...like gf-aust and RM-Nod...which you really have not addressed. Unless you want to be known as "Mr Try-it-on", changing your strategy at every reality, then you should acknowledge their contributions and accept that your original "strategy" has failed, which is precisely why you've changed it. No one minds education through Q & A. But people do mind if you make definitive assertions as fact and then back away. It wastes everyone's time. Come clean. Move on.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    I See...its all so clear...   1/14/2005 4:03:39 PM
link There are a lot of EU posters here who hate being considered less powerful than the US. So they all start their arguements with thinks like, "In no way could we invade America", in a false attempt to earn the respect of the American posters. But finish by stating as fact beyond any doubt that America cant take their homelands. Any one who acknowledges this by saying "the war would be bloody" is respected AS LONG AS THE WORD BUT DOESNT FOLLOW. If anybody points out the inevitable fact that America would likely overwhelm their meager, by comparison, defenses. Why then your just a cowboy American who doesnt realize the folly in those thoughts. In fact your an arrogant cowboy American who is being isulting to even suggest US is able to win. And God forbid an American post the topic. Because then its "absurd" "never happen" "impossible" "unwinnable" "we nuke you" and all the other nonsense that gets said. But theres more. The other EU posters get nervous to think it could happen to them. So then they throw the EU into it to form a virtual coalition that together could not possibly fall to the US. In fact, not only would it not fall, it would actually beat the US best open source technology! Very entertaining. I'm disecting this UK vs US scenario now. Hilarious. And its good to see I'm not the only person making broad sweeping claims. I could share in detail how the UK defense theory would not work but then you really dont want to read that do you. Like I said Nemesis1, thanks for the link. I cant wait til another US vs _______less powerful country thread...lol
 
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