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
bsl    RE:Conclusions   1/16/2005 8:46:49 PM
Beer, first. Riot, later.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Conclusions-oh, btw   1/16/2005 8:48:10 PM
Perhaps this is a good moment to provide a modern vocabulary link, explaining the subtlies in "Yo momma"?...
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:gf0012-aust and RM-NOD   1/16/2005 8:57:30 PM
?SO you are saying the USN could do it. But it would take a lot of work. And even then subs, even outdated ones, are still a problem.? I know I?m not GF but where did you get that from? All I saw was that he said the US could change there current situation on ASW but it would take a few years. Not that the US could prosecute this war that you suggest. ?You keep saying 500km. Its as if you think that if the CSF gets within that they are assured of destruction. Is that your claim?? No I say 500km because that is the minimum range that USN CVs would have to be to launch any meaningful strikes (in a number of places you would have to be 300km or less to launch strikes). Though in my opinion they would be very vulnerable, I never say assured but I do think the evidence points to the USN likely suffering very badly whether that is sunken carriers or supplies, or both. ?Im just trying to understand your logic. Example. If the main thrust of the USN attack came from north west of the UK with the objective of defeating the UK first, that would put a lot of EU A/C out of range. Unless you plan on moving the whole EU airforces to UK. Which of course you couldnt.? Well in my opinion the sub-surface threat is the biggest threat to any US attack not aircraft. As I said before the USN would have to get above an 85-95% success rate against EU submarines in order to guarantee the safety of the carriers; I believe that GF has provided enough information to show that this is near to impossible if it isn?t actually impossible. History has shown that. In regards to aircraft as has been said many times the USN could bring around 300 aircraft to bear from carriers; even just attacking from the west with the aim of attacking the UK you would still be facing around 600-700 combat aircraft from the UK, France and Norway; granted they are mostly outclassed by USN aircraft but the fact that they outnumber the US aircraft by around 2-1 and the added threat of ground/sea based air defence systems I think the defence the EU could put up would be significant. Even if EU aircraft only managed a 0.25 to 1 kill ratio that?s still 150-175 US aircraft gone; and that?s if every carrier remains intact and is re-supplied regularly. If you lost only 1 carrier and EU aircraft gained a 0.25 to 1 kill ratio that leaves only 75 US aircraft. On the issue of moving the whole EU air force to the UK obviously that is impossible but with central EU states being in a very well defended position a number of aircraft could be repositioned to outer EU states. Of course you could base aircraft from Greenland but what if the EU destroys aircraft facilities beforehand or perhaps if the UK sent a few SSNs to strike these airbases? After all you seem quite confident that the USN could launch 4000 TLAM at the EU in one day so why can?t the UK do the same? Basing from Greenland though does not address the issue of ground and sea based defences and the nearest base is between 2500km (to the coast of the nearest EU landmass) to 3500km (in order to cover the entire UK). Given that fact tankers would have to be used, and the vulnerability of these still exist. And this only covers a limited part of the western EU; in fact for practical reasons it would only be of any use against the UK, Eire and Norway. But then again what if the EU re-enforces Greenland first? For example the EU could place a few squadrons of Typhoons, Rafales (currently around 33-40 in service), F-16s, F-18s, Gripens etc on the mainland, defend it for as long as possible then destroy all the aircraft basing facilities before they retreat. Undoubtedly the US would win this engagement but would also likely lose some assets in the process; likely aircraft to air, ground and sea based defences; probably ships to air, sea and sub-surface threats; and perhaps even carriers to air or more likely sub surface threats based from Greenland. This all before you?ve got within 2500km of the EU. PS ? Why have we suddenly gone back to your original scenario? PPS ? Gf, how do you do the italics on here?
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:BSL-RN   1/16/2005 9:05:51 PM
Relax. I don't seem to have said much of what you appear to think I said. I've written, twice (I think) of the ASW problem everyone has. And, for crying out loud, who has ever suggested that it's difficult to find ballistic missile submarines flushing their magazines while they're doing so? Of course, when they've finished, all you have is one, clear data point on a chart of the world's oceans, with which to find some of the least observable structures mankind has ever built, which are now busy doing convincing, and mobile, imitations of silent holes in the ocean? BTW, at that point, what do have left to argue about? You have, perhaps, twenty minutes to rediscover your spiritual side. Or, to fast forward through your DVD of DR. STRANGELOVE. Most of this discussion is useless, for lack of specificity on issues whose resolution would weigh, heavily, in any scenario of engagement. As far as I see, we've reasonably well put the basics on the table. The rest is a matter of initial conditions. Rules of the game you propose to run. For instance, you've mentioned, more than once, that the EU could effectively use the Med as a protect lake. Do you propose a war from a standing start, with no preparation? Then, expect the American subs already present, or adjacent and ordered in, immediately, to have time to empty their torpedo racks before being hunted down. Even in the Med. your ASW is just not that good against first class nuclear boats. For that matter, haven't you noticed the draw down in forces all across Europe? You don't *have* a robust ASW force in the North Med littoral. And, to build a force, their, is to gravely weaken your forces in the Atlantic and North Sea. How fast do you think Britain and France would expose their own coasts in order to send detachments to the Med.? The best ASW platforms are other attack subs. You're first tasking is to try to cover the American boomers. Your NCA will not give you an option on this, even if some Admiral has a bright idea. Europe *doesn't have* all that many nuclear attack boats. (The conventional boats are useless for blue ocean work tracking boomers, save in some limited circumstances, as adjuncts to other forces.) SOSUS, etc. is no secret to the US. WE BUILT IT, after all. You think Europe has much the USN doesn't know about? You think the same forces which spent the Cold War sitting on the Soviets most sensitive undersea cables, listening to Moscow talk to their strategic forces, in the northern bases can't chop seaborne listening facilities up? American and British forces cooperated, extensively on ASW for 50 years and more. We know each other pretty well. Advantage to the side which has the most resources. That side is not Europe. OTOH, if you care to define an initial condition in which the EU has been free to prepare, exetensively, for hostilities for a period of years, during which the US was not aware, or chose not to similarly prepare, then you can reasonably postulate a far better European capability. It's all like this. bsl
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Island bases - RM   1/16/2005 9:08:30 PM
"what exactly would the US if the EU destroyed these bases and then left? No use to anyone anymore." No one can rapidly build major drydocks. Or, chip factories. OTOH, creating useful airfields, from scratch, is something of an American specialty. And, we are on the threshhold of a force of F-35s which won't need much work or preparation on the ground for a powerful force of frontline aviation to be installed, anywhere in the world, on very short notice. (And, yes, I'm aware of the proposed British buy. Which will be much smaller than the American equivalent.)
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:FS-response   1/16/2005 9:20:34 PM
1)12 carriers = 4 regularly on-station. BUT, they = 12 in a surge. And, in a few years, when the VTOL F-35s are here, all the other flat decked American ships, usually classified as assault carriers may be retasked for frontline aviation at a pinch. You will never fly Rafales or Eurofighters from ships. 2)Your figures for European aviation are grossly misleading. Europe has, or will have over the next 5-10 years will have very few planes capable of going against F-22s. There simply are not many Rafales in the air, and I've followed that program long enough to demand to see the planes in their hangars before I'll credit them to the French military. 3)I repeat what ought not need repeating; large, ground based radars are dead meat. They will not survive the opening days. Anyone who has followed American tactics in the two Gulf Wars ought to realize American doctrine. America has had ample time and opportunity to refine weapons and tactics even as the technology improves. The day is past when turning off a beam will confuse a weapon. Once lit off, a radar's life is marked and near ending. 4)Re: Underground European oil storage. Of course. Why would American intelligence know anything about that? 5)The grand total British and French ballistic missile submarine force is small. And, small relative to the American forces available to task with their destruction. This, again, is why size of force, in itself, can acquire a qualitative aspect. It's a lot more than three times harder to track and destroy 18 subs than to track and destroy 6. Without the submarine force, Europe has no strategic nuclear forces. Without the submarine force, America still has a large enough strategic force to destroy Europe, with enough left over to smile, enigmatically, at China.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:gf0012-aust and RM-NOD- Off shore strikes   1/16/2005 9:22:01 PM
Give me a couple of months lead time, and the first thing I do is add a second stage to my ALCM, and you're looking at a weapon with an extra thousand mile's range.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    gf0012-aust and RM-NOD- Off shore strikes   1/16/2005 9:37:49 PM
I think I've politely alluded a number of times that this whole scenario is flawed and somewhat of an exercise in patriotic lunacy. without setting baselines for how and where this evolves, it's just a variation of the pecker theory. if the definition is to get boots on ground, then it changes the whole complexion of how anyone is going to do0 business. conversely if it's an exercise in progressive strangulation then even this requires some pretty tight definition. in a war of absolute symetrical attrition the US has greater force flexibility and broader options to bring to the table. the US is the only one that can bring centrifugal force to bear with those flexible options still relatively intact even if one force component is degraded. In the scheme of things Europe is the only OPFOR (as such) that can bring significant conventional hurt to the US - far greater than China can even dream of doing, but IMV it's not enough to stop them. Military responses don't operate in an economic vacuum. You've got a military power that has a history of being able to wage war at an intercontinetal level - and you have an amorphous mass that has never co-operated at intercontinental war and who's co-operative experience at transnational or continetal level is limited. At the end of the day the only ones smiling are the Chinese as their principle economic and military opposites are degrading their own ability without any intervention from themselves. Last Man Standing.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RM-Nod   1/16/2005 10:34:04 PM
A, email me on bounce.rubbish@gmail.com short window of reply though, I'm off on a plane to germany in 24hrs.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:RM-Nod   1/17/2005 12:12:27 AM
You are just plain wrong to think the US has to get to 500km to launch a meaningful strike. And SSNs/SSGNs will get to much closer undetected. Also you dont have the mass necessary with regard to SSNs to stop the USN from crossing the Atlantic. The biggest advantage a carrier has is mobility. Add to that advantage the USN knows where it will be going. So US SSNs will set up ASW kill boxes and await approaching submarines. Any SSKs in the area will have to eventually recharge bateries or change depth and will be detected if they enter these kill boxes. During the transit, any hostile SSNs will have to do one of two things. 1. Keep up with the CSF. Suicide because the high speed will be too noisy. 2. Guess where the CSF is going and wait in ambush. Good tactic but unlikely to succeed because of small numbers. With 4 Carriers moving in you would have to pick which one to ambush. And while the SSN waits, a simple course change by the CSF could put the EU SSN out of position for attack. This would require movement which increases the chance of detection. An assault by Rangers, assuming greenland has not be reinforced, would easily take Narsarssuak Air Base. If heavier defenses were present and MEU/82nd could take it. Within hours C-130/C-17 could ferry supplies an more troops there. Also some PAC-2/3 for air defense. With CSF providing cover Greenland would be ready for offensive operations against UK targets and A/C in 24-48 hours. With 2 Raptor squadrons, 2 Eagle squadron and 2 Carrier Air wings nearby. US could get air superiority over UK.
 
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