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    RE:USA vs EU is to clear cut   1/8/2005 6:11:33 PM
This is utter non-sense . And I tell you why : The US ~as the aggressor~ would never reach Europe 's coats because of Tactical Nuclear Strikes in the open Atlantic . The US Atlantic Fleet is big . Huge I should say , in fact they could not hide it from the French or British Fleet and certainly not from our satelites . France alone ~if Britain is reticent~ would vaporize the US Fleet if the threat was too big for our Navy to attrit along the way . We would NOT target Cities in the US as it would trigger an instantaneuos American retaliation . The mining skills of the Swedes , Finnish , French and British Navy would make a landing a suicidal bet as you CANNOT conduct a de-mining operation ahead of a moving Fleet . And to be perfectly honest , Russia would LHAO and probably lunch Nuclear strikes before France does ! US vs EU is a no-no , and both sides knows it . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 6:34:39 PM
So you think the USN isnt prepared for maritime nuclear war? Thats what the Soviets were all about. I do think it could destroy a few carriers f properly executed. But how will you get through Aegis? How will you even know where the USN is? Your satellites would be amoung the first targets. You would be blind in space. Launching SLBM at Carrier is also invalid because you would have no know target point. And without satellites you would be blind. Not only that but to fire SLBM would reveal location on SSBN and bring it under immediate attack. Then your nuclear deterent is gone. That leaves a few french planes Armed with nuclear bombs. How would you get through USN CAP/SAMs? The Russians estimated 75-115 bombers each armed with 3 anti-ship missiles are the requirement for getting to U.S. Carrier. And they most certainly are the world experts at that. SO how would EU do that? ASMP? Please explain how you think EU could TACNUKE USN? And mines make things difficult, not impossible. My counter is that over 50% of EU coast vulnerable to Landing. You cant mine it all. And we could send Mine Clearing Vessel in prior to landing. link Also keep in mind that there are enough SSNs in the USN to target every EU surface vessel Destroyer and up with enough in reserve to hunt SSBNs. So I think the battle at sea is a lost cause for you. The USN OWNS THE SEA.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 6:59:04 PM
lol you are way too nationalistic and fairly full of yourself too. " It is an honor that I concider you a worthy opponent." That sentance sort of proves that. I mean come on, you started an EU vs US thread because someone said that a new generation European fighter is better than a 30 year old US one. No one claimed that all European fighters were better than all US one, you did the opposite however. Mind if I ask who you are and what you do because you seem to insinuate that you know more than anyone else. Going on topic, when considering this you should really consider logistics, intelligence, availability, moral, politics and so many other things. You can't simply say, we have enough SSNs to target all of your ships combined! That doesn't work. As has been pointed out, US carriers have proven to be vulnerable in exercises to submarines before and the EU has around 80 of them. The EU only has to get lucky a couple of times, the US has to get lucky at least 80 times to remove the threat and it is far harder to track a sub than it is to track a carrier. Not to mention the rest of the navies and air forces.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 7:31:29 PM
The fact is that an ASMP is far superior than a eighty vintage soviet missile: small RCS, long range, high manoeuvrability and subs in sea would detect a carrier too close of EU shore as reco fighters.(Russian nuke missiles were not sea skimmer). BTW few nukes detonating at right distance of carrier group would blind radar (inonisation and EMP) allowing other to pass thrue AEGIS shield. OFFICIALLY we have 90 ASMP TN80/81 plus some with exercise warhead (but replacable by a true one). We have a pretty good amount of additional nukes not deployed but which could easily be deployed of our home build missiles like SM39 or torpedoes . I worked in CEA at beginning of my carreer and some things are secret: we have ALSO "black programs". As long we can get 3 Triomphant SSBN at sea (and you would not be able to destroy all of them) we can hit you in reprisal.More other I don't think it would be long to deploy some on a land system as we build them and have some 20 more available for firing test. Good links: link link I would not laugh at possibility to lost few carrier if nuke used. BTW a war need to be prepared to get US opinion to support it and it would give time (at least 6 months) to France or other EU nation to greatly improve their numbers and disperse their forces. US toll is likely to be high especially if you have no air base in Europe and since a single ASMP would blow up a beach head. And unmining an area under nuke threat! And did you think to nukes torpedoes and mines?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 7:43:57 PM
For now I do not want to get into what do. No matter what I said you would have no way to prove it was true. Also it imtimidate some and possibly prevent them from expressing disagreement that I whole heartedly want to here. Trust that my credentials are impeccable and my knowledge to be backed up by facts and most importantly, experience. Or dont trust :) But if something I say seems wrong call me on it and I will attempt to justify my comment. Now to answer your question: "You can't simply say, we have enough SSNs to target all of your ships combined!" I never said ALL your ships. I said Destroyers and up. And of course a 100000 ton displacement ship is vulnerable in a training excersise. If it wasnt I would be very suspect of the training scenarios. But keep in mind that in training I cant bomb your port facilities and submarine tenders outside the training area. Nor can I drop depth charges. I also cant shoot dont satellites in space durng training or your E-bombs or powerful Jamming. And training will never simulate the stress of live battle. Training is conducted all the time by the U.S. military. But you only read about when something spectacular happens. Like a dirt cheap Collins Class hitting a Super Carrier! But we never read in open sources how the Carrier Strike Group wins 90% of the time. I also believe I said the EU would likely enjoy some success in this war. But not as much as the U.S. Military. In the case of the Sea. the US is in all likely hood the winner. And hunting the SSKs would not require USN boats to actively hunt them in all cases. SSKs cannot keep up with a transting CVN. So a U.S. Captain has a lot of options when it come to drawing them in. But since the majority of these boats are in port at any given time, that would be where I target the majority of them. Also the Sub Tenders and refueling depots are the best way to remove SSK. Get rid of them and the SSKs die of starvation. SSNs, especially British ones, would be a problem for sure. But the SeaWolf/LA Class could hunt them And they are a lot noisier than SSKs in most cases.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 9:17:22 PM
See this is what I hate, people coming on these forums with a holier than thou attitude acting like they know more than everyone else and touting some great experience or knowledge but of course they can't tell anyone because it's classified or whatever, it really does my nut. Sorry but comments like ?you should be honoured I think you?re worthy? really are the pinnacle of arrogance. Anyway, the USN is most definitely the dominant naval power on the earth but that doesn't make it invulnerable or able to do everything. Going back to my last post, what about logistics for example? The USN would be operating thousands of miles from home port; the logistics needed would be immense in order to present any sort of meaningful force, after all it took three months just to get ready for Iraq and you?re talking about taking on all of Europe. While on transit you have to be aware of the naval and naval air threat. Above the surface, obviously the USN has the advantage however sub surface it is not so clear cut. The USN has its own sub of course but tracking other subs is difficult, tracking large surface ships is much easier. As I said before does only have to get luck a few times and with around 80 subs that?s quite a possibility, if indeed a probability. You can?t simply bomb submarines in ports since what idiot would keep all there subs in ports as you assert the EU would, especially in a time of great tension or war with the US, more over what would you bomb them with even if they were all/majority in port? Considering the extreme range and threat the only possibility would be with B-2s but even they can be counted on considering European advances in anti stealth radar and of course the relatively small number of B-2s the US has, chances are they would be spotted whether by radar or visually and swarmed, remember they have to go over a few countries to get to many targets. Depths charges aren?t going to do much if you can?t see your enemy, during the Falklands the RN, who had been training for years to intercept Russian subs, none the less found it difficult to track Argentine SSKs. Even the USN has admitted that there ASW capability is not what they?d like it to be. By the way, do you not think that the USN exercises with simulated munitions, including depth charges? SSKs may not be able to keep up with CVNs but when said CVN is travelling towards the SSK then that is not much of a problem. The SSK only has to intercept the ships fire its missiles and torpedoes and leave. Tracking can be left to SSN and recce satellites, speaking of which how would you destroy all the European satellites? Moving on to the SSN force, could you be sure of destroying all 14-17 of them before they sink a carrier or two? All this trouble while you have the naval assets of the entire EU harassing you. Getting to within 1000 miles of an EU coastline you would have to face the threat of the air assets of the European nations. Obviously I don?t have to tell you what a threat that would be. But looking at the statistics the USN would have at the very most (ie all of it?s carriers and aircraft capable amphibs) 1000 combat aircraft (about +50% Harriers, 50% F/A-18 and F-14), sounds a lot but you would of course be going up against well over 2000 combat aircraft not including maritime patrol aircraft that could also strike your ships. Admittedly the USN could inflict massive casualties but ultimately the advantage is with Europe. If you get close enough then the USN would have to employ its mine counter measure ships first or face large casualties in key areas (amphibious shipping), all the while being bombarded by surviving aircraft, artillery, patrol boats, special forces etc Actually attacking if you get anywhere near a possible landing beach would be very difficult as well considering the maximum number of troops you could hope to carry for an amphibious landing would around 30,000 and that?s if all of the amphibious ships survive and even then they could not be landed in one go. Those that do manage to land would be up against a highly trained, entrenched enemy and, as with the MCM ships would be under constant bombardment. So no I don?t think the US has a hope in hell of invading the EU. Of course it?s the same the other way around too just to make that clear.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Tactical Nukes? In the sea?   1/8/2005 9:19:52 PM
Sorry forgot to cover tactical nuclear missiles in that post but I believe Strat has covered that well anyway so I won't bother. (never thought I'd be saying that, all the EU needs is the US to try and kill us all and we'll be united in no time ;))
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    ASAT   1/8/2005 9:46:04 PM
The U.S. has the ability to attack space assets at any time. That has existed for some time. Now to address the issue of your SSK's. I honestly would expect to lose a Carrier maybe two to a European Sub marine. But this is war and casualties are to be expected. Also the lose of one carrier would in no way cripple the USN. We have a lot of redundancy in this area. And SSK's require a lot of support to operate for long periods. So bombing your sub tenders and ports is a way to reduce the effectiveness. And this attack would be a suprise attack. We would definately catch some SSK's in port. The ability of EU sub commanders is definately one of the areas of vulnerability US would have to deal with. Clearly it would be a test of skill. I think US training and skill backed up with the most advanced ASW systems would carry the day. I give you one carrier at best. And you advances in anti-stealth tech are a questionable area of research. Not in anyway a deployed system. Aegis is the best AAW system in the world. Approaching the US fleet would not be wise for EU aircraft. Remember we are talking about a system designed to stop hundreds of inbound Soviet missiles. Think a few Exocet armed EU fighters can make it through? Not likely! And remember that hundreds of cruise missiles would be raining on EU soil every day. And with no true IAD US aircraft would bomb the Hell out of EU. So you would have 2000 EU aircraft on day one. And each day that number would decrease. Meanwhile bach in America, F-22 after F-22 would be rolling off the production line. All safe from European attack. Would EU factories and resources have this? I think not. EU Navy would not last more than 30 days as an effective force. And cease to exist within 60 days.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:USA vs EU   1/8/2005 10:21:38 PM
I enjoy these posts, but I, along with all sensible Americans (and probably Europeans for that matter) do not want a war between either one. To answer your question, I would say that it would be a dead-heat, it would be suicidal for either side to invade each other, so it would have to go nuclear. And when it goes nuclear, it doesn't matter who hits more targets, it is MAD and most all of the world is MAD, the Russians will fire, then the Chinese, then the Indians, the Pakistanis, etc. We need to band together in all seriousness, we all are at danger with Al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, just to name a few.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:USA vs EU   1/8/2005 10:45:26 PM
ASAT was cancelled. The US never bought any for fear it would violate treaties against space based weapons. It was also only able to hit targets in low orbit I believe. Losing only one carrier is extremely optimistic, you have also repeated your claim that you could imply bomb there ports but have not addressed how save to say that it would be a surprise attack. The first problem with that is the fact that you can?t mount a surprise attack when you?re building up to invade such a massive bloc. Secondly you have only questioned the ability of EU anti stealth capabilities but provided nothing to say that we can?t detect stealth. Celldar as an example is capable of detecting stealth aircraft through the use of ambient electromagnetic waves such as those given out by cellular phones (hence the name). Neither have you said anything about how a force of only 21 B2s would get through EU defences, drop there bombs and leave without being detected either visually, on radar, through IR systems or when the first bombs drop. Either way they would not last long in a saturated air defence system with over 2000 aircraft on patrol waiting for such an event along with SAMs and AAA. So no you can?t bomb every port in the EU, not even if the B2s could get through defences. SSKs and SSNs will still be out there and even the US cannot hope to track and kill all that many of them, even if you do have the most advanced ASW systems available (which is debatable in itself). Aegis being the best AAW system is also questionable, however I?ll give that to you if you mean in service system but even then Aster is in service with the MN onboard the CDG along with Arabel. Aegis may be designed to intercept inbound Soviet missiles but that doesn?t mean that the system is invulnerable, it cannot deal with a tactical nuclear strike from multiple missiles. I would also point out that European systems are also designed to deal with the same threat, why you discount them then is a mystery. Why would the US be able to destroy the EU navy but not vice versa? I would accept if you meant in the middle of the ocean but we?re talking about when the US is attacking the EU itself therefore we?re talking in the range of land based aircraft. And simply discounting these aircraft as you do is not a luxury any real commander would have, as anyone will tell you SAM systems are not 100% effective and against a first rate enemy in large number gaps can and invariably do appear. What happens when you?ve depleted all of your weapons anyway? You can?t reload VLS cells at sea you know. Moving on, to ?rain down? hundreds of TLAMs on the EU would mean that you would have to be around 1000 miles from the coast of the EU and even then you would only be hitting beaches to attack any meaningful targets you would have to be within around 500 miles of the coast, well within the rage of land based aircraft and along with EU ships and submarines this would be a death-trap for US surface vessels especially when many ships are firing TLAMs. Those missiles that are fired are not guaranteed to hit there target, you forget European SAM systems, many of which are designed specifically to intercept low flying, stealthy missiles. So while the EU air force would of course be depleting every day TLAM strikes would likely account for a minimal percentage of US kills while the US would also be depleting, and probably far faster than the EU?s would be due to the fact that they would be out numbered, fighting against a defending enemy with better situational awareness, constantly facing the threat of losing carriers in single strikes from submarines, land based aircraft and tactical nuclear missiles. I will also point out that you haven?t answered any of my other points to do with actually landing a force. And one more thing, as nice as having a large number of F-22s sound they?re not of much use when they can?t actually reach the enemy. Please try and back up what you say with sound reason, so far you?ve simply said things such as ?the EU navy would not last more than 30 days? without qualification and without consideration of logistics, enemy land based aircraft, knowledge of home seas and so many other factors. So will you please just accept that the US, while being the most capable military force on the planet today, can't invade just anyone especially not the entire EU.
 
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