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    ???   1/21/2005 8:15:13 PM
Gixxx :"While you develop a true Blue water match for the USN" ??? What for ? And we do not need 15 carriers to sink the USN , only good Subs . And we 've got them ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:???   1/21/2005 9:22:40 PM
"And we do not need 15 carriers to sink the USN , only good Subs . And we 've got them ..." lol no response required.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Last Post (Probably)   1/21/2005 9:35:37 PM
The common consensus is just plain wrong. Dead wrong. Yes, gf is wrong about the Subs stopping the CSF. Yes RM-NOD is wrong about the Iceland scenario. Yes FS is wrong about nostradamus. El Gringo is also wrong in his post. Lets see what other faulty assumtions have I endured. -US has no ASAT -Detect B-2 ate 1700km -24x cant beat 50 F-22 Tornado -Have to be in littorals to make effective strike -82nd reaches Iceland too late. -Massed air attack will sink 2 CSF -Norway and Canada join the EU. -US would not evoke Monroe Doctrine over Greenland -EU could Take and hold Greenland -SSN cant fire TLAM and get away with it. -Rafale=F-22 -I should not post the truth because it offends EU, and other "established posters"(I have read infinate amounts of BS on other threads from some of these "established posters"...lol -I am a Marine -I am not a Soldier -I should prove it to the board -A war that will never happen -I dont care about logistics -US cant cut EU oil off -US cant control the Atlantic -US have to invade on land to destroy the EU LMAO Its been fun proving you wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Gixxer whats your latest plan   1/21/2005 9:49:42 PM
Give me a link to the thread that spells out your current plan. With Air and Naval OOB. Don't care about which ship but how many of what kind does the navy sail with in your CBGs. like X# of CV x# SSN x# Tycos x# Burkes X # AOs Don't want to have one of those "My ARG consist of all 4 wasp class ships. Its a boring friday night. Nothing else to do.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixxer whats your latest plan   1/21/2005 9:52:50 PM
OK Sam fair enough. Give me some time to get the Mrs. off my back and I'm send it to you.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixxer whats your latest plan   1/21/2005 10:46:45 PM
link Found it! Didnt describe the CSF make up but CSF/ARG OOB: 1x CVN 2x CG 2x DDG 4x FFG* 1x AOE* 1x MCM 1x LHD 1x LPD 2x LSD 2x SSN
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Gixxer whats your latest plan   1/21/2005 11:07:38 PM
From this I assume the CSG and ARG sail together? Due to the small number of escorts. What does the * denote no the FFs and AOEs?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixxer whats your latest plan   1/21/2005 11:23:38 PM
Yes they are together. I was going to comment but Im going to issue a Frago so the * is not relevant anymore. Yes the ARG is with the CSF.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Last Post (Definitely)   1/21/2005 11:23:55 PM
Goodness gracious me, you have persistently and absolutely demonstrated that you have no idea about naval warfare (especially about CSF operations), sub warfare (especially range and capability issues) and a persistent contumelious disregard for logistics, the operational cause and effect and you reckon that you have a sound TACPlan? You demonstrate no awareness of overlaps, of persistence issues etc... So, you'll have to excuse me for rolling my eyes in disbelief. You barely understand the construct of theatre warfare and yet you persist in presenting cases that are fundamentally tactically "indolent" and lacking in cogency. You have yet to demonstrate any comprehension about continental defensive warfare against an intercontinental centred opponent - and yet you still wage war at the "widget" level, and in an operational vacuum. For someone who professes to have a knowledge of the craft, you consistently have to revise your engagement footprint on issues that I would expect someone with even notional experiece to be fully aware of. For someone who fails to comprehend something as simple as the limitations of the Monroe Doctrine, then yes I do have significant doubt as to your bona fides. In all my time, I have yet to come across any american military officer or WO equivalent who was not astute and knowlegeable about their political history or the political impact of warfighting - and yet you continue to do business on the fly, correct, adjust and resubmit as though it was a dancing mistake of some triviality which can just be represented again. You state that you're a marine - and yet you dismiss the importance and impact, the criticality and influence of logistics? Your manner and arrogance is also nothing like any american officer that I have ever come across, and I can assure you that some of those have been decidedly operational and know their stuff. None of them are triumphalists - and all of them are thus well regarded for their insight and demeanor. You demonstrate none of those attributes. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but you have yet to demonstrate any maturity in debate. Don't use the crap that you're protecting US honour from the EU hordes, as a mature operatoer could do that without resorting to dismissive invectives. It happens alll the time in here, and the "real" operaters know how to deflect and present their bonafides without giving away their social security numbers. Your manner, I am sorry to say, is that of an adolescent, again, no one of rank I know speaks like you do, and no one responds like you do. Some errors have deliberately been inserted and you have failed to see them. In fact you're redeveloped a gameplan around them - so you'll excuse me for wondering about what it is you do for a living. Spend 5 minutes on TankNET, Warships1 and the 5th Column, and the uniforms would be tearing you to shreds. You should be damn greatful people are being polite about the holes in your credibility. A final thing, officers don't say "if you find a hole in my argument then bring it back to me and I'll fix it", Officers are there to either get rid og the holes or make sure that they don't even make it into the TACPlan. Every second iteration of your responses has required a modification for clariy of intent, or clarity of purpose. If you did that enough in your 1st year at military college in Australia, you wouldn't get to your second year. You'd be back on the farm or serving burgers at MacDonalds.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Last Post (Definitely)   1/21/2005 11:38:51 PM
Gixxer Did you profess to be a Marine Officer? You stated in one of the post way early that you were an Army Officer. Which one is it?
 
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