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    more comment   1/9/2005 9:23:15 AM
Surely US can target most of our airfields , or surface ships with nukes but it would not prevent use of our airforces and armies which would have been dispersed (surpise attack by nukes is discounted).And to hit them at sea or to hit them at any amhibious landing . A single shot of a SSBN would destroy a great part of the attacking air support infrastructure of USA making them impossible to sustain a long aerial war. Together France and UK have 8 good SSBN with 500 warheads to retaliate on US population if US target our cities (100 million dead at least). You can not fight EU without UK but it is not the scenario.
 
Quote    Reply

addo    RE:addo...Giblets   1/9/2005 9:40:21 AM
Yup what i meant is i agree on your comment in the previous post.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    Gixxxxerking   1/9/2005 11:47:14 AM
Thanks for reading all my post and responding in kind. :sarcasm off:
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Gixxxxerking   1/9/2005 3:14:40 PM
Gixxx is simply dreaming . Shhhh ...don 't wake him up ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:USA vs EU   1/9/2005 3:28:59 PM
Although I have stated that neither side would win, since this thread doesn't seem to want to die, I'll give it a go. First, Gixxerking obvious no military experence, or at least no knowledge of Navy ops. The idea of somehow bombing ports to catch all european subs/ships in or near port is unrealistic. Also remember what we destroy has to be rebuilt if we want our navy to use it. For the europeans, it will depend on how long we would want to play. As stated, both sides would need a long buildup time. My version After much political arguing the US orders the US Navy to surge deploy. This causes the EU navies to do the same into the atlantic. Further political exchanges are made ant the US Navy returns to port after 30-40 days. EU forces do the same (near the deployment cycle of APU/convential subs anyway) and return to port also. US leave behind 2-4 SSNs who block Med at the straights of Gibralter by either sinking large civilian ship in channel through torpedo/diver placed and command det charges or sub laid mines. As busy as the med is we could drop a few. Then plant mines to interfear with recovery/salvage ops. I also do the same with the suez. This seals off the med for the near term. I have effectivly neutralized most the threat of the MED based navies. Now I can concentrate my undersea forces to the GIUK gap, Celtic Sea/Bay of Biscay. First target with TLAMs being HMNB Devonport, RNAS Culdrose, and HMNB Clyde. This will be done using low level penetration flight by B-1/B-52 with secondary strikes by sub launched missiles a few hours later to kill repairmen. All these attacks will be timed take place at the same time. Add a landing in Greenland to reinforce our base there (MEB size) and push fighters there along with ASW assets to cover the old 'GAP". I have effectivly cut off most of the EU fleet and am able to concentrate forces to a place well practiced in. The navy has practiced to keep the soviet fleet out of the Atlantic by sealing off the GIUK transit area, so know how to do it. I've also taken out most of the RNs sub/Nuc and ASW assets. I may even try to sneak a sub in to lay mines to seal off the straits of dover and seal off the baltic Yes I know that I will loose some subs on their way out. The payoff is worth it. Now with the EU sub based nuc threat neutralized and concentrating the asw assets on the few EU subs that have gotten into the atlantic(Far less than the 80 mentioned) I can begain to attrit the outlying airfields before my CBGs come into range. Then I offer a peaceful settlement and we all come together and have a group hug. I also have a plan to do the same from the EU side. SO far, In
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixxxxerking   1/9/2005 3:29:09 PM
wow...I just had a nightmare. A bunch of Europhlies were telling me EU was able to stop US! Then I remenbered when they actually tried in 2003 at the UN. But GWB told them they were irrelevant and carried out US national interesr and fragmented their Union. And all they could do while US took physical control of the richest region of the world was cry to Kofi. I also noticed that they were powerless to stop us and economically under US control. Wow, reality sucks for Europe. Guess I better go back to sleep and hear what they have to say.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:RN Nod   1/9/2005 3:33:18 PM
Only one slight correction. VLS pods can be rearmed at sea. And it use to be a standard practice. The only weapon that cannot be reloaded is Tomahawk. They exceed the load limits for the cranes. This thread highlights why (I think) we both ignored the calling months ago to do a USMC vs RM thread.
 
Quote    Reply

rayott    The real winner   1/9/2005 3:34:19 PM
The real winner of a US/EU war would be... China. Even the winner of the war would be weakened in some regards, and far less able to compete against china on the global scale. This war would be a major turning point in world history, the end of Western dominance in the world and the beginning of Chinese dominance. Who would Russia, India, Australia and the mid-east be more comfortable as the dominant world power, the US or China?
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Gixxxxerking   1/9/2005 3:55:12 PM
Yes Gixxx , go back to sleep and to your dreams of Invicible USN . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Gixxxxerking   1/9/2005 4:24:31 PM
Since Gixxxxerking has not addressed any of the points put to him I assume that he is incapable of doing so. No wonder he wonder go into what his experience is or what his qualifications are. Sorry to be so cynical but some people just nark me. Anyway, I was under the impression that USN vessels had forgone the at sea remarmament systems on most/all of there surface ships in order to add more missiles to the load out.
 
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