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
gixxxerking    Sam and RM-NOD   1/9/2005 4:52:31 PM
Sam, I never said all the EU vessels would be in port. Read thing closer if you are going to quote me. The tactic is valid. Remember Pearl Harbor? RM-NOD, Im sorry, Im very busy with an OPORD this weekend. Perhaps I missed your points. Could you please list them again so I may address them? If thats too much to ask just link to the post.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:USA vs EU   1/9/2005 5:44:01 PM
link There you go. Plus all the things brougt up by others in between that post and this which to be honest you've not really said much about. Apart from making snide comments like "Nepoleon never saw the end either. And we would beat your the same way we beat the Japanese. By forcing your surrender " And "ANYBODY can be suprise attacked. I though Europeans would know that by now." And "wow...I just had a nightmare. A bunch of Europhlies were telling me EU was able to stop US!" In fact none of your posts since my last one have had any substance, just petty attempts at attacking Europe.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:USA vs EU   1/9/2005 8:26:59 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I do not think I could get all your Subs in port. But a good portion of them and their infrastructure certainly. The method I would use is TLAM/SSN combination. Also the US has a huge strategic bomber force with true global reach. This combined attack could put over 1000 tomahawks into your port facilities. SSNs would also mine the harbors to prevent survivors from fleeing. Prior to the start of hostilities SSN's would also begin hunting your SSBNs. I do not have high confidence that we could destroy them all at sea but certainly a few. My only choice in this case is to rely on US nuclear forces to deter your strategc assets until the ground forces move in. USN Carrier Strike Group would would be tasked with closing the Persian Gulf. Also any EU shipping would be sunk in an effort to deny oil and imports into the EU. And finally Stealth Aircraft and B-1B Stategic Bombers would conduct penetration strikes against your fighter bases. I have no doubt that the Carrier Strike Groups would be able to survive any EU attack aircraft using ASMs. Of course thats an opinion but there are no guarantees in war. The Carriers were designed to combat regiment sized Soviet bomber formations in numbers far greater than EU. Also Soviet ASMs are longer ranged and more advanced. Aegis would do very well in this scenario, in my opinion. Massed air attacks and SSNs from the USN would have little trouble against the EU navy surface combatants. -Some things I think you have not justified. Your situational awareness is not in the same class as the US. -Did you know the US has operational ASAT weapons now? And the old ASAT weapon could easily be brought into action if required. -I know personally that B-2/F-117 has operated over NATO countries undetected in training scenarios. We all know these aircraft are not invincible but they are very very hard to detect. Almost a certainty that they US stealth aircraft would not suffer casualties during a first day of the world suprise attack. That survivability decreases after EU is alerted but not by much.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:USA vs EU   1/9/2005 11:33:12 PM
Why would you get a good portion of subs in port? That is a key factor that needs to be addressed. Unless this scenario assumes that everyone in the US government goes nuts and just decides to invade there will be a period of tension between the two sides and the EU would be on alert. Further more striking with TLAMs would mean you would have to have SSNs within 1000km of the EU coast to hit even the closest of targets but to hit bases further into the EU and those further up in rivers etc SSNs would have to be far closer, in the order of 500km to hit those only in Western Europe, taking into account the route each missile would take to avoid radar and other defences this range will decrease even further to perhaps 400 or even 300km. To hit other targets deep in Europe you would have to be almost within 100km of a coastline. Going further down the TLAM route you have to understand that each TLAM carries only a 1000lb warhead and to eliminate any infrastructure you would need many thousands of missiles not just one thousand. None of this even considers defences though; at the somewhat passive end you have the fact that the EU has a large number of SAM systems designed to defeat such a threat. Of the missiles fired only a fraction would get through to there target. Looking at a more active defence there are the large numbers of specialised ASW aircraft flying from the EU as well as ships and other subs; given the large number of missiles needed to have any effect and the fact that an SSN stands out when it?s firing its missiles the USN submarines would be a very vulnerable target. As I have already pointed out Bombers, aside from the B2 would be of no use at all since they could not hope to have escorts at such a long range (at least 6000km, from the closest point in the US to Northern Ireland). However you do bring up B2 bombers again but ignore what I?ve already said about them, the EU has means of detecting them be it through lucky conventional radar, celldar, IR systems, visually or simply when the first bomb drops; you are correct that B2s have done well in exercises but they have not faced the full range of EU defences. After they are detected or even if they are simply known to be in the area they would not last long, don?t forget that they would have to go over a number of highly advanced nations who would have aircraft already on patrol, to get to most targets and 21 aircraft are not enough to do the job anyway against the entire EU. B1s are far more vulnerable for obvious reasons. I like the idea of SSNs just strolling into EU ports and laying mines too; I hope I don?t really have to go into why that is such an implausible suggestion. Why do you have no doubt that the USN carriers would survive? What reason is there to suggest that this would be the case? Aegis can?t destroy torpedoes. The facts are that they would be out numbered in both numbers of ships, aircraft and submarines; they would be fighting in EU territory, against a well trained force, and have worse situational awareness then the enemy. The advantage clearly lies with the EU. ?-Some things I think you have not justified. Your situational awareness is not in the same class as the US.? In general yes but the US would be fighting in EU territory and with only the assets available from carriers whereas the EU would have its entire force to bring to bear. ?Did you know the US has operational ASAT weapons now? And the old ASAT weapon could easily be brought into action if required.? No have you got proof? I?ve covered the bit about B2s further up. You still haven?t addressed many of my other points in the last two large threads I posted.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:USA vs EU   1/10/2005 1:27:45 AM
Well I addressed the ones I could. When I say carriers would survive EU strikes, thats an opinion. There is no way for me to prove that. The same applies to your assessment of the B2 being detected and only a fraction of the TLAMs making it. Niether you or I can prove that unless they actually try it. So on some of these issues we have to agree to disagree.
 
Quote    Reply

addo    RE:USA vs EU   1/10/2005 6:39:17 AM
Atleast he is somewhat entertaining.. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    Disagreement ... and agreement ? - to Gixxxerking   1/10/2005 11:35:20 AM
"on some of these issues we have to agree to disagree" Fair enough. As you said, there is no way anybody here could prove whether this "stealth" bomber will be detected or that aircraft carrier will survive SSK strikes. However, there must be some areas on which even you would agree ? Namely : - that no matter how much "surprise strike" you factor in, no matter how little respect you have for Triomphant or Vanguard SSBNs, the US could not sink them all or destroy all in port during Day 1 of OEF (operation European freedom) - that no matter how much surprise attack you factor in, there is no way for the US to destroy all ASMP missiles and the Mirage or Rafale or Super Etendard to carry them during Day 1 of OEF Therefore, on the eve of Day 2, you've got a very p*ssed of collection of European countries, along with much surprised European (and American ...) opinions. Assuming that the US president is not impeached and sent into mental health institution on the evening of Day 1 (a huge assumption, which I'm not sure even you would be prepared to make), assuming further that European classical Navy and Air forces are so much at a disadvantage as you paint them to be (which I do not believe, but that's not the point), US invasion could be prevented if by no other strategy then by the following : - Conserve all surviving Triomphant and Vanguard at sea while giving them orders to launch a special distress message if they were attacked, and to launch all missiles at US population centers if a single such message is detected. Of course, make very public the fact that such a defensive strategy has been chosen - Use ASMP to terminate any US beachhead if one is conquered, even if that occurs in a population center. However, make public the fact that for each European nuke that has to be fired over European territory in that way, 10,000 US tourists (which are now housed in detention centers, in case I forgot to tell you) will be killed. Of course, if it's a US nuke that fires at a European population center, then one among the European SSBNs will have to be sacrificed. But its 16 SLBMs with several tens of warheads will have created havoc among CONUS military targets, while its little sisters safe at sea will ensure that the probable US follow-on nuclear strike will avoid European cities - In addition, make sure the US leadership understands that if the US has not stopped its attacks on the evening of Day 7, Islamist terrorist groups all over the world will have been provided with a few tens wallet nukes In the very unlikely event that the US president is not yet impeached on the evening of Day 1, he will be assassinated by American patriots on Day 2 or 3, and the attack will be called back. Or what would be your response to that ? Remember, you're the US president in that scenario because the US president only would have the authority to order such a surprise attack ! Therefore, you have every reason to find a solution QUICKLY ;-) ...
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    Disagreement ... and agreement ? - another point - to Gixxxerking   1/10/2005 11:45:07 AM
Regarding the risk of assassination, remember that as soon as his unprovoked actions seem to lead to an nuclear holocaust in the US, the US president is under constant threat and cannot take the loyalty of anybody for granted. The only ones he could count on are those who in addition to being as mad as he is have all of their family protected in antinuclear shelters. But can the US president be surrounded only by people like that ? It would be enough for a single person in his detail to not have all one's family and friends protected and to decide to sacrifice one's life in order to save them. How can the US president avoid the assassination risk ? I'd say his best chance at survival would be to call back the attack and then plead mental illness during his trial by Americans. What do you think ? What would you do in his place ?
 
Quote    Reply

Lightning Rod    It is about Logistics    1/10/2005 12:12:18 PM
Really to have anything close to an intelligent argument on this subject a far more detailed scenario needs to be laid out. It is difficult for me to come up with a scenario that the US would go to war with France or Germany or Spain much less find a way to piss them all off enough to go to war on the same side, at the same time. I think that the UK for the most part is at least as close to the US as they are with the EU. So counting on them to be on the EUs side requires a pretty wild set of circumstances. Additionally who say it has to be the US invading Europe? What if the US decided to Annex Saudi Arabia? It is all about logistics. I think we can all agree that the EU does not have the forces necessary to invade much less conquer the United States. The United States ?might? be able to invade Europe but the Man power and logistical problems would be too much to overcome for the US to be able to Occupy Europe. Any place outside of Europe the United States would have the advantage. So back to Saudi Arabia or some place like that: Lets just say the US announces to the world that they plan to take over Saudi Arabia and make it a territory of the United States and all of the Oil would sent to the US and none exported to Europe. Could the EU stop them? How could they get feet on the ground where they are needed.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    On UK   1/10/2005 12:47:20 PM
UK has always tried to balance power.Formerly between Germany and France, then today between EU and US. If US attack EU, UK will choose EU as no power would remain to protect its freedom if US win. UK would choose EU for sure. If EU attack US first, UK would choose US. SImple. Surprise attack: An other way would be to use nuke to black mail US: some key targets industrial and military (64 to 96 and avoiding still NY or other major urban centers) would be targeted by a SSBN and destroy in 12 hours to let population to evacuate and avoid losses.This would be publicly broadcast.I doubt that US would have the stomach to continue due to internal pressure. If US bomb without warning to evacuate people our cities it would be also suject to retaliation. The fact is that we have 5 SSBN at sea with 500 warheads including UK and French one. 1 SSBN for blackmail, remain 4 for reprisals. a single SSBN can kill 20 million US people. Non surprised attack: US need to build up oversea to make conventional war. If US want to keep their commitment on asia only half the forces would be mobilized agaisnt Europe. The balance is then clealy equal. A build up (which would be probably as long as Gulf war one even if US got a place saying in Africa) let Europeans nations to reinforce strongly (after months) and disperse their forces (in hours). A aerial offensive from US or even ACores or Island (not mentioning use of tactical nukes), would rely only to medium/heavy bombers and naval forces.Such a limited offensive could be easily countered by our 2000 fighters (EU) supported by AWACS, antistealth networked means and also SAM. We are not Iraqis.
 
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