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    RE:It is about Logistics    1/10/2005 12:53:34 PM
"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. " On Saudia Arabia we can close mediterranean sea with SSN/SSK, mines and fighters (Gibraltar straight is narrow) US supply line would have to turn around Africa. BTW we have land continuity with middle east via Turkey. Turkey can not handle power of European nations combined and so our supply line will be easier to manage than US. Euro land power is also greater than US and Israelis would remain neutral. Now way also. US will dominate militarly EU everywhere in the world except in EU, Russia, North Africa or middle East.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:USA vs EU   1/10/2005 12:54:31 PM
?Well I addressed the ones I could.? That?s exactly the point isn?t it? You?ve addressed the points you think you can and ignored the ones you know you can?t, like everything to do with the US actually getting forces onto land, like how you would gain air superiority against a more numerous enemy, or how you would actually support this force and a whole host of others. ?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.? Agreed but its deductive reasoning, take the issue of carriers for example. The facts are that? A) The US has 12 carriers at the very most to bring to bear; against a submarine threat alone these carriers are outnumbered by around 7 to 1. B) SSNs and SSks are very difficult to detect. C) Carriers, relatively speaking, are easy to detect. D) The EU force would be operating in very familiar territory. E) The US force would have to defend against surface and air threats, both outnumbering them. F) The US would face tactical nuclear weapons at worst. G) The EU force would have the advantage of better situational awareness. The advantage is clearly with the EU. Above are 7 reasons why the US carrier forces would be at a disadvantage and would likely fair worse than the EU. What reasons are there to believe that the US carriers would do well? Similar can be done for TLAM strikes; the reasons are numerous why they would not be very successful? A) SSNs would need to be within around 500km of the EU coast at least in order to hit any worthwhile targets. B) Each missile carries only a 1000lb warhead that would not be that effective against many targets, especially hardened targets. C) Each SSN would be easily detected when firing its missiles. D) The USN SSN force would be out numbered. E) The EU would have better situational awareness and would have the benefit of operating in home waters. F) The USN force would be forced to face a very large number of surface ships and ASW aircraft. G) The USN would be operating without any support from the USN surface or air fleet. Again seven reasons to believe the EU has the advantage. My points about the B2 are stand alone and are more than likely. You certainly can?t get away from the fact that they would be operating over a number of highly advanced nations in order to hit most targets. So while you may not be able to say that X is definitely the case you can say that it is the most likely outcome for y reasons. PS ? do you have a source about ASAT being in service?
 
Quote    Reply

Goths    RE:fs   1/10/2005 1:57:28 PM
You keep talking of a nuke retaliatory strike on our population centers. however no more than six US nukes alone would wipe France and the UK from the face of the earth not to mention the damage to there neighbors. Im pretty certain if it came down to nukes the US could withstand far more damage than Europe do to size of our nation. 100 million dead and what 200 million left. Im pretty sure your nukes would strike NY, LA, San Fran, Miami. So you killed all the liberals in the US. Only two EU nations have the ability to launch a counter strike. Would the UK and France really risk the destruction of their entire nation to kill 100 million Americans? Therefore a conventual war would be the only option. Another point in any scenario US forces would be operating from Israeli territory in conjunction with our aircraft carriers or loose all support. We all know how Europe has treated its Jewish population throughout history who do you think they will side with. I know here we go with we would destroy Israel. However after reading these two links I must say Im not impressed with the military capabilities of the EU or France for that matter. From the military capabilities of France and Israel report I have read it appears Israel is stronger than France in ground forces, air power, and missile defense France of course has naval superiority technology is about even. So in a conventual battle the EU could never win. link link
 
Quote    Reply

Goths    RE:fs   1/10/2005 2:16:37 PM
or loose all US support
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Alexis and RM-NOD   1/10/2005 2:21:46 PM
Answers are comming. Please stay tuned. I need time to address the issues in detail. I owe you that since you made such elaborate rsponses to my assertions. But lets assume this conflict is supported by both populations because US President cant just wake up and arbitrarily decide to go to war. Im ssure your constitutions require similar support. SO for what ever reason we are going to war with popular support. Also if we are factoring Politics into this, lets be realistic. For whatever reason lets exclude the UK. Because without an actual situation I dont think anyone could decide whos side they would be on. So they declare nuetrality. Is that fair?
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Goths    1/10/2005 3:36:34 PM
"Israel is stronger than France in ground forces, air power, and missile defense France of course has naval superiority technology is about even." On ground force true but Israel is techologically backward to france especially on RMA and C4ISR (France have today digital brigade and systems like Horizon and we have older reserve materials not counted in your report).And Israel is at maximal strenght almost, considering its population while France is at minimal. On air force France is a little stronguer (Rafale, more planes, 7 AWACS ..) On navy no comment. Again EU forces UK+France+Germany + others ...Israel have a force one third to them. PS: On missile defense we have no SCUD but stealth cruise missiles and supersonic cruise (ASMP).Arrow is useless even we would refield HADES (because it is an evasive maneouvering ballistic missile ARROW could not cope with). An "aster 50" is in developpment and similar to arrow in performance however. On nukes: I mentioned nukes agaisnt military targets or civiian area with major industrial objective with WARNING to avoid civilian casualties.US can not reataliate on our cities then without warning, or it is 100 million dead for US.Then if they retaliate on PAris or London , they would lose Detroit, Boston, LA, Chicago, NY etc..
 
Quote    Reply

Lightning Rod    RE:It is about Logistics    1/10/2005 3:41:36 PM
"Turkey can not handle power of European nations combined and so our supply line will be easier to manage than US. Euro land power is also greater than US and Israelis would remain neutral." In a scenario such as this neither side would risk turning their respective countries into radioactive wastelands so neither would use their nuclear weapons.It would be more likely for Israel to join the US than Turkey to join the EU. With out Turkey the EU would have a big problem yet, Turkey looks like it may become part of the EU so just for this scenario the EU gets not only the UK but Turkey as well. The United States then promises Israel one of Saudi Arabia?s oil Fields in payment for their support. The USN would certainly suffer plenty of Losses but would inflict similar losses in return. They certainly would not be stupid enough to go through the straight of Gibraltar. While I don?t see the USN as some invincible untouchable force I don?t see the EU?s Navies being strong enough to wipe out the USN and then to be able to transport troops and supplies to the Middle East. With the Help of the Israelis Saudi Arabia could probably be taken relatively quickly leaving the EU in the unenviable position of having to kick out The US and Israelis. The EU would have to attack a force that is equal technologically. The US and Israelis would probably have greater numbers of Aircraft and roughly equivalent number of tanks and armored vehicles. Again it goes back to logistics. Neither the EU nor the US could bring all of their assets. I have no illusion of the US forces being better trained, equipped or commanded than those of the EU but, I would think that coordinating between the US and Israel would be easier than the UK, France, Germany Spain, Turkey and the rest all coordinating their efforts. Wars are not fought on paper and anything can happen but again ?on paper? I?m sure the generals of the EU would not like what they saw.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    No neutrality of UK   1/10/2005 3:43:33 PM
It is again all thier history see my previous post. UK support always the less dominant power
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    Lightning Rod    1/10/2005 5:13:33 PM
Can we not muddle the scenario please, the assertion of was made that the US would beat the EU. The thread has gone on along the lines of the US and EU invading each other. The EU posters here (can't believe I'm calling myself that!) have said that we could never invade the US and so the scenario is now the US trying to invade the EU. It's also the only scenario where I would imaging the EU actually comeing together.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:neutrality of UK   1/10/2005 7:56:52 PM
Gixxerking If you want to play with UK neutral, than you must answer these questions and how you will deal with it in your plan. 1. How far out will the UK declare a neutrality zone around the home islands? (both air and sea) 2. To what extent will they enforce it? ie protest to the UN, transmitting of violating ship/plane locations in the clear, a few well placed depth charges/gun shots across the path of planes, or active engagement to maintain neutral space? (Both US and EU) 3. How will this neutrality effect ops in the north sea or transit through the straits of dover for both US/EU military forces? 4. Same questions for The rock and the Med? You keep mentioning how easy/effective a first strike against all EU bases would be and mention Pearl Harbor to show how easy it would be. Have you counted the bases and locations that you wish to hit? Why do you want to tie up a CBG to close the Persian Gulf vice striking the two natural choke points for the med? RM yes most latter flights of Burkes have had the cranes removed however for those that have been removed a BM could fab block and tackle for SMs in a pinch
 
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