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
G3    RE:USA vs EU   2/2/2005 2:13:00 PM
I don't have big knowledge about the numbers of the total combined EU forces, nor all the abreviations used in gixx plans. But I think that a limited US attack on Europe would end with severe losses for the US forces. For example Germany could send its 50 Marine Tornados armed with Kormoran Antiship missiles to attack the CBG only 700km of coast plus 100 further IDS tornados attacking the Invasion troops on Iceland or greenland. I can only speak for germany cause here I know the exact numbers but other EU members have similar capacities. Plus new german AIP U212 class (4) sea endurance submerged 40days greece has also 4 214class AIP subs this types of sub are very hard to detect and will pose a great threat to CBG. Further for the defence of the UK can be send 100 F4FII wich are outdated but have due to modernization a not to underestimate BVR capacity tested with F15 in various scenarious.Also there could be deployed F123 frigates (8) and F124 (4) frigates with both equiped with VLS. The sam systems over europe would also be in high alert and some german patriot units can be sent to the north of europe to reeinforce AA capacities. Still there would be enough aircraft in germany to protect it from Air assaults. Also all the european industries will beginn to produce weapons and we could buy for the first some russian jets.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    Last stop, looney land, everybody off!   2/2/2005 2:22:28 PM
Facts have gone right out the window now. The US let's illegal immigrants in the US?! First I've heard of that, perhaps they realised that someone would start an EU vs US thread on some forum somewhere and thought they'd pre-empt anyones suggesting of the use of SOF. Oh still no response as to the hypocritical statments primarily regarding Iceland I see. Again, why is it that US SOF can waltz into RAF bases and shoot up F3s but EU SOF would not last a day on Iceland? Or why is it that a few PAC-3 could defend a single base against 140 missiles but the entire UK's air defence network would be crippled by a mere 500, whilst having upwards of 6000 individual targets? The list of these goes on. Which is why this thread will never end.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    G3   2/2/2005 2:43:22 PM
"I don't have big knowledge about the numbers of the total combined EU forces, nor all the abreviations used in gixx plans. But I think that a limited US attack on Europe would end with severe losses for the US forces. For example Germany could send its 50 Marine Tornados armed with Kormoran Antiship missiles to attack the CBG only 700km of coast plus 100 further IDS tornados attacking the Invasion troops on Iceland or greenland. I can only speak for germany cause here I know the exact numbers but other EU members have similar capacities. Plus new german AIP U212 class (4) sea endurance submerged 40days greece has also 4 214class AIP subs this types of sub are very hard to detect and will pose a great threat to CBG. Further for the defence of the UK can be send 100 F4FII wich are outdated but have due to modernization a not to underestimate BVR capacity tested with F15 in various scenarious.Also there could be deployed F123 frigates (8) and F124 (4) frigates with both equiped with VLS. The sam systems over europe would also be in high alert and some german patriot units can be sent to the north of europe to reeinforce AA capacities. Still there would be enough aircraft in germany to protect it from Air assaults. Also all the european industries will beginn to produce weapons and we could buy for the first some russian jets" --Those German Tornado will never get withing the Firing range of the Kormoran. 40+ km...lol. The SM-2 has a range of 150+ km. The SM-2ER evn further. You would have to get through the outer CAP, Alert a/c then the SAMs and finally the CIWS. There is 0 chance of success with those 50 Tornado. Think triple. You would need 3x the missiles, 3x the warhead and 3x the range. The subs are more of a threat but would have to expose themselves to get out to sea. And while it may be true that some can lurk in one place for 40 days. They cant move much beyond 3 to 5 knots while doing so. The Russian a/c purchase would help you. Buy Backfire, AS-6 and SU-27s. But you need time to train and integrate. Something you will not have after shooting starts. Not to mention the US could buy the Russians off or outright threaten them like we did when they tried to sell to Syria.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Responses to RM-NOD   2/2/2005 4:19:48 PM
"Facts have gone right out the window now. The US let's illegal immigrants in the US?! First I've heard of that, perhaps they realised that someone would start an EU vs US thread on some forum somewhere and thought they'd pre-empt anyones suggesting of the use of SOF. Oh still no response as to the hypocritical statments primarily regarding Iceland I see. Again, why is it that US SOF can waltz into RAF bases and shoot up F3s but EU SOF would not last a day on Iceland? Or why is it that a few PAC-3 could defend a single base against 140 missiles but the entire UK's air defence network would be crippled by a mere 500, whilst having upwards of 6000 individual targets? The list of these goes on. Which is why this thread will never end" ---Alright RM-NOD. Let me put to rest your concerns. You dont live here so you dont know this. Any American poster can back me up here. The US does allow Illegal Immigration. President Bush even encourages it! Lord help us. But it is possible to stop it. Like during 9/11 it slowed to a crawl and NG units were sent to the border to stop it for a time. As soon as it became possible to monitor it and an unofficial system was in place to keep it in check. The flow was opened back up. Now to answer your persistent Iceland SOF Barrett questions. You stated earlier that you would send the SSNs after the CSF. 140 TLAMs represent all of your TLAN capable SSNs. So that shoots down over half your TLAN launches before they are fired. The UK IAD has no SAMs, or very few SAMs none of which Ive ever heard, that can engage a target beyond 10km range or above 3km altitude. This presents a unique opportunity for planning TLAM/ALCM soties. With such limited engagement ranges. Missiles will simply thread their way to their targets using terrain masking and avoid defenses. And upon approach to target climb to 4km to 5km and do terminal dive onto their targets. You could not hope to hit more than a few missiles if they arrive in rapid succession or if the dive is within the minimum engagement range of your missiles. This means you HAVE to use fighters to intercept the missiles. Not only are there too many missiles for fighters to stop, especially with skyflash SARH, but F-22 will be among the missiles hunting the fighters. You are literally undefended from this method. Now, you may argue many things but you cannot argue this. You are vulnerable. Another reason why I chose the U.K. and RAF/RN as my first target. Now it is better to give then to recieve correct? So you fire 70 to 140 TLAMs at Iceland, all going to a know location with concentrated defenses. These TLAMs will be fired over the water and in range of E-3. PAC-2/PAC-3 has none of the limitations of the U.K. SAMs and will be firing from much greater ranges with data from off board sensors. Add to this the F-15C on Iceland and nearby AEGIS ships and F/A-18E with AMRAAMs. Its clear to see that your chances for success against my IAD plan are far less. SOF Its important to note the differences in the types of missions we are giving our SOF units. 1. My plan does not rely on SOF for success. Notice I do not even access how many I expect the to get. 2. My SOF have the luxury of rehearsal and planning time. They know their mission 1 year in advance. 3. I can deploy my SOF in small numbers or individually over time to their targets. This seriously reduces the chances of capture or premature discovery when compared to the groups you will have to deploy. 4. I have time to plan exfiltration. My teams can escape immediately after mission accomplishment. 5. The targets my SOF are after are widely dispersed. This complicates defense. You cannot be strong everywhere. I know you are coming for the NAS, and will be waiting. 6. My SOF plan is pro-active, yours is reactive. You will have 3 to 10 days to plan, rehearse and deploy your SOF to Iceland while being opposed. My SOF will be doing this over the course of a year. When looked at in context, it is easy to see the odds are against you doing an equivilent amount of significant damage in the very short time required to blunt the attack.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Responses to RM-NOD   2/2/2005 5:37:37 PM
No I never said SSNs would be after the CSF, I?ve never set out any sort of plan like that. What I did say that carriers would be vulnerable. Rapier is designed to intercept cruise missiles, and they are capable of covering 100 square miles. Whether missiles go high or low they can be intercepted when they are close to the target (a well defended target will have a Rapier close by forcing any missile, bomb or what have you to dive through the defensive arc of the system), Rapier can lock onto it's target at higher altitudes and longer ranges than the actual missile can intercept at meaning that even if a missile climbs before it hits it's target it can still be tracked and targeted by the Rapier and engaged when in range. More over you're talking about taking on the EU which means you'd be facing, not just British air defence systems but redeployed missiles from other EU countries that are less vulnerable; systems such as Aster, Hawk, Patriot, Aspide, Mistral, Crotale, RBS 23/70, Roland, etc. Terrain masking doesn't work when faced with airborne systems like Sentries, ASACs, BN-2s etc. Neither are there many places where a missile can mask itself right up to its target. Also you have a choice of 471 air bases that can operate various RAF aircraft plus Harriers can be supported from almost anywhere, there are around 1000+ radar targets and mobile radar targets; you don?t have enough missiles for a quick first strike; even if you destroyed every radar and aircraft in Scotland for example there are still radars further south that can monitor the area. Iceland; Defences ? The UK targets are guarded by anything from Rapier to Starstreak or Aster to Patriot. The UK can concentrate defences where they are needed, just as the US would do with Keflavik, just because there are nearly 500 air bases does not mean that the UK has to defend 500 bases; they only need to defend the ones that are actually being used. The UK also has ships with air defence systems and radars, as it also has fighter aircraft; all along with EU reinforcements. The US faces the same defences in the UK as the EU does in Iceland. Firing positions ? US missiles will be flying over water, and the EU also has airborne radar systems. Your missiles are facing the same sensor systems as the EU missiles are. Targets ? US missiles are limited and there are 471+ places where the UK can base defences, 1000+ ground radar systems and around 300 various mobile radar systems. The US would not know which bases are being used or where all mobile radars are. The US has only one base on Iceland with few targets. Both can concentrate defences to where they are needed. SOF ? 1) Neither does an attack on Iceland; I merely bring it up because you think that US SOF can get close enough to fire a .50 into an F3 whereas the EU SOF couldn?t get close enough to fire a mortar. 2,3,4 and 6) Unless you?ve changed the entire scenario again the US does not have the element of surprise in regards to Iceland. Any competent EU commander, I?m sure, would realise the significance of Keflavik. What you have said the US could do there is no reason why the EU could not do the same. 5) You have 471 targets, that means you have to deploy far more troops which complicates attack. The EU has the numbers to cover the bases/ targets that need defending. Far from complicating defence the large number of potential targets versus those that actually are used by the EU makes defence easier since the EU can concentrate defences where they are needed and use other potential targets as decoys. Of course this all assumes that Keflavik isn?t struck before reinforcements arrive, or are attack as soon as US carriers move into the Atlantic.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Ehran --Thanks for getting back.    2/2/2005 6:15:45 PM
---You could not possibly be more wrong here. SSK's have been nothing more than a nusiance when used this way in history. Yes you can get a few unescorted merchants. But the US has the industrial capacity to replace these losses with ease and more importantly, unmolested. Any SSks out in the open ocean will not make it back the EU when hostilities start. so lets get this straight it's apparently difficult to find a cbg in the vastness of the north atlantic despite their constant high powered radar emissions. it's child's play for the USN to find a snorkelling ssk and destroy it. ok just wanted to be clear about that. err if you are having only marginal success stopping multiton drug shipments coming across the mexican border how in heck are you going to stop sf types? besides the canadian border is far longer and virtually unprotected as well as offering easier access to "interesting" targets. there is also an enormous amount of coastline which is at best thinly protected.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:G3   2/2/2005 6:27:25 PM
think of the germans as the mop up force to tidy up anything still floating about being irritating. the initial attack would likely be anglo french with their new stealthy storm shadows and scalp which both out range the sm2 er handily. it would be perfectly possible to do the swamp the defenses attack for the eu though the stealthy missiles of the first wave may well make that moot. the aip subs perform more like ssn than ssk. they aren't limited to drifting along at steerage speeds by a long shot.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Gix   2/2/2005 6:35:35 PM
while it's been fun it's getting too silly even for me. before i depart these vales i will say however that if i ever had to fight the US that one of the critically important missions i would assign to my sf guys would be the systematic assassination of anyone impeding gix's promotion to chairman of the joint chiefs for i can think of no better way to ensure victory for the good guys.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Responses to RM-NOD   2/2/2005 6:56:07 PM
"No I never said SSNs would be after the CSF, I?ve never set out any sort of plan like that. What I did say that carriers would be vulnerable." --No but others did. Its the only weapons system you have that could fight beyond coastal waters. But you did say you would TLAM the East Coast of the US. How many SSNs for this? "Rapier is designed to intercept cruise missiles, and they are capable of covering 100 square miles. Whether missiles go high or low they can be intercepted when they are close to the target (a well defended target will have a Rapier close by forcing any missile, bomb or what have you to dive through the defensive arc of the system), Rapier can lock onto it's target at higher altitudes and longer ranges than the actual missile can intercept at meaning that even if a missile climbs before it hits it's target it can still be tracked and targeted by the Rapier and engaged when in range. More over you're talking about taking on the EU which means you'd be facing, not just British air defence systems but redeployed missiles from other EU countries that are less vulnerable; systems such as Aster, Hawk, Patriot, Aspide, Mistral, Crotale, RBS 23/70, Roland, etc. Terrain masking doesn't work when faced with airborne systems like Sentries, ASACs, BN-2s etc. Neither are there many places where a missile can mask itself right up to its target. Also you have a choice of 471 air bases that can operate various RAF aircraft plus Harriers can be supported from almost anywhere, there are around 1000+ radar targets and mobile radar targets; you don?t have enough missiles for a quick first strike; even if you destroyed every radar and aircraft in Scotland for example there are still radars further south that can monitor the area." --NOD now you are ignoring a significant fact. The Rapier can Target the missile, but a dive from 4km is over in seconds. You might get 1 or 2 during the terminal dive. Also you have about 100 to 150 Rapier IIRC. To defend 471 airbases, EW sites and industrial targets. Hardly dense. You would be wise to borrow from EU nations with more capable SAMs. But until you give more detail on type and numbers then it remains nothing more than a possibility. If you try to recreate the UK IAD system consider that you will only have 3 to 10 days to do this. I'm interested in what you have in mind. But your existing SAM component of your IAD is quite useless against a mass attack. Oh and there is plenty of places to mask TLAMs from Rapiers. "Iceland; Defences ? The UK targets are guarded by anything from Rapier to Starstreak or Aster to Patriot. The UK can concentrate defences where they are needed, just as the US would do with Keflavik, just because there are nearly 500 air bases does not mean that the UK has to defend 500 bases; they only need to defend the ones that are actually being used. The UK also has ships with air defence systems and radars, as it also has fighter aircraft; all along with EU reinforcements. The US faces the same defences in the UK as the EU does in Iceland." --Well I can tell you that the Iceland defense will be a lot more intense that that of the entire UK because its focused on such a small area. It would be delusional to place any surface ship between the CSF and U.K. But be my guess to do it. EU naval ships are far more vulnerable to massed AShM attack that a US CSF. I'll task 2x B-2, 2x B-52H, 2x KC-10 and 12x F-15C to destroy any EU ships along the axis of advance. "Firing positions ? US missiles will be flying over water, and the EU also has airborne radar systems. Your missiles are facing the same sensor systems as the EU missiles are." --Only Problem with that is that the Raptor can get close enough to your AWACS to Fire AMRAAMs. And I specifically tasked F-22 to eliminate them at the start of the attack. The F-22 can be undetected within firing range and away before escorts or interceptors could stop them. But the escorts and interceptors would likely end up getting shot down as well. There will be no silly dogfighting either. "Targets ? US missiles are limited and there are 471+ places where the UK can base defences, 1000+ ground radar systems and around 300 various mobile radar systems. The US would not know which bases are being used or where all mobile radars are. The US has only one base on Iceland with few targets. Both can concentrate defences to where they are needed." --Again, falsehoods. US missiles are plentiful. And the US knows very well what your dipsersal plans are, remember the cold war, and can fly any thing from U-2, SR-71, Satellites and a few other classified a/c directly over the U.k. with impunity and some even without you even knowing it. This doesnt include ELINT/SIGINT a/c and HUMINT. Also there will be the problem of EA-6B doing standoff Jamming. SOF ? 1) Neither does an attack on Iceland; I merely bring it up because you think that US SOF can get close enough to fire a
 
Quote    Reply

G3    gixx   2/2/2005 7:00:34 PM
The tornados will fire first some AGM 88B Block IIIB HARM (Newest version Italy and Germany)to force the ships radar to turn off then fire the Kormoran and if necessary fire another HARM to protect the missile. The tornadoes can opt (AGM-88)for planned shoot or Threat Surveillance Operation in this case the seeker is on whilst still hanging on the AC. Also there could be a combined attack with surface ships and subs. The U212 can travel more than 3 knots when submerged for a long time the hydrogen fuel cells charge the batteries underwater. It has nearly the same performances as a nuclear, but its less noisy.
 
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