NationStates Jolt Archive

NianNorth consistently knows its militaria.
But on point 3, how can you agree? Europe is already united militarily in Nato. If America attacked Germany and France, do you think they'd be squabbling between themselves about whose turn it was to fight back?

I do worry which side the UK would be on if there was a US-EU war. Not that there will ever ever be one.

Hmm. To quote a rather intelligent man, "Better that you should remove the log from your own eye before removing the twig from your brother's."

I believe, as to culture, I could perhaps toss in, oh, say, the Rolling Stones, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edgar Allen Poe, Emily Dickinson, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost, T.S. Elliot, E.E. Cummings, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, and the list goes on and on. Just because your nation has taken in the Mickey D's and skipped on the rest doesn't mean it isn't there. So perhaps you should open your eyes and let go of some of your ignorant suppositions.

Are the Rolling Stones american now?

This is why France doesn't matter.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

So France was not on the winning side of the thirty years war? Hmm...

I'd have to say the Military history of nations has very little standing today. For example, the Germans have a rich military history, but their martial tradition is nearly dead.

Whilst the British have a rich history and strong Martial tradition.

We Americans have a short military history, but we have a strong martial tradition.

And these things (for the US and the Germans) have mainly come to be in the space of the last 50 or so years, after the second world.

So lotss can change, the losing French history is irrelevant. We've all seen this thing a billion times since Bush decided to invade Iraq. Some of us have gotten it clogging our e-mail boxes. So yeah, my perspective on history.

apart from the utter crap that has come out of this debate, i'd say one of the most important factors has failed to be raised. That is the role of underground resistance groups. Whilst it might be fun to talk about who has better machinery, the EU, as we have established it would be a US invasion of Europe, has the fundamental advantage of being the victim. World War two, is a good example, especially in eastern Europe, of how effective guerilla wars are. Furthermore, might i add that the role of resistance fighters in Iraq has shown the US to be highly ineffective in dealing with dissidents, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them. Now i know there will be the odd cretin who will suggest that the US will be able to infiltrate such groups with ease, I’d suggest that you haven't got a clue about the structure and nature of these groups. Finally, if the US ever gets in a position where it is able to infiltrate its effects will be limited. No one mentions large scale German infiltration of the Partisan movements do they. take a page out of history, you might learn something.

But there would not be civilian freedom fighters thanks to a nice little thing called gun control in britain and other countries.
Thus if there were freedom fighters it would be remnants of the already defeated military, so you are saying that Euro-troops lost.
Secondly let's face the facts, America has air superiority over everyone in the world. We have the better planes and the better pilots. We would bomb the crap out of any resistance we found since we obviously wouldnt care much about world opinion anymore.
Not to mention the Navy could blockade and launch missiles against just about all of Europe.
And our troops would be more motivated because they actually have Liberty and capitalism to defend. And believe it or not we do have the better trained troops.
And it wouldnt be the US invading Europe, how pathetic is that, if anything it is Europe invading the US due to a mandate from their precious UN saying that the US is guity of war crimes or some crap like that. Kofie Anan (however you spell that idiot's name) would be like "Dey kill de children and I am berry concerned about de escalating biolence".

And Europe has how many nukes at best? America has tens of thousands...me thinks we vastly outnumber them and Europe would have to be flat out stupid to try and use those.

So France was not on the winning side of the thirty years war? Hmm...
They supported both sides. I suppose you could say they "won" by preventing the Spanish Hapsburgs from becoming to powerful.

apart from the utter crap that has come out of this debate, i'd say one of the most important factors has failed to be raised. That is the role of underground resistance groups. Whilst it might be fun to talk about who has better machinery, the EU, as we have established it would be a US invasion of Europe, has the fundamental advantage of being the victim. World War two, is a good example, especially in eastern Europe, of how effective guerilla wars are. Furthermore, might i add that the role of resistance fighters in Iraq has shown the US to be highly ineffective in dealing with dissidents, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them. Now i know there will be the odd cretin who will suggest that the US will be able to infiltrate such groups with ease, I’d suggest that you haven't got a clue about the structure and nature of these groups. Finally, if the US ever gets in a position where it is able to infiltrate its effects will be limited. No one mentions large scale German infiltration of the Partisan movements do they. take a page out of history, you might learn something.
It depends on how we fight the war. If we don't give two shits about civvie casualties than crushing the resistance would be much, much easier. Since we are trying to stay on the general populaces good side, however, it makes fighting the insurgents and terrorists much harder.

now i would like every sngle american on these boards to look at this thing called the falklands conflict. yes do a search on goolge. basicaly one brigade of royal marines and 2 regiments of the uk army went and stomped on some argentine forces on the far side of the world WIHTOUT massive air and navel support.


also the EU forces are better trained to work togerther as they train together, many of the eu countrys still have constricped service (denmark, gerany and franc i think, amongst others.

the us forces in this thoretical conflit would have to froce land on the coastr somewhere in enough force to hold a beach head to allow material of war to be landed. now hears the catch, they would not have ANY way of stockpiling material near the conflic zone like they have in iraq, or in ww2 it would have to be carried accross the atlantic in thise things called merchant ships which as the germasn showed us are extremly vunerable.


now to shred some arguments for the US

navel first
now you US technocrats can argue all you want heres a transcrip of a true statment about submainers. and there capabilities

us comanders respected the russians becuase of there numerical advantage,
russian comanders respeced the am ericans due to there technical abilities
us and russian commanders FEARED the british becasue of the trianing that went into producing there skippers. and the uk sb force is the ONLY that have fireds warshots ( again the flaklands , the sinking of the general belgrano

also ANY nuc boat can stay submerged for as long as its food suplies last
be it us, UK french or whatever.

surface fleets

yes the us has a huge surface fleet BUT either you uncover you homeland to attack by the smaller EU fleets or you have to tie most fo your forces down on static defence sorry but its simple mathes for a country with such a large sea front to defend (sorry you though the eu would roll over and die without trying it on, ffs look at history books sometime will you)

capabilites wise they have to mass overwhelming firepower to defeat an oponent (yes its a good tactic but hay) tech wise mos of there capabilites are running old, especialy in teh navel air arm

also the eu fleets are normaly trained (with the exception of the Royal Navey, still the best trained and equiped in the world just not the biggest) in close in defence of there own nation wich according to this scenario is exactly where theyare needed

so the remenats of the us fleet after convoy, home defence and matenance etc are considered wuld have to fight agaisnt the combined might of spain, france, germany (and there new generation U boats) poland, denmark, norway, portugal italy ireland, etc now see how the numbers add up

air assets

well as stated tere getting old AND there fighting agaisnt LAND BASED AIRCRAFT which have more warshot and fuel than navel versions (due to weight limits on the cats)
also there wont have the support of ground based radar unlike the eu which can project radar much much further

air assets

well bar your long range strat. bombers nothing can get to us so there out. also those strat bombers are hows the best way to put it. targets yes the b52s will be nailed as and when chosen by the EU and the "stealths" are not as good as it seems. UK radar routenly tracks them. there radar image is small BUT they dont look for that the look for the lack of returns behind it (tis a bitch when people are SMART isnt it)

so thats navel and air assets scrubed now onto the land forces

US army. now please this is strictly amature hour,

US marines lose the green lids you dont deserve them. your ok to serve as regular army troops in teh EU but only just but lose the mindlessness please


in comparision

UK army. some of the best trained in the world. ( why cnat 10000 us army troops take a small area of a city WITHOUT 600 uk troop)

UK Royal Marine Commandos sorry lads but very very few troops are trained as hard as this ( i know i did it) or as well. teh eceptions being the russian spetznaz ( they moddled there training in the royal marines) trianed to operate alone and in forced landings, behind enemy lines (PLEASE PLEASE look up the fl;akands, what the us said they would need 5 carrier groups to do and a full army group to do) (oh th uk did it with 1/2 a carrier grou and 1 commando brigade and 2army regiments)
uk army. not quite as well trined but still very very good (even the paras AND thats coming from a squid) also the uk armour is better than the us. we lost 1 tank to rpgs, and that was when something like 40 of them hit it . the americans lost how many of there "super" m1s?

uk forrces are also better trained to deal with no comforts unlike the US (do you REALY REALY need a macdonalds on a militarry base)

uk navey all round beter trained especialy the command ranks we have history to keep up here and we do do it well gear wise some assets are aging a touch and the lack of carriers is a touch worrying but ah well cant have everything sub wise the trafalger class is silent. quieter than the bacground noise of the ocen. and it tracks ohios for fun (me shit you not) even tho the us claims its impossible (again with stealths)

airforce. in all honesty not my area of knolage so ill defer on that one but be assured that the RAF is operation 100% iof its assets unlike the US very little

so i analised th uk forces i wont bother with the rest as they are in a similar boat to the UK but to finish a question for you us guy ( uk peeps NO answering please) what does SBS stand for? and how oftern do you hear it?



logisticaly the EU froces are able to get all of there needs delivered to tem via there transport infrastructure which is what 2000 miles max assuming that every troop in the EU was deployed to say the west coast of france, the US however has to bring everything with it, on big slow targets (merchant ships) so it will have a logistical support train draining its combat reserve with guard duty, also any ship which is sunk will imediatly lose the us some of its ability to fight efectivly. sink a troop ship and ther troops are dead. sink a ood ship then those troops and many more go hungry,

so
LOGISTICALY the us are onto a loser there
strategicaly they are isolated, which gives good defence but also they lack a land base to project power off of
tacticaly there useless

These sorts of hypothetical scenarios do little but stirr up the insane patriots into a long, pointless row about which country is 'better' than the other. Rarely is there an unbiased analysis of the potential of either side...

Why do we even need to dream up these scenarios anyway? Why can't we all just get along?

I totally agree. There is enough bashing of each others country without someone instigating even more. I saw a post saying "even more people hate the US". WHY??? You can hate our government but why hate the people who go to work everyday, watch ballgames, order pizza and try and raise a healthy happy family? We're just like you. You think we are happy with our government?? We can elect people all day long and if we dont have the choice of a candidate that will really make positive changes, what are we to do?? Stop being judgmental of people youve never met. Dont hate me because I'm an American. I'm a good person and would help anyone in need. Millions more like me live here. I'm so sick of seeing all the hate between our countries.

Never, in the last 150 years, have two democracies gone to war with each other. Is there any realistic scenario in which the E.U. and the U.S. would go to war?

No.

This is a silly thread.

By the way, the proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 billion - almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

They may have been picked up by radar but guess what, the bombers will always get through. Unless of course you use nuclear blasts in the air to take them all out. You can shoot down some, but some will always make it to the targets.

You make it sound as though the US has hundreds upon hundreds of B2 Spirits, like they had bombers in WW2. There are only a few dozen B2 stealth bombers in the world today.

Some ppl here actually believe countrys like poland or the UK would side with the US..?? thats ridiculous.. Country;'s are bound to help there neighbours first. especially bcz they need eachother and live right nxt to eachother for all eternity.. every sane EU country would help eachother..
And it has always been that way.. unless they invade eachother like WW

Another fact is that countries in war can be very unpredictable.. if you see what kind of military technologie popped up outta nothin in World war 1 and 2... + the reason the US was able to save the EU in the WW was bcz they didnt get bombed like European countrys were.. cities constanly being flattened if there was a sign of military production.. the US would be in the same situation if there was a war among there states..

and the military budget is bound to increase when war is imminent ;)

And how on earth are they gonna be able to land there stuff on EU soil?? if the EU stuff is already deployed there..

They supported both sides. I suppose you could say they "won" by preventing the Spanish Hapsburgs from becoming to powerful.
That was their objective. The objective or Cardinal Richelieu.
The Habsburg dynasty wanted to re-unite (or unite) Central Europe under their supremacy and used the counter-reformation as a trigger for that (sticking with the pope).
A success of the Habsburg dynasty and the Holy alliance would have lead France to be surrounded by the Habsburg (Spain, Central Europe). Siding with the protestant countries (like Sweden) and the protestant north german states prevented in that sense the unification of Germany and led to even deeper divisions in Central Europe and resulted when the war finally ended (1648) in the existence of several hundred splinter states. This particularism lasted after all for more than 200 years up until Prussia united Germany in 1871 (against France).
In that sense it was a very succesfull strategy.
France enshured the division of a potential rival which made it possibly for France to become the dominant power on the European continent and aside Britain the main European colonial power.
Shure: France lost the colonial wars after 1945. But I would say, they were too stupid to give their colonies their independence voluntarily - as the British did btw.
They would have been capabable for example to keep Algeria. But that would have meant to battle an insurgency for years or even decades.
The United States wasn´t willing to do that in Vietnam for example (although it didn´t loose any battle).
So in the end it is also a question of will.
And there are situations were it is more wise to withdraw.
De Gaulle decided that for Algeria and Nixon for Vietnam.

and the military budget is bound to increase when war is imminent ;)
Ahh, yes, but the US military will retain the stuff that it's expenditures now have bought, whilst the EU won't have that amount.

That was their objective. The objective or Cardinal Richelieu.
The Habsburg dynasty wanted to re-unite (or unite) Central Europe under their supremacy and used the counter-reformation as a trigger for that (sticking with the pope).
A success of the Habsburg dynasty and the Holy alliance would have lead France to be surrounded by the Habsburg (Spain, Central Europe). Siding with the protestant countries (like Sweden) and the protestant north german states prevented in that sense the unification of Germany and led to even deeper divisions in Central Europe and resulted when the war finally ended (1648) in the existence of several hundred splinter states. This particularism lasted after all for more than 200 years up until Prussia united Germany in 1871 (against France).
In that sense it was a very succesfull strategy.
France enshured the division of a potential rival which made it possibly for France to become the dominant power on the European continent and aside Britain the main European colonial power.
Shure: France lost the colonial wars after 1945. But I would say, they were too stupid to give their colonies their independence voluntarily - as the British did btw.
They would have been capabable for example to keep Algeria. But that would have meant to battle an insurgency for years or even decades.
The United States wasn´t willing to do that in Vietnam for example (although it didn´t loose any battle).
So in the end it is also a question of will.
And there are situations were it is more wise to withdraw.
De Gaulle decided that for Algeria and Nixon for Vietnam.

That almost was verbatim what I was about to say!!
I'm guessing you drew from Crankshaw, Evans and Wheatcroft? It also seems you liked Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly"? :)

To think the EU would win is absurd. For one, just compare the annual spending on defense by the US with that of EU countries. The US annually spends nearly double on defense than all the EU countries combined.

To think the EU would win is absurd. For one, just compare the annual spending on defense by the US with that of EU countries. The US annually spends nearly double on defense than all the EU countries combined.

Thats bcz it costs more 2 maintain it.. ofc the spendings are more if you have ur troops constatnly around the world..

To think the EU would win is absurd. For one, just compare the annual spending on defense by the US with that of EU countries. The US annually spends nearly double on defense than all the EU countries combined.

hey.. and dont forget what happend in vietnam.. and in ww2 with the germans etc.. its very hard to stand ground in a long term war

I personally dont see any1 winning..

This is a tad Over-Kill. The only good natoin EU has is the Brits...France Sucks, Germany Sucks, Italy Sucks. This war will last 2 months Max. You forget we have Bunker-Busters, Stealth Aircraft, and the world's best Tank, the M1 A1 Abrams.

This is a tad Over-Kill. The only good natoin EU has is the Brits...France Sucks, Germany Sucks, Italy Sucks. This war will last 2 months Max. You forget we have Bunker-Busters, Stealth Aircraft, and the world's best Tank, the M1 A1 Abrams.

Europe isnt like Iraq.. mass/ population and I dont think u come to save europe from a dictator.. So this will destroy alot but still its kinda impossible to occupy something as the EU.. its to densly populated.. nationalistic and big..

2 months.. that is kiddy talk..

and france is a super power btw (or almost at least).. way stronger then the UK

As a member of the EU and a forme soldier from a wester nation i would be inclined to let the two faction go to war, if they chose to use nuckes, or biological warfare well so be it. !

All this fuss about who will rule the would is a load of bullshit. If you were to ask any person on the face of the earth would you kill someone for no reason, some would say no, some would say mayber, and some would say yes, this is the natural form of evolution.


HAVE A NICE DAY :-)

1 last comment.. (for every1 who is gonna quote me and reply etc)

MY DAD IS STRONGER THEN YOUR DAD :p !!!

Haven't any of you ever played Risk? Whoever gets Greenland and Australia (Oceana) wins. Hands down...

That almost was verbatim what I was about to say!!
I'm guessing you drew from Crankshaw, Evans and Wheatcroft? It also seems you liked Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly"? :)
I don´t know any of those. But to my apology I have to say that I´m neither from the US, Britain or any other anglo-saxon country. Though Huntingtons "Clash of civilisation?" is a book I know - in translation of course.
That is also a topic with more relevance to our time than the hundred-year war (1137-1251) or the 30-year war (1618-48), or hypothetical discussions about a hypothetical military confrontation between the US and Europe, which won´t happen anyway. Fortunately.

Haven't any of you ever played Risk? Whoever gets Greenland and Australia (Oceana) wins. Hands down...
or south america!

or south america!

Eh... I've seen limited success with South America... It's kind of open and vulnerable. The thing is, with the bonuses you get for Oceana (and the difficulty in attacking same), you're in a great position... start building on Greenland then you can just pinch everyone else off the board. (The thing about South America is that it's better to take it AFTER you're well established somewhere else. I've never seen anyone keep it if they started there.)

Eh... I've seen limited success with South America... It's kind of open and vulnerable. The thing is, with the bonuses you get for Oceana (and the difficulty in attacking same), you're in a great position... start building on Greenland then you can just pinch everyone else off the board. (The thing about South America is that it's better to take it AFTER you're well established somewhere else. I've never seen anyone keep it if they started there.)

Eh, I've found if you control central america and south america and you go for Africa, then you have a good shot at winning, you just have to manage it right.

If the idea of the war was simply to inflict as much damage on each other as possible I would go with the US. They simply have more firepower.

wow this whole thread is retarded.

I don´t know any of those. But to my apology I have to say that I´m neither from the US, Britain or any other anglo-saxon country. Though Huntingtons "Clash of civilisation?" is a book I know - in translation of course.
That is also a topic with more relevance to our time than the hundred-year war (1137-1251) or the 30-year war (1618-48), or hypothetical discussions about a hypothetical military confrontation between the US and Europe, which won´t happen anyway. Fortunately.

That's no handicap. :)

I'm guessing whatever books you did read on Austro-Hungarian history were either derived from the same ones that I mentioned were, or may have *been* the references for the books I mentioned...

Thank goodness!!

Servus,
-Markreich

1. The US's military technology is VASTLY superior to European technology, because the Europeans have been consistently cutting the military budget in favor of social programs.


Not true. The EU and US are on a par with one another in terms of millitary technology. The Eurofighter can stand toe to toe with the F22. Not mentioning the small fact that a large ammount of "Your" airforce is made up of slightly modified Harriers.


2. The US has an army that is simply better trained, better equipped, and more motivated.


Again, not true. The US armies specail forces training level is the equivelent to the British Armies rank and file. Its only logical, the American army is larger and so the resorces are more thinly spread out. Our armies may be smaller but no one doubts that they are more professional than the American Armies.


3. I highly doubt Europe could unite.


While it is true that the common defence and security policy has not been ratafied, chances are that if one large force comes attacking Europe we will not start squabbling about how to fight it. We just will.


4. The new US aerial stealth technology is far beyond European capabilities.


I dont know about this one, but you make it sound like Britain and the rest of Europe doesnt have stealth. We do.


5. If the US did not concern itself so much with public relations, as it does in Iraq, and goes on a total war, would wipe out Europe.
People, put aside your ideoligies and look at the simple military facts.

Thats assuming that you invade us. What makes you think we didnt invade you first, or that we did'nt meet in the sea. We have a far more defendable coastal postion than you (Yours is one long line, ours you can blockade acces points etc).

Haven't any of you ever played Risk? Whoever gets Greenland and Australia (Oceana) wins. Hands down...

Yep, I allways go fot Australia (only one entrance) and then South America wich gives you also 2 armies per round.

This is a tad Over-Kill. The only good natoin EU has is the Brits...France Sucks, Germany Sucks, Italy Sucks. This war will last 2 months Max. You forget we have Bunker-Busters, Stealth Aircraft, and the world's best Tank, the M1 A1 Abrams.

Wrong, BTW some info for ya: it is now the M1 A2 and he is outclassed by the Leopard2 A6 (see the links on former pages, done US ones :) )

now i would like every sngle american on these boards to look at this thing called the falklands conflict. yes do a search on goolge. basicaly one brigade of royal marines and 2 regiments of the uk army went and stomped on some argentine forces on the far side of the world WIHTOUT massive air and navel support.


also the EU forces are better trained to work togerther as they train together, many of the eu countrys still have constricped service (denmark, gerany and franc i think, amongst others.

the us forces in this thoretical conflit would have to froce land on the coastr somewhere in enough force to hold a beach head to allow material of war to be landed. now hears the catch, they would not have ANY way of stockpiling material near the conflic zone like they have in iraq, or in ww2 it would have to be carried accross the atlantic in thise things called merchant ships which as the germasn showed us are extremly vunerable.


now to shred some arguments for the US

navel first
now you US technocrats can argue all you want heres a transcrip of a true statment about submainers. and there capabilities

us comanders respected the russians becuase of there numerical advantage,
russian comanders respeced the am ericans due to there technical abilities
us and russian commanders FEARED the british becasue of the trianing that went into producing there skippers. and the uk sb force is the ONLY that have fireds warshots ( again the flaklands , the sinking of the general belgrano

also ANY nuc boat can stay submerged for as long as its food suplies last
be it us, UK french or whatever.

surface fleets

yes the us has a huge surface fleet BUT either you uncover you homeland to attack by the smaller EU fleets or you have to tie most fo your forces down on static defence sorry but its simple mathes for a country with such a large sea front to defend (sorry you though the eu would roll over and die without trying it on, ffs look at history books sometime will you)

capabilites wise they have to mass overwhelming firepower to defeat an oponent (yes its a good tactic but hay) tech wise mos of there capabilites are running old, especialy in teh navel air arm

also the eu fleets are normaly trained (with the exception of the Royal Navey, still the best trained and equiped in the world just not the biggest) in close in defence of there own nation wich according to this scenario is exactly where theyare needed

so the remenats of the us fleet after convoy, home defence and matenance etc are considered wuld have to fight agaisnt the combined might of spain, france, germany (and there new generation U boats) poland, denmark, norway, portugal italy ireland, etc now see how the numbers add up

air assets

well as stated tere getting old AND there fighting agaisnt LAND BASED AIRCRAFT which have more warshot and fuel than navel versions (due to weight limits on the cats)
also there wont have the support of ground based radar unlike the eu which can project radar much much further

air assets

well bar your long range strat. bombers nothing can get to us so there out. also those strat bombers are hows the best way to put it. targets yes the b52s will be nailed as and when chosen by the EU and the "stealths" are not as good as it seems. UK radar routenly tracks them. there radar image is small BUT they dont look for that the look for the lack of returns behind it (tis a bitch when people are SMART isnt it)

so thats navel and air assets scrubed now onto the land forces

US army. now please this is strictly amature hour,

US marines lose the green lids you dont deserve them. your ok to serve as regular army troops in teh EU but only just but lose the mindlessness please


in comparision

UK army. some of the best trained in the world. ( why cnat 10000 us army troops take a small area of a city WITHOUT 600 uk troop)

UK Royal Marine Commandos sorry lads but very very few troops are trained as hard as this ( i know i did it) or as well. teh eceptions being the russian spetznaz ( they moddled there training in the royal marines) trianed to operate alone and in forced landings, behind enemy lines (PLEASE PLEASE look up the fl;akands, what the us said they would need 5 carrier groups to do and a full army group to do) (oh th uk did it with 1/2 a carrier grou and 1 commando brigade and 2army regiments)
uk army. not quite as well trined but still very very good (even the paras AND thats coming from a squid) also the uk armour is better than the us. we lost 1 tank to rpgs, and that was when something like 40 of them hit it . the americans lost how many of there "super" m1s?

uk forrces are also better trained to deal with no comforts unlike the US (do you REALY REALY need a macdonalds on a militarry base)

uk navey all round beter trained especialy the command ranks we have history to keep up here and we do do it well gear wise some assets are aging a touch and the lack of carriers is a touch worrying but ah well cant have everything sub wise the trafalger class is silent. quieter than the bacground noise of the ocen. and it tracks ohios for fun (me shit you not) even tho the us claims its impossible (again with stealths)

airforce. in all honesty not my area of knolage so ill defer on that one but be assured that the RAF is operation 100% iof its assets unlike the US very little

so i analised th uk forces i wont bother with the rest as they are in a similar boat to the UK but to finish a question for you us guy ( uk peeps NO answering please) what does SBS stand for? and how oftern do you hear it?



logisticaly the EU froces are able to get all of there needs delivered to tem via there transport infrastructure which is what 2000 miles max assuming that every troop in the EU was deployed to say the west coast of france, the US however has to bring everything with it, on big slow targets (merchant ships) so it will have a logistical support train draining its combat reserve with guard duty, also any ship which is sunk will imediatly lose the us some of its ability to fight efectivly. sink a troop ship and ther troops are dead. sink a ood ship then those troops and many more go hungry,

so
LOGISTICALY the us are onto a loser there
strategicaly they are isolated, which gives good defence but also they lack a land base to project power off of
tacticaly there useless

NVD you show some understanding of the facts and I agree with your overall analysis that the US couldn’t conquer the EU. However, your knowledge of military affairs outside the UK seems sadly lacking allow me to shred some of your own assertions.

I have read and researched the Falkland Campaign several times, thank you very much. The only naval engagement was the sinking of an Argentine cruiser by a British nuclear sub, and the British UNsuccessful effort to track and destroy Argentina’s conventional powered subs. The main conflict was between the Argentine Air Force and the British Navy. The Argentines were operating at the very end of their range with no air cover and little modern equipment (only 5 Exocets and only 2 or three could be made to work) The British only had 20 Harriers on two carriers for fleet air defense. The Harriers did remarkable work against the attacking aircraft and the Argentine Air Force has virtually annihilated, but not before sinking 6 and damaging 11 ships. The ground battle went heavily for the British, which is what I would expect from the respective qualities of the troops.

Surface fleets
You contradicted yourself by saying that most EU navies are trained for coastal protection, but the US would have to use most of its forces to protect the US coast. The US doesn’t need to have naval patrols to do this we have plenty of Satellite coverage and airborne maritime reconnaissance aircraft to keep us aware of any threat to the coast. Not to mention the airpower to blast any force that gets within range of the US. As for the EU navies sticking to their coast, it is a viable strategy that combined with land based airpower can inflict massive losses on the US task forces, one of the reasons that I said in an earlier post that the EU would win in this particular scenario. Also I’ll grant you that the RN probably has the best trained sailors, but certainly not the best equipped.

Air assets (naval)
I’m not sure where this “your planes are old” theme is coming from. Yes the F-14 is old, but it is almost out of service, most strike groups are made up of F-18s and Superhornets which are as modern as anything in service in any of the EU countries. The problem for the US is that the 12 carriers can only carry about 750-800 fighters meaning they will be heavily outnumbered by what the EU can throw at them. The long range Aegis guided SM-2 SAMs balances things somewhat, but not enough.

Air assets
Our long range start bombers don’t need to get within 500 miles of Europe to launch cruise missiles. You are right flying over Europe would be a slaughter even for the stealth aircraft, but it’s hard to shoot someone down when they’ve turned back before you can even see them on radar. As for the tactical aircraft, the US would probably seize the Azores and possibly Iceland or the Canary Islands as forward bases. With those bases and 500 air to air refuelers in the USAF the F-15s and F-16s can certainly reach Europe.

Land Assets
I would agree that the British infantry is among the best trained in the world particularly at individual and small unit tactics. However, the rest of Europe isn’t so fortunate. The French have a well trained army, now that they have gone professional, but the Germans have withered from what they were in the mid-80s due to massive spending cuts crippling their training regimen. Also most of Europe’s armies still use short term conscription meaning their training level and skills fall far below the UKs. As for large unit training (batt. and above) the advantage lies with the US as our army regularly practices for large unit combat. As for the Tanks the major Western tanks (M1, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, and LeClerc) are all roughly equivalent with the determining factor being crew training and tactical situations.

Comparison
Well as a military man I would have thought you would be aware that the Black Watch isn’t IN Fallujah. They were called in so that the US could mass those 10,000 troops to go after Fallujah. By the way the SO capable MEUs are trained for the same mission that the Royal Marines are. Not to mention that the primary mission of the US Army Special Forces is to conduct insurgency operations deep behind enemy lines. The Trafalgar is roughly equivalent to a US 688i sub, nobody in the world has subs as advanced as the US Seawolf or Virginia classes (PS The UK had to ask US sub builder General Dynamics
To oversee the finalizing of the new Astute design because BAE couldn’t do it). No airforce operates at 100%, especially not the RAF which has a spare parts budget problem. The UK and France have the best trained and equipped troops in Europe, the Germans are decent, but most of the others don’t measure up.

Logistics
You are absolutely right; the United States cannot win on the EU’s home turf.

SBS
The SBS is the Special Boat Service, the naval equivalent of the SAS and (very) roughly comparable to the SEALs. The main mission of the SBS is recon of planned landing sites. The last thing I heard about them was a scandal a few months ago when several SAS members accused a SBS team on deep recon of running from the enemy. Don’t know the whole story, but if I recall correctly the facts ended up being that the SBS team ran into an Iraqi unit with heavy armor which attacked them. In spite of being equipped with only light weapons the SBS repulsed the attack and then withdrew in good order. A theory for the SAS accusation was that the deep patrol was more a SAS type mission and that some members of that group felt that the SBS was horning in on their territory.

Land Assets
I would agree that the British infantry is among the best trained in the world particularly at individual and small unit tactics. However, the rest of Europe isn’t so fortunate. The French have a well trained army, now that they have gone professional, but the Germans have withered from what they were in the mid-80s due to massive spending cuts crippling their training regimen. Also most of Europe’s armies still use short term conscription meaning their training level and skills fall far below the UKs. As for large unit training (batt. and above) the advantage lies with the US as our army regularly practices for large unit combat. As for the Tanks the major Western tanks (M1, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, and LeClerc) are all roughly equivalent with the determining factor being crew training and tactical situations.


The problem is in this case (where you talk about large scale combat) is that no one has fought another indusrialised nation on that scale since the end of the Second World War. The British have far more experiance than the US in terms of any opperation as we proved in Iraq (American troops often charged headlong and took more fire, but the British allowed the insurgents to become overconfident, spread out more thinly and then pounded them, a tatic that had worked in Northen Ireland on occation) but not since the second world war has there been any large scale batt level fighting so while you may be trained better for it, frankly you dont know how it will turn out.

Yep, I allways go fot Australia (only one entrance) and then South America wich gives you also 2 armies per round.

Bah! The key is South America and Asia! No one bothers with South America so it gives some reinforcements each turn so I can bolster my forces in Asia. Some aggressive play on my part and infighting between the other players in Europe/North America/Africa and before they know it, Asia is mine and the world domination begins! And I can ignore the Austraila builder because all they plan to do is just sit there anyway. Brilliant!!

The problem is in this case (where you talk about large scale combat) is that no one has fought another indusrialised nation on that scale since the end of the Second World War. The British have far more experiance than the US in terms of any opperation as we proved in Iraq (American troops often charged headlong and took more fire, but the British allowed the insurgents to become overconfident, spread out more thinly and then pounded them, a tatic that had worked in Northen Ireland on occation) but not since the second world war has there been any large scale batt level fighting so while you may be trained better for it, frankly you dont know how it will turn out.

I have to disagree with you, the problem with the US Army is the weakness of its strength. Army unit that come under fire have the tendency to dig in and call for fire support be it artillery or airborne. They don;t move in to engage the attackers directly which is what the Marines do (I believe the Brits as well). American troopps are used to having overwelming fire superiority, it is almost impossible to defeat them on the battlefield. Unfortunately our enemies are not stupid or faint hearted, so they set up in high density sivilian areas and near cultural monumnets. Thus when they attack, they are defeated but at troubling colateral cost which hurts the US in the politcal/physcological war. :eek:

I'm not sure what instances you are refering to about the Americans charging headlong, I can only assume you are talking about the inital attack. The British goal was Basra which was cutoff and isolated, so you could take the time to be methodical. The Americans were driving for Baghdad and had to keep pressing forward. Batt. stands for Battalion level of which there have been many engagemnts since World War II not least of which were both Gulf Wars.

First and foremost, I would like to address the issue of airpower. While yes, the Eurofighter is a very capable plane, in theory, it has yet to prove itself. And, might I add, few are in existence. Compare this to the US's vast fleet of aerial forces, many of which are equipped with smart bomb technology. The main problem for the Europeans is that they have become increasingly socialist, and thus spend far less on the military. You say that British troops are more trained, but I would disagree. First of all, Britain alone, even if it lived up to its expectations, is not nearly powerful enough to face the US. And, US infantry forces are the most highly trained. Almost every grunt uses some bit of technology, and this, with their training, contributes to such high kill ratios, such as 600-20 in Falluja. The British think far too highly of their special forces. While they are very talented, it should be noted that US special forces are called in almost everywhere to deal with conflict. Columbia's army was trained by US special forces. Also, whenever British Special Forces were used in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was in joint operations with US forces! Whenever British hostages were taken in Iraq, who saved them? That's right, US special forces. Who managed to lead the Northern Alliance from total defeat to almost complete victory using about only 100 Special Forces? The US. I'm not disparaging British forces, as they are the 2nd best in the world, but they still remain 2nd.

I dun't know, this whole thread seems illogical....The USA has had a very hard time fighting insurgents in Iraq, it would seem that fighting 29 countries with a combined population far exceeding its own would be folly. You can all boast about who has superior weapons and how ever so much cooler one's planes are, but technology alone does not win a war (and as WWI & WWII showed, the technological advantage shifts greatly throughout a war), and there have been examples of the bigger and better trained force losing, a la Soviet Union in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam, or even the Roman empire to the barbarian hordes of the north. Today, USA and UK officials stress repeatedly that they wish to minimize civilian casualties, but such a policy would have to go out the window if as many here have suggested you just bomb the hell out of the EU or American cities. The problem with that is that each nations population would be none too pleased with the war. Recall how many people demonstrated against the war in Iraq, a war far away, imagine then how many would be opposed, perhaps even violently so, within each nation when their friends and family start ending up dead. Anyway, my point is, you are all very silly people, and no one, especially those who would spend time on nationstates, including myself, is anywhere near qualified enough to make even the vaguest prediction of what might happen

The US's problem in Iraq is solely due to collateral damge issues. We care far too much about PR. If we ignored them, the war would be a cake walk.

Haven't any of you ever played Risk? Whoever gets Greenland and Australia (Oceana) wins. Hands down...GWBush could get them both...and still manage to lose.

I will say it one last time. The USA though having the largest army in the world granted yeah you do. But in a war against Europe that would do no good. The USA would isntantly lose its oil imports from the Gulf meaning it wouldnt be able to run the nation and even considder fighting a war. The USA would have to resort to WMD use.

I have three things against the us

1. Arrogance
2. Arrogance
3. Arrogance

Even though many nations can realisticly face the us and beat, they{or we} are the most arrogant nation in the world, Unlike the Eu who is trusted around the world anf given their due.

more thing why does the us tell other to stop building nuclear weapons(example: Iran.North korea, brazil and many more) while the congress is thinking about passing a f>>>> Nuclear weapons reserch bill(we are trying to build a bunker busting nuclear weapons)

wow, what a good idea, then let iran build one and nuke the president location

Wrong, BTW some info for ya: it is now the M1 A2 and he is outclassed by the Leopard2 A6 (see the links on former pages, done US ones :) )

Doesn't anyone here think it a little unfair/odd to compare a tank with a production run starting in 2001 (the A6) against one from 1986 (the M1A2)?

I think the A5 would be a much fairer comparison... or wait for the M3! :)

I have three things against the us

1. Arrogance
2. Arrogance
3. Arrogance

Even though many nations can realisticly face the us and beat, they{or we} are the most arrogant nation in the world, Unlike the Eu who is trusted around the world anf given their due.

more thing why does the us tell other to stop building nuclear weapons(example: Iran.North korea, brazil and many more) while the congress is thinking about passing a f>>>> Nuclear weapons reserch bill(we are trying to build a bunker busting nuclear weapons)

wow, what a good idea, then let iran build one and nuke the president location

There is a difference between being trusted and being used as a sucker.

I find it very disturbing that 36 pages of posts barely mentioned the political aspects of this hypothetical conflict (such as a cause?). Its become mostly posts about technical comparison of various combat aircraft.

One of the reasons the US lost in the Vietnam was the lack of a clear, achievable objective. Stopping the Domino-effect was an overall strategic goal, but was never adaquately translated into military policy. Eg. was their aim to annex North Vietnam, or merely to defend South Vietnam? What would the US hope to gain in a war against the EU (if it was united in this war for some reason)

While yes, the Eurofighter is a very capable plane, in theory, it has yet to prove itself. And, might I add, few are in existence. Compare this to the US's vast fleet of aerial forces, many of which are equipped with smart bomb technology.

You forget, the only American fighter that matches up to the Eurofighter in terms of technology is the F22 and there are NONE of them in existance.


I'm not disparaging British forces, as they are the 2nd best in the world, but they still remain 2nd.


Our training IS better than yours. The US special forces recieve the same level of training as the British rank and file. I am not poo-pooing the US forces, there is a simple reason. The American Army is larger than the British army and thus cannot afford to spend too much on training as we can. The British are far smaller and thus can concentrate their resorces more. Its not that the US is stupid and cant be bothered, its just that they are unable to deliever the kind of training that we can.

What would the US hope to gain in a war against the EU (if it was united in this war for some reason)

This is hypothetical only, dont take it so literaly.

1.You forget, the only American fighter that matches up to the Eurofighter in terms of technology is the F22 and there are NONE of them in existance.



2.Our training IS better than yours. The US special forces recieve the same level of training as the British rank and file. I am not poo-pooing the US forces, there is a simple reason. The American Army is larger than the British army and thus cannot afford to spend too much on training as we can. The British are far smaller and thus can concentrate their resorces more. Its not that the US is stupid and cant be bothered, its just that they are unable to deliever the kind of training that we can.

1. Sure, but we have loads other planes. Im certain the U.S. Airforce could beat any other in the world, even IF the E.U. came together.

Thats not to say there wouldnt be losses, we'd just win.

2. That MAY be true, but that doesnt mean the U.S. Marines are wussies. We're still better than any other army(besides, if you are right, yours.).

2. That MAY be true, but that doesnt mean the U.S. Marines are wussies. We're still better than any other army(besides, if you are right, yours.).

Think this through logically. Your SPECIAL forces recieve the same training as British rank and file. There are far more rank and file British than there are American special forces for a start. And if our rank and file are the equivlent of your special forces, how much better must our SAS and other specail forces be than yours?

Think this through logically. Your SPECIAL forces recieve the same training as British rank and file. There are far more rank and file British than there are American special forces for a start. And if our rank and file are the equivlent of your special forces, how much better must our SAS and other specail forces be than yours?

Ahem, im sure that you arent Dissing off the Delta Force...

the SAS may be better than the GREEN BERET's, but since the Delta Force is neither accepted or denied by the Government, you cant know their training.
Even though they obviously exist(our government has this strange habit of not accepting something that obviously exists. Like Osama Bin Laden.)

Anyhoo, i said that the U.S. Army is better trained than any other army in the world EXCEPT, if you are correct, the British.

Of course, we'd still win if it was U.K. vs U.S. but...

Bush would never start a war with the EU. The mere thought of it is preposterous. Now I can definitely see a cooling of relations, and the whole 'allies' tag can be dropped with all of them except England.

England would be on EU's side becouse Bush has angered them so badly that they have forgotten the long lasted alliance.

England may have forgotten an alliance, but we sure as hell haven't. Read the liberal newspapers. Watch the liberal TV news. As bad as they make America out to be, one thing is clear... if there's one nation America does not talk down to, it's England (American media anyway, maybe British media tells you guys we burn the union jack or some other horse shit story). If there's one nation America values as a friend, it's England, and that's saying alot when we have a world respected neighbor like Canada.

So to conclude, no war with the EU, especially England.

tell that to the troops is fallujah right now. tell that to all the boys over in iraq and afghanistan right now. and dont even try to tell me that they're losing, thats just the way the media spins it. you'll hear about two US marine deaths, thats 2 out of over 10,000! so thats .02%! how many iraqies are dead now? how many afghanies? im assuming you don't know because the media never says anything about it.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Oh yeah, and I'll probably piss some English people off by saying this, but England ruled itself and a good portion of the world from its island throne for a good chunk of the history of mankind. It's a damn shame to me that they got conquered without there even being a battle. The EU might be good for the nations in Europe that needed it, but I see it only bringing England down. Hell... soon Turkey will have a say in some matters over there. You all disagree all you want. That's my take on it.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.


Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! -- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under I green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen 1893-1918

Doesn't anyone here think it a little unfair/odd to compare a tank with a production run starting in 2001 (the A6) against one from 1986 (the M1A2)?

I think the A5 would be a much fairer comparison... or wait for the M3! :)

Whatever, US info says: "Worlds best Tank" and that what its all about.

Also most of Europe’s armies still use short term conscription meaning their training level and skills fall far below the UK and France.

Huh , most countries don't have conscription, perhaps one of those anti Europe countries like Poland, but from the 15 western states, I really don't see wich countries still use conscripts. I know thart The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal use pro's since long, I think that the rest is like them but I only speak about the ones from wich I am sure.

Perhaps someone should google it.
I think thatmost of those newcomers still use conscripts and some of them even don't have a own airforce, like Lituania in wich their is a small Nato unit(,replaced every 6 months by another partner (started with Belgian F-16, then Danish ones I think)) that takes care for aircover at the Russian border.

Whatever, US info says: "Worlds best Tank" and that what its all about.

US info says "This American tank is the best in the world". Get real and provide some comparable proof.

US info says "This American tank is the best in the world". Get real and provide some comparable proof.
Read the topic before jumping in, I provided a lot of links and this has been discussed on former pages.

BTW I corrected the other US er when he spoke about the M1 instead of the more modern M2.
For the last time, I'll get back and copy the link for ignorantys like you that lack every bit of information and just hop in to seeck trouble. :rolleyes:

Hell, while I am a phanatical about army equipment and history (from all countries, EU, US, Russia, Israel), you just are a blind phanatic that hates everything outside the US.

England may have forgotten an alliance, but we sure as hell haven't. Read the liberal newspapers. Watch the liberal TV news. As bad as they make America out to be, one thing is clear... if there's one nation America does not talk down to, it's England. If there's one nation America values as a friend, it's England, and that's saying alot when we have a world respected neighbor like Canada.


Britain does value American friendship too. We consider ourselves in a unique postion with a foot in both the European and American camps. What many people have a problem with on occation is when Britian is seen as a "B-Team" to the Americans, to be pushed around when they need help.

you just are a blind phanatic that hates everything outside the US.

Clearly you don't know who I am, read my previous posts.

The US would lose because they would go bankrupt before they managed to win. They would need to nationlise LockheedMartin etc. before they could win and the big buisness in the US would never allow that to happen!

Clearly you don't know who I am, read my previous posts.

Eat this and shut up in the future instead of spreading your propaganda.
Allways the same with ignorants like ya. Hell I don't care about who wins in this lousy topic but I hate it when fools have a opinion about something while they don't know what they are talking about.(you)




Quote:
Originally Posted by The English Supremacy

The British and German tanks (Mainly Challanger-2 and the new Leopard) are much better than the Americans MBT,




Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better then the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm
(done by Americans BTW)



and a nice pick:http://www.army-technology.com/proj...d/leopard1.html

Do you guys know that during NATO and other international war games, forces from different nations fight each other? Do any of you have any means of getting results from these simulations? The victory/defeat ratio of american and european teams would be highly relevant to this topic and kinda bring it back down to a reality based discussion.

I heard of some German elite soldiers who were training in the US against US Army rangers that they won every single battle. I want some more concrete data though.

you can't forget the joint strike fighter. the F15 is also an incredible fighter and has never been shot down. the US's airforce is by far the best in the world, along with the navy. the air and sea battle would easilly be the US's. the US could launch cruise missles into EU's important industrial factories or into EU's leadership's buildings. also, the US troops have the most fighting expieriance, so they would have a definate advantage.

It is all dependant on which side the UK is. The SAS and the mainstream army is the best in the world. The world's best strategists are British.
I think Britain would be with the US and not Europe. The EU is not run by the french germans and British, its run by the french and germans who let the british into meetings and make us foot the bill to anything.

Eat this and shut up in the future instead of spreading your propaganda.
Allways the same with ignorants like ya. Hell I don't care about who wins in this lousy topic but I hate it when fools have a opinion about something while they don't know what they are talking about.(you)


Care to support your claim? Why do you say these things?

As an interesting observation regarding what we know of our own miltaries capabilities, some of the recently declassified stuff (read: within the last 10 to 20 years ago) my grandfather worked on in the 1960's. He was an electrical engineer for Boeing and NASA, worked on Reagan's Air Force 1, that kind of thing.
Just kind of strikes me that this kind of discussion is null, because what we know of any government's abilities is extremely limited... theres a good thirty or forty year gap between what they have and what they tell us they have.

In the recesses of my brain, I think the US government is capable of pinpointing a person and blowing them up, if they so choose, which is vaguely scary.

Whatever, US info says: "Worlds best Tank" and that what its all about.

Are you saying that I can therefore compare the F22 vs. the Mirage 1000 or Harrier and say the EU airforce is second rate? It amounts to the same thing: one generation of technology being compared to another. Like comparing my new P4 3Ghz system to the 386 you used to have. :)

All I'm saying is that the L6 is a much newer tank, and that should be taken into account.

Please People.Go buy Axis and Allies,and finish this question once and for all.
(Brought to you by the makers of Axis and Allies,same war ,same board,new rules)

Ok, heres something i think we can ALL agree on.

If the U.S. and the E.U. went to war, it would be a very long, bloody, and futile war. It would also probably be veeeeeeeeeeerrrryyy close, seeing how its the Worlds only Superpower(U.S.) against most of the worlds Great Powers(Which are baisically the U.K., Germany, and France. The only ones missing are China and Russia, o' course. and maybe India and Israel.)

hypothetically i'd say that the US would win.

the amount of money the US spend to research and develop military weapons far outweighs anything the EU can do together.
think of how many carriers the US has and how many thousands of decent fighter planes are just left in the arizona desert because they are past their use by date (superceded models). a true sign of a superpower.

i'm surprised that so many people think that the EU would even stand a chance. The US would stomp over anything the EU could muster together. The US hold all the technological advantages. They've even built a missile launched from an F-15 that can destroy satellites although that development has stopped since 89 or something.

we know a war will never happen. another thing would be that if you were to win the military war, keeping the peace in towns and cities would be close to impossible with all the dissent around. and that would be a tie. however the control of the skies would completely be in US hands.

well that would obviously be the EU, we've got more of umm.. everything.. way way way more troops, more guns, more missiles, more tanks, more helicopters more jets..

finland alone could give out like 1 million soldiers.. and we're a fucking tiny nation.. and still.. we beated the russians twice :) :gundge:

and who knows what kind of stuff they're researching in CERN besides the known projects.. maybe we've got stranglet bombs or something :) ..that would then again wipe out the whole fucking universe/multiverse so it wouldn't be too wise move..

would be great for excursion thou.. surrender or stop existing :)

Don't be silly. Russia would side with the EU.
Russia loves Europe and Germany now, and it's just their chance to go against the US. Besides, Russia would protect Serbia.
And once the EU beats the heck outta Britain then the US is done for cause it has no "european base"
Israel would side with the US but surely it'd be busy fighting Iraquis and Palestinians when the US has to retreat the troops to fight the EU.

well surely uk would fight along eu, since it's part of it. besides not even brittons like americans these days. wouldn't count too much for the russians, granted they've come a long way since the world wars.. but still.. back then they couldn't even invade one litte country called finland.. that's pathetic!

Care to support your claim? Why do you say these things?


No problem dude, I allready saw that you deliberatly forgot those links when you tought that your M1 A2 was better the Leo2A6 and asked my links, still haven't heared you since :p


Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better then the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm

Are you saying that I can therefore compare the F22 vs. the Mirage 1000 or Harrier and say the EU airforce is second rate?.
Your opinion, not mine, by the way you took my quote out of its context, the opponent and I wear speaking about tanks, you well were aware.

BTW, F22, Mirage and Harrier are plaines, not tanks in case you did not know.



All I'm saying is that the L6 is a much newer tank, and that should be taken into account.

So what, earlier you quoted that it is unfair to compare with the Abrahams from 1986 while in my links and text, it was clear that it speaks about the latest M1A2, from 1998. BTW, the Leopard one is a concept in wich the first production tank left the factory in 1964 and the Leopard 2 first model left the factory in 1979 , so it is still OK, if, like you want to compare a Leopard with the M1, they still winn, just like in all US test about the latest Abrahams and Leopard, that is why the US government wants to buy such things like the better canon of Leopard2A6 that is no match for a Abrahams.

After that, I am sure, Abrahams will have a chance against those modern Leopards.

Just facts you know, just like the US Airforce is better then most EU airforces (equiped with US arms or not), the LeoM1A6 is one of the things in wich a European country (altough it is a conglomerate) is better.

Is that so hard? :rolleyes: after all, those Europeans will help you to upgrade your system and will sell you what you need from Leo2A6 since you're an allie.
Just like the US sells weapon systems to upgrade European F-16's when they need it.Just regard the facts and admit that LEO2A6 is better regarding the millitary sourcers (US links), never tought that it was such a problem for some extremist US nationalists to accept the facts.
Hell, have no prob with knowing the virtues of the stronger US airforce and their carrier groops, but some have a problem in admitting one thing that is EUI made and better then the US concurrent.

BTW, for those that wait for the M1A3, know that while the US is still not studying the subject, that the 1st testmodel of Leo2A7 will leave the factory next year, so they are still ahead for a while since it costs 3 years for a upgrade.

Don't be silly. Russia would side with the EU.
Russia loves Europe and Germany now, and it's just their chance to go against the US. Besides, Russia would protect Serbia.
And once the EU beats the heck outta Britain then the US is done for cause it has no "european base"
Israel would side with the US but surely it'd be busy fighting Iraquis and Palestinians when the US has to retreat the troops to fight the EU.

Um, in the beggining of the thread the guy said that Russia is on neither side.

Besides, the Russians are constantly planning their re-conquest of the world. You can tell by the fact that Putins government is constantly spewing "Russians are the best! Burn the U.S.!" type propaganda.

Um, in the beggining of the thread the guy said that Russia is on neither side.

Besides, the Russians are constantly planning their re-conquest of the world. You can tell by the fact that Putins government is constantly spewing "Russians are the best! Burn the U.S.!" type propaganda.

Tought he wanted to be pall with W.Bush, reagarding the first congrats after Bushes (re?)election.Think he wants western allies and that he seeks friendship with the US to, after having close ties with Europe now.

Specially regarding his war in the Caucasus.

Huh , most countries don't have conscription, perhaps one of those anti Europe countries like Poland, but from the 15 western states, I really don't see wich countries still use conscripts. I know thart The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal use pro's since long, I think that the rest is like them but I only speak about the ones from wich I am sure.

Perhaps someone should google it.
I think thatmost of those newcomers still use conscripts and some of them even don't have a own airforce, like Lituania in wich their is a small Nato unit(,replaced every 6 months by another partner (started with Belgian F-16, then Danish ones I think)) that takes care for aircover at the Russian border.


Hmm lets see as of 1997 15 EU countries were still using conscripts including: France, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Spain. France transformed to an all volunteer force arround 2000, but the rest are still using conscripts.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ecco/servicetimes.html

Hmm lets see as of 1997 15 EU countries were still using conscripts including: France, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Spain. France transformed to an all volunteer force arround 2000, but the rest are still using conscripts.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ecco/servicetimes.html

Thank's for your link Falkenburg.

BTW how old is that link and what is the current situation in those countries (some of them like Belgium are not on the list but their parliament voted in 1991 for pro's, (latest conscripts in 1994)) like Austria, Gemany, Italy, Spain aso, I heard that those all changed around 2000, but i am absolutely not sure. Perhaps it was voted and they stil are in reconversion?

BTW Greece and White Russia (Bellaru) until 18 months :rolleyes: ? That is like my country at the hightpoint of the cold war, long time and it costs you more then your "first car" like we said, 1993.

No problem dude, I allready saw that you deliberatly forgot those links when you tought that your M1 A2 was better the Leo2A6 and asked my links, still haven't heared you since :p


Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better then the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm

I find it quite amusing that your lashing out at Neo, considering he has been pro-EU in this thread (well at least pro-British) and has said nothing about the M1 Abrams.

It is also funny to see you keep trumpeting the "US" source of the articles. It is a private, if well respected, institute that made the comparisions not an offical US government test. Lets look at some quotes from your source as well:
"Although the Leopard 2A6EX ranked above the M1 Abrams (in the A2 System Enhancement Package model), the gap between the two tanks remains exceedingly small"
"Indeed, based on its superior performance during the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance."

So they believe that the capabilites of the tanks are very close. Are they right about the superiority of the Leo? :shrug: Maybe I've seenarguement for both, but my contention is that the modern Western tanks are all "roughly" equal so what matters is the crew training and the tactical situation of the engagement. The battle would be between two tanks of equal quality, not a battle between a Tiger and a Sherman.

I find it quite amusing that your lashing out at Neo, considering he has been pro-EU in this thread (well at least pro-British) and has said nothing about the M1 Abrams.

It is also funny to see you keep trumpeting the "US" source of the articles. It is a private, if well respected, institute that made the comparisions not an offical US government test. Lets look at some quotes from your source as well:
"Although the Leopard 2A6EX ranked above the M1 Abrams (in the A2 System Enhancement Package model), the gap between the two tanks remains exceedingly small"
"Indeed, based on its superior performance during the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance."

So they believe that the capabilites of the tanks are very close. Are they right about the superiority of the Leo? :shrug: Maybe I've seenarguement for both, but my contention is that the modern Western tanks are all "roughly" equal so what matters is the crew training and the tactical situation of the engagement. The battle would be between two tanks of equal quality, not a battle between a Tiger and a Sherman.

Hehehe Sherman … good ol bucket of death :)

Who’s bright idea was it to rivet anyways lol

Thank's for your link Falkenburg.

BTW how old is that link and what is the current situation in those countries (some of them like Belgium are not on the list but their parliament voted in 1991 for pro's, (latest conscripts in 1994)) like Austria, Gemany, Italy, Spain aso, I heard that those all changed around 2000, but i am absolutely not sure. Perhaps it was voted and they stil are in reconversion?

BTW Greece and White Russia (Bellaru) until 18 months :rolleyes: ? That is like my country at the hightpoint of the cold war, long time and it costs you more then your "first car" like we said, 1993.

Digging around the site the group was sourcing articles from 1996 so the oldest it could be is late 1996 - early 1997. Belgium wasn't on the list because by the mid-90's like the UK they had no conscripts, and the Dutch were just finishing their conversion to a professional force. I know that Germany has refused to abolish conscription as of yet, but can't be sure about Italy, Spain and Austria. I can't confirm from home, but will have an answer Mon.

You forget, the only American fighter that matches up to the Eurofighter in terms of technology is the F22 and there are NONE of them in existance.

Our training IS better than yours. The US special forces recieve the same level of training as the British rank and file. I am not poo-pooing the US forces, there is a simple reason. The American Army is larger than the British army and thus cannot afford to spend too much on training as we can. The British are far smaller and thus can concentrate their resorces more. Its not that the US is stupid and cant be bothered, its just that they are unable to deliever the kind of training that we can.

Actually there are about 25 F-22s in existance, most are serving in pilot training, but the first operation unit comes online next year, roughly the same time as the Eurofighter and the FAF Rafales. (The French navy has had a small squadron of Rafales operational since 2001.)

Yes the UK's training for the rank and file is better than the US army's, I've voiced my agreement on that before. However the standard British soldier is NOT repeat NOT trained to the same standard as the US Special Forces. You have to be Jump qualifed and pass Ranger School just to get into the Special Forces. Once in there is intense training in comminications, explosives, languages, etc. Is every British soldier jump qualifed? I think not. The best equivilence fr the British soldier in quuality and training the US marines

So they believe that the capabilites of the tanks are very close. Are they right about the superiority of the Leo? :shrug: .

Title says "Leo2A6 remains world best tank". US (internationaly respected) source to.
But you don't get it, I say that US Airforce is better then the ones of their allies, but the tank of the allies (OK not in service in all EU countries but in a lot, just like a lot of other Nato partners use it: Turkey aso), why do you have a problem with it?

Easy to find the capacities of Eurofighter of the latest 2004 Raffale qualities to (like other postsers did), but I am a army technology freak on different US and EU topics and was talking about the tank (in wich I continue), so i could not let this go.

It is also funny to see you keep trumpeting the "US" source of the articles. It is a private, if well respected, institute .

Because we all know that you would ask for US sources (I have lots non US sources to of course) because most US EU haters or other US extremists would not even watch it if it is non US (we are that far with some crazy fucks on NS).Or they would say that the rest of the worlds tests are not good since non US :rolleyes:.

If you wan't, I can PM you some links to (for example) lots off discussion pages on a US millitary website from wich I am a member and took those links.

Your opinion, not mine, by the way you took my quote out of its context, the opponent and I wear speaking about tanks, you well were aware.

I took *what* out of context?

BTW, F22, Mirage and Harrier are plaines, not tanks in case you did not know.

Immaterial. My 2004 Chrysler is better than your 1992 Ford! :)
My point was that you're comparing to objects, one of which is 15 YEARS NEWER than the other. It's not a 1-1 equation.


So what, earlier you quoted that it is unfair to compare with the Abrahams from 1986 while in my links and text, it was clear that it speaks about the latest M1A2, from 1998. BTW, the Leopard one is a concept in wich the first production tank left the factory in 1964 and the Leopard 2 first model left the factory in 1979 , so it is still OK, if, like you want to compare a Leopard with the M1, they still winn, just like in all US test about the latest Abrahams and Leopard, that is why the US government wants to buy such things like the better canon of Leopard2A6 that is no match for a Abrahams.

After that, I am sure, Abrahams will have a chance against those modern Leopards.
Either way, you're still taking an upgrade of an existing model against a brand new model. That L1 and the M60 are contemoraries, and would be fair to compare. Ditto for the L5 and the M1A2. But the L6 (at present) has no US counterpart, IMHO.

Either way, you're still taking an upgrade of an existing model against a brand new model. That L1 and the M60 are contemoraries, and would be fair to compare. Ditto for the L5 and the M1A2. But the L6 (at present) has no US counterpart, IMHO.

Wrong, I posted the link first and spoke about a comparision of the latest Abrahams and the latest Leo2A.
Then you brought a comparission in about the first Abrahams and the latest LEO, wich was not so in the link :rolleyes:

Read the post and crawl back. Or you have not read the comparision, or you deliberatly lie :)

No problem dude, I allready saw that you deliberatly forgot those links when you tought that your M1 A2 was better the Leo2A6 and asked my links, still haven't heared you since :p


Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better then the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm
Two tanks firing DU penetrators at each other are almost always gonna be mutually screwed anyway, and the US has one hell of a lot more M1A2s than Britain has Leo's. It's sorta a non-argument.

the leo is a german tank not a brit tank the brits use challanger 2 but if it was needed there are a few chieftans around to use as well


IM sorry the SBS are in no way comparable to the seals. quite frankly seals arent worth pissing on in comparision. the SBS training alone is harder than ANY other in the world. until UK law was passed regarding more openness about our military capabilites every one knew of the SAS but the SBS were an unknown, mainly becasue there did there jobs (of which there are numerious) quietly as should be done. having been in the killing house agaisnnt them and my entire troop (30) lasting less than 3 minutes agaisnt them (and were were all royal marines) then yes they are better than the us sorry but noone lays that kind of proficency down. the us spec forces are basicaly highly mobile small unit tactic troops who pack far to much firepower for a given combat scenario. yes be prepared but when doing a recy ission do you need a minime? (oh yes just wondering where WILL you get your HandK and FN parts from in this war? you will be missing part of your arsenal not a large part but a part)

as for the british army being equivelent to the us marines. sorry sonny the us marines again arnt worth jack in comparison. they may be amphib qualified but they dont think there not trained to (this is the SOLE cultural differance between the US and UK forces. we are trained to think from squaddie on up,

as for the flaklands. with the desil subs. the main role of the uk nuke boats was to set up the Total Exclusion Zone aroun teh falklands and to kill the surface fleet. and yes the argentine airforce did do a good job in san carlos water im not saying they didnt. but are you saying the us would have done the same wiht the same trop levels and without totaly bombing the islands into the stone ages?


to someone else, there is ONE regement in the british army which is copmarable to US special froces, the PARAS but i in all honesty wouldent rate them as sepc froces just well trained at what they do.

yes my knolage outsaide of the UK and to some respects the US ( i dont know your top most gear) is not as good as i would like. but thats life no one is a total expert.

you will need ships on costal defence as many of the EU nations still have fleet bases outside of there home nation , the falklands, the azores. etc for the UK and i dont know about the french etc. so in thory a uk task group can run in from the azores and say target washington with a cruise missle strike (or even sub launched) and having nothing in the area to cover you is militarily stupid and also results in a lack of reserves to plug a gap elsewhere.

(oh just remebered you would have to garrison all of greenland as well as that is danish land so we would have a posisble (if admitidly impractical) setpping stone to invasion)

have they built the seawolf? i honestly thought that the program was scrapped due to funding so if you can give me proof that she is either in service, in construction or in bulders trials then i would love to see it

in all honmesty a SMART commander would not even try to force land troops on the EU anywhere
then again teh US havent got a smart commander in cheif have they (monkey see monkey do)

if soem one wants to dicuss this in real time with me my MSN address is

Carrion22_2@hotmail.com

basicaly im on a diffeerent time zone to the rest of you which is making this a pain in the arse as i have to read for and hour to catch up with hats being said

We have three, the third was for some godawful reason named the Jimmy Carter. I'm not sure why, unless they wanted to restore a modicum of respect to the name.

Seawolf Class Statistics
Displacement: 9,137 tons submerged (12,139 tons for the Jimmy Carter)
Length: 353 feet (453 feet for the Jimmy Carter)
Hull Diameter: 40 feet
Draft: 35 feet
Speed: 25+ knots
Diving Depth: 800+ feet
Weapons: Mark 48 anti-submarine torpedoes, Tomahawk cruise missiles
Complement: 130 officers and enlisted men
Stealth: Less detectable at high speed than a Los Angeles-class submarine sitting at pier side

Wrong, I posted the link first and spoke about a comparision of the latest Abrahams and the latest Leo2A.
Then you brought a comparission in about the first Abrahams and the latest LEO, wich was not so in the link :rolleyes:

Read the post and crawl back. Or you have not read the comparision, or you deliberatly lie :)

Is failure to communicate:

I was stating that the m1a2 and the Leo6 are 15 years apart as PLATFORMS.
I did not compare the 1st abrams -- I was merely asking (scroll back, if you want) if it was fair, as the latest abrams is an upgrade of an existing model vs. a new model.

BTW, calling somone a liar is no way to make friends. :p

Most tanks properbly die in 1 shot..

one has a slightly better armor, targeting sensor, one hits the enemy with precise accuracy while the other just hits the tank.. one projectile kills the other tank more efficient then the other (errr the crew dies faster or something??).. one uses less fuel.. wtf.. this is bullshit..

I dont see the point of comparing modern tanks.. :headbang:
Its not like as if the heavier tank wins in these days or something.. unless u fight really inferior crap

The US no question.

Point #1: Of the EU's three biggest militaries, France, Germany, and Britain, only Britain can really project global power, and only Britain would be able to provide more than token opposition should the US invade Europe. I'm not saying civilians wouldn't fight as well, but from a purely military standpoint there'd be no hope for Europe's conventional forces.

Point #2: France's military is, honestly, shit. Their only sizable warship, the carrier Charles de Gaulle is thirty years old and in a state of disrepair. Their army is currently making the shift from conscripts to professionals, making the army disorganized and for the moment undermanned. Their airforce, well...it's not gonna be bombing New York, let me put it that way.

Point #3: The United States knows the details of all German army units and battle strategy and tactics. This is because US soldiers make up a sizable portion of the military units in Germany, plus all the old defense plans incase of Soviet invasion, etc. Plus, after being crushed by the Americans twice before, I don't think the Germans as a people would be very enthusiastic about fighting them.

Having said that, I also think the EU wouldn't be able to present a united front in the face of an American invasion. For one thing, Britain, to some extent the Netherlands, and the new member states of the EU Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech and Slovak Republics, etc. would be more in favor of the United States than France and Germany. Plus, the United States could attack Europe directly, while it would be nearly impossible for EU forces to reach the US.

IM sorry the SBS are in no way comparable to the seals. quite frankly seals arent worth pissing on in comparision. the SBS training alone is harder than ANY other in the world. until UK law was passed regarding more openness about our military capabilites every one knew of the SAS but the SBS were an unknown, mainly becasue there did there jobs (of which there are numerious) quietly as should be done. having been in the killing house agaisnnt them and my entire troop (30) lasting less than 3 minutes agaisnt them (and were were all royal marines) then yes they are better than the us sorry but noone lays that kind of proficency down. the us spec forces are basicaly highly mobile small unit tactic troops who pack far to much firepower for a given combat scenario. yes be prepared but when doing a recy ission do you need a minime? (oh yes just wondering where WILL you get your HandK and FN parts from in this war? you will be missing part of your arsenal not a large part but a part)

as for the british army being equivelent to the us marines. sorry sonny the us marines again arnt worth jack in comparison. they may be amphib qualified but they dont think there not trained to (this is the SOLE cultural differance between the US and UK forces. we are trained to think from squaddie on up,

as for the flaklands. with the desil subs. the main role of the uk nuke boats was to set up the Total Exclusion Zone aroun teh falklands and to kill the surface fleet. and yes the argentine airforce did do a good job in san carlos water im not saying they didnt. but are you saying the us would have done the same wiht the same trop levels and without totaly bombing the islands into the stone ages?

to someone else, there is ONE regement in the british army which is copmarable to US special froces, the PARAS but i in all honesty wouldent rate them as sepc froces just well trained at what they do.

yes my knolage outsaide of the UK and to some respects the US ( i dont know your top most gear) is not as good as i would like. but thats life no one is a total expert.

you will need ships on costal defence as many of the EU nations still have fleet bases outside of there home nation , the falklands, the azores. etc for the UK and i dont know about the french etc. so in thory a uk task group can run in from the azores and say target washington with a cruise missle strike (or even sub launched) and having nothing in the area to cover you is militarily stupid and also results in a lack of reserves to plug a gap elsewhere.

(oh just remebered you would have to garrison all of greenland as well as that is danish land so we would have a posisble (if admitidly impractical) setpping stone to invasion)

have they built the seawolf? i honestly thought that the program was scrapped due to funding so if you can give me proof that she is either in service, in construction or in bulders trials then i would love to see it

in all honmesty a SMART commander would not even try to force land troops on the EU anywhere
then again teh US havent got a smart commander in cheif have they (monkey see monkey do)



Ok NVD the commonality between the SBS and the SEALS that I was mentioning, was not necessarily skill wise but rather the type of mission that was both organizations primary focus. As for the skill of the SBS, I have no doubt that they are some of the best trained most elite troops in the world. However I would like to know what experiences you have had with the various US Special Forces and the way they train? You make very definitive statements about the lack of quality; do you know this from personal experience? The various western Special Forces organizations cross train regularly, and learn from each other. Are the SAS/SBS the best? Possibly maybe even probably, but the differences are not that extreme. Oh and I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion of who makes what suffice to say the EU armies use a heck of a lot more US equipment than the US uses European.

Again this need to denigrate the US forces. You have a fair point of not being encouraged to show initiative, if you are talking about the US Army, but I wasn't I was talking about the Marines who are trained to think for themselves to be aggressive and to accomplish the mission. The PARAs equivalent in the US is the Rangers.

The reason we do not need many shiips for costal defense is that we can protect the coast with aircraft. If The US navy didn't exist the EU navies would still be sunk 100 miles from the coast. The Azores are a good jumping off point, which is why they would be the USs first target. The only cruise missiles the RN has are about 100 sub-launched Tomahawks that they bought from the US, not enough to do major damage.

SeaWolf proof: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html

You are right a smart commander would NOT attack the EU which is why we are all wasting with this silly fantasy :D

Most tanks properbly die in 1 shot..

one has a slightly better armor, targeting sensor, one hits the enemy with precise accuracy while the other just hits the tank.. one projectile kills the other tank more efficient then the other (errr the crew dies faster or something??).. one uses less fuel.. wtf.. this is bullshit..

I dont see the point of comparing modern tanks.. :headbang:
Its not like as if the heavier tank wins in these days or something.. unless u fight really inferior crap


Exactly the point I was trying to make. The Lea and the Abrams (and you can throw in the Challenger2 and LeClerc) capabilies are close enough that what matters is the skill of the crew and the tactical situation.

Because we all know that you would ask for US sources (I have lots non US sources to of course) because most US EU haters or other US extremists would not even watch it if it is non US (we are that far with some crazy fucks on NS).Or they would say that the rest of the worlds tests are not good since non US :rolleyes:.

If you wan't, I can PM you some links to (for example) lots off discussion pages on a US millitary website from wich I am a member and took those links.

Well you all would be wrong, first because I'm not an EU hater, second because the nationality of the testing doesn't matter, only it validity. I'm not saying the Abrams is a better tank, I'm saying that they are roughly equal.

Appriciate the offer, but I've probably already seen it. As an aside in speaking with several tankers they agree that the L55 gun of the LEo is superior, buut the DU APFSDP round of the M1 makes up for the lower muzzle velocity of its gun. The Germans refuse to use DU for politcal reasons.

The US no question.

Point #1: Of the EU's three biggest militaries, France, Germany, and Britain, only Britain can really project global power, and only Britain would be able to provide more than token opposition should the US invade Europe. I'm not saying civilians wouldn't fight as well, but from a purely military standpoint there'd be no hope for Europe's conventional forces.

Point #2: France's military is, honestly, shit. Their only sizable warship, the carrier Charles de Gaulle is thirty years old and in a state of disrepair. Their army is currently making the shift from conscripts to professionals, making the army disorganized and for the moment undermanned. Their airforce, well...it's not gonna be bombing New York, let me put it that way.

Point #3: The United States knows the details of all German army units and battle strategy and tactics. This is because US soldiers make up a sizable portion of the military units in Germany, plus all the old defense plans incase of Soviet invasion, etc. Plus, after being crushed by the Americans twice before, I don't think the Germans as a people would be very enthusiastic about fighting them.

Having said that, I also think the EU wouldn't be able to present a united front in the face of an American invasion. For one thing, Britain, to some extent the Netherlands, and the new member states of the EU Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech and Slovak Republics, etc. would be more in favor of the United States than France and Germany. Plus, the United States could attack Europe directly, while it would be nearly impossible for EU forces to reach the US.

ERRRNNTT Wrong answer (I love being able to play both sides of the issue)

1) ctually France is almost as good at prjecting pwer as Britain is, no where close to being in the US league of cource, but based on the scenario they don't have to be. Conventionally speaking Europe could mobilize 3+ million troops, 4000 tanks as good as anythink we got, far superior tube artillery fighting on their own soil? not exactly what I would call a walkover.

2) Not quite the CdeG is only five years old (though it has had some engine problems) it served well in Afganistan and 6 SSNs are nothing to laugh at. they've finished their reorg..howeffective they are I don;t know, but they do have top notch equipment. the French Air Force is the most powerful in Europe. they would have a tough time bombing New York, but only because the Force is based on tactical consideration, not because of the quality of equipment or the skill of pilots.

3) the Americans did not crush the Germans, we helped, but it was more the French/British in World War One and the Russians in WWII. We don;t know all of the German's tactic we do know most of them, because we train with them hence they know ours as well. Not sure how having invasion plans from Russia helps the US in attacking europe :confused:

Well for the US to attack the EU in reality the politcal geography would have to change radically. In such a situation I can see Europe sticking together either for protection from the power mad Americans or because the EU assumed some sort of dictictoral control over the contenient..take your pick

You are all forgeting something. Do you remember Star Wars, when Darth said "The power to destroy a planet is nothing compared to the power of the Force"? Well those that dicuss if one tank is better than the other or if one plane flyes faster are like the comander saying they were invincible because of their super weapon. All the weapons in the world are useless if one nows how to play international politics correctly. Although I think that the if Europe and the US went to war and somehow Europe was winning the US wouldnt hesitate in using nuclear weapons, as they have done before, if nuclear weapons are ruled out Europe would win if they played the whole world in some form, be it economicaly or even socialy, against the US. But because nuclear and international events are ruled out in this scenario, I think that in a 1 on 1 fight the US would beat the Europeans, although theyd give a prety good fight.

there are many reason why the US-EU can't go to war with each other::

1::UN as with iraq they will need decent intel on what there up to for example (Europe is planning on making a ripe off on ower club sandwhich they must die) :p

2::most countrys would be shocked if the US or EU where to attack each other as there world wide relations would fail

3::Both US-EU have the both ideals off the world and are trying to work too together stop terrorism

4::Both sides need each other

5::this would spark WW3 as US-EU are losing ammo and forces other nations might try and take there places as world powers E.g China

6::Wars are very expensive to do and and the after effects are bad and since america has done so many Military operation in the last 20 years debt is taking it toal on the america peoples taxs :(

7::it totaly supid why they would break up a relastion ship which is building

ok i am from the UK myself and a war for both side is futile this post has gotten out of hand and has started US-Vs-EU on this forum :rolleyes:

soz about the grammer and spelling mistakes

hmm after looking back at the posts i noticed a large amout of people talking about the SAS, Us Seals, Us Delta Force

ok i have been in the UK army for 3 1/2 years and i have ask for a hoilday too spend time with my frenids and family but the not important

what is it that the Seals are train equaly the same as Uk Inflanty so that make me a Seal in a way :p

but the SAS has about the same training as delta force as i am apling for the SAS team the SAS and Delta force are equals in about everyway Delta force can do some stuff that are not in the SAS training as Delta Foce can't do thats not in the SAS that is coming from me as i am in the British Army and have ask questions to my commanding officer who was in the SAS who has Worked With US Delta force Team

Hmm i will tell you something but this is a rumor going about the british army that there is a Team called the "Gerks" These are men born in the army and have been training since the age of 6 they are trained in every fighting Ablity Known to man they are ment to be for a Last Resort if the UK was to be invade by assinating Key Leaders of the enermy and can do it alone this type of training was ment to be started just after Argentina invaded the Falkland islands this is only a rumor that is going around West Midlands Army Bases if there are any other people from West Midlands that have heard of this i would like to no if it just some stupid rumors :confused:

hmm after looking back at the posts i noticed a large amout of people talking about the SAS, Us Seals, Us Delta Force

ok i have been in the UK army for 3 1/2 years and i have ask for a hoilday too spend time with my frenids and family but the not important

what is it that the Seals are train equaly the same as Uk Inflanty so that make me a Seal in a way :p

but the SAS has about the same training as delta force as i am apling for the SAS team the SAS and Delta force are equals in about everyway Delta force can do some stuff that are not in the SAS training as Delta Foce can't do thats not in the SAS that is coming from me as i am in the British Army and have ask questions to my commanding officer who was in the SAS who has Worked With US Delta force Team

Hmm i will tell you something but this is a rumor going about the british army that there is a Team called the "Gerks" These are men born in the army and have been training since the age of 6 they are trained in every fighting Ablity Known to man they are ment to be for a Last Resort if the UK was to be invade by assinating Key Leaders of the enermy and can do it alone this type of training was ment to be started just after Argentina invaded the Falkland islands this is only a rumor that is going around West Midlands Army Bases if there are any other people from West Midlands that have heard of this i would like to no if it just some stupid rumors :confused:
They don't exist. Every country has the same rumoured force, none of them exist. No country on Earth is not satisfied with just the regular Special Ops be they SAS, Delta Force, KaiserJaeger, etc.

Yeah but how do we know for sure no one will ever no

ERRRNNTT Wrong answer (I love being able to play both sides of the issue)

1) ctually France is almost as good at prjecting pwer as Britain is, no where close to being in the US league of cource, but based on the scenario they don't have to be. Conventionally speaking Europe could mobilize 3+ million troops, 4000 tanks as good as anythink we got, far superior tube artillery fighting on their own soil? not exactly what I would call a walkover.

2) Not quite the CdeG is only five years old (though it has had some engine problems) it served well in Afganistan and 6 SSNs are nothing to laugh at. they've finished their reorg..howeffective they are I don;t know, but they do have top notch equipment. the French Air Force is the most powerful in Europe. they would have a tough time bombing New York, but only because the Force is based on tactical consideration, not because of the quality of equipment or the skill of pilots.

3) the Americans did not crush the Germans, we helped, but it was more the French/British in World War One and the Russians in WWII. We don;t know all of the German's tactic we do know most of them, because we train with them hence they know ours as well. Not sure how having invasion plans from Russia helps the US in attacking europe :confused:

Well for the US to attack the EU in reality the politcal geography would have to change radically. In such a situation I can see Europe sticking together either for protection from the power mad Americans or because the EU assumed some sort of dictictoral control over the contenient..take your pick
1) At the moment, France's international abilities are reeling. Following recent failures in the Ivory Coast and an inability to get anything done for Haiti the French reach doesn't appear to be as powerful as it was even a decade ago. As for 3 million men, what must be remembered is that the EU has no central military command, thereby it would likely have the same problems as the CSA had in the American Civil War. Individual nations would resort to individual defense, hampering coordination and resource sharing, especially if the US was to attack in multiple theatres at once. This lack of coordination could allow the US to separate an eliminate its enemies piece by piece. Furthermore, the flexibility of the modern invader would make a theatre the size of Europe extremely vulnerable, as any concentration of force could be aptly avoided, allowing intense raiding and inland destruction. European armor and artillery numbers are also currently padded by doubly: The US presence in Eastern Europe, and outdated heavy artillery in Eastern Europe. The EU is currently still in its old Cold War positions for the most part, without anything prepared for Western attack (and they have no reason to have it, as this is mere speculation).

2) Exactly. The CdeG is currently out of position (for these purposes) and isolated, and thereby vulnerable to a quick strike from modern submarines or missiles. EU air power would be severely curtailled by detailed American knowledge of airbase positions, as well as all prepared strategies for defense. American Aegis, Satellite cover, and Atlantic dominance would make French sorty against American soil extremely unlikely, and if attempted, likely a disaster.

3) The US was integral in forcing the final German offensive, one that would ultimately cut down their manpower advantage, their morale advantage, and their supply advantage. Without the threat of the millions of US troops preparing across the Atlantic, the German military would have been at its leisure to continue a war of attrition that it was winning. In World War Two, the Russians were integral in destroying German manpower, but it was American intervention in creating a second front that stopped the war from degenerating into a stalemate, with neither side able to force a decisive victory.


The fact is that as it is currently organized, the EU does not have the organization and planning necessary to resist a coordinated attack from a powerful assailant. To say that said assailant would automatically win is absurd, but to say that they would have significant edges in flexibility, numerical superiority, and in the case of the Americans, a heavy advantage in knowledge of naval, air, and ground bases of the enemy would give them a good chance at managing some kind of victory.

Remember, when a US reporter asked (I can't remember her name) an Vienna Orchestra member whether she approved of her nations current budget values, her response was "When was the last time you saw the Austrian Air Force?"

the american guns aren't worth much either.. the m16s or what ever they are called.. the bullet pretty much stops if it hits a fly..

here's a real gun..

Tied.

The EU would never use nukes because the US have about 3000 more nukes than anybody else.

If the US was smart (if Bush wasn't prez) then the US would tutle up in the country and make everybody infantry. So invading them would be out of the question.

and the UK would never join the EU. Mainly because its run by france. They want to make a country to counter balance the US. Never gonna happen, alot of people dislike the french.

The UK is a member a member of the EU!!!!!!!!

I can imagine lots of brits being really chuffed with a US invasion of britain, and joining them in fighting the french and germans, just like the old days.

No country or its people would be pleased to be invaded!

the american guns aren't worth much either.. the m16s or what ever they are called.. the bullet pretty much stops if it hits a fly..

here's a real gun..

Nice, what brand is it? This is a nice one to. Austria "Gebirgsjaeger" with MG-74. It looks like the WWII Mg 42 and comes from the same manifacturars, but now it is delivered at most Nato armies and fires Nato standard Amo.

This sniper machine gun is also nice, ideal to kill a president or so from more then 2km's distance.But that is Russian or Polish.

the american guns aren't worth much either.. the m16s or what ever they are called.. the bullet pretty much stops if it hits a fly..

here's a real gun..

The M-16's are considered as some of the best assault rifles . . . sure the old versions were $hit but most of the issues have been solved.

Why should the US invade Europe? It is already present in Europe.
It is the US which has now decided to decrease that presence - due to the responsibilities in the Middle East it has decided to take.
Those decision could furtherly weaken the transatlantic relationship.
But anyway: I assume the US is going to maintain a presence in Europe.
And why should you invade countries were you already have a military presence.
That is almost like suggesting: We should invade again Afghanistan. Uups, we are already there!!!
This entire idea doesn´t make sense at all.
You can not really invade something you are already present in.
The only significan country were the US is not present is France. But France alone is of little relevance, being potentially surrounded by US forces.

Why should the US invade Europe? It is already present in Europe.
It is the US which has now decided to decrease that presence - due to the responsibilities in the Middle East it has decided to take.
Those decision could furtherly weaken the transatlantic relationship.
But anyway: I assume the US is going to maintain a presence in Europe.
And why should you invade countries were you already have a military presence.
That is almost like suggesting: We should invade again Afghanistan. Uups, we are already there!!!
This entire idea doesn´t make sense at all.
You can not really invade something you are already present in.
The only significan country were the US is not present is France. But France alone is of little relevance, being potentially surrounded by US forces.
The US might be already in, does it mean they control any of those countries? Of course no. EU would crush the tiny bases before Bush can understand what is an ultimatum.

How is the Leo 2A6 superior to the M1A2SEP Abrams? Even with the L55 gun, the DM53 gets 810mm of penetration at 2km compared to the M289A3 from the L44 that gets 960mm of penetration at 2km. Both tanks have pretty much equal fire control and stabilisation, they can both reach at and touch at 3km+.

The optics on the M1A2 are better. It's x50 FLIR for the gunner and the commander give it a ID range greater then the Leo 2A6.

Both tanks have pretty equal armor across their front. About 960mm on the turret front and 600mm on the glacis.

The Leo 2A6 might have more side armor, I don't know. But it has definite better fuel economy.

I'd say the tank's both get A's, but the M1A2 gets a few more extra credit points.

The US might be already in, does it mean they control any of those countries? Of course no. EU would crush the tiny bases before Bush can understand what is an ultimatum.
Bush isn't that stupid, you realize. The media portray him as an utter moron, but he isn't. He isn't a bloody chimp. He's a human being, perfectly capable of understanding complex concepts as the rest of us. Just as a fun tidbit. When his military enlistment test scores were compared with the "New England Intellectual" John Kerry's, Bush's score was ONE POINT HIGHER.

I think Bush can understand concepts such as an ultimatum.

EU would get support from the rest of the world because of the usa's recent behaviour.

About how dumb Bush is: The US army is dumb. Therefore scoring high on that is probably a sign of idiocy. Bush is hated by most of the world, not just by muslims but is widely derided by the Brits, even the christians. Bush IS stupid, he got into Harvard business school because of who his dad was. He IS dumb. You are only comparing 1 test between 2 people, and Kerry never struck me as intelligent either! "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for dooooooty?" :headbang: Idiot......

And the EU has variety. The US does not. The US would lose because when its tanks entered any city in Europe it would get stuck in the centre trying to stop the "Davids". The Russians tried it once remember? It failed!
Aussi...... isn't russia part of the EU? No country has EVER invaded Russia successfully and the US wouldn't now!

Aussi...... isn't russia part of the EU? No country has EVER invaded Russia successfully and the US wouldn't now!
No russia is not part of the EU.

About how dumb Bush is: The US army is dumb. Therefore scoring high on that is probably a sign of idiocy. Bush is hated by most of the world, not just by muslims but is widely derided by the Brits, even the christians. Bush IS stupid, he got into Harvard business school because of who his dad was. He IS dumb. You are only comparing 1 test between 2 people, and Kerry never struck me as intelligent either! "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for dooooooty?" :headbang: Idiot......
That's the only way to get into Harvard business school.

The US Army is dumb?

This scenario would obviously never happen as long as the NATO Charter is in effect but here it is....

-The U.S. would launch a couple of carrier fleets with heavy attack fighter/bombers and probably attack around the Meditteranean.

-EU Responds by deploying their fighters and an air battle ensues for god knows how many days/weeks/months

-U.S. sets up forward postion in bases probly in Turkey and uses them as a prep. for an invasion of Greece/Italy

-EU fortifies positons on the Baltic, Atlantic, and the Medditeranean and sends out some navyh fleets to sink the U.S. Medditeranean fleet, major naval battle ensues probly destorying entire U.S. fleet and a huge ammount of EU ships.

-U.S. Attacks Europe and uses CIA information to locate military command centers in chosen countries, U.S. bombards these targets via artillaery from land/sea or bombs it using some B-52's

-EU mobilizes and launches a long range mission to either mount a kamikaze attack on American Cities or to take out bases in Southwest Asia

-U.S. (with Bush still in power) will probly make up lies and use drafts to defeat the heavily fortified Europeans arround key coastal positions, Bush somehow convinces some nitwit 3rd world country to ally itself w/ U.S. in exchange for something

-U.S. lauches all remaining aircraft to find and destroy EU industrial facilities, bases, and aircraft

-EU is 20-40% immobilized by the near suicidal U.S. attack and fights a fleet war again to take out America's strategic air deployment capability

-U.S. and EU suffer heavy losses on the sea but U.S. prevails after the last encounter with European Ships, a few destroyers and carriers attack targets in France, U.K., and Spain

-With the EU Navy destroyed U.S. launches amphibious invasion of somewhere near Holland, because of its strategic location Holland is bombarded with shells from U.S. Ships and a mini D-Day takes place

-Angered by the U.S. invasion European leaders try to convince other European Countries not in the EU to ally themselves with the EU.

-U.S. citizens get angry about the unjust war in Europe and protest in the streets, Bush turns most of America into a Federal Police State

-As troops die in Europe on both sides the American public demands peace, Bush won't give, people take to the media and broadcast images freom Europe and the Police State America to the rest of the world.

-With media reconition established Bush's Campain grows weaker and Holland falls to the EU, all remaining American forces in Europe and Asia are either pushes back, destroyed, or captured.

-With Iraq not to far from Europe American Forces retake bases in Turkey and a fight in the City of Istanbul would probly take place

-With the firefight in Istanbul, the Turkish Government demands U.S. troops withdrawn, fearing Turkish alliance with the EU, america gives in

-Within a course of 2-5 years the conflict is resolved, heavy losses on both sides warp both powers into weak military forces, U.S. and some Euro Countries recover in a short period of time, and Bush is taken out of power after the conflict. However U.S.-Euro relations rise and fall over time, small conflicts ensue afterwards and finally both sides admit a true alliance again.
However the destruction brought by the war cannot by fixed immediatly, and the Europeans don't forget easily with the destoryed building and burning bases.

-Within 20 years all is good and another idiot President of the U.S. goes to war with a 3rd world nation and EWuropeans do not ally with the U.S. this time, U.S. manages to win but at heavy costs and finally all U.S.-Euro cooperative military operations cease.

Hmm. To quote a rather intelligent man, "Better that you should remove the log from your own eye before removing the twig from your brother's."

I believe, as to culture, I could perhaps toss in, oh, say, the Rolling Stones, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edgar Allen Poe, Emily Dickinson, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost, T.S. Elliot, E.E. Cummings, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, and the list goes on and on. Just because your nation has taken in the Mickey D's and skipped on the rest doesn't mean it isn't there. So perhaps you should open your eyes and let go of some of your ignorant suppositions.

I may be wrong, but don't the Rolling Stones come from England ?!?

EU would win. I am not going to repeat what all you have said, so I say this: Finland kicked Soviet Union's butt 1939-1945. If we were able to hold against USSR, why not US?

EU would win. I am not going to repeat what all you have said, so I say this: Finland kicked Soviet Union's butt 1939-1945. If we were able to hold against USSR, why not US?
Because it was holding out against a marginal number of troops, most of whom were green recruits and for the most part were not using the most advanced technology the Soviets had at the time.

EU would win. I am not going to repeat what all you have said, so I say this: Finland kicked Soviet Union's butt 1939-1945. If we were able to hold against USSR, why not US?

Ok, the Finnish were trained. The Soviets were conscriptec. Besides, when they allied with the Germans(BIG no no), the Russians came and slaughtered them all.

Besides, that was over 60 years ago! All the participants are either DEAD or VERY VERY VERY VERY old.

Besides, you still lost the war(because you allied with the frigg'n Nazis! Freaks...)

Ok, the Finnish were trained. The Soviets were conscriptec. Besides, when they allied with the Germans(BIG no no), the Russians came and slaughtered them all.

Besides, that was over 60 years ago! All the participants are either DEAD or VERY VERY VERY VERY old.

Besides, you still lost the war(because you allied with the frigg'n Nazis! Freaks...)


Be nice no flaming … freaks was un called for

I am sure there was more force to the decision then presented


Anyways the point is right … Russia really wasn’t paying attention to you till later … once you became a real threat …

Because it was holding out against a marginal number of troops, most of whom were green recruits and for the most part were not using the most advanced technology the Soviets had at the time.
I might also add that soviet troops invading Finland only had enough rifles for a portion of their troops, so the generals put the one's with the rifles up front and told the one's without to go get the dead guys rifles.

I might also add that soviet troops invading Finland only had enough rifles for a portion of their troops, so the generals put the one's with the rifles up front and told the one's without to go get the dead guys rifles.
Not to mention ammo rationing

omg you guys so don't know what you're talking about. the battles in karelia were among the biggest in the whole fucking ww2..

The M-16's are considered as some of the best assault rifles . . . sure the old versions were $hit but most of the issues have been solved.

lol

they jam so easily.. some of the best ROFLMAO

Nice, what brand is it? This is a nice one to. Austria "Gebirgsjaeger" with MG-74. It looks like the WWII Mg 42 and comes from the same manifacturars, but now it is delivered at most Nato armies and fires Nato standard Amo.

It's SAKO RK95

atfirst the germans made their gun, then soviets improved it to ak 47, finns or rather SAKO improved ak 47 to RK62, which of swedes made their gun, which finally the israelis made theirs..

Now SAKO RK95, kinda like the name suggests is made in 1995 and is based on the RK62..

that's what they told me in the finnish army anyways..

Ok, the Finnish were trained. The Soviets were conscriptec. Besides, when they allied with the Germans(BIG no no), the Russians came and slaughtered them all.
Wrong. It was the USSR who unprovokedly attacked Finland in 1939 due to the Hitler-Stalin pact. The USSR was pretty unsuccesful (surprisingly).
Though Finland had to give Karelia to the Soviets at the end of the day (in 1940).
When Germany attacked the USSR Finland used the opportunity to win back that territory which it was able to maintain up until 1944. After that they had to give it to the Soviets again and to declare war on Germany.

Well: many countries fought the war on two sides: So, they can claim to be winners any way: for example: Romenia or Bulgaria or Italy (from 1943 onward: though actually partly and Italian civil war) and other countries of the mighty coalition of the willing (just joking).
Finland at least only fought for its own national interests and to keep its territory. That usual is considered as self-defense for that matter.

Just think of force projection. The US could send a single naval fleet over there and have more might than all of Europe's navies put together. US submarines are far superior especially the Virginia NSSN and Seawolf whilst the 688/I is still a major contender. Then when it comes to logistics and long-range operations, European aircraft could not reach the United States but US aircraft could operate freely. It would be a US victory before ground troops even got into the equation. The sheer mass of targets would have US cruise missiles and US bombers busy around the clock but the EU could not send a single bomber to reach the United States effectively. Hell even if Russia got into the mix on the EU's side, they would not be very effective with force projection either as they have no $ for anything, let alone massive operations.

The US might be already in, does it mean they control any of those countries? Of course no. EU would crush the tiny bases before Bush can understand what is an ultimatum.
That is not that tiny. The US still has 100,000 troops in Europe, around 72,000 in Germany (going to be decreased to 36,000 due to the requirements in Iraq).
I think the presence in Germany alone would be enough to take over Germany if necessary. The german army out of less than 280,000 troops (many conscripts, only 195,000 professional and part-time soldiers) is in bad shape.
Furthernmore it is integrated into NATO and has therefore traditionally much sympathy to the US.
Whether it would follow a crazy government which would go into confrontation with the United States is a thing I doubt.
Though the government is not that crazy to really go into a confrontation with the US. After all: it wants to survive and to stay in power.
Furthernmore I think that many European countries would rather ally with the US than with France. Especially the UK is a given that it would ally rather with the US than with France. Also Poland would be loyal US allies. Probably also Denmark, the Netherlands and Italy.
But that is a completly eroneous scenario. There won´t be a war between Europe and the US.
The threats to the the US are not coming from Europe. They are coming from the Middle East.
And potentially China, which would only gain strength if Europe and the US would weaken each other.
Europe should cooperate with the US and not work against it.
The UK, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark and others set an example for such a policy.
France and Germany are only a part of Europe. They can speak for themself but not for Europe.
And the US has to realize that it also needs Europe. Therefore I call on the US: Don´t give up on Europe, work with it.

"Working with" implies multilateral talks, instead of " let's go unilateral if they oppose us the mighty"...

As for Europe being devided: agreed. But that has nothing to do with WWII.

While the Americans are off attacking Europe, they leave their southern and Northern Borders Undefended, and Mexico and Canada will divide The United States up Just like the Soviet Union and Germany did to Poland! Mwahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha . . .. ha . . . ha . . .

Either that, or Guam will realise it's true calling as a Super Power, and make the United States THEIR Protectorate.

Anyone ever here of Daisy Cutters or F/A-18s?

How about the future force warrior?
http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/wsit/index.htm

It's not well developed yet but by the time of the "war" it would be well developed.

Where would the U.S. attack first? Try former Yugoslavia or Denmark? Nope, how would America get there w/o detection?

Try invading Iceland? Errrr..... that would be pretty rough.

The easiest point would be........ I dunno. Anyone got any ideas? It'd be sorta hard to launch a naval invasion anywhere since troops today aren't trained for field combat on open plains and beaches that vast. Today, war is much more about speed and tactics and intel. The bases spread throughout Europe would have to be withdrawn due to supply line cuts so we would start off with a major evac op.

Gruesome gravedigging, Batman!