USA versus Europe

[bobster]

I hope this is appropriate, as this interest me quite a deal. And i would like to hear your view and thoughts about it.


What do you think would happen if the United States and Europe would engage in war with eachother?

Whom would Win ? (most likely)
Whom has the best skilled military?
Most amount of military?
Best Technology ?

And to avoid any confusion, the NATO countries would of course be on European side.


God Bless, and hope that it will never happen in real life.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Tough call. I'm admittedly biased. I think the US would win. Such a war would leave very few people alive on both side though.....if anyone.


*edit* I would qualify this by saying that if anyone ever invaded the United States, they'd have several million gun toting nationalists facing them down with a "Git off mah property" mentality on top of the strongest, best equipped, most technologically advanced military force in the history of the world.

 

[bobster]

top of the strongest, best equipped, most technologically advanced military force in the history of the world.

So the US has better technology then the Euopeans ?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Militarily yes

 

[bobster]

ha, now you got me going

What i have seen, the Euopean forces has better equipment. I was in Sweden togheter with american, japanese military, and all of us where impressed by there technology. We (Canada, US) where far behind in that area. Perhaps it was only Sweden.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

It would depend on who struck first. If the U.S. struck first, then I believe that they would definitely win.

If the Europeans struck first, and did not successfully destroy all of the U.S. Navy, then they would be in for a hard fight at best. Assuming that the U.S. was being attacked on its own soil, then Europe would probably lose. All the U.S. would have to do to hinder the European advance would be to use submarines to disrupt a large portion of the European supplies. If the U.S. was going to fight a defense in depth along the Eastern seaboard with a scorched Earth policy to the Appalachians, then the Europeans would have an extremely hard fight because they would have to ship in all of their supplies.

That is where the key element of totally destroying the U.S. navy comes in. Those supplies are the weak link. Also, the Europeans would have to deal with the large number of U.S. citizens that possess firearms and are reasonably proficient with them.

Now, for the U.S. to be successful in invading Europe, they would have to launch a suprise attack on the Europeans. If they were successful in that, they could probably take Europe.

If I was attacking as the U.S., I would first attack the navy assets with enough cruise missiles to destroy or cripple all of the ships in port, as I had the submarines sink every European ship that they could find at sea. I would use the SSBN's for that. Once the European Navy was out of the way, I would blockade the British Isles and all the major harbors in Europe. I would then send in the marines through the Bay of Biscay and the Black Sea. I would launch another cruise missile bombardment that targeted major ordance stores and known arsenals as well. If the missile strikes were succesful, I believe that it would be relative quick to take Europe.

 

[bobster]

Your scarring me man :o


ok ok, we would assume it would be cold war atmosphere to make a scenario then, both Europe and USA are prepared, forget Nukes, that is out of the Question.

Whom would be the most likely to attack? I Would say United States, as thats have been the case the last 50 years, so lets take that.

What could the Euopeans do then, to try not to be biast, Jeremiah, your way of thinking is scarry, so, if you would be euopean, then what ?

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Lets just assume that both the commander in chiefes had enough sense to not use nukes...

We would still win.

We have more land and more man power. Plus europe is divided, and as one solid unit, I doubt they would function nearly as well as us.

But the biggest reason why we would win is beacasue france is in europe.

 

[bobster]

We have more land and more man power.

American population is around 290 million, European 730 million. When you say 'more man power', what do you mean?

But the biggest reason why we would win is beacasue france is in europe.

I don't think i can argue that one

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

In order for Europe to defeat the U.S., the first step is to destroy the U.S. navy, and any bases that they can refuel or rearm at. The most important thing to focus on would be the submarines. If cruise missile submarines were able to attack the European supply convoys, then that would slow down many of the European offensives.

If the Europeans wanted to invade the West Coast of the U.S., then they would also have to secure the Drake passage. If the U.S. was to sever that, then it would be extremely hard for them to invade the West Coast. If Europe is going to invade the U.S. it should be on the East Coast.

If I was a U.S. general and I knew that Europeans were invading near me, I would wait until I figured out their route of advance, and I would began to destroy the gas stations along that route and blow holes in highways, that sort of thing. Also, I would mine the mouth of Charleston and New York Harbors.

As I pointed out earlier, Europe would have to destroy the U.S. Navy and all of its bases and armaments. Also, the Europeans would have to destroy much of the U.S. Airforce. The Europeans could then land troops on the U.S. mainland.

 

[bobster]

The most important thing to focus on would be the submarines. If cruise missile submarines were able to attack the European supply convoys, then that would slow down many of the European offensives

I assume the Russian submarine fleet is a small one then ?

I also have to assume that you know that most of the American equipment comes from Europe or Asia?

Oh Yes, Germany makes Submarines, Scandinavia Technology, and so forth.... I assume you put this in your calculations ?

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

I assume the Russian submarine fleet is a small one then ?

Russia is pretty much in Aisa.

I also have to assume that you know that most of the American equipment comes from Europe or Asia?

Are you referring to the Abrams tanks or to the Hummers?

Oh Yes, Germany makes Submarines, Scandinavia Technology, and so forth.... I assume you put this in your calculations ?

As I pointed out earlier, Europe would have to destroy the U.S. Navy and all of its bases and armaments. Also, the Europeans would have to destroy much of the U.S. Airforce. The Europeans could then land troops on the U.S. mainland.

 

[bobster]

My point is this: The United States is not the most highly advanced country in the world. I assume its the american propaganda machine that made you believe this.

As for military equipment, Germany, UK, France makes most of the advanced weaponry for United States. The Scandinavian countries Norway and Sweden makes quite a deal of the hightech equipment (togheter with Germany, France, UK, and so forth).

Europe as a whole, has a massive amount of different Tanks, Aeroplanes, Submarines to choose from (different). United States only have a few amount, and they claim them to be 'the best in the world'.


Just to point to an obvious fact, as i assume you will say im lying: Is United States the best in the world when it comes to mobile systems (Cellphones, Wireless Communication, and Such)? No, a country of less then 10 million (Sweden) is the most advanced in this area, having Ericsson, with 40% of the world using there systems, and togheter with Nokia (Finnish), well, i hardly have to go there.

Now, if United States is 'the best in the world when it comes to technology', how come they do not rule in this important area to?


And Sweden is actually a good country to use as a small reference, as they also have the Gripen (A/B) planes, which are considered to be the most advanced planes in the world. And even if the F-15 would be better (somehow), it does not really matter, as it goes 10 Gripens on one F-15 (10 times cheaper), and using math, you might understand the consequence there?


The people of Europe would be around 730 million (give or take), which would be more then 400 million more then United States. Most of Europe also have compulsory draft at 18-20. So most Europeans have had atleast 6 months military training, and in general 8-10 months.


But i guess this does not make any difference?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Why the animosity, man? We're all friends here. If u don't like the US it's ok, but why get so defensive? You're Canadian.

 

[bobster]

Oh, i apologize, no no, i just love debating things. No hostility on my part my friend, just passion

 

[InnerPhyre]

No worries

 

[Agrippa]

Well, tank-wise, the US M1A2 and the German Leopard II are judged to be the two best tanks in the world, roughly tied in the rankings, with the Japanese Type 90 in third, followed by the French Leclerc and the British Challenger II. So, all else being equal, US armored forces could probably take the British, French, and most others. Combat between American and German (and a few others like Sweden that use Leopard II's) would be nasty.

The big problem is that the US would be outnumbered. The Bundeswehr alone consists of ~350,000 men, with the potential to mobilize another 320,000 more in a crisis. The US Army, in contrast, consists of ~450,000 regulars, 250,000 reservists, and 370,000 National Guardsmen. I didn't look up anyone else, but it's pretty obvious that the US Army would be outnumbered.

You could make the case that the American troops would be better motivated, as its composed of volunteers rather than being a predominately conscript force like European armies.

I think that if the navy or air force could prevent an amphibious landing the US could mobilize more support for the war among its population than in Europe. I wonder if the US could outproduce Europe? The Leopard may be good, but it can't win if the US has 3 Abrams for each Leopard.

So, assuming the US can beat back an invasion and mobilize completely, it'd have to invade Europe. Hm...maybe take Greenland and Iceland as springboards. We'd see a climatic naval battle there. The US would bring its 12 (or is it 13 now?) carriers (I'm assuming the navy would have time to organize an airgroup for each carrier) and maybe even renovate an Iowa or two as cruise missile platforms. Europe would have a few carriers, most of them pretty poor in design. The only danger would be from subs and land based bombers. I have no idea how that would turn out.

From Iceland, there'd probably be an invasion of the British Isles. I think both GB and Ireland would fall. Ireland would probably fold quickly; open resistance would be futile and just get people killed pointlessly. I could easily envision some sort of guerilla war there though. Great Britain wouldn't have the manpower to resist. I doubt the other nations of Europe would commit their armies to an island in case the US invaded mainland Europe directly. Once the invasion of the British Isles began, US naval superiority would prevent any reinforcements from arriving. Would GB give up if overrun or would it retreat to Australia/NZ? An invasion of mainland Europe would be next. I have no clue how that would go, so I'll stop there.

 

[bobster]

I think that if the navy or air force could prevent an amphibious landing the US could mobilize more support for the war among its population than in Europe

Actually, i would suspect the Euopeans to be rather dangerous when it comes to mentality. Europe has gone through two World Wars. And been what you would called 'bashed' by americans for being 'cowards', when they only want is to be left alone. I would say they could be seriously annoyed by a Third World War.

Just my thought about that.

 

[Agrippa]

Actually, i would suspect the Euopeans to be rather dangerous when it comes to mentality. Europe has gone through two World Wars. And been what you would called 'bashed' by americans for being 'cowards', when they only want is to be left alone. I would say they could be seriously annoyed by a Third World War.

Just my thought about that.

From what I've seen on this forum and others, there are stronger nationalistic and militaristic tendencies in the US than in Europe. I'd envision far stronger support for the war in the US if the US started it than in Europe if Europe started it. I have also noted a greater respect for the military in the US than in Europe. I've heard that Germany, with good reason, has become downright hostile towards the military since the Second World War.

I doubt either side would have a clear-cut casus belli in the conflict. It'd most likely be a confused affair where neither side knew exactly what happened. It wouldn't be a Pearl Harbor type situation. In such a situation, American public support would probably be greater than European public support.

 

[bobster]

In such a situation, American public support would probably be greater than European public support.

Not to worry about that. The United States would only do what they do now. Lie. The present american media is one of the worst propaganda machine i have ever seen, and most americans actually believe what they are told. So if a scenario like this would happen, do you really think the average american would even know why the war started? The only thing they would be told, would be to defend there nation against evil aggressors, and say whatever comes to mind that the public might believe.

And i don't understand how you could 'hold' for the American side when its obvious for me, that Europe has a better military (they do if you look at facts, but american look at there own 'facts', which is called propaganda), And would most likely Win a War against them.

But i guess we have different views, i have been educated both in North America and Europe, and been thought the history of the world (the True history), and also how the world looks (for real, not the propaganda version in the United States).