Could the US capture Europe?

[GinandTonic]

Of course the idea is we send a massive attack and hit you everywhere simontaneusly.

You dont have enough air-refueling capabilities to do this along with the necessary fighter cover.

Then you have to split up your forces and we crush the base at Girbralter. Or if you don't split up then our carriers fall back while our jets pummel an unprotected northern Eroupe.

You assume your U2's are still providing you with intel. They are fishfood. Your satellites dont provide you with enough realtime data.

The point is Europe is to big to defend properly.

Our land based jets are more mobile than your carriers. We can bring our force to a point more effectively than you can.

Course Russia would still sell you basic resources but I'm not sure they sell you ready made weapon systems during the war.

Business is business, they'll sell us whatever we need - at least unless we are loosing badly.

 

[nc-1701]

I love you man, you're a riot.

Will someone please explain how your'e inferior naval and air force (as I pointed out in an earlier post) will hold of our superior navy/air force? As yet noone has deighned to respond to this suggesting that you really have lost that front and are just grabbing at air and not actualy debateeing the questions I have raised (With supporting evidence) about your military capabillities on these fronts.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Check out post #148

 

[nc-1701]

Check out post #148

Yeah so you have greater numbers of land forces which are iurreloavent because I'm talking about a naval/air war.

See post 186.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Will someone please explain how your'e inferior naval and air force (as I pointed out in an earlier post) will hold of our superior navy/air force? As yet noone has deighned to respond to this suggesting that you really have lost that front and are just grabbing at air and not actualy debateeing the questions I have raised (With supporting evidence) about your military capabillities on these fronts.

I'm sure someone will. In the mean time, can you please explain to me how I need a superiour naval and air force to love Garric (in a brotherly way of course) and think he's a riot?

Besides, GinandTonic allready made it pretty clear, just above your post (221?)

Also check post 124 ... good points.

 

[Truronian]

The United States has the logistics, manpower, and the determination to pull that off.

Sun Tzu would be turning in his grave.

Splitting your forces when you half less then half the enemies troop number? :suicide:

 

[bhsup]

Splitting your forces when you half less then half the enemies troop number? :suicide:

Generals Lee and Jackson would be laughing at Sun Tzu while he's spinning!

 

[Truronian]

Generals Lee and Jackson would be laughing at Sun Tzu while he's spinning!

Were they not defending?

 

[bhsup]

Yes and no. Yes, the North was continuing its war of aggression against the South and invaded Virginia yet again. However, Lee had to move is forces from (if I remember correctly) Fredericksburg to intercept. So it was more like two armies meeting for battle. The North had twice the numbers of the South and Lee still split his forces.

EDIT: The specific example above is the Battle of Chancellorsville.

 

[MobBoss]

HARMs only have a relative low range, how are you going to get them deep into european airspace?

Ah..incorrect. Depending on the missiles mode the range is somewhere between 30 and 75 miles. Thats not "relatively low range" at all.

 

[Grisu]

Ah..incorrect. Depending on the missiles mode the range is somewhere between 30 and 75 miles. Thats not "relatively low range" at all.

70 miles certainly low range in this context. it would mean that your planes would really have to be firmly in european airspace to use them

 

[MobBoss]

Most funniest assumption sofar was imho the idea to bomb our railways, roads, and bridges expecting to seriously hamper troopmovement. No better way to spend some 1.000 cruise-missiles without doing real damage!

Oh? Care to illuminate on how the EU is somehow impervious to having its infrastructure destroyed? You dont have bridges? Major highways?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why would an invading force want to blow up bridges? Wouldn't that slow down and severly hamper the invasion as well?

This is not Israel invading Lebannon. We are talking hundreds of miles here. We are talking about a logistical nightmare with the bridges intact.

 

[Truronian]

Oh? Care to illuminate on how the EU is somehow impervious to having its infrastructure destroyed? You dont have bridges? Major highways?

I think a major problem is that even the minor roads are perfectly fit for troop movement. Such a tactic would only really work in the Alps and Pyrannes, and the major rivers at a stretch.

 

[GinandTonic]

I think a major problem is that even the minor roads are perfectly fit for troop movement. Such a tactic would only really work in the Alps and Pyrannes, and the major rivers at a stretch.

Nah, too many pontoon bridges kicking around the modern sappers. Blowing up pontoon bridges is pointless - you knock out a couple of sections but most of the bridge is fine. Its just much easier to build a pontoon section than a cruise missile, at about 1/50 the cost.

You could cut some of the tunnels in the mountains, but that just removes the shortcut. Also its hard to do that much damage to a tunnel - sure you can close it for a few days but basically its a hole.

Power plants, transformers etc are far more fragile.

 

[bhsup]

I think I've found a way that it could be done and even the Europeans would agree that it may be feasible. Take a very, very long term approach to it.

Phase I - First, we take Greenland, Iceland, The Azores, and The Canaries, and maybe the Faroes and Madeira Islands as well. I do think we could pull that off.

Assure Europe that we're content now. We just need to secure our maritime approaches or some other pile of malarky to convince them not to retaliate.

Phase II - Wait 20 or 30 years for phase II. This would involve the invasion of Spain and Scandinavia. Maybe the UK as well, but hopefully over the last 20-30 years, we've convinced them to side with us, or at the least to sit it out. If not. Well, payback for 1812 I guess.

With the North Sea oil fields and Scandinavia secured and a foothold on continential Europe behind the Pyrenees from which to strike at the heart of Europe from, we again manuever for peace (for now). These long periods of peace also give us time to deal with any uppity locals and prepare for the next phases.

Phase III - Roll out of the Pyrenees and lay the smack down on anyone who decides to get on our way! USA! USA! USA!!

 

[GinandTonic]

Most plausable suggestion yet. Will ponder reply.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Assure Europe that we're content now.

Here's where your plan fails. We never heard of a content American in our lives.

 

[Truronian]

I think I've found a way that it could be done and even the Europeans would agree that it may be feasible. Take a very, very long term approach to it.

Phase I - First, we take Greenland, Iceland, The Azores, and The Canaries, and maybe the Faroes and Madeira Islands as well. I do think we could pull that off.

Assure Europe that we're content now. We just need to secure our maritime approaches or some other pile of malarky to convince them not to retaliate.

Phase II - Wait 20 or 30 years for phase II. This would involve the invasion of Spain and Scandinavia. Maybe the UK as well, but hopefully over the last 20-30 years, we've convinced them to side with us, or at the least to sit it out. If not. Well, payback for 1812 I guess.

With the North Sea oil fields and Scandinavia secured and a foothold on continential Europe behind the Pyrenees from which to strike at the heart of Europe from, we again manuever for peace (for now). These long periods of peace also give us time to deal with any uppity locals and prepare for the next phases.

Phase III - Roll out of the Pyrenees and lay the smack down on anyone who decides to get on our way! USA! USA! USA!!

This could work... not sure you'd get away with Phase 1 though.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Assure Europe that we're content now.

Yeah, right. What would be the reason that USA would tell Europe? Would it be something like:

"Hello, fellow Europeans. We thought that coz we didn't have any better things to do we could conquer islands of European nations. So we did it, but hey, don't worry, we are calm now. OK?"

"Yeah, sure, we believe you, George.W.Bush."