Could the US capture Europe?

[bhsup]

Regarding Phase II of my proposal, I would like to modify it. It needs to be delayed until the UK can be convinced to sign on as an ally with the US against the "continentals". Not necessarily for military reasons, but more sentimental reasons. They were our mother country and I just can't bring myself to considering an attack on them.

To quote (or paraphrase I guess since there is controversy about the exact wording and whether the ruskies were included or not..) General Patton:

"it is the evident destiny of the British and Americans to rule the world"

 

[MobBoss]

But it is a major short term advantage.

Not at all. In the short term, manpower would not play a factor what-so-ever. Engagements would simply consist of missile and air strikes upon military targets and infrastructure.

Also, your superior numbers are not that superior...remember, you have quite a bit of land area there to defend. How are you going to achieve superior numbers when you dont know where we will be attacking?

 

[Kyriakos]

This thread reminds me of elementary school bullies arguing that the other kid should be afraid of them because they have a bigger body. If they actually had half a brain though they would soon realise that if the other person is determined to harm them, even the smallest kid could stick a pencil in their eye, and ruin their lives forever.

Simmilarily, the EU has nukes; this thread has no reason for existing imo

 

[Truronian]

This thread reminds me of elementary school bullies arguing that the other kid should be afraid of them because they have a bigger body. If they actually had half a brain though they would soon realise that if the other person is determined to harm them, even the smallest kid could stick a pencil in their eye, and ruin their lives forever.

Simmilarily, the EU has nukes; this thread has no reason for existing imo

Precisely. And our nukes are bigger.

 

[thetrooper]

...this thread has no reason for existing imo

Yeah, spies from rogue nations could pick up all our (both US and Europe) 'secrets'...

 

[MamboJoel]

Again, in the first gulf war, Iraq had Mig-29 modern fighters. Those that didnt run were shot down. The EU doesnt have anything exponentially more modern than that. We do. As for tanks, the only tank I would consider the match of the M1A2 would be the Leopard II and that is because of its optics systems. Good tank, but your crews do not have any combat experience. We do. Also...its a long way to get that Leopard II to somewhere you might need it...like Spain for instance....or Britain.

LOL Leopard tanks are going to have a harder time to get to Spain or Britain than American tanks to cross the Atlantic and land on the beach

BTW, could you provide some data comparing those tanks : M1A2, Challenger, Leclerc, Leopard etc to support your argument ?

 

[MobBoss]

BTW, could you provide some data comparing those tanks : M1A2, Challenger, Leclerc, Leopard etc to support your argument ?

I will let you do your own research, however, you will generally find opinions that either the M1A2 or the Leopard II regarded as the best tank in the world. They have a lot of similiar characteristics with the only main difference in that the Leopard II is slightly heavier and slower than the M1A2. Given that the tanks are so close in capability, the only real difference would be in crew experience.

I would probably rank the LeClerc above the Challenger II as the LeClerc is as fast as the M1A2, but doesnt have its armor protection (its a far lighter tank).

 

[thetrooper]

Given that the tanks are so close in capability, the only real difference would be in crew experience.

A neutral question: how many people does it take to fully operate the Abrams and the Leopard respectively?

 

[Kozmos]

You underestimate Russia, they would sell us all the weapons systems in the world, while we jumpstart our military-inudstrial complex. Russia has many advanced AA weapon systems, ones that even nullify your stealth fighters. So while the US Airforce is all big and shiny, AA systems are much cheaper and we can mass them.

Also radars grids can be easily replaced. We are not living under a weapons embargo.

 

[MobBoss]

You underestimate Russia, they would sell us all the weapons systems in the world, while we jumpstart our military-inudstrial complex. Russia has many advanced AA weapon systems, ones that even nullify your stealth fighters. So while the US Airforce is all big and shiny, AA systems are much cheaper and we can mass them.

Also radars grids can be easily replaced. We are not living under a weapons embargo.

Oh please. You know who was a major importer of Russian military equipment? Iraq. Yeah, it really worked out well for them.

So, no, I dont think Russia would sell you anything...they would sit back and giggle. And secondly, even if they did, we have already proven we can defeat those systems.

Also, you have no idea of the type of advanced electronics that goes into a modern day radar grid or how expensive they are. Its not like you have a warehouse full of them ready to bolt one into place if one gets destroyed.

A neutral question: how many people does it take to fully operate the Abrams and the Leopard respectively?

Both require 4 crewmen.

 

[Hotpoint]

I will let you do your own research, however, you will generally find opinions that either the M1A2 or the Leopard II regarded as the best tank in the world. They have a lot of similiar characteristics with the only main difference in that the Leopard II is slightly heavier and slower than the M1A2. Given that the tanks are so close in capability, the only real difference would be in crew experience.

I would probably rank the LeClerc above the Challenger II as the LeClerc is as fast as the M1A2, but doesnt have its armor protection (its a far lighter tank).

You seem to rank speed as being of greater import than armour but the school of thought that led to the Challenger 2 (and the Israeli Merkeva) puts armour first, its more a matter of opinion than universally accepted fact. They are both more survivable than the Abrams and the Challenger can hit the Abrams before it's in range of the M1A2's main armament (a Challenger holds the longest tank-kill record and has a better fire-control system, it's actually an upgraded version of the one in the Abrams apparently).

In any case in a major ground conflict artillery not tanks is the king of the battlefield (it causes more casualties than everything else combined as a rule) and the Europeans have both greater numbers of artillery pieces and they tend to be better. The US was going to replace its aging M109's with Crusader but that was cancelled giving the Europeans a decent edge there.

So, no, I dont think Russia would sell you anything...they would sit back and giggle. And secondly, even if they did, we have already proven we can defeat those systems.

When did the US run into S-400 Triumf SAM systems? Or the older S-300 for that matter? Avoiding 1960's era gear in Serbian or Iraqi hands isn't quite the same thing.

 

[BaneBlade]

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

Yeah, 10.000s of bridges, roads, railways. Destroy one and the next is around the corner.

 

[Winner]

As a military professional, I dont think so. But thats just my opinion. The EU kiddies here can /laugh and /giggle all they want, but the bottom line is they dont really know what the hell they are talking about. The military is my career. I happen to have some idea of what I am talking about. I happen to take it fairly seriously as well - even in the face of a most ridiculous hypothetical situation like this.

No sir, you have no idea what you're talking about, sir!



I am completely uninterested in what your official "we're the best" doctrine says. We've posted data, we've explained why you can't successfuly invade with an inferior force and the only thing you can say to that is that you're a soldier. Fine. That's really nice, I admire that, really, but as an argument, it is worthless. Perhaps if you were a general or some well-known strategist, I'd take that into consideration, but you're... what? Sergeant? Lieutenant?

 

[Myzenium]

k this thread is so freaking huge, but I'm pretty certain I'm in the minority, so here goes:

Could the United States be able to launch an invasion of Europe (Excluding Russia, Turkey and other nations partly in and outside geographical Europe) and defeat all of the opposing forces and then capture all of Europe? (and hold it down).

This assumes nuclear weapons are out of the equation

I don't even want to consider the possibility of an extended war unless all of Europe gave the States a good reason to fight, which they haven't. You can count tanks, ships, arsenals of any kind. Unless someone pulled out their nukes, the war would be very bloody, and the winner would probably have progeny that would end up hating their ancestors.

 

[Winner]

Maybe it's a good time to take a look at the map:

Now I want to hear exactly how do our American friends plan to move practically the entire US manpower to Europe.

I still hear you'd bomb Europe for months and then invade. But still, I don't hear how do you plan to achieve the air superiority? Do you have some miraculous Clancy weapon, perhaps some space laser or something equally stupid, that would take out all our airbases?

And one final note - do you really think that we would, in case of war, just wait for you to build up and then strike? Europe has its own arms industry, you know, and it is quite clear it would work overtime to make new fighters, tanks, ships, submarines and missiles. Given that Europe would be the defending side while the US would be attacking with an inferior force (basically this war would be between US navy and Europe), I think there isn't really anything left to discussion.

This is more about faith, isn't it?

 

[Gladi]

snip

Bright day
ts ts... silly rabbit, pissing contests aren't for logic.

 

[MobBoss]

You seem to rank speed as being of greater import than armour but the school of thought that led to the Challenger 2 (and the Israeli Merkeva) puts armour first, its more a matter of opinion than universally accepted fact.

Histories lessons in regards to armored warfare pretty much tell speed is far more important in armor warfare than mere heavy armor. A slow tank is a dead tank.

They are both more survivable than the Abrams and the Challenger can hit the Abrams before it's in range of the M1A2's main armament (a Challenger holds the longest tank-kill record and has a better fire-control system, it's actually an upgraded version of the one in the Abrams apparently).

Several things. Neither are "more survivable" than the Abrams. Thats pure bunk. Second: Your premise that the current Challenger main gun outranges the Abrams is false. In fact, Challenger II is currently "upgrading" their main gun to a 120 mm smooth bore gun, much like the Abrams already employs. Also, the Challenger does not have a better fire-control system...it has the same one provided by the same company - General Dynamics (Canada).

In any case in a major ground conflict artillery not tanks is the king of the battlefield (it causes more casualties than everything else combined as a rule) and the Europeans have both greater numbers of artillery pieces and they tend to be better. The US was going to replace its aging M109's with Crusader but that was cancelled giving the Europeans a decent edge there.

Not sure what you are referring to here. The US Military has upgraded its M109 to the current M109A6 Paladin and is capable of comparable ranges (around 30km) and rates of fire that the EU artillery is capable of. The Paladin has progressed to where it can move, set up and fire, then move again all by itself, very quickly, thus increasing its survivability. Also, our MLRS artillery systems are more advanced and deadly than comparable EU systems as we have invested more in such systems.

 

[MobBoss]

I am completely uninterested in what your official "we're the best" doctrine says. We've posted data, we've explained why you can't successfuly invade with an inferior force and the only thing you can say to that is that you're a soldier. Fine. That's really nice, I admire that, really, but as an argument, it is worthless. Perhaps if you were a general or some well-known strategist, I'd take that into consideration, but you're... what? Sergeant? Lieutenant?

Well, I can tell this thread has about run its course. When winner sits and crys I havent made my case when I have done so directly over and over, its approaching the level of outright EU denial.

And yes, I am a NCO in the US Army with 20 years of experience dealing with this stuff. What are you? A student? A clerk? A cubicle jockey? Edit: Just checked your bio...I was right..it says student...so you havent even graduated to the cubicle jockey level yet. Typical. Bottom line, my career and experience; irregardless of what you may think of it; puts me virtual light years ahead in military information when compared to you being a *cough* student. I rest my case.

Moderator Action: Discuss the issue instead of resorting to personal attacks. - Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

But still, I don't hear how do you plan to achieve the air superiority?

I have done so over and over again. Apparently you just dont want to hear it or discuss it.

Given that Europe would be the defending side while the US would be attacking with an inferior force (basically this war would be between US navy and Europe), I think there isn't really anything left to discussion.

Again...this shows your ignorance of the situation. If your only defense is just outright denial and dismissal without considering the facts I have presented then /shrug. You keep on saying "inferior force". How wrong you are. Do you really, and I mean really think the EU would work together in a cohesive manner letting them take advantage of their slight (and it is only slight) numerical superiority? If so you are simply kidding yourself. You simply cannot erase the hundreds, let alone thousands of years of infighting warfare in Europe that would let, for example, a French military force to exist under German leadership or vice versa. If anything such an attack by an force like the US Military would fracture the EU with a handfull of countries being crushed and the rest cutting a deal with the USA to prevent further war.

 

[Hotpoint]

Histories lessons in regards to armored warfare pretty much tell speed is far more important in armor warfare than mere heavy armor. A slow tank is a dead tank.

If that were true the Centurion, Chieftan and latterly the Challenger would not be so well regarded (and they are). The lesson that the British Army learned from getting shot to pieces by slower moving but harder hitting German Panzers in WWII was that armour thickness and firepower was more important than speed.

Several things. Neither are "more survivable" than the Abrams. Thats pure bunk.

Ever heard of Dorchester Armour (aka Chobham 2)? Its better than the earlier Chobham derived armour in the Abrams. The stuff was a British invention after all and we've been developing and using it longer.

Second: Your premise that the current Challenger main gun outranges the Abrams is false. In fact, Challenger II is currently "upgrading" their main gun to a 120 mm smooth bore gun, much like the Abrams already employs.

The British Army wanted to keep a 120mm Rifled main gun because it can fire a better range of ammunition types. It was the government that chose the cheaper option of a new model Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore (it's actually going to be better than the gun currently mounted in the Abrams btw, its going to be the higher velocity L55 not the older L44 used on the the M1A2, but it still can't fire the HESH ammunition that currently gives the Challenger its extra reach).

Also, the Challenger does not have a better fire-control system...it has the same one provided by the same company - General Dynamics (Canada).

The British version is different. It was modified so it could range out further to use the longer range HESH ammunition that the Challenger carries as well as more "conventional" Sabot rounds. The Abrams didn't need the modification, it doesn't have a projectile with the range to need it.

Incidentally HESH is nowhere near as good as APFSDS at penetrating armour (at least not the frontal armour of a modern western MBT) but it would wreck tracks and smash up all the sights a treat.

Not sure what you are referring to here. The US Military has upgraded its M109 to the current M109A6 Paladin and is capable of comparable ranges (around 30km) and rates of fire that the EU artillery is capable of.

The British replaced their M109's with the AS-90 because it was getting long in the tooth. It can sustain twice the rate of fire of the Paladin and is more accurate.

As for the real meanie of European artillery that's the German PzH 2000 which can fire 10+ rounds a minute continuously (autoloader), throw a conventional shell 30km and a rocket assisted one a massive 56km! It's currently the artillery piece of choice for the German, Greek, Dutch and Italian armies and is likely to replace the M109 in other European forces too.

Also, our MLRS artillery systems are more advanced and deadly than comparable EU systems as we have invested more in such systems.

You mean the M270 MLRS system that was jointly developed by the US, UK, Germany and France and is not only used by all of them them but also by Denmark, Finland, Greece, Holland and Italy?

 

[Kal'thzar]

Also, your superior numbers are not that superior...remember, you have quite a bit of land area there to defend. How are you going to achieve superior numbers when you dont know where we will be attacking?

Your saying that the main weakness of defending Europe is that its large, and that for some reason Europeans are contenting themselves with a static defence? (is there any specific reason that this has to be so?)

Secondly, would it not be ideal to defend vital parts of Europe (Heavily industrilised areas). After all, would the USA be bombing parts of Europe for the sake of it, or would it have a reasonable list of targets it would want to hit?