Winner said:
So, this data clearly shows, that if Europe mobilized, which is likely given that there would be a state of war declared, it would in fact outnumber the US in sheer military strenght.
Again, as the attackers, we get to pick and choose the fight. In defense, you have to react to what we dictate. Roughly equal numbers in this situation it not particularly a strength given the total area you have to defend.
Then there is the thing with carrying out a successful invasion, for which you need:
a) air superiority
b) naval superiority
c) a lot of naval transports
d) a lot of troops
The data posted throughout this thread by my fellow Europeans simply prove, that US wouldn't have any of these necessities:
Think what you will, I simply dont agree. Before any troop ever set foot upon EU soil, there would be months and months of cruise missile attacks and air attacks.
a) US navy airforce is obsolete compared to the best European fighters, and it is much smaller in numbers. US stealth fighters don't have the combat range to operate across the Atlantic and B2's are too few. Also, European radar grid would be able to detect them, so it is likely they'd be destroyed on their first mission.
Sorry, but you are wrong on several counts. It is simply not "much" smaller. That, plus exactly how are fighter jets based in the north going to react to a fighter engagement say, in SW Spain? Given how fast such engagements happen in modern air combat, they would never make it. Your numerical superiority is rendered moot in the amount of area you have to defend. Also, apparently you have never heard of HARM missiles which actually home in on active radar grids and destroying them. They have been used routinely to nullify active AA radar sites for years. You fail to give any defense to such technology.
What you non-military types totally dismiss in your arrogance is tactical superiority and the pure fact that the Americans have been fighting these wars for decades and winning. I am not talking a police action, I am talking armies in the field. In a set piece battle you would lose.
-> Question for the US patriots: HOW DO YOU PLAN TO GET THE AIR SUPERIORITY?
As I have stated several times, but apparently you fail to comprehend, is that we would have the tactical edge. We decide where we attack and with what numbers. This will give us a local superiority in numbers in any air engagement. Over time, such a tactical advantage will result in air superiority.
b) This is what you may have, but against combined European fleet, it wouldn't have the total superiority you'd need. Of course, navy itself is worthless, if you can't protect it against the airforce. And European airforce would operate from land-based airstrips.
Again...carriers move and are harder to target. Land based airstrips will not last the first wee of such a war as cruise missiles will destroy them in the first wave. Where will your aircraft take off from then?
c) How many troops can the US navy unload at once? I guess not more than several thousands. Even if they managed to form a beachhead, European forces would drive them back to the sea with absolutely superior numbers.
Actually, far more than you think. Also the Army itself actually mans a small, but ocean going, navy of LST type vessels. I know, I have done beach landings from them.
Bottom line, such a landing would not even be attempted without air superiority. If we have that, your "superior numbers" wouldnt live long enough to push anything. Also, again, you directly fail to understand the tactical situation. Over such a large front, your "superior numbers" dont mean squat....you think Spain (or whoever) could hold out long enough for the EU to mass a numerically superior force to drive us back into the sea? Nope. And I assure you, we know exactly how to target the main supply routes (bridges and highways) so that what would normally take days, would take weeks if not months to do.
d) US has in fact lesser population. Even if it mobilized, Europe would still have more people to arm.
Again, in todays high technology battlefield, the total number of troops one can mass is irrelevant. We dont mind spending more ammo to kill more targets. Also, again, you utterly fail to understand how much land area your forces must defend.
So, it is clear, that US forces are not, as of now, able to attack Europe. It is rather simple, unless you build a bridge across the Atlantic, you wouldn't be able to move enough troops to invade us.
Sigh. We wouldnt sail or fly a single troop across until after weeks/months of bombing you back into the stone age. Then we would come after you have no hope what so ever of stopping us.
I think some of the Americans here have a serious problem with their ego.
I think the EU are arrogant in their belief that their untried and green militarys would perform like supermen against the USA. Trust me. The USA is very, very good at fighting this type of war. Not so the EU. That, more than any other factor would be the main difference in such a fight.
You don't have to maintain you are able to defeat anybody to keep your self-confidence high. We know you have better organized and flexible forces, but this is simply not enough to invade heavily armed Western countries. Don't fool yourself. Europe is not Iraq or Afghanistan.
No...they are not Iraq or Afghanistan...but the principles to beat standing armies there is the same as beating them in the EU. France also thought they were no Poland either. Combat control, mass fires and local superiority are all part of what makes the USA effective in what it does. The USA knows how to win such battles extremely well. While we are acting as a well organized and fluid force, the EU will most likely be stepping over each others feet. When was the last time a combined EU force did such a thing? Never. Most likely, there would be so much infighting among the EU states as to who would be in charge of what, that we would be free to pick you off one by one. Thats just simple fact.
In fact, even if you want to use history as an argument, you fail. US never invaded united and well-armed Europe. US in fact couldn't even defeat a poor country like Vietnam.
You sir, now show your true ignorance. The United States military won each and every military engagement in Vietnam. That was a war in which we won all the battles, but lost the war at home. For you to even attempt to use this as an example of our incorrectly percieved military weakness then I humbly submit that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and are rather the one being arrogant here.
You're simply living in a fantasy world. Wake up, guys...
Yes...I seem to recall France thinking the same thing of Germany in the late 30s. They too thought they were impossible to invade.
.
