Could the US capture Europe?

[MobBoss]

No, I think many Europeans are being realistic here.

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.

 

[CartesianFart]

All we have to do is militarize our country in Phase II(Nice one VRWCAGENT ) by getting most of our citizens employed in logistics,militarized industrial manufactoring plants,and all of healthy bodies in our Armed forces.I say conscription about 20,000,000 troops would do it.

 

[MobBoss]

This is a direct example of ignorance here.

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

We have entire wings of air refuelers. Yes...we have more than enough air refueling capability to project non-carrier aircraft where we need them.

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

Again, incorrect. We dont need to cover all of Europe for realtime data; only where we need it most.

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

Total fallacy. As I have stated before, we would dictate the tactical situation and would retain the ability to take/achieve local air superiority long before lang based jets half the EU away could react.

 

[MamboJoel]

"EU kiddies" Lol
@MobBoss, fine with you beeing a sergeant, but : 1. I don't know if it's a relevant rank to have solid arguments on such strategic issues. 2. the lack of judgement behind the always blindly pro-US-pro-Rep attitude some posts tend to show inevitably lowers the quality of the expertise.

 

[Oruc]

Why is everyone forgetting the fact that for USA to consider invading Europe relations between it and Europe would have to be incredibly low.
They would not have dropped to such a level over night, while relations were deteriorating Europe would increase its military spending because it would feel threatened and the EU would have something to unite the peoples of its various member states behind one banner.

 

[HackenSlash]

Power plants, transformers etc are far more fragile.

France has hundred of nuclear plant... OMG!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mobbie, cool down mate. All we can do is speculate. You can not claim ultimate knowledge of a situation with that many variables. Certainly not if one wrong decision can have a major impact.

Take Iraq for example. Much smaller operation. But things did not go as expected there. Howcome you figure they will go as expected in a huge undertaking like this?

 

[MobBoss]

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.

There is more to troop movement than simply getting a truckload of troops down the road in the numbers required to fight a war. Minor roads, irregardless of their condition, are simply not big enough to allow the movement of troops/armor/logistical matieral in such amounts required to fight.

And you apparently forget your military history. Bridges and major highways have always been fought over in Europe for this very reason.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Another question: Can US capture AND hold France?

 

[CartesianFart]

Another question: Can US capture AND hold France?

If US can sell to the French citizens that their life will be better after the invasion,i say yes.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobbie, cool down mate. All we can do is speculate. You can not claim ultimate knowledge of a situation with that many variables. Certainly not if one wrong decision can have a major impact.

Take Iraq for example. Much smaller operation. But things did not go as expected there. Howcome you figure they will go as expected in a huge undertaking like this?

Again you guys miss the entire point. The major combat operations of the Iraq war in which the US military totally destroyed the Iraqi army last mere days. That is precisely the type of engagement we would be fighting vs the EU military. It wouldnt be some "hide and seek" involving roadside bombs - but a full head to head war. The part of the Iraq war that was force on force went far better than expected. Never in history had an armored force driven so far so fast in an invasion. That is a simple truth.

 

[Truronian]

Again you guys miss the entire point. The major combat operations of the Iraq war in which the US military totally destroyed the Iraqi army last mere days. That is precisely the type of engagement we would be fighting vs the EU military. It wouldnt be some "hide and seek" involving roadside bombs - but a full head to head war. The part of the Iraq war that was force on force went far better than expected. Never in history had an armored force driven so far so fast in an invasion. That is a simple truth.

Excepts the European military is 2-3 times as big as that of the US.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Again you guys miss the entire point.

I'm just one guy, and you missed my point entirely. I'm not comparing Iraq to the Europe invasion. I am saying that the outcome of major military operations are not that easy to predict and I am using Iraq as an example how those predictions can fall flat on their face.

 

[MamboJoel]

Again you guys miss the entire point. The major combat operations of the Iraq war in which the US military totally destroyed the Iraqi army last mere days. That is precisely the type of engagement we would be fighting vs the EU military.

FYI, European armies have modern equipments, equal (if not better) tanks and fighters. Only this makes it different from the Irak opposition.

 

[MobBoss]

"EU kiddies" Lol
@MobBoss, fine with you beeing a sergeant, but : 1. I don't know if it's a relevant rank to have solid arguments on such strategic issues. 2. the lack of judgement behind the always blindly pro-US-pro-Rep attitude some posts tend to show inevitably lowers the quality of the expertise.

Sigh. I have spent a good part of my career engaging in higher echelon war game simulations from Germany to Japan. I have far more hours being involved in such than most staff officers around here. My area of exepertise in such exercises is not legal, but combat personnel replacement operations. I am considered a subject matter expert in that field and am often called to brief General Officers as opposed to staff officers. I have sat in a Corps headquarters and watched the big picture unfold and seen how all the parts fit together.

There has not been any lack of judgement in my posts here, but simple facts. If people like you want to ignore or discount those facts /oh well. But I think you make a tremendous mistake in underestimating what the US military can do in a force on force situation.

 

[CartesianFart]

Excepts the European military is 2-3 times as big as that of the US.

You can say that in the present sense,but give me the population of Europe and USA as a whole and then hypothesize how fast can each place can hurry up and mobilze the masses for war is a good endeavor to ponder upon.

 

[Truronian]

You can say that in the present sense,but give me the population of Europe and USA as a whole and then hypothesize how fast can each place can hurry up and mobilze the masses for war is a good endeavor to ponder upon.

Well the proposed scenario was a strike. Long-term I have to agree, population would not be a factor.

 

[Verbose]

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.

We might need a poll about Euro posters military training vs. US posters military training methinks.

Factor properly for age and the principle of compulsory military service common in Europe might yield some curious results.

 

[MobBoss]

Excepts the European military is 2-3 times as big as that of the US.

Only in bodies. And as I pointed out before manpower alone is not going to win a modern day battle. If that were the case, China would be the only superpower on earth.

FYI, European armies have modern equipments, equal (if not better) tanks and fighters. Only this makes it different from the Irak opposition.

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.

 

[Truronian]

Only in bodies. And as I pointed out before manpower alone is not going to win a modern day battle. If that were the case, China would be the only superpower on earth.

But it is a major short term advantage.