Europe vs. US

[scipian]

Nearly undoubtedly America.

P.S.-Where in the world did you get the idea that Europe has 900 million+? It's got 730 million and 100 million of those are Russians (who are not exactly Europeans).

 

[Hotpoint]

The search tool is your friend. This has been done to death several times now with the same conclusion. USA victory.

Extremely simplistic summary there MobBoss, and not exactly the conclusion reached which was closer to draw since the two sides just can't get to grips with each other thanks to the pesky ocean between them

In a conventional war the US can bring far more force to bare against Europe than the reverse because of Carrier Aviation but still insufficient to actually invade against the numerically superior EU militaries and European subs would sink a lot of the USN (the new AIP boats are a Carrier Battle Groups worst nightmare).

The US simply doesn't have enough sealift to invade Europe and even if it could move (and somehow supply) the entire US Army (including reserves) across the Atlantic it would still be badly outnumbered and trying to force a beachead where it doesn't have air superiority and is getting pounded by longer-ranged and more numerous EU artillery pieces.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

The US would win hands down. The biggest most advanced military in the world, the largest economy in the world, huge nuclear arsenal, and much more unified than Europe. It would be a bloodbath, but the US would ultimately triumph.

 

[scipian]

And my claim of a US victory is not just pro-US ignorance. Our navy would undoubtedly defeat the European navies. We have a much better prepared initial fighting force and would have nearly complete control of the seas and the skies. Without the ability to control their own territory, they'd eventually lose. Admittedly, a complete invasion would be hard. But we would have the leisure of being able to choose exactly when, how, and what to attack. Europe could not win and the US would likely win (there is, of course, the chance of a draw).

BTW-The US would not invade from the Atlantic, of course. We'd force a Northern African nation to give us bases, force Turkey to, subvert the UK to, or convince the Russians to.

 

[MobBoss]

In a conventional war the US can bring far more force to bare against Europe than the reverse because of Carrier Aviation but still insufficient to actually invade against the numerically superior EU militaries and European subs would sink a lot of the USN (the new AIP boats are a Carrier Battle Groups worst nightmare).

Totally debateable. Anyway, whats to keep the USA from taking over, say, the Azores and use it for a non-carrier aviation base? Or Iceland maybe.

As to the comment that the EU subs would sink a 'lot' of USN....again, debateable. I would readily concede some would be sunk..but to say a lot? I dunno.

The US simply doesn't have enough sealift to invade Europe and even if it could move (and somehow supply) the entire US Army (including reserves) across the Atlantic it would still be badly outnumbered and trying to force a beachead where it doesn't have air superiority and is getting pounded by longer-ranged and more numerous EU artillery pieces.

Actually, in our last thread on this subject I directly linked that yes, indeed the USA has more than enough sealift to pull the job off. Especially if they are able to take a hold a port city along the EU coastline somewhere.

And again, Hotpoint, the entire EU arty has to get within range in order to be used. Exactly how are they going to do that with every major supply route (MSR) and bridge blown to smithereens? The EU coastline is an awful lot of coastline to defend as the Germans found out in WW II.

 

[Hotpoint]

And my claim of a US victory is not just pro-US ignorance. Our navy would undoubtedly defeat the European navies. We have a much better prepared initial fighting force and would have nearly complete control of the seas and the skies. Without the ability to control their own territory, they'd eventually lose. Admittedly, a complete invasion would be hard. But we would have the leisure of being able to choose exactly when, how, and what to attack. Europe could not win and the US would likely win (there is, of course, the chance of a draw).

A few questions:

How do you attain naval supremacy in the Atlantic when the USN can't actually find the latest model EU submarines even when they already know roughly where they are (too quiet)?

How do you achieve Air superiority over Europe with a fraction as many aircraft available for the job as the defenders (not to mention facing ground based Radar and SAM's)?

 

[Hotpoint]

Totally debateable. Anyway, whats to keep the USA from taking over, say, the Azores and use it for a non-carrier aviation base? Or Iceland maybe.

What's debatable? Total up US Carrier aviation and aircraft capable of flying across the Atlantic and compare with the combined EU airforces. The former number is a lot smaller than the latter.

As for taking the Azores or Iceland the EU could fortify those pretty quickly. Just fly in troops and fighters before the US could invade (we're closer).

In any case invasion means taking warships into littoral waters so kiss goodbye to those things because they'd get sunk by the EU conventional sub fleet.

As to the comment that the EU subs would sink a 'lot' of USN....again, debateable. I would readily concede some would be sunk..but to say a lot? I dunno.

Given the problems the USN is having with the Gotland (plus all the NATO exercises where CVN's get "sunk") I'd go with a "lot" myself.

Actually, in our last thread on this subject I directly linked that yes, indeed the USA has more than enough sealift to pull the job off. Especially if they are able to take a hold a port city along the EU coastline somewhere.

Please provide a link to the post because I really don't remember that one at all. You have to move hundreds of thousands of troops at once with logistical backup or you'd get crushed.

And again, Hotpoint, the entire EU arty has to get within range in order to be used. Exactly how are they going to do that with every major supply route (MSR) and bridge blown to smithereens? The EU coastline is an awful lot of coastline to defend as the Germans found out in WW II.

They don't need to defend the coastline just counterattack the beachead before it can get established (as Rommel should have done). Given the available transport infrastructure the EU can react faster than the US (ships are slow and easily tracked). There's simply too many roads and bridges for you to target (assuming you could given the EU will have air superiority).

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

And my claim of a US victory is not just pro-US ignorance. Our navy would undoubtedly defeat the European navies. We have a much better prepared initial fighting force and would have nearly complete control of the seas and the skies. Without the ability to control their own territory, they'd eventually lose. Admittedly, a complete invasion would be hard. But we would have the leisure of being able to choose exactly when, how, and what to attack. Europe could not win and the US would likely win (there is, of course, the chance of a draw).

BTW-The US would not invade from the Atlantic, of course. We'd force a Northern African nation to give us bases, force Turkey to, subvert the UK to, or convince the Russians to.

Navies don't work that way. This is not World War 1, or even 2. They do not said out and attack each other head on with massed formations of ships with carriers at the centre. You cannot simply go out and destroy a European navy. They would realize instantly that they are at a numerical disadvantage and would play a strategy that can best be described as guerrilla naval war. Sniping at battlegroups and convoys with submarines, launching massed missiles, etc. There would be many ways and opportunities for them to inflict serious losses on an American force. They could easily destroy a landing convoy before it even got anywhere near the European cost. Would they take losses? Of course, but the Americans would not simply walk in and destroy them.

And Europe has collectively thousands of combat aircraft, more than the entire United States armed forces. Ignoring that the Americans would be relying on carriers only and would have to deal with surface anti air defences as well, you would not win an air war.

I'm afraid the pro-US ignorance on your part is showing.

 

[StarWorms]

Europe, no contest.

 

[MobBoss]

A few questions:

How do you attain naval supremacy in the Atlantic when the USN can't actually find the latest model EU submarines even when they already know roughly where they are (too quiet)?

How many of these new subs they have? Only a couple. And only a couple of EU nations have them...Also, knowing that the subs cant be hear passively will mean our navy will use active sonar measures to ping them out. The USN would move to use naval and air ASW assets to ferret the few subs of this caliber out.

How do you achieve Air superiority over Europe with a fraction as many aircraft available for the job as the defenders (not to mention facing ground based Radar and SAM's)?

Again, its called localized air superiority. You seem to think that all the EU air power capable of defending all of EU airspace all at once. Thats a false assumption. As for the ground based radar or SAMs those can be targeted by HARM missiles designed to follow an active radar signal to its source.

If anything, the USA has shown its capability in defeating a layers thick AAA/SAM radar defensive belt and knows how to do so better than anyone in the world.

 

[MobBoss]

What's debatable? Total up US Carrier aviation and aircraft capable of flying across the Atlantic and compare with the combined EU airforces. The former number is a lot smaller than the latter.

As for taking the Azores or Iceland the EU could fortify those pretty quickly. Just fly in troops and fighters before the US could invade (we're closer).

Again, its quite simple. Even with slightly more numbers the EU cant guard all of its airspace equally. Total numbers dont give the whole story. Our equipment is more advanced and our pilots better trained. We would use our mobility to its most advantageous and achieve superior local numbers to destroy area defenders and achieve local air superiority. You cant, simply cant guard all of the EU airspace.

In any case invasion means taking warships into littoral waters so kiss goodbye to those things because they'd get sunk by the EU conventional sub fleet.

Simply wrong. Not all of the EU conventional subs are of the super-silent variety. In fact, very few are.

Given the problems the USN is having with the Gotland (plus all the NATO exercises where CVN's get "sunk") I'd go with a "lot" myself.

Again, being in the military I will say simply this. An exercise isnt real life.

Please provide a link to the post because I really don't remember that one at all. You have to move hundreds of thousands of troops at once with logistical backup or you'd get crushed.

Look up the thread. I am fixing to go out to eat.

They don't need to defend the coastline just counterattack the beachead before it can get established (as Rommel should have done). Given the available transport infrastructure the EU can react faster than the US (ships are slow and easily tracked). There's simply too many roads and bridges for you to target (assuming you could given the EU will have air superiority).

They wouldnt be able to get to the beachhead. Thats the whole point. Every bridge and major highway would be bombed to hell way prior to any attempted landing....and no...there are not 'too many roads and bridges to target'....we haver more than enough tomahawks to break it up...and when you can shoot a tomahawk from over a 1000 kilometers away who needs air superiority?

 

[sysyphus]

Canada would win. After you've both pummeled one another into a pulp you'll both be so weak we will rule you all.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Please not another? We've had one not too long ago.. They always end in a "i can piss farther than either of you".

It's kinda amusing in a despairing sort of way.

 

[mdwh]

I did say "based on the assumption" which doesn't mean definitavely that it is the fact.

Fair enough. Based on the assumption that Americans are all pansies, and the Europeans have a superior military force, I predict a great victory against the US...

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Canada would win. After you've both pummeled one another into a pulp you'll both be so weak we will rule you all.

Ooh, that sounds like a proper challenge. Canada versus Scotland, one on one after the dust has settled on the rest of our continents?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Besides.. who has the most nukes in the world?

Russia stupid

Moderator Action: Warned - flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Xanikk999]

Russia stupid

I dont think thats true. But you can prove me wrong if you wish.

 

[cubsfan6506]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The key thing is russia part of europe.

 

[SG-17]

the US does, atleast officially, we dont know if russia has sold/bought/built any more.

 

[cubsfan6506]

CLick the link.