Europe vs. US

[TheDuckLover]

The USA would win if the military wasn't destroyed and some crazy rebels don't overthrow the government or some other country don't declare war.

 

[Winner]

Depends on how the war is perceived. If, for example, it's a war that began due to some economical quarrel then Israel and Egypt will do their best to stay neutral. But then the discussion is pointless and boring. I assume that our hypothetical war must continue until one side surrenders unconditionally. Let's say that each side imagines the other to be the new Nazis or something. It's a battle to the death.

In this case, only countries strong enough like Russia, China and India or those insignificant enough like Nepal or something, will have the luxury of neutrality. All the rest, especially countries like Israel and Egypt who occupy strategic positions and possess strong but not strong enough armies, will have to choose.

Not necessarily.

Israel could sit and not either military operations (though it would probably cooperate with the US by sending intelligence) until it would become clear who is going to win.

If it joined either side, it is very probable that the opposite side would support its many enemies (Syria, Iran etc.) in the region. This would be a grave threat to Israel's very survival, since technology is the key to Israeli military superiority. That's why I think it would stay neutral as long as possible.

Egypt, if it joined the US, would immediately face huge economic problems, perhaps even famine due to lack of food, apart from the military consequences of such betrayal.

 

[Eli]

To be honest you're underating the ability of the EU to defend those locations. Even a few thousand entrenched light infantry can be a monumental pain in the ass to clear out if they really want to make a fight of it.

Look at the performance of the IDF in the Lebanon recently for an example there, even with gross military superiority they still had major problems.

Incomparable. The Hizballah men knew the lay of the land, the newly arrived EU troops will be far less prepared.
It doesn't really matter though. With complete naval and air superiority, all those forces will be just starved and bombed to hell. Effectively it's like being trapped deep inside enemy territory but in good fortifications. You might hold out for a while and cause quite a damage, but the end is the same.

The Straits of Gibraltar are easily closed to shipping (heck they're so narrow you can do it with artillery) and any US vessels already in there are Conventional Submarine fodder as the USN Nuclear Subs are at a severe disadvantage in waters like that. Closing the Suez Canal isn't that difficult either assuming Egypt lets the USN use it anyway.

With the Israeli and Egyptian airforces and navies cooperating with the USN, you won't even get close to the Suez Canal.

Israel would have to be insane not to stay neutral. It couldn't possibly risk pissing off the Europeans enough for them to say to various Arab countries "how would you like us to start shipping you high-tech NATO weaponry? Shall we say a couple of billion Euro's worth of Shoulder-Launched SAM's and Anti-Tank Missiles for a start?'

What Arab countries? Egypt and the Saudis are on the American side. Iraq is American. In this situation, Jordan and Syria will have to follow suit. The only resistance can come from fanatic groups like the Hamas and Hizballah, and they can't do damage on a strategic level, especially when armies no longer dance to the tunes of public opinion and UN condemnations.

If we were facing US invasion we'd arm Iran for pities sake for much the same reason that Israel helped them in the 1980's against Iraq.

Yes, you would. And it would delay the invasion. But for how long do you really think Iran will hold facing an American Middle East and Afghanistan?

Then it'll throw in its lot with Europe. Too much to lose.

Turkey will lose anyway. It will be the main battleground. But with an American Middle East, Turkey is as likely to choose the US as it is likely to choose the EU.

How many warships would the USN have to lose to European Air and Submarine attacks before it started to think the Med was a bit too hot for it? They just don't have enough carriers in the area to possibly withstand the hundreds of aircraft that could be thrown at them once the Europeans get their act together even if they could magically sink all the subs hunting them.

You seem to imagine war to be some sort of a single dice throw.

Sure, at first Europe will control most of the Mediterranean, except the parts controlled by Israel and Egypt. A year later, the US will control all of N. Africa and the Med will be a huge war zone. The US will lose ships and planes, the EU will lose ships and planes. One will lose more than the other, but both will keep fighting.

None of the US bomber fleet would survive raids into EU Airspace (we've got gear that can even track the B2A let alone B-1B's and B-52's) and the US doesn't actually have a fraction of the cruise missiles needed to more than irritate the Europeans, there's just too many damn targets.

Again, as if it's a single dice throw.

There is no "none" and "all" in war. Sure, the EU will shoot down it's share of aircraft, but most will get through. Tactics and technologies will be refined all the time. There will be days when the US will lose tens of bombers, and days when the EU will lose half a city or two. Remember that the US, with it's control of Iceland, the Azores, N. Africa and the M. East will be able to send bombers from every direction, and shifting bombers between airfields is much easier than shifting AA batteries.

The important thing is that the US has long range bombers, while the EU doesn't even have a modern design. The US has superiority in cruise missile design and manufacturing. And it's the US Navy that will be looking for opportunities to attack European coastal installations and not the other way around.

And it doesn't matter how much the US has now, but how much it will be able to produce and whether it will be able to bring them to the theater. The answer here is "enough and yes".

Even at full tilt production the US can't produce conventional munitions fast enough to cause sufficient damage to the EU to get the job done before the Europeans are ramping up their own lines. Once the USN submarines and surface vessels have run out of Cruise Missiles they'll have to be restocked and again there's far, far more targets than missiles.

Yes, but it's only European factories, harbors and airbases that will be on fire, not American ones.

Let's be honest, the USAF doesn't even have enough bombs in storage to get the job done

For the third time, it's not a single dice throw. Yes, the USAF can't bomb all of Europe in a single day and will never be able to. But the USAF will be able to bomb Europe, while the "EUAF" will not be able to bomb the US.

Existing EU military formations are more than sufficient to smash any conceivable US invasion. We're talking millions of troops backed by thousands of tanks and artillery pieces where the Europeans are well trained professional soldiers not middle-eastern rabble and the technology gap isn't the gulf it was fighting against the Iraqi's either.

Except the British at Iraq, when was the last time a European army seen a battlefield? At least the US has a battle hardened army. And even if it didn't fight against top notch rivals, it's better than having no experience at all.

 

[Eli]

Not necessarily.

Israel could sit and not either military operations (though it would probably cooperate with the US by sending intelligence) until it would become clear who is going to win.

If it joined either side, it is very probable that the opposite side would support its many enemies (Syria, Iran etc.) in the region. This would be a grave threat to Israel's very survival, since technology is the key to Israeli military superiority. That's why I think it would stay neutral as long as possible.

The US and EU will not be giving support to other countries, but asking or demanding it from them. And while European economic ties are important to Middle Eastern countries, a huge American army in Iraq is much more compelling.

 

[Grisu]

oh great, onother of these my *bleep* is bigger than yours thread

a war between the US and Europe would see no winners, only losers....

 

[mitsho]

Eli, why are you sure that the Middle East will be American? Given the American occupation of Iraq, the EU will jump in there, making the thing rough, Iran is capable of closing of the Persian Gulf for Oil transport, especially with European help, the Middle East will be no help whatsoever, especially not in providing Oil. There is no reason Turkey and Egypt will chose America.

And after all, keep in mind, there's always Russia. Afaik, the most energy sources for Europe are nowadays provided through Russia, so Russia most probably be on the side of the Europeans (shares to defend). That backs up the Europeans with many more nuclear missiles. Look, I am no expert, but it won't be that easy for the Americans after all.

mick

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Hah, love these threads .

I didn't vote because if Europe and the USA go to war the world is pretty much screwed and I don't see how anyone could 'win' in any sensible way. Maybe China. Just my opinion.

 

[Winner]

The US and EU will not be giving support to other countries, but asking or demanding it from them.

Of course not. Middle Eastern counries, with exception of Israel and maybe Egypt and Turkey have nothing, what could be useful in such war. Both sides would have to supply their client states with weapons, equipment etc.

And while European economic ties are important to Middle Eastern countries, a huge American army in Iraq is much more compelling.

You're grossly overestimating the US capabilities to wage a full scale war in a hostile region with enemies possessing or supplied with weaponry on par with the US equipment. 130,000 troops in Iraq are more a burden than an asset. This corresponds with your second mistake, which is underestimation of the critical role of logistics in conflicts of such size. European bases are critical for the US presence in Iraq. Without them, everything would have to be transported by sea. I seriously doubt the US would be able to do any serious damage to Europe from there.

Most of the war would be fought over Atlantic, with US sending fighters and ships into European meatgrinder. Europe would be able to defend itself and the US wouldn't be able to invade it, no matter how long the war would be (I am talking about non-nuclear scenario, of course).

There is no point in thinking, that Americans are somehow above the basic rules of combat which have been applied to all wars in history.

 

[Winner]

Hah, love these threads .

I didn't vote because if Europe and the USA go to war the world is pretty much screwed and I don't see how anyone could 'win' in any sensible way. Maybe China. Just my opinion.

Take it as an exercise. We all know it is impossible.

 

[Hotpoint]

Incomparable. The Hizballah men knew the lay of the land, the newly arrived EU troops will be far less prepared.

The Azores and Canary islands are Portugese and Spanish territory so I'd assume they know the lay of the land already. As for the EU troops being less prepared true, but they'd be much better armed.

It doesn't really matter though. With complete naval and air superiority, all those forces will be just starved and bombed to hell. Effectively it's like being trapped deep inside enemy territory but in good fortifications. You might hold out for a while and cause quite a damage, but the end is the same.

The EU is buying time to prepare and ramp up military production. If nothing else they'll destroy as much of the island infrastructure as possible to deny it to the USAF and in any case if they've got brains they'd base their best squadrons of Air Superiority and Naval Strike aircraft on the Island making it a much harder nut to crack than you think.

Anyhow even staging from these forward bases the USAF is still severely limited in how far into EU airspace it can range. It's a long way from the Azores to Portugal and back (800 miles each way).

With the Israeli and Egyptian airforces and navies cooperating with the USN, you won't even get close to the Suez Canal.

Still don't see either Israel or Egypt getting involved but you still haven't dealt with the submarine problem. The USN has real problems tracking EU Conventional Subs.

Even the Greek and Italian Navies alone would be a pain to deal with thanks to their Type 209, 212 and 214 boats

What Arab countries? Egypt and the Saudis are on the American side. Iraq is American. In this situation, Jordan and Syria will have to follow suit. The only resistance can come from fanatic groups like the Hamas and Hizballah, and they can't do damage on a strategic level, especially when armies no longer dance to the tunes of public opinion and UN condemnations.

Why do you assume so much of the Middle-East would definitely come out for the United States? They don't like the United States and the European Union is more important to them economically.

They'd sit it out and the US isn't in a position to force them because it'll need to direct its military energies elsewhere.

Yes, you would. And it would delay the invasion. But for how long do you really think Iran will hold facing an American Middle East and Afghanistan?

Long enough to tie down much of the US Army for months at least. Every day that goes by gives the Europeans a chance to get onto a war footing, once they are they can simply out-produce the United States.

Turkey will lose anyway. It will be the main battleground. But with an American Middle East, Turkey is as likely to choose the US as it is likely to choose the EU.

The Europeans could put a million men in Turkey if required, the US can't and has much worse logistics to supply them. Any US material will need to be shipped to the indian ocean, up the Persian Gulf and by road to the front.

The EU can basically load gear onto trucks at the factories and storage dumps and drive there.

You seem to imagine war to be some sort of a single dice throw.

On the contrary I'm thinking in the long-term. The US can't deploy sufficient force to knock the EU out at the start and the longer the war goes on the better things get in relative terms for Europe.

Sure, at first Europe will control most of the Mediterranean, except the parts controlled by Israel and Egypt. A year later, the US will control all of N. Africa and the Med will be a huge war zone. The US will lose ships and planes, the EU will lose ships and planes. One will lose more than the other, but both will keep fighting.

But the strategic defensive benefits Europe, they can replace losses easier and are starting from a position where they can ramp up more.

Again, as if it's a single dice throw.

No just the opening start of the game. The US needs a quick win and i won't get it.

There is no "none" and "all" in war. Sure, the EU will shoot down it's share of aircraft, but most will get through. Tactics and technologies will be refined all the time. There will be days when the US will lose tens of bombers, and days when the EU will lose half a city or two. Remember that the US, with it's control of Iceland, the Azores, N. Africa and the M. East will be able to send bombers from every direction, and shifting bombers between airfields is much easier than shifting AA batteries.

You terribly overestimate the amount of equipment available to the US and the difficulty in supplying it.

In any case European airpower ranging out from bases in the Med can do exactly the same thing flying in the opposite direction and there's far less targets to worry about (Europe is full of decent roads and airstrips you could base jets out of, North Africa and the Middle-East hasn't got the same infrastructure).

Look at Israel, why wouldn't the EU use it's own cruise missiles against airbases there if it came to it?

The important thing is that the US has long range bombers, while the EU doesn't even have a modern design. The US has superiority in cruise missile design and manufacturing. And it's the US Navy that will be looking for opportunities to attack European coastal installations and not the other way around.

The US Heavy Bombers would not fair well in EU Airspace. As for Cruise missiles they haven't got enough of them to make sufficient impact.

And it doesn't matter how much the US has now, but how much it will be able to produce and whether it will be able to bring them to the theater. The answer here is "enough and yes".

"Not enough" and "no" is closer to the truth. They'd need tens of thousands minimum and they don't have them.

Yes, but it's only European factories, harbors and airbases that will be on fire, not American ones.

Some European factories and harbours, but only a tiny minority.

For the third time, it's not a single dice throw. Yes, the USAF can't bomb all of Europe in a single day and will never be able to. But the USAF will be able to bomb Europe, while the "EUAF" will not be able to bomb the US.

You're assuming that the EU has no ability to adjust to circumstances. Once the USAF Bomber Fleet has been severely depleted by attrition (and munition shortages for that matter) the EU will be able to outbuild the US and once the continent is secure there's no reason to believe they couldn't start working on a way to hit back.

Massed AIP U-Boat packs in the Atlantic would be a start.

Except the British at Iraq, when was the last time a European army seen a battlefield? At least the US has a battle hardened army. And even if it didn't fight against top notch rivals, it's better than having no experience at all.

Well the French Army fought alongside the rest of the Coalition in 1991 but judging by NATO exercises many European militaries are likely much better than you think.

I could counter-argue that kicking the crap out of weak opponents makes an army sloppy and over confident. Until we actually see the US fight against an enemy they neither outnumber nor have a large technology lead over you won't know.

 

[Phlegmak]

Let's have a new vote: which region makes the best toilet paper? US or EU?

 

[REDY]

I am not sure now, are we talking about US vs Europe or US vs EU? Without other european countries there should be more possible ways to invade Europe...

 

[Koelle]

Given that today many war are conteverisial, here is nivi's fool proof guide of determining who won a war (millitarily only, becuase politics tend to get in the way):

The side who could afford to go again, or continue the war, untill full submission.



The US suffered 200,000 casualties, Vietnam suffered millions dead (+millions wounded).

Actually, the Americans forgot to count their allies casualities (of the Koreans, Australians, ...) and accidentally added casualities of civilians and South Vietnamese Army to Vietnam's losses. With increasingly heavily loss, the Americans might even be overrun by Mexicans, should they have decided to extend their stay in Vietnam

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Whoever invades first, loses, due to the sea.

 

[civverguy]

It depends which side Canada is on.

 

[Brighteye]

What Arab countries? Egypt and the Saudis are on the American side. Iraq is American. In this situation, Jordan and Syria will have to follow suit. The only resistance can come from fanatic groups like the Hamas and Hizballah, and they can't do damage on a strategic level, especially when armies no longer dance to the tunes of public opinion and UN condemnations.

I don't like this recurring thread, since it's a silly idea. The US has more military power, but the EU is such a great power itself that the US would have trouble with any sort of conquering. The best they could manage would be some sort of seige/ tepid war situation.

But anyway, I really don't think that Iraq is American. There are US forces in Iraq, but no production or support. In fact, those forces might well end up being more of a liability, because they'll be trapped between British, Kurd and insurgent forces in hostile territory.

The troops there may have seen some bullets, but I wouldn't call them battle-hardened. When the Americans needed their supply-lines guarding as they went further into Iraq we took over. Our Paras found numerous weapon dumps that the 'battle-hardened' and 'skilled' wawwiors of the US had overlooked.

 

[ComradeDavo]

If Nukes weren't used, then Europe would win. Because we have Russia, France, Germany and the UK. Combined thats far greater than the USA.

 

[sonorakitch]

The Leopard IIA6 (latest model) is probably better than the M1A2 by nature of its superior gun. Various European armies are upgrading from the old L44 used in the Abrams to the longer-ranged higher-velocity L55.

Also in addition to thousands of Leopard II's the EU also has hundreds of modern Challenger II, LeClercs and Arietes (plus all the older tanks in the inventory).

No doubt the Leopard is an awesome tank (as I stated before), but there is something to be said for veteran status. What makes the M1A1 for me is the proven combat effectiveness from 2 major wars...something the Leopard cannot attest to.

Older tanks really don't matter at all. It is a joke to put up a T-72 or some other 1960's tank against the modern battle tank. See 1991.

The Tornado is a multi-role aircraft not a inter-continental bomber and it's still in service. What are you talking about?

You forget that there are hundreds of Tornado F3's stationed in Goose Bay right now...not a far flight to America's northeast. It was a hint of sarcasim really, and in reality the aircraft is a fighter/bomber and could not make the trip from the European mainland. And yes, the Tornado F3 has stopped production and deliveries and the UK Royal Air Force is decommissioning them yearly. Besides the point, fact is Europe's air forces are growing smaller and smaller, with little in development.

The following EU contries currently use UAV's they designed.

Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden, UK

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


France, Sweden, Greece, Switzerland, Spain and Italy are developing the nEUROn

The United Kingdom is developing the Corax/Raven

Germany and Spain are developing the Barracuda

Well, I stand corrected on this one. I have read much on European attempts to improve reconnaissance abilities, but never heard of them deploying UAV's. And you are right, some are built wholly in the EU. I had heard of the Barracuda though, and explains why I used the the term "currently", as the Barracuda is still in development and crashed just a few months ago during a test flight.

Sorry but the EU has far greater industrial potential (shipbuilding, steel production, automobile factories, electronics) than the United States plus more existing armaments industry (many European contries have under utilised defence manufacturing infrastructure kept open for reasons of national pride, even a small country like Finland assembles its own fighters). The US has a massive trade deficit because it has to import manufactured goods from abroad, the EU exports them.

This is simply hogwash. The US military industrial complex is far more potent and equipped than the European one. Arguing that each little country has their own bullet factories doesn't really argue your case very well either. Your statement regarding importation of manufactured goods for military production is phony, as it is quite well known here that for reasons of national security most every component is manufactured or has a clone manufactured unit here in the States...including the next generation Nuclear carriers. To argue every component placed in any defense mechanism does not rely on globalization and alliance though is bull, and most (if not all) of Europe's defense products are at least somewhat reliant on American products (see your own referenced UAV's from above).

I'm sorry, but I cannot even believe you are arguing this one Hotpoint. The European militaries are shrinking across the board, the development of new technologies is almost non-existant, and the training is....to be nice....adequate. Consripts don't make the best soldiers my friend. Europe is, perhaps sadly, simply a regional power capable of defending itself and perhaps some peacekeeping missions.

An overwhelming fighting force capable of defeating the US Military it is not.

Again, however, if prepared over a period of years certainly the situation would be changed.

~Chris

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, are you counting absolute numbers of american air craft? For, as far as I know, there is a SIGNIFICANT number of american aircraft in European airforces. Paticuary among smaller nations.

As far as I could see you only counted European aircraft in european service.

Actually, no. There are some small numbers of F16s....thats about it.

 

[MobBoss]

One major problem with the way you've compiled your list here MobBoss. You haven't included US designed Aircraft in European airforces which did make the list for the US.

Finland and Spain both fly F/A-18's - 159 aircraft (as does non-EU Switzerland - another 34)

Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Holland, Italy, Poland, Portugal all fly F-16's - 521 aircraft (as does non-EU Norway and Turkey - another 318)


In addition you left out later-model Russian Aircraft in European Airforces

Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia fly Mig-29's - 90 aircraft.


As for the F-22 Raptor that is still only in service in small numbers and in any case lacks the range for transatlantic flight. By the time both it and the F-35 are in service in large numbers the latter will also be equipping several EU airforces (most countries with F-16's at present are trading up for the Lightning II) and they'll be hundreds of Eurofighters and Rafales in service by then too.

Feel free to add another 721 to your numbers then. We still outnumber you more than two to one.

The F-22 is completely fielded in two units performing missions right now. As I pointed out in exercises it dominates the air. Even with its low numbers, it would be a dominating factor in any modern air war today.

And no...there would not be hundreds of Eurofighters and Rafales. Why? Too expensive compared to the American Jets. Just look at the problems the EU has had over Eurofighter in how they have argued over one thing and another. And its individual cost is still more than the F-35. America spends more and thus will have more by then.