Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
We would wipe the floor with European armies, but as we now know, that alone doesnt ensure ultimate victory.
Europe vs. US
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
I didn't say there weren't any other types of fighters, nor did I make the claim that a significant number of losses were not to ground fire. The Americans were simply outplayed and lost the match in the air, and yes the Vietnamese were technologically inferior overall. Tactically too, early parts of the war saw American doctrine focused on long range missile fights as opposed to knife fights between agile fighters and kill to loss ratios reflected this.
And I don't think you know this, but Viet Nam won the war, both on the battlefield and off. The idea that the Vietnamese were militarily defeated is a complete myth.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You are trying to tell me that the EU can outproduce the USA? I dont think so. We even have a larger GDP than the entire EU combined. http://education.yahoo.com/referenc...gdp/2d.html;_ylt=AuKwI0RyEqW0N0tu3AT2ZV7PecYF I dont think the USA would have a problem meeting or exceeding the EUs production capability in a full mobilization.
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
I'm starting to think you're illiterate, because you didn't deal with anything I said at all. I'm going to repost my earlier post to give you another chance to prove that you can read.
Pasi Nurminen said:
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Oh. My. God. Revisionist history alert. You want to use the first effective use of SAM/AAM missile technology to claim a military win for Vietnam? Hardly. North Vietnam didnt win a single major battle of the war. And despite losses of our aircraft, air superiority was never conceded to the North and our bomber/fighter sorties continued unabated.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
MILLIONS DEAD.
A few more victories like that and vietnam wouldn't have any vietnamese left in it.
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
MILLIONS DEAD.
A few more victories like that and vietnam wouldn't have any vietnamese left in it.
Carpet bombing Hanoi, while a crime against humanity, does not win you battles. If anything, history proves that such atrocities merely stiffen the enemy's resolve.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
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).
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Down to petty insults now Pasi? Typical. I have already dealt with everything you put forth. Need I remind you that we have mid-air refuelers that can circle the globe? Need I remind you that land based aircraft from the United States have hit targets the world over by using in flight refueling? Have I not also suggested that one of our first actions would be to secure areas near the EU nations like the Azores, or Iceland?
As for your SAM/AAM defenses, they can be spotted from outside their operational range via AWACs and destroyed with tomahawk missiles. Or, we could send in EW warfare jets specifically designed to destroy such sites with missiles that home in on active radar emissions. OR, we could just fly and bomb the dog crap out of them with B-2 spirit bombers that you would never see.
Again, I have just proven to you that the USA carries a SIGNIFICANT (ie. greater than 3:1) modern jet fighter/air superiority advantage over the entire EU. The EU has inventories of aircraft that other nations have literally mothballed. They would be utterly useless in a air superiority situation. Also given the fact that the coastlines of Britain, France, Spain and Germany are not riddled with SAM/AAM emplacements also says a lot. They dont have enough in their inventory to guard their entire coastline. They literally have too much area to defend and would be picked off piecemeal by american forces.
Again, I speak from my 20 years of military experience and knowledge. I give facts and links to totally support my position. You try to allude that todays modern air superiority situation still reflects the times of Vietnam. You are so wrong its not even really that funny anymore.
No, I'm trying to tell you that given a few years, the EU can produce enough that the US would have no chance of landing an invasion. We're talking about a modern, well-equipped, well-trained army that has more man power behind it.
However, now that I think about it, there is the issue of oil. America has a lot of domestic and Canadian oil to use. It doesn't have an easy way to get that oil east without shipping it though. Oil tankers are floating bombs. Europe has a pipe line to Russia. The US would have the ability to disrupt this supply where as Europe would have a hard time cutting off America's oil.
The air war in Vietnam was fought with one foot still in the gun age. Technology is lightyears beyond that now.
Anyway, don't you think the Persian Gulf War would be a more proximate case study?
thenooblet22
King
I'm having a good time
On a more ironic note, I was just watching Dogfights on the History channel which covered the Vietnam war.PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
Yes, that would work nicely.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
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.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
After both of us are wasted, teh aliens would swoop in for da victolee!!!!!11!!
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
A reliable source, eh? Perhaps Wiki? Two items in your "figures" are incorrect. First, you include Russia, which is not part of the EU (are we including Russia now? So that means we can include Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica!). Secondly, your numbers for Germany are roughly double the reality...Germany actually has 381 aircraft in a deployable state, and this number is destined to reduce to around 260 by 2013. Many of these aging German fighters are F4's, an aircraft variant the United States decommissioned in 1990. The F4 was introduced to service in.....1959. The remaining numbers correspond with Wiki verbatim, but you are including aging A300's as "troop transports" and helicopters, which you do not include in America's numbers. If so, the American air force would be roughly 7,400 units strong. As it is hard to demonstrate my sources, as they come from a vast array of books I have here, but a couple good ones are "US Air Force Academy Candidate Manual" and "The Wild Blue" by Walter Boyne. Both illustrate extensive information regarding the US Air Force in terms of strenght, numbers, budget, deployment, capability, and training.
Here is a good source for ground troop strength: again the European armies pale in comparison:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/active-force.htm
I will concede the Leopard Tank of Germany: a fantastic armoured vehicle that comes very close to matching the effectiveness of the Abrahms...but not close enough.
Of course you already knew this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Also, Europe does not field a single bomber which can reach American soil in any large numbers, much less compete with the B-1 and B-2. (the only EU bomber manufactured wholly in the EU, the Tornado (BAE), was decommissioned in 1998 by the UK). Aerial refueling also lends the US Air Force the strong upper hand. Granted, many of these are based in Europe's backyard, but could be deployed to Iceland and the Azores in a split; places which Europe could not wrest from the US with any ease. Considering also that the EU has no program in place to develop UAV's, and does not field any, the strategic reconnaissance capabilities are very small.
Of course, if the EU was to admit Russia, things would be tougher for us. But consider that the EU is reliant almost solely on American parts for the bulk of its air forces, as the majority of deployable air units are American made (or an American-European consortium). Also considering the poor strategic position of Europe, and it really boils down to no contest. In a verifiable military conflict of any size, the US would pummel Europe. Obviously, if Europe had a decade or two, things might play out differently, as European soldiers have historically been very effective. That was, however, before socialism weakened their testoserone.
~Chris
PS-I advise you conceade the argument by not replying, as you are entering my territory and expertise.
Attachement: Don't forget our hordes of backups.
Attachments
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
This will not happen. 
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
This will not happen.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Unless France stops exporting Eclaires.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Hey, have you noticed my smiley?
smiley? 
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
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.
