Germany vs. America

[Hotpoint]

The point was to show that the American Military even from a base of operation 5-6 thousand miles away could still annilate the Germans.

Without forward bases available the United States would be wholely reliant on Heavy Bombers and Carrier Aviation. The former would be under a great deal of danger if flying unescorted over/near German airspace and in order to use the latter effectively the USN would have to deploy into areas where it would be dangerously vulnerable to conventional submarines.

Certainly the United States is in a far better position to exert military force against Germany than the reverse but the majority of the US military would simply not be available for use in this scenario.


EDITED TO ADD

A final point might be to mention that in a few years the Luftwaffe will be flying a large number of Eurofighter Typhoons carrying the new Meteor BVRAAM which would be more than a match for US Carrier aviation. Joint US/French naval exercises have already demonstrated that the Rafale is superior to US Carrier planes and the Typhoon is itself better than the Rafale.

 

[nonconformist]

The Germans are also experts at attrition-a man in a foxhole, given a compact portable rocket launcher, could take a tank out.
At that sort of rate, any American breakthrough would come at insanely high casualties.

 

[BasketCase]

Having played both sides of this sort of scenario in a lot of wargames (as far back as good old Command HQ, back in the days of the 386) and won, it could go either way. If I was running the U.S. military.....Germany wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Xen]

I'm fairlly sure once I hit the beaches I'm just gonna meet up with Hitro and road trip to Bavaria and Austria. screw war.

 

[Winner]

Well, the problem of many Americans is, that they totally underestimate the rest of the world on basis of few wars with technically underdeveloped enemies.

Just before I continue: yes, the US military is most powerful one, yes, the US military has probably the most modern technology available.

But... the bulk of US Navy, Airforce and Army still consists of Cold War weapons. For example the naval airforce is fairy old (though modernized few times) - F-14's, F/A-18's are really no match for modern European or Russian fighters equipped with modern missiles. I think a massive air strike with properly armed Eurofighters backed by some ground-attack fighters would cause a huge damage to the US carrier groups.

91%

82%

50%

43%

25%

21%

21%

This system was used to comprehensively evaluate the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) performance of the Eurofighter and other aircraft against an upgraded Su-27 Flanker (comparable to an Su-35 Super Flanker and its equivalents). The studies investigated all aspect best performances from the major systems on each aircraft; avionics, structure (including RCS data), engine performance (including fuel usage), defences and man-machine interfaces. In these tests the French Rafale utilised the Matra-BAe MICA air to air missile (which is the primary AA weapon of the French airforce) while the other aircraft used the Raytheon-Hughes AMRAAM.

These simulations concluded that Eurofighter has a win rating of 82% (100% equals always win, 0% equals always lose, 50% equals parity) against the target aircraft. A more typical way to present this data is as a combat exchange ratio, for the Typhoon this equals 4.5:1. In other words statistically one Eurofighter would be lost for every 4.5 Su-35 fighters shot down. This compares extremely favourably to the other aircraft (see also the BVR Combat Rating table); F-16C Falcon (0.3:1), F-15C Eagle (0.8:1), F-18C Hornet (0.3:1), F-18+ (0.4:1, NB this is not the current F-18E/F which is apparently a downgraded version of the F-18+ used in the studies) and Dassault Rafale (1:1). Only the LM/Boeing F-22 Raptor bettered the Eurofighter's performance with a combat exchange ratio of 10.1:1.

In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.

An important point to keep in mind when examining this data is that full details on the simulations have not been released. Without this information it is not possible to determine whether Eurofighter optimal profiles were examined at the expense of more varied combat missions. However these studies do give some indication as to the potential of the Typhoon.

I don't say that European militaries are hi-tech, no, in fact they have the same problem - lack of funding - multiplied by two. The most modern planes are not yet in service.

What I want to say is, that it is far from common notion in America that any European military except of British is very weak and wouldn't stand a chance against the ultra mega sci-fi hi-tech US forces. That's far from being true.

 

[Yeeek]

I believe first strikes to happen in a modern war between 2 modern countries, here Germany/USA. Would be aimed at their communication system. Internet, Televisions and such, yes mass media.

The EU also has its own GPS sat now. Galileo (sp?).

Maybe its still Sci-Fi materials. Electromagnetic bombs could be widely used.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Well, just thinking about the German mentality, I really doubt it. The Germans defend every centimetre, and their tactics mean that ten men cna hold off a hundred.

Seriously, seems like I'm the only one here who actually served in Germanies "Cold War" Bundeswehr.
Forget it. The Leo II may cause some headaches in one-to-one combat, but since any concept of combined arms or guerilla tactics is missing, it won't be too hard for the professional US troops.
Also, the US forces - if they manage to reach the Baltic Sea, of course - could easily disembark in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Approximately 60 million Germans would graciously gift all of German territory N of the Sauerland - Harz - Elbgebirge (Dresden) line to anyone who'd want it . Ok, Hamburg excluded.

Now, incading Switzerland...now THAT would be near impossible.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Everyone loses.

Yes, all around, we lose.

Also, we would use our favorite tactic, bomb the hell out of everything that moves. Also, some Eastern European nations seeking possible monetary and military gains would get involved to reap some of the rewards from capturing this economic giant.

And I agree with you Doc, invading Switzerland would be insane. Even if only considering the terrain.

 

[nonconformist]

Seriously, seems like I'm the only one here who actually served in Germanies "Cold War" Bundeswehr.
Forget it. The Leo II may cause some headaches in one-to-one combat, but since any concept of combined arms or guerilla tactics is missing, it won't be too hard for the professional US troops.
Also, the US forces - if they manage to reach the Baltic Sea, of course - could easily disembark in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Approximately 60 million Germans would graciously gift all of German territory N of the Sauerland - Harz - Elbgebirge (Dresden) line to anyone who'd want it . Ok, Hamburg excluded.

Now, incading Switzerland...now THAT would be near impossible.

I was under the impression that German doctrine was tailored towards snipers and light-antitank weapons, both of which will allow a relatively small number of people to hold off a much larger group while the main body retreats.

 

[El_Tigre]

Seriously, seems like I'm the only one here who actually served in Germanies "Cold War" Bundeswehr.
Forget it. The Leo II may cause some headaches in one-to-one combat, but since any concept of combined arms or guerilla tactics is missing, it won't be too hard for the professional US troops.

Well, I served in the post-"Cold War" Bundeswehr (conscript), and I got the impression that we actually do have a lot of potential for destroying enemy tank formations left. I clearly remember being told that our main main purpose against the Soviets would have been to intercept their "heavy metall" in a combined arms approach. Hence the large number of LeoIIs, hence the Luftwaffe's focus on fighter-bombers, hence the large number of artillery. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that, although the Bundeswehr is an army in transformation, a lot of this capacity is still left.

The loss of air superiority (even to carrier-based American aircraft very likely) is IMO a lot more worrying than the thought of US tanks on German soil.

 

[Verbose]

The loss of air superiority (even to carrier-based American aircraft very likely) is IMO a lot more worrying than the thought of US tanks on German soil.

Right.
No US airsuperiority, no invasion.

And the Luftwaffe is pretty big. Larger than both the French and British airforces.

Of course the US could take it out, but it might have to think about years of upgrading their carrier air-craft, building more carriers etc. That is, if land bases in the are aren't avilable.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Well, I served in the post-"Cold War" Bundeswehr (conscript), and I got the impression that we actually do have a lot of potential for destroying enemy tank formations left. I clearly remember being told that our main main purpose against the Soviets would have been to intercept their "heavy metall" in a combined arms approach. Hence the large number of LeoIIs, hence the Luftwaffe's focus on fighter-bombers, hence the large number of artillery.

I served in a 1st line APC unit (Hammelburg, close to the former frontier), and we were told often enough that our task is solely to delay the Red Army for about 20 minutes, until the US Choppers arrive...
Hence the utterly useless Marder APC (a good vehicle for transport, but zero combat value), and the useless MBB Bo 105 Copters. The Bundeswehr does have some powerful branches like the mountain troops, engineers, the subs or the tank forces in the Northern German Plains - but the training of most other units is highly questionable: If you're not a machine gunner, you don't get tought how to use that frickin' thing. If you're the gunner of an APC like me, you have no clue how to drive that vehicle etc. Extremely unprofessional.

 

[nonconformist]

I served in a 1st line APC unit (Hammelburg, close to the former frontier), and we were told often enough that our task is solely to delay the Red Army for about 20 minutes, until the US Choppers arrive...
.

That was my previosu point.....German doctrine is based on stalling a large force with a much smaller force, who will take exceptionally high casuaties.

 

[El_Tigre]

Yep, sounds to me like you were the cannon fodder that had to keep the Ruskies busy until the cavalry arrives.

You sure are glad that the Cold War is over, aren't you?!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yep, sounds to me like you were the cannon fodder that had to keep the Ruskies busy until the cavalry arrives.

You sure are glad that the Cold War is over, aren't you?!

Actually, I did verweigern (how to translate that? 'Conscensious objector' sounds lame, but that's what Leo comes up with) while I was there - and I'm REALLY happy about that. Changed my whole life for good, seriously. Would have never become a MD otherwise...

 

[IamSid]

I am sure we are all glad its over... No more always having the threat of tons of nuclear explosives over your head is always a good feeling.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Right.
No US airsuperiority, no invasion.

And the Luftwaffe is pretty big. Larger than both the French and British airforces.

Of course the US could take it out, but it might have to think about years of upgrading their carrier air-craft, building more carriers etc. That is, if land bases in the are aren't avilable.

The USN has 10 Nimitz supercarriers which can carry 60 F/A-18 and F-14fighters. Maybe alot more if other auxiliary aircraft and bombers were removed. So with those 10 ships they will be able to maybe support 600 or more fighters in both the North and Mediterranean sea with these 10 carriers alone. That’s not including the other USN carriers around.

On an unrelated note, the new CVN-21 program will start building even more bigger carriers that will be able to operate hundreds of fighters and bombers.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Actually, I did verweigern (how to translate that? 'Conscensious objector' sounds lame, but that's what Leo comes up with)

Oh, you mean a coward?

 

[nonconformist]

Actually, I did verweigern (how to translate that? 'Conscensious objector' sounds lame, but that's what Leo comes up with) while I was there - and I'm REALLY happy about that. Changed my whole life for good, seriously. Would have never become a MD otherwise...

Germany, along with most of Europe, has scrapped its conscriptive service, right?

And good to see you back, Doc.

 

[El_Tigre]

Actually, I did verweigern (how to translate that? 'Conscensious objector' sounds lame, but that's what Leo comes up with) while I was there - and I'm REALLY happy about that. Changed my whole life for good, seriously. Would have never become a MD otherwise...

Well, if it sounds lame you've found a perfect translation!!

Seriously, I would have done it, too, but Zivildienst lasts 3 months longer, and then I would have missed another semester at uni. BTW, I served with the Luftwaffe. Believe it or not, but during my "basic education" I never slept in a tent! Our physical training included playing soccer, going jogging on a voluntary basis and...

...that's it! No dirt, not much sweat, and very polite instructors! I never regretting going to the Army, because it didn't feel like army at all!!

(Can you hear all those Wehrmacht generals turning in their graves? )