EU vs USA!!!!

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-12-07 12:26am

yangja isuko wrote:fine fine fine, i concede, hands down, US would win.

yes, you heard me, you win the argument, all of you.
ofcourse, again as i said, the devastation on both sides would be huge.

personally, i'm all in favor of expanding EU military capabilities and getting a singular foreign policy making in place so we can provide a counterweight to america (and the world does need one).

but hey, i'm just a 'retard' to some of you anyway.

the lcf still kicks arse.

LOL welcome to Stardestroyer.net!

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2004-12-07 02:55am

American weather can be Fuuuunnnnnn.

The Euros will have to decide when to go carefully because if they decide wrong they could get a nice Huricane up the ass. Come up from Mexico through Texas during Spring and Summer and find out WHY the center of he US is called Tornado Alley.

Lets talk size as well. Imagine Operation Barbarossa being a seaborne invasion and being supplied from across the Atlantic..thats the SCALE it would need to be to attempt to be sucsessful.

I think the other memebers could tell you xactly how much we do have but there is a shitoad of war material in the US that I thinkm is still useable.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-07 04:38am

RedImperator wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: He claims that the Dutch and British navies have sufficient sealift power to get troops across the Atlantic, and that Dutch air defense destroyers would kick a carrier air wing's ass.
Bullshit, of course. Nuts, hit Reply too soon.
...he was serious about the Dutch navy clearing the USN out of the Atlantic?

not clearing out, just holding their own.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-07 04:46am

yes, as i allready conceded, i was wrong on many many points, no need to go insulting me after that. if i were to strictly hold to my views without admitting i was wrong, then you could do so.

ofcourse, i don't think that occupying any modern nation is really possible, even though america would probably be the most difficult population wise. (but don't discount european resistence, we're tough mofos when we need to be)

which brings me to the whole reason i started this, the fact that i don't like america has the most guns, why does it need all these guns? i don't like having america, whose policies i strongly disagree with, having all these guns.

if only a few more people voted the other way.

anyway:

to add some more fuel to the flames:

if you invade us, maybe you could absorb some culture.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-07 05:06am

if you invade us, maybe you could absorb some culture

Yeah we really absorbed alot of culture the last time we invaded the European mainland.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-07 05:42am

Most of it in Petri dishes.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-12-07 05:49am

frigidmagi wrote:
if you invade us, maybe you could absorb some culture
Yeah we really absorbed alot of culture the last time we invaded the European mainland.

ZING!

So, you started all this because you don't like that America has guns, and you think invading will make us give them up? Well, to paraphrase the NRA, you can have the guns after you take the ammo!

Americans need guns because if you give all the power to the State, you turn into a european socialist paradise.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-07 05:55am

yangja isuko wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
...he was serious about the Dutch navy clearing the USN out of the Atlantic?
not clearing out, just holding their own.

I'd just love for you to explain the logic behind the Dutch navy being so powerful because it has SM-1 missiles. Keeping in mind that the SM-1 and the Mk.13 launchers the Dutch navy uses for them where designed and built in America, and that the American Navy now considered the system obsolete and is removing both components from service in favor of far better things.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-12-07 06:18am

EU vs US? Not a chance in hell. I even think the EU with Russia can't win in a conventional war

Unless we use sauerkraut on the yanks

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-12-07 06:27am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:ZING!

So, you started all this because you don't like that America has guns, and you think invading will make us give them up? Well, to paraphrase the NRA, you can have the guns after you take the ammo!

Americans need guns because if you give all the power to the State, you turn into a european socialist paradise.

I do believe the gentleman is referring to our military power, not our personal pieces.

I believe cultured types refer to that as a 'faux pas'.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-12-07 06:30am

For the record, the OOB for the Dutch Surface navy has 4 LCF Frigates (well 3 now, but lets assume all 4). Which are the 'uber' Air Defence ships of the Dutch Navy. Combined in a mutualy supporting formation. They have a maximum of 64 Missiles including both the SM-2's and ESSM's (half each). So the 4 ships have exactly 256 SAM's between them.

A typical Carrier Battlegroup of say a Nimitz class Carrier, a Burke class Destroyer and a Pery class frigate and a pair of SSN's. The Carrier airwing has 36 FA-18F Super Hornets and 10 F-14 Interceptors. Assuming the Tomcats are held back for local defence and the Superhornets each are carrying 4 Harpoon attack missiles, except for one flight which are carrying HARM missiles. Also assume that the EA-6B prowlers are along.

The incomming attack aircraft come in low and fast after the Carrier launches them, say 800 kilometers away. At the edge of SM2 range (~100 miles) the Prowlers go to active on their radar jamming. Without an airborn screen, the fighters can pick their ingress route without that much trouble. When you reach say 90 miles, have the first squadron volley off their Harpoons. This will of course get the attention of the Frigates, forcing them to instantly switch from locking up the strike force, to targeting the one hundred and fourty four Harpoons inbound.

The first fighters will then turn back. The remainder of the pack climbs steaply and the six hornets volley off their HARM's, followed by the final six hornets with their Harpoons. Then the entire pack turns for home.

The Frigates here will first be trying to blast through the jammers and get a lock while the strike force is closing in rapidly. Then they will see one hundred and fourty four missiles racing in towards them and of course switch their fire control to engaging them. Even if you assume they shoot down EVERY SINGLE Harpoon with ONE missile (VERY unlikly), the frigates have just used up over half their total SAM magazine limits. The faster HARM missiles will probably have roared in and overtaken the first Harpoon wave, so unless the frigates are REALLY on the ball, they may have missed them and their threat. If they can knock out the phased array radars on the ships, then they are completly naked for the second wave of Harpoons. Even if they don't, even if the Frigates shoot down EVERY SINGLE MISSILE, even if they do so EVENLY and every ship shares the burden, even if EVERY missile is shot down with only one counter missile....

You have shot off just about all your SAM's. The next attack will get through and you will die. The escorting Burke class DDG and Subs can volley off the weapons while the Fighters are being recovered and reloaded if you want. Hell, if you can have the Subs close within missile range from the OTHER side of the ships when the strike is launched....

In shot, a single Carrier group HORRIBLY outmatches a Frigate navy. The amount of firepower an airwing can put out is greater then the majority of the worlds defence forces. Within about a thousand klicks of a carrier, nothing can be on the surface that the Carrier doesn't know about and doesn't want to be there. Period.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-12-07 06:34am

BTW when I said 'the majority of the worlds defence forces' I was talking about on a One v one Situation, not COMBINED

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-07 06:49am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I hadn't really thought about pilots, but that's another good point.

Everybody forgets about the pilots... until they're overhead.

I can think of a number of ways to make life unpleasent for people on the ground, but I won't go into that because these days posting such things on a public message board can lead to uncomfortable visits from government employees.

There's a lot of technology and weaponry well distributed throughout the US - and, as pointed out, a lot of former military folks distributed among the civilians. You probably could lay seige to some of the major cities, but even that wouldn't be all that easy. Cities like Chicago and New York have extensive underground networks of tunnels and no one has maps to the entire system (local government in Chicago at least is trying to correct that)

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-07 06:51am

that is a single CVBG. We currently have three have 13. 9 Nimitz Class 1 Kennedy Class, 1 Enterprise class (CVN's) and 2 Kitty Hawk Class (CV's).

Although one Kitty Hawk is currently being decommissioned and Being replaced by the USS Reagan (Nimitz). The Kitty Hawk herself is set to be replaced by the USS George H.W. Bush (Nimitz) currently under construction.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-07 07:01am

yangja isuko wrote:which brings me to the whole reason i started this, the fact that i don't like america has the most guns, why does it need all these guns?

Gee, I dunno - because wankers such as yourself keep drawing up plans to invade us?

You're correct - America doesn't need so many guns... Americans want that many guns. And they have the money to buy them.

Upset because a bunch of former colonials are now on top? Boo-fucking-hoo. If Europe hadn't spent so much of the 19th and 20th Centuries blowing the fuck out of each other maybe you'd be ahead of the game.

Granted this board is based in Canada, so I don't expect it to be wildly happy about the US and I expect open criticism of the US.... but you barged in here with provacative statements - why are you surprised that the Americans respond with venom?

Not to mention how laughable some of your statements were - even the folks outside of the US felt compelled to comment upon the ignorance displayed.

Want to criticize the US? OK. Want to talk about reigning in the power of the US? Fine - but let's maintain some contact with reality. Unless you don't mind looking like a fool.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-07 08:22am

yangja isuko wrote:which brings me to the whole reason i started this, the fact that i don't like america has the most guns, why does it need all these guns? i don't like having america, whose policies i strongly disagree with, having all these guns.

if only a few more people voted the other way.

Would you rather that Comrades Stalin and Khrushchev had had all the guns back in the day while the U.S. went about spending on universal healthcare and disbanding it's military? You wouldn't have your nice, comfortable Western Europe.

Or if you're talking about voting the other way just this past election, you know what? We'd still have plenty o' guns.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-12-07 11:43am

Don't you know that the EU invasion is taking the first steps right now?

First off destroy all science education in the schools so that future generations will be dumb and unable to design new weapons and stuff.

We have the churches on our side promoting hate against everyone that don't think like them. Jerry Farwell is out main asset right now.

We rigged the election so GW II would come to power and destroy all hope for a sensible American foreign policy, soon USA will be hated all over the globe and noone will give a shit about USA.

We supplied the information so GW II would end up in a war the either forces you to reinstate Conscription and be hated in the USA or continue with stop loss and see the influx of new bodies to the armed forces dwindle to nothing. THEN you are ripe!

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-12-07 11:55am

Faram wrote:Don't you know that the EU invasion is taking the first steps right now?

First off destroy all science education in the schools so that future generations will be dumb and unable to design new weapons and stuff.

We have the churches on our side promoting hate against everyone that don't think like them. Jerry Farwell is out main asset right now.

We rigged the election so GW II would come to power and destroy all hope for a sensible American foreign policy, soon USA will be hated all over the globe and noone will give a shit about USA.

We supplied the information so GW II would end up in a war the either forces you to reinstate Conscription and be hated in the USA or continue with stop loss and see the influx of new bodies to the armed forces dwindle to nothing. THEN you are ripe!

Shh, its classified.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-07 01:02pm

declining enlistment? My cousin had to wait 3 months to get into the air force because they have exceeded this year's maximum enlistment quota.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-07 01:16pm

SecondStorm wrote:By your own link theres 914 Leopard 2A6 or better variant.
A wee bit more than the several hundred that you claim. But a wee bit less than the several thousands though.

This makes me curious as to who have the better tank-force of the EU and the US.

There are a total of about +/- 3,200 Leopard 2s of all variants (including older variants such as the 2A5 and 2A4) in existance, period vs. 4,800 M1A1s, and almost 1,200 M1A2s (half of which are the top-of-the line M1A2SEP model) in US service.

Bear in mind the only real difference between the M1A1 (that is, the "heavy armor" M1A1s, which have a DU mesh added to their frontal armor) and M1A2 is electronics and fire control: in almost every other way they're identical: but, if we want to make things interesting, lets add Europe's other modern MBT forces:

Britain: 386 Challenger 2
France: 406 LeClerc
Italy: 200 Ariete C1 (note: the Ariete is overpriced crap: it has a 120mm gun, but it's armor protection is sadly lacking by modern standards, and it has no other special capabilites)

that's +/- 4,100 EuroTanks vs. +/- 6,000 M1A1s and M1A2s. Also, if you add the older 105mm-gunned versions of the Abrams (which can be upgraded to the M1A1 or M1A2 standard) that brings the total to 8,800.

I'd also hazard that US tank crews are superior, due to their access to better training facilities in the form of the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, California, which is a massive range that allows crews to do mock battle in actual tanks: the NTC is complete with a dedicated OpFor, the elite 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (who set the standard by which every US armored formation is judged). Rarely do European crews have the chance to indulge in such "hands-on" training that is standard for US tank crews, and tanking is a very "hands-on" profession that you really can't fully learn from simulators...

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-07 01:30pm

An EU military force will not happen for many, many, many years thought. It will trip up on many different problems, but the biggest, most glaring, and most irreconcileable: Germany would put the brakes on joining any military that used nuclear weapons or nuclear powered ships, and France will not give them up.

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-12-07 05:03pm

Typhonis 1 wrote:American weather can be Fuuuunnnnnn.

The image popping into my head here is that of Spanish and Italian troops attempting to garrison Buffalo during a blizzard while natives walk by saying "Snowing enough for ya yet?!".

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-07 07:46pm

yangja isuko wrote: which brings me to the whole reason i started this, the fact that i don't like america has the most guns, why does it need all these guns? i don't like having america, whose policies i strongly disagree with, having all these guns.

Had to be ready to liberate Europe again, if need be.

if only a few more people voted the other way.

anyway:

They were both assholes and even if Kerry did win, you really wouldn't see much change on issues.

to add some more fuel to the flames:

if you invade us, maybe you could absorb some culture.

We already bought your culture and reworked it American style.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-07 08:03pm

I guess one of the things that piss me off like the wankerism displayed here is the snotty, unspoken arrogance that somehow everything would be better if Europeans were running the show.

You know, various bits of Europe had a go at world domination. For the most part, the dominees weren't happy. I mean, what the hell was North America 250 years ago? Nice real estate... but people were being sold at auction in New Orleans, the British were teaching the natives how to scalp people for fun and profit, and the newcomers were spreading diseases that may have wiped out up to 90% of the natives. Yeah, that was real blissful.

I suppose we could check in with folks in India, North Africa, South America, and Australia to ask about how things were when one European power or another was running the show. I'd suggest asking the Tasmanians, but they were exterminated. Oops.

So why the hell would I expect Euro-trash showing up on my home turf to be any better that the settled-in-bandits currently occupying Washington DC?

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-12-07 08:20pm

Broomstick wrote:So why the hell would I expect Euro-trash showing up on my home turf to be any better that the settled-in-bandits currently occupying Washington DC?

<sarcasm> Because they're civilized, and cultured, and they have a history that goes back over a thousand years. And they had a whole bunch of philosophers and scientists like Galileo and Descartes and stuff, so they must be better. <sarcasm>