WAR: Eurasia vs. America

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 06:42am

What we have: Eurasia and America battling each other. Time: shortly after Iraq war. It's non-nuclear war, since only in this case we can have someone win or lose. Let's assume nuclears are not used at all, otherwise it's senceless. Other type of WMD can be used, but not in huge quantities. Both need to: defend their own territory, conquer enemy territory.
On one side, we have, basically: USA (and Canada), England, Australia (and Spain, and others). They are A-Coalition.
On the other side: Germany, Russia, France, China, North Korea (and others). They will be called B-Coalition.
Who will win the war? Could the US and it's allies conquer the Eurasia, or could the opposition defeat the US and it's allies, and conquer their territory?
The A-Coalition has it's force group in the Iraq region. The B-Coalition has it's troops displaced to defend, because the danger was realised before war broke out.
Let's make some possible scenario - what would be your first steps, if you were the A-Coalition? What would you do, if you were the B-Coalition? Where would you strike first? How would you deploy your troops?

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-03-26 07:11am

Judging from the current situation, I think the A-coalition would be a little war-tired after Iraq, the people of the A-coalition might scream to halt the war if they get a whiff of such an invasion to happen.

And there are too many uncontrollable factors in this scenario, Japan, Indo-China, Latin-America, South America, Africa, the result would either be a whole messy quicksand fight or one side gets a very good tactic to win the war.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 07:15am

Grand Moff Yenchin

the people of the A-coalition might scream to halt the war if they get a whiff of such an invasion to happen

We can give them up to a year or even some more for recovery.

Japan, Indo-China, Latin-America, South America, Africa

Who's a serious thing from these? Japan?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-26 07:15am

280 Million US Citizens.
+200 Million firearms
-------------------------------
lots of dead invaders

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 07:18am

Col. Crackpot
Well, I agree. It will probably be hard to invade USA. But why not? This country had no invasion experience. And many bombs = many dead citizens, and missiles also count because Patriot misses them.
P.S. Actually I don't think that it's likely the USA being conquered.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-03-26 07:21am

They have improved the Patriot's accuracy... so much that it's now functioning as a normal SAM and trying to shoot down friendly aircraft...

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 07:22am

Crayz9000
They improved. But I'm speaking of the Patriot missing missiles recently in Iraq.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 07:27am

I doubt that the B coalition could even invade Spain+Portugal, provided that we have U.S+British military backup. The Perinees are a sizeable obstacle when the defenders side has air and oceanic supremacy. France would promptly surrender, and Germany doesn't have the military.

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-03-26 07:31am

Stas Bush wrote:Grand Moff Yenchin
Japan, Indo-China, Latin-America, South America, Africa
Who's a serious thing from these? Japan?

Japan might do a thing with the economics, Indo-China may serve as a front line to attack China, Latin-America may serve as a front line to attack North America, Africa might serve as a pain or pat in an ass for the forces at Iraq....too many factors....undoubtly a mucky war.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-26 07:54am

Stas Bush wrote:Col. Crackpot
This country had no invasion experience.

1812

P.S. Actually I don't think that it's likely the USA being conquered.

Not at the moment, but give it a few decades at the rate you're going and you'll be in the same situation as the UK is now.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 08:14am

NecronLord
Okay: no recent invasion experience. By recent I mean the XX century. War-torn Eurasia is hardened. The defences stay solid and are improved. What about US?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-26 08:48am

Stas Bush

the only Nations in the B co. that are a significant threat are Russia, China and North Korea. Germany has little to no armed forces and France (don't get me started)...not only that but neither have the will to go to war with a country half their size, never mind the US et. al. Of the remaining 3 only Russia has significant force projection, and even that isn't what it used to be.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-26 08:51am

The B-Coalition is at a serious disadvantage in taking out the A-Coalition powers, as the latter are mostly maritime powers (with the navies that it entails) while the former are more or less continental powers - which makes it so that the A-Coalition will have to raise massive armies.

Therefore, B-Coalition is unlikely to win, period, while the A-Coalition may (though it'd be exceptionally bloody if they try)

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 08:56am

Col. Crackpot wrote:Stas Bush

the only Nations in the B co. that are a significant threat are Russia, China and North Korea. Germany has little to no armed forces and France (don't get me started)...not only that but neither have the will to go to war with a country half their size, never mind the US et. al. Of the remaining 3 only Russia has significant force projection, and even that isn't what it used to be.

It doesn't even begin to be a fair fight. The Iberian peninsula alone is bigger than France or Germany, and our military and economy is not that behind (Spain's military has done enormous progress in the last twenty years, ours is small but well equiped for a defensive war). Allied with the U.K, we're more than a match for a France/Germany coalition.

What would Russia do, short of nukes? They have some manpower but not the means of projecting it without being stomped by the U.S or U.K air and naval forces. The same with China and North Korea. In a immediate conflict (no time for military build up of either parts), B coalition would get their ass kicked seven days a week.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:03am

The A-Coalition is under no serious military threat from B-Coalition, but I'm sorry A-Coalition doesn't stand a chance in hell of making any significant progress.

The Iberian peninsula alone is bigger than France or Germany, and our military and economy is not that behind (Spain's military has done enormous progress in the last twenty years, ours is small but well equiped for a defensive war). Allied with the U.K, we're more than a match for a France/Germany coalition.

No way man. Germany's military may be a little schizo but France is a serious problem- they have excellent SAMs, tanks (LeClerc), excellent infantry (including the good ol Foreign Legion)- and Germany ain't no push over either. As for the UK airforce- not up to the task of taking France on. France has better aircraft.

There's also the issue of how the Coalitions would cooperate. Nightmare scenario- the skies of B-Coalition defended by Russian S-300PMU2 systems.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-26 09:08am

Vympel wrote:No way man. Germany's military may be a little schizo but France is a serious problem- they have excellent SAMs, tanks (LeClerc), excellent infantry (including the good ol Foreign Legion)- and Germany ain't no push over either. As for the UK airforce- not up to the task of taking France on. France has better aircraft.

I think he was referring more of a defensive action against the Franco-German bloc rather than invading them.

There's also the issue of how the Coalitions would cooperate. Nightmare scenario- the skies of B-Coalition defended by Russian S-300PMU2 systems.

We'll have PAC-2/PAC-3 batteries defending A-C territory (from whatever aircraft can actually rearch them) and S-300 batteries defending B-C territory, swatting down anything in reach.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 09:10am

In the end though, B-Coalition (and I think this has already been stated) lacks any credible force-projection capability. So while it *might* be able to defend its territory it certainly won't be able to launce an invasion.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 09:13am

No way man. Germany's military may be a little schizo but France is a serious problem- they have excellent SAMs, tanks (LeClerc), excellent infantry (including the good ol Foreign Legion)- and Germany ain't no push over either. As for the UK airforce- not up to the task of taking France on. France has better aircraft.

There's also the issue of how the Coalitions would cooperate. Nightmare scenario- the skies of B-Coalition defended by Russian S-300PMU2 systems.

Actually, I was still refering to their capability to invade us, not the other way around. If they had help from third parties, then we'd also have the U.S. Of course, it would be very messy. But Spain and Portugal would be a nighmare for the French army to conquer and dominate. Again

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 09:37am

I already stated that it's no-nuke war. Otherwise the world will be just rendered unihabitable and we'll have Fallout (remember, btw, that in the Fallout the Americans started the nuke-war)...
Defence of continent and invasion on near enemy:
1. Germany and France will receive their help from Russia, if needed, and fast. The US will have to transport troops overseas.
2. Spain could be utterly defeated if it will fall under the vector-prime of B co. counterattack.
3. Britain could be invaded, although it will be no easy play.
Invasion on US:
1. Unprecended fleet build-up will be needed unless some other means of transportation will be invented. Large fleet&air battles - inescapable.
2. Once on US ground, it will not be as bloody as in Eurasia, since US presumably (I may be wrong) does not have huge ground defences, bunker networks left from previous wars (like the ones left in Europe and Russia).
3. The very possibility of invasion hangs upon air cover and supreme battle tech. Having ground battle technology of both Europe and Asia, the B co. would wipe anyone's ass, but I'm not sure about the air domination.
In case of immediate war, the B. coalition will have enough time for build-up in war-time since it will be more than able to defend it's own territory.
We assume 100% trust and help between the both Allies, do we?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-26 09:46am

Stas Bush wrote:I already stated that it's no-nuke war. Otherwise the world will be just rendered unihabitable and we'll have Fallout (remember, btw, that in the Fallout the Americans started the nuke-war)...

Don't use games to bring up a point, while the US started the war there was no indication that we actually launched first (the last reports were US Mobile Infantry reaching Beijing).

Furthermore, we've never had the number of nukes (even in the 1960s with 20GT arsenals) to destroy the human race. Furthermore, fallout is only generated in any meaningful amount by groundbursts, which also happen the have the smallest destructive radius. Cities would be taken out by airbusts, which are generally "clean."

Finally, with the state of the Russian and Chinese arsenals (especially with the Russian switch in emphasis to a more bomber-based force), it's entirely possible the US and UK nuclear arsenal could get the drop on them. Nuclear war is winnable! (For a good (abliet stomach-churning and dated read), see Kahn's On Thermonuclear War)

Germany and France will receive their help from Russia, if needed, and fast. The US will have to transport troops overseas.

True - the advantages of being a continental power.

2. Spain could be utterly defeated if it will fall under the vector-prime of B co. counterattack.

Could. The US might also be able to get enough forces in to stop the German-French-Russian offensive - and I'd imagine for at least the Russian component the logistics would be nightmarish. There's very little integration between the Eastern and Western armies.

Britain could be invaded, although it will be no easy play.

With whose amphibious forces? No-one has the blue-water capability to defeat the US Atlantic Fleet and the Royal Navy - and any invasion will be stopped as a result. Crossing the Channel is a dicey operation.

1. Unprecended fleet build-up will be needed unless some other means of transportation will be invented. Large fleet&air battles - inescapable.

And probably a US victory. While the B-Coalition is building up their fleets, so is the A-Coalition, and we have a lot more experience to draw upon.

2. Once on US ground, it will not be as bloody as in Eurasia, since US presumably (I may be wrong) does not have huge ground defences, bunker networks left from previous wars (like the ones left in Europe and Russia).

We don't, but they can be built in the time it'd take for any theoretical invasion.

3. The very possibility of invasion hangs upon air cover and supreme battle tech. Having ground battle technology of both Europe and Asia, the B co. would wipe anyone's ass, but I'm not sure about the air domination.

You can't take the A-Coalition, your navies simply aren't powerful enough. The integration of Russian and Franco-German technologies will also take quite a bit of time - the integration of the A-Coalition is already present and accounted for.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-26 09:51am

A would destroy the economy of B with a simple blockade and a few missiles in the right places. But there not going to conquore them in less then a decade.

B can defend its self from heavy attacks. But without sufficent naval power it has little hope of ever winning.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-26 09:55am

Sea Skimmer wrote:B can defend its self from heavy attacks. But without sufficent naval power it has little hope of ever winning.

Slighty off-topic here: Sea Skimmer, have you read Seapower as Strategy yet?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 09:57am

Stas Bush.

Your latest scenario implies that the U.S would remain powerless while the glorious Russian and French army stomp all over the Iberian Peninsula, and manage to take out the U.K, somehow. Only with the U.S military already in Europe (suppose it retreats to Spain and the U.K) it is reasonable to assume the lines would hold until further reinforcements arrive. The Perinees would only be trespassed at a very high cost, once the explosives take care of bridges, tunnels and roads. Spain is a country easy to defend.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 10:06am

The US might also be able to get enough forces in to stop the German-French-Russian offensive

Unlikely. Still, might be. But even if the offensive would be stopped for a time, the continental powers, as we know, have the ability to deploy forces faster.

With whose amphibious forces?

Russisch

Well, I mean that the B. co can provide enough fleet to defend the invasion of Britain channels, although it's not enough to battle on itself against American or British. A small spot on sea could be turned into a well-defended displacement.

Crossing the Channel is a dicey operation.

Agree. But the La-Manche is small: it can be crossed by air, and fast. It depends on who will react faster.

And probably a US victory.

Good point, although it's really unknown. You know, Japan was the supreme naval power of the world by the time of 1941. But the US defeated it so utterly...

but they can be built in the time it'd take for any theoretical invasion.

Presumably yes. Although the supreme war underground took >3 years to be built.

The integration of Russian and Franco-German technologies will also take quite a bit of time

Remember we also have the Koreans, which can be at least a bit useful in the Pacific.

the integration of the A-Coalition is already present and accounted for.

A point. If they make the sudden strike, unlikely B co. could then conquer them, although obvious it can defend itself. If the B. co. makes the sudden strike... Oh... too bad for peace, but good if the B's are willing to win ultimately on enemy territory.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 10:12am

Sea Skimmer

A would destroy the economy of B with a simple blockade and a few missiles in the right places.

Wrong, I think. The blockade would do nothing, since in war-time the continental powers fall under the Principle of Authority. They have self-sufficient production. Europe and Russia are the creators of genious, while China and, again Russia, can supply the war with resources. Actually, huge resource capabilities of the former USSR countries will be explored and used in emergency, but what will the US use, since they have run out of most of resources? This is also a point.
And what about missiles? If you don't mean nukes, then silly: missiles failed to eliminate Saddam (although much has been bragged in the first days), why should they now succeed in eliminating important objects?
Colonel Olrik
I only said it is likely if Spain falls under vector prime (and if there's the majority of US force, why not?).

Only with the U.S military already in Europe (suppose it retreats to Spain and the U.K

Yes, then Spain falls under vector prime because Britain is harder to assault.

The Perinees would only be trespassed at a very high cost

How puny the naval power of the B. co, it could have at least cope with the Mediterranean.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

WAR: Eurasia vs. America

Who would win, and how?

WAR: Eurasia vs. America