 |
| |
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
I thought this was the EU/Russia vs. the US? You can't just throw in the rest of the world when it's convenient... |
If you just please read the goddamn thread before posting. the Russia+EU part is only for the Atlantic area. I personally have named: Europe, Russia, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and possibly others. Those listed countries alone have a population of 3 billion!!
quote:
We have a strategic oil reserve for just that purpose. |
I believe it was calculated that those will only last for 6 months at most.
quote:
Most of the imported oil comes from Mexico and South America anyway. |
I'm not quite sure of that. Source?
quote:
The rest of the world would suffer also. |
I said they would, didn't I. The point is, the US economy will collapse and the rest of the world's economies won't (sure some will, not all).
quote:
Not to mention, once the economy switches over to a war-time mode, those integrated trading routes become alot less important. |
This isn't Civ3 you know
quote:
A coordinated, entrenched 270 million, leading in technology. |
You honeslty expect 270 million people to fight?  Most Americans talk a lot, but won't actually fight. They are too used to their comfy lifestyles. The US doesn't have an Afghan-style war mentality. Plus, even if the US can call up a few million troops, and maintain+arm them, most of them will be poorly trained and cannon fodder. The US can't sustain heavy casualties, while countries like China and India certainly can. And since in population alone the US is outnumbered 12 to 25 times, and in armed forces they would be outnumber even more than that, the US doesn't stand much of a chance in a long war of nutrition. They simply are too small.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
The total of Harriers on VSTOL Carriers is 2 to 3 times as high. |
And my point still stands. If 300 Harriers go up against 300 Tomcats/Superhornets, they will lose. Badly.
quote:
Iceland has many military facilities, especcially for aircraft. These aren't for the Icelandic military (which doesn't really exist) but for foreign (read NATO) forces. It was a key location back in the Cold War, and NATO realised that. The island can certain support quite a number of aircraft. |
Indeed so, and, IIRC, the maximum number of aircraft based out of Iceland during the Cold War was a couple of squadrons of F-15s, some P-3 Orions for subhunting, a couple of liason planes, and a couple of radar aircraft.
quote:
Considering the combined EU navy is about 20% bigger than that of the US, I find this rather hard to believe, since the US has to fight on two fronts. |
No it doesn't. China, et al, don't have blue-water navies, at least not in sufficient numbers to threaten a single US base.
quote:
What happened to the subs? |
I already explained the subs. Basically, most of Europe's subs are not suited to long-distance operations, they are coastal diesal boats. England, and to a lesser extent France, and Russia (the few they have available), are the main European powers that have submarines that could operate against a coordinated US fleet. Those subs would die pretty quickly, too, either from US submarines, S-3 Vikings, or dedicated ASW frigates and helicopters.
quote:
Oh yeah, while the US is surrounded by enemies they go off invading Greenland, which is miles away and right in between Canadian and European forces. |
Mark, you aren't reading, I already told you how Canada would easily be neutralized, and a single armored division hitting Mexico would pretty much neutralize them as well. How hard do you think it would be for a US carrier group to escort a Marine Amphibious Unit, or even a Marine brigade, up to Greenland, take the place unopposed, land some combat engineers, fly in some fighters and security personnel, and bingo.
quote:
And who needs to occupy Iceland? They are basically our allies. |
By occupy, I mean move the aircraft, supplies, infrastructure, defenses, etc. - this takes time.
quote:
You honeslty expect 270 million people to fight? |
YOU honestly expect 300 million Europeans to fight, or support a fight? Get real. We're talking hypothetical, and if you're people support a war then Americans get to as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
I already explained the subs. Basically, most of Europe's subs are not suited to long-distance operations, they are coastal diesal boats. England, and to a lesser extent France, and Russia (the few they have available), are the main European powers that have submarines that could operate against a coordinated US fleet. Those subs would die pretty quickly, too, either from US submarines, S-3 Vikings, or dedicated ASW frigates and helicopters. |
Please do some research before making assumptions.
Russia+EU have a total of: 81 nuclear powered subs, plus 33 diesel non coastal subs, plus a number of coastal subs.
The US has a total of: 72 nuclear powered subs.
And don't you think Europe and Russia have ASW frigates and helicopters too?
quote:
And my point still stands. If 300 Harriers go up against 300 Tomcats/Superhornets, they will lose. Badly. |
But 300 Harriers, plus 150 Rafales/Typhoons/Gripen will beat 300 Tomcats/Hornets.
quote:
YOU honestly expect 300 million Europeans to fight, or support a fight? |
Did I say that? Please note that this isn't EU vs US, but World vs US.
Yep, thanks. This source shows that the US will lose most of it's oil.
Comment of Greenland will follow, but you don't honestly expect the Europeans and Russians just let Greenland sit there undefended, do you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Please do some research before making assumptions. |
Submarine Inventories for European nations and Russia:
Source: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
Bulgaria - 1 Romeo class patrol submarine (Slava)
Croatia - 1 Velebit class midget submarine (Velebit)
Denmark - 1 Nacken class - the Kronborg. Entered service in 1980.; 3 Kobben class COASTAL submarines (Tumleren, Saelen, Springeren
France - 2 Le Triomphant SSBNs (Le Triomphant, Le Temeraire); 2 L'Inflexible SSBNs (L'Indomptable, L'Inflexible); 6 Amethyste SSNs (Rubis, Saphir, Casabianca, Emeraude, Amethyste, Perle)
Germany - 12 Type206A Coastal Submarines, all from the 1970s (U15, U16, U17, U18, U22, U23, U24, U25, U26, U28, U29, U30)
Greece - 8 Glavkos class Coastal Submarines (Glavkos, Nereus, Triton, Proteus, Poseidon, Amfrititi, Okeanos, Pontos)
Note: I'm sick of listing all the exact names, just assume I have access to them.
Italy - 8 coastal submarines
Netherlands - 4 Walrus class diesal submarines
Norway - 12 coastal submarines
Poland - 1 Kilo class submarine, 2 Foxtrot class submarines
Portgual - 2 coastal submarines
Russia -
Note on Russia:
State of the Russian Fleet: Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.
This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available.
2 Typhoon class SSBNs; 6 Delta-IV class SSBNs; 8 Delta-III SSBNs; 8 Oscar-II SSGNs; 10 Akula/Akula-II SSNs; 2 Sierra-II SSNs; 1 Sierra-I SSN; 8 Victor-III SSNs; 18 Kilo class diesal submarines
Spain - 8 coastal submarines
Sweden - 9 diesel submarines
Turkey - 16 coastal/patrol submarines
Ukraine - 1 Foxtrot class submarine
UK - 4 Vanguard class SSBNs; 7 Trafalgar class SSNs; 5 Swiftsure class SSNs
Yugoslavia - 1 coastal submarine
Relevant Totals (SSBNs, SSGNs, SSNs, and non-coastal/patrol diesel electrics):
24 SSBNs
8 SSGNs
39 SSNs
36 SSKs (I believe that is the designation for diesel-electrics)
However, 21 of those SSNs, more than half, belong to Russia. No reasonable estimate would allow that all of those are operational, they just cannot be given the current state of the Russian military. I'll be overly generous, however, and allow you 10 Russian SSNs. That is VERY generous, I think.
Further, the 32 SSBNs/SSGNs don'ts figure into an attack submarine matchup - they aren't suited for that role, and if you allow those in for you guys, you have to allow the US Ohios to be counted. So, we're down to 28 SSNs, and 36 SSKs, a total of 64 submarines, all from various nations that are not used to operating together, do not have uniform weapons, uniform shipyards, uniform repair procedures, etc., etc.
How's that for research
quote:
And don't you think Europe and Russia have ASW frigates and helicopters too? |
I imagine, but the US doesn't need to use it's submarines to go after your fleet, it would use it's submarines to go after YOUR submarines, and further for missile strikes on bases such as Iceland, whereas in order to have a prayer you have to use your submarines in an offensive role against the US carriers.
quote:
But 300 Harriers, plus 150 Rafales/Typhoons/Gripen will beat 300 Tomcats/Hornets. |
I still don't agree that 150 fighters could operate from Iceland. In addition, you are forgetting US aircover from Greenland and US bombing and submarine attack missions against Iceland.
quote:
Comment of Greenland will follow, but you don't honestly expect the Europeans and Russians just let Greenland sit there undefended, do you? |
Not a hell of a lot they can do about it. What're you gonna do, descend on Greenland with paratroops? Send troops in by sea? Not that you would have control of the seas. Further, Greenland is closer to US bases than it is to European bases, and is within easy range of US bombing capability, along with US carrier groups.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Most Americans talk a lot, but won't actually fight. |
You understand absolutely nothing about American mentality.
When it comes to some bullsh1t place like Vietnam, Somalia, or Kossovo, Americans could give two sh1ts about fighting. Let our professional soldiers do their job, that's what they volunteered for.
HOWEVER, if someone directly threatens us, nearly every last single one of us will fight to the death the defend ourselves, and make sure the aggressor earns himself a rain of fire and a serious ass kicking in the process.
Imperial Japan once thought Americans wouldn't fight, too. Bin Laden thought the same thing. He is paying the price. The US will chase him until the ends of the Earth until he is found dead. Anyone else thinking of doing something like that will also meet the same fate.
And also, the EU has all of the best technology (next to us of course), and we could say the same thing about them being too comfortable in their lifestyles as well. But tarnation, they shore due talk alot!!!
Really, do you think you can summon up any EU country to attack the US? Please. The EU is way more reluctant to go to war than Americans are! With all the fears of nationalism, etc. etc.
Not only that, EU forces are mainly static, defensive forces.
Those Harriers are also useless. They are just another blip on the map to an F16 or F15.
Now please expand on the oil source.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Eliminator
|
|
Eliminatorville
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
There is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to invade the US. Not to mention that the Iceland-Greenland corridor would be impossible. The best bet would be through the Aleutians or across the Bering or from across the pole (which is also impossible, but relies less on navies). That is the reason why North America has always been untouchable - we're impossible to invade.
As for those oil stats, I don't know where they come from, but they are wrong. Check the Economist. Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US, and the Yanks would own Alberta and the Grand Banks in a matter of hours after the conflict began. More than enough oil to last for quite a few years. There is no way that the World would be able to take out industrial centres or oilfields, because they wouldn't be able to conduct bomb raids.
American air superiority is guaranteed over North America, Greenland, Iceland, 1/4 of Russia, and Japan. Naval superiority is guaranteed over the North Atlantic and Pacific.
The only thing I don't agree with so far on the American side is the confidence some have shown in Tomcats and Hornets. Tomcats are 35 years old, Hornets are 25 - and that is as good as it gets for the Navy. I would take Harriers any day. However, the Invinvible or the Hermes would'nt get 20 minutes into the North Atlantic Drift before they are sunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
The only thing I don't agree with so far on the American side is the confidence some have shown in Tomcats and Hornets. Tomcats are 35 years old, Hornets are 25 - and that is as good as it gets for the Navy. I would take Harriers any day. However, the Invinvible or the Hermes would'nt get 20 minutes into the North Atlantic Drift before they are sunk. |
WTF??? OK, go ahead and take those Harriers against US naval aviation
Lookit. Sure, the original production run of the Tomcats and Hornets are old - but they have been heavily upgraded over time. We are now flying the F-14D (admittedly dated, but a shitload better than the frickin' Sea Harrier), and the F/A-18E/F Superhornet (a ****load better than the Sea Harrier). Even MarkL quasi-admitted that US naval aircraft were superior.
quote:
American air superiority is guaranteed over North America, Greenland, Iceland, 1/4 of Russia, and Japan. Naval superiority is guaranteed over the North Atlantic and Pacific. |
To be completely fair, US air superiority over Iceland is very questionable at best. The US can't stage that many aircraft out of Greenland, and I'd think real hard before committing carriers to an offensive role that close to the European and Russian mainland. It's possible though.
Air superiority is definite over North America, the North Atlantic, and the Pacific.
I don't know where you are getting the 1/4 of Russia thing, but before MarkL blasts you for that let me strongly urge you to rethink. Same with Japan - Japan's air self defense force is nothing to sneeze at, and our only viable bases in the area or Kunsan AFB on South Korea and Okinawa (remember, for obvious reasons I'm assuming Taiwan, S. Korea, and Israel are with the US). I would think air neutrality at best over Japan, because of Japanese air defense assets as well as their modified F-16s, and the fact that the US air force in the Pacific would be heavily engaged with the PLAAF.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
One thing you're all forgetting, except for a few: most of the world's grain comes from North America. USA and Canada produce something like half the world's supply. Assuming it goes to war against you, you get rationing. Assuming Australia refuses to get involved (being the lovers of freedom that they are) you've just lost 3/4 of your food supply.combined with US naval war in South Atlantic, you're gonna get a lot of hungry mouths...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:16
|
|
Just tell them that they'll get food once they win and there is no turning back.....
Motivation is no prob.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
One thing you're all forgetting, except for a few: most of the world's grain comes from North America. USA and Canada produce something like half the world's supply. Assuming it goes to war against you, you get rationing. Assuming Australia refuses to get involved (being the lovers of freedom that they are) you've just lost 3/4 of your food supply.combined with US naval war in South Atlantic, you're gonna get a lot of hungry mouths... |
Yeah, good point, I brought it up earlier but of course no one listened.
As an extension, much of the rest of the world's grain comes from Argentina, Australia, and the Ukraine - and of those, the Ukraine is the most reliable source, followed by Australia. Shipments from Argentina would probably NOT happen, at least not following the defeat of the Russo-EU navy and the redeployment of the USN. Actually, after that defeat, the US might even be able to detach, say, 3 carrier groups to go after Australia, but without forward bases that would be an iffy proposition at best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Eliminator
The only thing I don't agree with so far on the American side is the confidence some have shown in Tomcats and Hornets. Tomcats are 35 years old, Hornets are 25 - and that is as good as it gets for the Navy. I would take Harriers any day. However, the Invinvible or the Hermes would'nt get 20 minutes into the North Atlantic Drift before they are sunk. |
Yes, the AIRFRAMES are old. The electronics are upgraded to a point where their lethality is cutting edge. If they are as good as the Navy gets, they are doing just fine.
You want to know what a Harrier does better than a Tomcat or a Hornet? In a dogfight, they would give those supersonic fighters fits, especially with thrust vectoring. Unfortunately, Phoenix and AMRAAM missles would swat those dragonfly Harriers out of the sky before they even had the Tomcat/Hornet fighter squadrons on radar...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Actually, I'm trying to figure out how this would occur. I'll buy that China and Russia go to war with the US, along with the Islamic states, maybe southern Asia. Perhaps the majority of the EU would as well, although since they disagree with any wars I find it hard to see them launching their massive armadas at the US But I see the following countries neutral or US allies: Taiwan, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia. Japan would probably be neutral as well. What does this mean? Since Canada probably won't be too thrilled with rampaging European armies crossing through their nation, they'll probably also fight. The key aspect that the US gets enough oil from Canada and Alaska for military uses. So while rationing will be in place, you won't freeze the USA. With most of the Pacific neutral, the US can divert its forces to fight the European armada, from Iceland. Invasion of America is pretty much impossible at this point. In addition, the US can simply blockade Argentina, or simply destroy the naval convoys carrying grain. With Australia, Canada, Argentina, and America no longer selling grain, expect the world to starve in short order. Oh, and with Britain neutral, the naval balance of power starts to swing heavily in the USA's favor. Mainly because they're one of the few nations which have carrier groups, and one of the others being the USA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Eliminator
|
|
Eliminatorville
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
If you are assuming that Taiwan and ROK are with the US, I'm also assuming that you'd know that they would be over-run by the Chinese and N Koreans in a matter of days/weeks. The Americans would withdraw their fleet from Taiwan asap, and probably airlift the garrison out of ROK asap. Also assuming that the Japanese and their F-15's would get decimated by your louded Naval Aviators (whose task force is in retreat), you now have Japan as an airbase. In a matter of hours you could have hundreds of fighters/bombers stationed securely in Okinowa. From there there should be no problem in wiping out China's Sukhois and Russias Migs. From airbases in the Aleutians, Japan, and Northern Alaska and Canada, you easily control 1/4 of Russian airspace. Until, of course, the Russians realize they cannot win and nuke Japan.
From Gander and Thule, American fighters would knock anything out of the sky that attempts to get off of Iceland, hence Icelandic air superiority.
Saying that the Americans would be "heavily engaged" with the PLAAF is a bit of an exaggeration. Sure they may have thousands of fighters, but how many work? Don't forget that none of their pilots are veterans.. Not much of a challenge for the Americans, especially up against F-16's and F-15's.
Navally, the Americans would have very little above surface forces in the East Pacific, fleets wouldn't stand a chance as the Tomcats would probably ensure a 15:1 kill ratio, but the maintenance required after each mission would be crippling. However, if the USMC stationed a couple of platforms with their much superior Harriers, the tide would quickly turn.
Also, don't forget about Midway, Ascention, and all of the other dozens of US Airbases around the world. The only airforce that could challenge them on a serious level would probably be the UK and France combined. American numbers and factories would overcome any losses.
Bottom line, USAF is unbeatable. Without USAF cover, the navy would not be as invincible as everyone assumes. Remember, all we've seen thus far is extremely lop sided engagements. Look at the challenge (although very minimal) that Argentina gave England! Times that by 100 and you have modern European forces destroying a very large proportion of American Carriers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2001 16:19
|