Europe vs US wars. Who would win - Part 2.

Great topic, unfourantly closed.

I want to say this:

Any war between US and europe is first looked at the context of current military power and with that, obviously the americans have the huge advantage of their military industrial complex.

But if such a war did start for whatever reason, the EU would create their own european military complex, pouring their huge resources into a combined miilitary.

This changes the whole debate. Now have french nukes being sent all over europe with the combined might of the former nato members strenghting european defenses.

Now this war can start, although let us forget about MAD policy and both dont nuke each other to the stone age.

A convential war between american current forces and a theorised combined Europe caught up in military blood lust.

 

It's tie in my view, the US would win at sea, the Europeans on land, and the air would be a tie.

 

After reading the original topic thread all 52 pages of it.

The common american plan is to invade europe and try to hold the continent.

First if ever such thing happened, the eu would block airspace trapping the yanks in the bases in europe.

While the usa positions their forces, the nasty games begin of proproganda of thousands of americans either killed by eu milirary in europe or shown on the media as prisoners of war.

Also we live in a nuclear generation, it be foolish to think america could safely move thier forces even near europe. A few nuclear strikes would cripple the entire usa fleet.

Now MAD comes into play with the USA fireing off thier nuclear arsenal as cant get near the coasts. France/uk responds and if a usa nuke loses tracking and hits russia now the russians fireing at america.

End result, everyone loses, as said a tie.

 

European would challenge US in the air? You kiddin' me? US Navy has more planes and far better trained pilots than entire Europe, not to mention US Air Force and USMC. Maybe they could provide some resistance on the ground, but in the face of enemy's total air dominance, it wouldn't last long.

 

I disagree and part of the problem with this debate the reason it was closed in the last thread. The nationalism of it all.

American posters like you being unrealistic and over hyping usa capabilities and denouncing european.

Blah blah better trained. Although if look at this beyond the flag waving to both sets of militaries they are fairly even.

 

So what's the US going to do fly F-22's over from the US, without being attacked by some Eurofighters or ground to air missiles. As their would be no carrier battles, the Europeans would just send 1,000 jets against the US fleet and sink 2-3 carriers, but lost about 300-400 jets in doing so. The smaller EU carriers would just be used for hit and run missions along the US coast.

So in the woodland of central Europe, where the Europeans would have air cover, and the US MBT isn't as effective, the Europeans would stop the US their and they wouldn't get anywhere, nodoubt getting pushed back.

 

How long would the Europeans have to befor the war started, 5 years?

But if the war started 1 week from now, then the US would win, also would the US have bases in Europe.

If Europe had 5 years to build up it' navy and airforce numbers then the US couldn't win.

 

Need to be realistic, europe is half a billion people with its own over priced military.

The EU politicians and generals would not sit twiddling their thumbs while the americans treated the EU like iraq.

EU fighter jets for example would bomb the usa air bases. Since they be cut off from supplies they be taken over. As said before, how could the usa even get near europe with navy to launch thier own fighters?

A war with a nuclear nation ie france, the simplest option is to nuke the approaching fleet.

 

The only problem with this is that building a massive military industrial complex able to rival America's takes time and money. Even with all major Western European powers combining their *active* militaries the US military still equals or outnumbers them in personnel and equipment.

Then there is also the problem of combining many cultures and languages into one effective military. Cohesion is built in time, not under emergency circumstances.

You also could see European nations forging an alliance with the United States if there is the potential for power or profit to be made. It would depend on the circumstances of how the war began.

I don't think that was the common plan. It would make far more sense to hold the sea and destroy or blockade European ports. Then gain air superiority and bomb airfields, manufacturing facilities, mines, and the like. Anything to reduce the EU's ability to manufacture replacements for their losses, and then the US could win a war of attrition.

Without a navy to stop blockades and ship production, and airfield and plants to produce new ground or air systems, the US could simply wait for the economies of Europe to stagnate or waver and seek a truce. There wouldn't be occupations of European countries due to the difficulty of holding a modern country, more or less it would be forcing them into a truce and minimizing their ability to resist naval and air raids.

The US doesn't have an advantage in land warfare, our strength (in my opinion) lies in the huge technological edge of the navy and air force over any other country.

Not that anyone is ever going to agree with the posts on this thread. The last thread saw both sides playing the nationalistic game. It's incredibly hard to factor patriotism out of your thought process, as most people have pride in their country. But hey, at least both sides would be patriotic!

 

I said 'common' as multiple posters put forward the same view, to charge europe all guns blazing.

Not sure on wearing down view as europe like america has most of the world to get resources from.

The biggest winner ironically be china and russia, they step in to supply both sides while european and american navies bomb each in the altantic.

Ah yes the nationalism problem. Even to the point of believing a full scale war with usa and europe, eu nations for some reason join the usa when they have more to gain by standing with the eu.

If a war the economics stop, the bribes payoffs etc.., usa couldent send money, no reason to support them.

Extremly hard to debate this since the american chatters are totally unrealistic to what europe is, they make it read like a 3rd world nation while the usa is glorified to the point of insanity.

 

The only thing is that it would depend entirely on who got naval superiority. Most trade is done by sea these days, as it is generally much faster and cheaper than land-based trade. Which is why I mentioned the blockading and destroying of ports, which would not be rebuilt in time to repair trade.

Land-based trade would then be the primary form of commerce and reduce the speed at which resources would enter Europe, allowing for the US to prevail in a war of attrition.

As for backings, I would say Russia would back the EU *if* the US attacked the EU. If it were due to European aggression, I imagine Russia would let the US wear down the EU before attempting to broker a peace between the two sides or sell supplies to the EU.

China would back the United States, due to the close trading relationship of the two countries and the treasury bonds China currently holds.

All speculation, as it would depend on the circumstances.

 

It was given as a possibility. Stray away from passive-aggressive insults.

You want to debate these possibilities, so debate your reasoning.

 

China makes as much money from europe as it does with america from trade. They be as close to neutral as can be. The assumption of usa views is america gets its own way with foriegn support but this is europe. again not a 3rd world nation.

They have huge sway in the world, able to cause as much damage be it military or economic destruction as the usa.

With russia, an option presents itself that the EU join forces with the kremlin. The assumption that russia stand iildly by when they cant stand american policies. It be an opportunity for them to end once and for all the missle shields in europe and a way to end them for good is to stop and end the usa.

Although Chad you just explained why the usa lose. The total arrogance to want nations like china to side with them and when they dont, now in a situation of the bejiing goverment continueing european trade. It would only take a stupid move by crazed american war mongering to sink a chinese ship for europe to gain the advantage,

 

Could be, would depend on how the war started. And also would depend on how many Chinese workers are employed by US or EU companies, of which I don't have the statistics. No country, especially not China, are going to stab themselves in the foot. Maybe they stay neutral, but either way they sell arms and equipment to both nations. However if European infrastructure is damaged, it will make receiving these arms difficult.

This goes back to my previous point. China won't do anything to endanger her trade relations with the US (not sure about EU as I don't live there), due to the money in treasury bonds which can be defaulted, or just in trade between the US and China and employment which Chinese workers receive in US companies. Not many countries want to send themselves into a recession.

However Russia also butts heads with European nations as well. They may not be able to stand the US, but they will also not favor a new superpower at their very doorstep. This goes to my previous point about EU aggression, if the EU started the war and began to win, Russia is not going to want an aggressive-expansionist superpower at their border.

The saying "the devil you know" comes into mind here.

 

European and russian relations be the key i think.

Without the usa in europe, finally see if the Eu and the kremlin can get on without the nonsense of colld war usa mentality.

Hard to say currently, as so much distrust. But russia wins either way, europe energy use would be huge, russian oil/gas prices go up i am sure.

And china, they have thier own views of power which dont involve the usa either, they see themselves as the next superpower. So a over estimation of thier loyatly to the usa.

Remember it be a full scale world war, the usa be in no poition to dictate to nations like china as if they anger them, they lost. Nations like china be in the upper hand poisition. They probably win when usa and europe destroy each other.

 

Ironic, as that would likely send the world into another Russa vs <nation> cold war.

Yes, but that is something which would gradually occur over time.

Will China need to ween itself off US employment? Sure. But that would be gradual process by building up their middle class and pulling citizens out of poverty and putting them into Chinese companies.

Then there is no chance of a recession occurring by deteriorated relations with the US, provided they can find other countries willing to buy their exports. Currently that is not possible, but maybe a couple decades in the future China will have a chance to become a superpower.

 

The views with china are the assumption they wont take a short term hit and play all sides, loseing both european and american support or supply them both if it means they are the nation who the world turns to after the usa/europe destroyed each other.

As ultimally if it went that far both europe and usa would cripple themselves economically and with militiary and be shattered for decades.

Look at the expense in the middle eastern wars, america is struggling while fighting urban terroirtsts. The usa would have to use all its resources to take on a nuclear continent with navy, air etc..

And vice versa with europe, their economies be in a sad state. If survive thru it.

 

The Europeans have better weapons like the Challenger 2, Eurofighter, Naval Rafale, Type 45 destroyer. But the US has a much better ability to project power, through it's better missile, carriers and bombers, something the Europeans just don't. And it will take the 5 years to start getting anywhere near the US in terms of that.

But the fact is the US isn't miles ahead of the Europeans, just it spends more and gets more, if the Europeans did the same, with their better weapons I see no reason why they couldn't win, apart from the fact the US has had 50 years of fighting and operations with huge carriers, in huge fleets, this will give the US a huge advantage early on, or the Europeans could just use smaller faster carriers, as I said to do hit and run missions, they would put out 30-40 of these in 5 years, where as at most 12 QE class carriers, which are must less effective than the US carriers. Or built huge carriers bigger than what the US has, but this would take 5 years just to build 1.

I would say if the Europeans could they should build these huge carrier, better missile, new crusiers, and type 45's with a larger number of missiles. But these ships would need to be made deep on the eastern side of the med, or even the black sea, with full air defence systems, ground support, air support, and even 1 or 2 smaller carriers to defend the port where the ships are being made.

 

None of the weapons you listed as "superior" are. The Rafale and Eurofighter aren't even in the same class as the F-22. The type 45 is effective at what it does, but its one ship. Naval warfare comes down to massive fleets operating in concert. Something that the U.S. excels at. I'm not exaggerating when I say that on the open seas the U.S. Navy could probably destroy all the rest of the world's Navy's combined. They are the only country with full sized fleet carriers....and they have 11 of them.

Europe lacks any kind of long range bomber capable of penetrating air defenses. The U.S. has the B-1, B-2, and even the F-22. In a ground war the U.S. would be unable to defeat Europe. In the air and on the high seas it'd be a different story. I'd imagine such a conflict would come down to a large blockade of Europe by the U.S. with a viscious air battle over Europe.

Your also forgetting that almost every single European country (large ones at least) buys a significant amount of their military hardware from the U.S. From F-16/F-15s, UH-60s, Javelins, TOWs, radars, and air defense equipment. Being cut of from their U.S. suppliers would be damaging. Not to mention most of the equipment sold to these countries are older models that the U.S. no longer fields.

 

There is nothing to argue about as I agree with you, and we are saying the same thing.

The F-22 hasn't been tested in operations yet, and it has had a great deal of problems and cost over runs, more so than just about any program in US military history. And the US has at most 200 F-22's, Europe has double that number of Eurofighters, which have been on operations and have done longer range flights than the F-22. But I am not saying in anyway that the F-22 isn't the best military jet ever made, just that it hasn't really been tested yet. What is was saying was the Eurofighter as I hae said many times is the best conventional fighter jet in the world, better than anything the US has, in conventional jets terms. And as for carrier jets, the Rafale is as good as the US carrier jets. The Europeans will build more type 45's, having more like 30-40 than 3, plus the new French and Italian destroyers, 30-40 again. The Europeans would need to make new class of crusier, which I am not sure they would beable to do in 5 years. Well European only has the Rafale or Tornado for ground attack, and hasn't had a long range bomber for a while. A new one would need to be made.

I just don't see how 200 F-22's are going to take out the whole European airforce, even with F-16 and F-15 with them, flying into European airspace.

So on the navy side you are right, on the land the US forces would get stuck in the woodlands of central Europe, which they couldn't use their full air and naval power and get pushed back.

And the OP said Europe would be making most if not all of it's own weapons, so you last point, about the Europeans getting most of their weapons from the US doesn't matter. Also do you really think the European are just going to lets the US block the Suez, no they would build a pipeline from Saudi along with the Russian pipeline and have all the weapons, food and fuel they need.

 

From reading american posters they are describing how the usa take huge amounts of heavy loses at the start of this theorised war.

You are treating europe like iraq.

What do you think is going to happen, the europeans idly sit by while the usa moves its forces to try and blocakde an entire continent.

Your forces would be destroyed if that happened, With the complete under estimation of the military technology europe has and could get.

In the short term mass buying of rusisan tech and long term make thier own. And usa tech is only marginally better in some areas.

So your forces, navy/air are trying to blockade a nuclear contnent while the huge amounts of resources of the Eu who have spent trillions shopping in the kremlin. now have migs,. eurofighters, anti ballistics, subs lieing in wait.

Also this isnt ww2, how would usa even get close to a ground invasion? Your planes be shot out of the sky over european air space, even if secure a 'friendly' euro nation you wont know if they are luring you into a trap to be cut off once get there.

I thought americans were smarter but you exist in arrogance and completly under estimate who you are fighting.

It is lucky for the usa they never fought the ussr in a huge war, by reading this america would end up as a putin state.

 

Why would the Europeans go to Russia for weapons? They are behind the Europeans, in technology terms. This is why they are buying French ships, and importing drones from the EU.

I don't under rate the US, infact I proberly over rate the Europeans. But even then the US has a very good chance, they have done many more operations like this. Europe would be on te back foot from the start.

 

Shouldent under estimate either side. America has a huge military and economics etc.. and capable of hurting europe.

But europe isnt a 3rd world nation, it isnt iraq and it certaintly wont play out as happened in iraq and usa wars over the past several years.

A nuclear continent with the resources the eu has able to gain as much of the world on their side as america could wouldent be as easy as american posters like to admit.

Also the military technology on this scale isnt that big of a jump, as said what europe lacks it buy from the russians. At which point the war become more equal.

 

Your grammar is so poor (I assume english is your second language) and your points are so general and unsupported I'm not going to take the time to debate with you.

 

No problem.

This wasnt as fun as i thought it would be. Americans on this forum are unrealisric fantasits who are far too nationalistic to have a decent debate with on this subject. Too arrogant and disrepectfull to europe.