Russia has some very good attack choppers and fighter aircraft. What they may lack in quality they make up for in quantity. They also have a very powerful fleet of Nuclear Submarines that dwarfs any individual European country.
I don't think you get how European isn't democratic, the elites do what they want and what the think is in Europe's best interests. The civilians don't matter, my guess is most people would just be happy to have a vote on something in Europe for once where the elites aren't in control. On the rest for must nuclear weapons may be out of the question in a war like this, Russia would stand a very good chance of nocking out the British and French nucks, as they are in a small area, but apart from that and energy I don't see how Russia could win.
The European and Russia jet numbers is about the same, but the Europeans have better jets, they can both build them at about the same rate, so it will come down to pilot number, on the Europe would win. Do you those subs stop the Europeans from taking out the Russia med and black sea fleets? I doubt Russian subs could attack the seas of Europe. It's is why Europe needs a bigger military and more better assets. Plus to get off Russian energy, but they is a huge reason why Russia would never now attack Europe, unless it was attack first, it has to much invested.
4 million men, that is not 4 million soldiers. Are you even slightly aware of what it would take to turn that many into an Army? First off, I would cut that number in half for starters. That elminates those to old, to young, to weak, to fat, conscientious objectors, criminals, and the druggies. So already, your 4 million man force is down to 2 million men. Then you have to train them. To train effective soldiers, you need from 4-6 months. Then there is the issue of bases. There are not enough bases to train and house that many soldiers, figure another 6-12 months to build these at a minimum. Then there is instructors. If you pull the top 10% of your current military and make them the drill sergeants and cadre to train these new soldiers, that will cut your current force by 10%, and take around 3 months to train them on how to do this. Then there is the equipment. The rifles, tanks, artillery, missiles, uniforms, boots, and everything else needed. Figure 9-18 months to get these production lines up to full capacity (at the expense of greatly if not eliminating manufactoring for the civilian sector). If you went all out starting today, you might be ready for this war by around 2015, if you went all out. And this is useing rough figures from WWII. The US started to mobilize for WWII as early as 1938. But at the end of 1941 it was still not ready for the war it found itself involved in. And the training requirements today are even harder then they were in 1941. You can't just take a civilian, give him a 45-60 day training and send him into the battlefield. Unless you want nothing but cannon fodder. And figure this in your budget and lists of numbers. As of 2008, it cost the US Government around $150,000 to train each soldier. This covers everything from their induction to their walking out of their advanced training school. Can Europe really afford to train even the 2 million figure of eligable men? And that is just training, not including the cost of their advanced weapons systems.
4 million men, that is not 4 million soldiers. Are you even slightly aware of what it would take to turn that many into an Army? First off, I would cut that number in half for starters. That elminates those to old, to young, to weak, to fat, conscientious objectors, criminals, and the druggies. So already, your 4 million man force is down to 2 million men. Then you have to train them. To train effective soldiers, you need from 4-6 months. Then there is the issue of bases. There are not enough bases to train and house that many soldiers, figure another 6-12 months to build these at a minimum. Then there is instructors. If you pull the top 10% of your current military and make them the drill sergeants and cadre to train these new soldiers, that will cut your current force by 10%, and take around 3 months to train them on how to do this. Then there is the equipment. The rifles, tanks, artillery, missiles, uniforms, boots, and everything else needed. Figure 9-18 months to get these production lines up to full capacity (at the expense of greatly if not eliminating manufactoring for the civilian sector). If you went all out starting today, you might be ready for this war by around 2015, if you went all out. And this is useing rough figures from WWII. The US started to mobilize for WWII as early as 1938. But at the end of 1941 it was still not ready for the war it found itself involved in. And the training requirements today are even harder then they were in 1941. You can't just take a civilian, give him a 45-60 day training and send him into the battlefield. Unless you want nothing but cannon fodder. And figure this in your budget and lists of numbers. As of 2008, it cost the US Government around $150,000 to train each soldier. This covers everything from their induction to their walking out of their advanced training school. Can Europe really afford to train even the 2 million figure of eligable men? And that is just training, not including the cost of their advanced weapons systems.
Should I say it again? Research, Research, Research. Here are the numbers of the largest European Air Forces, and the size of the Russian Air Force. And remember, just the Russian Air Force, not the Air Forces of the Russian Federation. Germany: 427 aircraft, of which 322 are fighter aircraft France: 358 aircraft, of which 305 are fighter aircraft England: 998, of which 207 are fighter aircraft Are you ready? Russia: 2,795 aircraft, of which 1,021 are fighter aircraft OK, so when are 1,783 and 2,795 "about the same"? When are 834 and 1,021 "about the same"? And remember, this is not counting the reserves, which they would quickly be calling up. Or the other Russian Allied nations that would be in on their side either.
Europe has 2 million men, the same number as Russia. Plus a bigger economy, more people. Plus the 2 main European nations are far enough away giving them time to react to any Russia attack, so most of eastern Europe and Finland would be under Russian contol by the end of the first week, but by the end of the month numbers would have bogged the Russians down plus keeping hold of what they have taken. Plus how long would it take Russia to move up troops from the east or even central Russia? The distance and numbers will do for the Russians.
You must be joking? How can you just say 3 Europe nations, and act like that is all Europe has and then bang on about the Russia federation and it's allies. What is the Russia federation? Because from what I can see it is Russia, and who are these allies? Belarus and central Asia, if so I am really bothered, as the Ukrine would never back Russia. So give us the really numbers next time.
OK, now I am totally confused. You told me something else just a little bit ago: So which is it, 2 million or 4 million? Actually, none of the above. The actual population is 502 million. Of which, around 5 million are males of the appropriate age. And according to the statistics of most nations, only around 25% are actually fit enough to serve in the military. This cuts it down to 1.25 million. But let's go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt, and allow 50% to serve, which makes it 2.5 million. Russia has a population of 142 million. Of these, around 10 million are males of the appropriate age (this demographic is over 4% larger in Russia then it is in the EU). However, they have a much lower rejection percentage, making on average 80% of their population fit for the military. This comes to around 20 million potential soldiers. Total figures? 8 million soldiers. Significantly higher then even the more accurate number of 5 million potential soldiers then what you have been making up. Even if you make all the rejection numbers the same, you still have an 8 to 5 advantage in manpower to the side of Russia. Yes, the populations are almost the same. However, in the EU only 67% of the population is in the prime military age group. In Russia, it is 72% of the population. The main difference in population is attributed to their lower life expectency (68 years in Russia against 78 years in the EU) and the lower number of the elderly (13% in Russia, 17% in the EU). The percentage of children in the EU is higher also, 16% of the population in the EU, compared to 15% in Russia. In the event of a war, this would also be to Russia's benefit because it would maximize the number in the prime age group to work, farm and fight. Those to old or young to fight would simply take away more resources that the warriors could use.
The of age man power in Europe is more like 80 million, so what is that cut into 4? 20 million. There is just no way Russia could out number the Europeans. There is over 3 time or of them. Plus why are so many Russians fit for service, because they are forced to join the military, the Europeans are not. This whole out numbered argement is rubbish. You said the European could have 2 million troops at the current time. I was just going off that.
From wiki Russia has 2776 total aircraft, 1266 of which are fighters, bombers or fighter bombers. Europe into total has has over 3000 aircraft, 1245 of which are fighters, bombers or fighter bombers, not including 10 airforces in the EU.
I listed those 3, because by far they have the largest air forces. Not the only, but the majority of them. OK, want the rest of the European nations? Here are some of them: Albania: 55 aircraft, no fighters Armenia: 51 aircraft, 30 fighters (Russian Allied nation) Austria: 74 aircraft, 15 of which are fighters Azerbaijan: 473 aircraft, 49 of which are fighters Belarus: 312 aircraft, 136 of which are fighters (Russian Allied nation) Belguim: 149 aircraft, 60 of which are fighters Bosnia and Herzegovina: 2 aircraft, no fighters Bulgaria: 171 aircraft, 52 of which are fighters Are you seeing a trend here? I only have gone as far as B, but already we are seeing that the air forces are both very low, and for the most part the percentage of fighters to all aircraft is fairly low. Except for those nations that would most likely side with Russia, where half of their inventory or more are fighters. And when added up, they are pretty equal. Then you have one of the next largest national air forces: Ukraine: 313 aircraft, 191 fighters And in the event of a European war, I would place Ukraine firmly in the Russian side. They still have ties with Russia, and would be the first nation to be destroyed if they resisted a Western invasion. They would either join Russia or die. When you add them all up, the European Nations and those that would ally with Russia are generally about even. But their smaller numbers and lack of a unified command struction would make them far less effective then that of the Russian Air Force.
You're making too many false assumptions. Numbers lie a lot--how many of those planes are in some sort of phased maintenance? In modifications? Down with a bird strike? At any given time, you can safely assume a quarter or so of your force is unavailably, and that's if you have great maintenance crews. Quality of aircraft and aircrew also matters a great deal. A properly flown MiG-23 is going to tear a badly flown Typhoon a new one every time. Mass matters, too. Thirty two MiG-29s are going to be tough to beat when you only have eight Eurofighters. The Russian equipment is not to be discounted--their stuff is good and their pilots are in just as much a hurry to die as ours are. You are also discounting the virtues of their IADS. Just becuase the US smashed a third world IADS or two doesn't mean the Russian one would be nearly so simple to crack. Remember Serbia? Ever wonder why we spent so much treasure, time and effort developing a B-2 or the F-22? Because we needed it to defeat the USSR. We're very, very good at what we do because we don't simply assume our potential foes are morons driving junk and who also happen to be in a rush to die for their cause. Remember who the Soviets beat, how they did it and what they did it with. Simply throwing number up on a screen and discounting who you're fighting is going to lose you a lot of wars.
So my point on them having about the same numbers of aircraft was right then? and the point in the threat is that Europe needs to spend more money and need a unified command. You have proved my points, so thank you.
Let me repeat my last sentence again. When you add them all up, the European Nations and those that would ally with Russia are generally about even. But their smaller numbers and lack of a unified command struction would make them far less effective then that of the Russian Air Force. Now let me repeat what talonlm just said: The air forces of Europe are a scattered conglomerate, each with their own commanders, ROE, tactics, and level of commitment. Add into this the differences in radio frequencies, languages, and tactics, and they will not be operating as a unified force. Heck, look at the closest 2 air forces of different nations in history, England and the US during WWII. These nations were closely allied and unified, and even shared the same language. Yet joint actions almost never happened, they operated seperately most of the time. This is what would happen in Europe. A roughly numerical but inferior quantity of fighters, in groups of 50-200 operating seperately, against a superior force that will all operate under the same command structure, same training, and same equipment. As France and England struggle to work together, the smaller air forces of the other nations would be crushed. Russia would have a strong unified command, Europe will be fractured for various reasons. In the end, the unified force (Russia) would dominate.
Reading this thread with interest....i can see the points raised from both sides of the argument. Its a difficult one to call.....Russia vs Rest of Europe. If it were today, and the Russian soldiers were well trained, and thier equipment upto scratch, then i belive they could steam roller through mainland Europe in a lightning attack, due to overwhelming land forces, and aerial attack. If Europe had time before a conflict started, then i believe the Russians wouldn't get very far. The manufacturing base of Europe and overwhelming population would ensure they had the means to stem a Russian invasion. Remember the training and availibility of manpower applies to both sides. Population wise...off the top of my head there are some 141 million Russians, 40 mil Ukranians. versus some 80 mil Germans 65 mil French 62 mil British 60 mil Italians 40+ mil Spanish 40+ mil Polish 16 mil Dutch plus all the Scandinavians, Belgians, Austrians, Czechs, Romanians, Greeks, Slavs, Portugal, Bulgaria etc etc. ..........er except perhaps for the Swiss Ah yes....would Turkey be included? So you can see that Europe has a massive manpower potential...but as has been pointed out Europe would need a well organised central command to bring all these people together into a fighting coesive unit. Umm
You have my condolences on having small balls. Thank you for this informative post. Et the end, it has more useful information, that you wrote in this thread before. Just for you to know, we have 200 000 contract soldiers, which are "professional" in your classification. Oh look what we have here. You wrote that our equipment is rusty just a couple ours and days ago, but suddenly bring up, that we have "some very good attack choppers and fighter aircraft" and "a very powerful fleet of Nuclear Submarines" just to troll euros. Kinda two-faced you know. Despite the fact that I completely agree about the impotence of European armies, which are unlikely to organize themselves and counter any invasion, not to mention the conduct of offensive operations, I do not think that will be effective to attack European countries in the forehead in the case of war, because our army, though still superior to combined European forces, too, are not in the great shape. Taking into account an enormous level of Europe's dependence on exports of resources it would be much easier to "spin the valve" and engage in the destruction of civilian and military infrastructure with the help of the submarine fleet and strategic aircraft, and I assume Europe's ability to confront it's own strategy is questionable , Europe's economy would be destroyed within weeks, and I doubt in the ability of eurowussies to live for years without the benefits of civilization. From the other side, I am proud to say, our complete superiority in AA defenses in both quality and quantity and our airforce assistance would make impossible using any kind of classical NATO non-contact strategy on us. Well this is just my opinion. ***** Ahhh....don't think that multiply Israeli wars with Arab states was any kind of NATO-vs-Warshaw pact strategy. I thought Israel used the same "Warshaw pact strategy" if I may say so. And only full incompetence of Arab states military was the reason why they lost having both quantity and sometimes quality superiority over Israel. ******** I've been waiting this thread to turn into "EU vs Russia". Just too much fun *************** This thread is useless and should be closed. Topic starter is all about "I think we should build X frigates, Y destroyers and Z aircraft carriers". What sort of dispute is that?! In fact I don't believe any EU or "Europe" defense pact is possible at all. Just look what is happening with EU debt crisis and countries relations. Even IF there will be any "pact" it would turn into sort of Britain and France "helping" Poland during WW2 in any major conflict.
Still how does all this writing get away from the fact Europe needs a unified command ans to spend more money on defence.
I just don't think Russia is going to be able to move uppwards of 2 million troops, and take the whole of eastern Europe, from Finland-Greece. Russia doesn't have the assets to move across that much land in that amount of time, they will get bogged down and then the western Europeans would build them out of the war. Also note that most eastern European nation have be prepared from a war with Russia for the last 20 years.
You are missing the point entirely. Europe will never have a unified command. To much distrust, to much anger, to many betrayals in the past, to many instances of neighbor screwing neighbor. And it is almost certain that no nation will put it's military under the command of other nations. And most nations of Europe can't afford to spend more money on defense. Many can barely afford to spend what they are now. Unified command? Never happen. Heck, not even NATO has a unified command. What makes you think that the rest of the Continent would do any better?
You seem to lack reading comprehension. Up until the late 80s early 90s Russia had the largest army in the world. While its equipment wasn't generally up to U.s. standards, it was nonetheless good and very effective at what it was designed for. Since that time much of the equipment and many of the troops have been decommissioned/mothballed. The Russian military today is just a shell of what it used to be. However, its still a very powerful shell. Much of the Russian military structure is still in play. It still designs and builds some top tier equipment and is a formidable foe. It is NOT what it once was though. Read before you try and label me.
You need to ask administration to change your nickname into "IgnoranceisMe". Rly? Fighters? Su-27>F-15 AA? S-300>Patriot Anti-ship missiles? Granit>>>Harpoon I enjoy your sense of humor. So.....what? I still failed to understand how this makes me wrong about you saying: a) Russian warfare is rusty. Their subs are useless. b)Russia has some very good attack choppers and fighter aircraft. They also have a very powerful fleet of Nuclear Submarines I think this is "small" logical fail from your side.
We know that during a conflict that Russia could rely on its oil and mineral resources to keep its war machine going for a while, but its finances are dwarfed by Europe. Germany, Britain, France and Italy each have a higher GDP than Russia alone, when you add all the wealth of all the other European nations, its actually the greatest GDP in the world. Yes, Europe does not spend much of its finances on Defence, but that is political, as most of the money goes on health, education, pensions and welfare, thats why the West is such a cosy place to live.........BUT if there was a conflict i think the Europeans could finance a massive war machine, which would eventually grind Russia down, as long as Europe is well organised. Another question to answer is what would the US do about its bases in Europe if a conflict broke out, i mean they could be accidently hit. Where i live in East Anglia, England there are two large USAF bases near me.
I thought tanks are made of steel and using gas. Nope. Only Germany GDP (PPP) is higher. It would take years to build a proper army. If war hapeen you would not have them. Failed in both 1812 and 1941.
Eh? Steel is made from minerals Eh???????? Not sure GDP of Russia is higher than UK or France True, but if Europe had sometime it could manage. I hope! Umm, it was a very close run thing in 1941, may of been a different outcome if Hitler had started the campaign earlier, and not redirected his forces, before going on to Moscow............and that attack was from one European nation only. When you Russians attack, will you bomb England?
