| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Elverath
Village Leader
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 80
Location: USA |
I was curious and I know alot of you here are from europe so I figured I could ask you some questions.
1.) Are european militaries powerful? would they stand a chance if america went psycho and invaded you?
2.) has the UK ever considered just attacking france for the hell of it? Heh, its not like you've never done it before! 
_________________
Hush little baby dont say a word
Mamas gonna buy you a mocking bird
If that mocking bird dont sing
Mamas gonna bury it the backyard
-Stans mom |
Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:17 pm |
|
|
Secret Agent Lawanda
The last thing you see...
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 1041
Location: World of Darkness (LA) |
$10 says this topic will devolve within the first two pages! Who else would like to bet? *grin*
_________________
-=Professional Secret Agent=-
Moderator of The Anime and Manga Fan Club |
|
Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:39 pm |
|
|
Elverath
Village Leader
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 80
Location: USA |
You crazy? Im not taking that bet! Some1 just answer the damn questions!
_________________
Hush little baby dont say a word
Mamas gonna buy you a mocking bird
If that mocking bird dont sing
Mamas gonna bury it the backyard
-Stans mom |
|
Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:50 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
America could probably take on several Euro countries at least. If they emptied their entire nuke-arsenal, Europa wouldn't stand much of a chance... but neither would the US.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:59 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
If you find out the answers then make sure to let us know. I'm so curious *yawns*
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:22 pm |
|
|
Elverath
Village Leader
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 80
Location: USA |
Well take nukes out of the equation. They are just plain stupid anyways. Using nukes = everybody's dead. Nobody wins.
_________________
Hush little baby dont say a word
Mamas gonna buy you a mocking bird
If that mocking bird dont sing
Mamas gonna bury it the backyard
-Stans mom |
|
Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:27 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
The U.S. military is too reliant on Europe and both sides are too reliant on each other's economy for a protracted military engagement. In a war, military power is ultimately a reflection of economic power, and population out look. Any war between the U.S. and Europe would end up with a third party winner, China maybe? This is because the economies of both sides in a U.S./European conflict would be shot leaving them venerable.
The U.S. has two great strengths in a war against Europe. First, Europe is still politically and economically divided. Even if European Union (E. U.) could manage to bridge the political gap, the economic gap would be much harder to control. Regional identities would also hinder a composite E. U. army. Soldiers from different states (countries) often hate the idea of being under a commander from other states. Second, the U.S. already has a large military, huge stock piles of weapons, and expert trained military units. In fact, many of the countries around the world come to the U.S. for military training from our military. Including with those countries are European participants. The U.S. military is not only well trained, but they have a decisively offense capabilities. While many European militaries focus on defense as a primary mission.
European states do have some great military personal and units, which rival the U.S. in training and in spirit. England has a military on par in offense capability with the U.S., and France has a dependent and capable military. Germany has been slowly beefing up it's military for the last ten years, and I am sure their readiness is high now, too. But as a whole, they don’t have the cohesion the U.S. has. Our huge army already has trained together, and has a largely seamless top command. The E.U. would spend the first few years of the war fighting with them selves over who would be in charge of what, who would be making those decisions, and how to set up command and control of units. This is a huge hurdle for a military, and ultimately I think it would be Europe’s down fall.
This is just pure speculation, for the fun of speculating. I love Europe too much to want to see a war there: I love the world too much to want to see war at all. I don’t mean to offend any U.S. or European people. I worked with the NATO when I served in the military, and I have the highest regards to my many friends from around the world who where also serving their countries.
LB |
|
Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:17 am |
|
|
Elverath
Village Leader
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 80
Location: USA |
Well im not serious about a war with europe. Im just a big fan of the whole "what if" thing.
Ye know nobody's answered the 2nd question yet 
_________________
Hush little baby dont say a word
Mamas gonna buy you a mocking bird
If that mocking bird dont sing
Mamas gonna bury it the backyard
-Stans mom |
|
Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:45 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
French and U.K. have been long time economic and cultural rivals, but the last 100 years have been more stable. The two countries decided that they couldn't stand other European economic powers more than each other. I would guess that these two countries economic ties are too strong for either to consider war a solution. The only way I could see it happening is if E. U. solidifies with France and Germany at the controls, and U.K. filling its economic power fading, decides that must rid itself of the E. U. through Military means. The U.K. verses continital Europe has happend before to some extent.
LB |
|
Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:23 am |
|
|
Bartacus
Il Buono
Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 4706
Location: Belgium Flemmish part |
1. The total defence budget of the EU is about 60% of the one of the USA. Logical conclusion is that for this reason alone the EU would lose from the USA. As Lord_Brownie already said the US army has already a long tradition of working together, while the EU has still different army forces for each country. I must say however that this is not only because of the cultural or other difference between the countries. It's also because of NATO. The USA considers a European army as a rival for NATO and has already expressed many times their feelings about it. Since the UK has undoubtely the best contacts with the USA, they are too very much against it. If the EU would consist without the UK, I'll bet there would already be a EU force.
2. Most unlikely, you forget that in the last European wars the UK and France where in the same coallition. (WW I and II) If one attacks the other, you would simply see a coallition forming against the first attacker. (read: invader of that country.)
_________________
Moderator and Council Magician of the RPGDot Shadows
member of the Sports Fans Forum
Leader's Right Hand at the Gothic Rogues
NFG member |
|
Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:00 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I worked with a lot of European armies. Most of them are conscript and not that good in my opinion. German airborne soldiers serve a very limited time and NCO's really have no power, the officers have it all. And they drive these little funny things called weasels, its wierd. My mother is Sicilian so I was a little biased working with the Italians (also airborne), they might be the horniest soldiers in the world. I saw French soldiers but never worked closley with them. Same with Greek, etc.
England's army is not conscript, they are volentary and have proffesional soldiers like the US. They also have Gurkas who are very, very good soldiers. The only problem with Englands army that I could see is their main rifle, which jammed all the time. The magazine was loaded behind the rifle grip, I forget the name of it. But maybe it jammed all the time on me because I was inexperieneced with it, but the English soldiers complained about it also.
The US army has vast problems. When I joined the 82nd it was very rough and a nwe soldier (a cherry) went through hell to pay his dues. You never complained and you tarined your ass off, and I could say I was an elite soldier. But slowly over the next few years it all deterierated. They wanted you to hug cherries and make love to them and hold them and tell them everything will be alright and not to go AWOL. Complaining became as regular as breathing, and slowly we went from hard core to pansy-asses. Hopefully things have changed considering recent events and administration.
The greatest thing about marines is that they have high standards for their pogues and remfs. In the army if you are not combat arms, especially infantry, then you basically are a civilian that wears camoflage. If you are a marine, your a marine and are expected to be a marine. The marine infantry is still worse than the other jobs but at least the other remf jobs have standards.
But the best soldiers I have seen in Europe were the KLA (or UCK) gorillas. The ones that didn't join after NATO intervention when it was safe to join. These guys were as hard core as it got, and I have the upmost respect and admaration for them.
Saying all that the US vs. Europe is dependent on the situation. Are they invading us? We could repel them and win if our goal is just to repel them. Is our goal to attack? We have a chance of conquering Europe if you took england out of the picture, they would also have a chance of repeling us. Is the US population behind the war and support it? That is a huge factor.
But the US and Europes furure are locked together. Our economies are dependant on each other. And as the rest of the world is industrialized our GDP will shink together as Asia climbes and becomes the econimc superpower. I believe India will be the next US, with china and other Asian contries become the next Europe. Indians have a much bigger emphasis on education, work for a lot less, have more drive and appreciation for social stratisfacation, and also posses something that has gone missing here in the US which I believe to be character and honor.
Thats just my opinion though
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:08 pm |
|
|
ScOut3R
Tempered Warlord
Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 299
Location: Hungary |
As it was mentioned above, it is hard to answer the first question. We can write lots of evaluations. but they're just theory. In war, the greater part is the unexpected. So nobody can be sure about a war's outcome. History shows us, that the very most unexpected can happen. But here's only one sure thing: the defenders have more chance to come over the attacker.
It would be interesting if the US and the Europen joint forces take part in a great war-simulation against each other.
for the first part of your question:
I'm from Hungary. Our army is like a scout group. It's in a very bad shape. It's because we were in the Eastern block until 1989. So you can imagine our economy, at that has a great deal with the army. Just an example: our air force has about 10 aircraft; working 5; plenty fuel for 2. So we have 2 flying aircraft, but there's no money to arm them. But the air force is the worst:). The ground forces is in better shape. We have conscript and volunteer system, but in 2 years there'll be only volunteer (mercenaries). The training is quite good (i'm on the university, which trains the officers. but on civil course  ). The army's equipment is quite old: T-72s, BTRs. It has about 1200 T-72s, but working only 1-200. Well, it's enough for defense. The infantry is common: AKs, RPG-7, RPDs, just like a terrorist force  . The bad thing about our military is, that, we don't have heavy artillery. Only 1 battalion field artillery (i'm not sure that it is battalion size). Our tacticel helicopters quite good, Mi-24s. But we have few of them. But the is one positive thing about the army: we have ammunition for every weapon for at least 20 years. (If we don't upgrade, which we won't, because the lack of money:)).
And my opinion: it is hard for a country (which was in the eastern block) to heal his wounds after the collapse of the USSR. We're still learning the democracy. At least 20 more years has to go by, when the new generation - which won't have past (past in the old system) - will rule. Than we have a chance to improve our economy, and just after that the army. Because now, our politicans just yelling at each other (because of the past), and don't care about the country, and about the people.
Well, in the end i went away from the original question, sorry for that:), but i think, it plays an important role in our army's condition.
_________________
 |
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:53 am |
|
|
Iron Man
Dazed and Confused
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 773
Location: Location Location |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
The only problem with Englands army that I could see is their main rifle, which jammed all the time. The magazine was loaded behind the rifle grip, I forget the name of it. But maybe it jammed all the time on me because I was inexperieneced with it, but the English soldiers complained about it also.
True, when the SA80 first came into general use it had many serious drawbacks. For example, the magazine would simply fall out if the release catch brushed against the soldiers webbing and various other cock ups such as parts of the rifle just falling off. The MoD then comissioned Heckler and Koch to basicaly make it better. The A2 models of the SA80 family were a vast improvement on the originals. Even if they are still a little prone to stoppage. Being in the cadets I have fired the SA80 and several of its varients such as the Light Support Weapon. On the plus side, the SA80 is so accurate the British army had to revise the marksmanship tests.
quote:
Originally posted by Elverath
has the UK ever considered just attacking france for the hell of it? Heh, its not like you've never done it before!
Who told you?!?! Quickly lads! Hold him down while I get my syringe!
_________________
This box secretly turns into a picture and laughs at YOU personally when you're not looking. |
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:03 pm |
|
|
CNT-Dukoome
Village Dweller
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 9
Location: on a far distant place |
awnser question1 america could not take all of europe because 1 the joint millattry of europe is bigger and it is proofed that you're troops are not as mmm well trained the euro troops and you have the middle east and japan that would mainly support europe lets not forget hiroshima or gulf wars
awnser question 2 no to many political ties and the danger for ww3 because many peeps don't realise but if the eu europien union would disintegrate and france and gb would fight thats ww3 euro would choose sides and in the moment of flaw middle east and terrorist asian country's will attack and nukes wil go of bye bye world
if the vehicels on h2o exiset over all layers of the peeps i'll review
_________________
one ounch of loyalty is more then an army in fear of you |
|
Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:06 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by CNT-Dukoome
awnser question1 america could not take all of europe because 1 the joint millattry of europe is bigger and it is proofed that you're troops are not as mmm well trained the euro troops and you have the middle east and japan that would mainly support europe lets not forget hiroshima or gulf wars
How has the European military troops been proved to be better than the US's military troops? What countries troops are you talking about?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:18 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
