Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 20

 

2006-02-01 08:22:53
Schutzengel
Member
+0|6901

Sh1fty2K5 wrote:

Ever heard of Bofors? Or BILL2 ?
after looking at the Bofors website it looks like a Weapons maker ... but i still think it is funny that you are tearing into the US mil. while using their stuff.

and i think europe have become a bunch of ungrateful pussies... you guys tried to kill yourselves twice last century... and we were there both times to pull you out of your mess. and then to rebuild your countries ....


the US spent billions to rebuild europe and trillions to defend western europe from communist agression. you were allowed to build your socialist wuenderlaender without haveing to worry about your own defense. this came first from need because after WW2 europe had no military to speak of and for 20 years the russians swallowed up one country after another. but western europe lived in relative peace and prosperity... now the US is trying to leave europe and you are acting like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

who is the largest consumer of european goods?

who still provides nearly half of the defense of germany ... and a good portion of the air defense of england, and all of western europe ?


http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … f/53fs.htm

"Tiger, Tiger " dammit...

Last edited by Schutzengel (2006-02-01 08:23:56)

2006-02-03 17:46:30
Jepeto87
Member
+38|6925|Dublin
Why do people always give France a hard time? The whole French are pussies thing is the most inaccurate generalization I have ever heard ( well all generalization is inaccurate as you Americans would have to agree since many of you fall back on that when someone says claims you are all fat, ignorant and stupid, not that I agree with that statement! ) it really annoys me as I love studying history!

In WW1 no other country suffered as many casualties than French as a percentage of population, this shows they have spines as opposed to another country in the past fighting to halt communist expansion..... ( low blow sorry! )

During Operation Yellow(WW2) the French army lost more men that America in Vietnam and Korea and surrendered because the Germans had cut off the majority of there army in Belgium, they really had little left to fight with as the British decided to "depart" at this stage. Its a fair assumption to say that if the British Isles where a peninsula England to would have surrendered ( No offense to any British out there, I think any  country bordering Germany at this time would have been defeated at this time. )

Sorry about that rant guys and its not aimed at you in particular "Bronco" im just saying it to all as it bugs me!

Finally onto  my opinion of the topic question! I believe Europe as a whole would certainly win as its been fighting wars for centuries and it can still dig deep when it has to. Russia on our side would be a real advantage as it doesn’t seem to suffer from a condition sweeping western societies, "body bag syndrome" (as seen in Chechnya!! ) a fear of losing military personal. Europe could simply ( maybe a little harder than simple! )  re-equip the Russian air force, provide cash to re-launch to relanch  its submarine fleet( combined with the English navy this could be a real threat. )  and spare parts for its armored forces. Combined with existing European armies it would be probably win.... Not conquer, land mass, logistics etc make that impossible but they might win a conventional war.

Pity nobody would be around to see what with the nuclear winter on all..

Sorry for the extremely long post, im broke and couldn’t head out tonight.

Last edited by Jepeto87 (2006-02-03 17:54:30)

2006-02-04 06:29:16
sheggalism
Member
+16|6982|France
Think D-day. The combined EU airforces would obtain air superiority and then it would be no problem launching an amphibious assault. And i dislike france too, but their soldiers would kick some US ass, they are the hardest in the EU
as far as i know france is the biggest manufacturer of planes tanks etc inside europe and easily the strongest army
Since I'm from this country, I strongly agree
And for EU's lacks of oil ressources, in around 50 years, every vehicules will use Hydrogen engine system, we'll be able, thanks to UK and South Korea, to clone human cells, and clones & robots will fight instead of humans with more effectiveness.
And about US today economy : Ford and GM are totally pawned by european and japanese firms (Toyota, Renault-Nissan, Volkswagen, Honda, PSA, etc...).

USA = military-industrial complex (Eisenhower warn us) they are totally controled by it, that's why they've been battling since the 50's cause : war = oil+munitions+other stuff = incredible huge amount of money for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, McDonelds Douglas, etc....
2006-02-06 12:15:59
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

sheggalism wrote:

USA = military-industrial complex (Eisenhower warn us) they are totally controled by it, that's why they've been battling since the 50's cause : war = oil+munitions+other stuff = incredible huge amount of money for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, McDonelds Douglas, etc....
You have evidence for this conspiracy theory of yours, of course.  Right?
2006-03-06 03:45:28
SpartanXZ1
Member
+1|6989
mmm... i dun think there would be a full scale war such as those mentioned. nowadays, its all about nukes. huever nukes the opposing guy first ultimately wins. nuke their missle bases, and i dont see how they are going to counter it...
2006-03-06 05:04:08
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956
invasion on the US.... u need 10X the amount of troops that was used on d-day... did i mention that airborne operation is not possible? since transport planes will get shot down...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-03-06 06:16:12
Longbow
Member
+163|6886|Odessa, Ukraine
Nuclear weapons stoped the 3d world war for 50 years , i beleave they will do their mission in our century too .
2006-03-06 07:25:47
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6974|California

Rygar wrote:

Timing.  If the EU/Russians surprised the US troops in the Middle East, they'd
probably get a nuclear bomb dropped on the originating countries for pulling some shit like that.

And you would never take the US. You think we have all these gangbangers and trailer parkls for nothing?

Between drive by's in the ghetto, and cranked out white trash, Europe and Russia don't stand a chance of setting foot on our soil.

And Russia couldn't do much, most of the male population would be too drunk to do anything.
2006-03-06 07:44:49
Longbow
Member
+163|6886|Odessa, Ukraine
Erkut.hv , according to you , this fucken drunk russians achive victory fighting against 7\10 of Vermaht .
You think using stereotypes , nothing more i need to say about this.
You need to add that tigers and bears walk in the srteets of Sibir cityes and my opinion about you will be complete .

If the nukes wasn't created , your dear US wouldn't exist right now . Your politics sux , it is full of egoism . Many countryes hate you , milliards of people hate you .
The only thing , that stops lots of countryes to declare war to US is Nukes. Thats all i wanted to say.

Last edited by Longbow (2006-03-06 07:48:52)

2006-03-06 11:42:22
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Rygar wrote:

Timing.  If the EU/Russians surprised the US troops in the Middle East, they'd definately have the upper hand and  the US would probably go back to drafting.
Tough to surprise US when it has spy satellites orbiting the globe and lots of Intel Analysts looking at troop movements.  Impossible to do because EU and Russia don't have the logistical capacity to take on the US troops in the middle east.
Logistics, logistics, logistics.  The US is the only country in the world currently capable of moving large numbers of troops great distances to fight.

Longbow wrote:

Erkut.hv , according to you , this fucken drunk russians achive victory fighting against 7\10 of Vermaht .
You think using stereotypes , nothing more i need to say about this.
You need to add that tigers and bears walk in the srteets of Sibir cityes and my opinion about you will be complete .
The guy who works next to me is Russian, and he had a grandfather in Tanks during WWII.  Apparently, his grandfather told him, many of the troops were given lots of alcohol regularly.  Given the hardships they had to face, I don't doubt it's true.  I am not demeaning the bravery of the Russian fighers in the war - nobody can take away the fact that they bore the brunt of the war.

Longbow wrote:

If the nukes wasn't created , your dear US wouldn't exist right now .
Explain.

Longbow wrote:

Your politics sux , it is full of egoism . Many countryes hate you , milliards of people hate you.
Look up the difference between Egoism and Egotism, and then come back and tell us what you mean.  Millions hate us...I'm all broken up about that.

Longbow wrote:

The only thing , that stops lots of countryes to declare war to US is Nukes. Thats all i wanted to say.
Nukes help, the other part is that 'lots of countryes' are completely incapable of attacking the US with any credible force.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.  This is such a simple concept...why do SO MANY people have such a hard time with it?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-06 12:57:39)

2006-03-06 12:55:06
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Rygar wrote:

Well the US isn't the only country in the world capable of moving large numbers of troops large distances to fight.  I don't really understand why you said that other than the size of your Navy (which I'm not disputing, it's big, yes, but there's also about 50 miles between Russia and Alaska, and good luck getting British Columbia to stop them coming that way).
I stand by what I said.  The US can move a Brigade anywhere in the world in 18 hours, a Complete Division in a couple of days, and a Corps in a couple weeks.  No other country can do that.

Rygar wrote:

I'm not sure what denomination a millidard is, but I don't hate you, I just don't know why people shortchange the capability of anyone else doing anything efficiently (I also know how many functional submarines Canada has, but we don't count in a military context).
It's not a question of shortchanging anyone, no other country has the resources set up to accomplish the task, or the forces organized around doing it.  The Chinese, The Russians and the EU don't have the assets to move their troops quickly on a large scale, and no other country has enough troops to bother.

Rygar wrote:

And why would you quote me and change what I had said?
My mistake, I included my own comments in your quote by accident.  I fixed it so it reads the way it should  now.

Rygar wrote:

Spy satellites are something that everyone has access to, and the only way they'd be of use anyway is if someone did something so stupid as to organize their troops and march on the States' boys in the middle east under that pretense.
1)  I didn't say the US could surprise the EU or Russia, I said the EU and Russia couldn't surprise the states.  2)  The US currently has 130000 troops in Iraq alone.  Q: How many troops would the EU and Russia need to send to take them by surprise?  A: More than enough for their preparations to move to be detected by satellite.  Do you understand what intelligence analysts look for on those pictures?

Rygar wrote:

Besides that point is pretty useless anyway, seeings as the Brits, Cdns and others are involved there backing the US.  But that was the point I guess.  With all of THEIR troops intermixed with YOUR troops in the middle east a surprise would be easy to coordinate.  It would be hard to be kept secret, but easy to do in theory.
THAT is comical!  Do you know how many troops you are talking about in actual numbers?  US forces in Iraq HEAVILY outnumber all the other forces combined.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-06 13:02:02)

2006-03-06 13:04:56
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Rygar wrote:

Oh, you said that about the spy satellites in a section of quote, but I get what you meant.
Yes, I'm aware of how much American troops outnumber everyone else, but they aren't invinceable to the idea that all of your 'buddies' there suddenly turn on you when you don't expect it and aren't prepared.  That's what I was thinking when I said that.
Dude, you really need to read what I said.   The US forces HEAVILY outnumber ALL their allies in Iraq.  How much of an advantage do you think the element of surprise will give everyone else?  Enough to defeat an armored force triple their size in a country of open desert?  Doubtful.

Rygar wrote:

And I didn't mean to say that the States COULDN'T move their troops efficiently and quickly, I just meant that they aren't the only ones who can.
Again, read what I wrote - I expanded it a bit while you were posting.  They absolutely ARE the only ones who can.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-06 13:18:30)

2006-03-06 13:38:46
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Rygar wrote:

I figured the combined French and British navy's would be the most efficient of the EU/Russians to get going, and beyond that I figured it wouldn't take much to get the rest moving.
You figure wrong.   The US maintains large stores of equipment for troops to fall in on around the world, and Fast RORO's pre loaded in the US and in other places like Diego Garcia.  Also, the Marine Expeditionary forces sit on Amphibious assault ships around the world waiting for shit to happen; and the XVIII Airborne Corps consists of four rapid deployment Divisions.  No other country prepositions troops and equipment like the US does, or maintains large numbers of troops on alert like the US does, or has the airlift or sealift assets to move their forces like the US does.  It would take the Brits and the French a week just to load the transports, then they would have to make several trips to move their force, and both of them combined don't have the numbers to threaten the troops the US currently has in Iraq.

Rygar wrote:

I really don't know shit beyond what I've already said, so I can't really argue the point anymore.  I suppose that was the basis in the argument - I really don't see it impossible for a combined European force to mass and move.
That much is clear.

Rygar wrote:

You win.
I know.

Edit:  I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for our European colleagues.  Especially the Brits.  I have always enjoyed working with those guys.  But, the hypothetical situation presented here is a loser for them...they simply do not have the assets to take on the US.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-06 13:48:01)

2006-03-06 13:42:29
VIPERtwosix
Member
+2|6888|LGCA
My thoughts include:

All it takes is one attack from a foreign enemy, then Americans are up and ready to fight. Our Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. would increase tremendously.  We would NEVER be invaded, it simply wouldn't work. By sea, ships would be destroyed by aircraft and subs.  Air, we own the skies.  Try to shoot down a F-22A Raptor, you can't. We are the Elite SUPER Power in the world.  China could be, but they are not yet.  As a military, we would dominate any and every country in the entire world.  All we do is be on the defensive and wear down the enemy, fight a war of attrition and we win hands down. Our aircraft are faster, we have some of the best Spec-Ops warriors (Europeans will argue with that, but I said SOME of the best, SAS are great as well as Russian Spetsnaz, and Polish GROM), the best Navy; including submarines which other countries wouldnt be able to detect.  Jus t watch the Military channel, and you'll see the awesome power and resources we possess.  Even if we were invaded, remember that the US is one of the only, if not the only, 1st world country who allows the right to bear arms.  Our militias would increase 10 fold if an invasion were to take place.  We also supply most of every countries material goods in the world, so if that invasion happened, our funding to everyone would be cut and then all that money would go to use for the US and then even better US weapons would come out..
I do agree that the Europeans have better weapons, as in rifles and such.  Colt and Armalite are outdated.  Sig Sauer and HK are awesome!
Europeans are great fighters and they always have been.  i think ever since WWII America, USA, has this invincibility theory about us, and we just don't think it, we feel it.  We wouldn't just say it and back down, we would fight and bring everything to the fight, and we would prevail. 
Being an American, I do believe that we would win.  It could be close.  Personally I don't know very much about Russia and what it has.  People talk about China mostly because of it's population.  It's had one of the highest populations all the time, but that didn't help them in WWII. 
The English would be a tough opponent, as well as Germany.  France wouldn't want in.  Also, the US would have to worry about espionage and terrorism form foreign nationals. 
This would NEVER happen, so why did I even type this.  We are allies with Europe, they would never fight us.  And we would never fight them.
2006-03-06 13:50:52
Zar_Niko
Member
+1|6882
Oh geez,

you guys are so sick...stop thinking about this shit, i hope you have better things to think about...maybe about your future, your job, your kids...or having fun by playing BF2.

I am german (24), and people like you were the reason for second world war. Thinking about, what would be, who is the strongest, who could win, who got stronger weapons, which army has the strongest tanks...

Just think about, what would happen if you wake up some day and the question is: Can the enemy artillery reach my block...maybe not this block...but the block of your girlfriend or where your mum works.
Damn, this would frighten me to death...

So maybe you should think about, how you could change the world in a positive way...

Zar Niko
2006-03-06 13:53:33
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6952|Wherever the F**k i feel like

the_heart_attack wrote:

dont forget america has friends.
England is americas friend, as well as most of germany, and spain, as well as isreal, taiwan, japan, some russians, mongolia,india, singapore,aussies, dem. rep. of congo, most of africa, most of south america, canada, most of central america, ierland, italy, sri lanka, south korea, am i forgeting anymore?
2006-03-06 13:53:54
mastermofo
Member
+2|6877
I could go on and on about this topic. However, I'm more interested in what you guys have to say.

My two cents:  Enough talk about the small arms, if this would happen, small arms would not be a decisive factor.
2006-03-06 14:02:19
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Zar_Niko wrote:

Oh geez,

you guys are so sick...stop thinking about this shit, i hope you have better things to think about...maybe about your future, your job, your kids...
Good soldiers understand war.  They understand their own capabilities, and those of thier enemies.

I am a soldier.  You have the luxury of not thinking about this kind of thing because professional soldiers do it for you (conscripts are NOT professional soldiers...they are conscripts).
2006-03-06 14:02:34
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6952|Wherever the F**k i feel like
Ok kiddies Europe would not hav air superiority, they bairly hav any carries and if u hav seen info on the new carries commin out soon the Europes planes are destened to be fucked in the @$$. As for land forces, their tanks are about equal, but ours has a slight advantage. In sea power i think that if England were to join the fray AGAINST the U.S.(most likley never to happen) then the Europeans most likley would hav the upper hand in the Sea. Lets weigh that U.S.A= 2, Europe= 1. I think we win. Plus America has more nukes, h-bombs, and nutron bombs then most of the world (only excluding russia) combined.
2006-03-06 14:13:04
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6866
What most in America feel is we do not want to be the world's police.  We have far too many problems at home to be so worried about liberating someone who doesn't want liberated to begin with, or they would have done it themselves.    We don't like war, but will defend ourselves when attacked.  What's interesting is viewing the posts from other countries is their perception of the US.  Frightening to say the least.  GW does not represent the majority of the US.  Not with a 34% approval rating.  Basically 1/3 of the US has lost confidence in his presidency.  War with the world, not likely to happen.  Why would Germany want to go to war with us knowing the majority of it's economy is based on our military bases there.  France has never won a war yet, who would side with them?  Most of Europe should remember what our Father's did for them in WWII.  But memories are short.  I'll agree there are some, mostly 12 yr. olds, that think the USA can kick anyone's ass.  However most of us understand the improtance of friendly relationships with those abroad.  As for the "we'll nuke you" comment, grow up.  Any nuclear assault would bring an end to mankind.  Forget the movies.  No one in power in any country with nuclear ability will stop at a "measured" counter attack.
2006-03-06 14:23:51
I.M.I Militant
We Are Not Alone In Here
+297|6959|Melbourne, Australia
russia eurpope may win againts america.... but china would seal the win =]
2006-03-07 06:49:00
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

Anybody who wants to find out can just play Risk!
2006-03-07 06:58:52
[BSF]Nexar
Banned
+4|6905|3 Miles East of Smurf Village
1 nuke > Great Britain

Guess your handhelds arent gonna be used.
2006-03-07 06:59:17
rustynutz
I am British!
+124|6922|England and damn proud
if europe and russia combined the US would just be a wiped out, i read some where (doesnt mean wat it said was true) that the U.K had the best military in the world (numbers dont mean everything) the british SAS is the strongest organization in the wolrd, and the russian, fuck me they have the numbers.
so u put the experienced with the numbers and u get no more US, then add the countires in europe, we have france, they are some mean mother fuckers, the germans, they got some gear and the guns. i could go on but i wont.
exp+numbers+mean fuckers+Germans= US Eliminated
2006-03-07 07:03:26
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

Jepeto87 wrote:

{Section One}

Why do people always give France a hard time? The whole French are pussies thing is the most inaccurate generalization I have ever heard ( well all generalization is inaccurate as you Americans would have to agree since many of you fall back on that when someone says claims you are all fat, ignorant and stupid, not that I agree with that statement! ) it really annoys me as I love studying history!

In WW1 no other country suffered as many casualties than French as a percentage of population, this shows they have spines as opposed to another country in the past fighting to halt communist expansion..... ( low blow sorry! )

During Operation Yellow(WW2) the French army lost more men that America in Vietnam and Korea and surrendered because the Germans had cut off the majority of there army in Belgium, they really had little left to fight with as the British decided to "depart" at this stage. Its a fair assumption to say that if the British Isles where a peninsula England to would have surrendered ( No offense to any British out there, I think any  country bordering Germany at this time would have been defeated at this time. )

Sorry about that rant guys and its not aimed at you in particular "Bronco" im just saying it to all as it bugs me!

{Section Two}

Finally onto  my opinion of the topic question! I believe Europe as a whole would certainly win as its been fighting wars for centuries and it can still dig deep when it has to. Russia on our side would be a real advantage as it doesn’t seem to suffer from a condition sweeping western societies, "body bag syndrome" (as seen in Chechnya!! ) a fear of losing military personal. Europe could simply ( maybe a little harder than simple! )  re-equip the Russian air force, provide cash to re-launch to relanch  its submarine fleet( combined with the English navy this could be a real threat. )  and spare parts for its armored forces. Combined with existing European armies it would be probably win.... Not conquer, land mass, logistics etc make that impossible but they might win a conventional war.

Pity nobody would be around to see what with the nuclear winter on all..

Sorry for the extremely long post, im broke and couldn’t head out tonight.
{RE: Section One}

I'm not picking on you in particular, but your post caught my eye. Sorry to return low blows, but here's an old saw directly from the history you study:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. - George S. Patton

{RE: Section Two}

The question shouldn't be whether or not Europe could defeat the US in conventional war. It should be whether or not they would want to end the cash flow by declaring war. But in the case of conventional war, people in the past have constantly underestimated the power of the US as an industrial war machine. That was Hitler's downfall when he refused to believe his industrial spy on the immensity of the US's manufacturing capacity.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-07 07:05:35)

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 20

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard