yes i agree that it wold hurt there economy in during the time the conflict is on, but after the US and Europe is done blowing the shit out of one another who do you think is going to be the strongest power on earth.
They can have it, it didnt do us a lot of good.herrr_smity wrote:
you seem to forget the fact that it wold be in china's "best interest" that the US were to fall, that wold leave them i control much like the US after the second world war.sfg-Ice__ wrote:
Sorry I read the first few pages and skipped ahead. There a few things preventing this. The first and foremost is economic grounds. Unless something extremely drastic happened it would not happen because the world economy depends on the US. Not entirely but a good part of it.
Second, if the US was invaded it wouldn't be just the current army you would be facing. You can bet your ass every abled bodied person in the US would strape on a rifle and start getting busy. Now your facing the biggest army in the world... Yes alot wouldn't be trained but I'll tell you this, what we would lack in training we would more than make up for in conviction...Suicide bombers my ass...you can bet we would pull out all the stops...
We wouldn't nuke because it would be on our own ground. As far as allies go I would count england, Canada, japan (because they own half of the US anyway), Canada, and possible China. The reason I say China is because I'm sure the US would make heavy trade offers to them in exchange for help. China is a fast growing child and the fall of the US would drastically stunt its growth.
My point is that they won't be strong for long without $. They get the $ through a favorable balance of trade. Any trade balance which is favorable to them would suit them fine, but right now they make more off the US than Europe.herrr_smity wrote:
yes i agree that it wold hurt there economy in during the time the conflict is on, but after the US and Europe is done blowing the shit out of one another who do you think is going to be the strongest power on earth.
don't forget that they will take over the trade that the US has withe Europe and Asia. derby increasing there GPN.
Those places also maintain a trade surplus with the US, so the trade balance they are looking for will not be attained by replacing the US.herrr_smity wrote:
don't forget that they will take over the trade that the US has withe Europe and Asia. derby increasing there GPN.
hmmm
Sorry Guys. I skipped all those pages.
First of all. The U.S. Navy may be the biggest Blue Water Navy but they do know SHIT!!!!!! They may have 12 Aircraft Career, but they don't know how to defend them. Anyone read "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson?? All you need is a small diesel-electric Submarine and the US don't see it coming. It happed before in Exercises and it would definitely happen in a real war. You just need a Russian Kilo-class Submarine or an old-fashioned german U206A-class Submarine, which once happend to surface 200 yards off the starboard-beam of an US Aircraft Carrier. It got through the ASW Shield undetected. Since no one back home could believe that, they repeated the Exercise which ended in the same result.
Now that's over with. LET'S THINK GUYS. War between the USA and a European-Russian Coalition?? That will never happen. The European Forces would not have the ability to transfer the troops safely to America. They would never get the naval superiorty in the Atlantic. Even if China would jump in, that would mean at best a two-front-war. But let's face it. Their is one thing that make's such a conflict truly inprobable: Nuclear Deterrence.
The USA, the UK, France, Russia and China have Nuclear Weapons and the Means to deploy them. The Fear of a Nuclear War would either lead to a new Cold War or more probably lead to a diplomatic Solution.
Be realistic. You are playing to much BF2. (Is that even possible?) :-)
First of all. The U.S. Navy may be the biggest Blue Water Navy but they do know SHIT!!!!!! They may have 12 Aircraft Career, but they don't know how to defend them. Anyone read "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson?? All you need is a small diesel-electric Submarine and the US don't see it coming. It happed before in Exercises and it would definitely happen in a real war. You just need a Russian Kilo-class Submarine or an old-fashioned german U206A-class Submarine, which once happend to surface 200 yards off the starboard-beam of an US Aircraft Carrier. It got through the ASW Shield undetected. Since no one back home could believe that, they repeated the Exercise which ended in the same result.
Now that's over with. LET'S THINK GUYS. War between the USA and a European-Russian Coalition?? That will never happen. The European Forces would not have the ability to transfer the troops safely to America. They would never get the naval superiorty in the Atlantic. Even if China would jump in, that would mean at best a two-front-war. But let's face it. Their is one thing that make's such a conflict truly inprobable: Nuclear Deterrence.
The USA, the UK, France, Russia and China have Nuclear Weapons and the Means to deploy them. The Fear of a Nuclear War would either lead to a new Cold War or more probably lead to a diplomatic Solution.
Be realistic. You are playing to much BF2. (Is that even possible?) :-)
Let me see if I have this straight, you read this novel, and based on what you read, you are pretty sure that a US carrier battle group can't defend against a Submarine attack? I hope all of the US's potential enemies think the way you do.Starfleet1403 wrote:
First of all. The U.S. Navy may be the biggest Blue Water Navy but they do know SHIT!!!!!! They may have 12 Aircraft Career, but they don't know how to defend them. Anyone read "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson?? All you need is a small diesel-electric Submarine and the US don't see it coming. It happed before in Exercises and it would definitely happen in a real war.
i want to say well first of all the us have 12 aircraft carriers does that include the marine assault ships.
and the total number includes the pacific fleet it wold be unwise at best to take all the carriers and make one super carrier group. and secondly attacking the group withe submarines alone is just stupid.
and the total number includes the pacific fleet it wold be unwise at best to take all the carriers and make one super carrier group. and secondly attacking the group withe submarines alone is just stupid.
Nothing can even come close to The Ohio Class Subs that we produced long ago The USA owns every body of water. this you must conceede
ooo then you must be rightHorseman 77 wrote:
Nothing can even come close to The Ohio Class Subs that we produced long ago The USA owns every body of water. this you must conceede
LOL
The 12 does not include the Marine amphibious assault ships, and they are spread between Atlantic and Pacific fleets.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-15 11:33:00)
Ok
Negative on that. I learnt of a german U206A-class Submarine that thought it would be funny to freighten of US CVBG during a NATO exercise. It sneaked in to decided to surface 200 yards of the starboard-beam of that Carrier. Since the Fleet Command back home in the USA didn't believe that. So this action has been done again in another exercise. Those Submarines are damn quiet due to their diesel-electric engines. When they are running on electric engines, they could run 4-5 knots and you wouldn't hear them. In Addition to that, their hull is amagnetic, so you can kiss all those Magnetic Anomaly Detectors goddbye.whittsend wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight, you read this novel, and based on what you read, you are pretty sure that a US carrier battle group can't defend against a Submarine attack? I hope all of the US's potential enemies think the way you do.
My reference to the novel is just for those who want to it in detail. Except Germany don't have nuclear Warhead on their Torpedos.
This is exactly why I think, that such a Conflict would never arise. Because of the Nuclear Deterrence.horseman 77 wrote:
Nothing can even come close to The Ohio Class Subs that we produced long ago The USA owns every body of water. this you must conceede
Last edited by Starfleet1403 (2006-03-16 02:41:16)
there is no need to discuss the possible military outcome of a future world war. No country in the world today has the capabilities to project their military forces over more than let's say a couple of third-world countries.
I will agree that the US has the largest Navy and best supply/transport capabilities of all nations, but they would still not be able to supply and transport them all in a truly global conflict. Some will argue that the WoT is a global conflict, but that is not true from a military PoV. The US is only actively engaged in a limited number of countries ( namely Iraq and Afghanistan ). By "actively engaged" I mean considerably numbers of troops on all levels, including heavy equipment. The WoT may be a global conflict from a anti-terrorism PoV, but it is a regionally limited conflict from a military PoV.
The US military is very stretched right now, and I have my doubts they would be able to handle a lot more regional conflicts. even Iran might be just too much.
From a logistics PoV, a conventional war with truly global dimensions is not winnable for either side.
Furthermore, the economic ties between the nations are just to strong. Peace through economics. That's what globalization will do for you.
It is more likely that the superpowers will continue to engage in regional conflicts to ensure access to important energy resources such as oil and gas.
This could spark more conflicts between the different cultures ( the "West" and "the Muslim world" ), but since there is no unity among the muslim nations and since they don't have considerable military strength, there is little reason for concern ( 30 minutes until xanthpi disagrees.. )
I will agree that the US has the largest Navy and best supply/transport capabilities of all nations, but they would still not be able to supply and transport them all in a truly global conflict. Some will argue that the WoT is a global conflict, but that is not true from a military PoV. The US is only actively engaged in a limited number of countries ( namely Iraq and Afghanistan ). By "actively engaged" I mean considerably numbers of troops on all levels, including heavy equipment. The WoT may be a global conflict from a anti-terrorism PoV, but it is a regionally limited conflict from a military PoV.
The US military is very stretched right now, and I have my doubts they would be able to handle a lot more regional conflicts. even Iran might be just too much.
From a logistics PoV, a conventional war with truly global dimensions is not winnable for either side.
Furthermore, the economic ties between the nations are just to strong. Peace through economics. That's what globalization will do for you.
It is more likely that the superpowers will continue to engage in regional conflicts to ensure access to important energy resources such as oil and gas.
This could spark more conflicts between the different cultures ( the "West" and "the Muslim world" ), but since there is no unity among the muslim nations and since they don't have considerable military strength, there is little reason for concern ( 30 minutes until xanthpi disagrees.. )
Like Bschuss says : the middle east do not have the right equipment for a massiv invasion.
Interesting.Starfleet1403 wrote:
Negative on that. I learnt of a german U206A-class Submarine that thought it would be funny to freighten of US CVBG during a NATO exercise. It sneaked in to decided to surface 200 yards of the starboard-beam of that Carrier. Since the Fleet Command back home in the USA didn't believe that. So this action has been done again in another exercise. Those Submarines are damn quiet due to their diesel-electric engines. When they are running on electric engines, they could run 4-5 knots and you wouldn't hear them. In Addition to that, their hull is amagnetic, so you can kiss all those Magnetic Anomaly Detectors goddbye.whittsend wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight, you read this novel, and based on what you read, you are pretty sure that a US carrier battle group can't defend against a Submarine attack? I hope all of the US's potential enemies think the way you do.
My reference to the novel is just for those who want to it in detail. Except Germany don't have nuclear Warhead on their Torpedos.
I'm not a navy man myself, but I'm guessing this must have happened during 'down' time during the excercise. One would think that if they were on any kind of reactionary footing, they would have some sonobouys out, and there is no way to hide from those. Active sonar hits your hull and you are spotted...period. Having said that, even if they were on down time, it's inexcusable that this could happen.
There used to be a Submariner on these forums...can't remember his name. If he is still here, I have a question for him: Don't the Carrier Batttle Groups use active Sonar once in a while just by SOP? I know the Subs don't, by why wouldn't the destroyers and such? It's not as if they are going to be hidden from a sub anyway, and one would think the odd active ping would prevent something like this from happening.
doesnt the submarines have rubber padding that absorbs sonar
I can tell you why they don't use active Sonar. Because its range is too limited, only several 1000 yards, due to some hydrodynamic Variables. You might have a Chance, if you have a variable Depth Sonar or a Towed Sonar Array, which allows you to get below the Thermic Layer. Believe me, since I know first hand: Your Shipmounted Active Sonar is only of worth, if you have a confirmed immediate Submarine Threat. Otherwise you would finally give away your Position and would allow an enemy Submarine to atack you either with long-range Torpedoes or submarine-launched Anti-Ship Missile.whittsend wrote:
There used to be a Submariner on these forums...can't remember his name. If he is still here, I have a question for him: Don't the Carrier Batttle Groups use active Sonar once in a while just by SOP? I know the Subs don't, by why wouldn't the destroyers and such? It's not as if they are going to be hidden from a sub anyway, and one would think the odd active ping would prevent something like this from happening.
Couldn't agree more. Therefore I rest my case. ;-)B.Schuss wrote:
there is no need to discuss the possible military outcome of a future world war. No country in the world today has the capabilities to project their military forces over more than let's say a couple of third-world countries.
I will agree that the US has the largest Navy and best supply/transport capabilities of all nations, but they would still not be able to supply and transport them all in a truly global conflict. Some will argue that the WoT is a global conflict, but that is not true from a military PoV. The US is only actively engaged in a limited number of countries ( namely Iraq and Afghanistan ). By "actively engaged" I mean considerably numbers of troops on all levels, including heavy equipment. The WoT may be a global conflict from a anti-terrorism PoV, but it is a regionally limited conflict from a military PoV.
The US military is very stretched right now, and I have my doubts they would be able to handle a lot more regional conflicts. even Iran might be just too much.
From a logistics PoV, a conventional war with truly global dimensions is not winnable for either side.
Furthermore, the economic ties between the nations are just to strong. Peace through economics. That's what globalization will do for you.
It is more likely that the superpowers will continue to engage in regional conflicts to ensure access to important energy resources such as oil and gas.
This could spark more conflicts between the different cultures ( the "West" and "the Muslim world" ), but since there is no unity among the muslim nations and since they don't have considerable military strength, there is little reason for concern ( 30 minutes until xanthpi disagrees..wink )
Last edited by Starfleet1403 (2006-03-16 07:39:02)
Just to be clear, you are talking about depth, rather than range, correct? Unless I am mistaken there is no reason an active ping shouldn't go quite a long way in the same thermal in which it was sent. I understand what you are saying about the deeper thermals. Regardless, my understanding is that our anti-sub forces do carry towed sonar arrays, I know our subs do, and there is usually a sub pickett with a Carrier battle group. So getting something under the thermals shouldn't be a problem.Starfleet1403 wrote:
I can tell you why they don't use active Sonar. Because its range is too limited, only several 1000 yards, due to some hydrodynamic Variables. You might have a Chance, if you have a variable Depth Sonar or a Towed Sonar Array, which allows you to get below the Thermic Layer. Believe me, since I know first hand: Your Shipmounted Active Sonar is only of worth, if you have a confirmed immediate Submarine Threat. Otherwise you would finally give away your Position and would allow an enemy Submarine to atack you either with long-range Torpedoes or submarine-launched Anti-Ship Missile.
In any case, there is no reason for a ship not to use active sonar, because unless they aren't moving, a sub can hear them anyway. Can't get around that, especially if you are in a carrier battle group with several ships. I know our sub force doesn't use active.
You know firsthand? Are you a sailor?
Active SONAR can be heard almost 2 times farther than it can detect. Same with RADAR. Becuase the Echo must bounce off the target and return. Its like turning on a Signal thats says " I am over hear and looking for you " . get it ?
I was a Sailor, until half a year ago. I served 8 years in the German Navy. I was trained be an Operation Specialist with Training in Anti-Air- and Anti-Submarine-Warfare. Therefore due to my own humble Experiences I can tell you I now first hand. And I tell you that you are fucked, if you Ship has a bow-mounted Sonar. If you are lucky, your Sonar will range up to 10 Nautical Miles, IF you are lucky.whittsend wrote:
Just to be clear, you are talking about depth, rather than range, correct? Unless I am mistaken there is no reason an active ping shouldn't go quite a long way in the same thermal in which it was sent. I understand what you are saying about the deeper thermals. Regardless, my understanding is that our anti-sub forces do carry towed sonar arrays, I know our subs do, and there is usually a sub pickett with a Carrier battle group. So getting something under the thermals shouldn't be a problem.
In any case, there is no reason for a ship not to use active sonar, because unless they aren't moving, a sub can hear them anyway. Can't get around that, especially if you are in a carrier battle group with several ships. I know our sub force doesn't use active.
You know firsthand? Are you a sailor?
The Submarines can tell your Position from more than 3 times that range, if your Sonar is passive. But like
I had an Exercise once. In that exercise a British Nuclear Attack Submarine sunk (simulated) with an Harpoon Strike from over 34 Nautical Miles away. Our Sonar was passive, they just identified us by the Noise of our Propellers. Believe Anti-Submarine-Warfare is a dirty Business. Especially when your NATO. Its Search and Attack Plans are just suicidal. Can't go into much Detail of course.horseman 77 wrote:
Active SONAR can be heard almost 2 times farther than it can detect. Same with RADAR. Becuase the Echo must bounce off the target and return. Its like turning on a Signal thats says " I am over hear and looking for you " . get it ?
Last edited by Starfleet1403 (2006-03-16 23:50:43)
Using How To Make War 4th edition, I've determined the following:
*The US navy will flat-out own the current combined European navy.
*The combined land forces of all European nations would be just a little bit weaker than our army. Factor in the defender advantage and we've got 3:1 odds against them.
Given the naval superiority, Europe would need to devote a good portion of its GDP to building up navies before they could invade the US. This would take a few years, probably. During that time, the US could be building up its own navy and assembling land forces and militia fallbacks.
So pretty much, no. Even if all of Europe got involved, they wouldn't be able to take on the US at this time, and the time it would take for them to get here would practically preclude any chance of success. The only hope of European victory would be if the US got involved in a civil war beforehand and all of the ships were denied safe harbor.
*The US navy will flat-out own the current combined European navy.
*The combined land forces of all European nations would be just a little bit weaker than our army. Factor in the defender advantage and we've got 3:1 odds against them.
Given the naval superiority, Europe would need to devote a good portion of its GDP to building up navies before they could invade the US. This would take a few years, probably. During that time, the US could be building up its own navy and assembling land forces and militia fallbacks.
So pretty much, no. Even if all of Europe got involved, they wouldn't be able to take on the US at this time, and the time it would take for them to get here would practically preclude any chance of success. The only hope of European victory would be if the US got involved in a civil war beforehand and all of the ships were denied safe harbor.
Last edited by Norseman (2006-03-17 00:14:04)
Well, then, I must defer to your experience on the subject. I do, however, wish that Submariner would show up and chime in.Starfleet1403 wrote:
I was a Sailor, until half a year ago. I served 8 years in the German Navy. I was trained be an Operation Specialist with Training in Anti-Air- and Anti-Submarine-Warfare. Therefore due to my own humble Experiences I can tell you I now first hand.
lolNorseman wrote:
Using How To Make War 4th edition, I've determined the following:
*The US navy will flat-out own the current combined European navy.
*The combined land forces of all European nations would be just a little bit weaker than our army. Factor in the defender advantage and we've got 3:1 odds against them.
Given the naval superiority, Europe would need to devote a good portion of its GDP to building up navies before they could invade the US. This would take a few years, probably. During that time, the US could be building up its own navy and assembling land forces and militia fallbacks.
So pretty much, no. Even if all of Europe got involved, they wouldn't be able to take on the US at this time, and the time it would take for them to get here would practically preclude any chance of success. The only hope of European victory would be if the US got involved in a civil war beforehand and all of the ships were denied safe harbor.