Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Originally posted by rogue1
You mentioned previously the Mk III, this was armed with a high velocity 50 mm tank gun cpable of penetrating the Char.

- This is not true of the Panzer 3 initially (ie in 1940 & at the time of the early war in the west).

The Panzer 3 was originally equipped with the 37mm anti-tank gun.
(pretty puny even by 1940 standards.....again it was their methods and tactics which saw them through rather than greatly superior kit)

The lessons can be especially on the Western Front where the Tiger and Panther dominated. The only real contender was the M26 Pershing, which made a cameo at the end of the war.

- I have no problem agreeing that the Germans developed some very good tank designs. I do however question just how fitted they were to the task seeing as they practically made a virtue of hand-building in small numbers what they should have been churning out by mass-production in the thousands.

Thankfully for all of us they just didn't 'get it' as far as that was concerned.

IF we want to talk about all powerful tanks then the JS-III takes the cake.

- Oh yes, the JS/IS series. Mighty and very fine heavy tanks indeed.
I'd suggest the JS/IS 3 as the best heavy tank of the war too.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Oh yes, the JS/IS series. Mighty and very fine heavy tanks indeed.
I'd suggest the JS/IS 3 as the best heavy tank of the war too.

Except, the IS 3 never made it into war, since it came out after May 1945.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by psteel]

Originally posted by psteel
Except, the IS 3 never made it into war, since it came out after May 1945.

- Well whilst it must have been marginal I suppose that depends on your source (given the way these things worked a genuinely impartial and informed source is difficult to find - on either side of 'the curtain) and what you prefer to believe -

Late in 1944 the JS-1 was replaced by the JS-2, a redesign which produced a better hull shape, and a small reduction in weight. This became the major production model and over 2 200 were built. In the early part of 1945 a further redesign was done, resulting in the JS-3 model. This was considerably different to the earlier versions and reflected combat experience. The whole tank was lowered and the armour of hull and turret were severely sloped to maximum shot deflection.

Relatively few reached the front before the end of the war and the first public knowledge of the JS-3 occured when it appeared in the victory parade in Berlin in 1945. It was undoubtedly the most advanced and formidable tank at the time and its design had considerable influence in subsequent developments in other countries

expage.com...

- But for all that, ok Mr Picky, ditto the IS/JS 2 then.

Not perfect machines but a damn sight more capable and usable than something equivelent like the lumbering, grossly overweight and turret-less German Jagdtiger (cos even the Tiger 2 wasn't in the same league).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by psteel
Except, the IS 3 never made it into war, since it came out after May 1945.

- Well whilst it must have been marginal I suppose that depends on your source (given the way these things worked a genuinely impartial and informed source is difficult to find - on either side of 'the curtain) and what you prefer to believe -

Well when in doubt go to the Russian sources and read the last paragraph before the end of the war...since it is their tank.

www.battlefield.ru...



[edit on 10-2-2005 by psteel]

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by psteel
Except, the IS 3 never made it into war, since it came out after May 1945.

- Well whilst it must have been marginal I suppose that depends on your source (given the way these things worked a genuinely impartial and informed source is difficult to find - on either side of 'the curtain) and what you prefer to believe -

Well when in doubt go to the Russian sources and read the last paragraph before the end of the war...since it is their tank.

www.battlefield.ru...



[edit on 10-2-2005 by psteel]

lol whatever, it was still designed in WWII.

Just to answer the question that started this topic for those Ignorant Americans who even thought of this thread... To Any Americans think they are tought enough to take on Europe and win: Do you actually know all the countries IN Europe?? Just a refresh - Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia... Those are the main powerful ones in Europe... And theres douzens more countries in it that you would have to fight also... Even if you did use nukes (pretty much the only thing America is feared for) you would pay the price BIG time... All of Great Britains, France's and RUSSIA's nukes going your way. There is NO way your Navy, Army and Airforce could take on all of those main powers of Europes... Let alone EVERY countries in Europes! There is Just no way! So to answer your Question, If America Loses to Europe... Then OF COURSE EUROPE IS POWERFUL YOU TIT!

Yes this is a dumb thread, but yes, the American army, navy, and air force could take on Europe's, as their's are so small. They combined do not match up to the U.S. military in sheer power; they just don't invest enough money.





[edit on 11-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Yes this is a dumb thread, but yes, the American army, navy, and air force could take on Europe's, as their's are so small. They combined do not match up to the U.S. military in sheer power; they just don't invest enough money.





[edit on 11-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

??? Mabye if you combined all your 12 battle fleets but een there we still could match you.
Your tech and size advantage are negligable.

An old 70's-based ship's radar and control system, is that the best you can come up with to whine about?

Considering most of what China has isn't even what the West was producing in the 70's, it is a big deal. I gave more then that, as well. Did you actually view both links?

- Well, I hate to break it to you but your infantile troll routine is very very boring and your ignorant quibbling is the height of tedium.

I believe a troll is someone who tries to get others riled up. I don't know how I ever did anything close to that. You, on the other hand, have been doing just that. Going around throwing insults in just about every paragraph hardly shows an ounce of responsibility.

Just to answer the question that started this topic for those Ignorant Americans who even thought of this thread... To Any Americans think they are tought enough to take on Europe and win: Do you actually know all the countries IN Europe?? Just a refresh - Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia... Those are the main powerful ones in Europe... And theres douzens more countries in it that you would have to fight also... Even if you did use nukes (pretty much the only thing America is feared for) you would pay the price BIG time... All of Great Britains, France's and RUSSIA's nukes going your way. There is NO way your Navy, Army and Airforce could take on all of those main powers of Europes... Let alone EVERY countries in Europes! There is Just no way! So to answer your Question, If America Loses to Europe... Then OF COURSE EUROPE IS POWERFUL YOU TIT!

Most of those European nations are a fraction of the size of America. You can't name Russia, or a few other Eastern Europeans since they aren't part of the EU, and aren't likely to come to the aid of Western Europe. If you want to throw in Russia, then I'll start throwing in Canada and Mexico for the hell of it.

??? Mabye if you combined all your 12 battle fleets but een there we still could match you.
Your tech and size advantage are negligable.

How many carriers do you guys have over their? I highly doubt its anywhere near what America has. Besides the big three, the rest of the European navies aren't much at all.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Most of those European nations are a fraction of the size of America. You can't name Russia, or a few other Eastern Europeans since they aren't part of the EU, and aren't likely to come to the aid of Western Europe. If you want to throw in Russia, then I'll start throwing in Canada and Mexico for the hell of it.

Oh so its the EU now not europe?
Relise it mate the US hasnt got the manpower or supplies to take on a continent.

How many carriers do you guys have over their?

It wouldnt be a carrier on carrier battle since most of our destroyers would have sunk your carriers, just like in the war games.
And since we have top of the line fighter craft your aircraft will have a hard fight.
Also our airforces will be in strikeing range, the USAF would fly in with tankers but probably wouldnt have the means to man F-15's out of nellis to hit even dublin.
Also IF you did get to land do you think the USMC is going to have an easy fight?
No the USMC is not exsperts in european combat, we are we live here.
Also we have the same navy and airforce tech as you at the moment not counting stealth aircraft.
Also about your stealth advantage , you might be able to launch cruise missiles from several hundered miles away but our goal keeper and phalanx weapons can handle them.


I highly doubt its anywhere near what America has. Besides the big three, the rest of the European navies aren't much at all.

Originally posted by devilwasp


It wouldnt be a carrier on carrier battle since most of our destroyers would have sunk your carriers, just like in the war games.

They did, did they - yeah right. Your pissy destroyers would be sp[otted hundres of miles from a carrier and able to be easily sunk in a multitude of ways.

Also IF you did get to land do you think the USMC is going to have an easy fight?
No the USMC is not exsperts in european combat, we are we live here.
Also we have the same navy and airforce tech as you at the moment not counting stealth aircraft.

Hmmm, well the US military has been training to fight in Europe since 1945 - to say they have no experience is stupid.

Also about your stealth advantage , you might be able to launch cruise missiles from several hundered miles away but our goal keeper and phalanx weapons can handle them.

Well then your claims of your destroyes sinking carriers has been self refuted. If the phalanx can protect ships then the US NAvy by your thinking is immune.

Originally posted by rogue1

They did, did they - yeah right. Your pissy destroyers would be sp[otted hundres of miles from a carrier and able to be easily sunk in a multitude of ways.

That why an old destroyer simply sailed up unopposed and forced the USS Nimitz off course and shouted over the loud speaker, "bang your dead" ?

Hmmm, well the US military has been training to fight in Europe since 1945 - to say they have no experience is stupid.

No they have exsperience i never said they didnt, but they dont have the exsperience WE do.

Well then your claims of your destroyes sinking carriers has been self refuted. If the phalanx can protect ships then the US NAvy by your thinking is immune.

Actually the phalanx and goal keeper only work against missiles in effect and ALL repeat ALL RN warships ( except carriers ofcourse lol) have some sort of main gun AKA naval rifle.
Now correct me if I am wrong but doesnt a naval rifle do quite a bit of damage to a ship?........
Also , the US only has a few anti missile weapons; chaff, phalanx, etc.
While the RN has the phalanx, goal keeper AND the Sea Wolf missile AND chaff and everything the US navy has!
Money well spent...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by devilwasp]

Oh so its the EU now not europe?
Relise it mate the US hasnt got the manpower or supplies to take on a continent.

When people say Europe, it's pretty much meant Western Europe since the end of WW2. Eastern Europe has become divided. Russia has never really been part of Europe. It's basically its own entity.

You could have Eastern Europe, though, if you'd like. They wouldn't tip the scale in your favor.

As for the manpower, that's just a dumb claim. France and Germany have both taken on all of Europe alone and come extremely close to success. Little tribes from Mongolia conquered most of Asia, including China. They went against millions of Chinese with just a hundred thousand or so.

Manpower isn't a limitation. Resources isn't, either. America has the most powerful economy EVER. We aren't Germany. We control the oil of the world. Europe would be the ones without it once the fighting starts. Europe would be cut off from the Middle East.

In terms of raw resources, America has far more at its disposal than Europe.

It wouldnt be a carrier on carrier battle since most of our destroyers would have sunk your carriers, just like in the war games.
And since we have top of the line fighter craft your aircraft will have a hard fight.
Also our airforces will be in strikeing range, the USAF would fly in with tankers but probably wouldnt have the means to man F-15's out of nellis to hit even dublin.

You know, you can talk about your exercises where our carriers were sunk all you want. How many more were there were Americans won? Honestly, why is it that you can only give a handfull of events over decades?

None of the cases pointed out ever even were under normal conditions. America's missile defenses are far beyond Europe's, as well.

And I don't think you'd be facing any F-15's. You'd be getting bombed by B-2's and F-117's. Your Eurofighters would be facing AMRAAM equipped F-22's.

Also IF you did get to land do you think the USMC is going to have an easy fight?
No the USMC is not exsperts in european combat, we are we live here.

We have fought in Europe before. We have had our best troops stationed in Europe since the end of WW2. We know how to fight in Europe as much as most Europeans.

Also we have the same navy and airforce tech as you at the moment not counting stealth aircraft.

Not true. F-15's are superior to anything you have besides Eurofighters, but by the time you guys get those we'll be getting F-22's. Plus we have the better missile tech. AMRAAM equipped F-15's could compete fine with the Eurofighter.

Also about your stealth advantage , you might be able to launch cruise missiles from several hundered miles away but our goal keeper and phalanx weapons can handle them.

Good luck trying to stop a hypersonic cruise missile...

The United States doesn't know how to fight on the European continent, riiiiiight, we only spent the last 50 years designing our military to be able to forward deploy into (where else!?) Europe.

And no, Europe's tech does not rival Americas. The French, German, Spanish, etc....air forces and navies do not have tech at all that can match the United States's. Britain perhaps, but even they do not fully match the U.S. And in terms of aircraft, no, European aircraft do not match U.S. aircraft.

And if you really think a British destroyer could just cruise in and destroy a carrier, you've got a lot to learn about naval warfare.

As for the Spanish and French and whoever else, their navies are next to nothing.

Ok, so you doubt if EU was attacked by US, there wouldnt be big technological and equipment transfer from Russia for example? EU might not have superior position now or never, but as defender it sure would have strong standing EU and Russias military industry would probably be all focused to build up EU defenses and in the end probably offenses to end war, and i bet EU has resources for such war if its about its existence, do you think US would be ready to put all of its a line for that? Not to forget so far what i understand US would be aggressor as battle would be in European continent, so world would be in EU's side so i doubt any sanctions would be even effectively put in place, EU doesnt build up for nothing its international relationships, i bet it has lot of allies and of course possible rivals, but if attacked by aggressor tides would be turn on its good. And someone who tells EU isnt united, i would like to say its more united than ever before now, same currency, soon same constitution, for me that start to really sound like it has lot to loose even if one of its member is attacked.

Just imagine what is involved in an inasion of Europe, especially without having the UK to act as a launch pad, imagine what an EU fleet would make of convoys of troopships plodding their way across the atlantic. The Eu is not defenceless most of those "other little navies" you mention have NATO standard equipment and are extreamly capable of reaking havoc. The EU sub fleet is a mix of nuclear and conventional boats. the nuclear ones would be harrassing your fleet all the way from the USA while the conventional ones are extreamly suited to the shallow waters that surround the EU. Once you neared the coast your fleet would be vunrable to EU air attack, missiles and mines (as proved by both Gulf wars your fleet is still sadly lacking in anti mine warfair units). You are right that the US carriers would be a major problem, but is in no way an impossible one. Once into the coast you then face an opposed landing against Nato standard armed forces, with no guarentee of air superiority. You say that the US has been training to fight in Europe for 50 years. WRONG what you have been doing is training to fight in eastern europe alongside your NATO allies for 50 years. The allies have always been a major part of the battle plan and without them the task would be infinatley harder. You have to remember these would not be two bit nations you would be fighting, but fromer allies who know you battle stratergies and tactics well. Your troops stationed in the EU would either have been pulled out before hostilities started or would be under siege on their bases and faceing heavy assult before your reinforcements from the US mainland arrived. Your airforce would be an asset, though the F22 is only a small part of it. Your other stealth planes are aging and are vunerable to modern air defnces. I wonder how the B52 crews would like to fly missions over areas where compentant enemy aircraft are still operational? In the end if this war ever happened it would prove to be extreamly costly for both sides, in terms of money and lives. So one has to question why bother?

I agree the American fleet would fair no better than the Spanish armada of old times. Britian has a history of defending itself against much larger enemies. Even without help from Europe it would be no easy task.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
As for the Spanish and French and whoever else, their navies are next to nothing.

Actually the French navy is the third most powerful in the world (according to US military databases used for Superpower 2), please check statistics before making such claims. Great game for seeing what the world looked like in 2001 in terms of military and economic power, interactive too with lots of neat overlay maps. Although the actual game mechanics are messed up the raw info is accurate when checked against sources on the net like the CIA world fact book ect.

Real-World Data: largest database ever assembled for a computer game, using real-world CIA and US Naval Intelligence data

www.dreamcatchergames.com...

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Trent]

All I have to say is that is is laughable that there is such an argument over whether or not Europe will be the next power, wrong

China is rising, the giant cometh, be prepared, and afraid

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
When people say Europe, it's pretty much meant Western Europe since the end of WW2. Eastern Europe has become divided. Russia has never really been part of Europe. It's basically its own entity.

UH NO, frankly if you make this kind of exception then I would have to say that the blue states wouldnt fight so 49% of your people wouldnt fight.
Also war brings together people.

You could have Eastern Europe, though, if you'd like. They wouldn't tip the scale in your favor.

The favour is already tipped.

As for the manpower, that's just a dumb claim. France and Germany have both taken on all of Europe alone and come extremely close to success. Little tribes from Mongolia conquered most of Asia, including China. They went against millions of Chinese with just a hundred thousand or so.

Yeah, france's back in the day when america barely existsed or was still a brittish colony.
Germany had the strongest army in the world, what do you expect?
In WW2 us and the germans were war weary, we didnt want another war.

Manpower isn't a limitation. Resources isn't, either. America has the most powerful economy EVER. We aren't Germany. We control the oil of the world. Europe would be the ones without it once the fighting starts. Europe would be cut off from the Middle East.

Yeah, sure you can just cut off our oil....right....easy to say that if we were going into unconditional warfare.

In terms of raw resources, America has far more at its disposal than Europe.

Please explain?

You know, you can talk about your exercises where our carriers were sunk all you want. How many more were there were Americans won? Honestly, why is it that you can only give a handfull of events over decades?

Because most of these exercises happened several years ago and not many people bothered to write it down.

None of the cases pointed out ever even were under normal conditions. America's missile defenses are far beyond Europe's, as well.

Under normal conditions? Oh yeah the US fleet versus a RN task force aka US massive fleet against tiny fleet , hmmm normal conditions huh?
How are they?
They havent put into play the metal storm weapons and they havnt got the phalanx.

And I don't think you'd be facing any F-15's. You'd be getting bombed by B-2's and F-117's. Your Eurofighters would be facing AMRAAM equipped F-22's.

One thing, you only have one squadron of F22's, second your F-15's will have to cross the atlantic to fight us now unless you want your pilots to fly for 9 hours I dont think their going to work.
Your B2's and F-117's can be picked up and shot down.

We have fought in Europe before. We have had our best troops stationed in Europe since the end of WW2. We know how to fight in Europe as much as most Europeans.
[/qutoe]
Uh no, you have troops here but to say thier the best is wrong. The best troops are obviosly the ones who are moved to do the fighting.
Also the troops there are quite outnumbered and gunned so I doubt they would stand long.

Not true. F-15's are superior to anything you have besides Eurofighters,

Not correct, the griphen is a good fighter and so is the mirage both would put up a decent fight and probably win.

but by the time you guys get those we'll be getting F-22's.

Yeah all 200 of them.

Plus we have the better missile tech. AMRAAM equipped F-15's could compete fine with the Eurofighter.

How do you?
You give us near the same missile tech.

Good luck trying to stop a hypersonic cruise missile...

Oh so the US now has hypersonic cruisemissiles in production and in field units.....yeah sure..... besides the cruismissile still acts like any other missile, speed means nothing if it behaves normally.
The phalanx and goal keeper and sea wolf would sort it out.