Thread: european military strength

Originally Posted by PaulG

Fair enough, name them for gods sake man!!

You want me to name all the powers in the world? I'm sure you can imagine such a list just as good as I can.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How large were those corps? How many tanks, artillery, engineer assets, etc did each corp have?

How strong was Soviet 1st Moscow Crack Army and the 16th Guards Army?

NATO Order of Battle June 1989

Warsaw Pact Order of Battle June 1989

M21, please note REFORGER would add US 1st Infantry Division (Mech) and 1st Canadian Division (Mec) to VII Corps.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

NATO Order of Battle June 1989

Warsaw Pact Order of Battle June 1989

M21, please note REFORGER would add US 1st Infantry Division (Mech) and 1st Canadian Division (Mec) to VII Corps.

Sir, my thanks. I greatly appreciate it. I am sure I will have more questions for you after reading these.

"Yep, but Europe is bigger than NATO, super duper hypothetically speaking if the US invaded Europe and the whole continent reacted, the US couldn't hope to win. "

If Germany could hold down most of Europe, than a fully mobilized America could certainly conquer all of it. Europe requires vast influxes of oil and strategic minerals (e.g. titanium, platinum, ect) and the United States is the only nation capable of projecting sufficient naval power to acquire and hold these resources. The United States, with control of the seas, would at that point have a decisive advantage over Europe, and be able to land anywhere. With only a modest manpower disadvantage, and an industry safe across two oceans (whereas Europe could be bombed from bases carved out of Africa or the Middle East), The United States could choose the time and place of any combat. With those advantages, it would simply be a matter of holding down 330 million Europeans, which with a fully mobilized United States (say 30 million in the armed forces), would hardly be impossible to do. Remember the scale of armies during World War II, and don't be fooled into thinking that armies like that cannot be created again.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

"Yep, but Europe is bigger than NATO, super duper hypothetically speaking if the US invaded Europe and the whole continent reacted, the US couldn't hope to win. "

If Germany could hold down most of Europe, than a fully mobilized America could certainly conquer all of it. Europe requires vast influxes of oil and strategic minerals (e.g. titanium, platinum, ect) and the United States is the only nation capable of projecting sufficient naval power to acquire and hold these resources. The United States, with control of the seas, would at that point have a decisive advantage over Europe, and be able to land anywhere. With only a modest manpower disadvantage, and an industry safe across two oceans (whereas Europe could be bombed from bases carved out of Africa or the Middle East), The United States could choose the time and place of any combat. With those advantages, it would simply be a matter of holding down 330 million Europeans, which with a fully mobilized United States (say 30 million in the armed forces), would hardly be impossible to do. Remember the scale of armies during World War II, and don't be fooled into thinking that armies like that cannot be created again.

I think that for a serious claim of the U.S. accomplishing what you suggest, several assumptions must be made. Among them

1) Sufficient anger at "Europe" or investment in something Europe is associated with to raise and maintain a much larger army than we have today.

2) Absolute neutrality of 2 world powers that simply did not exist as such 60 years ago: China and India. Weaker powers like Russia could also still factor in in a huge way. And is the UK neutral or on "their" side in this fight?

Heck, those are just the first two I can think of. I am a big booster for America's military pre-eminence and love a good conventional war hypothetical a la Bond's "Cauldron" or the like, but in reality I just don't see how America could successfully execute a no-kidding invasion and occupation
of all of Europe.

Invade to liberate Europe again (like WWII) or enter safely to aid in yet another Euro conflict (like WWI or Clancy's RSR)? Sure, I think we absolutely could do those again. But a "they are ticking us off and we want to squash them and take their stuff" campaign? I don't think so.

-dale

Defeating Europe's ability to project military power (lol, as if such a thing exists) would actually be relatively easy.

Conquering Europe would be anything but...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Conquering Europe would be anything but...

I don't want Europe do you... hmmmm perhaps we could teach the French about soap though...

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

You should care what the UN thinks, since a bad reaction from the UN is basically a bad reaction from the world. America is powerful, but you don't own the world.

For the European Intelects haven't figured it out... The US doesn't give a rats ass what the UN thinks, nor should she...

You raise good points dalem. Naturally, the conquest of Europe would be due to a Great Power war, and those do not start over trivial matters (even WWI was started by extreme national rivalry, which I hardly consider to be a trivial matter), therefore it is necessary to assume that a total war against Europe that continues beyond the capacities of each side's initally existing armed forces to wage involves considerable dedication to victory on both sides. Given that premise, the United States and Europe both gear up for a total war, and that is what my scenario is assuming. The two great powers that you point to (India and China), are regional powers, and relatively incapable of projecting armed strength beyond their borders (sure, China could invade Russia, but what would be the point when Russian nukes destroy half of China's population, the industrial half at that). India I would not consider a great power (yet!), and is much too involved in rivalries with Pakistan and in pacifying Kashmir to be able to intervene militarily in or around Europe. Russia could seriously impair things. Their entry removes the nuclear option for the United States, and adds a considerably sized army with substantial infrastructure to the equation. While I do not believe that would be enough to save the rest of Europe, it would make America's task considerably more difficult. However, Russia has little to gain from such a move, and much to lose. Russia and the United States were only enemies after WWII, because there was really no one else strong enough to face off with, except each other. Now, there are other centers of power emerging in the world, and most of them threaten the Russians as well as the United States. For example, European influence has been expanding eastward as the EU seeks to increase it's membership (and China is a powerful, historically aggressive, neighbor to have). Now the Russian sphere of influence has been infringed upon, and I could easily see a Russo-American alliance in the future, both to take on Europe, and contest the rising power of China. The benifits for Russia are substantial, as their former sphere of influence could be, at least in part, reestablished, and a powerful ally in the form of the United States would be secured against China.
Also, no one has really said why it would be so difficult for the United States to conquer Europe. Assuming that Europe's economy is having difficulty due to their raw materials being cut off, why could America's much greater population not do what Germany's proportionately much smaller population did? Once the regular militaries of Europe are gone, light infantry weapons do not stand up well to armored fighting vehicles.