Who has the strongest military in Europe?

**HistoricalDavid** · 04 Dec 07,, 15:05

Anyway, the point is that bombing the sh-t out of something isn't what the US should do. Compare the performance of US forces since Vietnam versus Soviet/Russian endeavours. I can't understand people who whine for the good ol' days of carpet bombing.

**Albany Rifles** · 04 Dec 07,, 15:22

[QUOTE=3rd, I suggest you look up REFORGER.

Actually, don't, I don't know if we can still do REFORGER anymore but still, it would give you an idea of what we were thinking about when we had to punch through the Soviet screens. Don't think your AIP is anymore superior to their nuclear propulsion.[/QUOTE]
REFORGER as you and I knew IT no longer is doable, at least on the scale it once was. I am not sure what, if anything, the Canadians kept in Europe. Most of what the US had there has repositioned to the Gulf or in Afloat Prepositioning Systems. A lot went to upgrade the ARNG in the 1990s...then there is Foreign Military Sales. All of that said, with the draw down of our forces in Europe to 1 Stryker BCT and 1 ABN BCT I bbelieve there are still 2 brigade sets of heavy equipment available.

A far cry from the 5 DIVISIONS of gear that used to be there!

**Officer of Engineers** · 04 Dec 07,, 18:16

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

I am not sure what, if anything, the Canadians kept in Europe.

For the period in question. It was two infantry brigades and two fighter squadrons that was downsized to one mechanized brigade group and one squadron before the end of the Cold War brought them home.

Policy was to re-enforced 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group with either another brigade or 3 battle groups within 60 days with a battalion group ready within 10 days. 4 ships and another fighter squadron were tasked to NATO's defence. The air and naval forces are obvious on how they would get there but I have no idea how we were to get 2 battle groups (the battalion group was to be air lifted) over. Our two replenishment ships at most can only hold one single battle group.

**Albany Rifles** · 04 Dec 07,, 18:31

I believe you know the US REFORGER was mainly form the POMCUS sites. We flew in the personnel. I thought the Canadians kept a CMBG set forward.

I remember the 4 CMBG well. I was in the 1/26 INF & 4/16 INF, 1st Infnatry Division (FWD) out of Goeppingen. We had the PPCLI and 3 RCR as our partnership units. Saw the piranah in the tank in the O Club bar (Solingen?). Heck, I also bought my car through the Cnadian PX!

**sheep21** · 13 Dec 07,, 08:24

gonna talk out of me arse now but here goes:

recalling the mid part of this thread where it turned into a US-EU war.

well, the EU would integrate fairly well as a military force as quite a few EU members are also NATO, granted france doing its own thing most of the time,
Surface fleet would the GIUK gap (ala cold war), dont want US subs interdicting trade in the Nrth Sea, Baltic, Norgie Sea. Invincible Class would be performing there original ASW role. Rest of the fleet no further out than the edge of the continental shelf with nuclear subs patrolling the mid atlantic and diesel boats closer inshore.

Seize Iceland, base 2 squadrons (minimum) of Eurofighters for Air Superiority and a squadron of Etendard's or Rafales for strike, a small ground force to protect the air base.

Also, have a small naval force in the Med, mainly ASW to cover the "belly" of europe. Apart from that, just wait for the US invasion fleet to sail whilst showing the world images of European civilian casualties because of US strikes (US air bases in Saudi Arabi could reach europe i'd imagine). Basically let the US take the role as the aggressor and hope that this causes protests in the USA.

If that doesnt work try and cause the US Navy heavy enough losses so that it can be brought to the negotiating table\UN arbitration. If things reach the point where US land forces make it onto the British Isles\continent in anything but a small scale landing then Europe has lost control of the skies and its territorial seas and therefore has lost the war.

Prepares to be flames :P

**Recon_sgt** · 13 Dec 07,, 14:50

sheep21,
I admire your enthusiasm and wish to become involved in a discussion quickly however check the date for that which you are talking about. That unrelated and very annoying "what if" scenario was thankfully dealt with on this thread as far back as September 05 (over 2 years ago). Please leave it where you found it and don't try dredge it up again. I have been U.N. peace enforcer too many times to have to play the role in another "this guy vs that guy" debacle.
If the subject raised then really interests you then I'm sure the mods won't mind if you locate or start a new thread on the subject. If you start a new one be very careful. Back everything up with water tight concrete facts and present opinion clearly as that. Also be aware that "what if" scenarios have a nasty life of their own and can quickly turn into flame wars so be prepared for that. Finally leave as little room for variables as you can. Remember wars are not just a straight up shooty bang. there is objectives, planning, buildup, current geo political climate, other interested parties, the event if it happens at all, aftermath and a whole host of other things.
Finally welcome to WAB and I suggest you introduce yourself in the appropriate section. good day for now
D

P.S. please people no matter how tempted please do not respond to this here given the number of pages it took to dispose of it last time.

**sheep21** · 13 Dec 07,, 17:37

Originally Posted by Recon_sgt

sheep21,
I admire your enthusiasm and wish to become involved in a discussion quickly however check the date for that which you are talking about. That unrelated and very annoying "what if" scenario was thankfully dealt with on this thread as far back as September 05 (over 2 years ago). Please leave it where you found it and don't try dredge it up again. I have been U.N. peace enforcer too many times to have to play the role in another "this guy vs that guy" debacle.
If the subject raised then really interests you then I'm sure the mods won't mind if you locate or start a new thread on the subject. If you start a new one be very careful. Back everything up with water tight concrete facts and present opinion clearly as that. Also be aware that "what if" scenarios have a nasty life of their own and can quickly turn into flame wars so be prepared for that. Finally leave as little room for variables as you can. Remember wars are not just a straight up shooty bang. there is objectives, planning, buildup, current geo political climate, other interested parties, the event if it happens at all, aftermath and a whole host of other things.
Finally welcome to WAB and I suggest you introduce yourself in the appropriate section. good day for now
D

P.S. please people no matter how tempted please do not respond to this here given the number of pages it took to dispose of it last time.

sorry, i shall look more carefully in future

Sheep21

**sheep21** · 13 Dec 07,, 17:42

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

For the period in question. It was two infantry brigades and two fighter squadrons that was downsized to one mechanized brigade group and one squadron before the end of the Cold War brought them home.

Policy was to re-enforced 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group with either another brigade or 3 battle groups within 60 days with a battalion group ready within 10 days. 4 ships and another fighter squadron were tasked to NATO's defence. The air and naval forces are obvious on how they would get there but I have no idea how we were to get 2 battle groups (the battalion group was to be air lifted) over. Our two replenishment ships at most can only hold one single battle group.

try and pigy back with the US?

**Recon_sgt** · 14 Dec 07,, 14:44

sorry, i shall look more carefully in future

That is always wise but no need to be sorry. We all make mistakes especially when we're new. I did and they are on show in some long dead WW2 thread. Oh and if you ever have doubts about the subject matter of a thread you want to start (hot potatoe or worse an no remarks the rest of you about Irish and potatoes) OOE you quoted is probably one of the best to advise. The Col is a decent chap!

D

p.s. speaking of the chap where the hell is he this time?

**~~marklv~~** · 14 Feb 08,, 16:41

Originally Posted by PowerPoster

I'm sorry if this has been asked, but I'm new here.

Who do you guys think has the strongest military in Europe? I'm not talking about sheer numbers, but a combination of numbers, technology, training, and leadership.
I'm guessing the UK, but are there any other significant powers? Who would win if a war broke out between just european nations (I know it's very unlikely because of Nato and the EU)?

The likelihood of a war between EU member nations is about as likely as a snowstorm in hell, so the question is completely meaningless.

Britain and France are definitely the strongest, assuming Turkey is considered as being outside Europe (as it should be). I don't count Germany because their forces are riddled with pacifism and self-guilt about WW2, and most of their soldiers are conscripts.

Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have decent forces, though much smaller than in the old cold war days.

**~~Blackmike12~~** · 22 Sep 09,, 13:12

it depends if you include israel in europe

**zara** · 22 Sep 09,, 13:21

Originally Posted by marklv

Britain and France are definitely the strongest, assuming Turkey is considered as being outside Europe (as it should be). .

Are you saying that Turkey has a stronger military than Britain or France? Surely not?

**Officer of Engineers** · 22 Sep 09,, 13:47

I'm closing this thread before the dead girl and kitten recipes appears but Turkey is the 2nd largest NATO military behind the US.

And no, Israel is not even on par with NATO armies.

Thread: Who has the strongest military in Europe?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Ooe-reforger

Ooe

New here I see

oops

Welcome

Dpends

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2

INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED

Articles and links for the Military Professional

China's Changing Military Ideology

Policy OKs First Strike to Protect U.S.

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions