Thread: Who has the strongest military in Europe?

Originally Posted by parihaka

Well goodness me, as Emperor of Europe there is nothing that would please me more than to give those damn upstart colonials a bleeding nose but the only thing is they have far superior ability to bleed me than I them. I could muster a sufficient force to plop out in the Atlantic as bait, but no trap to ensnare their appendages in. I couldn't bring off the element of surprise because there is no way I could hide the fleet from their satellites and survelance aircraft. In short I'd lose a large part of my surface fleet and however many divisions to a watery grave, only on the off chance I might kill a carrier or two. To me the best sort of war is where nothing happens for as long as possible, giving me the time to develop my forces to a level where I could go head to head.

Overall I think that you've got a good strategy there. One addition that I might recommend. Perhaps launching an overland drive to the Middle East? It might not be successful, but given how critical that oil is for your ability to sustain your war, that would be your best shot at securing your economy.

Originally Posted by parihaka

I'd kill them with my land based airforce and get my oil from Russia, who would happily supply me at an exorbitant rate, depending on Russia retaining control of the CAR's.

How? The European land based air force really isn't that strong (extremely old aircraft, and I believe that they are largely reliant upon American aircraft for electronic warfare birds... although correct me if I'm wrong). Also, while the Soviets specifically designed Backfires to take out carriers (large missiles) and torpedos to sink American carriers, the Europeans do not have equivilent munitions. That would mean bringing their limited airforces into the kill zone of a carrier battle group, with all of it's SAM's. One or two of those battles, even if successful, would be ruinous. Also, how would you protect your oil pipelines through Poland and Germany? With submarine launched cruise missiles and stealth bombers we could probably begin targeting those sources of fuel even before the air war was over.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Overall I think that you've got a good strategy there. One addition that I might recommend. Perhaps launching an overland drive to the Middle East? It might not be successful, but given how critical that oil is for your ability to sustain your war, that would be your best shot at securing your economy.

I was contemplating that and it remains an option, certainly on a 5th column level, but mostly I'm relying on the Russians to take a posture of helping against the Americans without overt military action on their part. As long as they supply me with oil, and perhaps some weapons sales, I'm happy.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How? The European land based air force really isn't that strong (extremely old aircraft, and I believe that they are largely reliant upon American aircraft for electronic warfare birds... although correct me if I'm wrong). Also, while the Soviets specifically designed Backfires to take out carriers (large missiles) and torpedos to sink American carriers, the Europeans do not have equivilent munitions. That would mean bringing their limited airforces into the kill zone of a carrier battle group, with all of it's SAM's. One or two of those battles, even if successful, would be ruinous. Also, how would you protect your oil pipelines through Poland and Germany? With submarine launched cruise missiles and stealth bombers we could probably begin targeting those sources of fuel even before the air war was over.

Umm well, herein lies my complete lack of military knowledge, I'm reliant on my military commanders for this. Anybody? Would Russia sell me Backfires? Are my submarines capable of killing a carrier?

Originally Posted by sparten

Lemme see, 3 British Carriers , 2 French, 2 spanish and 1 Italian.

Even if you count out the last 2, that makes five carriers for the USN to face. Inferior types no doubt, but they would do a lot more than scracth the paint.

Those aren't really CVBG-class carriers. We have more airstrike capacity on our amphibious assault ships than the whole EU CV force combined would have.

Britain has 12 SSN;s France 8 I believe. The Norwegians and Germans also have excellent Diesel Subs. The USN Surface fleet is gonna suffer badly at the hands of the Europeans, before the later are destroyed. Not to mention the surface units who would casue attrition as well.

I believe the UK SSNs would be a serious threat. I've never read anything or heard anything positive or negative about French submarine service, so I can't render an opinion. I suspect that without a solid blue water tradition they are sub-par. The SSKs I could give a crap about, since for its mission of eliminating serious maritime trade, the USN doesn't need to do brown water.

-dale

Originally Posted by parihaka

Umm well, herein lies my complete lack of military knowledge, I'm reliant on my military commanders for this. Anybody? Would Russia sell me Backfires? Are my submarines capable of killing a carrier?

Would those backfires work even if Russia sold them to you (I think the answer is nobody knows, perhaps not even the Russians)? As for your subs, I really don't think so. Perhaps a mission kill (?), but I don't think we'd have any carriers sunk from submarines. My big question (the one that I think would be a big factor in determining the air war) was whether the Europeans have their own electronic warfare craft, and just how much they've been able to modernize their airforce in the past few years.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

US would be very hard pressed to control the seas of Atlantic Ocean when Canada is part of your alliance.

Why? What could Canada possibly bring to the party except a long undefended border and coastline?

-dale

Originally Posted by parihaka

Umm well, herein lies my complete lack of military knowledge, I'm reliant on my military commanders for this. Anybody? Would Russia sell me Backfires? Are my submarines capable of killing a carrier?

UK, Germany and Italy have Tornados, which kick ass in anti-ship role. The ADV variant is great for air defense.
The Tornado ECR is a great EW plane, not second to anything.
The NATO awacs fleet is nato property, not the US. Those planes have actually Luxembourgese (?) serials.
EU planes need not to be carrier borne. They can be based on land and attack USN BG from there. After all, that was the Soviet doctrine as well.

Then there are the F-16, F-18, Mirages, Rafales, SAAB, MiG, Su and the Eurofighters are coming.

Originally Posted by thesaint

UK, Germany and Italy have Tornados, which kick ass in anti-ship role.

Are they capable of taking out a carrier without suffering crippling losses in doing so? I guess my real question is how close do they have to get in order to hit their target?

The ADV variant is great for air defense.

I've heard that the ADV variant is an excellent air superiority aircraft, but does anyone have any information on how it matches up with F-16's, F-15's, and F-18's in an air superiority role? Also, has the French and German (especially German) air forces continued to upgrade these past few years? I know the Germans have sorely neglected their military, and while the French have been doing a better job modernizing (and cutting away the unnecessary conscripts), how much have they put into bringing modern aircraft into use?

The NATO awacs fleet is nato property, not the US. Those planes have actually Luxembourgese (?) serials.

Who flies them, who builds them, who designs them, and who upgrades them?

EU planes need not to be carrier borne. They can be based on land and attack USN BG from there. After all, that was the Soviet doctrine as well.

Then there are the F-16, F-18, Mirages, Rafales, SAAB, MiG, Su and the Eurofighters are coming.

Yes, but Soviet doctrine was to hit American CVBG's with huge standoff missiles launched from Backfires, and massive anti-carrier torpedoes, launched from submarines. As the Europeans lack both of these, the "how close do they have to get" question becomes extremely relevant. If they take out a CVBG but cripple their air force doing it, it would be a net gain for the US. The SAMs in a CVBG are nothing to laugh at.

Also how soon would a carrier group actually rock up to be shot at (or not)?

And is the only way of taking out cruise missiles by destroying their source?

If so and they were being launched from subs, what assets do I have to destroy those subs?

Originally Posted by parihaka

Also how soon would a carrier group actually rock up to be shot at (or not)?

Land- or carrier-based EU fighter aircraft would probably be carrying something on the order of a Harpoon, Exocet, or Penguin missile. I believe you need to be within about 60NM for a reliable Harpoon or Exocet launch, and 15NM for a Penguin launch. I don't know what antiradar systems the Euros use. Either HARM or something like it. I think those are in the 100NM range.

Their Harriers don't have the legs to really make up much of an Alpha strike with SSMs, and couldn't fight their way to engagement range past a CVBG AAW screen. They could put some hurt on a surface group that didn't have a CV, probably. But it's not a job they were designed for.

As far as purely land-based attacks, then sure, if a US CVBG got within 500NM or so of a coastline then you could launch a bunch of Tornadoes or whatever. A couple of missiles each, and you have to find and fix the targets, blah blah. I don't see it happening. Far more likely to slip an SSN in close and try for the prize that way.

And is the only way of taking out cruise missiles by destroying their source?

They are designed to be hard to detect and track. I think some of the newer designs even incorporate some minor stealth tech. So your best bet is to kill the launcher first.

If so and they were being launched from subs, what assets do I have to destroy those subs?

Land-based air near the coast, or Tornado-escorted Nimrod ASW planes from land bases at further ranges. And the Brit CVs are really designed for ASW work with a bunch of helos and the like. I think Brit ASW is probably as good as ours is.

SSNs are supposed to hunt each other a la Clancy, too.

Your best defense against any submarine is to be far away from it and moving even farther away.

-dale

Originally Posted by parihaka

Also how soon would a carrier group actually rock up to be shot at (or not)?

Could you clarify your question here? It's late (been up since 5) and I don't understand what you're asking.

And is the only way of taking out cruise missiles by destroying their source?

Nope, you can shoot cruise missiles out of the air. An Aegis missile cruiser can handle quite a few missiles, as could SAM sites. Defending something like an oil pipeline would be problematic though, due to it's length and vulnerability.

If so and they were being launched from subs, what assets do I have to destroy those subs?

How many surface assets are you willing to commit to open ocean? Given my understanding of most modern European navies, they were designed for Coastal defense (Germany and most minor powers) or ASW. The problem is, they go up against a CVBG and we'd blow them out of the water as soon as they got beyond land based air cover (hell, with missiles we could probably take them sooner). The German diesel electric subs are very good, but they have limited range. Europe has quite a few tin cans, and some excellent submarines, but it really doesn't have a good ability to protect them against the type of assets that we can bring to bear. While the submarines are very good, the ones that actually outpreform American subs are limited by range.

Originally Posted by dalem

Why? What could Canada possibly bring to the party except a long undefended border and coastline?

-dale

raiding parties. tying up American assets.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

raiding parties. tying up American assets.

With what?

-dale