Page 1 of 19 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 283

Thread: Who has the strongest military in Europe?

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    04 Aug 05
    Posts
    16

    Who has the strongest military in Europe?

    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)?

  2. #2
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    most of the threads below give indications.

    the german army is probably the most powerful by shere weight of armour, artillery and infantry, but because it is much less mobile than the french or british army it has less impact. the luftwaffe is pretty powerful as a close air support/interdiction/SEAD/reece airforce, though its air defence force is built around the ageing F-4F Phantom - though it is equiped with AIM120 AMRAAM missiles making it a good long-range BVR interceptor.

    the french and british airforces are roughly equal, the french being more prevailant in air-defence and the british angled more towards interdiction, close air support, reece and SEAD

    the french navy is bigger than the RN, but the RN has much greater amphibious and littoral capability while the french have a more 'blue-water' stand alone capability.

    france and the UK have similar sized nuclear capabilities in terms of number of warheads, but the UK's are all based on trident submarines whereas france's are spread through submarines and aircraft - they certainly used to have land-based surface to surface nukes, but i'm not sure what the position is now.

    the military capabilities of the three nations compliment each other, if they were integrated into single force - or under a single command for a specific mission - they would be immensely powerful.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  3. #3
    Patron SloMax's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jun 05
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    298
    Who do you guys think has the strongest military in Europe?
    army - Germany
    navy - UK
    air force - France

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    04 Aug 05
    Posts
    16
    Who would win if say, Germany invaded Poland with Britain as their ally, while France tried to defend it? How long would they last?

  5. #5
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    if you want to ask a 'what if?' question you have to frame the question properly.

    that means you have to include background to the conflict, political and military objectives and political 'red-lines' for the countries involved.

    wars don't just happen, they develop over years: war is the continuation of politics by other means. or so said von clauswitz - but then he was a german so what would he know about winning wars?

    it would be infinately preferable if you used a scenario that was extrapalated from contempary politics using stated variables.

    the answer to your question is that the UK and germany have a vastly more powerful combined military than france and poland, though having a television you will know that occupation is a very different thing to invasion.

    if you wish to discover more about european military capability and doctrine i suggest to get a world atlas, look at the caucuses area and think of a viable internation incident in that area. given a full - and remotely possible - scenario we can then help you.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  6. #6
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,018
    Quote 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?
    The United States of America.

    -dale

  7. #7
    Title Classified Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 04
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by PowerPoster
    Who would win if say, Germany invaded Poland with Britain as their ally, while France tried to defend it? How long would they last?
    France is faced with trying to project power to Poland AND defend it's long border with Germany as well as keeping the UK's amphib forces away from it's northern coast. Also don't forget the UK has an airborne brigade tthey can use as well, not sure what their airlift is like though.
    "We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
    -Sir Arthur Wellesley

  8. #8
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem
    The United States of America.

    -dale
    not true.

    fuel, water, food and power arrive on base with the permission of the host country.

    should the host countries deny that permission the united states air forces in europe become the worlds most expensive paperweights - or can F-15's and F-16's fly on budwieser and grass juice? the US army in europe can go as far as a tank of diesel will take them, then they can do nothing, as even aiming tank barrels and loading SP artillery needs power.

    military power is the ability to act regardless - or despite - of the efforts of your enemies, that plainly is not the case in this instance.

    the united states has potentially powerful forces in europe, but only with the ongoing permission and continuing support of their host country, therefore it is not the most powerful military force in europe.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    04 Aug 05
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    if you want to ask a 'what if?' question you have to frame the question properly.

    that means you have to include background to the conflict, political and military objectives and political 'red-lines' for the countries involved.

    wars don't just happen, they develop over years: war is the continuation of politics by other means. or so said von clauswitz - but then he was a german so what would he know about winning wars?

    it would be infinately preferable if you used a scenario that was extrapalated from contempary politics using stated variables.

    the answer to your question is that the UK and germany have a vastly more powerful combined military than france and poland, though having a television you will know that occupation is a very different thing to invasion.

    if you wish to discover more about european military capability and doctrine i suggest to get a world atlas, look at the caucuses area and think of a viable internation incident in that area. given a full - and remotely possible - scenario we can then help you.

    I'm not trying to create a realistic scenario, because it will never happen, at least not now. How can I try to create a realistic scenario with the EU and Nato and all...All I am basically saying that if a war somehow broke out, who would win, or how long would France and Poland last. Trying to come up with a reason for it is foolish, since they're all EU and Nato members.

  10. #10
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    a war has to be about something, you don't just wake up and find 'war with poland' on the calendar. what its about diffines your political and military objectives.

    talk about a catastrophic split in the EU and NATO, climate change and a dissagreement over water bound up with a new dictatorial government persicuting a cultural minority.

    that then creates military and political obvectives such as the capture of the watersource and the occupation of the geographic area where the majority of the persicuted minority lives.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  11. #11
    New Member
    Join Date
    04 Aug 05
    Posts
    16
    I know war doesn't jsut happen, but soppose it jsut did. I only care how they will preform militarily. If you want yo ucan make up a backstory, but it doesn't really matter to me.

  12. #12
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    soldiers are only used to secure what doplomats can't, in in order to decide whether the soldiers can achieve their aims we have to know what their aims are.

    is it total military defeat with the collapse of the state, occupation of all territory and control of the populace?

    or a limited military campaign aimed as securing specific, limited military objectives supporting a wider political objective that has everyone living happily ever after in two states that recognise the new status quo and just get on with life?

    two of the states involved in your question have nuclear weapons, under what conditions might they be used, how far do the two alliances go? would the UK risk the destruction of birmingham or portsmouth in exchange for german territorial gains in poland?
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  13. #13
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem
    The United States of America.

    -dale
    Actually, dalem is right, dave. We'd have what we needed to operate, because we'd be able to take it. Fuel? We'd get all we wanted from the host country's military depots and local sources. Ammo? Try to stop us from flying it in. Beans, bandages, and printer paper? We'd get what we needed from either an airbridge, through a seized port, locally, or any combination, and I don't see any single power preventing it.

  14. #14
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Forget siezing fuel, what exactly is it that any Air Force in Europe is going to do to stop us from flying more in?

    Seriously.

    We have more airlift than all of Europe combined, probably 2-3x over. You can keep your fuel....we'll simply bring our own.

  15. #15
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,018
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    not true.

    fuel, water, food and power arrive on base with the permission of the host country.

    should the host countries deny that permission the united states air forces in europe become the worlds most expensive paperweights - or can F-15's and F-16's fly on budwieser and grass juice? the US army in europe can go as far as a tank of diesel will take them, then they can do nothing, as even aiming tank barrels and loading SP artillery needs power.

    military power is the ability to act regardless - or despite - of the efforts of your enemies, that plainly is not the case in this instance.

    the united states has potentially powerful forces in europe, but only with the ongoing permission and continuing support of their host country, therefore it is not the most powerful military force in europe.
    That is not relevant to the question asked. One could as easily say that the German armed forces currently exist only because U.S. forces haven't destroyed them yet. Technically true but not relevant.

    In a situation of actual conflict I of course agree that U.S. bases and their equipment are very vulnerable to their hosts' desires.

    But again, that was hardly the question that was asked.

    -dale

Page 1 of 19 12345678910 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 21 Nov 09,, 23:46
  2. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 21 Jun 08,, 04:33
  3. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 15:28
  4. China's Changing Military Ideology
    By Frank Zhou in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 May 06,, 23:58
  5. Policy OKs First Strike to Protect U.S.
    By Julie in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09 Apr 05,, 10:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •