Who has the strongest military in Europe?

**PowerPoster** · 05 Aug 05,, 07:33

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)?

**dave angel** · 05 Aug 05,, 09:24

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.

**SloMax** · 05 Aug 05,, 09:48

Who do you guys think has the strongest military in Europe?

army - Germany
navy - UK
air force - France

**PowerPoster** · 05 Aug 05,, 10:22

Who would win if say, Germany invaded Poland with Britain as their ally, while France tried to defend it? How long would they last?

**dave angel** · 05 Aug 05,, 13:58

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.

**dalem** · 05 Aug 05,, 16:29

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

**Wraith601** · 05 Aug 05,, 19:27

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.

**dave angel** · 05 Aug 05,, 20:43

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.

**PowerPoster** · 06 Aug 05,, 01:10

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.

**dave angel** · 06 Aug 05,, 07:06

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.

**PowerPoster** · 06 Aug 05,, 08:15

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.

**dave angel** · 06 Aug 05,, 10:19

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?

**Bluesman** · 06 Aug 05,, 16:23

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.

**Bill** · 06 Aug 05,, 17:58

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.

**dalem** · 06 Aug 05,, 20:46

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