Question A topic for discussion

[old.Tohtori]

The German Army didn't fail, Hitler did. He spread his wings too far and didn't listen to his Council.

Quite, but they still fought for what they achieved and during that time, i dare say their command was best in any modern war. I doubt the US would work at that level of efficiency. Hitler did foil it in the end, but even still, taking over the world would've achieved the same spreading.

If the US tried it, they would have an even larger spread, not to mention fighting against the canada, mehico etc forces while trying to keep control over their forces at sea.

While invading the US is a good point, it also limits the US and the US can be contained if nothing else. Then it's a slow death.

 

[rynnor]

Except that's 20 year old tech (more actually). Copying already deployed weapons won't get you a technological advantage; copying what's on the hard drives at DARPA and the Lockheed and Boeing Skunk Works might.

Heh I was going to go to that next. Who do you think hacked RSA and nicked all the seed keys that they then used to crack the corp networks of a lot of the US security contractors - there was a rash of these straight after the keys were stolen.

The chinese seem to have built an impressive industrial espionage capability.

 

[DaGaffer]

they wouldnt have won the war of independance without french naval help

Debatable, it may have taken longer, but British lines of supply were over-extended and public opinion back in Britain was always pro-American (something most people don't know - George III was not a popular king and a lot of people thought Americans had a genuine grievance)

1812 - yea ok

Ironically this is one the Americans take as a win but in reality they didn't achieve their objectives; they tried and failed to take Canada. It was really a draw since nothing changed, and Britain carried on taking American sailors for the press gang (which is what started the whole thing).

civil war - decimated the population and caused massive social and political rifts still active to this day.. great "win"

A win's a win. Better for the Americans than the alternative, (a rival CSA).

WWs, yerp that was my point

And you won't get any disagreement from me. Americans routinely overstate their contribution to WWII, or at least, to the European war. You have to give them all the credit for the Pacific War (British and ANZACS had their moments, and China lost a lot of bodies, but America won it).

korea still isnt over technically, whole of UN vs NK + china - we didnt win, so we lost due to size of each side, they fought us to a standstill

My point is you can't really blame the Americans for a UN decision, and actually the story of Korea shows the Americans at their absolute worst (when they effectively ran away and nearly lost the whole peninsula), and their absolute best (when they turned it around and pushed the Chinese all the way back to the 50th parallel).

vietnam - er, you sure ? i know most of them were lost as French Indochina, so cant remember

True fact. The Vietcong and NVA never won an open battle against the Americans, not once. The French lost (famously at Den Bien Phu), but the Americans never did. The lost the war politically and at home, and frankly, if the military had been allowed to take the gloves off it would have been no contest, but it wasn't that kind of war.

cold war burnt itself out and the russians drew the line, so nobody won or lost but the russians should get the credit for bending in the end

The Russians didn't "bend", the Americans bankrupted them.

gulf war 1 - win ? sort of, didnt do any good , cos we had to do it again, thus why i would argue they didnt "win" it

The Allies had an objective (the liberation of Kuwait, UN Resolution 678), and they fulfilled it to the letter, so they "won". As I said earlier, whether it was the right objective is a different question, but you can't have it both ways, everyone moans about the gung-ho Americans, but GW1 was carried out strictly according to the will of the UN, so (just like with Korea) blame them, not the US.

 

[DaGaffer]

As I stated in my first post, Russia, France and the UK operate Blue Water fleets. Russia is currently rearming and regularly flies sorties near the Northern tip of Scotland, the RAF have scrambled jets as well.

They're both absolutely tiny compared to the Americans, and Russia in particular has always had a problem of actually getting a surface fleet out of port; for such a big country, all its "exits" are easily contained (the British took advantage of this in the Crimea).

Don't forget all those nice subs that have managed to sneak inside the perimeter of these fleets and could have taken out/severely damaged the carrier in the middle.

Americans have easily the best ASW capability in the world, and their whole battlefleet doctrine is designed specifically to stop submarines and missiles getting to the carriers. Of course its never really been tested, but I doubt any of the current navies could hack it.

M1 Abrahms vs Challenger 2 = UK win, it is said by many and based upon actual combat figures the Challenger 2 is the best battle tank in the world at this point.

And we have, what? A couple of hundred Challenger IIs? Americans have thousands of Abrams, and more importantly hundreds of Apaches and A-10s that turn any tank force into so much scrap metal. The days of tank v. tank warfare are long gone (to the extent that no-one expects this generation of tanks to be replaced; the future is hardened APCs and anti-insurgent vehicles; a $10M tank can be stopped by a $200 RPG round).

Eurofighter is on a par with America's best.

It really, really isn't, and sadly, neither is pilot training these days. RAF flight hours have been cut to ridiculous levels.

Not sure about submarines.

Well ours are pretty much American designs these days, but the Russians still have quite good H-K subs.

 

[Tuthmes]

It really, really isn't, and sadly, neither is pilot training these days. RAF flight hours have been cut to ridiculous levels.

The Eurofighter is. The F22 has its own share of problems atm.

 

[DaGaffer]

The Eurofighter is. The F22 has its own share of problems atm.

Eurofighter's abilities have been massively over-stated; its not stealthy, its not multi-role (there's a big retrofit going on right now to give it proper ground attack capability), and there are strong indications that its not even that great in its primary AA role (look up "Indian Typhoon SU-30 exercise"). Plus its obscenely expensive; the cost overruns are mind-boggling. I'd love to say the Eurofighter is the best thing sliced bread (I actually worked on the EAP demonstrator for the Eurofighter programme over 20 years ago), but it just isn't.

 

[Deebs]

They're both absolutely tiny compared to the Americans, and Russia in particular has always had a problem of actually getting a surface fleet out of port; for such a big country, all its "exits" are easily contained (the British took advantage of this in the Crimea).



Americans have easily the best ASW capability in the world, and their whole battlefleet doctrine is designed specifically to stop submarines and missiles getting to the carriers. Of course its never really been tested, but I doubt any of the current navies could hack it.




And we have, what? A couple of hundred Challenger IIs? Americans have thousands of Abrams, and more importantly hundreds of Apaches and A-10s that turn any tank force into so much scrap metal. The days of tank v. tank warfare are long gone (to the extent that no-one expects this generation of tanks to be replaced; the future is hardened APCs and anti-insurgent vehicles; a $10M tank can be stopped by a $200 RPG round).



It really, really isn't, and sadly, neither is pilot training these days. RAF flight hours have been cut to ridiculous levels.

Well ours are pretty much American designs these days, but the Russians still have quite good H-K subs.

The original post was against the combined might of the rest of the world not a singular country.

As for ASW, I am sure it a non-USA sub that managed to breach the perimeter of a battle fleet and get a shooting solution on the carrier. I google later. This was in the last few years.

As for a $200 RPG destroying a $10 million tank:

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[12]

Challenger 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."

BBC NEWS | UK | Tanks and artillery 'face MoD axe'

 

[Tuthmes]

Eurofighter's abilities have been massively over-stated; its not stealthy, its not multi-role (there's a big retrofit going on right now to give it proper ground attack capability), and there are strong indications that its not even that great in its primary AA role (look up "Indian Typhoon SU-30 exercise"). Plus its obscenely expensive; the cost overruns are mind-boggling. I'd love to say the Eurofighter is the best thing sliced bread (I actually worked on the EAP demonstrator for the Eurofighter programme over 20 years ago), but it just isn't.

Keep in mind that the exersice was with/against SU-30's...

RAF Tornado pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had anticipated, but the IAF pilots were also impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air.

In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said,

The Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. …The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive. That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive.

Expensive? Heh, The cost and maintenance of a F22 is way more (not sure about the SU-30).

The Eurofighter prolly isnt the best, but it's not as bad as you make it sound either.

 

[DaGaffer]

The original post was against the combined might of the rest of the world not a singular country.

But the rest of the world doesn't have Challenger IIs so its a moot point; it doesn't matter that the Challenger is the best tank in the world if all the other countries are driving around in T-80s or shit like that.

As for ASW, I am sure it a non-USA sub that managed to breach the perimeter of a battle fleet and get a shooting solution on the carrier. I google later. This was in the last few years.

Haven't heard about that.

As for a $200 RPG destroying a $10 million tank:

Challenger 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BBC NEWS | UK | Tanks and artillery 'face MoD axe'

There are lots of different types of RPG rounds; you could fire standard HEAT rounds at a modern NATO tank (not just the Challenger) all day and not knock it out, but there are versions of RPG rounds designed specifically to get through reactive armour (PG7R), which is why tanks are now appearing with funny looking wire mesh cages on them. Maybe not $200 a pop, but dirt cheap compared to the cost of the tank. I was quite surprised that a MILAN couldn't get through a Challenger either, but then MILAN is quite old now.

Point is, a barely trained muppet with the right cheap weapon can take out a highly expensive tank and crew.

 

[DaGaffer]

Expensive? Heh, The cost and maintenance of a F22 is way more (not sure about the SU-30).

The Eurofighter prolly isnt the best, but it's not as bad as you make it sound either.

The National Audit Office have been pretty damning about Eurofighter costs; because of all the fuckups and retrofits and mothballed tranche 1 planes, the unit cost of each operational Typhoon is going to cost UK taxpayers more than the American taxpayers have paid for the F-22. (You have to learn not to take Lewis Page's anti-Euro project rants at face value, but there's no getting past these numbers).

To be honest I wouldn't compare the Typhoon to the F-22 anyway, they kind of have different roles, but given how long it took to get operational, the Typhoon isn't particularly cutting edge, and unfortunately isn't particularly useful; once again, its an aircraft designed to fight the last war, not the next one.

 

[Deebs]

DaGaffer,

Chinese Song Submarine Challenges U.S. Aircraft Carrier in Pacific

Think it was that but it could have been another one...

 

[Tuthmes]

The National Audit Office have been pretty damning about Eurofighter costs; because of all the fuckups and retrofits and mothballed tranche 1 planes, the unit cost of each operational Typhoon is going to cost UK taxpayers more than the American taxpayers have paid for the F-22. (You have to learn not to take Lewis Page's anti-Euro project rants at face value, but there's no getting past these numbers).

To be honest I wouldn't compare the Typhoon to the F-22 anyway, they kind of have different roles, but given how long it took to get operational, the Typhoon isn't particularly cutting edge, and unfortunately isn't particularly useful; once again, its an aircraft designed to fight the last war, not the next one.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/26/rust-and-roll-for-f-22-hasc-watches-jsf/

F-22 Squadron Shot Down by the International Date Line

Weapon and Technology: All F-22 Grounded

The U.S. Air Force’s fleet of radar-evading F-22 Raptor fighters has been grounded until “further notice.” It’s the latest blow to the reputation of the world’s most expensive, and allegedly most fearsome, dogfighter.

Toxins Grounded F-22s: Sources - Defense News

I don't really want to dig up developing, producing and operational costs, aswell that there's a difference in 1 country vs more then 1 for the Eurofighter. Also with those numbers you have to factor in the dollar vs pound vs euro (dollar is still stupidly cheap atm).

It's true that the Typhoon never really was designed for bombing (air to ground) and that modifying it now is stupid and costly. But I wouldnt be to sure about claiming that the Typhoon is more expensive then the F22. Even If so there are far more Typhoons beeing produced then F22's.

Anyways the cost of equipment isnt the issue we are discussing here.

 

[Reno]

I was about to make a point and then noticed the USA has 11 aircraft carriers while the rest of the world combined has 11 aswell.

Not to boost the US ego, but only 1 carrier can put up some credible resistance vs a US carrier.
The Charles de Gaule is the only carrier with usefull Awacs and pretty modern fixed wing aircraft capable of doing air to air, but it still has less than half the flying complement of a US carrier. All other non US carriers are useless in an attack vs a US carrier. At best they can defend themselves somewhat.

 

[Tuthmes]

Yeah the Nimitz class carriers boggle the mind. Uncle Sick has a very strong point in saying the US can strike anywhere when they want to.

 

[Mabs]

Yeah the Nimitz class carriers boggle the mind. Uncle Sick has a very strong point in saying the US can strike anywhere when they want to.

thats only because they have treaties/alliances with people

id like to see them get a carrier through gibraltar if we didnt want them to, or go up the channel if us + french said no...

its not hard to go anywhere when u have permission

 

[Tuthmes]

Those carriers don't come alone. :<

A carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines and attached logistics ships.

 

[Chosen]

"Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."


Try to hit a apache with a RPG then, which you probably dont even know are there before you are hit yourself.

Anyway, in theory the US should have enough equipment/technology to take on the entire world by itself, if you consider how much money they spend into their military compared to the rest of the world.

This if the war was "fair". But as we all know, war aint fair and the US wouldnt be able to sustain a war that long against the entire world by itself.

When it comes to the EU forces, it's just ridiculous.. We werent even able to bomb libya by our own for more then a few days before we ran out of bombs and had to call for help from the US.

Same goes for Russia, alot of their equipment is ready for museum, and they wouldnt have enough resources to run their entire warmachine for a long time anyway.

I would think the greatest threat for the US, would be China. But at the current state the only thing China have superior to the US is the numbers.

Anyway, if the entire world was the go on war on US itself and try to take their soil. Then yes, we might have lost that war at our current state.(If we exclude the nukes, using them would just turn our entire planet into a wasteland anyway)

But if it was the other way around, that the US would want to attack the world outside their own soil. Then I would be quite sure that this isnt a war they could win.

So imo, it all comes down to if the US is the deffensive or the offensive part.

 

[Kahland]

We can discuss war but not womens clothing sizes in these forums.

Besides there'd be no total war without nuclear weapons. So there will be none, unless everyone wants to remain a loser.

 

[Deebs]

We can discuss war but not womens clothing sizes in these forums.

Besides there'd be no total war without nuclear weapons. So there will be none, unless everyone wants to remain a loser.

We can discuss women clothing but when it degenerates into mindless unwarranted attacks on those of a larger or smaller frame then it stops. If you wish to discuss this further then please do PM me.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd be scared to discuss womens clothing with deebs in public, let alone in private

 

[Embattle]

As I stated earlier it isn't just a pure spend game that decides it, also as stated earlier it depends on the type of war, location, etc as well.

It isn't just pure numbers with China when it comes to a land war, it is the psyche involved like when they fought in Korea.

The Eurofigther is a great plane but was massively late, I remember getting the game EF2000 in 1995

 

[Uncle Sick]

thats only because they have treaties/alliances with people

id like to see them get a carrier through gibraltar if we didnt want them to, or go up the channel if us + french said no...

its not hard to go anywhere when u have permission

Treaties? I assumed it was the US vs 'the world'. So treaties don't count for
doo doo anyways.

And Gibraltar? Really?
First of all - Gibraltar lost it's strategic importance a very long time ago.
What do you really guard there? The northern most part of the Third World?
Southern European countries that hold no strategic value whatsoever?

Secondly the Age of Sail is over. No one has to sail close to these rocks to bombard any fortification with black powder ship cannon.

I'd even say the US Navy could use Gibraltar as a bottle neck to keep whatever 'rest of the world' navies are sailing out of the Black Sea/Mediterranean out of the Atlantic whilst hitting the more strategically valuable Northern/Central European nations.

Challenger 2, Leopard 2, M1A1... I've seen all three of these MBT's declared 'best tank of the world' before. It depends on who you ask, I guess.
Euro Fighter vs. Raptor? It doesn't matter what bugs ail these planes - it comes down to training and numbers. Advantage US again.

Please also consider intelligence. Not just the lone CIA agent behind enemy lines. I'm talking about satellites/drones here. They can see you... can you see them once your two or three satellites have been destroyed with, for example RIM-161 missiles?

In a long term conflict, I'd probably still give it to the US once industry adapts to war time production. It happened before.

 

[DaGaffer]

In a long term conflict, I'd probably still give it to the US once industry adapts to war time production. It happened before.

I don't think wartime production would really be a factor in the kind of conflict we're talking about here; lead times are too long, manufacturing techniques too complicated (in WWII car plants became aircraft and tank factories; that's not an option these days), training too specialist, and the US no longer has the benefit of being out of reach of its enemies as it was in WWII. Any war of this type that happened would be decided by what's in the inventory when it starts, not what could be geared up later; which is why the US would "win" if it kicked off right now, but probably not "win" in 20 years when China is close behind but with a lot more men and materiel.

The problem the US has right now is that is probably the apogee of US military power; they might be able to stay a little way ahead in the technology race, but they're not going to be able to sustain military spending at current levels; too much debt, too many other places to spend the money (like the crumbling infrastructure).

 

[Tuthmes]

Euro Fighter vs. Raptor? It doesn't matter what bugs ail these planes - it comes down to training and numbers. Advantage US again.

Once more I'll take it up for the Eurofighter. Number wise there will be about 4 times more Eurofighters then F22's (although spread amongst different countries).

There are a lot more SU-30's about then F22's (187 planned) aswell. India alone has 130 in service and ordered a total of 272. That's just India alone. China has about 100 and is working on the Chengdu J-20.

Russia is working on the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan has projected a market for 1,000 aircraft over the next four decades, which will be produced in a joint venture with India, 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for other countries.

 

[Chosen]

Once more I'll take it up for the Eurofighter. Number wise there will be about 4 times more Eurofighters then F22's (although spread amongst different countries).

There are a lot more SU-30's about then F22's (187 planned) aswell. India alone has 130 in service and ordered a total of 272. That's just India alone. China has about 100 and is working on the Chengdu J-20.

Russia is working on the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Do not forget about F-35 lightning that the US is working on. + in the end it all comes down to the experience of the pilots(real fighting/training).

And looking at the budget, the US spends alot more money on training using live rounds then all the EU countries together.

 

[Chosen]

And when it comes to war, who have the most veterans/experienced fighting personal? That is the US. In everything we have done in Libya, we have had the use of US personel, both at locating targets to bomb and tactical expertise. This because they are very knowledgable when it comes to warfare! And this is one of the main factors that the US could possible withstand a attack from the entire world.

*was too late to edit xD*

 

[Tuthmes]

Do not forget about F-35 lightning that the US is working on. + in the end it all comes down to the experience of the pilots(real fighting/training).

And looking at the budget, the US spends alot more money on training using live rounds then all the EU countries together.

The F-35 will be sold to other countries aswell. Unlike the F22.

 

[Uncle Sick]

I don't think wartime production would really be a factor in the kind of conflict we're talking about here; lead times are too long, manufacturing techniques too complicated (in WWII car plants became aircraft and tank factories; that's not an option these days), training too specialist, and the US no longer has the benefit of being out of reach of its enemies as it was in WWII. Any war of this type that happened would be decided by what's in the inventory when it starts, not what could be geared up later; which is why the US would "win" if it kicked off right now, but probably not "win" in 20 years when China is close behind but with a lot more men and materiel.

The problem the US has right now is that is probably the apogee of US military power; they might be able to stay a little way ahead in the technology race, but they're not going to be able to sustain military spending at current levels; too much debt, too many other places to spend the money (like the crumbling infrastructure).

I still think a conventional war might go on for awhile, though and technically the amount of arms the US are cranking out already would be considered war time production in other countries..

I get what you're saying though and comparing todays US with WW2 US is not gonna work.

 

[Tuthmes]

Cost isnt a factor when it comes to wartime. Getting enough raw materials is though.