News Britain to build 2 new aircraft carriers

[Lollie]

better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them

 

[Golena]

EU could field more soldiers though. Don't know the actual numbers, but isn't it EU 600 million people, US 380 millions or some such?

The problem with "people" is that if you decide you want less of them killing a few million isn't really that much effort. 5 people without a military plane won't do much to the one yank with one.

 

[kiliarien]

But seriously i do not think we should be spending the money now while we are fighting 2 desert wars.

Ah, but the first Iraqi oil contracts are now coming up for tender - the long acquisition-er-fight for iraqi freedom, is about to start paying off...

 

[Cylian]

Give those 5 guys some Anti-Aircraft toys.

 

[UrganNagru]

...and in the vast amount of cases all they'll do is make pretty smoke or tracer trails in the sky.

 

[Cylian]

sheesh, do you people really think that the US is -that- much superior in military terms?

first of all, neither do I think that anyone here is a military expert, that the US or EU are going to declare war on each other, nor do I have a special hatred for the yanks (bar the normal <cough>).

But simply being realistic, the European Union is more tightly woven together than any of the countries is to the US. The US couldn't start a war on one and expect the rest of the EU to stay out of it (not that they would).
Planes can do an aweful lot of damage, same as missiles, bombs etc. They don't conquer or hold territory though. To hold the ground you just bombed clear, you'd need ground bound forces. And those would have to get over the atlantic. Logistic nightmare.

Nukes? That one would go both ways. No winners there.

They've got plenty of trouble in Iraq, do you really think they'd stand a chance against an opposing force twice the size that's on the same technical level of themselves?

The EU isn't warmongering like the US, but far from teethless.

 

[Golena]

sheesh, do you people really think that the US is -that- much superior in military terms?

I didn't say the US was that much superior in military terms.. I simply pointed out that number of people is rather irrelevant in the equation.

Once you've handed out the fancy toys to X number of people, the number of people left over without them don't really come into the equation..
I imagine that a few trained yanks with decent equipment would have very little trouble killing every single member of your village in the lake district, even if they were outnumbered 40 to 1.

 

[Cylian]

question would be, how do they get there without anyone noticing and sending in equally trained troops ... just twice as many.
Getting there is the biggest problem both ways. Probably missing something, but it sounds like you think they'd just pop-up like in a movie.

 

[tierk]

....I imagine that a few trained yanks with decent equipment would have very little trouble killing.....

I would imagine any trained people from any nationality would be able to do just what you described as trined implies they know what they doing and how to go about doing it as opposed to villagers.

As to the orignal posters question i reckon it is a total waste of money at a time when the government tells people that they dont have money for, what in my eyes are far more worthy causes - free uni education, better hospitals as just a few.

 

[Golena]

I would imagine any trained people from any nationality would be able to do just what you described as trined implies they know what they doing and how to go about doing it as opposed to villagers.

All I was trying to get at was the number of villagers (on either side) is pretty much irrelevant since they simply don't factor into a modern day war.

It all comes down to who has the best technology and trained people to use it.. I can't answer who would win that, as I imagine most people here also can't because half the answers will be very classified.

 

[cHodAX]

Will be US vs Europe, the UK would stay out of it then bitch slap the winner and start the second Brittish Empier!

Or say we are on americas side and just keep killing them claiming friendly fire?

I have copyright on the second British empire for my first novel, ceast and desist immediately!

 

[cHodAX]

All I was trying to get at was the number of villagers (on either side) is pretty much irrelevant since they simply don't factor into a modern day war.

It all comes down to who has the best technology and trained people to use it.. I can't answer who would win that, as I imagine most people here also can't because half the answers will be very classified.

I can answer it for you. The American military budget is 5 times larger than the military budget of all the EU countries combined.

1-0 to the yanks

We would have to rely on the French who would surrender or hide the moment an enemy takes the first mile of territory on Frech soil. That is all the beach-head the yanks would ever need.

2-0 to the yanks

Technology, we have no stealth flight ability. We could develop it but long before that happens the war would have been lost.

3-0 to the yanks

Tanks. Tanks win wars, Europe doesn't have anywhere near enough, we could mass produce them in a war but you lose the first 12 months because of the yanks sheer numbers and quality.

4-0 to the tanks err yanks

Sea power. The Americans can project thier sea power globally and have the most diverse sea forces on the planet. Simply put they could take on the entire European fleet with just their own North Altantic fleet and win convincingly in a matter of weeks.

5-0 to the yanks


I could go on, in more detail. The fact remains, the EU member countries have been effectively disarming themselves since the end of the cold war and would not hold back a concerted American attack for more than a few months. Funny thing though, around about a yearago something changed and all of a sudden many military projects and aquisitions got the greenlight across Europe after being on hold for years.

You all remember the Litvinenko assasination in London right? Then Russia starting to fly fully armed patrols within 4 miles of British airspace so as to bully Britain into backing down. Well that scared alot of people at the top, you see Putin had just put the funds inplace for Russia to rebuild it's strategic bomber and interceptor forces. He also started funding the refit of a huge portion of thier tanks to bring them upto par with the best Europe has to offer. You now start to a see a picture forming, Russia is tooling up and it has scared many nations in Europe into doing the same. That is the whole reason for these 2 new carriers, don't buy into any bullshit about terrorism or the middle east. This is all about being able to project masses of air power from anywhere in the world more importantly it offers Britain a moving airforce should Russia ever choose to take out our airfields for any reason.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah but cHodAX....we got ze germans. 5-10 to he EU :lol:

 

[Golena]

Yeah but cHodAX....we got ze germans. 5-10 to he EU :lol:

I'm unsure how a country that's lost 2 world wars counts for 10 points, but I don't make them rulez so yay EU!

 

[soze]

Your forgetting the crazy fooking russians war would go nuke and we all lose

 

[Mabs]

in fact neither side would win. cos they would go bankrupt before the end of the war.
go Team Arab Oil Sellers tbh !

oh and you forgot the italians getting owned and changing sides half way through aswell btw, but i reckon the Pope's personal army could take on the yanks quite well

 

[Deebs]

I can answer it for you. The American military budget is 5 times larger than the military budget of all the EU countries combined.

1-0 to the yanks

We would have to rely on the French who would surrender or hide the moment an enemy takes the first mile of territory on Frech soil. That is all the beach-head the yanks would ever need.

2-0 to the yanks

Technology, we have no stealth flight ability. We could develop it but long before that happens the war would have been lost.

3-0 to the yanks

Tanks. Tanks win wars, Europe doesn't have anywhere near enough, we could mass produce them in a war but you lose the first 12 months because of the yanks sheer numbers and quality.

4-0 to the tanks err yanks

Sea power. The Americans can project thier sea power globally and have the most diverse sea forces on the planet. Simply put they could take on the entire European fleet with just their own North Altantic fleet and win convincingly in a matter of weeks.

5-0 to the yanks


I could go on, in more detail. The fact remains, the EU member countries have been effectively disarming themselves since the end of the cold war and would not hold back a concerted American attack for more than a few months. Funny thing though, around about a yearago something changed and all of a sudden many military projects and aquisitions got the greenlight across Europe after being on hold for years.

You all remember the Litvinenko assasination in London right? Then Russia starting to fly fully armed patrols within 4 miles of British airspace so as to bully Britain into backing down. Well that scared alot of people at the top, you see Putin had just put the funds inplace for Russia to rebuild it's strategic bomber and interceptor forces. He also started funding the refit of a huge portion of thier tanks to bring them upto par with the best Europe has to offer. You now start to a see a picture forming, Russia is tooling up and it has scared many nations in Europe into doing the same. That is the whole reason for these 2 new carriers, don't buy into any bullshit about terrorism or the middle east. This is all about being able to project masses of air power from anywhere in the world more importantly it offers Britain a moving airforce should Russia ever choose to take out our airfields for any reason.

Excuse me but if Europe nuked the USA and they nuked off, who gives a fuck about how many tanks they have or how much they spent on their budget?

Talking of tanks, the Challenger mk2 is actually the better tank. Doesn't matter tho, it is a melted lump of metal.

Stealth? Our radar will most probably detect the US warplanes.

Sea power? The americans may have the biggest aircraft carriers but the UK has some of the best stealth submarines. A draw I think.

 

[soze]

American warplanes have been stored in the UK for so long now we would be able to build one nps Plus the guy who designed the BlackBirsd and Stealth bomber was Scottish no?

 

[Deebs]

Actually the Eurofighter can hold its own with the F22 or whatever it is now. If Europe clubbed together or just said "hi" to china, the usa would shit themselves more than Chodax would on a curry night.

 

[Mabs]

also on a serious note :
the US has a lot of based-locally stuff

if we overran their radar stations in EU that they "rent" they would lose lots of info incoming , no ?

/lives just down the road from this little gem

 

[soze]

Was reading the f22 has been pulled from all duty bar city protection as its software is crap and its not a great plane

 

[cHodAX]

Excuse me but if Europe nuked the USA and they nuked off, who gives a fuck about how many tanks they have or how much they spent on their budget?

Talking of tanks, the Challenger mk2 is actually the better tank. Doesn't matter tho, it is a melted lump of metal.

Stealth? Our radar will most probably detect the US warplanes.

Sea power? The americans may have the biggest aircraft carriers but the UK has some of the best stealth submarines. A draw I think.

We are talking conventional weapons here, I completely get your point about nukes but it would have to be end of the world stuff before they ever get used imo.

As for tanks, they are the land grab tool of choice. The Russians have 14000+ at the last count iirc, with the yanks having pulled out masses of heavy armour from Germany in the last decade western europe has been left wide open for a tank charge all the way to the Rhine. The European nations have a pitiful amount of tanks these days sadly and you cannot win a modern conventional war without tanks.

Stealth, could probably be defeated but not with our current radar network it seems.

Finally submarines, I condede your point somewhat, we do have a few very very good subs. Sadly the yanks have alot more, many of them nuclear powered as well which makes them extremely quiet. The numbers game comes in again here, they have the technical edge too.

 

[cHodAX]

Actually the Eurofighter can hold its own with the F22 or whatever it is now. If Europe clubbed together or just said "hi" to china, the usa would shit themselves more than Chodax would on a curry night.

I don't do curry nights anymore sadly, my bum plums can't take the abuse. Oh and Eurofighter is a monster, I just wish the twats would get the cheques signed so they could go into full production. At the current rate they risk being obsolete before all the orders are completed.

 

[Helme]

I'm unsure how a country that's lost 2 world wars counts for 10 points, but I don't make them rulez so yay EU!

I would go as far as to say that Germany would have won if they had not gone for Russia, they had both superior troops and tanks - the only area where the US/UK were better was in the air, I have a strong feeling that if Germany mobilized now they would probably out-troop the UK easily and they could probably afford alot more toys.

Anyways, in a full out war it would never come to EU vs. US mainly because niether would want to leave themselves open to the real powerhouses in war - China and teh red bear(Russia) who both have technically unlimited suicide troops that could just swarm the enemy. They also have the resources to massproduce tanks, weapons and so on - yes it's really quite crap compared to our very advanced stuff but then again, the T-34's were enough for Russia during WW2 against the much superior Tigers and Panzers.

Regarding submarines, as far as I was aware there really is no diesel powered submarines left in any western country since the 60s, this is the only real area where Nuclear has taken over completly.

And regarding tanknumbers, I think Sweden actually has close to a thousand tanks!!11 - no drivers however so we lend them to the EU/NATO for training , same with our submarines, come to think of it our airforce is probably the only war ready part of our military, and we're flying JAS planes -.-

 

[tierk]

..... the T-34's were enough for Russia during WW2 against the much superior Tigers and Panzers.....

Just FYI Soviet-Empire.com - The Soviet T-34 Tank

Their T-34 was the best in the world.

I am guessing that he probably thought differently to you about the quality of the Tigers and Panzers compared to the T34. Incase you wondering who he was.....Biography of Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist

I do, however, agree with the rest of your post.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm unsure how a country that's lost 2 world wars counts for 10 points, but I don't make them rulez so yay EU!

Think of it this way; they might have lost, but it took the US and the UK(and other countries)together to win them.

So 10 poeng.

And as an added 10 poeng worthy point; if you think they stopped their military tech because "they told them so after WW2", well, they told germany to stop creating wartech after the 1st one too

I would go as far as to say that Germany would have won if they had not gone for Russia, they had both superior troops and tanks - the only area where the US/UK were better was in the air, I have a strong feeling that if Germany mobilized now they would probably out-troop the UK easily and they could probably afford alot more toys.

Unless you count the scandic/nordic air forces, who are top notch and always have been.

Give luftwaffe the "absolute best heavy fighters of the world" created in Russia and bobs your uncle

 

[Helme]

I kinda don't count the scandinavian troops mainly because Denmark fell in less than 2 weeks, same for Norway - the onlyones who actually held out somewhat were Finland, and not really because of their troops - more because of the lack of winter clothing on the enemies

And then we have Sweden, who will chicken out

--

Regarding the T-34s they were quite poor, same with the Shermans. I can't actually remember his name now but there was a single german Tiger who killed 50 or so T-34's before routing the other 150 or so, only reason he didn't kill more was because he ran out of ammo. The problem with the Russian/Allied tanks was that they couldn't penetrate the armor of Tigers from anything other than point blank or by outflanking it while the Tiger could get kills at up to 1000meters. Main reason I guess they go down in history so successful(this I don't deny) is that they were so extremely cheap to make so you could just use the regular Russian tactic of zergrushing(wow, Firefox want's to correct this to overfishing)
--

And yeah, I always find it funny when people "mock" Germany for loosing two world wars, it took the Allied forces over a year to actually beat the Germans back, the 3 arguably most powerful nations military wise took a whole year to push back 1 country.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Finland, and not really because of their troops - more because of the lack of winter clothing on the enemies

Actually no. Our winter clothing was worse then the russians, but the defining "warmth" issue came from russians eating white bread and drinking tea, basically, and the finnish eating fat, peasoup, sausages and dark bread.

These days we have mandatory military training for ALL men, and volunteer women, so we can mobilize(if needed) quite the army.

Also, finnish fighting has always been dirty, unclean, cheating and all that...which makes our troops really good

About finnish pilots, proud decendants of the winter war/world war pilots who were the finest around. Hell, we effectively stopped the Russian army from operating in our air space, with a handful of planes.

Not to mention defend finland from the russians altogether.

I'd say it's an equivelant of iceland deterring the US.

And our training hasn't changed really, still the same principles and tactics and they work very well.

Give us hightech equipment and all hells getting out to play

 

[megadave]

Couldn't we just give the middle east loads of old weapons, and send them in as the frontline? We could use the world's hatred of the US against them


Wonder who would be the war leaders for the respective forces?

 

[Ezteq]

Each of them are 3 times the size of our current aircraft carriers...

well, i guess they do need some way to transport the Miss England contestants ;P








oh piss off i can say it i was a fatty so ner!