Topic: Armchair General General - /AGG (Read 139651 times)

Loud Whispers · « **on:** August 04, 2014, 06:04:15 pm »

So the Europol thread as it does is debating about who would win in a war, the EU or the USA. This got me thinking.

Who would actually win? So I started tallying up some numbers.

A comparison of the top 10 military powers of Europe vs the USA.

Spoiler: Infantry! (click to show/hide)

Sum total top 10:
AFP: 1,543,706
ARP: 2,034,170 (Poland and Ukraine putting in work providing 3/4 of all reserve personnel)

VS USA
AFP: 1,430,000
ARP: 850,880

It's assumed that Switzerland abandons its eternal policy of neutrality for some reason and that all of Europe has united with fanatical zeal to stop America and has dramatically reorganized all of its armed forces under one language, one command system and one military. It also assumes that Russia is playing along nicely even with Ukraine because Putin is pleased by these anti-American turn of events. Population wise, Europe can afford many more civilian casualties than America in a non-nuclear war with a much larger population, twice that of America's. These statistics also do not factor in the estimated 288,000,000 armed American civilians, so they're both roughly evenly matched for as long as Europe doesn't invade America.

Spoiler: Tanks! (and other ground based weapons systems) (click to show/hide)

Sum total top 10:
Tanks: 7,751
AFVs: 42,144
Artillery: 5,134
MLRSs: 1,456

VS USA:
Tanks: 8,325
AFVs: 25,782
Artillery: 3,725
MLRSs: 1,330

The European armies sport some really advanced tanks from the British Challenger 2 to the German Leopard 2A5 and some tanks dating all the way back to the cold war like the T-54s and T-55s used by former Soviet states, it's an evenly mixed bag with the American M1 Abrams outclassing and being outclassed pretty evenly. The deciding factor here is the abundance of European AFVs, the ability to move troops around is invaluable for just about any reason you want, mobility is a tenet of war. Point goes to Europeans.

Spoiler: Air power! (click to show/hide)

Sum total top 10:
Fighters: 1,138
Attack craft: 1,085
Logistics aircraft: 2,251
Helicopters: 2,672
Serviceable airports: 2,275

VS USA:
Fighters: 2,271
Attack craft: 2,601
Logistics aircraft: 5,222
Helicopters: 6,926
Serviceable airports: 13,513

It doesn't matter if the Typhoon is faster and more cost efficient than the F-35 as the numbers speak for themselves. Clear American victory here. Point to America for overwhelming aerial superiority.

Spoiler: NAVAL WARFARE! (click to show/hide)

Sum total top 10:
Aircraft carriers: 5
Frigates: 80
Destroyers: 10
Submarines: 44
Corvettes: 23
CDC: 92
MWS: 278
MMS: 3022
Major ports: 76

VS USA:
Aircraft carriers: 10
Frigates: 15
Destroyers: 62
Corvettes: 0
Submarines: 72
CDC: 13
MWS: 13
MMS: 393
Major ports: 24

Greater quantities of carriers, destroyers and submarines means that the US navy is more than capable of threatening Europe's vast merchant navy across the world. Point to the USA for naval superiority.

Spoiler: Shekel war (click to show/hide)

Sum total top 10:
GDP: $14,075 B
Defence budget: $219 B
External Debt: $30,529 B
Reserves of Forex & Gold: $1,535 B (Swizterland's swimming in Forex and Gold with 1/3 of team Europe's Forex/Gold reserves)
PPP: $13,390 B

VS USA
GDP: $15,680 B
Defence Budget: $612B
External Debt: $15,930 B
Reserves of Forex & Gold: $150B
PPP: $15,940 B

The external debt for Europe is misleading, since it belongs more to individual countries more than others and so would affect countries like France, Germany and Britain more than say, Switzerland. Keeping in mind this is the top 10 military powers of Europe and not the top 10 Economic powers of Europe, clear winner is Europe because of the vast amounts of resources they can employ in shekel war. Point to Europe for their financial powerhouses from London to Zurich to Frankfurt.

Spoiler: Nukes and Seuss (click to show/hide)

Sum total:
450-555 warheads in addition to 600 American warheads

VS USA
4,513 (after deducting 600 warheads).

Point to USA.

Points all over the place to USA. The EU is such an awkward state trying to work with Nation states who all have their own agendas and really only Germany likes it right now, what with euroskepticism being at its highest. Pride in being European is nonexistent, nationalistic pride in individual sovereign states is sparsely dotted around the Eastern European nations, Britain, France and wherever a far-right group has wriggled their way into a European state that's suffering through a poor Eurozone. It would take something absolutely amazing to get all the European states to unanimously declare total war against the USA and mobilize all their manpower, finances and military to meet the Americans in combat and would also be in direct contradiction with the traditions of many states like Switzerland's neutrality or Britain's special relationship with the USA. An invasion of the US is impossible since the US has absolute naval superiority and its heavily armed civilian populace. The Americans clap a lot and love their flags, their nationalistic pride is Germany after the world cup all day every day. The quality of their armed forces takes back seat to the sheer volume of equipment and materiel they can field against their European counterparts in a total war, and their quality isn't even that bad. They have veterans from several wars that only France and Britain can claim to match, their navy is unmatched, their air force is unmatched, their special forces are pretty damn good (though that's an area in which the Europeans definitely win) and they have so much oil of their own whereas Europe is heavily dependent on imports. That said, I also do not see how America WOULD go about defeating the EU. Being vastly superior is one thing, but actually winning is another. I think I'll make a forum game out of that, but until then, Armchair General General! - /AGG

Question for the day, how and where would the USA land on Europe?

pisskop · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2014, 06:18:15 pm »

Completely from my armchair, I would imagine the US would base its decision off of intelligence. But, given our bases/friends in ME we could simply march in from the east, but more than likely thats for small bands and drones.

I would say Spain/Portugal. Closer to France, perhaps, but I would be interested in the economic strongholds; personally focus on Germany, France, and England. W

I choose Spain for its ease of access from the sea, despite how obvious it could be. So I would favor smaller strikes from the ME and Southern Mediterranean while leaving England and the better defended north alone (until they were weakened).

I would definitely want to take the southern Countries out first.

Digital Hellhound · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2014, 06:27:50 pm »

While this is all very silly - why not take over the UK first, if you have naval superiority? You get yourself a nice Airstrip One to launch further invasions from. It has the extra fun factor of doing what the Brits did for hundreds of years against them, and blocking all attempts to send aid across the Channel from the rest of Europe (you'd have to block the east too, naturally).

stabbymcstabstab · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2014, 06:37:46 pm »

PTW.

Another thing to consider in this war is geography Europe is rather flat and urban while the east coast is a thin strip of cities next to mountains making the US much more defensible.

WealthyRadish · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2014, 06:43:55 pm »

I'm curious who Canada would join in a world war between Britain and the US. If the war came out of nowhere and Canada joined Europe, it'd obviously be a total wipe, but I dunno, give it 20 years of hostile relations and a militarization of the border...

...still probably a total wipe.

Loud Whispers · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2014, 07:01:21 pm »

Quote from: pisskop on August 04, 2014, 06:18:15 pm

Completely from my armchair, I would imagine the US would base its decision off of intelligence. But, given our bases/friends in ME we could simply march in from the east, but more than likely thats for small bands and drones.

That's IF anyone in the middle east sides with the US. I don't think that's anything that could be relied on. The most important country that America would also have to get on its side would be Turkey and that's just not going to happen.

Quote from: pisskop on August 04, 2014, 06:18:15 pm

I would say Spain/Portugal. Closer to France, perhaps, but I would be interested in the economic strongholds; personally focus on Germany, France, and England.

Spain and Portugal seem all right, but then you'd be harrowed by the British and French from Bordeaux to Gibraltar.

Quote from: Digital Hellhound on August 04, 2014, 06:27:50 pm

While this is all very silly - why not take over the UK first, if you have naval superiority? You get yourself a nice Airstrip One to launch further invasions from. It has the extra fun factor of doing what the Brits did for hundreds of years against them, and blocking all attempts to send aid across the Channel from the rest of Europe (you'd have to block the east too, naturally).

Naval superiority is not all that's needed to launch an invasion any more, the Americans would have to send their ships all the way across the Atlantic meaning their first attacks (they get multiple chances simply because they have many carriers) have to break through and land soldiers down before any aircraft even get close. The British had naval superiority in the Falklands war against a foe entrenched on an island but an American attack on the British Isles would be subject to submarine fire (some of which include Royal Navy subs which pride themselves on never having been detected even by Americans during joint military excersizes, not even going to bring up the sexy astute class submarine) aerial attacks from Britain, France and Spain (fielding some of the most modern aircraft on their home turf from several airbases with no risk of losing everything should one vital point fall - as is the case with a carrier).

Quote from: stabbymcstabstab on August 04, 2014, 06:37:46 pm

Another thing to consider in this war is geography Europe is rather flat and urban while the east coast is a thin strip of cities next to mountains making the US much more defensible.

That's an advantage I should add to the Europeans, the American's bad geography

There are a lot of mountains in Europe, really only the southern English, northern French, Belgium, Dutch and northern German countryside are that flat.

I would think sending task forces to patrol the Atlantic for European vessels would be the start. Then intense misdirection would have to take place, flooding Twitter and Facebook with reports of an American fleet moving towards Spain and Portugal, and sure enough there would be an American fleet moving to Spain and Portugal.

Then a carrier group through the Suez would start the actual invasion, dropping the invasion force in Greece along the southern coasts. There are plenty of beaches near roads, cities and ports meaning a rapid landing could secure America the foothold it would need to engage in protracted war against Europe. Its immediate resistance would be Greek F-16s and Mirages, a fight carrier-based F-35s would be much more readily available to win in than against other F-35s and Typhoons. If the US Navy goes en masse then it could flood Greek skies with well over 800 or even 900 attack craft and the Europeans would be much harder pressed to respond to that than an obvious invasion in the Iberian peninsula or the British Isles. An invasion of the Scandinavian peninsula is also entertaining, take Britain or Iceland and that'd also seem feasible. Heck, an invasion from Iceland sounds actually rather possible. Armchair research begins in earnest.

Quote from: UrbanGiraffe on August 04, 2014, 06:43:55 pm

I'm curious who Canada would join in a world war between Britain and the US.

A war between JUST Britain and the US? Canada would stay neutral, Britain would get massacred and Canada doesn't do massacres

andrea · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2014, 07:05:55 pm »

why is switzerland listed on the european side? Switzerland isn't part of the EU. it is part of some of the economic treaties, but it feels out of place in this context.

Loud Whispers · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2014, 07:10:44 pm »

Quote from: andrea on August 04, 2014, 07:05:55 pm

why is switzerland listed on the european side? Switzerland isn't part of the EU. it is part of some of the economic treaties, but it feels out of place in this context.

It's all of Europe vs America, even Switzerland, Norway and the Balkans are in on it.

andrea · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2014, 07:49:47 pm »

ah, missed the others. Still, the question in the first line is about an EU vs USA fight...

But whatever, the fine points aren't that relevant. Even if Europe had the advantage in every single field listed, lack of cohesion would make USA win the war, be it economical war or military war.

mainiac · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2014, 08:35:17 pm »

I'm I was planning the American invasion of Europe I see Britain as the only logical option. While the USMC can land on any beach in the world they're gonna have a bad time without air superiority. That means getting carrier and land based aircraft to the frontline. Greenland->Iceland->Britain lets the US use it's naval advantage to clear and hold naval zones of Euro attack subs. Once you have the sonobouy lines re-established and make the North Sea a no man's land it's go time for Operation SeaEagle. Cover the English channel in napalm (war is hell, y'know) so that Euro forces are put in a damned either way position of having to chose between focusing on Continental or British land forces posture (my bet is they chose the Continent). Then land in England with every damn thing you got and race for the cliffs of Dover.

If operation SeaEagle succeeds then one of the three major industrial threats is removed. US ground forces focus on holding England at all costs. The battle for the air begins in earnest as US and Euro forces fight out a giant modern battle of Britain. I'm not really sure where Loud Whispers is getting his numbers from but masses of F-16s and F-15s seem to be inflating US numbers here, there aren't 2000 F-22s and F-35s combined in existence. It would be a tough fight but if the US could knock out French and German air industries in the areas closer to England, they could win the air war through attrition and be ready for an invasion of the continent. Here I say it's best to throw a curveball and skip past Normandy and go through the Netherlands into the German industrial heartland.

I could make some rules of this if you guys wanna forum wargame this. I'm thinking 5 players, one US, four Euro, thus capturing the fractured problem Europe faces.

Zangi · « **Reply #10 on:** August 04, 2014, 10:45:02 pm »

Is there a pre-emptive strike? Or a common build up of forces among hostile relations that get set off by whatever? (Then Mericah goes "There be ~~Terrorists~~WMDs in em dar cities! Get em!")

I'm assuming that you are assuming that the US gets Sea Superiority... At least over the Atlantic Ocean.
Also assuming unmentioned countries will be fairly neutral and/or allowing one side or the other military access... and assuming nukes are not gonna be flung around.... (If they are, just blow up a large population center first.... and subjugate ~~em if they are more sane~~the sane ones, while glassing the ones who try to shoot back.)

Initially, the US needs a close launching point. Base of operations where they can resupply and launch invasions from. If they come by Sea.

First pick for launching point is Morocco, where stuff from the US goes to, before being shipped off to make a land invasion on Spain/Portugal. Well more specifically, that strip of Spain coast inbetween the Straight of Gibraltor and Portugal.
That is where I would begin the land invasion. Controlling the Straight of Gibraltor would also allow force projection into the Mediterranean and might allow the US another land invasion point.

Though, with today's naval tech. The US could probably shell the shit out of anything near the coast... well, if they could keep subs and bombers off em.

LordBucket · « **Reply #11 on:** August 04, 2014, 11:04:04 pm »

Quote from: Loud Whispers on August 04, 2014, 06:04:15 pm

I also do not see how America WOULD go about defeating the EU.

Simply give the order to attack

Flying Dice · « **Reply #12 on:** August 04, 2014, 11:15:48 pm »

Actually, let's flip things about. For the purpose of the question, assume that the war is non-nuclear, that the U.S. has no military presence in Europe before the outbreak of war, and that U.S. naval superiority no longer exists. How would an allied European force go about launching an invasion of the U.S.? A direct landing on the eastern seaboard seems doomed to failure in part because of something previously mentioned -- you're landing in cities and quickly run into mountains if you make it through.

It's a recipe for massive civilian casualties and the U.S. may well lose Washington, but at that point any landed force is trapped in a tall killzone for U.S. aircraft and artillery -- and the slightly more viable alternatives seem to be either landing somewhere along the Gulf of Mexico or trying to land a force in northern Canada, move it across the Shield, and cut down somewhere west of the Great Lakes. A landing in the Pacific Northwest might be viable, but it would probably be spotted long before the fleet arrived.

MetalSlimeHunt · « **Reply #13 on:** August 04, 2014, 11:32:08 pm »

There is no way to successfully invade the mainland United States. Period. Your best case scenario is to cause a societal collapse, but you won't be occupying that, you've just managed to create Afghanistan at its worst times infinity (I've argued before that American society has every element besides a breakdown of the rule of law for this to happen), which will take decades if not a century to end.

Baffler · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:12:03 am »

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2014, 11:32:08 pm

There is no way to successfully invade the mainland United States. Period. Your best case scenario is to cause a societal collapse, but you won't be occupying that, you've just managed to create Afghanistan at its worst times infinity (I've argued before that American society has every element besides a breakdown of the rule of law for this to happen), which will take decades if not a century to end.

Which elements are those? I'd say the U.S is a pretty darn stable place. I do agree though that invading the mainland U.S would cause an unprecedented level of attrition for any attacker as well as huge civilian casualties. It's a pretty goddamm big place to try to administer, nationalist sentiment is high, supply lines would be long and extremely vulnerable as a rule, we're swimming in guns and ammuniton, and have a well trained and equipped regular military.

Bay 12 Games Forum

News:

Author Topic: Armchair General General - /AGG (Read 139651 times)

Loud Whispers

Armchair General General - /AGG

pisskop

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Digital Hellhound

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

stabbymcstabstab

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

WealthyRadish

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Loud Whispers

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

andrea

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Loud Whispers

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

andrea

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

mainiac

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Zangi

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

LordBucket

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Flying Dice

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

MetalSlimeHunt

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG

Baffler

Re: Armchair General General - /AGG