Hi guys,

How would this war go? USA as aggressor against Europe.

Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and alike would not be used.

My main concern is that if USA would attack, they are going to have a hard time getting on land.


Discuzzz..

There was a topic roughly like that a bit before.

Off topic: These would eventually be used, and both sides would lose.

On topic: The US, right now, because decisions aren't made as fast as the US's. It would be way too costly though, both in lives or economically, especially since Europe's landscapes are completely different from the battlefields where US troops have fought, and they would have to gain new experience.

There would also be opportunistic attacks from other countries when the bulk of the US is fighting in Europe. That's pretty obvious I think.

Europe's armies are there mainly for defensive purposes, and are professional armies, unlike anything fought in recent years, with technological abilities equal to the US's even though production means are limited (but probably easily converted industries).

The US would also lose one of it's main advantage: A really strong airforce. Aircraft carriers would have to fight their way through national waters against other technologically advanced navies, no nearby land airfields would allow them, and air defenses are more important than in any recent wars. A war wouldn't be swift.

Fights would have to happen in cities that aren't as broad as US' cities, reducing US materiel efficiency, while most European vehicles are made to be more compact.

Many forests, local specialties and varied landscapes. Seasons changing radically the landscape.

___________________

Everything in this is about the US attacking Europe. The opposite is absurd as impossible because there is no real projection capacity in European armies. We generally use US logistics when joining in wars, for standardisation's sake. This also implies we all know how the US' systems work, while they don't know how every of our systems work.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Well, basically i was thinking, just guessing no country would let them just land there troops there, that USA would have an huge problem getting on europe soil, Especially if europe calls upon every man to join the army. that way you basically have way more soldiers on the battlefield (probably the beach) then USA could possibly muster in even weeks/months of transportation.

Well they barely managed to disembark in France the last time. Imagine no support from UK. We would have problems for about 2 years but then... There would be have a competition with China who can get to Kansas faster.

But to be honest? We and USA are all owned by same corporations that don't care for nations or countries. So no there will be no war (in my opinion). + USA never attacks someone close to their strength .

_________________
How to derail a thread with style:

Would be interesting as non of the European defense systems are set for a defense against a western agressor. Though Greenland is European territory, which may be a strategical advantage.

And no, I don't think the USA would win. The power of 27 armies will, even with bad coordination, be able to at least defend against such an attack. Also, I think it is very likely that countries like Russia or China join the war on the European side as they see their chance to defeat the US.

_________________
Newest Video on my channel: Wargame: AirLand Battle | Playing the Danes with Firestarter
Basic Tutorial for Newbies: Wargame: AirLand Battle | The Very Basics

They would eventually land. The problem is this would take time, and many losses. Naval warfare hasn't happened in many years, and is decided by missiles now. In terms of losses, I guess they would be pretty much equal on both sides, but the US can bring more. SO they would eventually land.

When they reach the land, they will have to face scorched earth with most airfields destroyed. Most US aircraft need suitably equipped airports/airfields for the "full might" to be deployed.

Landscape will prevent too easy satellite readings. Populations will most probably have received rough formations by the time an offensive takes place and conscription will reappear (In most countries, it is "suspended", not suppressed). Old stuff would probably be distributed.

Also, if one of the government falls, the others would most probably keep in the fight, unlike in the US where each state depends of the government, in Europe it's each country united with the next one.

Of course, some would surrender if things went bad, etc... Some organisational and nationalist problems would occur, but overall... There is no way to behead Europe.

IF the full might of the US falls on Europe, yep, possible win.

But it can't happen, and if it happens, the US would subsequently be so weak that they'd lose in the end.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

America wins. Is there any doubt?

I'm kidding guys, kidding... yes the naval warfare would be...interesting. The air war as well. I also think the UK would side with US forces and not EU.

Leo2s would out perform M1a2s imho... and Europeans have the home-front advantage too. You sure as hell bet your money Russia would support Europe if Europe wanted them too.

_________________

Vietnam & 1975 - Player List & Deck Advice

UK teaming up with USA? that sounds kinda unlikely.

Everytime I've mentioned similar circumstances to British friends, they said the UK would less likely ally the EU than they would the US. So, hey, only relaying their opinions.

_________________

Vietnam & 1975 - Player List & Deck Advice

I highly doubt that too. They are a part of the EU (even if people there dislike that) and are closer to Europe culturally as well as geographically.

Blair is not governing the UK anymore, don't forget that.

_________________
Newest Video on my channel: Wargame: AirLand Battle | Playing the Danes with Firestarter
Basic Tutorial for Newbies: Wargame: AirLand Battle | The Very Basics