EU defence pact.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by mynoon1999, Oct 19, 2011.

  1. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Fritz, where's the beer truck? That's where you'll find the Bundeswehr.
     
  2. Nissi

    Nissi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The germans drink beer and russian vodka o_O

    And u find the us soldiers in a school for stupids :/ the us army is quantity ! They take everyone ....

    Believe it or not ;)

    B2t !
     
  3. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    You obviously have no concept on how strongly the Swiss feel about their neutrality. They have avoided getting involved in foreign wars for over 200 years. So when the rest of Europe burned over the centuries, Switzerland has not. They are also as far as I am aware the only major European power that sided with neither NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

    And they would no more join financially then they would militarily. Because even helping finance such a military would violate their neutrality.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess that is why the German Air Force Air Defense School is in the US. Where everybody in that branch in Germany trains here at Fort Bliss, in Texas.

    Honestly, I have always felt that a smaller military is a better trained military. That is why the Marines man per man are a better quality branch then the Army is. However, that is a good and a bad thing at the same time. Because a smaller force is less effective in large and/or long term conflicts.

    You take a random selection og 100 German soldiers and 100 US soldiers and have them compete, the Germans will probably come out better. This is because they can pick and choose more who they accept. Put them against 100 Marines, and they will probably come out equal or a bit lower, because the Marines are much more selective then the Army.

    However, put the German Army against the US Army, and it becomes no contest. Because no matter how good they are, the US will swamp them. The German Army is like the Marines, a finely tuned tool for doing massave damage quickly, then pulling back (or destroying a massive army in the defense).

    The US Army however is a sledgehammer. During most of the Cold War, there were more Army troops in Germany then the entire manpower of the Marine Corps. They were less effective man per man, but in divisions/brigades/corps, they were just as effective if not more so because of their training and equipment.

    And unlike you, I would never call the soldiers of any conventional army "stupid". I have worked with servicemembers from different branches from a great many countries (including Germany, Japan, Italy, France, UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Israel, Qatar, Iraq, and many more nations I can't remember). And I would consider none of them "stupid".

    Other then a few who were because they individually were idiots, not because of where they were from.
     
  6. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Fritz,

    I think you found the beer truck. :)
     
  7. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What are your views on the British army and India airforce.
     
  8. Nissi

    Nissi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, thats right u mushroom.


    But Hitler had 1933 only 100000 soldiers and 1939 he had the best army, the world hav ever seen ;) so the envonomy is the most important part because only a good enconomy can create a good army.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would strongly question that for one large reason.

    He lost.

    And your second statement is not true either. The economy has nothing to do with the quality of an Army. In fact, it can be argued that a bad economy builds a better one, because people who would normally never consider the military start looking at it as a possible career.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Excuse me, what in the heck does that have to do with anything I just said?
     
  11. Nissi

    Nissi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes he lost ;) But he had the best soldiers and that is a fact ;)

    Hmm, but a bad enconomy can't offer a career as soldier.
     
  12. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well that's just rubbush, if you have a bigger better economy you can spend more money, It is why the US won the cold war.
     
  13. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you quantify that please.
     
  14. mepal1

    mepal1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Regarding a EU defence pact.......i seem to remember some European politician putting forward this situation some months ago, but the idea was dismissed, as it was stated that many European nations were in NATO, and it was that another defence pact similar and running in parallel to NATO was unnecessary.
    The only way Europe would probably form its own defence alliance would be if the US for some reason pulled out of NATO...(can't see that happening in the forseeable future though).

    Anyway, for various reasons (mainly econimical) the two strongest military nations in Europe....France and Britain have their own military pact at the moment and are due to carry out a major military exercise next year together.

    If Europe was to have its own military pact, then there would be some major hurdles to get over initially.

    1/ Who would have overall command?
    2/ Equipment would have to be standardised througout.
    3/ Major training co-operative tasks would need to be conducted, with all involved......considering that unlike the UK and France, other nations have very little real war experience in various scenarios.

    .....oh yes, regarding equipment......the mainland European nations would in future need to build their land wehicles with the steering wheel on the RHS.
    .....to conform with us British.:)

    Regarding 'Nissi's comments about the German army.............yes, the German army would be a formidible benefit to a European defence force, and would most certainly be the premier land force of Europe followed by France.

    In respect to WW2, the Germans were formidible opponents.........and it was their nutcase of a leader that lost the war for them, and not the German military.
     
  15. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Back to the original post- besides the technical issues with the European Carrier force- the real question I have is what mission they would be intended for?

    I think a EU defense pact would be a great idea, and I think NATO has rather outlived its original purpose. The EU doesn't need the U.S. and should be able to afford its own defense. What they would need are ground forces and air forces- not carriers.

    Where would Europeans be needing to send carrier battle groups and for what reason- to defend the Falklands? Does Europe really want to be projecting power and competing with say China or India in Asia? Why on earth would they?
     
  16. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You really believe that the German military could have maintained "Fortress Europe" and defeated England, the United States, and the Soviet Union if not for Hitler?
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not really. What affects a career soldier much more is a change in administrations. For example, in the US it has traditionally happened that a Democrat will shrink the military. Happened in 1993 (when I was cut in a reduction in force), and again in 2009 (when I am being cut yet again by a reduction in force).

    A lot of people actually try to join the military in a bad economy. It is a secure job (for the length of their contract), has some great benefits, and lets people try something new.

    The military actually tends to suffer most in a good economy. The quality of recruits generally decreases, and more and more incentives have to be offered to get people to consider the crappy pay and bad hours instead of making real money as a civilian.
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Cold War is something else all together. The main reason the US won is because the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own corruption. Economy has very little to do with how that turned out.

    Because if that war had ever gone hot, it would have been a tough and bloody battle that the Soviets might well have won. Just ask Nazi Germany how well fighting the Soviets went.

    NATO might have had better equipment, but that does not always help when fighting a force that vastly outnumbers you and has a much shorter logistical supply line.
     
  19. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought it was because the US went on the attack, in political terms. The USSR would have lost it would have been a two front war for them, where as the west it would have been a one front each war. But look at China now every body is wrongly talking about them as military power because there economic is growing, where as India be 2020 will have as good if not better military than China because of western weapons. Like the Eurofight for it's airforce.
     
  20. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would work the same way as NATO just the head would be elected and the US, Turkey and Canada wouldn't be in it. Yes which side of the road to drive on it a huge problem, hahaha. You are inpart right about the Germans and Hitler, but it was the German army that was the best, not the navy or airforce, if it had been Britain would have been taken and Russia befor the US had got into the war, people forget that is MOSCOW the Russian airforce was the key not the army.
     
  21. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There mission would be power projection, control of the Arctic and Antarctic and defending Europe and it's overseas territories, plus helping allies like New Zealand, Australia and other smaller islands in the Pacific, projecting power on to Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa and Argentina, not India or China, India is our ally and China and USA's job. Would you not want the Europeans to have more carriers, I am we could hardly do Libya because there was only 1 good sized carrier, the carriers and to small and should just be helicopter carriers, what about Russia and Norway it needs a better navy, not just a carrier but also more submarines. We don't need more troops bet more helicopters and tanks, I would cut the troop numbers to 1.8-2 million 1.3 million and 500,000-700,000 in reserve. I would also have a much be airforce and build a European stealth fighter, are you bothered about the cost, as I have re done may carrier plan, as I under rated the costs of planes and didn't really could upkeep costs, so from being 196 billion over 10 years it is now 451.5 billion euros over 10 years, even if you take off the French carrier it is still above 440 billion. Then we have the cost of building 4 modern battle ship, 8 crusiers, 4 new helicopter carriers, 29 more Astute class attack submarines, 50 destroyers, 70 frgates, 150 corvettes, 40 supply ships, 4 landing docks, and other smaller patrol boats, the cost will be at least 1 trillion euros over 10 years, plus I am not even sure the Europe could build that many ships.
     
  22. Nissi

    Nissi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mhm my grandfather was in Russia at the second worldwar. Of course they weren't very bad but germany wad bettet.
     
  23. Nissi

    Nissi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There won't ever be a europe defence ;)
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you look at the Cold War as a real war, the USSR won most of the battles. Vietnam sure,but more importantly influence over India, Egypt, and large chunks of Africa, Asia, and South America.

    However, the longer they held onto these areas, the more and more it became apparent the system did not work. In short, it was recognized that their weakness was their ego, and that was exploited.

    And China does not use "Western Weapons". They largely use modificaions of older Soviet era designs. And after taking decades to get rid of the taint left on them by working with the Soviets, India is rather hesitant to once again let themselves be seen on the "wrong side" of a possible "Cold War II".
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if Canada is not going to be a part, that would probably be a final straw that would keep the UK out of it. Remember, the majority of the population in that nation already want to pull out of the EU already, even without some kind of military alliance.

    Add in a military alliance without the participation of Canada, then you pretty much kill any chance of it happening as far as they are concerned.

    I am sorry, but this has largely become nothing but an exercise in mental masturbation. You have some kind of concept, but seem to have absolutely no idea about military tactics, military strategy, or even how political alliances and histories influence how and why nations do things.

    There will probably never be any kind of "European Alliance" within my lifetime, or even my son's lifetime. Because to many nations on that continent do not like or trust other nations. And you seem to feel that it would be alright to force unwilling members to join, which would doom it even more.

    Then the final straw is what would this military be used for? You seem to think it would be used to intimidate other countries. That would be the final straw, because it would do exactly that.

    When the Third World think of a "terrorist nation", many tend to think of the US. But when it comes to a "terrorist continent", they immediately think of Europe. Under colonializm, that continent at one time or another has controlled over 2/3 of the world's surface. And now you want them to unify and build this massive military (including a giant navy with super carriers).

    If I was a leader in Myopia, which was once a colony of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, I would become very VERY nervous at that thought. English is still one of my native languages even a hundred year plus after colonization because of the influence of the oppressors.

    Then you have nations like Argentina, which really does still hold grudges with a major European power. Taking such a Navy and putting it in their hands would inflame a lot of people, and make them worry about a repeat of the last UK Invasion of Argentina in 1806-1807.
     

Share This Page