Then you are basing your opinion on very outdated information. At that time, the US was useing the M1A1, which has had several major upgrades and a lot of minor upgrades since then. Including an almost entirely new optics system, improved gunsights and computers, including integreated GPS and Blue Force Tracking. And one thing you have to strngly consider is the success of the M1 over 2 major wars. Most spectacularly was in the Battle of Mahmoudiyah, where a group of 5 M1A1 tanks destroyed 7 T-72 tanks, in addition to many other targets. Without a single Abrams lost. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeboWop3YdY"]War Stories Ep. 1 - Mahmudiyah - YouTube[/ame] You or anybody else can build cruisers, I could not care less. That is your business. And you seem to be unaware of how the Russian Navy has worked for over a century. Russia and the Soviet Union both tend to avoid having the biggest ships in the ocean. However, they tend to ovengineer the meduim class ships, to a degree where they are almost as powerfull as larger ships (similar to the German Pocket Battleships). This is not a good thing nor a bad thing, it is just a different way of doing things. Yes, most of the cruiser in the world are Russian and American. This is simply how they compose their fleets. For the Russians, they are used as flagships of their fleet, and mostly patrol and protect their coast. In the US, they are generally used for defense of the carriers. Very different ships, with very different roles. As for frigates, that is a class of ship designation that is traditionally used only by the Royal Navy. The US has used them off and on many times, but generally called them "Destroyer Escorts". The Soviet Union also used them, but called them "Guard Ships". The last time the US used the term "Frigate" was in regards to 4 classes of ships, the Bainbridge, Truxton, California, Virginia, and Farragut class Nuclear Frigates. However, in 1975 during a restructure of the Navy, all but the Farragut's were reclassified as Cruisers, and the Farragut as a Destroyer. This is simply a convention of names, nothing more. In general, a Frigate is smaller then a destroyer, which generally us not used in the US Navy. And every one of those 5 classes of Frigates has long been retired. Generally, these ships during peacetime patrol the shores of a country. And during war time, they generally protect civilian convoys and other targets of commercial but not military value. They also do extended pickets of conventional fleets, generally in an ASW role. In the US, these tasks are generally done by aircraft, subs, and by larger destroyers and cruisers. It is not better or worse. It is however often more efficient. In general, a single Cruiser carries 2-3 times the weapons of a Destroyer. This makes it generally equal to 2 to 3 destroyers. And the Type 45 has a crew of around 200 sailors. That means that to equal the firepower, you must have 400-600 sailors to man an equal number of destroyers. And each destroyers needs it's own fuel and maintenance. A Ticonderoga class cruiser has a crew of 420. So crew wise it is equal or higher in efficiency. Then add in the lower cost of maintaining a single ship as opposed to 2-3 ships, and the cruiser once again comes out ahead. And the cost, which you say is twice that of a Type 45. Fine, you still come out equal or better in the value. So as long as your fleet has the need for a Cruiser, go with a Cruiser. It is cheaper and more efficient. If you do not need one, go with smaller vessels. In the end, it all goes back to roles. In the Royal Navy, there are no large capitol ships that need protecting, so it makes do with smaller ships. The US Navy is largely designed to protect it's carriers. And because of this, the ships are configured differently. Destroyers mostly for ASW, Cruisers for air defense. Not nessicarily better, or worse. Different ships for different roles. Or as I have been saying, Apples and Oranges.
My point still stands about the Challenger 2 being better than the Abrams. The UK TANK is better, as in it's armour and arms, but the USA tank has better technology. On the rest I can't disagree.
Or just have 5 in combat and 5 in port. China is over rated in naval terms it's doesn't need a large navy, but a large army and air force wich will always come first. Unlike India which needs a large navy and a smaller army and airforce. Going back to the point in this thread, do you think the Europeans need a bigger navy with more carriers? Or a bigger airforce or navy?
........oops, going back to the point in this thread ..............regarding European defences. For geographical reasons... I think that as an island nation, the UK certainly needs a larger Navy and Airforce.............not so sure about a large Army, cant see major tank battles in English counties, can you? Mainland Europe in general needs a larger Army and Airforce.........France also needs a larger Navy to help the UK protect Europes Western flanks. Incidently, i think your costs for the Type 45 include the initial design costs as well, later ships in build are usually cheaper.
And that is it? Of course, that "technology" is dedicated to both being able to see and hit your target, as well as making sure the good guys do not target you by accident. As for which is better tank, I would withhold making any such decision until there are some battles with this tank against other tanks (not just other Challenger 2 tanks, we know they can destroy those). To day, the Challenger 2 has not really had to face another tank in battle, it's engagements being restricted to troop support. And as for the "arms" being better, you are aware that all the cannons in the tanks are being replaced, are you not? The original guns are all being replaced, so that they can use NATO standard rounds. Seems the original one had an issue with that. And in regards to armour, the tank has been shown in combat to be as vulnerable if not a little more to RPG rounds. To combat this, they have added reactive armour, and other add-on systems (most of them made by an Israeli company). In general, the tanks are about equal. The design of one simply shows 18 years of progress between design creations. But both pretty much equal other then that. And of course, one has only a handfull built and is used by 2 countries. The other has over 9,000 built, and is used by 6 countries. Think of one as a Chevy, the other as a Lincoln. Both get the job done, and both are dependable. One just comes with a fancier name.
Which European defense? Without the United States militarily in Western Europe is not that it can not, except to bomb Libyan civilians residents. Russia in its present position single-handedly destroy Western Europe (if hypothetically without the U.S.)
Go on then, try a conventional war against Europe. Russia will loose, you need to be a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*) and use nuclear weapons.
I agree.....Russia could not defeat the entire European nations in a conventional war..........nuclear war would be irrelevant as both sides would be decimated.
Conventionally, combat-ready in Western Europe are Germany and France and not for full-scale war (not nuclear). In Europe, the command and the location of the combat units are compact, very easy to hit with cruise missiles. The attack on Russia given the vast territory and dispersal of combat units, and cover-up by means of defense is simply impossible. So 100-200 cruise missiles, enough to completely disintegrate the infrastructure of Europe and beyond about 10,000 tanks, clean up the area from the cowardly western Europeans.
@ Hugilanim : Do u think, war is a game ? When i read your text i thought that u think, war is a game Mhm, and i say it again. Germany doesn't want nukes ! Look at Fukushima, Hiroshima, ... why should we have nukes ? Germany is able to build nukes but we don't want U think, russia will sent 10.000 Missles and u will win the war ? Sry but how old are u ? U can't destroy the infrastructure of Germany We have to much roads. We build our Air defense systems after the second world war and they are directed against Russia ( Soviet Union... )
I think Europe only needs 1.1-1.3 million troops and about 500,000 in reserve, about the same as the US. With more helicopters, tank and transports.
Yeah, I know what you mean. It's hard enough to discuss theoreticals as it is, all the more so when you're dealing with someone with little or no concept of what he's talking about.
I am afraid I have to agree with Hugilanim here. You may not realize exactly how large of a force there is in Russia. Russia itself has over 300,000 active duty soldiers. That is more then Germany, France, and England combined. Russia has over 6,500 tanks in active service (and another 16,000 in reserve). Compare that to the 400 that Germany has, the 400 that France has, and the already discussed 450 that England has. And if you think that is all Russia has, think again. If they have a general recall, add another 754,000 reservists that can be called up. And even the 300,000 only counts those in Russia itself. If the entire Russian Federation joins in, you will actually have a total of 1,200,000 active duty soldiers. That is a total of almost 2 million soldiers. And a roughly 2 to 1 advantage in tanks. If they wanted to, they would pound Europe flat. That is why NATO was so critical during the Cold War. The concept always was that the European nations would hold off the Warsaw Pact, hopefully long enough for the US to bring in more troops, equipment, and ammunition to eventually turn the tide of battle. So yes, even conventionally, Europe would loose in a war against Russia without US aid. They simply do not have the manpower or equipment to hold them off. No more then they did against Hitler.
The basement is the UK army, which doesn't have enough armoured vehicles, and helicopters. Germany and France in some ways do, but all most every other European nation doesn't. I would rather have a smaller better army that can be moved around, and can do all the missions, than an army that is huge but can only do 1 thing. I would rather be Germany in WW2 than Russia.
A lot of Russian equipment has been deadlined or decommissioned. I think they're still very formidable, but they've turned into something of a paper tiger. They've had SEVERE budget problems in the last decade or two and rely on short term conscripts for much of their force. France, UK, Germany etc. have professional armies with top tier equipment.
I have to fully agree there. I see lots of people throwing out claims, but not even looking at the numbers of troops and equipment available. When it comes to military matters, I am not a "fanboy" of anything. I look at everything equally, and make a decision based on what I know of the equipment, training, and tactics of the organizations in question. And while I have little to no faith in the ability of Warsaw Pact tactics in the modern battlefield against equal or freater forces, I have no doubt as to their effectiveness against a weaker opponant when it is on the offensive side. If the Russian Federation took the offense and attacked even a prepared Europe without outside aid, Europe would loose. WP tactics is little more then a fist clutching an iron roll while inside a steel gauntlet. It will smash anything it strikes. And the only hope against those tactics is to have an equal or superior force, an insanely strong defensive line that is multiple layers deep and an army trained to do constant fighting withdrawls, or to take the offensive first against them before they are fully organized to start their offensive. And this is not just hot air, look at history to see exactly what I mean. Iran-Iraq War, the Invasion of Kuwait, Gulf Wars I and II, and finally the multiple wars with Israel. All but 1 of these was Warsaw Pact tactics against NATO style tactics, and the 1 exception were Warsaw Pact against Warsaw Pact. Look back at all these engagements, and see how Warsaw Pact reacted, and you have a good idea how things would turn out if done again in Europe.
Silly argument though. No country with nuclear weapons is going to let another country conquer it. It is quite one thing for Russia or the United States to fight proxie wars in the Middle East, Africa or Asia, but the threat of going nuclear if anyone's homeland were to be invaded will stop all but the completely suicidal regimes- and I really don't think any regime wants to get killed or lose its power base. On the other hand- Mynoon is actually just completely out there. He argues that the 'civilians' will eventually come along to the idea, whereas in reality the 'civilians' show no interest in developing such a European defense force and will vote with their wallets.
I took that into consideration. However, they do have around 6,500 tanks in active service. The 16,000 is a rough assumption of how many of the 22,000 they have deadlined and in inactive stockpiles that they could get fully operational in time for a war. Remember, they would know what they were doing, and would be working hard to get as many operational as they could before the balloon went up. And yes, Russia (and the Federation) mostly uses conscripts. But they have a god-awful large number of them. This is what every invader from Napoleon to Hitler discovered to their demise. Now do I think they are a threat to Europe? No, it is not in their interest to attack Europe, either politically or militarily. However, I was tossing all of these considerations out and only looking at it as a mental challenge. Warsaw Pact Tactics are wonderful in the attack. And Russia has some amazing amounts of equipment, even with their budget problems. More tanks then all of Europe combined, more artillery then the rest of Europe combined. More APCs then the rest of Europe combined. And more aircraft then the rest of Europe combined. And that is only looking at working active equipment. Throw in the probably 60-75% that could be activated from reserve and storage, and then it is an overwhelming Army that I doubt Europe could defeat on it's own. Yes, the rest are better trained. So were the Germans in WWII. That did not help them against the hordes of Russia either. NATO nations tend to have finely tuned armies that strike with great damage and precision. This is not always a help when the other army is a massive steamroller that could crush everything in it's path. This is why during the Cold War, NATO always planned on a fighting retreat. It was always assumed that WWIII in Europe would be similar to the Korean War. Warsaw Pact attacks, and NATO does a fighting retreat, pulling back and trading area for time, avoiding major battles unless there was a clear advantage. And during that time the US, Canada, and other nations would be frantically sending in troops, ammunition, and equipment. And that somewhere in Eastern France the forces would eventually be stopped by fractured supply lines and stronger resistance, and a counter-offensive could be initiated. Take out the massive material from the US from this equation, and Europe goes down in flames. No B-52 strikes. No A-10, M1A2, no replacement missiles for the PATRIOT, AMRAAM, Sidewinder, or any other high-tech equipment arriving by convoy and airlift. In short, only fighting with what is available in Europe, they will fail. Even with the expansions proposed by the OP, nothing would change. Unless Europe is willing to initiate mandatory conscription, increasing the number of internal armed forces by 3 or 4 times their current numbers, and a massive increase of their military equipment to the degree that most would bankrupt themselves. If all the European nations did that, then they have a good chance of holding off a Russian attack. And all those nifty ships that the OP talks about? Useless in this war. Because Russia is predominantly a land army, and the ships would be worthless sitting out at see hundreds of miles from the battlefield.
You'd be surprised. When both countries have nuclear weapons sometimes people are more willing to surrender/sue for peace than risk losing their populations.
Why has nobody brought up the fact the Russia could just cut the Germans and eastern Europeans off them fuel to fight the war. That is how Russia would and could win. The EU has around 4 million men, more than enough man power. The problem as you say it tanks, I would like the Germans and eastern European to have more better tanks than they do, and spend less on there navies. But Europe does have have advantage of attack helicopters that Russia doesn't have, which would go abit of the way to stopping the Russian advance if Russia attack first. Then European airpower would come into the game and win the war, as there is no Russian jets a upto date at almost any Europe or US jets. Yes they have missiles but so do the Europeans, then there is the naval side were the European will win, more ship and aircraft carriers. Plus I think it would be very hard for Russian subs to get into the med and attack those carriers, and the oil and gas from Africa and the middle east. So Russia would lost, it isn't as strong as it once was, and Europe now in many cases has better weapons.
I agree, I've just read too much about Russia's decaying military to not mention it. I think a lot of Europeans don't realize just how bare bones their militaries have become. 400 tanks is ridiculous for a country with tens of millions of citizens. People just assume a military can be created overnight and sent into battle. Today warfare requires too much sophisticated equipment and training. Also, don't forget Cobra's and Apaches. Attack choppers and ATGMs were the U.S./NATO response to the significant Russia numerical advantage in tanks.
I am not arguing that at all. Remember, I am only looking at the conventional forces, and their known tactics. Nothing more, nothing less. However, you then have to look at the numbers of weapons each side in a European Only war would have. The UK posesses 160 nukes, and France 290 nukes. Russia has active 2,430 nukes. Now it becomes a "Mexican Standoff". If when facing defeat, would France really launch their nukes? Because they know that the Russian response would be overwhelming. They could drop around 8 nukes for every 1 of France. Are they willing to see their entire population destroyed in order to save their government? Same with the UK. Russia would be hard pressed to invade England. Would they launch nukes in this situation, once agian knowing that the response would be overwhelming? The best defense about nukes is that hopefully all sides are to sane to ever use them. But if the genie is ever let out of the bottle, the side with the largest number and most dispersed infrastructure wins. And to both of these criteria, Russia wins. Mynoon has no military experience, and is talking from a very uninformed knowledge base. A large Navy for Europe is only a use in defense if facing a Naval invasion. And Russia would not invade that way, so the fleets would be worse then worthless. To have a force to hold off an invasion by Russia, they would have to start a mandatory conscription regemin to a degree that I am sure many of those governments would fall in the outrage. What we see going on now in parts of Europe like Greece would be a walk in the park if they started to institute that kind of military force in the absence of any real military threat.
