The invincible American Army? - Page 3 - Political Forum

jpn of Seattle · 03-28-2008, 12:36 AM

I think we Americans need to get past this silly idea that we are exceptional. We aren't.

Our military is the most powerful in the world by a long shot because we spend almost as much as every other nation combined. For that reason alone we can project power like no other nation can.

Chesty Puller · 03-28-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

Not a chance...

The "Grand Army of Europe" has had to have America rescue them twice in the last 100 years.

The US has both a qualitative and quantitative advantage in armor.

Germany has 408 Leopard IIs in service.

Britain has around 386 Challenger IIs.

The US Armed Forces has:

1174 M1A2 (Army inventory)
4393 M1A1 (Army inventory)
403 M1A1 (USMC inventory)

I should also point out that the Australian upgraded from the Leopard to the Abrams.

In Desert Storm exactly 1 crewmember died in an Abrams, and that was after it was hit three times by another tank and once with an RPG.

One of two British carriers (HMS Invincible) and one of twelve US carriers (USS John C. Stennis).

That about sums it up, eh?

Now add in the most advanced attack and missile subs in the world, and the most advanced missile ships with the Aegis system, and you have a navy that is more powerful than the rest of the combined navies of the world.

The Typhoon is a generation behind the F-35 Raptor, and is inferior in every way. In 20 years Europe may have a fighter that will equal the F-35, but we'll be ahead by 30 years by that point.

You can't hit what you can't see.

Between this post and roundeyes, and the 72 Nuclear Submarines we have I think the argument is
settled.

Incidentally if you think our Carriers cant stop 10 missiles from N Korea or any other country...send them over and watch what happens.
Now if you want to see me get nervous....Have Russia come together as one again thats alot of tanks and nukes my friends...can we say "Mutually assured Destruction" class?

The Lying Dutchman · 03-28-2008, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbloms

Yes, an american aircraft carrier can easily hold off some backwater country and if necessary render almost any military forces useless...

BUT they are not a great advantage against any of the more sophisticated nations on the planet... I mean even North Korea with their small size and low technology can take out a carrier in a single missile strike... 10 missiles are unstoppable even by the Vulcans on the side of those warships...

Personally i believe the Grand Army of Europe to be the greatest fighting force assembled... They have not yet seen any real action so it seems impossible to draw parallels... But i think that when looking at the international recognition european forces and weaponry have gotten over the past few years it seems they've assembled quite the team for the task at hand...

I know for sure that the German Leopard class tanks have by far out-gunned and outrunned any opposition except for the British Challenger class which holds the current terrain speed record...

The Danish special forces Jægerkorpset has won several international competitions and receive training in combat all over the world fx as French Foreign Legionaires in New Guinea and as Seals in the US (not actual Seals just same training). They've also got the Sirius Dogsleigh Patrol, the only arctic warfare only special forces. And the Frogman Corpse specializing in missions involving water insertion or diving.

The British Navy and the Danish Navy also is the one of the strongest Naval forces known to man having anything from sub-marines to carriers, destroyers and missile ships.

Last but not least, it's not only american forces that has been given renown for their air abilities. The Eurofighter Tycoon project is to be the first of many european sponsored projects involving superiority in all the fields of battle. The RAF and the Luftwaffe still exist to this day.

Not to mention the fact that if the entire Union was to fight as one entity they would have the largest and second most expensive army on the planet.

grand army of europe? we cant even agree on going to war, managing an army with 20 languages will be the 22th century perhaps.

AzTeK · 03-28-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

grand army of europe? we cant even agree on going to war, managing an army with 20 languages will be the 22th century perhaps.

That's because no war has come along that was unanimously declared necessary. Afghanistan wasn't and Iraq wasn't. That's the end of story. Due to WW1 and WW2, there are also a couple of constitutions that prohibit an offensive war, so that's another reason.

You'r right in pointing out that Europe has very limited offensive capabilities for this reason (as I deem all offensive wars unnecessary, and I'm sure you will find a couple of European governments that share this view) - but when it comes to a defensive war, it shouldn't be a problem to get the Union together. And as pointed out, it's a hell of a hard nut to crack logistically, but if pulled off the European army probably really is right up there with the US army.

AzTeK · 03-28-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

The "Grand Army of Europe" has had to have America rescue them twice in the last 100 years.

Check your history books please - the "Grand Army of Europe" was fighting against eachother in those occasions. Due to certain deals starting with the European Coal and Steel Union, such a scenario is highly unlikely, basically impossible actually, nowadays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

One of two British carriers (HMS Invincible) and one of twelve US carriers (USS John C. Stennis).

According to my sources, GB has 4 Aircraft carriers. I cannot dicern on your photo what carrer is the British one and which one is the US one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

The Typhoon is a generation behind the F-35 Raptor, and is inferior in every way. In 20 years Europe may have a fighter that will equal the F-35, but we'll be ahead by 30 years by that point.

The only sector where the F-35 is superior to the EF Typhoon is stealth - on the rest, they both are absolutely comparable, some estimates would even put the Eurofighter ahead specially when it comes to maneverability. The Eurofighter also has a limited stealth capability meaning the detection advantage the F-35 has over "regular" airplanes shrinks considerably when put up against the Eurofighter.

The F-35 is probably the better plane, but to say that it is a generation behind is not true in any way except for stealth. And it's really arguable how well that works anyways. It is no problem for modern ground radars to detect a stealth plane nowadays, it's only a problem for countries lacking the technology.

Martin · 03-28-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

Check your history books please - the "Grand Army of Europe" was fighting against eachother in those occasions. Due to certain deals starting with the European Coal and Steel Union, such a scenario is highly unlikely, basically impossible actually, nowadays.

Yes, and creating that Union was mostly (aside the economical coop) to prevent for European countries to start new wars among each other.

Quote:

According to my sources, GB has 4 Aircraft carriers. I cannot dicern on your photo what carrer is the British one and which one is the US one.

Lol, it's all about mine is bigger than yours.

BTW, the UK one has a launch deck for Harriers if you look more closely at the pic.

AzTeK · 03-28-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Lol, it's all about mine is bigger than yours.

BTW, the UK one has a launch deck for Harriers if you look more closely at the pic.

I don't care about who's one is bigger, I live in a neutral country with an army that very well would qualify as "pathetic" and am extremely happy about that fact. I just don't like it when false facts are being thrown around.

hbloms · 03-28-2008, 08:13 AM

WOOOW!!!

Someone said that the US had to save Europe in WW2... Those assholes waited five fucking years! FIVE FUCKING YEARS!

Now don't come and tell me it was the americans that did the most... The russians lost millions and fought all the greatest battles in the history of mankind BEFORE the americans wanted to have anything to do with it... It wasn't the US that one the war... It was the alliance they were a part of... What would they have done if all of Europe had turned to Nazism? Nuke us? It was german immigrants that made the nuke for them... If it hadn't been for Europe, USA wouldn't exist...

BobH. · 03-28-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

The American army has many strengths, but also several weaknesses that you have pointed out. It is arguably the best equipped army in the world, but it has the glaring weakness of not being able to sustain an indefinite war. Also, unlike WWII when we had the greatest industrial capacity in the world, I doubt if our manufacturing capability could produce the goods required during that conflict now. Nevertheless, industrial capacity more than luck determined the victors in WWI and WWII.
Furthermore, changing from compulsive military service to a smaller all volunteer army may not have been the best course of events.

No disrespect, but it is not the US Military that has a weakness for sustaining an indefinite war, that weakness falls upon the Civilian side of the balance.

If one drafts a person more suited for Basketball onto a Baseball Team, can one really expect this person to be a better Baseball Player?

I don't think so. One because there is a different need and quite possibly a desire between Baseball and Basketball, and like an Involuntary Draft into Military Service results might not be as good as opposed to one that desired to be in the Military.

IMHO

pedex · 03-28-2008, 09:36 AM

you can have the most powerful army in the world and lose, been proven time and time again

last set of war games run in the mideast theatre that I read about ended up that way

tactics and strategy mean just as much if not more as the hardware and equipment and men

for being the world's military super power the US sure does make an awful lot of really stupid tactical and strategic errors, and it's had its nose bloodied for it too at the cost of perfectly good soldiers and equipment, Iraq and Afghanistan among others are textbook examples of what NOT to do

more to it than just military though, you have to have the economy and finances to support it, let those fall apart and your military becomes useless, just like bad strategy and tactics can hand you a defeat very very quickly