European Union, a military superpower?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
What about Tobruk? I know after Rommel stop the British Army at Tripoli they retreated to Tobruk. I know that at first Rommel didn't succeed but he eventually was able to lay seige and defeat several relief attempts by the XIII Corps.

Tobruk


I thought after I posted that what I described wasn't entirely true, something didn't sit right in my head, so I did some further reading...

Arrgh.. I looked over Tobruk as on the way back after el Alamein, there was no siege again.

My mistake


I was being to generalistic in my description of the retreat to Egypt and glossed over some rather glaring facts.



Actually I am well aware that the Royal Navy sent significant forces to the Pacific in 1945 but after the Fall of Singapore in Mar. 42 the UK was a non-entity until in the Pacific theatre until 1945.


In that we have agreement. Precisely what I was aiming at first time round. You guys did the Pacific, we did the Sub-continent.



Well I didn't say defunct I said neglected which by many contemporary accounts from Royal Navy officers and seamen seems an accurate statement to me.


In the inter-war years, the Navies around the world were hampered by the Washington Treaty, so compromises had to be made. Also, when alot of the fleet building was going on, there was the Depression and no-one really wanted war, so I can see how the Fleet was not prepared.

I never said it was mind you. I doubt you could find a fleet on the Planet that was ready, despite the German U-boat's and Japanese Imperial Navy.



And the Royal Navy had been taking losses from U-boats practically from day one.


I actually did the whole sneaking into Scapa Flow myself on Silent Hunter 3! Surprisingly easy...

But anyhoo.. 1 Carrier and a Battleship, although considerable vessels in their own right, does not count as putting the RN into trouble. We had BB coming out of our ears back then!
Seeing as the RN put the majority of the Kriegsmarine to the sword during the war, plus, we lost more warships at the Battle of Jutland in WW1 than we did to U-boats..If memory serves..



That doesn't track from the history I've read. While its correct that the U-boats couldn't drive the RN from the sea that wasn't their purpose in the first place. Their mission was to sunk merchant shipping and strangle Britain's life line from America and the rest of the British Empire and they came close to achieving that objective on a number of occasions.


Thats what I meant. They would, unless it was a target of opportunity, rarely attack warships.



Yeah the Sherman were pretty crappy no doubt about it. However I would say that they were more or less equal to their Brititsh counterparts. The Sherman lacked the protection that the late war Churchills(Mk IV and up)had but possessed greater cross country moblity. Yeah at first that didn't count for much in Boqague of Normandy but once we broke out the mobility of the Shermans was a great asset.


Aye. The Sherman was a nippy thing, but had the stopping power of an Ice cube in a furnace when it came up against the heavy German tanks. There are stories of 1 Tiger holding off dozens of Shermans, as there puny guns just would not penetrate the armour.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Yeah the Shermans were pretty much worthless against a Tiger or Panther unless you could catch one out in the open and even then it would be a pretty good idea to let the Air Corp deal with it. The problem with US tanks wasn't that we couldn't build a good one or even a great one its just that the doctrine the army brass instituted was that the tank should support the infantry while the anti-tank role would go to tank destroyers(usually upgunned shermans). We began to remedy the situation by early 45 with the M-26 Pershing. God what I bet tank crews would've done top get them before Normandy



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
stumason OT:
Scapa is an easy place to get in in SH3, nasty to get out since it so damn shallow


Back to the off topic closer to original topic:
You'll allso have to take into account that all participants didn't fight for victory, survival by any means and alliances available was the goal of most smaller nations, only Finland effectively succeded in that.




Some reading to those interested of the periphery of the ww2:
Winter War '39-40
Continuation War

These articles are pretty accurate accounts.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
danwild6, you are quite correct when you say that Tirpitz was not actually sunk by the X Craft.

However, what they did do, was cause the Tirpitz to become stuck in the mud and they also damaged the rudder and screws. Thus it was a stranded Tirpitz that was bombed by 617 Squadron.

With regards to the Mobile Ronsons, even the PzKpfw Mk IV Aus F could take them on and expect to come out tops, so please do try to be realistic when extolling the virtues of the Sherman Medium Tank - there are'nt any!

Speed is not everything and, in dry conditions, nothing draws the eye more readily than a troop of Shermans going hell for leather across the ulu whilst putting up a dust storm!

If my gunnery skills have not totally deserted me, lead time for a Mk IV, Tiger or Panther 'D' was about 1 or maybe 2 graticules, at 1,000 metres at a speed of about 20 to 30 mph. TOT about 3 to 5 seconds and BOOM! Another Ronson flaming



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
stumason OT:
Scapa is an easy place to get in in SH3, nasty to get out since it so damn shallow




If you study the map carefully, there is small, narrow passage through to the harbour, rather then going in the main entrance. During a night once, I snuck in thought the passage, sunk the King George (or whatever the main BB was) and 2 accompanying cruisers without them ever finding me. I was so close to the targets that I don't think the RN destroyers could locate me. I then waited for a few hours and snuck back out the same, narrow passage. No one the wiser


Anyway..sorry for going off topic



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Very interesting subject, Scapa Flow.

I once read a book about U-Boats called 'U-47, The Golden Horseshoe' written about Otto Kretschmeyer - one time commander of U-47.

Having said that, I am a little confused. In the book, it was claimed that Kretschmeyer sank the Royal Oak and got clean away, became one of the U-Boat Aces and eventually surrendered to the Canadians.

However, other sources say it was Gunther Prien who commanded U-47 and that he sank the Royal Oak when she was either entering or leaving Scapa Flow.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the Royal Oak was at anchor. From what I remember the U-47 fired two torpedos the first one actually struck the anchor chain and did little damage. The captain heard the explosion himself but believed it to have been an internal explosion(the RN considered Scapa Flow pretty much impregenable to anything the Germans had, even submarines)so took no defensive action. The U-boat fired again this time sinking the Royal Oak.

Royal Oak

The wiki article is different from what I've read but does confirm the ship was at anchor.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Have we found the outer reaches of Off-topic?

Back to the vicinity of the original topic:
Finnish Parlament has approved that Finnish EU-RDF unit is in ready status and the unit is ready to go 1.1.2007 (or immediately actually, but that's un-official)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Mdv2 I agree with some of your comments but let's be realistic. The EU will never have a common defence policy, simply because we can't even agree on a simple foreign policy.


Western Europe has had a common defense policy (which included the US as well) named NATO. In case of emergency, if Europe was threatened, I doubt Europe would have trouble organizing and defending itself....


If you take global warming for example, President Blair [having hijacked David's Cameron's Green Policies] now wants to tax us to make us greener. Fine, but what about the rest of the EU? We can't agree about the Tokyo Summit, Africa and famine relief, so what hope a for European standing army?


Hope is in the future...there simply is no need for a standing european army because europe has no real enemies. An army would be created if Europe was threatened...it is not ( I see no visible threat at least)


No my friend, I cannot see a multi-national European armed forces. We Brits have contributed 1 Commando and 1 Parachute Brigade to the European Rapid Response
Force and to date, the French (bless them!) have committed the Foreign Legion to same, but this [the EU RRF] has not even been ratified by Brussels because of in-fighting about who commands, where it's based or who pays for it etc, etc, etc!


It is peace time...so there is plenty of time to decide where to base, pay etc, etc. If there was compelling need to create a real army ((say an unknown enemy threatened to invade, or growing tensions between europe and a given country)) the pressure to create it would be greater...its simply politics. there is no real rush to create it, so they take the time ((I don't like it either))


Technologically speaking we have, as individual countries, some excellent military products. We also have some quite excellent R & D companies doing brilliant military and civilian research but, we do lack the funding the US can feed in to a project.


As a whole, Europe does not lack the funding for an ambitious project. Again, timing is the problem. The US funds such large projects because they constantly plan to be at war. Europe does not. If such an army was ever created, it would be merely a defense force, for the most of Europe ((excluding the UK, which decided to jump in the cowboy invasion)) doesn't have real enemies. ((Al Qaeda...but an army is not needed to fight them, counter intel services are))


If you take the Eurofighter 'Typhoon' as an example, it is well over budget, several countries have scaled back their orders or cancelled the contracts and the intended delivery date was missed by miles.
I agree, but that seems to be a tendency in military projects ((F-22 as an example...)) Yet, the project has been developed, if need arised, Europe would have the capability to build an excellent plane. The R&D did not go to waste.


The other situation to consider is NATO. What becomes of NATO if we Europeans decide to go it alone? Will it become a paper tiger?

Chances are, if Europe decides to go alone, it would become a paper tiger, since Europe would not need the US, but the coordination expertise from NATO would be used in the new "army"


Do we [as Europeans] politely say 'thank you' to the US for helping us keep the peace in Europe for the last 60 odd years and explain that thanks to Reagan and Thatcher, we no longer need you now the Russian Bogey Man has been firmly put in his place?

Europe could also say they don't intend to be dragged into the wars the US is firmly decided to wage. Or that they now will defend their own interests...who knows what could be said...whatever it is, if Europe went on its own, there would be not a thing the US could say or do about it. Watch maybe.


Europe needs the US as much as the US needs us, perhaps not militarily, but politically.
Hmm...I think I might disagree there Fritz. Economical need is what said still binds the two together. Besides, it is not like Europe would cut ties, it would simply create a force to defend itself on its own. And I doubt the US would mind Europe having an army, it could be seen as a possible peace enforcer, and I think it would help to balance a bit the world, since having a single policeman in the block is not really working that well...

((Hey everyone btw...long time no see
))



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

It is peace time...so there is plenty of time to decide where to base, pay etc, etc. If there was compelling need to create a real army ((say an unknown enemy threatened to invade, or growing tensions between europe and a given country)) the pressure to create it would be greater...its simply politics. there is no real rush to create it, so they take the time ((I don't like it either))


In the modern age, there is not "wait and see" when it comes to military actions. You will not be able to just rearm once you are under attack. Even if the storms of war are heading your way, waiting till you can see them is a sure way to be on your way to getting whipped when the time comes. Take a look at military procurment programs, they need years of lead time and years of production time just to meet peacetime needs. A strong military deters agression against you rather than encourages it.


The US funds such large projects because they constantly plan to be at war. Europe does not. If such an army was ever created, it would be merely a defense force, for the most of Europe ((excluding the UK, which decided to jump in the cowboy invasion)) doesn't have real enemies. ((Al Qaeda...but an army is not needed to fight them, counter intel services are))


Europe during the Cold war was planning to be at war as much as the US was, it just had the luxury of having the US foot a good portion of the bill of the defence of Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact. If the US was not part of NATO, the percent of GDP that Western countries applied to the military would have gone up dramatically.

The OP was stating if the EU is or will be a Military Superpower. Given your explanation, the EU would never be in a postion to project it's power anywhere in the world, so it would not be a military superpower in the classic definition.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by pavil to fix quotes]

[edit on 13-12-2006 by pavil]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Western Europe has had a common defense policy (which included the US as well) named NATO. In case of emergency, if Europe was threatened, I doubt Europe would have trouble organizing and defending itself....


I have no doubt that europe could defend itself now. But that wasn't the case until after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But in reference to the title of the thread to be a superpower you have to project forces. And at the moment europe as a lacks that capacity IMO.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Hope is in the future...there simply is no need for a standing european army because europe has no real enemies. An army would be created if Europe was threatened...it is not ( I see no visible threat at least)


Quite correct for now. Europe would be far better served focusing on internal security by coordinating counter-terrorist measures and emergency response units in case of a major terrorist attack or natural disaster.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It is peace time...so there is plenty of time to decide where to base, pay etc, etc. If there was compelling need to create a real army ((say an unknown enemy threatened to invade, or growing tensions between europe and a given country)) the pressure to create it would be greater...its simply politics. there is no real rush to create it, so they take the time ((I don't like it either))


Problem with that logic is that you'll have to wait for a compelling reason aka... major threat. And its not like you'll be able to throw this force together as quickly as planned. I know Europe has already done alot of integration between countries but you of course have to consider the politics of Europe. Some member nations may have different goals and different approaches regarding whatever conflict may arise.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
As a whole, Europe does not lack the funding for an ambitious project. Again, timing is the problem. The US funds such large projects because they constantly plan to be at war. Europe does not. If such an army was ever created, it would be merely a defense force, for the most of Europe ((excluding the UK, which decided to jump in the cowboy invasion)) doesn't have real enemies. ((Al Qaeda...but an army is not needed to fight them, counter intel services are))


Europe could develop a technologically ambitious program if the will was there to see it through. I believe your view of the US is misguided to say the least. Oh and don't forget about new europe they jumped with Britain too



Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
I agree, but that seems to be a tendency in military projects ((F-22 as an example...)) Yet, the project has been developed, if need arised, Europe would have the capability to build an excellent plane. The R&D did not go to waste.


Yeah and usually it can usually be attributed to politcians becoming engineers



Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Chances are, if Europe decides to go alone, it would become a paper tiger, since Europe would not need the US, but the coordination expertise from NATO would be used in the new "army"


I don't believe that to be necessarily true. NATO's role has already changed from a purely defensive force(orientated around Europe)to a global force for stability.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Europe could also say they don't intend to be dragged into the wars the US is firmly decided to wage. Or that they now will defend their own interests...who knows what could be said...whatever it is, if Europe went on its own, there would be not a thing the US could say or do about it. Watch maybe.


If europe wanted to go it alone it could certainly do so. But my question is why they haven't already?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Hmm...I think I might disagree there Fritz. Economical need is what said still binds the two together. Besides, it is not like Europe would cut ties, it would simply create a force to defend itself on its own. And I doubt the US would mind Europe having an army, it could be seen as a possible peace enforcer, and I think it would help to balance a bit the world, since having a single policeman in the block is not really working that well...


As I've said before I think a more powerful Europe is in the interests of not only Europe but the US and the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Really expect the Union to be able to agree on something that really is tough and ready as regards the Military?
then be willing to put efficiency and logic ahead of national interest and prejudices?
this is a bunch that cannot agree to confront either North Korea or Iran.

By the way, if the EU bureaucracy continues to grow, putting more and more regulations and rules in place as regards business, etc, then it will in the end strangle itself.

And as for those that claim europe is more advanced culturally, don't make me laugh.

As regards freedom, in every classical sense the matters you are much more Free in the US. At least to be an individual with individual rights.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Danwild6 - yes, Rommel arrived at Tobruk... only to be defeated by the Aussies, the Czechs and the Slovaks.


Regarding the EU - I don't want it to become a megastate with one military, but generally some EU countries (like France) DO have powerful militaries. Not just us (Britain).

We don't even need a European military because most European countries are NATO members.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Danwild6 - yes, Rommel arrived at Tobruk... only to be defeated by the Aussies, the Czechs and the Slovaks.


And the British, who were also in Command.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
europeans have extremely capable military technology and as a whole a fairly large sized military force. But it can never fight a war because europe is weary, its citizenry doesnt believe in the use of armed force. We americans dont jump with joy when we go to war but most of us will support armed force if the prez makes a viable case for it



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by benedict arnold
europeans have extremely capable military technology and as a whole a fairly large sized military force. But it can never fight a war because europe is weary, its citizenry doesnt believe in the use of armed force. We americans dont jump with joy when we go to war but most of us will support armed force if the prez makes a viable case for it


So do we matey boy, so do we! We give all our troops as much support as we can.

We even send them little prezzies or gizzits at Chrimbo time but sadly, the two things they want most, porn and booze, we're not allowed to send.

And as for the crap that the Post Office is spouting about free parcel service for the troops, provided it's the size of a shoebox, is absolutely bollocks!

Those
get our packages and put them in great big cardboard boxes and freight them to RAF Lyneham where they go out on the next available Herc.

What we don't do Benedict, is give our blokes the kit they need! Well, we the taxpayer would, but this
Labour government can't or wan't get their # together and gives the boys in Afghanistan and Iraq what they want - a one way ticket out of those hell holes!



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Europe has the most advanced military in the world.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
lol nice bump....anyway it did end two years ago,maybe people have changed their opinion about the EU as a military power..id like an EU force where each country contributes,i think our engineers and scientists could outmatch those of American and Russian if given the resources.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join