European Union, a military superpower?

I am currently reading a book titled... "100 decisive battles from ancient times to the present" by Paul K, Davis.

While there are battles described in this book in China and Japan...what is of intrest to me is the battles in England and on the Continent. Today at lunch I was reading about the Swedes and Russians at a place called Poltava some time in the early 1700s.

But you know ..this idea of a European Superpower...is sort of misleading. What this book has awakened me to ...is the concept of France. This ...nation seems to be the Wild Card. No telling what the French are going to do...or will do. They can be quite unpredictable. I never knew that there was historically ..so much maneuvering being done between so many nations ...in Europe for power and control. Then the Ottomans entered and took advantage of the European squabbling for thier purposes..sometimes forming alliances and treatys with certain Europeans. This was quite a revelation to me. I am glad I picked up this book and will have to read portions of it over again to solidify my knowlege of this history.

I suppose what I am getting at is can the nations of Europe agree long enough to even form a powerful alliance?? We see what happened in the case of Yugoaslavia in the 1990s..how effective the Europeans were in dealing with this. Most of them made speechs and looked the other way. This is a powerful Europe??

Think carefully on this.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Technologically speaking Europe may equal the US in a few areas but I'd don't know of any field where Europe actually surpasses the US. As far as military spending the US equals the rest of the world combined and believe me we pay a high price for it back home. Thats the question the citizens of the EU have to ask themselves. Give up a relatively carefree life(craddle to grave healthcare, retirement a 55). All so their politicians can wave the EU flag around the world the way all superpowes do or have done(from Rome, to Britain, to America). If the nations of EU wanted to combine their militaries and become a superpower I have no doubt that they could. But look at what would you have to give up.

Well to be fair I'd say at current the EU is a superpower , mabye not at the same level as the US or the USSR was but she is powerful.
She alone can can lift several brigades and has a navy that can almost match ship for ship the US atlantic navy. (I gave up counting after 113 at 1 AM.), the US uses quite a lot of EU military hardware, from guns to bombs to shells the EU can dish out more than people think.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well to be fair I'd say at current the EU is a superpower , mabye not at the same level as the US or the USSR was but she is powerful.

You'd hardly qualify as a superpower then. The EU as a whole lacks any significant heavy lift capacity. The EU on its own could send a significant military force to the Balkans(Macedonia), Near-East(Lebanon)and North Africa whether you could sustain it is another matter. And you'd be limited to one major commitment if the Balkans became hot with an Israeli-Lebanese conflict igniting at the sametime you'd probably have to choose. If the EU acted in a more unified matter they could probably do more. And it would be a great thing if they did IMO.

Originally posted by devilwasp
She alone can can lift several brigades and has a navy that can almost match ship for ship the US atlantic navy. (I gave up counting after 113 at 1 AM.), the US uses quite a lot of EU military hardware, from guns to bombs to shells the EU can dish out more than people think.

The whole EU could match the Atlantic Fleet comprised of over 182 ships but thats of course not to mention the 5th Fleet, the 6th Fleet, and the Pacific Fleet. So the EU could stand up to America and anyone else in and around Europe but outside of the EU's immediate vacinity they really doesn't pose a threat to anyone. And don't get me wrong there is much that can be said for soft power but as a superpower you've got to able to rattle your sabre in a way that others can hear it.

Originally posted by danwild6
Technologically speaking Europe may equal the US in a few areas but I'd don't know of any field where Europe actually surpasses the US.

Just listen to yourself .......

Air to air missiles, BROACH warheads (go look it up), body armour, MBT guns, MBT Armour, 155mm SP field artillery, HUD (smiths industries supplies the f22...LOL). Light support mg (minimi)...I can't be bothered with more than this. this is not a p*****g competition, it's called trade ...LOL
Do some research friend before making statements like that.

Enjoy...

danwild
EU doesn't want to project power further than 3000km radius. We don't want to be a global police force, we don't want to spread "democracy" by arms. If we did want those, we could, but hey we care more about the well being of our people than global dominance and crusades around the world. It's all about what the goals are...

Uk / France / Germany / Potugal / Spain / Sweden ...

Been there done that centuries ago.. Then we matured into"old Europe"..

Don't want to doesn't mean can't. There are in fact two countries in the EU with significant expeditionary warfare capabilities, including if necessary the use of significant marine, naval and naval air forces linked to heavy lift capabilities by sea or if necessary by C17... (Globemaster)

FRANCE and the UK

Northwolf I agree with you. Our friend needs to do some more research.

Enjoy

Originally posted by danwild6
You'd hardly qualify as a superpower then. The EU as a whole lacks any significant heavy lift capacity. The EU on its own could send a significant military force to the Balkans(Macedonia), Near-East(Lebanon)and North Africa whether you could sustain it is another matter. And you'd be limited to one major commitment if the Balkans became hot with an Israeli-Lebanese conflict igniting at the sametime you'd probably have to choose. If the EU acted in a more unified matter they could probably do more. And it would be a great thing if they did IMO.

Really? You do realise that 95% of our imports are via sea and that the UK alone has 120 RORO cargo ships.
Not to count the others that can and would be hired out from the civilain world to carry and lift troops.

The whole EU could match the Atlantic Fleet comprised of over 182 ships but thats of course not to mention the

As I said the atlantic fleet, unless your suggesting the US high command would send the pacific fleet to fight the EU?

So the EU could stand up to America and anyone else in and around Europe but outside of the EU's immediate vacinity they really doesn't pose a threat to anyone.

Several nuclear submarines are not a threat?

And don't get me wrong there is much that can be said for soft power but as a superpower you've got to able to rattle your sabre in a way that others can hear it.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by Deharg
Just listen to yourself .......

Air to air missiles, BROACH warheads (go look it up), body armour, MBT guns, MBT Armour, 155mm SP field artillery, HUD (smiths industries supplies the f22...LOL). Light support mg (minimi)...I can't be bothered with more than this. this is not a p*****g competition, it's called trade ...LOL
Do some research friend before making statements like that.

Enjoy...

Hum, must have hit a nerve.

1. A2A missiles-Asraam(uses American built infrared seeker)

2. Broach Warhead- a very good piece of ordnance however not out of the US 's technological capacity to develop on our own.

3. Body Armour- Okay give me some examples of this wonder armour you speak of. I know the US has developed a new type of liquid armour. Liquid Armour.

4. MBT Cannon- Okay again not out of our ability to develop on our own. Hardly a piece of ultra high tech equipment,

5. MBT Armour- Now that is an area where Europe inparticularly the British have an advantage but since they've been selling it to us for the past two decades I think we could get by on our own.

6. Field Artillery- Wow still stuck back in WWI are we? N-LOS Yeah it may be owned by BAE now but it was developed largely by United Defense and will be American owned again when Boeing buys BAE

7. HUD- Yeah we've never developed those before. Light machine guns. [sarcasm]Real ground breaking tech you've got their[/sarcasm].

Yes my friend I know its not a peeing contest not withstanding your attempt to turn it into one

I could mention a few areas where no other nation on the planet comes close to the US but I can't be bothered either.

Cheers

Originally posted by northwolf
danwild
EU doesn't want to project power further than 3000km radius. We don't want to be a global police force, we don't want to spread "democracy" by arms. If we did want those, we could, but hey we care more about the well being of our people than global dominance and crusades around the world. It's all about what the goals are...

Hey man I don't blame you, cheers to that! But part of being a superpower is striving for global dominance. And you have to justify it to your populace as Pax Romana, evangelizing the barbaric peoples of the world, white mans burden, and now spreading democracy. Its never worked and never will. Its merely history repeating itself. All great powers fall afoul of their own power.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Really? You do realise that 95% of our imports are via sea and that the UK alone has 120 RORO cargo ships.
Not to count the others that can and would be hired out from the civilain world to carry and lift troops.

Do you own all those ships entering UK waters? Are you sure about those numbers I looked around for info on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary but they don't seems to add up.

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Originally posted by devilwasp
As I said the atlantic fleet, unless your suggesting the US high command would send the pacific fleet to fight the EU?

No no my friend just showing everybody how big a superpowers navy has to be.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Several nuclear submarines are not a threat?

Not really. Part of being a superpower is the ability to invade an enemy without nuking them.

danwild,
UK and every other country can call ships that are owned by the comppanies based in it into military service if a need arises... In a peace enforcing mission you may have to pay the owners, in a case of survival of the country, probably no payment is given

And in the case of accute need, all the ships in ports and territorial waters too (Not legal, but who counts if we are fighting a new world war)

Most of those weapons in the original post have not been baptized in combat and proven, Challengers excepted of course, fine machines they are. I am sure the hardware is very good but that does not make a superpower.

The lack of cohesiveness on the part of the EU's component armies is one of the main things that prevent it from reaching it's true potential. How many different type MBT's or fighters does a unifed EU army really need? Before they can be a true military Superpower, Europe must take care of these issues and also get some true combat experiance under it's belt. The UK for the most part is the only nation in the EU that has battle tested weapons systems, well trained forces AND veteran commanders that have seen combat experiance. Can't say that for many other of the EU nations.

French gear has seen as much action around the world than US, France has had several regiments on hot/combat duties in africa for the past 50 years... Alot of the EU gear has been battle proven by third party forces...

OT To OrangeTom
In Battle of Poltava and the wars sweden fought majority of their fighting force were Finnish, my regiment fought from in those wars for the swedes and later for the russians against Napoleon...

[edit on 2-11-2006 by northwolf]

i do believe we (europeans) are a match for US !! Why? because europeans are a peaceloving community! If u make enemy's all over the world, like US is doing!! Ppl start choosing sides. So i couldt imagine how the US is gonna overpower the EU, with the world breathing down their neck? And on al that technosh*t US puts their money in : come on guys no 1 knows wat they are working on, it could be 1 giant escapepod ready 2 shoot away elite of US in case of an invasion/global war.
And on that Budgetthingy :Who cares if the US budget is bigger then ours? We have a cheap efficent army ready. Who needs 13 aircraftcarriers? The US does and ill tell u why , because they don't have 2 pay them!! Up here in europe we are paying our depths off, US is raising them on a never seen scale!

Originally posted by danwild6
Do you own all those ships entering UK waters? Are you sure about those numbers I looked around for info on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary but they don't seems to add up.

You made the same mistake I made when I entered the MN and thought that the RFA is the only service which carries troops. I have a 2nd mate (deck officer) who serves on one of the RO RO's.
Add to the fact that all of those ships are either owned by the UK or are crown dependant, ergo we can hire them out and recrew them.
PS without the bay class the RFA can only transport 12 tanks.

No no my friend just showing everybody how big a superpowers navy has to be.

Does it? Do you really NEED over 182 ships to be a super power or are you wanting to set that as the entry grade?

Not really. Part of being a superpower is the ability to invade an enemy without nuking them.

Is it? Last time I checked the USSR couldnt invade the US but it was a "super power" plus the EU needs not invade a country it merely needs to flatten it to the ground.

Originally posted by devilwasp
You made the same mistake I made when I entered the MN and thought that the RFA is the only service which carries troops. I have a 2nd mate (deck officer) who serves on one of the RO RO's.
Add to the fact that all of those ships are either owned by the UK or are crown dependant, ergo we can hire them out and recrew them.
PS without the bay class the RFA can only transport 12 tanks.

Yeah I didn't know that. I first googled Royal Navy Auxialiary only to find out that that service was disbanded in 94 and had to deal with anti-submarine warfare(which wasn't a problem any more). What are the other services that handle transport and logistics?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Does it? Do you really NEED over 182 ships to be a super power or are you wanting to set that as the entry grade?

Maybe I was being a little arbitrary.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Is it? Last time I checked the USSR couldnt invade the US but it was a "super power" plus the EU needs not invade a country it merely needs to flatten it to the ground.

Okay good point I know when I'm beaten waives white flag.

Originally posted by northwolf
French gear has seen as much action around the world than US, France has had several regiments on hot/combat duties in africa for the past 50 years... Alot of the EU gear has been battle proven by third party forces...

France did get some experience, mainly in Desert Storm, counting Africa missions against poorly armed and trained foes is not a good example of combat prowness for a first world nation like France. I may stand corrected, but top of the line French hardware ie the LeClerc and aircraft (Rafale) have not been combat tested. Older French designs have had combat experience but not the newer stuff. I stand by my previous statement.

You'd hardly qualify as a superpower then. The EU as a whole lacks any significant heavy lift capacity.

Dan, I think you'll find that with the massive fleet of C-130/130-J's plus the incoming A-400M's, the EU will have significant heavy lift ability. The UK alone, when it get's the A-400's will be able to airlift a brigade anywhere in world within 11 days. (EDIT: currently, with the fleet of C-130's, that would take 28 days)

Add to that, the UK has the largest amphibious force in the world (US excluded). The new vessels (bay class, I think) coming online will allow brigade sized deployments.

Due to the DOTR (Defence of the realm) act, the Government can commandeer any vessel it chooses. The Falklands is a prime example. We took cruise liners (one being the QE2) and used them as troop ships. We can do the same with civil airliners if we wanted. I would assume that if the army needed vehicles, we can also commandeer any civilian vehicle for that as well. In fact, due to the DOTR Act, anything can be commandeered, from vehicles, to businesses, to underpants.

Wonderful thing, that Act.

Yeah I didn't know that. I first googled Royal Navy Auxialiary only to find out that that service was disbanded in 94 and had to deal with anti-submarine warfare(which wasn't a problem any more). What are the other services that handle transport and logistics?

Not sure where you got that from, Dan. The RFA is the force responsible for manning the fleet support vessels, such as tankers and armaments. As to your question, the RFA deals with fleet logistics and the Royal Logistic's Corp with land logistics. The RAF takes care of it's own. If the RFA was disbanded, the RN would be buggered.

RFAs are distinguished by their grey colour and their flag, the blue ensign defaced by an upright gold anchor. There are 19 ships in the RFA fleet; 8 Fleet and Support tankers, 2 Dry Cargo Fleet Replenishment Ships, 2 combined fuel and stores replenishment ship, 4 Landing ship’s Dock, 1 Landing Ships (Logistic), 1 Aviation Training Ship, and 1 Forward Repair Ship. RFA Argus was converted to an Aviation Training Ship at Harland and Wolff and entered service in 1989.

RFA

Dan, not wanting a wang measuring contest, just pointing out some misconceptions. The US is bigger and more powerful, I agree, but corrections needed to be made for the benefit of all.

France did get some experience, mainly in Desert Storm, counting Africa missions against poorly armed and trained foes is not a good example of combat prowness for a first world nation like France. I may stand corrected, but top of the line French hardware ie the LeClerc and aircraft (Rafale) have not been combat tested. Older French designs have had combat experience but not the newer stuff. I stand by my previous statement.

Emphasis mine. Using the above example, one could argue that US weaponry is equally as "untested", having only been used against 2nd/3rd rate countries. We all know, however, that it is very capable though.

[edit on 2/11/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Emphasis mine. Using the above example, one could argue that US weaponry is equally as "untested", having only been used against 2nd/3rd rate countries. We all know, however, that it is very capable though.

Point taken, all hardware currently in service would meet that test I guess.
Comparing France's conflicts with nations in Africa to the Iraqi army is quite another. France did not see the full range nor scale of combat in Africa that it did vs Iraq. France's top of the line hardware has not been tested in combat like the U.K. and U.S. top of the line stuff has. I'm not stating that it is inferior, just has not been battle proven. Issues with weapons systems sometimes only pop up during actual use. I'm sure that any top of the line Russian, EU or US hardware going up against another would be very even, that's where experience and quality of leadership and troops would come in.

I think Iraq would have kicked most African nation's armed forces all over the place.

I agree that very few conflicts are with evenly matched foes. Most people and nation's only choose to fight those battles they know they can win or are forced to fight.