WI: EU goes to war with US?

Well the US has the advantage of having simpler logistics, not only do they only have one military force to look after, they try to standardise as much as possible, thus about half their equipment uses JP-8, which considerably simplifies their logistics. Also, the Us has more MBTs (3rd generation ones anyway, 2nd gen. guns might just about dent 3rd gen. armour, but penetration is doubtful in the extreme) than the EU, and all of one type, not a half-dozen different types that each has to have their own parts.
If with 2nd generation you mean 105mm guns, then they have no hope at all of penetrating a modern MBT, from the front, the sides, the gun barrel and the sights are still vulnerable.

There's a lack of DIVAD, but the US has plenty of Avengers, and while those things peter out at ~8 km (as opposed to ~12 km for the Bofors 40mm/L70), but at least Stingers actually follow their targets.
The Bofors has an affective AA range of 3-4km tops.

Actually, tomahawks can be fired out of 21" torpedo tubes as well (along with SLAMs), and you could probably modify B-1s and B-52s to drop them, along with the fact that the B-52 can deploy AGM-86s and AGM-129s. Still going to be more of a nuisance than a real issue though.
Why would you bother air-launching tomahawks if you already have AGM-86s?

And for the OP: a random US-EU war out of the blue belongs in ASB, a realistic war requires at least a few decades of steadily worsening relations. By the time the first shot is fired, the US & EU will have considered each other a likely opponent for several years, a possible opponent for even longer and will have stopped considering each other allies for over 2 decades. IOW their respective militaries will be prepared to fight each other, comparing current strength is utterly useless.
 
If with 2nd generation you mean 105mm guns, then they have no hope at all of penetrating a modern MBT, from the front, the sides, the gun barrel and the sights are still vulnerable.
And what are the chances of actually hitting those?

Why would you bother air-launching tomahawks if you already have AGM-86s?
AGMs have to be fitted externally due to their shape, tomahawks, due to their VLS setup could be carried internally, provided you could come up with a tube for them.
 
And what are the chances of actually hitting those?
Small but real. Obviously not to enough to go front to front with modern MBTs if you want your own force of older MBTs to survive. Still better to lose 40 of your old tanks and mission-kill 4-5 opponents than to lose 40 of your old tanks and not stop any enemy tank at all. Doesn't make either choice a good one. The best thing would be to find other AFVs than M1s to go against with old tanks, but that might be difficult, finding one often means finding the other.

AGMs have to be fitted externally due to their shape, tomahawks, due to their VLS setup could be carried internally, provided you could come up with a tube for them.
see this that big thing in front of the B-52's nose is it's rotary launcher with 8 AGM-86, it fits in the bomb bay.
OK, tomahawks might (if they're not too long) fit inside a B1s or a B2s bomb bay, but why bother? The B1 could carry AGM-86 externally and the B2 would be wasted firing long range cruise missiles. Or do you consider external carriage for bombers to be a bad thing somehow?
 

NothingNow

Banned
Well the US has the advantage of having simpler logistics, not only do they only have one military force to look after, they try to standardise as much as possible, thus about half their equipment uses JP-8, which considerably simplifies their logistics. Also, the Us has more MBTs (3rd generation ones anyway, 2nd gen. guns might just about dent 3rd gen. armour, but penetration is doubtful in the extreme) than the EU, and all of one type, not a half-dozen different types that each has to have their own parts.
Yes, but none of that really matters given the distances the Americans will be from a secure supply base, while most of the EU member states are NATO members or use Munitions that are either NATO or WP standard, and if anything, the Leo 2A6 and Challenger 2 are superior in pretty much every way to the Abrams series, while T-72s that aren't made out of scrap metal and with proper crews will be able to put up a good fight. Even if the US can deploy a decent-sized force, it probably won't be able to meet it's demands for fuel and ammunition easily.

There's a lack of DIVAD, but the US has plenty of Avengers, and while those things peter out at ~8 km (as opposed to ~12 km for the Bofors 40mm/L70), but at least Stingers actually follow their targets.
While the Bofors has a shorter range than the Avengers and Stingers, there are also more in the way of SPAAGs, more MANPADS, and systems like Buk-1 and the Tunguska-M1. Of course, once the carriers are gone, (they'll be an absolute priority from day one,) and the Destroyers are dispersed enough (or sunk, since a 70's era sub could handle them if there aren't any real ASW assets nearby,) or the front moved far enough up so that AEGIS is ineffective, then the Rafales, which already have a good enough leg up over anything the USN has, and will tear into any sort of ADV in the US arsenal with near immunity, and be fully able to contest and counter any move made by the Americans.

This is the war the US prepared to fight, it's also the war they're completely incapable of wining without resorting to WMDs.
 
The scenario does seem a bit unlikely, i suppose for such a conflict to happen, something will have to happen to drive a wedge between the US and the EU. pehaps a political union of the EU uniting it as one nation, which the US considers to be growing stronger and possibly threating its superpower status ? Still, i cant see that happening any time soon...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There have been a couple of reports on this thread stating that it is ASB and should be moved.

The fact is that it isn't ASB. There are no magical or fantasy or ASB elements to it. The OP has not jumped any sharks with implausibility stretched to impossible.

What this thread lacks is well, anything that makes it a T/L. It lacks a POD, it lacks any sense of structure or coherence because it is a silly question that has no basis in any reality.

Do not call it ASB. Just let it die.
 
I think it will be nearly impossible for either the EU or the USA to successfully invade the other's core territory. The USA will have an advantage in that it has a much larger amphibious force than the EU. Still, invading Europe would mean concentrating the USN, reactivating the Iowas, and massing large convoys of merchantmen and cruise ships. Meanwhile the EU can muster army corps and aircraft in and near possible invasion sites. Concentrate the various EU navies' missile boats and coastal subs near the likely invasion area.

Going the other way across the Atlantic, the USA lacks coastal defense forces. At the same time the EU navies don't have the aircraft carriers to batter their way past the USN and USAF, much less reduce the defenses in the landing area.

Perhaps in the future this war could happen. When angry nationalist computer geeks raised on gaming warfare and internet forums grow older and gain political power.
 
Top