How to Invade the US/Europe ?

[Saint Marcus]

The Med is an American lake. Got a clue how much firepower and real experience/savvy there is in the Sixth Fleet?

How would you get past Gibraltar? You can expect a big fleet and hundreds of aircraft (as well as coastal installations) waiting there for them on the other side.

[TCO]

They are already there, big guy...

And a collection of different small fleets doesn't equal a big one.

Too much Risk playing, dude. Not enough real world experience.

USA! USA!

[Saint Marcus]

They are already there, big guy...

And a collection of different small fleets doesn't equal a big one.

Yes, and there are tonnes of American aircraft in Germany. Do you honestly think they will just be allowed to sit there when relations cool down, let alone when war breaks out.

[TCO]

They would be toast. fly them off to Turkey and CONUS, before the war starts. This kind of thing doesn't happen in little game "turns". YOu plan it ahead of time. shift forces into theatre, etc. Have to figure that relations would have gotten rocky ejnough to meant that military cooperation within NATO would alreadyu be over.

We would also move forces from the Pac and IO to the LANT...

[TCO]

Actually you have a point...

If I assume some sort of previous falling out. Than our vessels would be gone from bases at Italay and Spain. We still might have a decent force in the Med though...we supply mostly by unrep anyway.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by GP
Well...that's another issue...

But even if the alliance held together at a political level, the different armies don't add up like little Risk pieces. A strong, unified force will beat a diverse molygolt of patched together forces.

Hmmm, don’t you think decentralisation has it advantages too? For instance, there isn’t one single central command to knock down in the EU to obtain a somewhat rapid victory. You’d have to go after 5 or 6, which in combination with para-military resistance groups might prolong a campaign to the point of breaking it.

I think an economic embargo assisted by Russia and Turkey may be a lot more effective in getting the EU on its knees than a outright assault.

[Saint Marcus]

If I assume some sort of previous falling out.

That's what I mean. When relations are cooling, American's won't have access to EU bases anymore. And since Egypt isn't too keen on allowing American warships through the Suez canal, I don't know where the American ships can or will stay, and it's likely they'll simply leave the med altogether. (and won't be allowed back in since gibraltar will be closed off.

[Faeelin]

I'd tell the Russians that the British, French, and wily Turks are preparing for an invasion of Russia, and a preemptive strike will save the motherland.

Sit back, watch Europe collapse under the might of a Russia revived in ways i won't go into detail here, use superweapons to slaughter their millions while leaving America unscratched, and send a few mp's in to the ashes of Europe to liberate it.

[TCO]

losing our bases in the EMd doesn't prevent us from stationing a fleet there. We've been using unrep since WW2 for lots of our supplies. Most of the ships there are deployers...

(But you may have a point. I could see how the Med might be untenable.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Colon


Hmmm, don’t you think decentralisation has it advantages too? For instance, there isn’t one single central command to knock down in the EU to obtain a somewhat rapid victory. You’d have to go after 5 or 6, which in combination with para-military resistance groups might prolong a campaign to the point of breaking it.

I think an economic embargo assisted by Russia and Turkey may be a lot more effective in getting the EU on its knees than a outright assault.

Your point is regarding dispersal of forces. Having seperate copmmand structures does not make the entity more difficutl to deal with. It makes it easier. And I hope you can see rthat it would make iut much more difficult for any offensive EU campaign.

[Colon™]

I'm not talking about offensive EU actions because I don't see how it could possibly succeed, even hypothetically speaking. But don’t you think that the while the lack of one single command centre, while increasing the chance of eventual victory, does prolong a campaign on European soil?

Take guerrilla warfare for instance, it's strength is exactly that it doesn't have one single command center.

[TCO]

Seriously colon, no I don't. The Union would have had an easier time dealing with seperate state military forces. And we would have had an easier time dealing with less unified guerillas in Viet Nam.

divide and conquer...

[Saint Marcus]

Where will the US get enough forces from to invade the EU? Considering Europe's sheer size, let alone it's population and number of armed forces, how does it think it will be able to conquer Europe? It was easy in WW2, because of European infighting and general loathing of the German oppressors, but this won't be the case this time.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by GP
Seriously colon, no I don't. The Union would have had an easier time dealing with seperate state military forces. And we would have had an easier time dealing with less unified guerillas in Viet Nam.

divide and conquer...

What does an "easier time" constitute? My point is that separate command centres would prolong the campaign US would have to carry out. If you disagree please tell me why.

[KrazyHorse]

In an EU/US war we'd sit back and watch the fireworks.