United European States, possible or not?

[Harkon Haakonson]

hmm hmm

 

[Vissy]

Just going to war would be economical suicide for most nations.

 

[K-64]

Naivety is only endearing in children, my friend. There's only two types of people who manage to attain any real positions of power: the imperialists (i.e. the ones who can) and the wannabe-imperialists (i.e. the ones who can't).

Waw, u so edgy. u totes kewl, bro

 

[BenKenobi]

There's only two types of people who manage to attain any real positions of power: the imperialists (i.e. the ones who can) and the wannabe-imperialists (i.e. the ones who can't).

"You dig." - Blondie

As was said earlier, this all seems a little like the Ruskies are heating up the engines paranoia. But then again, we have nukes.

 

[Jhessail]

Just for the sake of completeness, here's a useful link to check the values for Soviet WW2 guns:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp
Their table is based on:

Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999
World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics, Gordon L Rottman, 2005
Armour in Profile #9: T-34/76, J. M. Brereton, ?

I know the first book and it's a really good one, so I don't think there's any reason to doubt their figures.

If we take 1,000 meters and 30 degrees of angle as our yardstick, then for T-34 the numbers are: (using the most basic AP round, not HEAT)

76.2 mm L-11 L/30.5 - the 1940 model: 56 mm
76.2 mm F-34 L/42.5, L/41.5 - the 1941-43 model: 61 mm
85 mm ZiS-S-53 - 1944-45 model: 100 mm

The best Soviet tank gun of WW2 is the venerable 100 mm M-1944 D-10 L/56, that saw use in SU-100 and T-54/55. Depending on source, it could penetrate either 185 or 214 mm at 1,000 meters. But it only came to action in 1945 and was already out-performed by the German 8.8cm KwK 43 used in Tiger II.

And as far as I know, this trend continued throughout the Cold War - that while Soviet guns were larger in calibre, their performance was worse than their Western counter parts.

Oh, just realized that it would probably be convenient, if an argument persists, that I put the German 7.5 and 8.8 penetration numbers here as well:

First, 8.8 using basic AP shells at 1,000 meters:
88 mm KwK 36 - Tiger I: 99-120 depending on source
88 mm KwK 43 - Tiger II/Jagdpanther/Nashorn/Ferdinand: 140-167 depending on source

Then, 7.5 using basic AP shells at 1,000 meters:
75 mm KwK 40 L/43 - PzIVF2/StuGIII: 81-102 depending on source
75 mm KwK 42 L/70 - Panther/JagdPzIV: 111-121 depending on source

And, just because I can, here's the German monster:
128 mm PaK 44 L/55 - Jagdtiger: 143-245 depending on ammunition and source

You are using PzGr.40 in comparisons of 88mm guns to Soviet 85mm.

I didn't. I didn't give penetration values for Soviet 85mm in my earlier post. I compared the performance of German 7.5 to German 8.8. with both using PzGr.40.

What the **** are you on about?

The fact that our politicians are forced to kiss up to the US, the fact that Russia can throw its military weight around and people actually take it seriously, the fact that any even slightly respectable agency ranks the Russian army well above any European army. If what you were saying was true, none of these would actually happen, but it's not, so they do.

Well, none of that's entirely true. Just like everything you post - it's either complete bull**** or only a part of a situation.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Back that statement up, that it's BS or "only part of a situation." Because as an outside observer, it sounds very close to what actually happens...

 

[Austupaio]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

You're right, it is on him since he made the claim. Mea culpa.

 

[K-64]

And as far as I know, this trend continued throughout the Cold War - that while Soviet guns were larger in calibre, their performance was worse than their Western counter parts.

Just a quick question, does that only really apply to their armour, or is it true for the other areas of the Russian military? I was always under the impression that their aircraft was more on the "Inferior in most ways, but far cheaper" scale of things. And as a follow up, would the Mi-24 be an exception to that "trend" since IIRC it's been in active service for about 40 years, so they must've done something right there if it's still being used in many countries for that long, right?

And yes, I know full well that I may be completely wrong in my guessing, since I know next to nothing about Cold War to modern military capabilities but whatever

 

[Falkner92]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

Type "Top 10 Strongest Militaries" on Google, and see if you can find a single, even slightly reputable source that ranks any European army above Russia and China.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did. The idiots with the Guy Fawkes masks may still be protesting in the street (they're not anymore, they've pretty much forgotten all about it by this point, but that's besides the point), but the governments know how this relationship between us and the Americans really works.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

And as far as I know, this trend continued throughout the Cold War - that while Soviet guns were larger in calibre, their performance was worse than their Western counter parts.

Just a quick question, does that only really apply to their armour, or is it true for the other areas of the Russian military? I was always under the impression that their aircraft was more on the "Inferior in most ways, but far cheaper" scale of things. And as a follow up, would the Mi-24 be an exception to that "trend" since IIRC it's been in active service for about 40 years, so they must've done something right there if it's still being used in many countries for that long, right?

And yes, I know full well that I may be completely wrong in my guessing, since I know next to nothing about Cold War to modern military capabilities but whatever

Speaking just to the Mi-24 question; like the AK-47, the Mi-24 is a sturdy and insanely reliable piece of equipment that is relatively easy to mod to keep with the times, which I would think explains its lengthy service history for what it is and its popularity outside its country of origin. It's a sturdy thing that gets the job done well. And I say this as one who is generally of low opinion towards Russian hardware.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did.

That, and, they were just putting on a show for their own people because the truth is all "allies" and "friends" spy on each other. Always have. They do it to us. We know they do and they know that we know. The whole thing was a dog and pony show.

 

[Mage246]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

Type "Top 10 Strongest Militaries" on Google, and see if you can find a single, even slightly reputable source that ranks any European army above Russia and China.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did. The idiots with the Guy Fawkes masks may still be protesting in the street (they're not anymore, they've pretty much forgotten all about it by this point, but that's besides the point), but the governments know how this relationship between us and the Americans really works.

Oh FFS. This entire argument has been based on combining all European armies in to one for purpose of comparison. Not only is it not relevant where 1 single European army ranks, but it's ridiculous to bring it up as an objection.

 

[Jhessail]

Not to mention that those rankings ALWAYS take manpower into consideration. Vietnam usually ranks really high, because technically an insane percentage of the population "belongs" to one branch of their armed forces. This is, yet again, further proof that Falkner has no actual understanding of the issue because he obviously doesn't even read the text that accompanies these lists. Jane's and GlobalSecurity have very good explanations of how the rankings are formed, which are very illuminative.

Similary, they often just count "armored vehicles", for example and compare that number between countries. Well, no ****, Russia will rank really ****ing high - but then you have to know Russia has T-34's in storage, next to BTR-60's and BMP-1's and other stuf f that is almost completely useless on the modern battlefield.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal.

It delayd the next round of trade talks between EU and US, and only got pushed back because the media revealed to the public that yes, European countries spy too.

I'm afraid we're going to need more.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Actually, the onus is on Falkner, which means that in all likelihood, he'll say something vague for a post or two and then say that the discussion is over in his usual style of cop-out.

Type "Top 10 Strongest Militaries" on Google, and see if you can find a single, even slightly reputable source that ranks any European army above Russia and China.

As for our politicians kissing up and bending over backwards for the US, you need look no further than the NSA scandal. All the hustle and bustle the EU raised over the issue was just that: hustle and bustle. In the end, the US just told them to remember their place, and they did. The idiots with the Guy Fawkes masks may still be protesting in the street (they're not anymore, they've pretty much forgotten all about it by this point, but that's besides the point), but the governments know how this relationship between us and the Americans really works.

Oh FFS. This entire argument has been based on combining all European armies in to one for purpose of comparison. Not only is it not relevant where 1 single European army ranks, but it's ridiculous to bring it up as an objection.

Ok, then let us delve into that then. How would a combined European military stack against other superpowers? It's not an easy question, as the premise itself is complex. Simply adding numbers together to make a theoretical United Europe Bureau of Defense (I got whimsical, so sue me!) wouldn't be enough. Among the manifold issues to resolve are:


Who's command style will be the template?
How would one nation's coordinate logistics with the other?
What hardware is actually viable and war ready, rather than simply existing somewhere?
Who's rank structure will we use?
What language will be used in general?
How will differing theories of war be reconciled with each other?

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Note I am not saying you make a bad point, in fact I agree with you, the argument is only honest if we consider a unified European military. But you have to understand that there are many, MANY issues to resolve before you consider what would be a REALISTIC unified European military.

 

[Falkner92]

Not to mention that those rankings ALWAYS take manpower into consideration. Vietnam usually ranks really high, because technically an insane percentage of the population "belongs" to one branch of their armed forces. This is, yet again, further proof that Falkner has no actual understanding of the issue because he obviously doesn't even read the text that accompanies these lists. Jane's and GlobalSecurity have very good explanations of how the rankings are formed, which are very illuminative.

I don't know what rankings you've been looking at, but they're not the same I ones have, that's for damn sure. Vietnam isn't even mentioned in the ones I've seen. Nor is North Korea, which, if your logic was correct, would be on the Top 5 due its tremendous manpower, despite the fact they don't even have enough fuel for their planes.

 

[MMontage]

Just a quick question, does that only really apply to their armour, or is it true for the other areas of the Russian military? I was always under the impression that their aircraft was more on the "Inferior in most ways, but far cheaper" scale of things.

No. Mig-21 was a real beast back in the 60's. Mig-23 was indeed cheaper, but I recall various tests Americans and Israelis did with a captured one found it to be comparable to the western fighters of the same generation. Same goes for Mig-29. Not to mention Mig-31. So no, Soviets could build an aircraft and mount capable avionics on it.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Yeah. No offense but when I read "inferior in many ways" I laughed a little bit (honestly though, not trying to denigrate that guy). For the most part, Russian aircraft have always been at the least highly competent.

 

[K-64]

Eh, like I said, I know next to nothing about military capabilities of things like that.

 

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

Eh, like I said, I know next to nothing about military capabilities of things like that.

I'm sure you know a great deal more on things that really matter than I do anyway lol!

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

**** Migs, Yaks ftw.





















































Wellen