armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Armies of the World
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #1  
Old 09-01-2007, 02:37 PM
Tornado Tornado is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8
Default Defense strategies and plans

I read around and i saw a lot of discussions on possible battles and wars and conflicts and most referred to long conflicts well i have worked closely with other european armies and i can say that no european army can withstand a was lasting more than a year or so, you see when you look at most of todays conflicts they are being fought overseas and most of the enemies have nor the power nor the technology to put up a good fight and they also lack the main part of an effective strategy, a good political background while if italy (ill use italy as an example since im most familiar with our military and political situation but this could be applied to most european powers) was to be under threat of invasion the first defense would be seeking a political answer, by bribe by agreement or whatever but it would be that, if that failed it would come the time where we "flex our musles", we try to intimidate the enemy by showing the best of our army navy and airforce and deploying it as if ready and if that also fails and the enemy does invade we would commit up to 70% of our forces in a counteroffensive aimed at supporting our previous showing off, if the enemy however keeps fighting and the was draws on its of vital importance that cities like milan, turin, venice, rome, naples and palermo dont fall because loosing a single one of these cities will weaken italy beyond possibility of help, im not being defeatist but its the plain thruth every country in europe has between 5 and 8 cities that if taken would render the country helples in the case of italy the fall of turin would end our weapon supply, the fall of milan would destroy our economy, the fall of venice would impair all fuel imports, the fall of rome would destroy our governments and the fall of naples and palermo would end the countrys food supply.
Thing is in europe countries as so packed together that this important cities are within arms reach, turin is just 500 km away from the home case of the french southern army group for example and berlin is something like 400km away from the polish 3rd army home base so you see any long conflict on mainland europe is impossible unless europe stands as one and the european goverments has seen this and is acting but still countries are too set on following their own defense plan to operate together, what do you think?
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 09-01-2007, 02:47 PM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
I read around and i saw a lot of discussions on possible battles and wars and conflicts and most referred to long conflicts well i have worked closely with other european armies and i can say that no european army can withstand a was lasting more than a year or so, you see when you look at most of todays conflicts they are being fought overseas and most of the enemies have nor the power nor the technology to put up a good fight and they also lack the main part of an effective strategy, a good political background while if italy (ill use italy as an example since im most familiar with our military and political situation but this could be applied to most european powers) was to be under threat of invasion the first defense would be seeking a political answer, by bribe by agreement or whatever but it would be that, if that failed it would come the time where we "flex our musles", we try to intimidate the enemy by showing the best of our army navy and airforce and deploying it as if ready and if that also fails and the enemy does invade we would commit up to 70% of our forces in a counteroffensive aimed at supporting our previous showing off, if the enemy however keeps fighting and the was draws on its of vital importance that cities like milan, turin, venice, rome, naples and palermo dont fall because loosing a single one of these cities will weaken italy beyond possibility of help, im not being defeatist but its the plain thruth every country in europe has between 5 and 8 cities that if taken would render the country helples in the case of italy the fall of turin would end our weapon supply, the fall of milan would destroy our economy, the fall of venice would impair all fuel imports, the fall of rome would destroy our governments and the fall of naples and palermo would end the countrys food supply.
Thing is in europe countries as so packed together that this important cities are within arms reach, turin is just 500 km away from the home case of the french southern army group for example and berlin is something like 400km away from the polish 3rd army home base so you see any long conflict on mainland europe is impossible unless europe stands as one and the european goverments has seen this and is acting but still countries are too set on following their own defense plan to operate together, what do you think?
and NATO don't exist?
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 09-01-2007, 04:54 PM
Tiny Texas's Avatar
Tiny Texas Tiny Texas is offline
First Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
I read around and i saw a lot of discussions on possible battles and wars and conflicts and most referred to long conflicts well i have worked closely with other european armies and i can say that no european army can withstand a was lasting more than a year or so, you see when you look at most of todays conflicts they are being fought overseas and most of the enemies have nor the power nor the technology to put up a good fight and they also lack the main part of an effective strategy, a good political background while if italy (ill use italy as an example since im most familiar with our military and political situation but this could be applied to most european powers) was to be under threat of invasion the first defense would be seeking a political answer, by bribe by agreement or whatever but it would be that, if that failed it would come the time where we "flex our musles", we try to intimidate the enemy by showing the best of our army navy and airforce and deploying it as if ready and if that also fails and the enemy does invade we would commit up to 70% of our forces in a counteroffensive aimed at supporting our previous showing off, if the enemy however keeps fighting and the was draws on its of vital importance that cities like milan, turin, venice, rome, naples and palermo dont fall because loosing a single one of these cities will weaken italy beyond possibility of help, im not being defeatist but its the plain thruth every country in europe has between 5 and 8 cities that if taken would render the country helples in the case of italy the fall of turin would end our weapon supply, the fall of milan would destroy our economy, the fall of venice would impair all fuel imports, the fall of rome would destroy our governments and the fall of naples and palermo would end the countrys food supply.
Thing is in europe countries as so packed together that this important cities are within arms reach, turin is just 500 km away from the home case of the french southern army group for example and berlin is something like 400km away from the polish 3rd army home base so you see any long conflict on mainland europe is impossible unless europe stands as one and the european goverments has seen this and is acting but still countries are too set on following their own defense plan to operate together, what do you think?
I'm no inetellectual but your thesis is flawed left right and center. Tire went bang on my truck the other day and folks stopped by ta help. Thats my understandin of NATO. Wot I am sayin is SIR ..........................IF YOUR A PILOT THEN IAM BUCK ROGERS
__________________
Heads or tails?
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 09-02-2007, 01:27 PM
Exo1's Avatar
Exo1 Exo1 is offline
General of the Armies
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland (Ex Irish Army)
Posts: 10,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
I read around and i saw a lot of discussions on possible battles and wars and conflicts and most referred to long conflicts well i have worked closely with other european armies and i can say that no european army can withstand a was lasting more than a year or so, you see when you look at most of todays conflicts they are being fought overseas and most of the enemies have nor the power nor the technology to put up a good fight and they also lack the main part of an effective strategy, a good political background while if italy (ill use italy as an example since im most familiar with our military and political situation but this could be applied to most european powers) was to be under threat of invasion the first defense would be seeking a political answer, by bribe by agreement or whatever but it would be that, if that failed it would come the time where we "flex our musles", we try to intimidate the enemy by showing the best of our army navy and airforce and deploying it as if ready and if that also fails and the enemy does invade we would commit up to 70% of our forces in a counteroffensive aimed at supporting our previous showing off, if the enemy however keeps fighting and the was draws on its of vital importance that cities like milan, turin, venice, rome, naples and palermo dont fall because loosing a single one of these cities will weaken italy beyond possibility of help, im not being defeatist but its the plain thruth every country in europe has between 5 and 8 cities that if taken would render the country helples in the case of italy the fall of turin would end our weapon supply, the fall of milan would destroy our economy, the fall of venice would impair all fuel imports, the fall of rome would destroy our governments and the fall of naples and palermo would end the countrys food supply.
Thing is in europe countries as so packed together that this important cities are within arms reach, turin is just 500 km away from the home case of the french southern army group for example and berlin is something like 400km away from the polish 3rd army home base so you see any long conflict on mainland europe is impossible unless europe stands as one and the european goverments has seen this and is acting but still countries are too set on following their own defense plan to operate together, what do you think?
Well firstly, UK has being fighting on two fronts in Iraq since 03 and Afganistan since 02 (I think), so your first point about european armies not being able to be at war over one year is proven incorrect.

Secondly, European defence is not centralised, its localised to different countries who invest in their military and defence policies in different ways and have different levels of funding... For example to compare Irish Air Defence to Dutch Air Defence is absolutely pointless as they are miles apart.

And finally, Only in the face of attack will European governments come together in common defence of Europe... If an agressor is stupid enough to Invade Europe, then you will get your integrated common military in action. In the absence of this, the centralised EU military is light years off.. BattleGroups are nearest we will see in our lifetimes.
__________________
"Barrel High, Powder Dry!"

"Illic est haud effrego ex Veneratio"
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 09-04-2007, 11:52 PM
kurusch's Avatar
kurusch kurusch is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default Not a pilot & not Buck Rogers........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny Texas View Post
I'm no inetellectual IF YOUR A PILOT THEN IAM BUCK ROGERS
'I'm no inetellectual'
100% correct

'IF YOUR A PILOT THEN IAM BUCK ROGERS'
Also 100% correct
__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.'
Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 09-06-2007, 04:04 PM
Exo1's Avatar
Exo1 Exo1 is offline
General of the Armies
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland (Ex Irish Army)
Posts: 10,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurusch View Post
'I'm no inetellectual'
100% correct

'IF YOUR A PILOT THEN IAM BUCK ROGERS'
Also 100% correct
lol...................................
__________________
"Barrel High, Powder Dry!"

"Illic est haud effrego ex Veneratio"
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 10-15-2007, 02:26 PM
Tsar Simeon's Avatar
Tsar Simeon Tsar Simeon is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bulgaria the Great
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurusch View Post
'I'm no inetellectual'
100% correct

'IF YOUR A PILOT THEN IAM BUCK ROGERS'
Also 100% correct
Too bad he only just realized.
__________________
"As far as Bulgarians are concerned - then time inverts us and we invert time."

-Vasil Levski
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:03 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.