European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part—pound for pound, they’re almost as good as the US. They just have a lot fewer pounds.
And historically, land wars in Asia haven’t been a big deal. That’s a Vietnam-era myth—WW2 involved a lot of Asian land warring, and that went pretty okay.
European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part
Err… show me. The Brits fought a short and mostly air/naval war in the Falklands, most everyone sent in a few units for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades. Even in the Yugoslavian mess nothing happened other than US air strikes.
I am sure they look good on paper. I am also sure the few elite units are very good. I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
How recent are we talking? The French were involved in Vietnam before the US was and in the Suez Crisis around the same time, and a few years after that they fought a protracted and seriously nasty asymmetrical war in Algeria. More recently they’ve also been party to the Islamist civil wars in northern Africa, most importantly against Boko Haram in Mali, and to a number of other postcolonial squabbles.
They don’t get a lot of press in the Anglosphere, but theirs is probably the most active Western military after the US’s.
Fair concern. Still, has there been a meaningful difference between those few units and their American or British counterparts? (And Britain sent about as many soldiers per capita to Iraq as the US did, though they were posted to a quieter sector. That’s not “a few units”).
But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades.
The US fighter planes and armour haven’t faced a real opponent in a long time either. Most of the experience is in asymmetric warfare against guerillas, which would be very different from a war against Russia.
I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
No data does justify uncertainty, but you can’t just say “I don’t know how well the German army would perform, therefore I’m going to assume they’ll do badly”.
Anyway, there is data from wargames, from testing grounds, on what distance a weapon can hit a target, and so forth.
It’s been more than twenty years, but the first Gulf War was a conventional war waged against an opponent that was serious about fighting conventionally. The strategic outcome wasn’t really in doubt, and the Iraqis at the time were largely running old and/or downgraded export versions of Russian equipment, but it still gives us good tactical data; the current reputation of American armor, for example, largely rides on the Battle of 73 Easting.
This depends whether the advantage of american combat experience is proof of abilities, or experience gained.
My understanding is that having seen combat, veterans are then less scared by future engagements. But what proportion of Gulf war vets are still serving now—wouldn’t they be getting a bit old?
Anyway, yes the Gulf war shows the massive superiority of US/UK tanks over T-72s.
European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part—pound for pound, they’re almost as good as the US. They just have a lot fewer pounds.
And historically, land wars in Asia haven’t been a big deal. That’s a Vietnam-era myth—WW2 involved a lot of Asian land warring, and that went pretty okay.
Err… show me. The Brits fought a short and mostly air/naval war in the Falklands, most everyone sent in a few units for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But other than that the European militaries haven’t done any real fighting for many decades. Even in the Yugoslavian mess nothing happened other than US air strikes.
I am sure they look good on paper. I am also sure the few elite units are very good. I have doubts about actual battlefield performance of the main part of the army, in part because because there is no data.
How recent are we talking? The French were involved in Vietnam before the US was and in the Suez Crisis around the same time, and a few years after that they fought a protracted and seriously nasty asymmetrical war in Algeria. More recently they’ve also been party to the Islamist civil wars in northern Africa, most importantly against Boko Haram in Mali, and to a number of other postcolonial squabbles.
They don’t get a lot of press in the Anglosphere, but theirs is probably the most active Western military after the US’s.
Fair concern. Still, has there been a meaningful difference between those few units and their American or British counterparts? (And Britain sent about as many soldiers per capita to Iraq as the US did, though they were posted to a quieter sector. That’s not “a few units”).
The US fighter planes and armour haven’t faced a real opponent in a long time either. Most of the experience is in asymmetric warfare against guerillas, which would be very different from a war against Russia.
No data does justify uncertainty, but you can’t just say “I don’t know how well the German army would perform, therefore I’m going to assume they’ll do badly”. Anyway, there is data from wargames, from testing grounds, on what distance a weapon can hit a target, and so forth.
It’s been more than twenty years, but the first Gulf War was a conventional war waged against an opponent that was serious about fighting conventionally. The strategic outcome wasn’t really in doubt, and the Iraqis at the time were largely running old and/or downgraded export versions of Russian equipment, but it still gives us good tactical data; the current reputation of American armor, for example, largely rides on the Battle of 73 Easting.
This depends whether the advantage of american combat experience is proof of abilities, or experience gained.
My understanding is that having seen combat, veterans are then less scared by future engagements. But what proportion of Gulf war vets are still serving now—wouldn’t they be getting a bit old?
Anyway, yes the Gulf war shows the massive superiority of US/UK tanks over T-72s.