how would a modern conventional war be fought between two nations?

>>28348895
>how would a modern conventional war be fought between two nations?
with conventional weapons
>how / where would fighting take place?
at the borders closest to the other

>>28348950
fuck's sake nigga
would fighting be in trenches, urban combat, i am literally retarded when it comes to this, would you care to explain?

>>28348895
>conventional war be fought between two nations?
>conventional war
>conventional
Ummm ... unconventionally?
WTF do you think is going on in Syria right now? That's a proxy war between world powers. How do you not know that?

>>28348965
this

File: 10998090_1603100523260389_5475013277426359047_n.jpg (51KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x399px

>>28348895
EU gets rekt then US comes in and saves the day. The end.

>>28348978
Too many Chuck Norris movies.

>>28348965
this. proxy wars are the way of the future, with more and more countries gaining nuclear capabilities you will see less and less conflicts directly between major powers because of what is known as mutually assured destruction.

File: 0053_defense-comparison-full.gif (28KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 720x540px

>>28348991
No I am just being realistic

>>28349003
>No I am just being realistic
You want realism?
How much does it cost to construct an IED?
A Molotov cocktail?
When Goliath is spending 610B annually on the antiquated notion that the Russians are going to roll 40 divisions through the Fulda Gap you don't fight them on the battlefield with conventionally forces. You sucker them into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Syria and then you slowly bleed them to death. You belled them until they are spending 1 Trillion dollars and then you bled them some more. How's that for reality?

>>28348895
Remember Desert Storm? Kinda like that.

>EU v. Russia

Russian tanks roll in
The EU raises the white flag
/war

>>28349052
Autistic actually. You make it sound like we are straining ourselves to maintain our military (something Russia has an issue with because their economy is in the shitter)

File: make it rain america.jpg (115KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 400x400px

>>28349001
>you will see less and less conflicts directly between major powers because of what is known as mutually assured destruction
haha, nope. that might have held true when it was "just" East vs. West, but the real reason countries don't fight each other is international banking. most nation's economical prosperity is entangled in the global market. countries with fewer connections can act an ass, see best korea for that

>>28349052
>make America spend money
>that'll show 'em

File: 1406954817549.jpg (211KB, 1600x786px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1600x786px

>>28348895
>how would a modern conventional war be fought between two nations?
whoever has the US on their side wins

nobody really knows how another full-scale total war would play out
we'd be back in a WWI/II scenario where the first couple years would be everyone running around like a dumbfuck trying to use decades-out-date strategies and tactics from the last major wars, or else completely nonsense asymmetrical attack strategies that would fail miserably.

>>28348895
>between two nations
>EU
>nation
Go back to school

>>28349052
>conventional war
>IED's
Do you really think a couple hundred IED's is going to do jack shit when the other side is literally bombing your people off the face of the earth? When all your infrastructure is in ruins and your cities are rubble or on fire?

Insurgency is a valid tactic, but not against a full-scale conventional war-waging opponent.

>>28352313
Fucking this.
>what do you mean the enemy has artillery/tanks/aircraft?
>newspapers go ballistic when more than 3 people die a week, government oversight bullshit fires all the current generals half because the media told them to and half so they could get "their guy" in a position of power
>errybody trying to fight a nonexistant Red Menace, most likely in terrain they're completely unprepared to fight in (desert-sand colored vehicles in tropical areas, just like we had OD and woodland vehicles for the first 9 years of OEF/OIF)

>>28352350
speaking of IED's, there a difference between blowing up enemy soldiers in your occupied country vs blowing up civilians in their
i think the former makes the civilians want the war to end (bring back our troops) while the later gives them a stiff upper lip

>>28352350
This.
>we have no food, no power, our cell phones don't work, most of us are homeless because our cities are rubble from the combined fighting of both uniformed militaries, most of our families are buried under that rubble
>hey I know! Let's make a few dozen fertilizer bombs and antagonize the people winning even more while inflicting negligible casualties!
Great idea.
>inb4 hurr nawt negligible casualties, it werks
14 fucking years of warfare in 2 separate countries, less than 9000 fatalities. Less than 7000 of those are directly from enemy action. Hell less than 3000 people were killed from all sources in Iraq from 2003-2014, which averages to less than 23 people killed PER MONTH or about 0.8 people killed per day country-wide. And a good many of them were from actual military weapons, not a 30-year-old Howitzer shell under a road.

>>28348895
Modern conventions would suggest that a conventional war would be over long before the fighting starts.

So -- how would it be fought? It wouldn't.

It would be won.

whoever has the best combination of fighter jets/strategic bombers and SAM's is going to win. especially in conventional war. so id say russia would definitely win vs the EU.

>>28348895
Russia VS EU
With no US help?
EU wont last a year
Whoever starts the war will do a blitz style offensive similar to what happened in Ukraine.
Since the EU has never really been united on any issues, it might take a day or two to organize.
If Russia chooses to bypass the cities they'll probably reach the German border around the time the EU gets their shit together.
Id expect the poles to fight tooth and nail for their cities, but i don't think they have the ability to contest the Russian tank columns or air superiority. This pattern will probably repeat across all eastern European countries.

>>28349627
/Thread

>>28353756
The large EU members (Germany France UK) would scramble to get their forces together on the continental europe and establish some sort of defensive line. Long before all of their ground forces are in position they'd scramble their air forces and try to delay the soviet advance.
But the soviet ground doctrine has always operated under the assumption that they will be under air attack, so id expect them to counter it easily. Plus the EU nations have to get their forces together to defend. This combined with the language barrier means that the EU will have a harder time coordinating than Russian forces will.

>>28353879
Youd probably get the battles that everyone who studies the cold war always dreamed about. Massive tank formations clashing with the EU trying to leverage their air superiority (assuming they have it) to compensate for their numbers disadvantage. Urban combat will probably occur, although the Russians will choose where to commit forces carefully to avoid new stalin/leningrad situations. Assuming that a city isn't on the sea you could probably just surround it and wait for people to starve. You could only do this so many times though, but there are alternatives to surrounding a city. The Russians could just lay tons of mines around it and leave a blocking forces. They might even choose to level the city instead of going into it.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 333x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 333x360px

>ITT

>>28353879
The soviets don't exist anymore.

>>28349052
>insurgency
>conventional warfare
You're fucking retarded, huh.

>>28353941
The air war would be drawn out. The eastern European nations would scramble to get their planes to safety in western EU. The western EU would have to organize, split and move their planes to be within range of the soviet offensive while ensuring their home territory was covered. Soviet and EU bombers would launch cruise missile attacks against cities and vital infrastructure. The soviets would wipe out most of the eastern EU countries and relocate to their now vacant airbases. These squadrons would be operational way later than the western EU ones and might be severely delayed by strikes against their new airbases. In addition the soviets would likely outpace their air cover.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x372px

>>28354043

>>28353962
Its faster to type than Russian. Their doctrines when dealing with the west likely remained the same, as generals tend are always a conflict behind when it comes to tactics and strategy.
>>2835941
The sea war would probably be the weirdest one in all of history. Think global commerce raiding by both sides. I cant see the soviets sailing any fleet out to meet the EU in open water. I can see submarines from both sides going around the world to sink commerce ships that fly the flag of their enemy. Unrestricted submarine warfare might reappear if there is 0 risk of any outside nations getting involved because of it. The soviets are more likely to do this because of their geographically disadvantageous position. The EU can blockade the entire Mediterranean and North Sea easily and simply prevent merchant ships from going to Russia. EU submarines would try their best to blockade the far side of Russia, but if memory serves those ports are blocked by ice for a good portion of the year. I cannot see any major surface fights happening, the EU Soviet Naval war will be elaborate, high tech, high stakes, Marco Polo.

>>28348955
>trenches
probably not given that most countries that matter have tanks and planes.

>urban combat

probably, but to answer things deeply, you'd need specifics as to what countries are involved and where their war-industry resides.

>>28354136
What do you think would happen? Would the EU be able to organize all of its squadrons more quickly? Would Eastern Europe be able to make a dent in the Soviet Air force?
>>28354043
The more far flung versions of warfare would make an appearance as well. There have been rumors of the soviets having state organized cyber warfare divisions. Id expect most EU nations to have some sort of similar program, but focused on defense. That is way above my head and I don't have enough information on it to make anything other than a wild guess.
In my foolish optimism ill expect both sides to not even attempt any sort of warfare in space. If this did happen it would probably be limited to satellite shoot downs/hacks. I really can't see a COD style hijack of any stations or satellites occurring.

>>28354233
This would be a time that would be a rude awakening for all nations. Drones would likely play a big role as the war goes on and their duties would probably expand from scouting and ground attack. By the end of the war drones will probably fulfill duties such as sub hunting, air to air combat, and front line cargo hauling. With an Increase in the use of drones would come an increased focus on electronic warfare. Hacking a drone or missile mid flight seems rather far fetched, but jamming and countermeasures to confuse drones would be something that nations would have to focus on to get an edge over their enemies.
Insurgencies are a really strange case in Europe. Im not really up to date on gun ownership in that part of the world. I do know that many people were likely conscripted during the cold war and some nations have required years of service since the fall of the USSR. There should bean ample amount of military training among the population, but i have no idea if theres enough free firearms and anti soviet sentiment to get people fighting. Someone else who knows more is welcome to give their thoughts on the subject.

>>28348895

If full scale warfare broke out, the first thing to go would be the American's nuclear launch detection satellites. If those go down, it's seen by the US as an act of war. Nukes start flying and everyone with nuclear countermeasures launches their anti nuke missiles. Then the counter-countermeasures get launched. Then everyone waits to see how the game of nuclear pachinko plays out.

>>28348895
it wouldnt, nukes prevent this.
fought via proxies like IS or otherwise 3rd world governments or political / military groups.

russia funds some group to start fucking with yuropoors, nato sends the militaries. russia isnt responsible because PROOFS? no russians die, a bunch of minorities get to die for something the believe in, EU picks up the bill unless they have their own proxy fighting russia's proxy in a 3rd party location. russian and EU populace remain either ignorant or apathetic to this, and continue normal life without technically being at war.

>>28354940
>EU picks up the bill unless they have their own Proxy fighting russia's proxy in a 3rd party location
Turkey and North Africa, with limited naval action in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

>>28348895
"the best fight is that which is over before the loser ever realizes it has begun". Russia has already lost the fight, because it's asymmetrical. They hope to win with tanks, but the oil is already $35 a barrel, and that has wrecked their economy. Sanctions mean no access to credit, which means they've been kicked back into the stone age, because 99.9% of their manufacturing capacities are supported by foreign hardware. Bottomline: expect Russia breaking down into a few insignificant entities very soon. Oh, and the nuclear weapons? They probably have already rusted through and will not even launch. The brains behind development and maintenance are long gone.

>>28348978
why would we want to intervene

Russia is just saving the EU from its own degenerate shit.

>>28353962
They do. Soviet leaders are dead, but Soviet thugs are now Russian leaders.

>>28357392
>hey probably have already rusted through and will not even launch
Wrong on that one. Russians have been investing in this sector for quite some time, mostly because its much cheaper than conventional. They have just recently pooled money to conventional warfare because muh big ambitions.

>>28354889

Kinda looks like a Naboo Starfighter.

Speaking of which, when does America get starfighters?

>>28357471
Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. Look at Roscosmos launch statistics, you'll see what I mean. Also think of a difference between a shiny Porsche you just bought in NY, and a festering abscess it turns into in a few years when rust gets to it - this is how their 50s made warheads look like today, given exposure to Russia's climate. Not to mention the "fuck it all" attitude of the regular army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina) - every "youth" dreams of one thing, become a "ded" and fuck other youths, period.

>>28349052

Edgy post m8.

>>28357538
Roscosmos anounced today that they are canceling all moon-related projects. Yep, they got their funding cut again. Guess where the funding is going.
If you want to see nuclear forces in state of decay just look at the USA.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30051468
>Mr Hagel said there had been a "consistent lack of investment and support" over "far too many years".
>Reviews of the programme were ordered after multiple scandals involving staff misconduct.
>Staff at bases in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana had to send the toolkit to each other via FedEx, the review found. Mr Hagel said that problem had now been rectified.

>>28357632
>Guess where the funding is going.

To Syria, Crimea, and Ukraine.

As for nuclear missiles - they will work somewhat like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tghr4OTZg (oh, and the ultimate irony? Just as they try to haul it away, a Ukrainian designed and made An-124 flies over...)

File: 1280px-Global_Hawk_1.jpg (163KB, 1280x838px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1280x838px

>>28357474
Around 1998.