Ranking European best navies today

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Wed May 23, 2007 2:19 pm

I don´t believe that any of the actual western european navies would have performed half as well as the British did at Falklands. The Brits were bold, were tactical superior and they were there to achieve the holy grail of victory. And the reason for all that is, in part, from their tradition of victory. Now, I don´t see the germans (with their flagship called Lutjens

) doing anything as bold, or the French doing something else than losing their only CVN against an heroic argentine airborne attack. Nope. The result was British doing, no body else could have do it but the USN or the ruskies with their naval superiority.

Best regards.

RF · Post by RF » Thu May 24, 2007 10:15 am

I agree with you Karl.

But on paper, the other European navies would have a favourable chance. The key event was the torpedoing of the General Belgrano and the RN enforcement of the exclusion zone around the Falklands - the Argentine Navy could not risk their other major surface units, including their only carrier, so they were effectively blockaded in harbour.

Also the prompt seizure of South Georgia and the capture of the submarine Santa Fe showed that the logistics as well as tactical factors favoured the attacker.

I think all of our alternative navies would have sunk the Belgrano - especially the Germans....

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:58 pm

I disagree. The Belgrano was sunk by a nuclear submarine, which had the speed to move into position to sink a high speed naval target. The small submarines built by European countries today are mostly useful for waiting at choke points for something to come by. They aren't very good at maneuvering long distances over the open ocean.

Also, remember it's a long way from Faslane, Scotland to the Falklands. It would have taken a small submarine a long time to get there, and it might have been out of fuel and provisions by the time it did.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:08 pm

To win the Falklands or any other war you need determination and will. But above all you need to forget all that trash the social scientists and wise guys from the universities (specially Robert McNamara´s falacies and idiot premises) had wrote about international conflicts and you must return to the only law in war: win or be killed (remember McArthur´s axiom: "in war there is no substitute for victory). It´s not a matter of how many devices you have at hand: look at the US in Irak. Who have the best tanks, aircraft, attack choppers, CVNs, SSBN, SSN, stealth fighters, hardware and software, etc? And who is gonna win? But the US has the capability to wipe Irak and Iran in a matter of weeks if that is their will. If they lose is because they lack of the will of winning.
And that´s the lack that the rest of Europe today has. How do you expect the Germans to sink Belgrano or the French to land in the Falklands if they were not able to stop genocide in Kosovo? Serbia was their backyard and they did nothing at all! Brave Europe...
Only the brits have nowadays the will, the strenght to fight. Well, also the US servicemen who fight and died under Bush´s stupid strategems...
Sun Tzu was right, you win first, you fight later.

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:36 pm

And that´s the lack that the rest of Europe today has. How do you expect the Germans to sink Belgrano or the French to land in the Falklands if they were not able to stop genocide in Kosovo? Serbia was their backyard and they did nothing at all!

There was not will of stopping the killings there, because they were not catholics it is said...

Alatriste · Post by **Alatriste** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:37 am

Apart from the UK, in 1982, I don't think any other European naval power (except the USSR) could have taken the Falklands.

The Germans didn't even have an aircraft-carrier to provide air support over the islands (and still don't have it today). Spain only had one carrier in 1982, the Dédalo (ex-USS Cabot) and carried only 8 AV-8 Harrier of an older model than the British. The Italians only had one carrier too. The French however might have done better since they provided Argentina with weapons like the Exocet, aircraft, etc, and knew what they would come up against.

But all this was more than 20 years ago. Today the European navies have changed a lot. What do you think of today's French nuclear carrier or the Spanish AEGIS frigates?

RF · Post by RF » Fri May 25, 2007 9:39 am

How do you put them to the test against substantial odds in combat conditions in today's environment?

Kosovo was a land situation, not specifically a military campaign as such, so is not really that relevent to testing navies.

Terje Langoy · Post by **Terje Langoy** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:01 pm

Does this mean that any navy without an aircraft carrier could be considered a useless navy? Would I be wrong if I assumed that some navies perhaps don't build ships to battle it out on the other side of the globe, simply because they can't justify the purpose (not to mention the costs) of having such a ship? Does all surface units have to pack enormous striking power to still serve a purpose? Where does that leave navy ships like for instance mine clearance vessels? Coast guards? Are these ships completely useless since they can't launch a counter-attack on the other side of the globe?

The United States had the means to build the worlds most powerful navy after World War Two, The British had, at least until World War Two, the most powerful navy in the world. But do you honestly think that France or Germany could afford, or had the will to launch, a massive navy rebuild programme after World War Two?

Germany doesn't hold any overseas territory that would require a navy to operate far away from their home ports. They would not have to fight a "Falklands-battle"

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:10 pm

It just depends on the right time and place and bona fortuna. I would not rank any navy against another until after the fact. In that sense the USN in the Pacific in WWII did prove their worth beyond any reasonable doubt against a very tenacious and malicious enemy.

Terje Langoy · Post by **Terje Langoy** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:31 am

... but do you judge a modern navy by its range or by its capacities? When I sailed with the North-European Mine Force, (NATO) our ship located seven mines, the Danish found three and the German found one. The others, including a British ship, found none. If I were to follow the logic in the thread, as in disregarding other naval capacities, then our navy is seven times as good, the Danish is three times as good and the German navy is twice as good as any of the others.

Would a fleet of aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines be able to replace all the other ships of a navy? Could they have met all the requirements that a modern navy face? I would call it an extreme overkill if Norway used aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines as coast guards and that is my exact point here.

Comparing the European navies in an offensive that should be considered a conflict over rightful ownership between two nations, is simply bad taste. It does not test the navies in any given situation where they would have to prove their combat skills, it only verify the fact that an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine offers good range. RF asked the question: How do we put them to the test? If I had to suggest a scenario..? Let them defend themselves! But by doing that, the picture suddenly becomes more complicated as you have eliminated range from the scenario. Land-based airplanes are well within reach. I would simply toss the ball and ask again: which navy is the best European navy?

Best regards