European Rapid Reaction Force

KP · Post by KP » 2007-04-11 16:45

You're absolutely right.

And Wikipedia actually isn't all that unreliable.

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 17:08

I'll just ignore the whole 90's argument, as it is irrelevant.

According to the official norwegian armed forces site, they can muster about 130. 000 troops in times of war. As with Sweden, a big majority of these are conscripted homeguards.
How exactly could these be used to attack China?
Manpower isn't everything, you still need equipment and training...

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-04-11 17:23

*sigh* How old are you? Are you good in english? Did you read the PM?

This is not a competition between norway and sweden. The Chinese example was brought up to show the crappy argument you used there is NO way that China only would mobilise 0.2% of their population in case of war. It was an example used to pull your pants down, sorry if you didn't understand this.

Please read the PM again and if you don't fully understand ask someone to translate it, perhaps swedish would work better? Just tell me and I'll translate it to Swedish. When you have read the PM you WILL understand why the 90s argument is relevant until then please shut up and please stop embarrassing yourself.

I feel the need to respond in public since you dont respond to the PM I sent you, please continue this discussion via PM, not in public or we will get this thread locked!

mammikoura · Post by **mammikoura** » 2007-04-11 17:25

and the Swedes wouldn't be that realistic because they have few people?
mhmmm. right.
I'd say that training has the biggest effect. As you said equipments are also very important. You rarely win battles because you have more soldiers.

And there is also mandatory military service, though from what I just read at wiki not many people actually go there.

So don't know how many soldiers they would actually manage to get.

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 17:38

Gyberg wrote:*sigh* How old are you? Are you good in english? Did you read the PM?

This is not a competition between norway and sweden. The Chinese example was brought up to show the crappy argument you used there is NO way that China only would mobilise 0.2% of their population in case of war. It was an example used to pull your pants down, sorry if you didn't understand this.

Please read the PM again and if you don't fully understand ask someone to translate it, perhaps swedish would work better? Just tell me and I'll translate it to Swedish. When you have read the PM you WILL understand why the 90s argument is relevant until then please shut up and please stop embarrassing yourself.

I feel the need to respond in public since you dont respond to the PM I sent you, please continue this discussion via PM, not in public or we will get this thread locked!

Good job in resorting to personal insults instead of giving valid arguments.

As I could not find any statistics on the swedish armed forces site, I used the norwegian counterpart merely as an example. Sorry if you didn't understand this, perhaps Norwegian would work better? Just tell me and I'll translate it to Norwegian.
Oh and, please give me your estimates on how many soldiers Sweden and China can maintain.

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 17:44

mammikoura wrote:and the Swedes wouldn't be that realistic because they have few people?
mhmmm. right.
I'd say that training has the biggest effect. As you said equipments are also very important. You rarely win battles because you have more soldiers.

And there is also mandatory military service, though from what I just read at wiki not many people actually go there. So don't know how many soldiers they would actually manage to get.

Doesn't matter how many soldiers "they get". If someone declares war on Sweden, every male by a certain age will called in for military service, mostly to the homeguard unit (notice H-O-M-E). And as I see it, conscripted troops are rarely well equipped or trained, let alone used for foreign service (attacking China).

Post by **Exel** » 2007-04-11 17:48

Why are you guys even fighting? The topic is about European Rapid Reaction Force, not Swedish, Norwegian or Luxemburgian. In case you haven't noticed, all of the EU Battle Groups are multinational. So even IF a Euro army was added, it would be exactly that, a multinational Euro army, not representing any one nationality.

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-04-11 17:56

Semi wrote:Good job in resorting to personal insults instead of giving valid arguments.

As I could not find any statistics on the swedish armed forces site, I used the norwegian counterpart merely as an example. Sorry if you didn't understand this, perhaps Norwegian would work better? Just tell me and I'll translate it to Norwegian.
Oh and, please give me your estimates on how many soldiers Sweden and China can maintain.

EDIT: Quoted wrong post, fixed it.

Ok sorry if I insulted you, my bad.

Im just trying to show you that the numbers you presented are completely off. For instance check out http://www.pliktverket.se/sv/Statistik/ during the last 10 years over 200 000 troops have been trained. What Im saying is that Norway also ought to be able to mobilise alot more than 70 000.

If you think that I said that Sweden would be able to invade china you misunderstood me. But since Sweden would be able to mobilise around 10% of its population so I guess that china would be able to mobilise at least 10% so around 100 000 000 probably more...

But again please use the PM function, we dont want to get this thread locked do we?

Reyals · Post by **Reyals** » 2007-04-11 18:19

After some quick googleing my money is on Sweden, sorry Norway but it looks like they just simply have you out gunned. Though individually training is probably going to play a bigger role since neither side is particularly dominating and how well trained troops are isn't something you can really look up

Edit: But hey if it makes you guys feel better even Canada could probably have it's way with either of you

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 18:24

Reyals wrote:After some quick googleing my money is on Sweden, sorry Norway but it looks like they just simply have you out gunned. Though individually training is probably going to play a bigger role since neither side is particularly dominating and how well trained troops are isn't something you can really look up

Edit: But hey if it makes you guys feel better even Canada could probably have it's way with either of you

Woah! Go to school, learn to read, then come back please.

Reyals · Post by **Reyals** » 2007-04-11 18:34

Semi wrote:Woah! Go to school, learn to read, then come back please.

That's funny coming from the man that thought Sweden was planning to attack China

-=XS=-Anttwan · Post by **-=XS=-Anttwan** » 2007-04-11 18:34

i would like to see the G36k

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 18:36

Reyals wrote:That's funny coming from the man that thought Sweden was planning to attack China

Again, learn to read. That's not even close to what I said, kiddo.

Reyals · Post by **Reyals** » 2007-04-11 18:42

Semi wrote:Again, learn to read. That's not even close to what I said, kiddo.

Really?

Semi wrote: As with Sweden, a big majority of these are conscripted homeguards.
How exactly could these be used to attack China?

Seems pretty clear to me.
But please, do explain.

Edit: Perhaps you were implying Norway had plans to move on China?

Post by **Exel** » 2007-04-11 18:42

Like I said, arguing about which country can mobilize more forces is pointless. A pissing contest wont decide what countries get included - or left out for that matter. Besides it's not even ON TOPIC!

Keep it civil.

Reyals · Post by **Reyals** » 2007-04-11 18:49

'[R-DEV wrote:Exel']Like I said, arguing about which country can mobilize more forces is pointless. A pissing contest wont decide what countries get included - or left out for that matter. Besides it's not even ON TOPIC!

Keep it civil.

I was just making a joke.
Semi seems to have some rapid nationalist pride about his 30th ranked military (By spending).

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-11 18:49

Reyals wrote:Really?

Seems pretty clear to me.
But please, do explain.

Edit: Perhaps you were implying Norway had plans to move on China?

I have no idea how you could get so lost. Do you know what a question mark is?

"How exactly could these be used to attack China?" <--

Reyals wrote:I was just making a joke.
Semi seems to have some rapid nationalist pride about his 30th ranked military (By spending).

Read from first page, I was not the one who mentioned Norway.
It still blows me away how you could completely miss the subject of this topic.

Post by **Exel** » 2007-04-11 18:53

Engineer wrote:Because the word 'European' is a joke, like EU is.

Battle Groups with at least 4 member states:

Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Norway

Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal

Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania

France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain

Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania

Now tell me, which one of those is a joke?

Agent0range · Post by **Agent0range** » 2007-04-11 19:00

'[R-DEV wrote:Exel']
Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Now tell me, which one of those is a joke?

That reminds me about a documentary I was watching about how multinational forces are working together in Afghanistan etc. Apparently the Italians aren't allowed to be deployed anywhere dangerous, its against the agreement their country signed with NATO or something IIRC. "No our armed forces can't be deployed to a combat zone....they might get killed!" - that's a joke! I imagine that whole battle group has a similar agreement.