NationStates Jolt Archive

Having seen this discussion on another forum, i'd like to present this idea to NationStates. Disregarding allies and nuclear warfare, who has the strongest military and who would come out the victor (however close) in the end. I personally say that the UK would, although it would be a war that would have no real benefactor as both nations are extremely strong. The reason I say this is because Britain has a better navy, and a better (just above par) airforce than France while it has a small army. Noting the size in relation to both countries I can safely say that Naval and Air warfare is just as important as ground.

Any other opiniojns?

Britian, the French navys weak and they couldn't inavde Britian without a huge buildup, and there air powers weak as well. However Britians small army would be crushed by frances large one-result-stalemate.

America :D

That's what I was thinking Aust... Plus I have no doubts Britain France and Canada are more than a match for the US.

That's what I was thinking Aust... Plus I have no doubts Britain France and Canada are more than a match for the US.


In their dreams ;)

Historically, Britain has been much better at projecting military power overseas. I suspect that even with a smaller land army, Britain could take out most of Northern France without too much difficulty.

What's America's biggest advantage- their airforce - what's Canada/France/Britain's biggest naval advantage - their anti air.. plus britain/france/canada's navy is more than a match for the US when it comes to aircraft carriers and minor subsurface.. it's the larger ships were the US comes into play. Although I dooubt C/F/B could successfully invade the US.

Interesting, no French supporters yet.

Well, it is close, but...

British Advantages:
More combat experience
Better Overall standard of training (mostly due to national service in France)
Generally better technology (thanks to closeness with US and others)
Larger and more capable Navy.
Natural Defensive position.

French Advantages:
More soldiers (roughly 3:2 numerical advantage)
Larger domestic arms manufacturing sector (more important in the Long Run)
Larger Army and Air Force (pound for pound capability is in question)
More secure lines of supply.


So...

Niether side possess sufficient military strength to successfully invade the other, lacking the numbers, amphibious capability and force projection to actually contemplate a successful invasion. A war between the countries would quickly boil down to large aerial battles, British dominance of the waters, and attrition warfare and raids to try and break the enemy. Warfare would most likely be conducted along political and economic means. There, Britain might have the edge, with more allies and astronger, more flexible economy.

Plus the fact aircraft carrier capabilities are now 3-1 and the French aircraft carrier is royally fucked up due to engine troubles. Come on, where are all the french military supporters?

1) The aircraft carrier Charles de gaulle has been sold to the Brazilian navy. It is now known as the São Paulo.

2) There is no more national service since 2000 IIRC. It has been replaced by a compulsory "Army careers day", with no military training whatsoever but instead the projection of cool videos with lots of 'splosions, jets and courageous people, followed by a quick formation to secourism.

3) Current and near future geopolitical predictions exclude the possibility of a war between two european countries -except in the worst case scenarios, when all forms of energy source deplete AT THE SAME TIME- , due to the strong economical and political bonds formed after WWII.

4) My mom can beat up your mom.

Britain vs France eh? Hmm well England did successfully invade and take most of France in the 100 years war did we not? Although we got booted out. Methinks that may not be a good indication to go by however.

That's what I was thinking Aust... Plus I have no doubts Britain France and Canada are more than a match for the US.A tie is likely if you include French (and British?) new subs...

but if nukes are not allowed the US can destroy them without a doubt.

What's America's biggest advantage- their airforce - what's Canada/France/Britain's biggest naval advantage - their anti air.. plus britain/france/canada's navy is more than a match for the US when it comes to aircraft carriers and minor subsurface.. it's the larger ships were the US comes into play. Although I dooubt C/F/B could successfully invade the US.

Interesting, no French supporters yet.



Not that I'm much of a military person anyway, but don't we have stealth aircraft and cruise missiles which could disable anti-air weaponary so that other planes could get in?

That's what I was thinking Aust... Plus I have no doubts Britain France and Canada are more than a match for the US.

Canada??? As a Canadian, I can't help but say that we wouldn't be much help. I think the most we could do is launch some spitballs or something. Sorry to offend any fellow Canucks but you know it's true.

but if nukes are not allowed the US can destroy them without a doubt.

:( Probably. I think we have something ridiculous like 668 warheads on our 4 nuclear submarines, but they're tiny compared to US ones. I hear that only 1/3 of US pilots are trained to fly at night however, plus isn't the "Star Wars" defence system already obsolete?

Not that I'm much of a military person anyway, but don't we have stealth aircraft and cruise missiles which could disable anti-air weaponary so that other planes could get in?
The Brits have cruise missiles and can detect Stealth Aircraft, so they're just as likely to shoot them down.

The Brits have cruise missiles and can detect Stealth Aircraft, so they're just as likely to shoot them down.

Stealth aircraft can be detected? Then why didn't the people on 24 detect it so the president wouldn't have been shot down!

Stealth aircraft can be detected? Then why didn't the people on 24 detect it so the president wouldn't have been shot down!
Are you talking about the TV show?
I think that just answered the question. Would've been a rather boring story if it hadn't been shot down.

The mighty Luxembourg navy, airforce and army would bring Britain and France to their knees within 24 hours.

The mighty Luxembourg navy, airforce and army would bring Britain and France to their knees within 24 hours.


The Mighty Military of Madagascar could easily take all three of them with one hand tied behind its back! :D

The Mighty Military of Madagascar could easily take all three of them with one hand tied behind its back! :D
San Marino's spacemarine corps would take those 4 and the rest of the world while their at it.

France and England... One dead, one terminally weakened?

Germany wins.

*_*/

:( Probably. I think we have something ridiculous like 668 warheads on our 4 nuclear submarines, but they're tiny compared to US ones. I hear that only 1/3 of US pilots are trained to fly at night however, plus isn't the "Star Wars" defence system already obsolete?668 is more than enough to declare a tie.

and the Star Wars system is totally useless against stealth subs

I will have to go with the UK on that one, seeing as they are outnumbered but have some of the highest training standards in the world, and technical prowess in unquestionable. Navy and airforce are superior, and would bombard/gun down french supply lines and troops. Also, i cant think of a suitable place for a beach landing in UK, but normandy is perfect (as demonstrated in WW2). Also, french command chains and leadership is not even close to the Brits, who also have the advantage of economy.

With French relations France would take it hands down. Britain is allied to the United States and how many fronts can America fight, really? The EU is strongly tied to international empathy, more so than the USA and England could ever dream of.
There is no way they could ever even think of inter NATO combat, however this is assuming that diplomacy has failed, in which case France is the victor because the UK couldn't talk thier way out of a paper bag.
Oh yeah and the Sterling Pound woudl no doubt collapse if an intr-European war were to happen. Trade Emargos would be so overwhelming that England would lose about 3/4ths of thier investment and as iso inevitable the Euro will come out on top.
-Chris

Vive La France!

^ No chance.

even if we were taking allies into consideration, would any of europe take arms against the closest ally of the US? It has already been stated that british economy is stronger and more flexible, and i cant think of how france would possibly win it. I think your underestimating the sheer size of the USA military. I'm sure they have a few more thoudand guys stashed away somewhere...

May I just remind everybody that wars are no longer fought on land,sea or air. War is about economics not guns. Guns were last century and they proved not to work very well. The only use we have for armaments today is pointless political threats, destroying ourselves and more responsibly peace keeping.
-Chris

With French relations France would take it hands down. Britain is allied to the United States and how many fronts can America fight, really? The EU is strongly tied to international empathy, more so than the USA and England could ever dream of.
There is no way they could ever even think of inter NATO combat, however this is assuming that diplomacy has failed, in which case France is the victor because the UK couldn't talk thier way out of a paper bag.
Oh yeah and the Sterling Pound woudl no doubt collapse if an intr-European war were to happen. Trade Emargos would be so overwhelming that England would lose about 3/4ths of thier investment and as iso inevitable the Euro will come out on top.
-Chris

Vive La France!


Do you not uderstand?...the point of having such an indipendant currency is so that it is usefull in war time, If anything the pound would improve and buy more then it does

May I just remind everybody that wars are no longer fought on land,sea or air. War is about economics not guns. Guns were last century and they proved not to work very well. The only use we have for armaments today is pointless political threats, destroying ourselves and more responsibly peace keeping.
-Chris
I thought the general point of this thread was comparing the British Military with France's??

Sorry guys. Even though Canada won 2 wars against the US (in 1775 and 1812), pushing back American invasion forces twice (and with some genuine military genius the second time)... and even though Canada took a VERY active part in WW2 (remember Dieppe and the Netherlands campaigns)...

In 2005, Canada's army is falling apart. The worst part is the navy: our boats are totally outdated and their support helicopters are "in the process of being replaced" (for 15 years now)... not to mention the fact that we buy old submarines from the UK, and they just blow up while being delivered (the Chicoutimi incident).

Canada wouldn't be a match for Switzerland or Finland.

Canadian citizens couldn't even take up arms against an invasion: we don't have much "civilian" guns anyways, and many canadian regions don't even have a single military base.

Do you not uderstand?...the point of having such an indipendant currency is so that it is usefull in war time, If anything the pound would improve and buy more then it does

The British economy is much stronger than the Euro zone, and has a stronger manufacturing base. Their currency would stay strong and be better suited to buying military supplies. France has too much agriculture relative to its industrial base, and its military is nowhere near as good as the UK.

The UK held out against Germany for years under bombardment, which is a good picture of how they would hold out against even a heavily militarized France.

The British economy is much stronger than the Euro zone, and has a stronger manufacturing base. Their currency would stay strong and be better suited to buying military supplies. France has too much agriculture relative to its industrial base, and its military is nowhere near as good as the UK.

The UK held out against Germany for years under bombardment, which is a good picture of how they would hold out against even a heavily militarized France.


....exactly my point...i would like to thank you and so many other smart people for translating my arguments in to sensible, clear and inteligent posts such as this

....exactly my point...i would like to thank you and so many other smart people for translating my arguments in to sensible, clear and inteligent posts such as this

Thanks. :)

I just found some damning evidence for the France argument:

When Britain first at Heav'n's command, Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain;

The nations not so blest as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.

Still mor majestic shalt thou rise, More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies, Serves but to root thy native oak.

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame, All their attempts to bend thee down;
Will but arouse thy generous flame, But work their woe, and thy renown.

etc...

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

- James Thompson

:D

Canada??? As a Canadian, I can't help but say that we wouldn't be much help. I think the most we could do is launch some spitballs or something. Sorry to offend any fellow Canucks but you know it's true.


be proud of it, the ability to kill people more effectivly than someone else is not something to be proud of

As for the canda GB France vs US debate, canada would put up a month or 2s resistance and then fall, it would then be stalemate. Neather side would be able to cross the Atlantic. US does it, there navy gets killed by the combined might of the Uk's and Frances. Reamber that France and Britian have local bases and could refule quicker, giving them more airtime. Tehy would out wait the US fighters, (Other than the ones based on Air Craft carrierfs, which would be outnumbers) and destroy them. After that it would be target practace for the Europeans.

The Royal navy and the french navy could also finish the job as the US air suprioirty would be much use against such strong AA ships. It's the same the otehr way round, 3 days to cross the Atlantic (At least) means 3 days of constant air attacks, and even then i doubt that ladning anywhere it Britian would be practicals, and France would be even further to go.

Once you land there you'd face not just the highly trained british forces, but also the locals, and the RAF and royal navy. reamber by this time you'd have lost most of you Aircraft carriers and planes and you'd have no base for them to return to, end result? Once again, stalemate.

Here are a few facts you might not know about Britain. Number one: Britain is a country. Number two: Britain is called Britain. Number five: Britain.

Goooodbyyeeee

how enlightening

Heh heh heh...as a Brit, I'll say this: France and Britain are like siblings...we'll constantly bicker, tease and fight, but in the long run we really couldn't do without each other.

Awww, group hug!

Undoubtedly GB would handily smash the french forces in a hurry, They could not however occupy. The french (people not soldiers) would simply not stand for it. That is pretty much the case for any long established country. The only way the french could ever take away the soverignty of britian is through the (EU). The USA however could handily smash any single nation's military forces. We could not occupy though. The dynamics of the world now are such that whatever countries there are now will probably never cease to exist. They can still get whooped, but the world will not stand for military assimilation. Cultural assimilation however is a different story. Economic dominance of the usa at least for the time being makes us invincible.
(World GDP 40,000 billion and shrinking) (USA GDP 13,000 billion and growing)
You drop a bomb here and your likely to hit one of your own businesses.

That's exactly my point Aust. Europe and Canada's specialised (Yes, Canada does have a good military, even if you deny it) ASW and AAW navies and airforces are against the Americans, who specialise in Subsurface and air warfare...

And about America handily smashing any military.. I seriously doubt that; tell me how America could handily smash;
-Britain
-France
-Germany
-Russia
-China
-North Korea

There's a few more. Remember that in any of those countries, if you ask someone if they would take up arms against an American invasion they would most likely say yes.
Still, back to the French-British argument...I think that a stalemate would be most probable.

That's exactly my point Aust. Europe and Canada's specialised (Yes, Canada does have a good military, even if you deny it) ASW and AAW navies and airforces are against the Americans, who specialise in Subsurface and air warfare...

And about America handily smashing any military.. I seriously doubt that; tell me how America could handily smash;
-Britain
-France
-Germany
-Russia
-China
-North Korea

There's a few more. Remember that in any of those countries, if you ask someone if they would take up arms against an American invasion they would most likely say yes.
Still, back to the French-British argument...I think that a stalemate would be most probable.
-Britain 49
-France 40
-Germany 28
-Russia 65
-China 56
-North Korea 5 Total military budget in billions = 243

USA 415 not including war appropriations of around 90bn this year alone

-Britain 49
-France 40
-Germany 28
-Russia 65
-China 56
-North Korea 5 Total military budget in billions = 243

USA 415 not including war appropriations of around 90bn this year alone
Geography would make such a invasion, with determined resistance impossable, not inclusing the use of nukes.

That's exactly my point Aust. Europe and Canada's specialised (Yes, Canada does have a good military, even if you deny it) ASW and AAW navies and airforces are against the Americans, who specialise in Subsurface and air warfare...

And about America handily smashing any military.. I seriously doubt that; tell me how America could handily smash;
-Britain
-France
-Germany
-Russia
-China
-North Korea

There's a few more. Remember that in any of those countries, if you ask someone if they would take up arms against an American invasion they would most likely say yes.
Still, back to the French-British argument...I think that a stalemate would be most probable.

NK and China are landlocked and can be dealt with at a later time. Russia's military is basically crumbling on its own and only its stockpile of nukes keeps it as a world power (and I'm assuming we're keeping this nuke-free?). That leaves Germany, France and Britain

Germany's navy totals 12 aging frigates and 2 destroyers from 1969, along with 12 coastal subs, so they're a non-factor. France at least has a proper aircraft carrier but the thing's broken down half the time and it does not carry a total air wing. It has a total of 3 destroyers from the 1970s and 9 frigates of any combat value, and 6 attack subs, so it too is a minor player. That just leaves the RN.

3 VTOL carriers (usually carrying 8 Harriers, 9 Sea Kings, 3 Sea King AEW), 7 Trafalgar-class attack subs, 5 Swiftsure-class attack subs, 11 Type 42 destroyers (all three batchs), 16 Type 23 frigates and 4 Type 22 frigates.

vs.

11 aircraft carriers (Nimitz-class, JFK-class, ect.)(each carrying 80+ aircraft), 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers (VSL group), 5 Ticonderoga-class cruisers (non-VSL group), 36 Arleige Burke-class destroyers, 14 Spruance-class destroyers, 30 Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, 2 Seawolf-class attack subs and 50 Los Angeles-class attack subs

I think it's safe to say the US wins at sea for now :D

Germany's navy totals 12 aging frigates and 2 destroyers from 1969, along with 12 coastal subs, so they're a non-factor. France at least has a proper aircraft carrier but the thing's broken down half the time and it does not carry a total air wing. It has a total of 3 destroyers from the 1970s and 9 frigates of any combat value, and 6 attack subs, so it too is a minor player. That just leaves the RN.
Your forgetting the new 212-a class submarines.

Here are a few facts you might not know about Britain. Number one: Britain is a country. Number two: Britain is called Britain. Number five: Britain.

Goooodbyyeeee

:( Britain is not a country, it is an Island.

What's America's biggest advantage- their airforce - what's Canada/France/Britain's biggest naval advantage - their anti air.. plus britain/france/canada's navy is more than a match for the US when it comes to aircraft carriers and minor subsurface.. it's the larger ships were the US comes into play. Although I dooubt C/F/B could successfully invade the US.

Interesting, no French supporters yet.

Britain, France or Canada don't have crap when it comes to Aircraft carriers. What they do have are small pieces of junk compared to ANY US carrier. The US features a superior Army, Navy and Air Force to any country in the world. No Navy in the world is a match for the US Navy.

If the Canadians were to say invade Michigan they would be slaughtered. As the Michigan National Guards swing into action. They are more than strong enough to hold back the Canadians until the real Army arrives.

Canada/France/Britains anti-air isn't going to mean crap when the stealth fighters and bombers come in hard and fast and knock them to pieces. Gee.. didn't Iraq in the first gulf war have this HUGE ANTI-AIR defense network that was knocked out with ease?

Britain is a United Kingdom of 4 Nations, not just an island. Northern Ireland is quite a seperate place and yet it is part of Britain (sorry to any Unionists).

Also, you said to discount allies in our estimation of Britain. Do we also discount the commonwealth? Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. would have quite a bit to contribute in terms of manpower.

Britain, France or Canada don't have crap when it comes to Aircraft carriers. What they do have are small pieces of junk compared to ANY US carrier. The US features a superior Army, Navy and Air Force to any country in the world. No Navy in the world is a match for the US Navy.

If the Canadians were to say invade Michigan they would be slaughtered. As the Michigan National Guards swing into action. They are more than strong enough to hold back the Canadians until the real Army arrives.

Canada/France/Britains anti-air isn't going to mean crap when the stealth fighters and bombers come in hard and fast and knock them to pieces. Gee.. didn't Iraq in the first gulf war have this HUGE ANTI-AIR defense network that was knocked out with ease?
Yes, Britain/France/Canada can easily be compared to Iraq :rolleyes:

Yes, Britain/France/Canada can easily be compared to Iraq :rolleyes:

Compared to the US they are no better. I highly doubt that any of those Nations besides Canada has the compacity to throw up a sizeable defense. Sure if the US were to invade those countries it would be hell. It would be worse than Iraq is right now.

Now for the whole Britain vs France debate. I think hands down the Brits would win as they have proven themselves time and time again. They sure as heck smacked Argentina around during the falklands war. How many thousands of miles did they have to cross and then go into action and yet still carry the day.

Its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog!

Britains Bulldog shall maul Frances Poodle!

Surely these War funds would include how much you pay your Soldiers right?

What do Korwan and Chinese troops get?-HAlf a bowl of rice......

At current projections niether side would win a war through a massive campaign but you a continuos line of set battles the Force with the larger Airforce would win.
No invasion woulds be possible.

A lot of British Industry has been shut down in recent years.
The French like to Strike and complain alot so Britain could compete in manufacturing.

I think that Britain have proved in the recent iraq war that they would be more than a match for France. On the scale of it, they have almost done better than the Americans, however, of course the Americans have better equipment and more men.

Compared to the US they are no better.


You so funny! :D

With French relations France would take it hands down. Britain is allied to the United States and how many fronts can America fight, really? The EU is strongly tied to international empathy, more so than the USA and England could ever dream of.
There is no way they could ever even think of inter NATO combat, however this is assuming that diplomacy has failed, in which case France is the victor because the UK couldn't talk thier way out of a paper bag.
Oh yeah and the Sterling Pound woudl no doubt collapse if an intr-European war were to happen. Trade Emargos would be so overwhelming that England would lose about 3/4ths of thier investment and as iso inevitable the Euro will come out on top.
-Chris

Vive La France!
The U.S. maintains at all times the ability to sustain a minimum of three fully engaged fronts at any given time. If one is opened then preperations for an additional one are placed in motion.
EU empathy is worth squat once the bullets start to fly, and the Euro's future is not even assured now much less in a full blown conflict, while the US can easily prop up the UK's economy indefinately. Combine that with logistical support from Canada and Australia and a French coalition would be toast.

This of course is purely speculative as I am sure that there will be new technologies introduced by both sides that the world has never seen before, but it sure makes for an interesting exercise.

Compared to the US they are no better.

Now for the whole Britain vs France debate. I think hands down the Brits would win as they have proven themselves time and time again. They sure as heck smacked Argentina around during the falklands war.
Smacked around?

Britain was lucky to get out of that losing supply ships and if the Pumas had some bombs that were not defective they would have lost a lot more ships.

But it proved the British soldier is a tough Cookie.
"The falklands war was like to bald men fighting over a comb."-Some guy named George.

You so funny! :D


I see nothing funny with it. The US is better able to defend and or attack any other nation in the world. It is part of the GET OUT AND BEAT YOUR NEIGHBORS campaign by Bush.

Think about it. The US already has bases in Europe. What better way to launch a sneak attack if it was needed. But we have more than digressed. This thread is about who would win between England and France.

The CDG can operate up to 40 aircraft; look at this in comparison to a Nimitz, half. Not bad considering France has never insured into CVNs. Now look at the three british CVS' - each support 9 and up to 24 aircraft. Because France/Britain/Canada would not even think of attacking mainland US, because they know that's stupid, they will play on the defense. France/Britain have nearly 1000 high speed interceptors to bring to bear against the US, and in such a confined space that is very powerful.
Now the two british CVF that will start to be made soon, 48 aircraft each. Now imagine the US tries to invade France and Britain from the sea, they will be beaten back because of the terrain and easy defense from the mainland by ground based aircraft. The point is the US' stealth bombers (the stealth fighter can't cross the atlantic) cannot knock out all of the British or French airbases, and especially not without losses. Contrary to what you think Stealth aircraft are not impossible to detect, just quite hard. Now considering that the US has sold systems to detect stealth aircraft to britain and britain knows that information and would share it with france, your "stealth bomber" bollocks means nothing. Next the US would use B52s en masse to try destroy airbases; not going to work. This worked against Iraq because Iraq has nothing to shoot down B52s - Britain however does, and because no fighter can cross the Atlantic, those B52s have no support. carrier base aircraft? excuse me, where does Britain + france specialise? AAW.. now what is the US going to do? invade with naval power? Excuse me, you want to cross the Irish or the British channel, or the north sea with an invasion force? LMFAO. The US could take it's time deploying against the Iraqis because they had no way of knowing what the US are doing - however the British and the French do. This means stalemate. Again.

note that the Red Fleet in the cold war was a 1v1 match for the US navy and discounting aircraft carriers it still is. oh, and if you want to count US bases in Europe, then let's count Europe and Russia. Germany, Russia, Italy...Btw, United Kingdom (or Britain) vs France, not England.

Oh, ya, and the Falkland Wars, consindering Britain was fighting hundreds of miles downsea away from any near base, we kicked the Argentinians arse. The harrier FA1 >>>>>> Super Mirage.

Smacked around?

Britain was lucky to get out of that losing supply ships and if the Pumas had some bombs that were not defective they would have lost a lot more ships.

But it proved the British soldier is a tough Cookie.
"The falklands war was like to bald men fighting over a comb."-Some guy named George.


Yes they did get lucky but they did what they needed to do. Traveling basically halfway around the world without any real backup takes guts.

I'm still amazed nobody has mentioned a little factor like

THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION

which will definitely have a say in kicking ass. Always have, always will.

Royal Marines > French Foreign Legion

There is actually a debate about who would win this?! Dudes, the UK would stomp all over the Frenchies. The UK military is superior in every way to the French military, numbers don't mean jack crap in the modern military. France's more-man-army just means more dead Frenchmen.

On the topic of Britain versus France: Britain, hands down. The french army may be large, but it's training rivals that of Somalia(in other words, it sucks/its non-existant). Their navy isn't good, their airforce is only redeemed by the Eurofighter, and the ONLY thing they have for 'em is that the British couldnt occupy 'em.

On the off-topic topic of U.S. vs. GB, France, and Canada: Erm, it would be a tie. Sure, we'd own the Canadians in the blink of an eye (Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto!), but neither side could cross the big pond. If they Americans tried to get across, we prolly could but our Navy wouldn't be in great shape, so our men would arrive in smaller numbers, worse equipment, and in worse shape. Sure, we could STILL probably beat the French Army, but we'd just get bogged down on some obscure part of the French Coast. And the brits would be nagging us with their down-but-not-out airforce. We'd hit 'em with stealth bombers, cruise missiles, etc, and although some would be blocked we'd hit their airforce bases. Then they'll try again.

If the Europeans try to invade, they're screwed too. Their navy wouldn't be able to get past ours. Sure, the Royal navy has some nifty AA guns, but even they cant take on 2000 very well trained and advanced jets, not to mention the best Navy(in terms of size and training COMBINED). If they did somehow land on the shores, they'd hafta land in Canada, because if they tried taking the continental U.S., 300 million Americans would come crying bloody murder and overwhelm the attackers.

Oh, and by the way, the Canadians didn't beat us in 1812 and in the late 1770's. The BRITISH did. The locals just sat in their cities and hoped the hard-core shock troops from British would defend against the determined but poorly trained Americans. Luckily for the Canadians, we sent some sucky Generals up north both times. But the fact remains. It was the BRITISH that trumped us, not the Canadians. If you count when we were with the Brits, we beat the Canadians AND French during the 7 years war.

I agree with TLS.

On the topic of Britain versus France: Britain, hands down. The french army may be large, but it's training rivals that of Somalia(in other words, it sucks/its non-existant). Their navy isn't good, their airforce is only redeemed by the Eurofighter, and the ONLY thing they have for 'em is that the British couldnt occupy 'em.

On the off-topic topic of U.S. vs. GB, France, and Canada: Erm, it would be a tie. Sure, we'd own the Canadians in the blink of an eye (Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto!), but neither side could cross the big pond. If they Americans tried to get across, we prolly could but our Navy wouldn't be in great shape, so our men would arrive in smaller numbers, worse equipment, and in worse shape. Sure, we could STILL probably beat the French Army, but we'd just get bogged down on some obscure part of the French Coast. And the brits would be nagging us with their down-but-not-out airforce. We'd hit 'em with stealth bombers, cruise missiles, etc, and although some would be blocked we'd hit their airforce bases. Then they'll try again.

If the Europeans try to invade, they're screwed too. Their navy wouldn't be able to get past ours. Sure, the Royal navy has some nifty AA guns, but even they cant take on 2000 very well trained and advanced jets, not to mention the best Navy(in terms of size and training COMBINED). If they did somehow land on the shores, they'd hafta land in Canada, because if they tried taking the continental U.S., 300 million Americans would come crying bloody murder and overwhelm the attackers.

Oh, and by the way, the Canadians didn't beat us in 1812 and in the late 1770's. The BRITISH did. The locals just sat in their cities and hoped the hard-core shock troops from British would defend against the determined but poorly trained Americans. Luckily for the Canadians, we sent some sucky Generals up north both times. But the fact remains. It was the BRITISH that trumped us, not the Canadians. If you count when we were with the Brits, we beat the Canadians AND French during the 7 years war.


I see what your saying by it being a stalemate. The only way it looks like anyone could win the day would be by using nukes and I don't think that any country is willing to go that far.

Yeah, on the US vs Canada, UK, and France, total stalement. Canada would be owned, and then neither side would be dumb enough to try and cross the pond. It would come down to a few missiles being launched at each other here and there, so really, if it did come down to it, the US would lay total waste to the UK and France by simply launching enough missiles across the Atlantic...

France/Britain have nearly 1000 high speed interceptors to bring to bear against the US, and in such a confined space that is very powerful.
Now the two british CVF that will start to be made soon, 48 aircraft each. Now imagine the US tries to invade France and Britain from the sea, they will be beaten back because of the terrain and easy defense from the mainland by ground based aircraft. The point is the US' stealth bombers (the stealth fighter can't cross the atlantic) cannot knock out all of the British or French airbases, and especially not without losses. Contrary to what you think Stealth aircraft are not impossible to detect, just quite hard. Now considering that the US has sold systems to detect stealth aircraft to britain and britain knows that information and would ##### it with france, your "stealth bomber" bollocks means nothing. Next the US would use B52s en masse to try destroy airbases; not going to work. This worked against Iraq because Iraq has nothing to shoot down B52s - Britain however does, and because no fighter can cross the Atlantic, those B52s have no support. carrier base aircraft? excuse me, where does Britain + france specialise? AAW.. now what is the US going to do? invade with naval power? Excuse me, you want to cross the Irish or the British channel, or the north sea with an invasion force? LMFAO. The US could take it's time deploying against the Iraqis because they had no way of knowing what the US are doing - however the British and the French do. This means stalemate. Again.

note that the Red Fleet in the cold war was a 1v1 match for the US navy and discounting aircraft carriers it still is. oh, and if you want to count US bases in Europe, then let's count Europe and Russia. Germany, Russia, Italy...Btw, United Kingdom (or Britain) vs France, not England.

Oh, ya, and the Falkland Wars, consindering Britain was fighting hundreds of miles downsea away from any near base, we kicked the Argentinians arse. The harrier FA1 >>>>>> Super Mirage.



Ooooooh...your post is so juicy. let me chew it up.... :D


Okay first: If the US decided to Invade England, we could not use landing craft and similar vehicels. We would most likely use a smarter approach. But since your OBIVIOUSLY not from America, you wouldn't know. You see, we have these nifty units called "Paratroopers". They would secure the land BEHIND the beachheads and THEN we would come in from the sea. This could only be accomplished if your neat little AA stations are taken out by our stealth fighter/bombers.

Second: We would bring our own aircraft. Last time i checked Britan doesnt really watch the entire Atlantic ocean, so Im sure we could sneek our aircraft carriers in to combat your 1000 or so strike fighters.

Third: Contary to what you think, most of us know why stealth technology is
called 'stealth' and not 'invisible technology'. Instead of a big ass blip on screen, you end up with something that could be a bird or tiny plane.

Fourth: I'm not sure what you heard about Iraq, but I heard that they had this neat little radar system. Somewhere damn close to that radar system was their A.A. missiles. We would use our handy dandy B-52's in masses, but ONLY after we used our stealth (not invisible now... ;) ) fighter/bombers to blow their radar/A.A. launchers to smitherines.

Fifth: No we dont have fighters that can cross the Atlantic. That is why we bring our B.F. planes filled with fuel(correct name escapes me....). Then, the fighters would be able to cross your little ocean.

Sixth: AAW is a great way to fight, except when stealth comes in ( not invisible now...remember? ;) )

Seventh: You and the French know what were doing over here eh? How interesting...
If the US was to invade England, we probably wouldnt tell you we were. Just like we didnt call up Sadam and tell him.

Eighth: Yes perhaps the Russian navy and ours were matched. Excludung aircraft carriers of course...I mean, if you had put them in your statement it would have completely falseified it. Planes from aircraft carriers can sink ships. Fact-o-life.

That little tid bit about argentina: they were kicking your ASSES. They would have won to if your neat little invincible "navy" didnt get its new missiles(name escapes me ....its on practically every fighter theses days...?????). It only won because with your new missiles took out all of their planes(who didnt have those nifty missiles). When the land forces saw what you did to their airforce, they surrenderd en masses. Im not sure but i do believe there was some small fight in which the british took a airport...thats when they started surrendering (i think).


I also feal that I should tell yall about France. There war track record is something along the lines of 1:9. We be able to wipe their faces from the earth. Hell even the Mexicans beat them (no offense to the Mexicans). France has lost about ever war its enbarked on or taken part in(excluding iraq and afganistan, we were there to help them)


I suposse that you are correct when you say we would end in a stalemate.... :rolleyes:

Oh and um..Britan VS France........Britan would win, if things started going bad, they would turn to us for help. And we would send it.

The simple fact is that france is a loser country, because of that any country that decides to go to war with france would have a high morale due to all of the witty comedians making fun of france and the fact that france has a history of military failure considering the last good leader they had was not even french(napoleon). As well the U.S. could beat Canada, France and the U.K. Because of the fact that our enemies include France, because our economy is very good and because our military is very good. The U.S. is rich and would use that to raise the ultimate armed forces.

Its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog!

Im sure ive seen that on a t-shirt sumwhere, being English (i dont consider myself british) i think that UK would take most of the french military, after all the Uk does have some of the most elite fighting forces in the world S.A.S.
o and in the UK, Canada, and frogs vs. america...well lets just hope those americans are trained to shoot at the ''enemy'' and not eachother, we dont want no friendly fire accidents in this war :mp5: :sniper:

I'm still amazed nobody has mentioned a little factor like

THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION

which will definitely have a say in kicking ass. Always have, always will.

That's because they are just what you said - a little factor!

With just 8000 troops they are an insignificant proportion of the whole.

the french foreign legion are like little 6 year old kids playing with water guns pretendin to be soldiers compared to the disciplined, strategic S.A.S

Not to decry your military prowess in any way but....


Okay first: If the US decided to Invade England, we could not use landing craft and similar vehicels. We would most likely use a smarter approach. But since your OBIVIOUSLY not from America, you wouldn't know. You see, we have these nifty units called "Paratroopers". They would secure the land BEHIND the beachheads and THEN we would come in from the sea. This could only be accomplished if your neat little AA stations are taken out by our stealth fighter/bombers.
Relatively lightly armed paratroops can only hold an area for a short time. At some point, you would have to come in from the sea pretty quickly or risk losing all those "elite" paratroopers (see Arnhem/Operation Market Garden)


Second: We would bring our own aircraft. Last time i checked Britan doesnt really watch the entire Atlantic ocean, so Im sure we could sneek our aircraft carriers in to combat your 1000 or so strike fighters.

We would if we were to be in hostilities with the US. And ask any naval warfare expert - land-based strike aircraft beats naval forces relying on carrier-based aircraft for cover unless land-based air is obsolete or not available in sufficient strength.


Third: Contary to what you think, most of us know why stealth technology is
called 'stealth' and not 'invisible technology'. Instead of a big ass blip on screen, you end up with something that could be a bird or tiny plane..
Quite correct.


Fourth: I'm not sure what you heard about Iraq, but I heard that they had this neat little radar system. Somewhere damn close to that radar system was their A.A. missiles. We would use our handy dandy B-52's in masses, but ONLY after we used our stealth (not invisible now... ;) ) fighter/bombers to blow their radar/A.A. launchers to smitherines..

Again...true, although the B-52s were used more against troop concentrations and bridges, rather than airfields. Airfields tend to have light AAA and SAMs that can't really be suppressed by a stealth aircraft. That's why the USAF developed Wild Weasel anti-SAM tactics in Vietnam. The airfield strikes were left to some people who knew how to do that - in their Tornadoes.


Fifth: No we dont have fighters that can cross the Atlantic. That is why we bring our B.F. planes filled with fuel(correct name escapes me....). Then, the fighters would be able to cross your little ocean.

That would be tankers. But think how hard on your fighter pilots it would be to fly for 8 hours to keep the BUFFs company and then fight air-to-air with RAF or French interceptors 30 minutes out from base. The Luftwaffe had a similar problem in 1940 - fighters on the limit of their endurance have very little fuel for extreme dogfighting, giving a very large advantage to the defenders. And the tankers can't get too close or they will be very plum targets.


Sixth: AAW is a great way to fight, except when stealth comes in ( not invisible now...remember? ;) )

As you said, Stealth means hard to spot, not impossible. Hard to spot means can be spotted, which means can be shot down.



Seventh: You and the French know what were doing over here eh? How interesting...
If the US was to invade England, we probably wouldnt tell you we were. Just like we didnt call up Sadam and tell him.

But 3000 miles is a bloody long way to come on a boat at 15-20 knots, whistling nonchalantly and hoping no-one will notice.


Eighth: Yes perhaps the Russian navy and ours were matched. Excludung aircraft carriers of course...I mean, if you had put them in your statement it would have completely falseified it. Planes from aircraft carriers can sink ships. Fact-o-life.


And land-based air sinks the aircraft carriers. The US Navy were most worried about Russian SSNs and their Backfire bombers, not their carrier-based Harrierskis


That little tid bit about argentina: they were kicking your ASSES. They would have won to if your neat little invincible "navy" didnt get its new missiles(name escapes me ....its on practically every fighter theses days...?????). It only won because with your new missiles took out all of their planes(who didnt have those nifty missiles). When the land forces saw what you did to their airforce, they surrenderd en masses. Im not sure but i do believe there was some small fight in which the british took a airport...thats when they started surrendering (i think).


The AIM-9L Sidewinder with all-aspect lockon. And they would have forced us to withdraw if their bombs had exploded. As I have said, land-based air beats naval power projection, unless something goes wrong. Their army were mostly conscripts, but they didn't all roll over and die or just give up, but the British Army just turned up in places where they weren't expecting by walking everywhere real fast and surprising them. I don't think the average Argentine soldier had any idea what losses the Fuerza Aerea were suffering.
The small fight - there were a number. Goose Green, Tumbledown, Mount Kent...


I also feal that I should tell yall about France. There war track record is something along the lines of 1:9. We be able to wipe their faces from the earth. Hell even the Mexicans beat them (no offense to the Mexicans). France has lost about ever war its enbarked on or taken part in(excluding iraq and afganistan, we were there to help them)


I'm not defending the French :rolleyes:


Oh and um..Britan VS France........Britan would win, if things started going bad, they would turn to us for help. And we would send it.

England/Britain is batting 1.000 against the French right now. Why would we need US help (apart from selling us missiles)?

Relatively lightly armed paratroops can only hold an area for a short time. At some point, you would have to come in from the sea pretty quickly or risk losing all those "elite" paratroopers (see Arnhem/Operation Market Garden)


correct, I believe three days was the amount of time our elite paratroopers can hold out without reenforcements or new supplies.


We would if we were to be in hostilities with the US. And ask any naval warfare expert - land-based strike aircraft beats naval forces relying on carrier-based aircraft for cover unless land-based air is obsolete or not available in sufficient strength.

Well I was speaking as if it was going to be a suprise invasion. You wouldnt be expecting hostilities.



Again...true, although the B-52s were used more against troop concentrations and bridges, rather than airfields. Airfields tend to have light AAA and SAMs that can't really be suppressed by a stealth aircraft. That's why the USAF developed Wild Weasel anti-SAM tactics in Vietnam. The airfield strikes were left to some people who knew how to do that - in their Tornadoes.

That they did.



That would be tankers. uBt think how ####### your fighter pilots it would be to fly for 8 hours to keep the BUFFs company and then fight air-to-air with RAF or French interceptors 30 minutes out from base.

I was refering in specific to the tankers actual name. When refered to our planes flying for 8 hours, I was talking about their ability to cross the ocean. I I wasnt talking about our planes flying over to fight, but their actual ability to fly across the pond.



But 3000 miles is a bloody long way to come on a boat at 15-20 knots, whistling nonchalantly and hoping no-one will notice.

Well...we are talking about the British. We do move our fleets around alot, so why whould it seem out of the ordinary that our carriers and deystroyers were heading to our closest allies Country?




The AIM-9L Sidewinder with all-aspect lockon.

thats the one




England/Britain is batting 1.000 against the French right now. Why would we need US help (apart from selling us missiles)?

True, I mean we are talking about France... :p

If the two declared war (about money presumably), both sides would use their planes to try and bomb each other, which only leads to a second Battle for Britain, in which the French would've learned from the Germans and not get their entire air force destroyed. Then the British would try the same and lose out too.
Then Both would stand at the channel coast and yell profanities at one another, neither capable of landing on the other side. France can't, and if Britain tried, German troops would come and help and Britain would give up the idea mighty quick.
Yes, yes, Deutschland Deutschland über alles, über alles auf der Welt!
:D

I disagree with yas. I think that if the US and Britain began warring again, America wouldn't use those paratroopers until later on, after all, this isn't world war II, we have long range missiles these days. The US would probaly blast the crap out of any known AA stations, airfield, and coastal defences. Then would come a paratrooper landing, probaly Special Forces given a sabotage mission or mabye to set up a distraction mission, to get the Brits thinking the US is coming from some place else, then the beach head landing would come escorted by most of the US navy. Stealth would be used here and there, but since the Brits do have some better stealth detecting systems than the Iraqis, the US would rely more in it's long range missiles....

EDIT: This was in reference to Hyridian's post

1st or 2nd?

I assuming the first...

Yeah, should've added that to. My bad :)

In response to the big argument over the Falklands.

At first the Brits took some damage due to the fact they had under-estimated the Argentines. (Does the HMS Sheffield ring a bell? Also, the Argetines had the better missile at first) However, the Brit's soon got back on their feet, got their OWN(well, they got ours, but they still had it) uber-missile and the Argentines got owned.

Just thinking here, but wouldn't cruise missiles get owned by any halfway intact AA system like the UK's (since we have anti-stealth capabilities to prevent a repeat of iraq).

Not to mention that if Spain came in on our side the US would suddenly find it's sea forces cut off totally (before being wiped from existence) and it's long-range capability with tankers pretty messed too.

Ahaha.... Hyr, listen. The US has no stealth planes in paratrooper service... therefore as soon as they are detected the planes are shot down in swarms, making the para based invasion a failure. Tanker planes? oh please..Besides, where does that leave aircraft? As Paulogilberto said it leaves little space for dogfighting. If the US moves all it's aircraft carriers across the atlantic, people say "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?" not "Oh, you're going to Britain." Stop comparing Iraq to goddamn Britain / France, because Iraq used Soviet technology from the 70s, we use NATO technology from the 2000s/90s, so it's note exactly a good comparison. You ever heard of LIDAR, or LADAR? or even LADIR to an extent.. whiile stealth equip doesn't appear on RADAR it shows up light a bitch...BRITAIN has developed a way to find stealth aircraft (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread143877/pg1) and this method is in indeed possible. Fuck you America, your ace of spades was caught by a mobile phone mast. 02 >>>>> USAF. (Didn't mean that offensively.. was a joke :P) actually Saddam had a pretty good idea the US was going to invade him when US ships started showing up in the gulf and US troops started arriving in Saudi. And again, the soviets had plans to use Tu 22M backfires and Tu160 blackjacks with tactical nuclear anti shipping weapons to destroy aircraft carriers. The Sovremmeny DDG is more than a match for an Arleigh Burke.

Stealth bombers owned by the chavs! Oh the irony.

LOL
The Burberry Army strikes back

Yo, Hogsy, you sure are acting a bit odd...

It's as if you have lost all sense of grammar, sentance structure, and paragraphing.

In response to what Wurzelmania said...

I don't think it's possible to shoot down cruise missiles. You really cant shoot down any missile. Well, I guess there's stuff that can divert it, but it's not as easy as "blow up that missile with another one!" Also, what do you mean by "if Spain came to your side we would be cut off"? We have barely any ships in the Mediterranean, so you wouldn't "cut us off". Also, there is no way you could take out our entire navy short of somehow getting it all in one REALLY SMALL place(and I mean ALL of it and in a REALLY small place) and setting off a nuke.

Also, guys, this is purely hypothetical. The only chance the U.S. and Europe are going to declare war on one another is if insane military dictatorships become leaders of BOTH(oh, and if Europe becomes more united).

Also, there are tons of factors. As in, do the people in Europe support the war against the U.S., vice versa, who started it, why, and more.

Also, Hogsy, even though you have stuff to look out for stealth bombers, do you think that France and Canada do? And does the U.K have the detectors covering EVERY SINGLE piece of land in the U.K.? It's just like if someone develops uber-goggles and only one person has it. That person may be posted somewhere incredibly stupid, so that person may have his uber-goggles defending a stupid little village.

Compared to the US they are no better. I highly doubt that any of those Nations besides Canada has the compacity to throw up a sizeable defense. Sure if the US were to invade those countries it would be hell.yes it would be hell...
and after hell it would be a long winter.

Spain are closer to the US than the UK so their forces could flank US navy and hit supply lines easier.

Cruise missiles just seem very like the V-1 to me, quite slow (500mph v say the Tornado which can beat 1000) even if a missile can't get it I'm thinking a good shot with a cannon could.

Your forgetting the new 212-a class submarines.

I was only counting those ships availible today, not in the future. In which case the US gets an additional 2 CVNXs, another two dozen destroyers, 30 of the grossly superior Virginia-class attack subs and up to 60 new LCS frigates (http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/images/fmhss.jpg)

Also, there is no way you could take out our entire navy short of somehow getting it all in one REALLY SMALL place(and I mean ALL of it and in a REALLY small place) and setting off a nuke.

Or it could be neutered by being forced out of effective positions. Remember WW2? Germany's navy was half gone after 1940 with the biggest ships with Davy Jones (Bismark and Spee) or holed up somewhere trying not to get killed (Tirpitz, I think Scharnhorst and Gnisenau ended up like that too). The US navy could be driven back by the superior UK/France airforce to the point where it has no way of launching an effective attack.

What does Canada's military look like?
I have absolutely no idea.

Oh it's possible to shoot down a cruise missile; why do you think most ships have rapid-fire guns like the US Phalanx and anti-missile missiles? The thing is that you would have to spam a lot of missiles in order to get through the defenses of your average task force.

Besides, Spain isn't much better then Germany when it comes to a navy, no fear of getting "flanked" by the Spaniards :D

What does Canada's military look like?
I have absolutely no idea.

I remember a pic of their navy. A bathtub with a 50.cal :D

Actually I believe they traditionally maintain a good defensive force with some projecting power.

Oh it's possible to shoot down a cruise missile; why do you think most ships have rapid-fire guns like the US Phalanx and anti-missile missiles? The thing is that you would have to spam a lot of missiles in order to get through the defenses of your average task force.

Besides, Spain isn't much better then Germany when it comes to a navy, no fear of getting "flanked" by the Spaniards :D

But we can just stick some extra aircraft on their airbases and it's all good.

Or it could be neutered by being forced out of effective positions. Remember WW2? Germany's navy was half gone after 1940 with the biggest ships with Davy Jones (Bismark and Spee) or holed up somewhere trying not to get killed (Tirpitz, I think Scharnhorst and Gnisenau ended up like that too). The US navy could be driven back by the superior UK/France airforce to the point where it has no way of launching an effective attack.

That's because Germany barely had a navy at all, in comparison to the Japs, Yanks and Limeys. A few BBs and BCs, a handful of destroyers and whatnot, and a lot of subs. Why is it you think Jerry spent most of his time at sea trying to avoid battle with the Home Fleet? :D

Spain are closer to the US than the UK so their forces could flank US navy and hit supply lines easier.

Cruise missiles just seem very like the V-1 to me, quite slow (500mph v say the Tornado which can beat 1000) even if a missile can't get it I'm thinking a good shot with a cannon could.

Spain IS closer to the US.

Also, Spain may be closer, and it DOES have a decent navy, but it seems they don't have the magical "find the stealth-planes" thinger, so we could knock 'em out with our planes. Also, the Spanish navy would be defeated. Maybe not easily, and they would stall us, but we would still get 'em.

Also, does this count as three fronts? Would Europe be considered a front, or would France, the UK, and Spain all be different fronts?

But we can just stick some extra aircraft on their airbases and it's all good.

"Some extra aircraft" isn't going to cut it when our early warning birds are directing interceptors at your fighters and they realize they have a couple of F-18s on their tail when their Incoming Missile lights start blaring :D

That's because Germany barely had a navy at all, in comparison to the Japs, Yanks and Limeys. A few BBs and BCs, a handful of destroyers and whatnot, and a lot of subs. Why is it you think Jerry spent most of his time at sea trying to avoid battle with the Home Fleet? :D

But one on one those battleships had ownage. Bismark got Hood in one volley. OK so it was a lucky hit but IIRC Hood wasn't even in range with it's own guns at the time.

Also, Spain may be closer, and it DOES have a decent navy, but it seems they don't have the magical "find the stealth-planes" thinger, so we could knock 'em out with our planes.

The friendly virtue of sharing is a good one here.

"Some extra aircraft" isn't going to cut it when our early warning birds are directing interceptors at your fighters and they realize they have a couple of F-18s on their tail when their Incoming Missile lights start blaring :D

Assuming we didn't spot them first... Then the F-18s find themselves going head to head.

Right now, the plans any Western nations have for a large scale war like this are run through NATO. I know that Germany does much of the AWACS Service for NATO for example, so every Western military would be badly hurt if we didn't have each other to rely on.

So America makes war with Europe, does it?
That'll be an expensive exercise, more than it can afford. It could probably find some way to do pin point strikes against European installations, but probably not on a scale large enough to seriously hurt us. The only things with enough range (this is assuming there isn't some form of US-ally in range) are the big bombers, and the B-2's are the only one's that may not be shot down immediatly. And those are too expensive to be built in large numbers.

And landings are impossible. Sending its' aircraft carriers into range of European attacks is suicide (some of you may remember that wargame the US played against imaginary Israel, it took out the US carriers with Cruise Missiles on the first day), so there'll be almost no air support.
Also there is no way the US could move enough troops to Europe to actually defeat the French, German, Czech, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish and all the other militaries, who are trained in fighting together and would be fighting to defend their homes.

But one on one those battleships had ownage. Bismark got Hood in one volley. OK so it was a lucky hit but IIRC Hood wasn't even in range with it's own guns at the time.

One-on-one meets squat in war; sure the Yamato was a heavy-hitting motherfuck, but that didn't stop a swarm of attack bombers from sending her to the bottom.

Oh, and by the way, the Canadians didn't beat us in 1812 and in the late 1770's. The BRITISH did. The locals just sat in their cities and hoped the hard-core shock troops from British would defend against the determined but poorly trained Americans.
That's absolutely not true, and any historical record will prove you wrong.

We have lots of monuments to the heros of the 1812 war, especially about colonel Charles Salaberry, who was born in Canada. He organized the french canadian legion, the "Voltigeurs" along with Rouville (another important name). The Voltigeurs had white uniforms (they were very efficient troops: highly trained, deadly and motivated).

In 1813, upon learning that the americans had invaded Canada, the Voltigeurs corps entranched 1000 of their troops in a forest near Chateauguay, on 3 lines of defense. The americans wouldn't be able to use their 10 cannons in these forests, and would advance slowly; thus it was the perfect location for intercepting them.

The americans arrived with more than 4000 men; the first line of defense was made of an elite corps of about 300 Voltigeurs. The american troops didn't stand a chance; they lost 50 men in the first minute of combat, and their cannons and hardware were heavily damaged. They were forced to flee across the forests, back to the US, while being harassed by irregular Native troops (which were acting as intelligence gathering & tactical support for the Voltigeurs).

In Canadien history books, the Victory at Chateauguay has often been compared to the battle at Thermopyles in ancient Greece.

One-on-one meets squat in war; sure the Yamato was a heavy-hitting motherfuck, but that didn't stop a swarm of attack bombers from sending her to the bottom.

Depends how long the BS can doge the DB's then. Bismark didn't make it. I love that it was an ancient Stringbag that actually doomed it.

Assuming we didn't spot them first... Then the F-18s find themselves going head to head.

E-2 operators mean the F-18s can run "silent" and let the big bird direct them to the enemy fighters. Which mean the Spaniards would have to be actively scanning in order to find them, and they might as well place giant neon lights on their planes saying "I'm right here, shoot me please!"

But guess where the E-2's in europe run from? Not that far from me in fact, I've camped under the flightpath. Others run from Germany, can you say 'Interceptors'? One Tornado F-3 or Eurofighter Typhoon or Mirage could slaughter them and the US airforce could do diddly-squat about it.

But guess where the E-2's in europe run from? Not that far from me in fact, I've camped under the flightpath. Others run from Germany, can you say 'Interceptors'? One Tornado F-3 or Eurofighter Typhoon or Mirage could slaughter them and the US airforce could do diddly-squat about it.
Well first of all, if there was war, European policemen would simply impound them.
Then we could use them! Yay!

The friendly virtue of sharing is a good one here.

Still, the technology was developed over 5 years ago. Methinks the worlds most powerful military(which also happens to be the richest) would find a way to counteract the cellphones :).

Anyhoo, Spain still wouldn't be able to withstand our juggernaut. Also, if we weren't the ones who started the war, we would have the advantage of having the "moral superiority"(not as in we have better morals, but as in we didn't start this, and you brought it upon yourself), so the public would support us.

Bringing in Spain would only bring in a liability. It's too far away from Britain for the British to keep their advantage of launching their planes from the ground, Gibraltar would quickly fall, and Spain's military is probably the lesser of the three nations.

Also, take a look at this (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004617.asp)

It shows the ten most powerful armies in the world(according to "combat power", which you should read the article to find out more about), and of all the nations the U.S is supposedly fighting(so far I think we have the U.K., France, Spain, and Canada), only the U.K. is on that list. So Spain will obviously fall quickly("quickly" meaning a few months at most), France will only be kept up longer because the Brits will be sending Air support, and then when France collapses the U.K. will be doomified.

Also, you have to take into account that we have 100,000 soldiers in Europe, including 11 thousand in the U.K., 75,000 in Germany, and 13,000 in Italy. We already have an army right next door to the Trio, including it's own supply lines, aircraft, tanks, and more.

Also, you have to take into account that quite a few countries would choose the U.S. over the Western Europeans. That means Central Europeans (The Polish, Czechs, etc, but NOT the Germans), Pakistan, Israel, most likely India, some Arab states, the majority of Latin America, the Japanese, the Turks, and the S. Koreans would probably be on our "side". The Western Europeans would have the support of the Germans, the Scandanavians, the Southern Africans, certain Arab states, and Oceania. They won't all bring in troops, but they might give supplies, and at least diplomatic and economic support, Bringing us into World War III.

The rest of the world(including Russia, China, South-east Asia, and Central Africa) will just sit there and watch, or they might start invading each other due to the fact that the countries that keep them in-line will be beating the crap out of each other.

Also, you have to take into account that quite a few countries would choose the U.S. over the Western Europeans. That means Central Europeans (The Polish, Czechs, etc, but NOT the Germans),
Don't be so sure. The Polish are very determined to be a part of the EU, I don't think they'd make war on their neighbours on the whim of the US.
Same goes for the Czech.
You might have to look further East. Turkey, yes (but there'd be civil war there in no time), Ukraine maybe.

That's absolutely not true, and any historical record will prove you wrong.

We have lots of monuments to the heros of the 1812 war, especially about colonel Charles Salaberry, who was born in Canada. He organized the french canadian legion, the "Voltigeurs" along with Rouville (another important name). The Voltigeurs had white uniforms (they were very efficient troops: highly trained, deadly and motivated).

In 1813, upon learning that the americans had invaded Canada, the Voltigeurs corps entranched 1000 of their troops in a forest near Chateauguay, on 3 lines of defense. The americans wouldn't be able to use their 10 cannons in these forests, and would advance slowly; thus it was the perfect location for intercepting them.

The americans arrived with more than 4000 men; the first line of defense was made of an elite corps of about 300 Voltigeurs. The american troops didn't stand a chance; they lost 50 men in the first minute of combat, and their cannons and hardware were heavily damaged. They were forced to flee across the forests, back to the US, while being harassed by irregular Native troops (which were acting as intelligence gathering & tactical support for the Voltigeurs).

In Canadien history books, the Victory at Chateauguay has often been compared to the battle at Thermopyles in ancient Greece.

But back then you were all BRITISH Citizens. Just like we were during the 7 years war. That was a BRITISH victory. The forces may have been from Canada, but they were still BRITISH. Any victory during that war should not be attributed to you, but to the British, because you WERE the British then. Thats why all of the battles won by Colonists during the 7 years war, even though people from the colonies fought them, are attributed to the BRITISH!

Also, in history books all-over the world the Battle of Cerro Gordo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerro_Gordo) is considered to be "the Thermopylae of the West". (Sorry, its just that since you put your own Thermopylae thinger, I had to put mine).

Don't be so sure. The Polish are very determined to be a part of the EU, I don't think they'd make war on their neighbours on the whim of the US.
Same goes for the Czech.
You might have to look further East. Turkey, yes (but there'd be civil war there in no time), Ukraine maybe.

Last I checked, the French especially were very anti-expansion, and they don't like how they are being swamped with immigrants from the East. So I think the Polish may be determined to be a part of the EU, but if the EU is stupid enough to attack the United States, I don't think it would be that hard for the newer members to attack their fellow EU members that have populations that aren't very accepting.

But in any war the US must be the aggressor because we all know we can't take them on in an offensive war, only defence.

But in any war the US must be the aggressor because we all know we can't take them on in an offensive war, only defence.

Why must WE be the agressor? Why? How can it not be the Europeans, in a fit of rage over something we do, elect some moron who decides to attack U.S. interests? Trust me, it's happened before(not just to the U.S., mind you).

Even in an offensive war, we wouldn't attack for no reason(even Iraq had a reason that wasn't discredited: getting rid of a dictator. If Iraq had been a peacefull country with WMD's, would we have invaded? Hell no. So you have to have constantly been pissing us off by attacking our interest, blockading our ports, commited genocide, etc to make us attack).

Why must WE be the agressor? Why? How can it not be the Europeans, in a fit of rage over something we do, elect some moron who decides to attack U.S. interests? Trust me, it's happened before(not just to the U.S., mind you).

Even in an offensive war, we wouldn't attack for no reason(even Iraq had a reason that wasn't discredited: getting rid of a dictator. If Iraq had been a peacefull country with WMD's, would we have invaded? Hell no. So you have to have constantly been pissing us off by attacking our interest, blockading our ports, commited genocide, etc to make us attack).

But we are discussing once a war starts. Since in the current forms the US is more likely to icite attack on those grounds I think it's sorta moot.

Basically, no-one wins. If you come to us you get flattened, the same t'other wat about. In other words it becomes a matter of 'go away, or I will taunt you a second time' :p

Let's just say we both don't know a reason for attacking each other, and it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
If it does, I'll sign up with the Bundeswehr mighty quick (and then regret it) but hey, you only live once right?

In recent history America has shown though that it is much more likely to start a war than the EU.

Judging from how some of the newer members have offered to pay more during the budget conference recently, I don't think the Poles would dislike the French for voting "non". And there really can't be many voices in Poland who want yet another war. So far, pretty much every war in history has hurt them. (a possible exception being WW1, but a recent heated discussion with a Polish dude has taught me that they may not appreciate that either)

So they might stay neutral at best.

france would surrender before anyone started fighting. :sniper: :mp5:

But we are discussing once a war starts. Since in the current forms the US is more likely to icite attack on those grounds I think it's sorta moot.

Basically, no-one wins. If you come to us you get flattened, the same t'other wat about. In other words it becomes a matter of 'go away, or I will taunt you a second time' :p

As long as no one brings in their allies(besides Britan, France, and Canada), you are right. However, you guys bring Spain into the equation and then, suprisingly, the tides will actually turn against you(due to the fact that Spain will fall, and loosing Spain wouldn't be good for your side. At all.)

Also, this war is about as possible as my broccoli jumping off my plate, reciting Hamlet correctly to every "thee" and "thy", and then becoming President of Bolivia.

Yay for Hypothetical situations! As my dad always says, "Stop asking Hypothetical questions. I can't answer them, so there's no point."

france would surrender before anyone started fighting. :sniper: :mp5:
please check my thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426386
Then say the same thing, but with better argumentation.

Canada??? As a Canadian, I can't help but say that we wouldn't be much help. I think the most we could do is launch some spitballs or something. Sorry to offend any fellow Canucks but you know it's true.

Its good to see you're honest :-). Theres a few problems elsewhere, however, why would Britain attack the U.S.? Well I know why france would but who cares they suck. Lol. The only possible threat would be England, but we whoop 'em every time so overall I think heres the places.

1) U.S.A. :mp5:
2) England :sniper:
3) Canada :gundge:
4) France (cause they suck) :fluffle:

Oh, how original, a Britian v. France thread tuns into a US v. Europe thread. Well done.

To answer the OP, obviously britian would crush france millitarily. The british army is the most professional, well trained, most experienced and battle hardened fighting force in the world. I estimate the casualty ratio would be about 10:1.

In the case of US v. Europe, it would depend upon who started it. If the US started it, it would be a long war, probably ending with a US victory. If a european nation started it, then I imagine many european countries would choose not to get involved, and it would be over quickly.

Answer to the original question:

No one. France has a policy in place that says they immediately nuke anyone attempting to invade. Quid quo pro and quickly most of Europe, America, and Asia is one big radioactive crater.

Answer to the US versus GB, Fr, and Spain question:

First, I'd like to say thank god none of you are in the military.

A modern war is fought in several different ways and bears little resemblance to conventional warfare of the last centruy. Most warfare would, in fact, be fought electronically, both due to the vulnerability of electronics and due to just how effective we've gotten at killing each other. The coordination abilities of an AWACS E-2C+'s, E-3 Sentrys, and various other electronic warfare platforms combined with the offensive abilities of such craft are a deciding factor much more important than aircraft numbers.

For instance, radar jamming is something that has never really been tried in a large-scale war because there haven't been any such large-scale wars since the capability to do so existed. This would be a deciding factor: if you cannot target your enemy, you cannot shoot him.

Also consider the technological advantage the United States has: assuming the Phoenix Missile hasn't been retired by the time this war kicks off, the F-14, a rather common USN fighter, has the ability to engage and destroy five different targets from over the horizon. It quite literally can kill you before you know it's there in several situations. Such long-range, multi-target combat abilities are not demonstrated by any other country's airforce (it's a shame they're close to retiring both, I hope they eventually design a replacement for both the F-14 and the Phoenix missile).

Not only that, but the lot of you vastly underestimate the power of a cruise missile, namely that they have the ability to maintain an altitude under 100 feet providing we know the terrian decently well (something we can accomplish with satellite imagery). A barrage of cruise missiles would be enough to knock out important radar and communications stations, allowing conventional forces to move in with virtual impunity. (Remember, one of the biggest things that drove the Soviet fear of the American war machine was a demonstration we had for them of our early cruise missiles)

And don't forget things like hacking. Yes, it may seem juvenile, but depositing a virus into your enemy's computer systems (something a modern military depends on) could have devestating effects, especially if it was something as simple and as stealthy as opening a tiny backdoor through which you could cause your enemy's systems to crash at a crucial moment.

There are so many factors all of you are missing and in almost all of them the United States carries the advantage.

Well the UK can spam cruise missiles straight back at the US, an aggressive forces would be slaughtered.

Such long-range, multi-target combat abilities are not demonstrated by any other country's airforce (it's a shame they're close to retiring both, I hope they eventually design a replacement for both the F-14 and the Phoenix missile).

Actually I believe the Soviets had a very similar capability. Can't remember the missile but it's still available for use on the Su27 and other aircraft. What's the betting the Tornado could be modded to carry them quite quickly?

For instance, radar jamming is something that has never really been tried in a large-scale war because there haven't been any such large-scale wars since the capability to do so existed. This would be a deciding factor: if you cannot target your enemy, you cannot shoot him.

And actually I think you'll find that Europe has a monopoly on that if the US attacks. We have all the 'planes they use here flying from our airbases.

Well the UK can spam cruise missiles straight back at the US, an aggressive forces would be slaughtered.

Which is true, but I'm assuming this isn't going to be a sit-back-and-missile-spam war, but instead cruise missile strikes would precede an invasion, ala WWI artillery bombardments.


Actually I believe the Soviets had a very similar capability. Can't remember the missile but it's still available for use on the Su27 and other aircraft. What's the betting the Tornado could be modded to carry them quite quickly?

Hmm, that's very interesting. Any links?

And actually I think you'll find that Europe has a monopoly on that if the US attacks. We have all the 'planes they use here flying from our airbases.

Any situation in which there is realistically going to be a war between the United States, Great Britian, France, and Spain, would almost definitely be preceded by a return of forces.

Plus, I'm being generous with this assumption: do you want there to be 110,000 American troops already in position to take over? An invasion force from Germany could take France in a matter of months, the division in Britian could concievably take an area with a populace that doesn't like the British government, such as Northern Ireland, and hold it against them as a staging point for a larger invasion.

But back then you were all BRITISH Citizens. Just like we were during the 7 years war. That was a BRITISH victory. The forces may have been from Canada, but they were still BRITISH. Any victory during that war should not be attributed to you, but to the British, because you WERE the British then. Thats why all of the battles won by Colonists during the 7 years war, even though people from the colonies fought them, are attributed to the BRITISH!

Techically, there wasn't such a thing as Canadian citizenship until the 1940s. Are you going to lump everything we've done up until that point in with British accomplishments?

A big part of the American Revolution was that the US colonists were not the same as the Brits -- they had different ways of looking at the world, different interests and considered themselves more as Americans than Englishmen. Is it so hard to believe that the same could have been true of Canadians in 1812?

As far as I'm concerned, 1812 was a joint Anglo-Canadian victory. They supplied the leadership, the money and supplies as well as about 1000 redcoats, we kicked in a lot of local regiments and the militias. Canada may not have been a formal nation at the time, but it was a distinct entity within the British Empire and its inhabitants were not synonymous with Brits.

Concerning the original question, you know what the largest Air Force in the world is? That's right, the USAF.

You know who has the 2nd-largest air force in the world? The US Navy, that's who.

Even pitting Canada, the UK and France against the USA, it would be a definite victory for the Americans. Canada would be down and out within a week, and even if the US couldn't actually get enough forces over to Europe to invade the place, it could wreak enough havoc with cruise missiles and bombers to shut the place down.

One last stat: the USA spends as much on defence as the next 10 countries combined. How's that for military superiority?

One last stat: the USA spends as much on defence as the next 10 countries combined. How's that for military superiority?

To be fair, how much you spend doesn't always mean you are the best. Many para-national militaries don't have the ability to spend a lot but they make up for it quality of soldier and tactics.

Plus, I'm being generous with this assumption: do you want there to be 110,000 American troops already in position to take over? An invasion force from Germany could take France in a matter of months <snip>

I wouldn't be so quick to make this assumption. France's army is much larger than 100 000 men, and would have the advantage of operating on home soil. I know they've had their pants pulled down a couple of times over the past hundred years or so, but let's give them some credit, eh? :)

To be fair, how much you spend doesn't always mean you are the best. Many para-national militaries don't have the ability to spend a lot but they make up for it quality of soldier and tactics.

That's undoubtedly true: among our modern western democracies, their armies are all roughly on par, quality-wise. However, spending much more dough gets you much larger numbers of the nice toys, and the ability to project power like nobody else can.

Plus, I'm being generous with this assumption: do you want there to be 110,000 American troops already in position to take over? An invasion force from Germany could take France in a matter of months, the division in Britian could concievably take an area with a populace that doesn't like the British government, such as Northern Ireland, and hold it against them as a staging point for a larger invasion.
Do you think the German government is going to look on and do nothing?
We still have 250,000 dudes ourselves, give or take, plus millions of reservists. A bunch of tanks (good ones), planes (old, bad ones + a few eurofighters + a few Migs) and so on.
I don't think German popular opinion would allow the US to use Germany as a road for attacking France.

Whoever asked about the Russian Phoenix equivalent, it's about 2/3 down along with an anti-cruise-missile missile. http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Foxbat-Foxhound-92.html

Hot site, Wurzel. Muchas gracias.

What does Canada's military look like?
I have absolutely no idea.

Well, we bought some subs second hand from Britian and one of them caught on fire and killed someone. Our helicopters are decades old and they sometimes catch on fire too and, forgive me for being ancedotal, my husband's grandfather JUST recieved medals he earned in WW2. So I guess it doesn't look like much at all. Don't get me wrong, I don't want our country to have a military like to US but I want the equipment we DO have to be safe.

-snip-
So just like Australia then, except that Australia buys its' helicopters from an American Vietnam War museum.

And I say again, France wouldn't match up to the thin red line these days.

Linky (http://www.redcoat.org/brits.html)

No other army in the world can match that type of professionalism. And that was not even a first rate regiment.

-snip-
That's a "British military is great" kinda site, isn't it?
I think people are right when they say that modern western militaries are all pretty much the same in equipment and professionalism.
Although the US seems to be spending too little money on training how to be a peacekeeper, because they're not very good at that.

That's a "British military is great" kinda site, isn't it?
I think people are right when they say that modern western militaries are all pretty much the same in equipment and professionalism.
Although the US seems to be spending too little money on training how to be a peacekeeper, because they're not very good at that.

Aye, but the fact remains that twenty british infantrymen of the second rank charged and destroyed one hundred enemy combatants armed with automatic weapons.

No other armed force in the world has that capability. The British Army is the most professional, most disciplined, most agressive, best educated in the arts of war, most seasoned, most experienced and most respected fighting force in the world.

All western millitaries are not the same.

yah....okay buddy.... :rolleyes:

Ah...what a great topic.
Any of you European people ever heard of something called the Zimmerman telegram? It was a telegram from Germany to Mexico asking them to invadethe US. They laughed at it and basically threw it away. One reason they did this was the fact that we had intercepted the letter. The Mexicans Knew that.

Now, I want to be honest. If all European countries decided to unite, they would probably be a good match for us(US). But, think. Is that likely? We woud probably sign a non-aggresion pact with most of Europe(including germany, spain, poland ect.....). Then we would deal with them later.

Heck, if the US wanted more land or national resources, we could probably just annex mexico and Cannada. no one would notice....

Aye, but the fact remains that twenty british infantrymen of the second rank charged and destroyed one hundred enemy combatants armed with automatic weapons.

No other armed force in the world has that capability. The British Army is the most professional, most disciplined, most agressive, best educated in the arts of war, most seasoned, most experienced and most respected fighting force in the world.

All western millitaries are not the same.


I think you highly underestimate the Americans USMC.

But the marines are frontline troops IIRC. Not second rankers.

But the marines are frontline troops IIRC. Not second rankers.


The reserves and national guards of the US themselves are a superior fighting force to most nations frontline troops.

On another note. What are the odds that this topic gets back to Britain vs France?

But as compared to the UK? We certainly have the best Special Forces and our army, by design is small but elite.

It probably won't return to UK/France but hey, it's keeping me amused.

But as compared to the UK? We certainly have the best Special Forces and our army, by design is small but elite.


That I'm not sure about. I know that the Reserves in the US get the same training as frontline troops during their intial basic training.

As for the special forces.. I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the Navy Seals are one heck of a group. Their isn't really any way to say which group is superior one way or another when it comes to special forces. It is all a matter of opinion.

Yes it is more than amusing. It is keeping me entertained to the point that I might not work at all today ^_^.

In the USA vs GB debate...

Any paratroopers they tried to land would be hacked to death by angry Welsh farmers screaming "'Ere you get off my land boyo and stop damagin' my crops".

Britain could also deploy Sir Bob Geldof to go and swear at the Americans "Cant you understand? These people are fucking dying for God's fucking sake! Give us your fucking money now!". You would break eventually...they always do....

In the last resort, Britain could deploy the Queen who is immortal.

In the USA vs GB debate...

Any paratroopers they tried to land would be hacked to death by angry Welsh farmers screaming "'Ere you get off my land boyo and stop damagin' my crops".

Britain could also deploy Sir Bob Geldof to go and swear at the Americans "Cant you understand? These people are fucking dying for God's fucking sake! Give us your fucking money now!". You would break eventually...they always do....

In the last resort, Britain could deploy the Queen who is immortal.

Reminds me of my grandfather screaming and waving his cane to get off the lawn.

In the USA vs GB debate...

Any paratroopers they tried to land would be hacked to death by angry Welsh farmers screaming "'Ere you get off my land boyo and stop damagin' my crops".

Britain could also deploy Sir Bob Geldof to go and swear at the Americans "Cant you understand? These people are fucking dying for God's fucking sake! Give us your fucking money now!". You would break eventually...they always do....

In the last resort, Britain could deploy the Queen who is immortal.
:D

Vive la france!!

Britain VS France.


Battle Breakdown:

Britain starts hammering French military outposts that are within range with cruise missiles and similar attacks from sea.

France panics and scrambles their weaker airforce while trying to get their ships out of port before they are destroyed.

Britain launches RAF and moves up the Anti-Aircraft ships.

French airforce defeated by mixture of anti aircraft Navy and RAF.

French navy mostly destroyed while trying to leave port.

Britain begins landing troops on French coast, this would include large amount of airdrops (especially of the SAS and Scottish Regiments) further into France.

French military attempts to deal with the main invasion of mainly English, Welsh and Irish troops at the coast while trying to stop the SAS and Scottish Regiments who are playing with sniper rifles, explosives and the occasional airstrike on French Military positions.

As French Military is split heavily by this (you know the Scots could do it on their own if we wanted. =P ) the invasion pushes further into France and takes the main cities such as Paris.

France inevatebly crumbles or surrenders to the superior, but smaller, army.




And that, my friends, is why you don't want to pick a fight with Scotland. =)
:sniper: :cool:

In the USA vs GB debate...In the last resort, Britain could deploy the Queen who is immortal.

That or resurrect the Queen Mum.

Oh yeah, and the Europeans would win because they sell weapons to China and Bush is pissing off China with the trade stuff, so China would just invade the US and use nukes cuz they don't listen to rules.

maybe englishmen could win the war against frenchmen but the french couldn't stand english food so they'll revolt and push them back to england

Oh, and China would also use their secret space station with a laser cannon attached to it. You know they have one. The guy who went to space was just an engineer who needed to fix it manually.

Both France and the UK messed up the EU summit in Brussels...

Belgium rules :D


www.particracy.net (http://www.particracy.net)

In the USA vs GB debate...


Woops, didn't pay attention and missed that we'd moved on from UK VS France. :headbang:

Ok..

Great Britain VS United States of America

Battle Breakdown:

USA declares war on GB.

USA must now face up to the SAS, Navy Seals VS SAS = Mini War of their own.

USA must now also face up to the fact that most Americans love Britain, especially Scotland, so they may end up facing a rebellion.

GB takes defensive positions, scatters Navy throughout Atlantic Ocean and readies the full force of the RAF.

USA attempts to invade, all air attempts stopped by use of extensive GB Navy, all sea attempts inconclusive due to both countries having fairly powerful Navys.

SAS sneak into USA to cause havoc.

USA must now face snipers and strike teams roaming through their country more or less at will as majority of their Army is in troop carriers. :sniper: :mp5:

Battle Result is inconclusive as it's possible the SAS would successfully force the USA to surrender by invading White House, however it is unkown how effective this would be.



MINI WAR:

SAS VS NAVY SEALS!

SAS would undoubtedly be victorious in this one due to FAR better sniper and endurance training (you ever tried carrying full military gear up Scottish hills in all sorts of weather?) and the fact that they are generally better equipped and better trained on a number of levels.

Navy Seals neutralised, the war would continue as seen above.

:cool:

It doesn't matter who is better.

It is who strike first.

America was superior to Korean Communist but didn't not expect sheer numbers of Chinese invasion.

Doesn't matter how superior your weapons are.

It's who Strikes first and with what.

Britain can damange america but can not invade. Population is too small to support and invasion force to control America. That and most americans own's guns.

fyi Most Americans don't love the brits or scots...
We don't even love each other....why do you think we have so much problem.

America would never want to invade Britain. We have a ThemoNuclear Warhead that is big enough to wipe out Britain with ONE shot.

OK, i have listened and read as passing through this thread and as an ex-soldier and student of politics i have to admit the UK would easily win such a war. Now some of you are thinking, it can't be that simple, but it is.

Althought the British have a small army, the army is trained to a higher degree and there equipment is often more sophisticated, even the americans often prefer Warrior tanks over there own in certain situations.

Also the french are a very opinionated people, and frequently find something to protest about, whether is taxes, war or political situations even as they host dictators like Mugabe. As ss young and old protest, army loses support, and also the country is in in dissaray. Britain meanwhile so used to war no matter what they say, just go on with business as usual. Navy and Airforce is simpler to see how strong they are, and pretty much a bliztkrieg manouever could be fun.

Also 56% last time i checked of manufacturing in britain came from weaponry, so where britain mainly produces it's own, france often buys from germany, Britain and America. So without the ability or finances in the state to fund these weapons, and a prolonged conflict. France crumbles. The land mass being a feature that goes against France due to the multiple invasion points, and ability of aircraft to drop paratroopers in less populated area, and take land quicker.

I think they both sucks

US Marines Force Recon would win? why? cause they're crazy and all suffer from psychological problems.

Don't underestimate someone with proficient use of any weapons and the insanety to use it in unpredicable ways.

fyi Most Americans don't love the brits or scots...
We don't even love each other....why do you think we have so much problem.

America would never want to invade Britain. We have a ThemoNuclear Warhead that is big enough to wipe out Britain with ONE shot.


Last I checked if you nuked us we'd launch a few straight back, then you'd launch more and everyone else with nukes joins in, thus nuclear winter.

Therefore you'd never do that.

Most Americans DO love us, hence why they extensively claim to be related to us one way or another, visit so often and hold fairs in which they all pretend to be Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh.

GenocidalManiacs: Your take on the US v GB war is entertaining, to say the least. I won't bother addressing it as I think the innaccuracies stand for themselves, but I will say you're vastly overestimating the British Navy nowadays. The Royal Navy hasn't really been dominant since WWI.

Honestly I cant think of many signifigant advantages that the British have over the US... Also, there is NO question which countries military is better, simply the question of can the US sucessfully invade the British .

Woops, didn't pay attention and missed that we'd moved on from UK VS France. :headbang:

Ok..

Great Britain VS United States of America

Battle Breakdown:

USA declares war on GB.

USA must now face up to the SAS, Navy Seals VS SAS = Mini War of their own.

USA must now also face up to the fact that most Americans love Britain, especially Scotland, so they may end up facing a rebellion.

GB takes defensive positions, scatters Navy throughout Atlantic Ocean and readies the full force of the RAF.

USA attempts to invade, all air attempts stopped by use of extensive GB Navy, all sea attempts inconclusive due to both countries having fairly powerful Navys.

SAS sneak into USA to cause havoc.

USA must now face snipers and strike teams roaming through their country more or less at will as majority of their Army is in troop carriers. :sniper: :mp5:

Battle Result is inconclusive as it's possible the SAS would successfully force the USA to surrender by invading White House, however it is unkown how effective this would be.



MINI WAR:

SAS VS NAVY SEALS!

SAS would undoubtedly be victorious in this one due to FAR better sniper and endurance training (you ever tried carrying full military gear up Scottish hills in all sorts of weather?) and the fact that they are generally better equipped and better trained on a number of levels.

Navy Seals neutralised, the war would continue as seen above.

:cool:


Ok, we need to lay down a few rules here:

How about the U.S. declares war on GB, Canada, and France at the exact same time as they declare war on the U.S., thus getting rid of all advantages.

Also, you have a whack sense of the American people. Sure, alot of us like the British, but they would most likely not rebel because they are going to war against the Country that gave them the Beatles :p. So we'd have no rebellion.

Also, we would first focus on the Canadians, then the French. By then we will have gotten great morale boosts for beating those two countries(which we wil do, of course), and we'll have the perfect places to attack from.

Also, our Navy would own your navy if only because we have alot more ships, more cruise missiles, and better submarines. And more aircraft carriers. And more money. And more men.

Also, do you seriously think the SAS could take the White House? Sure, they may be able to bomb a few of our targets here and there, but the White House? No way, Jose. Number one, we have alot more special forces than just the SEALS(We have the Rangers, Delta Force, the Green Berrets, the Night Stalkers, the Air Force Air Commandos, DEVGRU, FORECON, MCSOCOM Detachment One, and the CIA- Special Activities Divison as well). You only have the Royal Marines, the SAS, the SBS, the SRR, and the Gurkhas.

Also, in the realm of Special Forces, our men have as much(if not more) training. Why? Ever try to carry loads of equipment up the Rocky Mountains in a Snowstorm? Also, we have more money to spend on t3h uber weapons. We also have more men. Sure, our normal soldiers have slightly less training than the regular British, but that wont matter much.

But guess where the E-2's in europe run from? Not that far from me in fact, I've camped under the flightpath. Others run from Germany, can you say 'Interceptors'? One Tornado F-3 or Eurofighter Typhoon or Mirage could slaughter them and the US airforce could do diddly-squat about it.

We wouldn't use the ones in Europe (they'd either be pulled back or used in the invasion of France, take about a week tops :D ), we'd use the ones the CVNs usually carry.

We wouldn't use the ones in Europe (they'd either be pulled back or used in the invasion of France, take about a week tops :D ), we'd use the ones the CVNs usually carry.

One round of long range anti-bomber missiles later. "uh, we need new E-2's".

Also, we would first focus on the Canadians, then the French. By then we will have gotten great morale boosts for beating those two countries(which we wil do, of course), and we'll have the perfect places to attack from.

That goes beyond arrogant. Check your geography. France is easily close enough to the UK for mutual defence. This means your carrier fleet v UK/France combined land airforce. The term 0wned was coined for that kind of situation.

US launches a surprise air attack, and manages to carpet-bombs most French major cities, ports and bases. The French don't have time to deploy most of their air force, let along anti-aircraft batteries.
Welcome to modern warfare.
France is in shock, its major cities are in flames, 20% of the population is lost. Since there all conventional options are unavailable, France retaliates using its last option; it launches a massive nuclear attack on the US (using its nuclear submarines, mostly).
The US intercepts a few of the missiles but most of them (let's say, 45) gets through and totally blasts about 50% of the American territory.
The US retaliates way before the French nukes strike them; France, Italy, Spain and Germany are totally anihilated by hundreds of 10 megaton nukes.
England (which stayed neutral in this conflict) suffers horribly from the fallouts. However, due to the dominant west-east winds, all eastern european countries are engulfed in radioactives clouds and highly radioactive fallouts. This radioactive cloud circles the Earth, giving cancer or killing most the the northern hemisphere's population.

Things happened way too fast for Canada's sloooow parlementary process to kick in. They're still trying to figure out what the heck is wrong with the reste of the world. They get leukemia and a few american refugees.

Australia / New Zealand, Indonesia and Brazil become new world powers.

How ironic.

US launches a surprise air attack

Do you know how hard that is? They'd be spotted before they made it half way accross the Atlantic.

Btw, this may not be the point but is there anyone here debating that the British military is better than the US, cuz if so, u are insane

Do you know how hard that is? They'd be spotted before they made it half way accross the Atlantic.

These days, if the US wants to carpet-bomb another country, they can send a first wave of B2 stealth bombers and strike at the country's air defenses, runways and radars first. They can do that very quickly, and since the US has bases around the world, and B2 bombers have a long range of action, it's a matter of 1-2 hours max if the action was well prepared.

The second wave would be a large number of tactical fighters, attacking what remains of the ennemy's military units, mostly: fighter jets, civilian airstrips, control towers, docks, highway ramps (the weak point in any highway). Don't bother shooting tanks and infantry troops. At this point, they are literally grounded, moving slowly on a crippled road system.

The third wave would be mostly made of heavy bombers, dropping daisy cutters, firebombs and other nasties on cities and troops.

Btw, this may not be the point but is there anyone here debating that the British military is better than the US, cuz if so, u are insane

I find it funny the number of arrogant Americans posting on this thread. =)

We've been fighting wars since long before your country existed, so how about you all chill a bit and realise that you are not as great as you think you are. =)

I also love that no-one saw the humour of my posts, I thought they were hilarious personally. =D

Blatantly if the US fought the UK one on one the UK would lose eventually, we'd be swarmed by sheer numbers.

However looking at the idea of the US invading the UK realistically you'd quickly have the UN and the EU down your throats, trade embargos would appear and everyone would give us a hand.

Then you'd have started World War III, and the only way the US could win that (considering that the majority of "advanced" countries would join against you, probably) would be to resort to nukes, at which point everyone nukes America back and we're ALL dead, no more humanity to speak of except for maybe a few thousand people spread around the isolated regions of the world.

Thus, quit your arrogance and start thinking a bit before you talk. =)

America :D

Why does America get dragged into every single topic, cant they stay out for once

I find it funny the number of arrogant Americans posting on this thread. =)

We've been fighting wars since long before your country existed, so how about you all chill a bit and realise that you are not as great as you think you are. =)

I also love that no-one saw the humour of my posts, I thought they were hilarious personally. =D

Blatantly if the US fought the UK one on one the UK would lose eventually, we'd be swarmed by sheer numbers.

However looking at the idea of the US invading the UK realistically you'd quickly have the UN and the EU down your throats, trade embargos would appear and everyone would give us a hand.

Then you'd have started World War III, and the only way the US could win that (considering that the majority of "advanced" countries would join against you, probably) would be to resort to nukes, at which point everyone nukes America back and we're ALL dead, no more humanity to speak of except for maybe a few thousand people spread around the isolated regions of the world.

Thus, quit your arrogance and start thinking a bit before you talk. =)


*considers arrogance*


Yes, and your counrty sucks at winning wars.

My country can beat up your country!!!

These days, if the US wants to carpet-bomb another country, they can send a first wave of B2 stealth bombers and strike at the country's air defenses, runways and radars first.

I take it you missed the bt where the UK can detect 'stealth' aircraft. Stealth is hard to see but nowhere near invisible.

I find it funny the number of arrogant Americans posting on this thread. =)

We've been fighting wars since long before your country existed, so how about you all chill a bit and realise that you are not as great as you think you are. =)

I also love that no-one saw the humour of my posts, I thought they were hilarious personally. =D

Blatantly if the US fought the UK one on one the UK would lose eventually, we'd be swarmed by sheer numbers.

However looking at the idea of the US invading the UK realistically you'd quickly have the UN and the EU down your throats, trade embargos would appear and everyone would give us a hand.

Then you'd have started World War III, and the only way the US could win that (considering that the majority of "advanced" countries would join against you, probably) would be to resort to nukes, at which point everyone nukes America back and we're ALL dead, no more humanity to speak of except for maybe a few thousand people spread around the isolated regions of the world.

Thus, quit your arrogance and start thinking a bit before you talk. =)

i didnt say anything about a hypothetical war did i? i asked if anyone believed the uk had a stronger military than the us...u did not answer, so who would u say has a stringer military?

Self-evidently the US seeing as it spends something like 20x what we do.

I find it funny the number of arrogant Americans posting on this thread. =)

We've been fighting wars since long before your country existed, so how about you all chill a bit and realise that you are not as great as you think you are. =)

I also love that no-one saw the humour of my posts, I thought they were hilarious personally. =D

Blatantly if the US fought the UK one on one the UK would lose eventually, we'd be swarmed by sheer numbers.

However looking at the idea of the US invading the UK realistically you'd quickly have the UN and the EU down your throats, trade embargos would appear and everyone would give us a hand.

Then you'd have started World War III, and the only way the US could win that (considering that the majority of "advanced" countries would join against you, probably) would be to resort to nukes, at which point everyone nukes America back and we're ALL dead, no more humanity to speak of except for maybe a few thousand people spread around the isolated regions of the world.

Thus, quit your arrogance and start thinking a bit before you talk. =)

You ain't so hot yourself for all the arrogance you show. Most of the world wouldn't dare imposing trade embargos on the US for the sheer reason that it'd start another global depression. Canada would be even more wrecked than the US in terms of trade.

It's well established that America could win any war it fought with the world (eventually) it just could never occupy any other countries. The nation is isolated on two sides by oceans that no force in the world could cross if we didn't want it to. Up north we've got the Canadians, a nation with whom we exist in a kind of symbiotic relationship with. They depend on us a whole hell of a lot more than we depend on them, though. They would never try to go against us because it would mean turning Canada into a third world country overnight.

Mexico...

Beh, it'd be a reason to finally fortify that damned border. Plus, I don't think any force, manmade or divine, could get those drug cartels to stop shooting each other and everyone else.

America could completely protect its borders while still maintaining more force projection abilities than the rest of the world put together.

And the old Russian Navy? A war would snap the back of their already fragile economy. It'd be World War I redux. They'd fight for a while but then turn inwards as it becomes a matter of internal rebellion.

i didnt say anything about a hypothetical war did i? i asked if anyone believed the uk had a stronger military than the us...u did not answer, so who would u say has a stringer military?

Read my post, I SAID that the UK would lose in a straight fight with the US.

Nice reading skills you've got there.

I take it you missed the bt where the UK can detect 'stealth' aircraft. Stealth is hard to see but nowhere near invisible.

It can only detect passive stealth aircraft when they're alone. Send in stealth aircraft with some active EW aircraft escorting them and you'd be lucky to spot a zeppelin before it was already on top of you.

Like I said, a modern war between two technologically advanced nations hasn't happened in half a century.

Read my post, I SAID that the UK would lose in a straight fight with the US.

Nice reading skills you've got there.

So there, even u admit (like any sane person) that the US has a stronger military than the UK, no ifs or buts.. which was the question I posted, which u agreed with and then blame me for arrogance.

So there, even u admit (like any sane person) that the US has a stronger military than the UK, no ifs or buts.. which was the question I posted, which u agreed with and then blame me for arrogance.

Please, deal with strategic reality here. If the UK were attached like Mexico to the US of course we'd lose. However, we are sevral thousand miles apart over an ocean. That changes the strategic position to a massive degree.

So there, even u admit (like any sane person) that the US has a stronger military than the UK, no ifs or buts.. which was the question I posted, which u agreed with and then blame me for arrogance.


Nice display of stereotypical American stupidity, taking things out of context and considering it a victory. =/

I'm done explaing things in this thread, work it out yourselves.

So there, even u admit (like any sane person) that the US has a stronger military than the UK, no ifs or buts.. which was the question I posted, which u agreed with and then blame me for arrogance.
You have a stronger military in numbers, but we have the better more professional military in training. Though the UK would most likely lose a one on one conflict, I believe the thread wasn't one-on-one, rather France/UK/Canada?

One round of long range anti-bomber missiles later. "uh, we need new E-2's".

Good luck trying to get a missile through all of that electronic jamming and counter-measures. And thanks for letting the US know exactly where those missiles are coming from, expect a Wild Weasel mission within the hour :D

France and Canada are not too incredibly powerful. As well the United States has great advantages in the amount of resources we have as well as manpower, and we would probably begin the war with better morale simply because of American views on France and how pathetic they are(comedians would jump with joy at the idea of a US v France war). The United States would win simply because we have more raw power although this war would be tough and possibly cost thousands maybe millions of american lives we could pull it off.

Nice display of stereotypical American stupidity, taking things out of context and considering it a victory. =/

I'm done explaing things in this thread, work it out yourselves.

Ur a fucking idiot, where the hell did I say i was American, stop assuming shit before you talk.. and wuerz if u read a lil back I said US invading Britian was another thing, but no one can doubt that the US has a better military

I found out something interesting today: The US now spends more money on defense/military than all the other countries on Earth combined.

Military channel is great aint it?

I need to go consider my arrogance again. brb. :/

Ur a fucking idiot, where the hell did I say i was American, stop assuming shit before you talk.. and wuerz if u read a lil back I said US invading Britian was another thing, but no one can doubt that the US has a better military

Firstly. AIMspeak is not good here. Second, the name Americanan is something of a hint to your nationality. Third, Spelling! Fourth try to keep up with the debate.

Good luck trying to get a missile through all of that electronic jamming and counter-measures. And thanks for letting the US know exactly where those missiles are coming from, expect a Wild Weasel mission within the hour

And if it's airlaunched? Try catching an F-3 tornado with an f-18. Also, I assume these weapons are used because they work. And since bombers will have comparable counermeasures and an E-2 is lit up like a billion candlepower with that big-ass radar... BOOM!

1. ok, saves time
2. Thats one of my countries, I also have Canada Alliance, PR China PR, Nazi Socialist Germany, doesnt mean im any of those, stop assuming
3. Sorry, im not gonna look back and spellcheck, if you know what I mean then you know what I mean
4. I said in a previous post that it may be irrelevant to the topic. And btw wasnt this a french- british topic in the first place? I was simply offtopicing the offtopic :)

Britain VS France.


Battle Breakdown:

Britain starts hammering French military outposts that are within range with cruise missiles and similar attacks from sea.

France panics and scrambles their weaker airforce while trying to get their ships out of port before they are destroyed.

Britain launches RAF and moves up the Anti-Aircraft ships.

French airforce defeated by mixture of anti aircraft Navy and RAF.

French navy mostly destroyed while trying to leave port.

Britain begins landing troops on French coast, this would include large amount of airdrops (especially of the SAS and Scottish Regiments) further into France.

French military attempts to deal with the main invasion of mainly English, Welsh and Irish troops at the coast while trying to stop the SAS and Scottish Regiments who are playing with sniper rifles, explosives and the occasional airstrike on French Military positions.

As French Military is split heavily by this (you know the Scots could do it on their own if we wanted. =P ) the invasion pushes further into France and takes the main cities such as Paris.

France inevatebly crumbles or surrenders to the superior, but smaller, army.




And that, my friends, is why you don't want to pick a fight with Scotland. =)
:sniper: :cool:

Hell yeah! Well said. Everyone seems to have forgotten about us Scots!

Note: the bayonet charge in Iraq was by a Scottish Regiment

"Britain" vs France - we win - no contest

"Britain" vs US - depends if us Scots side with the Redcoats :D

You never know, maybe France would bring up the Auld Alliance up with Scotland, and Scotland would bow down and do whatever France ordered them to against England. Then flee and let them be masscred ;)

You never know, maybe France would bring up the Auld Alliance up with Scotland, and Scotland would bow down and do whatever France ordered them to against England. Then flee and let them be masscred ;)

Why the hell would we want to ally with the froggies?
They're worse than useless, we don't need them!

And as for being massacred - aye right!

Wee!

It seems I have struck upon the truth! Only one person refuted my post, and even then it was only about the part that we would own France.

I love it when I'm ignored. That means they are afraid to attack my genius! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAa [/egoistic rant]

Seriously, though, could someone at least respond to my post? I scoured the internet looking for that information, I spent a while writing it, and the most I get is a 14 word reply.

Here's a very interesting database.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp
It evaluates de size, quality, budget, ..., of most armies in the World.

Let's look at the "total quality" (Q) and "#men" indicators. Quality indicates how well trained and equipped these army men are. #men indicates the raw size of the army (not taking into account the military hardware and vehicles).

To get a composite indicator (C), Ilet's multiply Q% with #men/1000.

USA
Q=93, #men=1,400,000
C=1302

Canada
Q=45, #men=56,000
C=25
(***NOTE: The Canadian army has ALMOST NO attack power; this army is largely defensive & used for peacekeeping and humanitarian actions.)

France
Q=49, #men=250,000
C=122

UK
Q=77, #men=210,000
C=162

Germany
Q=64, #men=280,000
C=179

Italy
Q=43, #men=220,000
C=95

Spain
Q=35, #men=140,000
C=49

Russia
Q=40, #men=850,000
C=340

So let's imagine a coalition of France, the UK, Italy and Spain. Their C would be 122+162+179+95=458. We're still not even half as strong as the US. Even by adding Russia, we get just 798. It's not enough. So unless these European nations have a secret weapon (which they probably don't), I don't see what they could achieve against that gigantic, painfully costly and high-tech US army.

By the way, here are China's indicators:
China
Q=32, #men=2,100,000
C=672

Not very strong, in terms of quality.

Well the fact that the U.S. is stronger than those nations comes as no surprise for me. I am actually surprised that we seem that much better according to that estimation. Anyway the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, the only superpower, what can anyone expect.

Seriously, though, could someone at least respond to my post? I scoured the internet looking for that information, I spent a while writing it, and the most I get is a 14 word reply.

Which post TLS...I went back a few pages and there was one about Special Forces quoting all manner of acronyms, is that the one you want a response to? (BTW, Ghurkas, while being some of the nails-est boys in uniform, are not Special Forces, they operate as regular infantry.)


Here's a very interesting database.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/ho...ies/default.asp
It evaluates de size, quality, budget, ..., of most armies in the World.

I take it that that is an American site. No-one would dispute that the US military has the most impressive array of weaponry, and probably the best logistical backup (in terms of sheer size), but to suggest that the leadership, training and experience is equalled only by the British Army (and then only equalled) and the Israeli Defence Force is patriotic homer-ism of the worst kind.

Can I also add that a lot of posts on here by the pro-US side keep citing how US attack fighters and bombers will swamp the UK/French air defence. This can only happen when you have bases close to the target. In Iraq, most air attacks staged out of Saudi or the Gulf. In the hypothetical conflict mentioned, there are no such close land bases. All your European bases are in the UK (so closed for the duration), Germany and Turkey. Given such a conflict would suggest US v Europe, rather than an individual nation, Germany would probably stay neutral at best and the rest of Europe would be unlikely to allow overflight to combatants. Therefore, the US would have to rely on naval air - with their carriers being forced into very vulnerable positions, or Air Force units out of Northern CONUS, which is a very long way in a single-seat aircraft and would render large chunks of the USAF ineffective as high-intensity air operations would just not be feasible.

The result would be stalemate. Nobody has the capability to successfully invade across a 3000 mile ocean. The Pacific campaigns in WWII relied on jumping relatively short distances from island group to island group. There is no chain of handy islands across the Atlantic. Greenland is too inhospitable to be a viable staging post. Iceland is too close to the UK and only has a couple of military capable air bases, both of which would be prime targets if they were used by the USAF (if allowed by the probably neutral Icelandic government).

HOWEVER, there is no doubt that the US could "win" any such conflict, if they really wanted to own a couple of lumps of irradiated glass just off the coast of Germany (and at the possible cost of New York, New England and some larger population areas in the Mid-West - we Brits can be bloody vindictive when we are about to get screwed)

I found out something interesting today: The US now spends more money on defense/military than all the other countries on Earth combined.

Military channel is great aint it?

I need to go consider my arrogance again. brb. :/

Big armies dont always win....

British Empire v American colonialists

Vietnam v America

Britain v France in the Pennisular War

Spend all you want on military but America can still be defeated by sheer logistics. The only first world country America could crush outright is Canada, simply because they share a border. Attacks on Britain, France and Russia would be defeated by the huge amount of distance involved combined with defenders advantage.

Also, all this hi-tech weaponry - I bet when used in combat red alert, half of it will miss anyway. Controlled testing environments do not compare to warfare where any number of variants will destroy accuracy. In Iraq and Kosvo, American strategic bombing was haphazard at best -if I remember rightly, didnt NATO blow up the Chinese Embassy (or nearly did) during the Kosovo war? The anti scud Patriot missiles were also haphazard in their success rates.

Imagine firing missiles over the extremely windy, violent abd cold North Atlantic at Britain or France. I sincerly doubt that pinpoint accuracy would be maintained.

Can I also add that a lot of posts on here by the pro-US side keep citing how US attack fighters and bombers will swamp the UK/French air defence.
By the way, I am Canadian and really not pro-Bush / pro-imperialism / pro-war / US-impressed. I wouldn't say I'm anti-American though... let's just say I have strong Canadian values, and some of them clash with American values. Oh well, no big deal.

But I think these numbers DO reflect the reality.

The US army spends as much money annually as ALL the other armies in the world, combined. With that much money, they can basically do whatever they want: increase their firepower, develop new hardware, open hundreds of bases, and so on.

One thing they can't do, though, is to increase their army's size much more -- and I think that's the true limit to American military power. There's not that many american citizens. If they ever want to become a military "empire", they would have to raise colonial troops to increase their army's size. In the meantime, since they don't establish colonies or govern other nations *directly*, they can't increase their conscription levels that much. Thus, the limitation.

Let's say that China raises its conscription levels to that of the Americans. That is, 0.4%. China would then have an army of... 4,800,000 men! Woooaaah. But anyway, they wouldn't stand the resource drain (food, money, hardware) associated with such a huge army.

The result would be stalemate. Nobody has the capability to successfully invade across a 3000 mile ocean.
Huh you're right.
But the US is currently negociating with Morrocco I think, for a "base sharing" thing. That would be logical; I think the US has no base in western / north-western Africa.
I've seen a map of American bases in the World. This is quite frightening; they have bases almost everywhere. I think that if you draw a 1500 miles radius around each base (which is the range of a medium-range missile airstrike), they cover most of the planet.

It is my opinion that if France and Britian were to declare war on each other, America would intervene, slap them both around a bit, and tell them to knock it off. O_o

Sorry guys. Even though Canada won 2 wars against the US (in 1775 and 1812), pushing back American invasion forces twice (and with some genuine military genius the second time)...

Ok, you have a slight historical error here. Canada was British Terroritory during those wars and thus had British regulars help. It wasn't until 1867 that Canada became a free and independent country.

In regards to this thread, Britian will win it. They have the better technology than the Frenchis and the French wouldn't be able to do much. The Brits will have a fight but in the end, Britain will triumph.

I take it that that is an American site. No-one would dispute that the US military has the most impressive array of weaponry, and probably the best logistical backup (in terms of sheer size), but to suggest that the leadership, training and experience is equalled only by the British Army (and then only equalled) and the Israeli Defence Force is patriotic homer-ism of the worst kind.

Can I also add that a lot of posts on here by the pro-US side keep citing how US attack fighters and bombers will swamp the UK/French air defence. This can only happen when you have bases close to the target. In Iraq, most air attacks staged out of Saudi or the Gulf. In the hypothetical conflict mentioned, there are no such close land bases. All your European bases are in the UK (so closed for the duration), Germany and Turkey. Given such a conflict would suggest US v Europe, rather than an individual nation, Germany would probably stay neutral at best and the rest of Europe would be unlikely to allow overflight to combatants. Therefore, the US would have to rely on naval air - with their carriers being forced into very vulnerable positions, or Air Force units out of Northern CONUS, which is a very long way in a single-seat aircraft and would render large chunks of the USAF ineffective as high-intensity air operations would just not be feasible.

The result would be stalemate. Nobody has the capability to successfully invade across a 3000 mile ocean. The Pacific campaigns in WWII relied on jumping relatively short distances from island group to island group. There is no chain of handy islands across the Atlantic. Greenland is too inhospitable to be a viable staging post. Iceland is too close to the UK and only has a couple of military capable air bases, both of which would be prime targets if they were used by the USAF (if allowed by the probably neutral Icelandic government).

HOWEVER, there is no doubt that the US could "win" any such conflict, if they really wanted to own a couple of lumps of irradiated glass just off the coast of Germany (and at the possible cost of New York, New England and some larger population areas in the Mid-West - we Brits can be bloody vindictive when we are about to get screwed)

Sorry, but Germany has to let our planes fly over. Thats what they accept when they let us build airforce bases in their country. Thats a few hundred airplanes that are within a few hundred miles.

Also, we have just as much experience, training, and leadership as the brits (if not more). Its our POLITICAL leadership that sucks(they are the ones calling all the shots in Iraq, so thats why we keep screwing up). Our military leadership is just as good as yours, we are just as experienced as yours, and our training is oh-so-slightly less than yours.

Also, we have established that it will be just the U.S., France, the U.K., the Canadians, and possibly Spain. If we went over those, it would become WWIII(and it wouldnt be "U.S. vs. The world", it would be "West vs. Kinda east vs. Far East"). There are also to be no nukes involved.

Ok, you have a slight historical error here. Canada was British Terroritory during those wars and thus had British regulars help. It wasn't until 1867 that Canada became a free and independent country.

In regards to this thread, Britian will win it. They have the better technology than the Frenchis and the French wouldn't be able to do much. The Brits will have a fight but in the end, Britain will triumph.

Thats what I've been saying forever. They were Brits then, so it was a BRITISH victory. We were defeated in the Canadian theater, but we won both wars.

Nice display of stereotypical American stupidity, taking things out of context and considering it a victory. =/

No need for any of that. We have a semi-intelligent debate going, don't bring prejudicial bullshit into it.



And if it's airlaunched? Try catching an F-3 tornado with an f-18. Also, I assume these weapons are used because they work. And since bombers will have comparable counermeasures and an E-2 is lit up like a billion candlepower with that big-ass radar... BOOM!

When it comes to radar/comm jamming, technological level matters. America has the advantage here.

By the way, it's still true that no one can win a fight against France. They have a standing doctrine to nuke anyone who tries to invade immediately.

That's absolutely not true, and any historical record will prove you wrong.

We have lots of monuments to the heros of the 1812 war, especially about colonel Charles Salaberry, who was born in Canada. He organized the french canadian legion, the "Voltigeurs" along with Rouville (another important name). The Voltigeurs had white uniforms (they were very efficient troops: highly trained, deadly and motivated).

In 1813, upon learning that the americans had invaded Canada, the Voltigeurs corps entranched 1000 of their troops in a forest near Chateauguay, on 3 lines of defense. The americans wouldn't be able to use their 10 cannons in these forests, and would advance slowly; thus it was the perfect location for intercepting them.

The americans arrived with more than 4000 men; the first line of defense was made of an elite corps of about 300 Voltigeurs. The american troops didn't stand a chance; they lost 50 men in the first minute of combat, and their cannons and hardware were heavily damaged. They were forced to flee across the forests, back to the US, while being harassed by irregular Native troops (which were acting as intelligence gathering & tactical support for the Voltigeurs).

In Canadien history books, the Victory at Chateauguay has often been compared to the battle at Thermopyles in ancient Greece.

Back to the problem of Canada beating the US! They didn't. In fact, they were still British so..... your arguement falls apart upon looking at it.

I wouldn't be so quick to make this assumption. France's army is much larger than 100 000 men, and would have the advantage of operating on home soil. I know they've had their pants pulled down a couple of times over the past hundred years or so, but let's give them some credit, eh? :)

The French had the home field advantage in WWII and they still got wiped in less than a month! Please....

I think you highly underestimate the Americans USMC.

People underestimate our military period.

Well the U.S. could undoubtedly increase the size of its army. After all the U.S. population is somewhat big and in the terms of a war such as this would probably offer only the standard resistance to a draft because this is a U.S. war not some stupid political nonsense(like Iraq or Vietnam). As well the U.S. has lots and lots of natural resources and great industrial capabilities. Perhaps we would have some difficulty starting out but in the end we would probably crush all 3 perhaps even 4 nations at massive cost. Really the huge gap would probably be more of a deterrent to any assualt from the European nations because we would be too powerful to assualt by your nations due to our massive size and powerful armed forces.

These days, if the US wants to carpet-bomb another country, they can send a first wave of B2 stealth bombers and strike at the country's air defenses, runways and radars first. They can do that very quickly, and since the US has bases around the world, and B2 bombers have a long range of action, it's a matter of 1-2 hours max if the action was well prepared.

The second wave would be a large number of tactical fighters, attacking what remains of the ennemy's military units, mostly: fighter jets, civilian airstrips, control towers, docks, highway ramps (the weak point in any highway). Don't bother shooting tanks and infantry troops. At this point, they are literally grounded, moving slowly on a crippled road system.

This is pretty much accurate though B2s fly out of Whiteman AFB in Missouri.

The third wave would be mostly made of heavy bombers, dropping daisy cutters, firebombs and other nasties on cities and troops.

Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped out the back of C-130s and not heavy bombers.

Back to the problem of Canada beating the US! They didn't. In fact, they were still British so..... your arguement falls apart upon looking at it.
Well... consider the fact that in 1812, the French Canadians had been conquered by the British less than 50 years before (1 generation). Their loyalty to the British officers, and to the British Empire at large, was very low. Population of Lower Canada (aka Quebec) in 1812 was 98% French Canadian, 2% British.

So they were people born in Canada, defending Canada. They had a profund distaste in these "British masters" and in fact, they have resisted all attempt by colonial rulers to change their language, religion or way of life. The French Canadians are still alive & kicking today, speaking their language and giving Canada some of its finest brains, artists & politicians.

And by the way, French Canadians revolted against de British in 1837-1838, winning a few battles before being crushed by these imperialist bastards. Joseph Papineau and the Patriotes are still remembered today.

We were never really British, you know.
Just like the Irish. :rolleyes:

Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped out the back of C-130s and not heavy bombers.
And how would you call a C-130 carrying a MOAB? :D
A "super extra heavy bomber from hell, oh gawd it'll hurt"?

Thats what I've been saying forever. They were Brits then, so it was a BRITISH victory. We were defeated in the Canadian theater, but we won both wars.

You are Correct TLS! I noticed you stated it before but apparently no one listens. Keep up the good work.

And how would you call a C-130 carrying a MOAB? :D
A "super extra heavy bomber from hell, oh gawd it'll hurt"?

A CB-130! LOL!

My dad is a flyer on C-130s so I know alot about them. Don't mess with an AC-130 either if I were you.

You are Correct TLS! I noticed you stated it before but apparently no one listens. Keep up the good work.

To be fair, it was the people of Canada who defeated us. Of course, it was more due to our completely inept generals who barely deserved to be conscripts, let alone in command, than any fault of the enemy (though they do deserve credit for putting those fools in their place, a shame about the young Americans and Canadians who had to die to do it, though).

A CB-130! LOL!

My dad is a flyer on C-130s so I know alot about them. Don't mess with an AC-130 either if I were you.

AC-130's have got to be my favorite plane flying today. They are literally like flying moniterships.

Well... consider the fact that in 1812, the French Canadians had been conquered by the British less than 50 years before (1 generation). Their loyalty to the British officers, and to the British Empire at large, was very low. Population of Lower Canada (aka Quebec) in 1812 was 98% French Canadian, 2% British.

Sorry bud, but under international law at the time, Canada was considered British soil and therefor, anyone on that soil that is a citizen is British. Therefore, Canada didn't beat the US in any war whatsoever. We lost in the Canadian theater of war, yes, but never lost to Canada in any war.

And by the way, French Canadians revolted against de British in 1837-1838, winning a few battles before being crushed by these imperialist bastards. Joseph Papineau and the Patriotes are still remembered today.

Your point?

We were never really British, you know.
Just like the Irish. :rolleyes:

May not be really british but you were british citizens :rolleyes:

Well... consider the fact that in 1812, the French Canadians had been conquered by the British less than 50 years before (1 generation). Their loyalty to the British officers, and to the British Empire at large, was very low. Population of Lower Canada (aka Quebec) in 1812 was 98% French Canadian, 2% British.

So they were people born in Canada, defending Canada. They had a profund distaste in these "British masters" and in fact, they have resisted all attempt by colonial rulers to change their language, religion or way of life. The French Canadians are still alive & kicking today, speaking their language and giving Canada some of its finest brains, artists & politicians.

And by the way, French Canadians revolted against de British in 1837-1838, winning a few battles before being crushed by these imperialist bastards. Joseph Papineau and the Patriotes are still remembered today.

We were never really British, you know.
Just like the Irish. :rolleyes:

They were still technically British. Just like WE were when we whupped the Frenchies arses in the 7 years war. So you can partially attribute being Canadian to us!

has anybody noticed when ever the us is mentioned in this thread we are on the offensive, and we all know the defense has the advantage

has anybody noticed when ever the us is mentioned in this thread we are on the offensive, and we all know the defense has the advantage

We went on the offensive against Iraq (won)
Germans went on the offense against Poland (won)
Germans went on the offense against France (won)
Britain went on the offense against Germany (won)
US went on the offensive against Germany (won)
Japan went on the offensive against US (lost)
US goes on the offensive against Japan (won)
Tanzania went on the offensive against Uganda (won)

Interesting. Nations that go on the offensive seem to win most of the time.

Well it is certain that we would take the offensive against Canada because they are too weak to defend themselves effectively and too much of a liability to leave alone(they could be used to send real enemy force down from the north) As well everyone knows that the European forces in question could not attack the U.S. effectively. We have too much land and too many people, as well our navy and air forces would harass or outright destroy any invasion attempts. So therefore we would be the aggressors and of course win, simply because our forces would build up until we win due to raw power while they fortified themselves rather ineffectively(our population is big and we have good industry so we would train and build while they waited and fortified).

I've just realised something.

By including Canada in their little alliance, the British and French have screwed themselves over. Why? Because they can't attack us, but if we beat Canada and then neither side can invade each other we win because we accomplished more.

They were still technically British. Just like WE were when we whupped the Frenchies arses in the 7 years war. So you can partially attribute being Canadian to us!
Awww, come on! What's that rethoric bullshit?

I'm talking about the 98% french-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada, who were there BEFORE the British invaded (in 1759-1763). In 1812, they were still living segregated from the British (mostly because the British didn't really trust their loyalty to the crown).

The 1812 war was the first step in canadian nation building; for the first time, both the British and the French Canadians defended this land against a common enemy. The battle of Chateauguay was fought by French Canadian troops, led by French Canadians. Hey, they didn't even wear red British uniforms; they had their own white uniforms. (They refused to serve if they had to wear red uniforms!)


By the way, I AM a French Canadian.
Got no british ancestors.
Still live in French. Like more than 80% of people in the Quebec province.
We're real survivors.

Britain:
As a British Commander, I would definitely take advantage of the Ability to launch a two pronged attack from England, and from Gibraltar, should they want to invade through Spain, while at the same time through Pas D'Calais, the second world war proved that an air assualt on France could work, the Royal Navy has been hobbled recently, the R-Class, and the U-Class submarines are more powerful than the Resolution or the Dauphin class. The stance of Germany would be important, using Special Forces would be my first choice, then following it up with conventional forces, the French Riveria from GIbraltar, and across the Channel. The French are known for their strong army, and have been masters of artillery, since the days of Napoleon, so a Strong attack by the RAF would hobble the French, and good air support from the ARMY and RAF Lynx helos, and Tigers would win the day. Should the Germans stand against France, the French would have nowhere to go, if Spain stood against france too, or was conquered by the British, the French would be blockaded, one can not assume that the French would have a chance of invading Brittain, the Battle would be on French soil.

France would win, and its hard to fight through the misconceptions.

Airforce: The best the British are operating are Tornado's and Harriers. The Harrier is a good plane, but in all honesty, the Mirage's probably have a better chance in air-to-air, and the Tornado isnt all that great. Either way, an air campaign would end up in favor of whoever was on the defense, most likely. The British have a better chance of grouping their aircraft in defense, while the French have signifigant AA, as well as a large number of Exocet's. The British do not yet operate any Eurofighters, while France already has Rafale's on the CDG.

Helicopters: France pretty much wins hands down. While the British operate a number of Lynx and Apache, the French have long dominated in this field. Puma/Dauphins, and Gazelles in much larger numbers than anything the British field, as well as Tigers coming their way. The british have about 320 helicopters, with 150 gazelle and 110 lynx. The French have about 220 Gazelle, 180 alouette(similar to lynx), 133 puma, 80 Tiger's on the way, some fennecs, and other helicopters. A large number of helicopter munitions are designed in France too, the UK imports most of its helicopter program tbh.

Navy: Much closer than most people think. While the british certain have a good navy, it has been declining over the last few decades. The French are quickly catching up, already having a better SSBM program, and their destroyers/etc are plenty good. The French have especially good ship to ship, and ship to air missiles. It would most likely be bloody in the channel, with no clear winner, but making invasion by either impossible.

Army: French victory. The French are dominating the british in artillery, anti-aircraft, and ATGM's. 5,000 Mistrail launchers, 1390 Milan's, 800 Eryx, many HOT missiles, and the upcoming Trigat missiles are all(with the exception of Mistrail) missiles basically able to take out british armour, including the C2E(Eryx and Milan would have trouble in the front, but its still a huge threat to the british). The LeClerc, while less armoured than the C2E, has a more sophisticated electronics system, an automatic loading system(read:faster to fire), a very good cannon(the L30 isnt bad, but rifled barrels means no ATGM's out of the barrel, HESH rounds, etc). The French use some DU rounds, while I havnt heard of any british ones. The LeClerc is also much faster(more mobile is perhaps more accurate), has better fire-on-the-move capability,and is lighter. The French also have very good lighter armour, including the AMX-10RC, the ERC-90, the VBL, almost 4000 VAB's, etc. While France has less LeClercs, its soon to be very close, and it also has about 700 AMX-30's, as opposed to some 400 Challenger 1's. Technologically, France wins by a little. In numbers, France wins total, especially with its parity in helicopters.

In all honesty, this would all never happen. Even if it did come to war, neither could invade the other. If one did, the other would be nuked. If Britain was the aggressor, europe would probably come to its aid. If France was the aggresor, US would come to its aid. Its all just very improbable.

I will say hands-down the Brits have got the French beat. The French have proven many times in the last hundred years they would rather quit than fight for a cause and I don't think that's changed as of recent.

I will say hands-down the Brits have got the French beat. The French have proven many times in the last hundred years they would rather quit than fight for a cause and I don't think that's changed as of recent.

The french, you say? The only war they quit was Indochina, and I remember the same thing about the Americans. The French fought on in WW1, in ww2(just not on French soil), some in korea, plenty in africa more recently, etc. Perhaps you are talking about the government of france?

Why the hell would we want to ally with the froggies?
They're worse than useless, we don't need them!

And as for being massacred - aye right!

I was referring to the Auld Alliance that Scotland and France used to have against England before Britain was unified, which forced England to fight on two fronts. The French were notorious however for telling the Scottish to attack the English, then failing to come and help, leaving the Scots to be massacred.

Anyway, on this whole 'It wasn't Canada that won 1812, because they were British citizens!' thing - it seems a little silly to me. I doubt Britain can take the majority of credit for the war. It just seems like another one of those things people do to make themselves look better or others look worse by not defining a people as truely a nation yet in order to either not get the blame or not take the credit. Another example is the 'America can do no wrong' crowd who say that it was the British that killed off the native Americans since it was before the revolution, thus America shouldn't be ashamed of it.

I'm not sue how serious this thread is, but in the unlikely event that Britain and France would go to war directly, France would win, and quickly - a week at most. What people forget is that not every war is about invading and occupying countries - Iraq and Vietnam for example. Neither Britain nor France would want to occupy the other country, nor would they want humiliate the population of the other country as they are now so interdependant - any war would simply be about scoring a quick minor victory and then the government of the loosing side would be forced from office and a peace treaty signed and concessions ceeded. France would win because British military power is extended all around the world, All over Africa, Indian Ocean, Crete, Middle East, Cypres. While France's miliatry power is closer to Metropolitan France (oh and Scotland would rebel aganist England -I live in Scotland). A war between France and Britain through proxies not only is a more likly event, but happens quite regularly in Africa. In many ways the genocide in Ruwanda can be seen as a proxy war between France and America, as the Angolan war was between America (through South Africa and Unita) and Russia (through the Cubans and the Angolan Government). As for a war between UK, France and Canada on one side and America on the other, well the US would be thumped! Why, 1 the world would back who ever won the first major victory, 2 US forces in Europe and Britain would be nutralised on the First Day - prisoner of war camps, 3 the US would be unwilling to move troops out of the Middle East and the Uzbekistan in case the Russians, Chineese or Iranians moved into the power vacume created - therefore they would be taken out of the forces avalible and again the war would be over before it had really started 4 the Island of Deaigo Garcia would be overrun quickly by the Royal Navy, 5 Nukes would be out of the question as that would collapse the world ecconomy and bring down the US's dominace with it. if a Republican Government was in office it would rip itself to pieces and a Democrat government would replace it, a Democrat government would not start a war with Europe, but if the did they would be forced out of office the day after the Bases at Ramstein and in Yorkshire are taken. In terms of men in uniform, most countries do have some fine troops, Legion d'Estrange, SAS, Gurkas, Royal Marines, US Rangers, etc etc etc, but their armies are designed for different things, The US for Major set piece high speed wars, the French for low level covert action and the British are a mixture of the two with peace keeping thrown in for good mesure. As for Canadian military problems, all countries go through that from time to time, realisng it needs fixing is the first step to fxing it - also it creates a convenient excuse not to enter dangerous Neo-Con escapades for oil.

Well... consider the fact that in 1812, the French Canadians had been conquered by the British less than 50 years before (1 generation). Their loyalty to the British officers, and to the British Empire at large, was very low. Population of Lower Canada (aka Quebec) in 1812 was 98% French Canadian, 2% British.

So they were people born in Canada, defending Canada. They had a profund distaste in these "British masters" and in fact, they have resisted all attempt by colonial rulers to change their language, religion or way of life. The French Canadians are still alive & kicking today, speaking their language and giving Canada some of its finest brains, artists & politicians.

And by the way, French Canadians revolted against de British in 1837-1838, winning a few battles before being crushed by these imperialist bastards. Joseph Papineau and the Patriotes are still remembered today.

We were never really British, you know.
Just like the Irish. :rolleyes:

Right

So you would have been a colony of the French "imperialist bastards" rather than a colony of the British "imperialist bastards".

Of course I still can take heart that, despite your ravings, the Queen remains head of state of Canada. God Bless Her Majesty.

Awww, come on! What's that rethoric bullshit?

I'm talking about the 98% french-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada, who were there BEFORE the British invaded (in 1759-1763). In 1812, they were still living segregated from the British (mostly because the British didn't really trust their loyalty to the crown).

The 1812 war was the first step in canadian nation building; for the first time, both the British and the French Canadians defended this land against a common enemy. The battle of Chateauguay was fought by French Canadian troops, led by French Canadians. Hey, they didn't even wear red British uniforms; they had their own white uniforms. (They refused to serve if they had to wear red uniforms!)


By the way, I AM a French Canadian.
Got no british ancestors.
Still live in French. Like more than 80% of people in the Quebec province.
We're real survivors.


But you were British Citizens! I understand what you are saying, but according to international law at that time any victory you made was a British victory.

Right

So you would have been a colony of the French "imperialist bastards" rather than a colony of the British "imperialist bastards".

Of course I still can take heart that, despite your ravings, the Queen remains head of state of Canada. God Bless Her Majesty.

I personally would have liked them to be part of the "rather odd with their weird system of government and odd accent" Americans, but as history shows, sending Fat Virginians to lead a bunch of virginian militia against the British army in Canada wasn't smart.

Now, if we had put THOUGHT into it and sent New Englanders and trained soldiers, THEN we may have gotten somewhere...

But fledgling nations never make good decisions, eh?

And if it's airlaunched? Try catching an F-3 tornado with an f-18. Also, I assume these weapons are used because they work. And since bombers will have comparable counermeasures and an E-2 is lit up like a billion candlepower with that big-ass radar... BOOM!
It'll still have to find its way through the crazy amounts of ECM your average E-2 can pump out in a heart beat. The Tornado may be faster then the F-18, but it's all about if you can see the opponent before he sees you, and last time I check the ol' F-3 doesn't have a hell of a chance outrunning a Sidewinder or AMRAAM :D

But back on the original topic, Chellis I think overestimates some of France's capabilities.

Airforce: The best the British are operating are Tornado's and Harriers. The Harrier is a good plane, but in all honesty, the Mirage's probably have a better chance in air-to-air, and the Tornado isnt all that great. Either way, an air campaign would end up in favor of whoever was on the defense, most likely. The British have a better chance of grouping their aircraft in defense, while the French have signifigant AA, as well as a large number of Exocet's. The British do not yet operate any Eurofighters, while France already has Rafale's on the CDG.
Yes France has some of the new nifty fighters, but the Tornado is a solid performer, and the Harrier kicked some Mirage butt during the Falklands. French pilots also lack much combat experience, which can make up for all the difference in a fight. As for AA, the only system I'm aware of for France is the Crotale (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crotale/), and only has ~30 of the things or so.

Helicopters: France pretty much wins hands down. While the British operate a number of Lynx and Apache, the French have long dominated in this field. Puma/Dauphins, and Gazelles in much larger numbers than anything the British field, as well as Tigers coming their way. The british have about 320 helicopters, with 150 gazelle and 110 lynx. The French have about 220 Gazelle, 180 alouette(similar to lynx), 133 puma, 80 Tiger's on the way, some fennecs, and other helicopters. A large number of helicopter munitions are designed in France too, the UK imports most of its helicopter program tbh.
Apache>Tiger, and again I feel French inexperience comes into play again. Helicopters die to fixed-wing aircraft anyways, and while the British might not gain total air superiority, they'll control enough of the skies to keep them off their backs.

Navy: Much closer than most people think. While the british certain have a good navy, it has been declining over the last few decades. The French are quickly catching up, already having a better SSBM program, and their destroyers/etc are plenty good. The French have especially good ship to ship, and ship to air missiles. It would most likely be bloody in the channel, with no clear winner, but making invasion by either impossible.
LOL. The RN already outnumbers the French, and with the small numbers of Exocet missiles their ships carry they'll never get through British defenses.

Army: French victory. The French are dominating the british in artillery, anti-aircraft, and ATGM's. 5,000 Mistrail launchers, 1390 Milan's, 800 Eryx, many HOT missiles, and the upcoming Trigat missiles are all(with the exception of Mistrail) missiles basically able to take out british armour, including the C2E(Eryx and Milan would have trouble in the front, but its still a huge threat to the british). The LeClerc, while less armoured than the C2E, has a more sophisticated electronics system, an automatic loading system(read:faster to fire), a very good cannon(the L30 isnt bad, but rifled barrels means no ATGM's out of the barrel, HESH rounds, etc). The French use some DU rounds, while I havnt heard of any british ones. The LeClerc is also much faster(more mobile is perhaps more accurate), has better fire-on-the-move capability,and is lighter. The French also have very good lighter armour, including the AMX-10RC, the ERC-90, the VBL, almost 4000 VAB's, etc. While France has less LeClercs, its soon to be very close, and it also has about 700 AMX-30's, as opposed to some 400 Challenger 1's. Technologically, France wins by a little. In numbers, France wins total, especially with its parity in helicopters.
The automated loader actually gives the LeClerc a slower firing rate compared to the Challenger IIs iirc, which is more heavily armored then the French tank and is armed with DU rounds, not to mention carries more ammunition (50 rounds vs. 20 rounds).

[QUOTE=Laenis]I was referring to the Auld Alliance that Scotland and France used to have against England before Britain was unified, which forced England to fight on two fronts. The French were notorious however for telling the Scottish to attack the English, then failing to come and help, leaving the Scots to be massacred.
QUOTE]

I am well aware of what the Auld Alliance was - I don't need you to tell me.

Also, we are hardly likely to make the mistake of trusting the French to come to our aid in a fight (not that we'd need it - they'd more likely be a hindrance)

By the way, France was part of the coalition for "Operation Desert Storm" in 1990-1991, and took an active part in combats. They were really willing to save Kuwait from the iraqi invasion; in fact, they have sent 15000+4000 troops. The French air force took part of bombing raids, tactical strikes and air patrols.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0031858.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm

From 1991 to 1996/1997, France was part of the "Iraq no-fly zones" patrols, along with the US and the UK.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/China/china-mfa-iraqfacts.htm
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030331-war-watch01.htm

So it's not really true that they don't have recent combat experience.

I think the French army has some nice military hardware. Their planes, tanks and helicopters are very reliable, light and mobile. They don't seem to like building "moving fortresses" (Stryker! LOL) or "crazy vehicles" (A-10 Warthog, anyone?), they prefer mobility over raw firepower. They sell these hi-tech toys to countries such as Finland.

Seeing as the whole, lets forget allies thing seems to gone out of the window......

The American army is pretty good, and could probably beat the Britain or France in a fight, but I don't think it could ever take it over or control it. If we mean conquer in the Traditional sense then sending over armies just isn't enough. The Roman, Alexander the great's, British, French, Dutch, Austro-hungarian and Islamic Empires (because to control over other peoples teritory thats what America would have to become) not only sent over occupying foces, they sent engineers, merchants, Architects, colonists all these types of people that aren't recorded greatly in history books. The British built railways, the Romans built aquaducts, the Arabs built Mosques and universities, the aim of the game is to embed yourself into a country, all historical empires have been net exporters of citizens. Most Americans don't even have a passport. I simply can't imagine America leaving its mark anywhere except for NIKE. West Germany is a notable aception but I can't imagine America ever repeating somthing like that.

This is quite long but might cause some debate I'll try to edit it as much as poss..
I think this contadicts some things I've said but ho-hum


Is the United States an empire? George W Bush maintains that it has never been one. 'We don't seek empires,' insists US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 'We're not imperialistic.'

Nonsense, says Niall Ferguson. In his book Colossus: The rise and fall of the American empire (which accompanies the Channel 4 documentary American Colossus), he argues that the US is nothing less than the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.

In this edited extract, Professor Ferguson demonstrates that, in terms of economic resources as well as of military capability, the United States not only resembles but in some respects exceeds the British empire at its height.

– – –

All told, there have been no more than 70 empires in history. If the Times Atlas of World History is to be believed, the American is, by my count, the 68th. (Communist China is the 69th; some would claim that the European Union is the 70th.)

From the Egyptians to Rome
How different is the American empire from previous empires? Like the ancient Egyptian, it erects towering edifices in its heartland, though these house the living rather than the dead. Like the Athenian empire, it has proved itself adept at leading alliances against a rival power. Like the empire of Alexander, it has a staggering geographical range. Like the Chinese empire that arose in the Ch'in era and reached its zenith under the Ming dynasty, it has united the lands and peoples of a vast territory and forged them into a true nation-state.

Like the Roman empire, it has a system of citizenship that is remarkably open: Purple Hearts and US citizenship were conferred simultaneously on a number of the soldiers serving in Iraq last year, just as service in the legions was once a route to becoming a civis romanus. Indeed, with the classical architecture of its capital and the republican structure of its Constitution, the United States is perhaps more like a 'new Rome' than any previous empire – albeit a Rome in which the Senate has thus far retained its grip on would-be emperors. In its relationship with western Europe, too, the United States can sometimes seem like a second Rome, though it seems premature to hail Brussels as the new Byzantium.

Rebellious son, despised father
Let us consider more precisely the similarities and differences between this American empire and the British empire, against which the United States at first defined itself, but which it increasingly resembles, as rebellious sons grow to resemble the fathers they once despised.

The relationship between the two Anglophone empires is one of the leitmotifs of Colossus for the simple reason that no other empire in history has come so close to achieving the things that the United States wishes to achieve today. Britain's era of 'liberal empire' – from around the 1850s until the 1930s – stands out as a time when the leading imperial power successfully underwrote economic globalisation by exporting not just its goods, its people and its capital, but also its social and political institutions. The two Anglophone empires have much in common. But they are also profoundly different.

Territory and people
The United States is considered by some historians to be a more effective 'hegemon' than Great Britain. Yet in strictly territorial terms, the latter was far the more impressive empire. At its maximum extent between the world wars, the British empire covered more than 13 million square miles, approximately 23% of the world's land surface. Only a tiny fraction of that was accounted for by the United Kingdom itself: a mere 0.2%.

Today, by contrast, the United States itself accounts for around 6.5% of the world's surface, whereas its 14 formal dependencies – mostly Pacific islands, acquired before the Second World War – amount to a mere 4,140 square miles of territory. Even if the United States had never relinquished the countries it at one time or another occupied in the Caribbean and Latin America between the Spanish–American War and the Second World War, the American empire today would amount to barely one-half of 1% of the world's land surface.

In demographic terms, the formal American empire is even more minuscule. Today the United States and its dependencies together account for barely 5% of the world's population, whereas the British ruled between a fifth and a quarter of humanity at the zenith of their empire.

'Occupying armies'
On the other hand, the United States possesses a great many small areas of territory within notionally sovereign states that serve as bases for its armed services. Before the deployment of troops for the invasion of Iraq, the US military had around 752 military installations in more than 130 countries. Significant numbers of American troops were stationed in 65 of these.

Their locations significantly qualify President Bush's assertion in his speech of 26 February 2003, that 'after defeating enemies [in 1945], we did not leave behind occupying armies.' In the first year of his presidency, around 70,000 US troops were stationed in Germany, and 40,000 in Japan. American troops have been in those countries continuously since 1945. Almost as many (36,500) were in South Korea, where the American presence has been uninterrupted since 1950.

Moreover, new wars have meant new bases, such as Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, acquired during the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, or the Bishkek air base in Kyrgyzstan, an 'asset' picked up during the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. At the time of writing, about 10,000 American troop are still based in Afghanistan, and it seems certain that a substantial force of 100,000 will have to remain in Iraq for at least the next few years.

Military superiority
Nor should it be forgotten what formidable military technology can be unleashed from these bases. Commentators like to point out that 'the Pentagon's budget is equal to the combined military budgets of the next 12 or 15 nations' and that 'the US accounts for 40-45% of all the defence spending of the world's 189 states.' Such fiscal measures, impressive though they sound, nevertheless understate the lead currently enjoyed by American armed forces.

On land, the United States has 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks. The rest of the world has nothing that can compete. At sea, the United States possesses nine 'supercarrier' battle groups. The rest of the world has none. And in the air, the United States has three different kinds of undetectable stealth aircraft. The rest of the world has none. The United States is also far ahead in the production of 'smart' missiles and pilotless high-altitude 'drones'.

Credible threats
The British empire never enjoyed this kind of military lead over the competition. Granted, there was a time when its network of naval and military bases bore a superficial resemblance to America's today. The number of troops stationed abroad was also roughly the same. The British, too, relished their technological superiority, whether it took the form of the Maxim gun or the Dreadnought.

But their empire never dominated the full spectrum of military capabilities the way the United States does today. Though the Royal Navy ruled the waves, the French and later the Germans – to say nothing of the Americans – were able to build fleets that posed credible threats to that maritime dominance, while the British army was generally much smaller and more widely dispersed than the armies of the continental empires.

Sphere of military influence
If military power is the sine qua non of an empire, then it is hard to imagine how anyone could deny the imperial character of the United States today. Conventional maps of US military deployments understate the extent of America's military reach. A US Defense Department map of the world, which shows the areas of responsibility of the five major regional commands, suggests that America's sphere of military influence is now literally global.

The regional combatant commanders – the 'pro-consuls' of this imperium – have responsibility for swaths of territory beyond the wildest imaginings of their Roman predecessors. USEUCOM extends from the westernmost shore of Greenland to the Bering Strait, from the Arctic Ocean to the Cape of Good Hope, from Iceland to Israel.

Rich enough?
It is, of course, a truth universally acknowledged that large overseas military commitments cannot be sustained without even larger economic resources. Is America rich enough to play the part of Atlas, bearing the weight of the whole world on its shoulders? This was a question posed so frequently in the 1970s and 1980s that it became possible to speak of 'declinism' as a school of thought. According to Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1989), military and fiscal 'overstretch' doomed the United States – like all 'great powers' before it – to lose its position of economic dominance.

For a brief time after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was possible to rejoice that the Soviet Union had succumbed to the overstretch first. The economic travails of Japan, once touted as a future geopolitical contender, added to the sense of national recuperation. While America savoured a period of 'relative ascent' unlike any since the 1920s, when an earlier peace dividend had fuelled an earlier stock market bubble, declinism itself declined.

New rivals
By the end of the 1990s, however, commentators had found new rivals about which to worry. Some feared the European Union. Others looked with apprehension towards China. In his article 'The Lonely Superpower' in the journal Foreign Affairs (March–April 1999), Samuel Huntington, too, saw 'unipolarity' as only a transient phenomenon: as Europe united and China grew richer, so the world would revert to a 'multipolarity' not seen since before the Second World War. In Emmanuel Todd's eyes (as seen in his book of 2002, Après l'Empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain), French fears about American 'hyperpower' ignored the reality of an impending decline and fall.

If recent rates of growth of population and output were to continue for another 20 years, America could conceivably be overtaken as the largest economy in the world by China as early as 2018. Yet it is highly unlikely that growth rates in either country will be the same in the next two decades as in the previous two. All we can say with certainty is that, in 2002, American gross domestic product, calculated in international dollars and adjusted on the basis of purchasing power parity, was nearly twice that of China and accounted for just over a fifth (21.4%) of total world output – more than Japanese, German and British shares put together.

That exceeds the highest share of global output ever achieved by Great Britain by a factor of more than two. Indeed, calculated in current US dollars, the American share of the world's gross output was closer to a third (32.3%), double the size of the Chinese and Japanese economies combined. In terms of both production and consumption, the United States is already a vastly wealthier empire than Britain ever was.

The spread of McDonald's
Nor are these the only measures of American dominance. In Britain's imperial heyday, only a handful of corporations could really be described as 'multinational', in the sense of having substantial proportions of their assets and workforce in overseas markets. Today the world economy is dominated by such firms, a substantial number of which – ranging from Exxon Mobil to General Motors, from McDonald's to Coca-Cola, from Microsoft to Time Warner – are American in origin and continue to have their headquarters in the United States.

The recent history of McDonald's provides a vivid example of the way American corporations have expanded overseas in search of new markets, much as the old Hobson–Lenin theory of imperialism would have led one to expect. In 1967, McDonald's opened its first foreign outlets in Canada and Puerto Rico. Twenty years later, it had nearly 10,000 restaurants in 47 countries and territories, and by 1997, no fewer than 23,000 restaurants in over 100 countries. In 1999, for the first time, the company's foreign sales exceeded its American sales. Today there are more than 30,000 McDonald's restaurants in over 120 countries; fewer than half – 12,800 – are in the United States.

Geographical range
Like Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald McDonald needs his map of the world, and it presents a striking alternative geography of American empire. In the words of the company's chief operating officer, 'There are 6.5 billion people on the Earth and only 270 million live in the US … Who else is positioned around the globe to deal with that opportunity?'

Coca-colonisation is a hackneyed catchphrase of the antiglobalisation 'movement', but it conveys a certain truth when one considers the geographical range of the soft drink company's sales: 30% to North America, 24% to Latin America, 22% to Europe and the Middle East, 18% to Asia and 6% to Africa. Significantly, the Real Thing's fastest-growing market is the People's Republic of China.

Unique revolution
The relatively rapid growth of the American economy in the 1980s and 1990s – at a time when the economy of its principal Cold War rival was imploding – explains how the United States has managed to achieve a unique revolution in military affairs while at the same time substantially reducing the share of defence expenditures as a proportion of gross domestic product.

The US Defense Department Green Paper published in March 2003 forecast total expenditure on national defence to remain constant at 3.5% of GDP for at least three years. That should be compared with an average figure during the Cold War of 7%. Given Paul Kennedy's 'formula' that 'if a particular nation is allocating over the long term more than 10% … of GNP to armaments, that is likely to limit its growth rates,' there seems little danger of imminent imperial overstretch.

In short, in terms of economic resources as well as of military capability, the United States not only resembles but in some respects exceeds the last great Anglophone empire.

Having seen this discussion on another forum, i'd like to present this idea to NationStates. Disregarding allies and nuclear warfare, who has the strongest military and who would come out the victor (however close) in the end. I personally say that the UK would, although it would be a war that would have no real benefactor as both nations are extremely strong. The reason I say this is because Britain has a better navy, and a better (just above par) airforce than France while it has a small army. Noting the size in relation to both countries I can safely say that Naval and Air warfare is just as important as ground.

Any other opiniojns?

Way to start a flame-war, dickwad.

Way to start a flame-war, dickwad.

that seems a little harsh,

For those whom have been arguing for British military superiority on the grounds that British forces in all fields have more combat experience, that is an enourmous pile of bullshit.

The French is army is and has been over the past decades engaged in multiple combat operations in Africa and South America, trying to stabilize unstable environments , and doing a commendable job compared to the embarassing job the the US army has done in Iraq.

The french, you say? The only war they quit was Indochina, and I remember the same thing about the Americans. The French fought on in WW1, in ww2(just not on French soil), some in korea, plenty in africa more recently, etc. Perhaps you are talking about the government of france?

And they got the ass wiped in Algeria. Yea way to fight there.

For those whom have been arguing for British military superiority on the grounds that British forces in all fields have more combat experience, that is an enourmous pile of bullshit.

Prove it!

The French is army is and has been over the past decades engaged in multiple combat operations in Africa and South America, trying to stabilize unstable environments , and doing a commendable job compared to the embarassing job the the US army has done in Iraq.

Small unit operations vs Large unit operations! Hmmmmm.... You can't compare them.

that seems a little harsh,

And inaccurate too.

The United Kingdom would be victorious with any armed confrontation with France. We have highly skilled soldiers, one of the best military records in the world and alot of combat experience. Plus we're an island.

And on the issue of the United States, yes they are powerful, however they are overstretched and can't even cope with insurgency in Iraq.

To see how many US servicemen are being killed each day see here :

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=6-2005

I just had a thought? What about the Chunnel? You know, that passageway between France and Britain?

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=6-2005

And you notice that most of our casualties came from Improvised Explosive Devices and NOT by gunfire?

I just had a thought? What about the Chunnel? You know, that passageway between France and Britain?

Don't think it would take much to remove that problem though. A few explosives thrown down the tunnel would soon render it useless to either side.

No-one'd be stupid enough to use it. One big shooting gallery.

No-one'd be stupid enough to use it. One big shooting gallery.

There will always be someone stupid enough!

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool"

"Something is only idiot-proof until they breed a better class of idiot"

-snip-


I read that book...

By the way, France was part of the coalition for "Operation Desert Storm" in 1990-1991, and took an active part in combats. They were really willing to save Kuwait from the iraqi invasion; in fact, they have sent 15000+4000 troops. The French air force took part of bombing raids, tactical strikes and air patrols.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0031858.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm

From 1991 to 1996/1997, France was part of the "Iraq no-fly zones" patrols, along with the US and the UK.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/China/china-mfa-iraqfacts.htm
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030331-war-watch01.htm

So it's not really true that they don't have recent combat experience.

I think the French army has some nice military hardware. Their planes, tanks and helicopters are very reliable, light and mobile. They don't seem to like building "moving fortresses" (Stryker! LOL) or "crazy vehicles" (A-10 Warthog, anyone?), they prefer mobility over raw firepower. They sell these hi-tech toys to countries such as Finland.

Patroling a no-fly zone =/= fighting a war. The last time France got close to an actual conflict was GW1, so it's been ~15 years since French forces have had meaningful combat experience. How much do you want to bet that any of the soldiers who fought in the first gulf war are still around?

Patroling a no-fly zone =/= fighting a war. The last time France got close to an actual conflict was GW1, so it's been ~15 years since French forces have had meaningful combat experience. How much do you want to bet that any of the soldiers who fought in the first gulf war are still around?

Maybe you didn't read the whole post before posting this reply.

I'll repeat the part you have missed:

(...) in fact, they have sent 15000+4000 troops. The French air force took part of bombing raids, tactical strikes (...)

Maybe you didn't read the whole post before posting this reply.

I'll repeat the part you have missed:

For the 1st gulf war yea. Nothing for this one and they pulled out of Operation Southern Watch. Don't know if they were part of Northern Watch or not.

Sorry Cmdr_Cody, I have misunderstood your message.
You're right about France's last major conflict being GW1.
But still, it is a fairly recent event, and it helped them prove the value of their military vehicles and weapons.

You can also add their (in)famous military operations in Cote d'Ivoire and other small countries in west Africa in 1999-2003. They managed to protect their French citizens, and helped the local army/government in some ways... against rebels... but they didn't have a precise mandate and their motives were seen as suspicious (at best).

There is a lot more to combat than just numbers. Training, the will to fight, and experiance all are huge force multipliers. As a member of the armed forces, I've seen this in action. The french haven't had the will to fight for the last 100 years.

The British army may be smaller, but France has nothing that could compare to the SAS, and I know from experiance that the Brits can handle themselves in a firefight.

Leadership has a lot to do with victory as well. Blair is a much greater leader than chirac could ever hope to be.

I'm not sue how serious this thread is, but in the unlikely event that Britain and France would go to war directly, France would win, and quickly - a week at most. What people forget is that not every war is about invading and occupying countries - Iraq and Vietnam for example. Neither Britain nor France would want to occupy the other country, nor would they want humiliate the population of the other country as they are now so interdependant - any war would simply be about scoring a quick minor victory and then the government of the loosing side would be forced from office and a peace treaty signed and concessions ceeded. France would win because British military power is extended all around the world, All over Africa, Indian Ocean, Crete, Middle East, Cypres. While France's miliatry power is closer to Metropolitan France (oh and Scotland would rebel aganist England -I live in Scotland). A war between France and Britain through proxies not only is a more likly event, but happens quite regularly in Africa. In many ways the genocide in Ruwanda can be seen as a proxy war between France and America, as the Angolan war was between America (through South Africa and Unita) and Russia (through the Cubans and the Angolan Government). As for a war between UK, France and Canada on one side and America on the other, well the US would be thumped! Why, 1 the world would back who ever won the first major victory, 2 US forces in Europe and Britain would be nutralised on the First Day - prisoner of war camps, 3 the US would be unwilling to move troops out of the Middle East and the Uzbekistan in case the Russians, Chineese or Iranians moved into the power vacume created - therefore they would be taken out of the forces avalible and again the war would be over before it had really started 4 the Island of Deaigo Garcia would be overrun quickly by the Royal Navy, 5 Nukes would be out of the question as that would collapse the world ecconomy and bring down the US's dominace with it. if a Republican Government was in office it would rip itself to pieces and a Democrat government would replace it, a Democrat government would not start a war with Europe, but if the did they would be forced out of office the day after the Bases at Ramstein and in Yorkshire are taken. In terms of men in uniform, most countries do have some fine troops, Legion d'Estrange, SAS, Gurkas, Royal Marines, US Rangers, etc etc etc, but their armies are designed for different things, The US for Major set piece high speed wars, the French for low level covert action and the British are a mixture of the two with peace keeping thrown in for good mesure. As for Canadian military problems, all countries go through that from time to time, realisng it needs fixing is the first step to fxing it - also it creates a convenient excuse not to enter dangerous Neo-Con escapades for oil.

like im gonna read all this ha good one ;) :D :)

Although French fighter jets apparently couldn't take part in the battle because the Iraqis were flying the same jets.
That's Capitalism for you. :D

like im gonna read all this ha good one ;) :D :)


Reading something as long as that might make people think a little more and prattle a little less. I have no particular love or hate of France, but cold reality is cold reality... they would beat Britain, and no amount of Paranoid Anglo Saxon "mines bigger than yours" rhetoric will change that. Any one foolish enough to beleive that 1) such a war would happen at this point in time and 2) that anything more than a handfull of soldiers and palnes would be lost by either side has clearly no concept of either countries military or political realities.

Also the American peanut gallery shouting "they didn't help us so they're shitty little cowards who don't know how to fight" should remember that only distance away from other significant powers has allowed you country to survive the last two hundred years let alone grow into the fat morass that it is now. If you had lost a significant percentage of your male population in a pointless war or fought a protracted colonial war that lead to your president having the world's record for assasination attempts and brought you to the brink of civil war you too would be aprehensive of ill thought through military adventures lead by people with absolutely no experiance of war.

Things you would never here a French person say

... and we throw that part of the animal away

I have a lovely holiday home in the south of birmingham

Your English! how nice to meet you

bon jour massur Jeremy Clarkson