NationStates Jolt Archive

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

Badly.

We do what we do best, launch a big load of wooden ships.
Since the French are in no mood to help the US this time, we win all the coastal battles.
The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).

Come cheer up my lads, tis to Glory we steer,
to add something more to the wonderful year,
to honour we call you, not press you like slaves,
for none are so free as the sons of the waves,

Hearts of Oak are our ships,
Gallant Tars are our men,
We always are ready,
steady, boysm steady!

We'll fight and we'll conquer again and again!


Save your shillings, the Empar will rise again!

If it came to it for whatever reason there would be no pussy footing like we apparently see in Iraq i'd give the Brits 4 weeks from first contact assuming no nukes were involved.

We do what we do best, launch a big load of wooden ships.
Since the French are in no mood to help the US this time, we win all the coastal battles.
The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).


You fail at history. Ever hear of a thing called the War of 1812?

Oh, and seeing as Argentina gave Britain a handful even more recently, your arrogance is absurd.

You fail at history. Ever hear of a thing called the War of 1812?
Yep. America lost. :)

Oh, and seeing as Argentina gave Britain a handful even more recently, your arrogance is absurd.
The Argentines lost. Quite badly, actually, when you consider the fact that the Royal Navy was operating without support thousands of miles from home.

Please, please let this thread die. There is no need for pages of nationalistic 'theoretical' nonsense.

a whole lot of bombs flying around and both coutrys getting turned into big big craters

You fail at history. Ever hear of a thing called the War of 1812?

Oh, and seeing as Argentina gave Britain a handful even more recently, your arrogance is absurd.


*grin*
Actually... WE won.
Which is why they're named the Falklands, NOT the Malvinas.


1812. Wasn't that one of those micey-dicey-baby-actions while we were busy trashying Tyrant Napoleon?

SNIP

Please, please let this thread die. There is no need for pages of nationalistic 'theoretical' nonsense.

Come on - this is FUN! (I've got more lyrics on file)

Yep. America lost. :)

You're out of your gourd. It basically ended as a stalemate, and the US won the last battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans) of the war. :p


The Argentines lost. Quite badly, actually, when you consider the fact that the Royal Navy was operating without support thousands of miles from home.

Sure, they lost, but not without inflicting serious losses on the RN (remember the Atlantic Conveyor and the Sheffield?). Plus, Argentina was held back from a full assault as well, as many of its forces had to be held back on the mainland due to tensions with Chile.

Well, like, America is a superpower.

If they wanted to beat us, then they could. Whether they could effect regime change... well, as long as most of our infrastructure remained, and we could continue with our comfortable lives, then there might be a few, "Erm, excuse me, I couldn't help but notice you've replaced our government with a puppet regime..." comments but no one would really argue. We're all far to apathetic and cosy in our modern houses and jobs to get worked up about stuff like that.

If the US bombed our cities and services to shit, arrested and shot Tony Blair then they might get some reactions. The positive ones to Tone being taken out might not even outweigh the negative ones to us being kersplatted into the stone age.

Outcome? A few more McDonalds on the Falklands, maybe...

You're out of your gourd. It basically ended as a stalemate, and the US won the last battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans) of the war. :p




Sure, they lost, but not without inflicting serious losses on the RN (remember the Atlantic Conveyor and the Sheffield?). Plus, Argentina was held back from a full assault as well, as many of its forces had to be held back on the mainland due to tensions with Chile.

Indeed.
Especially since the Argies had found out the hard way that they couldn't keep anything afloat on the waters, wot?
That General Belgrano and all.

If it floats, and it doesn't say 'quack', sink it!
That's how a Perisher-graduate thinks.

America would almost certainly win the actual war itself but could they handle the insurgency that would arise afterwards? They wouldn't like it up 'em, sir, they wouldn't like it up 'em.

Anyway, this thread is pointless. The British submarines have orders to fire their nuclear arsenal if radio contact with the main land ceases for over a week. The result would be a nuclear holocaust in both America and Britain, although Britain would be more holocausted, if I may use the term.

Well, like, America is a superpower.

If they wanted to beat us, then they could. Whether they could effect regime change... well, as long as most of our infrastructure remained, and we could continue with our comfortable lives, then there might be a few, "Erm, excuse me, I couldn't help but notice you've replaced our government with a puppet regime..." comments but no one would really argue. We're all far to apathetic and cosy in our modern houses and jobs to get worked up about stuff like that.

If the US bombed our cities and services to shit, arrested and shot Tony Blair then they might get some reactions. The positive ones to Tone being taken out might not even outweigh the negative ones to us being kersplatted into the stone age.

PAH!
The Welsh Guards would send the invaders packing!

Men of Harlech stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming
See their warrior's pennants streaming
To this battle field

Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Stand and never yield

Form the hills rebounding
Let this war cry sounding
Summon all at Cambria's call
The mighty force surrounding

Men of Harlech onto glory
This shall ever be your story
Keep these fighting words before ye
Cambria (Welshmen never) will not yield

PAH!
The Welsh Guards would send the invaders packing!

That's assuming they could tear themselves away from their sheep -- I mean, girlfriends. :p

Yep. America lost. :) Is that why Britain paid the US reparations afterwards and formally apologized?

Is that why Britain paid the US reparations afterwards and formally apologized?

Conveniently forgotten, of course. ;)

That's assuming they could tear themselves away from their sheep -- I mean, girlfriends. :p

*punishes Cluichstan with MORE lyrics*

Modern Words used by Regimental Band

Tongues of fire on Idris flaring,
news of foe-men near declaring,
to heroic deeds of daring,
calls you Harlech men

Groans of wounded peasants dying,
wails of wives and children flying,
for the distant succour crying,
calls you Harlech men.

Shall the voice of wailing,
now be unavailing,
You to rouse who never yet
in battles hour were failing,

His our answer crowds down pouring
swift as winter torrents roaring,
Not in vain the voice imploring,
calls on Harlech men

Loud the martial pipes are sounding
every manly heart is bounding
As our trusted chief surrounding,
march we Harlech men.

Short the sleep the foe is taking,
ere the morrows morn is breaking,
They shall have a rude awakening,
roused by Harlech men.

Mothers cease your weeping,
calm may be your sleeping,
you and yours in safety now
the Harlech men are keeping,

ere the sun is high in heaven
they you fear by panic riven
shall like frightened sheep be driven,
far by Harlech men.

America would almost certainly win the actual war itself but could they handle the insurgency that would arise afterwards? They wouldn't like it up 'em, sir, they wouldn't like it up 'em.

Anyway, this thread is pointless. The British submarines have orders to fire their nuclear arsenal if radio contact with the main land ceases for over a week. The result would be a nuclear holocaust in both America and Britain, although Britain would be more holocausted, if I may use the term.
No!
It is under copyright to Jewland, 'Mermelstien, Goldman and Nozky' are suing you as we speak.

*punishes Cluichstan with MORE lyrics*

Modern Words used by Regimental Band

Tongues of fire on Idris flaring,
news of foe-men near declaring,
to heroic deeds of daring,
calls you Harlech men

Groans of wounded peasants dying,
wails of wives and children flying,
for the distant succour crying,
calls you Harlech men.

Shall the voice of wailing,
now be unavailing,
You to rouse who never yet
in battles hour were failing,

His our answer crowds down pouring
swift as winter torrents roaring,
Not in vain the voice imploring,
calls on Harlech men

Loud the martial pipes are sounding
every manly heart is bounding
As our trusted chief surrounding,
march we Harlech men.

Short the sleep the foe is taking,
ere the morrows morn is breaking,
They shall have a rude awakening,
roused by Harlech men.

Mothers cease your weeping,
calm may be your sleeping,
you and yours in safety now
the Harlech men are keeping,

ere the sun is high in heaven
they you fear by panic riven
shall like frightened sheep be driven,
far by Harlech men.
Oh he is singing my song.:fluffle:

Conveniently forgotten, of course. ;)
As is the fact that the US disasterously failed in its invasion of Canada, it seems.

Conveniently forgotten, of course. ;)

Correction: we sent you some loot left over from Waterloo.

Anyway, so 1812 was another war in which the yanks didn't disgrace themselves since they were getting some frog-help, wot?
Jean Lafitte + pirates?

Oh he is singing my song.:fluffle:


*fluffles Harlesburg* :fluffle:

Save your shillings, the Empar will rise again!

Anyway, so 1812 was another war in which the yanks didn't disgrace themselves since they were getting some frog-help, wot?
Jean Lafitte + pirates?

That wasn't the French government. Nice try, though.

Is that why Britain paid the US reparations afterwards and formally apologized?

Yes, it is something that all Americans should take pride in. While the British were busy fighting the greatest military dictator Europe had ever known, America (land of freedom and democracy) helped the aforementioned dictator by opening up a second front for the British to deal with.

Not the first nor the last time that the word 'hypocrisy' could be used to describe American foreign policy.

That wasn't the French government. Nice try, though.

Indeed. So you had some French pirates, then?

Neither, the south would take the opportunity to rise again and Britain would ally with us, realizing that the temperature of our tea doesn't matter, only that we both put sugar in it. :p

Not the first nor the last time that the word 'hypocrisy' could be used to describe American foreign policy.

That's a good little troll... :rolleyes:

Yes, it is something that all Americans should take pride in. While the British were busy fighting the greatest military dictator Europe had ever known, America (land of freedom and democracy) helped the aforementioned dictator by opening up a second front for the British to deal with.

Not the first nor the last time that the word 'hypocrisy' could be used to describe American foreign policy.That's not why I attacked that statement. The War of 1812 was one of the stupidest most unresolved conflicts in recent history. If either said claims they "won", they're lying or just plain stupid.

That's a good little troll... :rolleyes:

Er, funny remark coming out of your location.

Anyway:

Wele goelcerth wen yn fflamio
A thafodau tan yn bloeddio,
Ar I'r dewrion ddod I daro,
Unwaith eto n un:
Gan fanllefau'r tywysogion
Llais gelynion, trwst arfogion,
A charlamiad y marchogion,
Craig ar graig a grbn!
Arfon byth ni orfydd.
Cenir yn dragywydd;
Cymru fydd fel Cymru fu,
Yn glodus ymysg gwledydd,
'Nghwyn oleuni'r goelcerth acw,
Tros wefusau Cymro'n marw,
Annibyniaeth sydd yn galw,
Am ei dewraf dyn.

Indeed. So you had some French pirates, then?

You're going to try to equate the support the US got from France in the War for Independence to a handful of privateers in the War of 1812? Nice try, but you fail.

That's not why I attacked that statement. The War of 1812 was one of the stupidest most unresolved conflicts in recent history. If either said claims they "won", they're lying or just plain stupid.
I'm neither. Honest. :)

It's just hearing Americans claim that they 'won' the War of 1812 is hardly uncommon. If they can claim a draw as a win, then I can equally claim a draw as a win. I just got in first. :p

Indeed. So you had some French pirates, then?

Sure, and armies of immigrants of all kinds.. that is the idea, after all. Using immigrants as cannon fodder is a proud tradition. :)

You're going to try to equate the support the US got from France in the War for Independence to a handful of privateers in the War of 1812? Nice try, but you fail.

No. I trash you.
Your lot isn't worth... much... unless you got Euros to back you up.
Proof of point: Vietnam.
No Euros, no victory.

Anyway: can you please say something about invading Britain with the 82nd or 101st Division?
Please?

I'm neither. Honest. :)

It's just hearing Americans claim that they 'won' the War of 1812 is hardly uncommon. If they can claim a draw as a win, then I can equally claim a draw as a win. I just got in first. :p

I've already said it ended as a stalemate. Never called it a win.

That's a good little troll... :rolleyes:

I voiced an opinion on American foreign policy in 1812. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling.

I voiced an opinion on American foreign policy. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling.

Why do you hate Amerika?

hehe why even ask the question.

We all know that we Brits would win. We used to own half the world, we're just too nice and gave it all back again!

No. I trash you.
Your lot isn't worth... much... unless you got Euros to back you up.
Proof of point: Vietnam.
No Euros, no victory.

Maybe we should've let your lot end up speaking German then.

Anyway: can you please say something about invading Britain with the 82nd or 101st Division?
Please?

It's a silly concept, invading Britain. Why bother? We'll just annex you eventually. :p

It's just hearing Americans claim that they 'won' the War of 1812 is hardly uncommon. If they can claim a draw as a win, then I can equally claim a draw as a win. I just got in first. :p

Aha, but, besides the reparations, we gained Lake Superior - easily one of the more important of the Great Lakes. Gaining land we didn't have beforehand elevates it above a draw, I'd say.

Maybe we should've let your lot end up speaking German then.



It's a silly concept, invading Britain. Why bother? We'll just annex you eventually. :p

*hisses*
I want to sing!

*sotto voce*

Anyway... please?

Why do you hate Amerika?

Hate? Hardly. I was pointing out what some might call hypocrisy on their part in the War of 1812, which is being discussed in this thread.

America could quickly invade and conquer us, I have no doubt of that.

And furthermore, there would not be the same level of insurgency as their is in Iraq. Firstly, because we sympathise with the Americans too much, at the end of the day we see them as human beings. And secondly, because we have too much to lose from giving up our lives to become insurgents... unless of course America obliterated our entire infrastructure for target practice, but one would hope they learnt their lessons (well, I wouldn't hope anyway...).

And I doubt that nukes would be launched, as America obviously wants Britain in one piece, and we Brits realise that it is much much easier to destroy a country whose industrial cities are less than 200m away than a country whose industrial cities are over 2000m away.

Hate? Hardly. I was pointing out what some might call hypocrisy on their part in the War of 1812, which is being discussed in this thread.

Now that is exactly what Cluichi considers to be vitriolic AmerikaBashing.

Maybe we should've let your lot end up speaking German then.


Probably would have been Russian, not German.

Now that is exactly what Cluichi considers to be vitriolic AmerikaBashing.

No, but I saw it as an attempt -- albeit a feeble one -- to turn this into something about Iraq. :rolleyes:

Probably would have been Russian, not German.

Yeah, cuz the Russians weren't getting their arses kicked by the Germans until the US stepped in and helped out on the Western front. How many Russian lives lost again?

No, but I saw it as an attempt -- albeit a feeble one -- to turn this into something about Iraq. :rolleyes:


DAD'S ARMY THEME SONG

Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Dubya?
If you think we're on the run,
We are the boys who will stop your little game.
We are the boys who will make you think again.
'Cus who do you think you are kidding Mr. Dubya?
If you think old England's done?

Mr. Brown goes off to town
On the 8:21.
But he comes home each evening
And he's ready with his gun.

So watch out Mr. Dubya
You have met your match in us.
If you think you can push us
We're afraid you've missed the bus.

so who do you think you are kidding Mr. Dubya?
If you think old England's done,

DAD'S ARMY THEME SONG

*snip*

ffs... :rolleyes:

Yeah, cuz the Russians weren't getting their arses kicked by the Germans until the US stepped in and helped out on the Western front. How many Russian lives lost again?

Learn history. The Red Army counter offensive got underway months before war was even declared between Germany and the USA.

Britain -v- America? What, so you're leaving Northern Ireland out?

But seriously, even if it did happen (which it won't), it won't be worth talking about because none of us would survive it, end of. Either way, we know what the Americans would do, beach invasions, and paratroopers. The Americans would know what we would have to do, naval superiority, and air superiority.

In both cases, thanks to defense cuts, we'd pretty much lose. Badly. The civilian population would probably hold out in some more defendable areas for a while (the Highlands, Peak District etc), but the Yanks would take us.

That's if it was a straight fight.

However, with the UK having ties to the EU nowadays *shudders*, I imagine we'd get some help from a few of those countries, ie France, Germany. Which would make it a harder fight for the Americans, and it'd probably end in stalemate, or WMD. That or the Canadians may think what the hell and invade the northern states of the US in order to have them divert troops to defending themselves.

Whatever, it's not going to happen. Hopefully.

Learn history. The Red Army counter offensive got underway months before war was even declared between Germany and the USA.

Yeah, and it wasn't working all that well. The Soviets got a little surprise when the Germans didn't honour that deal to carve up Poland. I've already learned history. You, on the other hand...

America could quickly invade and conquer us, I have no doubt of that.

And furthermore, there would not be the same level of insurgency as their is in Iraq. Firstly, because we sympathise with the Americans too much, at the end of the day we see them as human beings.

If you ask me, American soldiers needn't even be involved in a hypothetical invasion.. if history teaches us anything, and if the first few waves of shock troops were to face certain annihilation, well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(US)

:p

That or the Canadians may think what the hell and invade the northern states of the US in order to have them divert troops to defending themselves.

That's the funniest thing this thread has produced yet! :D

Real answer (Because my humor seems wasted on you lot) we'd have to invade Canada to prevent massive and immediate retaliation from them, and in the time that would take Britain and Australia would almost certainly arrive to attack us. A long drawn out war would ensue weakening us all and opening the door for China to do whatever it damn well pleases, or WMD would be used achieving the same result. The only scenario that would preclude this is if we swiftly secured Canada and held it hostage (Threatening use of force against civilians/ECT.) Even then, it's doubtful that you wouldn't attack.

Yeah, and it wasn't working all that well. The Soviets got a little surprise when the Germans didn't honour that deal to carve up Poland. I've already learned history. You, on the other hand...

Prior to 1941 the Germans did honour the Pact of Steel. Whilst German troops were rolling through Western Europe and the Balkans the Soviets did nothing. War didn't exist between Germany and the USSR until Operation Barbarossa, the "surprise" German attack on Russia. This offensive was halted at the gates of Moscow by a combination of one of the fiercest winters recorded and the arrival of reinforcements from Siberia, when the Red Army counter attacked and turned the tide of the battle. All before American involvement in the war. You may have learned history, but obviously not very well.

Learn history. The Red Army counter offensive got underway months before war was even declared between Germany and the USA.

Well, the Japs, presumably, would've had a say in the final outcome of the Russian front if they hadn't been diverted.. at least, that was supposedly the plan..

You know, somebody raised a good point. What about Northern Ireland? No insurgency? Pff.

Yeah, and it wasn't working all that well. The Soviets got a little surprise when the Germans didn't honour that deal to carve up Poland. I've already learned history. You, on the other hand...

By June 1944, the Russians were already winning and would have continued to win had the second front not been openned, although it would have taken them longer. Russian casualties were the highest for a very simple reason: they were fighting the vast majority of Germany's armed forces.

I think we'd give the Americans more of a handful that has been pondered here. After all, diplomatic relations would have to fall a hell of a lot for such a thing to happen, and in that time I'd imagine it'd be pretty obvious if invasion seemed probable. With military conscription, I think we'd be able to handle the Americans, especially (as Bostopia notes) with the help we'd get from our European allies, who would have no problem backing Britain over the USA.

Now, here's a much more interesting possibility; a British-led invasion of the United States. Obviously we wouldn't have the manpower to pull it off on our own, but with a big enough force (in the millions, of course), what do you all reckon? I'd say if we managed to pull off the occupation of California, a few key ports, agricultural states and Washington D.C we'd be not long for a surrender… though the fact that a large proportion of the civilian population will be armed might make the occupation force vulnerable to a spontaneous guerilla war. How well defended is the US mainland anyway, assuming a naval invasion force manages to avoid being taken out en route?

Well, the Japs, presumably, would've had a say in the final outcome of the Russian front if they hadn't been diverted.. at least, that was supposedly the plan..

Well, according to the Plan, you were supposed to be driving a Cadillac.
Tant pis for the Plan.

Well, the Japs, presumably, would've had a say in the final outcome of the Russian front if they hadn't been diverted.. at least, that was supposedly the plan..

Its generally accepted that that was Hitler's plan but he failed to deal with the intrangencies of the Japanese military led government. The Army saw the USSR as the main enemy, the Navy saw the USA as the main enemy. Needless to say, history tells us that the Navy won the argument.

Prior to 1941 the Germans did honour the Pact of Steel. Whilst German troops were rolling through Western Europe and the Balkans the Soviets did nothing. War didn't exist between Germany and the USSR until Operation Barbarossa, the "surprise" German attack on Russia. This offensive was halted at the gates of Moscow by a combination of one of the fiercest winters recorded and the arrival of reinforcements from Siberia, when the Red Army counter attacked and turned the tide of the battle. All before American involvement in the war. You may have learned history, but obviously not very well.

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.


After all your.... drivel, I guess... the main thing is: Stalin trashed Hitler.

By June 1944, the Russians were already winning and would have continued to win had the second front not been openned, although it would have taken them longer. Russian casualties were the highest for a very simple reason: they were fighting the vast majority of Germany's armed forces.

They most certainly were, thanks to France buckling so quickly. Without the second front being opened, though, it's impossible to say who would've prevailed between Russia and Germany.

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.

I was trying to point out your mistakes in claiming that the Germans failed to abide by the secret pact to carve up Poland.

BTW I'm 37, please don't call me "kid"

Now, here's a much more interesting possibility; a British-led invasion of the United States. Obviously we wouldn't have the manpower to pull it off on our own, but with a big enough force (in the millions, of course), what do you all reckon? I'd say if we managed to pull off the occupation of California, a few key ports, agricultural states and Washington D.C we'd be not long for a surrender… though the fact that a large proportion of the civilian population will be armed might make the occupation force vulnerable to a spontaneous guerilla war. How well defended is the US mainland anyway, assuming a naval invasion force manages to avoid being taken out en route?
The minute men would become paramilitary and drive you out of California. The various other paramilitary groups would attack in other states and lone gun enthusiasts would give you hell.

I was trying to point out your mistakes in claiming that the Germans failed to abide by the secret pact to carve up Poland.

BTW I'm 37, please don't call me "kid"

Someone older than I am! A rarity here! Sorry 'bout that. So used to debating with young'uns. ;)

I think we'd give the Americans more of a handful that has been pondered here. After all, diplomatic relations would have to fall a hell of a lot for such a thing to happen, and in that time I'd imagine it'd be pretty obvious if invasion seemed probable. With military conscription, I think we'd be able to handle the Americans, especially (as Bostopia notes) with the help we'd get from our European allies, who would have no problem backing Britain over the USA.

Now, here's a much more interesting possibility; a British-led invasion of the United States. Obviously we wouldn't have the manpower to pull it off on our own, but with a big enough force (in the millions, of course), what do you all reckon? I'd say if we managed to pull off the occupation of California, a few key ports, agricultural states and Washington D.C we'd be not long for a surrender… though the fact that a large proportion of the civilian population will be armed might make the occupation force vulnerable to a spontaneous guerilla war. How well defended is the US mainland anyway, assuming a naval invasion force manages to avoid being taken out en route?

That's actually an interesting scenario. Not something that I would ever believe could or would be carried out by Britain or the EU, but still an interesting idea. If in fact, the U.S. was invaded, my guess is that New York City would fall, as well as the other major coastal cities. Washington D.C. would also be occupied, however the civilian population in America is heavily armed, so the insurgency force that you'd get would trump the kind of stuff you see in Iraq or Vietnam in the 60s.

Just read the whole of this thread!! - Cluichstan, sorry but your comments are what we have come to expect - you say you have studied history, well then use it rather than slag people off.

Dont attack the Welsh Guards unless you know their full history.

The Americans would have problems if they got as far as Wales - no sheep jibes it's old hat - we have heard them all before and it makes you look small.

Cymru am byth!

They most certainly were, thanks to France buckling so quickly. Without the second front being opened, though, it's impossible to say who would've prevailed between Russia and Germany.

Certainly not. It is probable (not definite, but probable) that the Red Army could quite easily have seen off the Wehrmacht without a second front, considering troop numbers, industrial capacity, population size, etc.

This is so stupid.

Well, i THINK America would win.
However, considering the fact that we would be on enemy territory, and that Britain would be on their own land, then the US would have a problem and might not win. Also i doubt that many countries would support the US while the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING world would support Britain.

If the US declared War, or had a War with Britain to affect regime change (Something in this day and age and climate I do not consider implausible), it would of course, depend on what regime was being changed, an openly oppressive one, or a democratic one, to to attempt to try and perceive what the reaction to US aggression would be.

Let us say then, that the British military and populace fight back, more in defence of their country rather than regime (As we have seen in Iraq).

There are currently US military bases in the UK, which would, in theory, give them a headstart in any attempt to seize control of the US, by advancing with food supplies and seizing it with seizing territory.

The downside of this for the US is that the numbers there are that of a certain and unknown number, and so to an effect, are limited.

Another downside is that the US Military here in the UK, rarely, if ever, leave their bases. All their needs are at their bases, restaurants, cinemas, training facilities, game centres, bars and etc, so their geography of the UK and nearby assets in territorial terms may very well be hindered.


So let's say they leave their base and advance, they will be sighted by the British Military or British Resistance Fighters, and targetted and picked off in a manner that may perhaps be slow, but gives advantage to the British through Terrain experience.

In a one on one fight between the UK Military and the US Military, the US military may well win, but they will take heavy casualties along the way, it is certain the Royal Air Force will take on and make the USAF bleed before being quelled, and The Royal Navy will be used in a strategic manner which will drag out what may otherwise be seen as a one sided contest against the US Navy.

Then of course their is the British Army, Royal Marines, Royal Commandos, SAS, SBS.

A war with the UK would not be like having a war with Iraq. The British would make invaders suffer big time. They may lose in the end, but The British military would inflict horrible casualties upon the US Military before they themselves would be quelled into at least partisan forces.

The US Military would then, in their occupation, have to watch out for these groups, the most dangerous of a dangerous lot of chap and chapettes being the SAS and SBS, who take no prisoners, and who as a group whose modus operandi is acting behind 'enemy lines', have a reputation for slitting throats and cutting off Crown Jewels before you could say "That rather hurts".

They themselves would be ably supported by British Guerilla fighters, those with knowledge of weaponry in various fields of work both rural and urban, and for all the US Military techno weaponry as we have seen in Iraq, an insurgency can not be quelled, and as I have said before Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not Iraq, this is not even Vietnam, this is a country whose military is advanced, and whose people are proud with it, like the Iraqis and Vietnamese.

You think the Iraqi insurgency is bad, you think Vietnam was bad? Try messing with the British.

The Spanish Armada was repelled and crushed, Napoleon was repelled and crushed, and in 1940-42, The Third Reich was repelled and later crushed.

Just read the whole of this thread!! - Cluichstan, sorry but your comments are what we have come to expect - you say you have studied history, well then use it rather than slag people off.

I have been using it. It's been largely ignored.

Dont attack the Welsh Guards unless you know their full history.

The Americans would have problems if they got as far as Wales - no sheep jibes it's old hat - we have heard them all before and it makes you look small.

Cymru am byth!

'Twas just a joke, mate. ;)

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.

Considering the size of Russia, no it was not a considerable land grab.

Considering the fact that most of Russia's heavy industry and agriculture lay to the east, no it was not a considerable land grab.

Considering the enormity of Russia's human resources, it was able to replace the men it lost defending that front quite quickly. So no, it was not a considerable land grab.

The war was won at Stalingrad, not in Normandy.

Certainly not. It is probable (not definite, but probable) that the Red Army could quite easily have seen off the Wehrmacht without a second front, considering troop numbers, industrial capacity, population size, etc.

Hypothetical. Not supported by any facts. Sorry.

Considering the size of Russia, no it was not a considerable land grab.

Considering the fact that most of Russia's heavy industry and agriculture lay to the east, no it was not a considerable land grab.

Considering the enormity of Russia's human resources, it was able to replace the men it lost defending that front quite quickly. So no, it was not a considerable land grab.

The war was won at Stalingrad, not in Normandy.

The USSR's agriculture lay largely to the east? Um...Ukraine? I could've sworn that was west of Moscow...

Hypothetical. Not supported by any facts. Sorry.

*raises one eyebrow*
Well, that's on par for you.

The US Military would then, in their occupation, have to watch out for these groups, the most dangerous of a dangerous lot of chap and chapettes being the SAS and SBS, who take no prisoners, and who as a group whose modus operandi is acting behind 'enemy lines', have a reputation for slitting throats and cutting off Crown Jewels before you could say "That rather hurts".


Oh damn. :eek:

The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).


I guess you're forgetting the Battle of New Orleans.

*raises one eyebrow*
Well, that's on par for you.

Your personal attacks on me, rather than actually throwing out any facts, simply demonstrate the weakness of your "arguments."

Hypothetical. Not supported by any facts. Sorry.

Maybe, but considering the facts, a very reasonable conclusion.

I guess you're forgetting the Battle of New Orleans.

It happened when the war was supposed to be over.
Dreadfully sorry, but we had another and more important war on our minds at the time.
( Where is New Orleans these days? :p )
DK, please hold the fort while I'm off for a smoke, will you?

Your personal attacks on me, rather than actually throwing out any facts, simply demonstrate the weakness of your "arguments."

Want to hold a poll on it?

I entertain.
You bore and slag.

It happened when the war was supposed to be over.


The Battle of New Orleans was fought on 8 January 1815, and yes, while the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed, "ending" the war, word of the treaty had reached neither side. When the battle was fought, it was still being fought as if the war were still on, and technically it was. The treaty didn't officially take effect until February of that year.

It happened when the war was supposed to be over.
Dreadfully sorry, but we had another and more important war on our minds at the time.
( Where is New Orleans these days? :p )
DK, please hold the fort while I'm off for a smoke, will you?

I guess that explains why the British ran off in that battle.

Want to hold a poll on it?

I entertain.
You bore and slag.

You "entertain" with insults and personal attacks. Sorry if facts bore you.

You "entertain" with insults and personal attacks. Sorry if facts bore you.

No offence but your "facts" concerning World War Two don't seem to be too accurate.

They most certainly were, thanks to France buckling so quickly. Without the second front being opened, though, it's impossible to say who would've prevailed between Russia and Germany.

Ah yes. Of course; without the Normandy campaigns, the Soviets would have crumbled. Because the fact that the western allied forces tied down about a tenth of the Wehrmacht forces in Europe means nothing, of course. Or the fact that Operation Bagration, launched just prior to Overlord, wiped out or tied down more German divisions than were often present on the western front.

Please. Without Overlord, the Russians would have won anyway. It might have taken them a bit longer, but not by much. They had the numbers and they had the equipment; all they needed was time, second front or not.

No offence but your "facts" concerning World War Two don't seem to be too accurate.

Care to point to which ones are inaccurate? Your "facts" were all hypotheticals (e.g., Russian could've beaten Germany without the opening of the Western front).

Hypothetical. Not supported by any facts. Sorry.

It is a highly reasonable conclusion to reach that Russia could have won the war without the Normandy front.

None of the Allies can claim they won the war single handedly. However, were they all to make that claim, the Russian claim would have more validity than those of the British or the Americans.

Please. Without Overlord, the Russians would have won anyway. It might have taken them a bit longer, but not by much. They had the numbers and they had the equipment; all they needed was time, second front or not.

More hypothetical rubbish.

It is a highly reasonable conclusion to reach.

None of the Allies can claim they won the war single handedly. However, were they all to make that claim, the Russian claim would have more validity than those of the British or the Americans.

I never said any one of the Allies won the war singlehandedly. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I guess that explains why the British ran off in that battle.

That occured because of a British trait we've fortunately come out of now; Inbred Generals.

"Oh yes. The americans have dug in with trenches, and have artillery supporting them. Let's not use our naval squadron to outflank them and try and land elsewhere. Instead, we shall march towards their trenches on foot, bayonets fixed, and try and roust them that way."

And to think Packenham was related to Wellington...

Yeah, cuz the Russians weren't getting their arses kicked by the Germans until the US stepped in and helped out on the Western front. How many Russian lives lost again?

False. As stated the Russian counter offensive started before US involvment.

That occured because of a British trait we've fortunately come out of now; Inbred Generals.

"Oh yes. The americans have dug in with trenches, and have artillery supporting them. Let's not use our naval squadron to outflank them and try and land elsewhere. Instead, we shall march towards their trenches on foot, bayonets fixed, and try and roust them that way."

And to think Packenham was related to Wellington...

That was just a silly adherance to an old style of warfare, not inbred generals.

Yeah, and it wasn't working all that well. The Soviets got a little surprise when the Germans didn't honour that deal to carve up Poland. I've already learned history. You, on the other hand...

The Germans did honour the deal to carve up Poland.

Strike 2

Don't we have a puppet regime of America already?

False. As stated the Russian counter offensive started before US involvment.

Yes, started, but had it succeeded completely before the US entered?

Thought not.

More hypothetical rubbish.

So the fact that the Soviet Army could launch massive operations, such as Bagration, and tie down and destroy more German divisions than were present on the Western front is 'Hypothetical rubbish', is it now? The Russians faced the bulk of Wehrmacht and satellite divisions of the eastern front, and destroyed them. It may well have taken longer to defeat the western german forces, but it is not idiotic to presume that, given their record at the time, the Soviets could have taken the whole of Europe.

The Germans did honour the deal to carve up Poland.

Strike 2

Yeah, they honoured it further by invading the Soviet Union.

I've lost count of your strikes. :rolleyes:

So the fact that the Soviet Army could launch massive operations, such as Bagration, and tie down and destroy more German divisions than were present on the Western front is 'Hypothetical rubbish', is it now? The Russians faced the bulk of Wehrmacht and satellite divisions of the eastern front, and destroyed them. It may well have taken longer to defeat the western german forces, but it is not idiotic to presume that, given their record at the time, the Soviets could have taken the whole of Europe.

See the bolded bits. Yeah, that's the definition of hypothetical.

Yeah, the honoured it further by invading the Soviet Union.

I've lost count of your strikes. :rolleyes:

The Germans did in fact honour their pact by dividing up Poland. They did not invade the USSR for nearly a year after attacking and conquering Poland.

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.

Considering the size of the Soviet Union no it was not significant. It was barely 1/6 of the landmass area.

Strike 3

The weather should have been a nmajor consideration in planning for any invasion of Russia (see Napoleon's attempt). Not only did Hitler not prepare for a terrible winter, he didn't prepare for a winter of any sort.

Strike 4

I'm sorry, I didn't see "Could the Russians of defeated the Nazis without US/UK intervention" in the thread title. :rolleyes:

once upon a time there was a war between brittan and it's then western hemisphere colonies, the outcome being that there is now a place called america. would the world be any worse off it this had never happened?

i doubt it.

would the world be any worse off if NONE of the wars that helped shape the world we have now had ever happened?

i seriously doubt that too.

tecnologies would of course have evolved down very different paths.
we might even be better off and happier if they had.

most wars not only could have been avoided but took real effort to create. they didn't happen defacto because of cultural or economic conditions but because the bully boys that had somehow convinced whole populations to support and sustain them wanted them to.

just like the goofy bs crap wars we've got going on now.

i think histories taught to children need to stop romantacizing 'concorrors'. whatever charmers they might have been, beneath their stylish duds, they were still thuggs at heart.

wars are fought by the many for the few
and when the fighting's over
the many still get screwed.

=^^=
.../\...

Maybe we should've let your lot end up speaking German then.

Oh here we go, 'the US saved Britain's ass' give it a rest. We saw off the invasion attempt by the Germans in 1940, and we saw off their naval attempts to starve us to submission in '41-43' with the invention of Sonar helping in the defeat of U boats, and the invention of the Enigma machine which broke German codes, and the Germans were preoccupied with the USSR who were swallowing them whole.




It's a silly concept, invading Britain. Why bother? We'll just annex you eventually. :p

Not without a fight, chum. :p

See the bolded bits. Yeah, that's the definition of hypothetical.

Hey. I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire thread is hypothetical.;)

They most certainly were, thanks to France buckling so quickly. Without the second front being opened, though, it's impossible to say who would've prevailed between Russia and Germany.

France buckling quickly had no effect whatsoever on the battle in the east. The invasion of the USSR wasn't launched for over a year AFTER the fall of France.

Strike 5

So the fact that the Soviet Army could launch massive operations, such as Bagration, and tie down and destroy more German divisions than were present on the Western front is 'Hypothetical rubbish', is it now? The Russians faced the bulk of Wehrmacht and satellite divisions of the eastern front, and destroyed them. It may well have taken longer to defeat the western german forces, but it is not idiotic to presume that, given their record at the time, the Soviets could have taken the whole of Europe.

I would not waste your time trying to reason with him. He has a clearly ethnocentric view of the war, based on a Spielburg-esque interpretation whereby the Americans won the war and everyone else's contribution was marginal.

See the bolded bits. Yeah, that's the definition of hypothetical.

Just because it is hypothetical does not automatically make it unbelievable or easy to dismiss. Alternate history uses facts and theories just like any other barnch of history.

In fact, in Virtual History, edited by Niall Ferguson, one writer gives a more than believable account of just this occuring, based on Russian forces present on the Eastern front, Rusians forces, and the possible effects of the Wehrmacht forces present in the west moving to aid against the Soviet onslaught. Whilst it is of course hypothetical, it is all well researched, and I would reccomend you picking up the book.

Cluichstan - thats OK, was just being a touchy Welshman, we would fight any bu***r that attacked Wales!
Yep , you do know your history - just has a bit of an American slant to it !!!! - No offence!

Considering the size of the Soviet Union no it was not significant. It was barely 1/6 of the landmass area.

Strike 3

And how about population, industrial, and agricultural concentration? All in the eastern-most portion of the USSR. Strike against me? Try again.

The weather should have been a nmajor consideration in planning for any invasion of Russia (see Napoleon's attempt). Not only did Hitler not prepare for a terrible winter, he didn't prepare for a winter of any sort.

Strike 4

Not a strike against me. A strike against Hitler for not learning his history. Kudos to you for remembering Napoleon's invasion of Russia. You've done a little better than der Fuhrer, but you could still stand to learn a lot more.

France buckling quickly had no effect whatsoever on the battle in the east. The invasion of the USSR wasn't launched for over a year AFTER the fall of France.

Strike 5

Crete and Greece had more to do with Barbarossa failing than France falling...

Hypothetical. Not supported by any facts. Sorry.

Supported by the fact of expert opinion of most historians throughout academia, most notably AJP Taylor.

Strike 6

Consider yourself educated dullard.

Just because it is hypothetical does not automatically make it unbelievable or easy to dismiss. Alternate history uses facts and theories just like any other barnch of history.

In fact, in Virtual History, edited by Niall Ferguson, one writer gives a more than believable account of just this occuring, based on Russian forces present on the Eastern front, Rusians forces, and the possible effects of the Wehrmacht forces present in the west moving to aid against the Soviet onslaught. Whilst it is of course hypothetical, it is all well researched, and I would reccomend you picking up the book.

I'm not saying it's unbelievable, but bringing a hypothetical situation to a debate is...well, just plain silly. I will look for the book, though. It sounds like a very interesting read.

Supported by the fact of expert opinion of most historians throughout academia, most notably AJP Taylor.

Strike 6

Consider yourself educated dullard.

More personal attacks. This grows tiresome. I don't care who supports an opinion or a hypothetical. They remain just that -- opinions and hypotheticals.

And how about population, industrial, and agricultural concentration? All in the eastern-most portion of the USSR. Strike against me? Try again.

There were huge concentrations of population and industry beyond the Urals, which the Germans never touched.

I'm not saying it's unbelievable, but bringing a hypothetical situation to a debate is...well, just plain silly. I will look for the book, though. It sounds like a very interesting read.

Such hypothetical debates are not silly in the slightest. They provide an insight into possible alternate outcomes of any conflict or event, ad alow the reader to explore the consequences of actions occuring or not occuring when they did, and the effect that would have had.

An excellent example being the British redcoats failing to be rallied by the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo and not defeating the Imperial Guard when deploying out of column and into line. Such an example would have changed the course of European history.

More personal attacks. This grows tiresome. I don't care who supports an opinion or a hypothetical. They remain just that -- opinions and hypotheticals.

All six points I have raised have been FACT, not opion, conjecture, or hypotheticals. When presented with someone who refuses to listen to fact and blatantly uses their own opinion, and then accuses his opponent of the self same thing, personal attacks are all you are left with.

So yah boo:)

I never said any one of the Allies won the war singlehandedly. Please don't put words in my mouth.
How the hell did this go from US invading Britain to who would have won between teh Germans and Russians and WWII???
Please stick to the topic.

There were huge concentrations of population and industry beyond the Urals, which the Germans never touched.

Such as Siberia, where the majority of Soviet reinforcements, led by Zhukov, came from to launch the initial counter-ofensive.

Such as Siberia, where the majority of Soviet reinforcements, led by Zhukov, came from to launch the initial counter-ofensive.

Precisely.

How the hell did this go from US invading Britain to who would have won between teh Germans and Russians and WWII???
Please stick to the topic.
This is one of the traditional NS General topics "did the US save the world in WW II?"

I expect that in a conflict with Britain, America would also have to contend with - at the very least - some of the commonwealth (assuming America is an aggressor state and Britain maintains the support of its allies).

India and the Aussies, I expect, could pressure US forces in the Pacific - Canada, while incredibly weak and under-forced, could easily harass the US's northern border - or at the very least force the US to designate troops to guard the vast frontier between the two nations.

The US would have a hard time getting enough troops/supplies/ships to actually invade.

W.

Cluichstan - thats OK, was just being a touchy Welshman, we would fight any bu***r that attacked Wales!
Yep , you do know your history - just has a bit of an American slant to it !!!! - No offence!

No offense taken. The Welsh Guard has a rich history of which any Welshman should be very proud.

As for my "slant," I would beg to differ. Based on the situation at the time the US entered the war, the Allies were losing. Saying that the entry of the US and the opening of the Western front didn't help turn the tide of the war is just plain silly. And let's not forget the help the US provided Britain technologically as well. I'm going to guess that very few here have heard of Window, which was developed by the US and helped the UK attack the German Wurzburg radar sites (I guess it's only fair, though, since the Brits did give us sonar :) ).

British invasion of US, anyone?

August, 2006. Surprise British attack on Washington DC, California, New York City.

September, 2006 End of major hostilities in Washington DC, some guerilla fighting continues. President George Bush captured, key members of Congress captured, Supreme Court captured. Vice President Richard Cheney remains unaccounted for.

October, 2006 Acting President Cheney pulls troops out of Iraq to fight British invasion. Major fighting occurs in Florida, Georgia, New York City. France declares war on US.

November, 2006 Major fighting in NYC ends, largely due to French assistance. Heavy insurgency continues, there is a military hold out in Statue of Liberty, taking advantage of the defensibility of the stairs, and the fact that if the British bomb it they will have to deal with even heavier insurgency.

December, 2006 Major hostilities in California end, this time with Britain being repulsed. Christmas truce occurs on all fronts.

January, 2007 Acting President Richard Cheney approves the use of nuclear weapons. Good-bye London. In response, Russia, Japan declare war on US. Hawaii falls.

February, 2007 Under threats of full out nuclear war, Acting President Richard Cheney is forcibly removed from office. Armistice reached.

March, 2007 Treaty of York reached. US pays major reparations, cedes Hawaii, Oregon, to Britain, Guantanamo Bay military base to Russia. Military severely limited.

April, 2007 Previously obscure US military officer rises to political influence with promises to restore US to former glory. As political world is still in upheaval, gains Presidency in emergency election.

May, 2007 China invades US, taking advantage of weakened state. President deploys nuclear weapons. China replies in kind. Australia is like ‘WTF mates’.

June, 2007 Nuclear holocaust.

You know, somebody raised a good point. What about Northern Ireland? No insurgency? Pff.

NI could do very badly. Upon hearing news of the US in Britain it is likely the IRA and other dissident Republicans would go on a full offensife for freedom. No law, freedom to rampage. In addition, as demonstrated by The Troubles, the Loyalist/Unionists wouldnt give a toss about UK Forces and would probably just attack Republican neighbourhoods.

Oddly, and somewhat funny in the black humour sense, the US wouldnt have to worry about NI. They'd slaughter themselves.

* I have family in NI so don't think I'm being agressive towards those who live there, as its simply what would happen. There would be massive unrest.

***

Also, if we have had such big tax cuts in defence I don't think that really matters. US spend dozens more billions of dollars on their military. We'd never catch up. And, assuming it could happen asap, it would happen in several years time. By which point France will be run by a left-wing party and Germany will still by CSU ran. Under Cameroon France wouldnt come to our help. Merkel is cosy with US too. Rest of Europe couldnt care less.

***

Upon realising the USA is attacking it is likely other nations could attack US related outposts. If it was nuclear then North korea would almost certaintly shell South Korea and nuke it. Almost certaintly Russia would remain neutral. China could well stay completely out of it.

***

Outcome? Nuclear Winter. CND with a menancing grin declaring, ''You deserved it. We're right.''. China and Russia un-damaged and with much more power. Oh, and NI in flames.

***

All six points I have raised have been FACT, not opion, conjecture, or hypotheticals. When presented with someone who refuses to listen to fact and blatantly uses their own opinion, and then accuses his opponent of the self same thing, personal attacks are all you are left with.

So yah boo:)

Yes, of course, it's a fact that the Soviets could have won the war without the US and the opening of the Western front. You need to grab a dictionary and look up "fact."

That's the funniest thing this thread has produced yet! :D

Huzzah for me! I mean, Canada invades for some crazy reason, like, maybe they say America's been illegally stealing fish from their side of Lake (Insert Great Lake here) or something. And then America thinks 'damn, those guys are going to take Detroit! Again!' And has to divert some troops over to the US northern border.

Anyway, seeing as other people are talking 'would the USSR have beaten Germany if the Americans didn't help', I may as well throw in my thought as I said in history class a month or two ago in order to waste time, meaning the class would do less work...I think the Soviets probably would have beat the Nazis yeah. And if the Americans hadn't joined the war, the Soviets would have thought 'meh, why not go the whole hog' and then we'd find Stalin sipping champagne on the French riviera while getting a rather nice suntan.

Excuse the effects of my crazy imagination. Anyway, the USA did get involved, and did (along with the UK + Empire/Commenwealth) stop the Soviets from making massively major gains, so what I just said doesn't really matter.

How the hell did this go from US invading Britain to who would have won between teh Germans and Russians and WWII???
Please stick to the topic.

Yeah, my fault this one got derailed... :rolleyes:

Huzzah for me! I mean, Canada invades for some crazy reason, like, maybe they say America's been illegally stealing fish from their side of Lake (Insert Great Lake here) or something. And then America thinks 'damn, those guys are going to take Detroit! Again!' And has to divert some troops over to the US northern border.


No, really, you have to admit that the concept of Canada invading the US does at least give you a chuckle. :)

We do what we do best, launch a big load of wooden ships.
Since the French are in no mood to help the US this time, we win all the coastal battles.
The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).


Save your shillings, the Empar will rise again!
Don't forget New Orleans...

January, 2007 Acting President Richard Cheney approves the use of nuclear weapons. Good-bye London. In response, Russia, Japan declare war on US. Hawaii falls.

Goodbye London and a rather large portion of English people thanks to radioactivity. Living 90 miles north of London, I think I'd be fairly done for if the wind happened to blow in the wrong direction. Then again, that might do away with Birmingham as well. Not all bad.

China replies in kind. Australia is like ‘WTF mates’.

Best.Animation.Ever.

Japan declare war on us? I just can't see that for some reason...

Japan declare war on us? I just can't see that for some reason...

Good point.

What're ya gonna do, chopstick us?

Good point.

What're ya gonna do, chopstick us?
Maybe they'll beam pokemon on all the T.V. stations and give us seizures. :p

Japan declare war on us? I just can't see that for some reason...

I never said they were going to invade. ;) Just declare war.

Oh here we go, 'the US saved Britain's ass' give it a rest. We saw off the invasion attempt by the Germans in 1940, and we saw off their naval attempts to starve us to submission in '41-43' with the invention of Sonar helping in the defeat of U boats, and the invention of the Enigma machine which broke German codes, and the Germans were preoccupied with the USSR who were swallowing them whole.






Not without a fight, chum. :p

Wow...good number of people now jumping into this thread and posting without reading it. Fun. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the Portugal-Mexico match is underway, so I'm going to hafta bail on this. Sorry, but the World Cup take precedence over this. :p

Anyway, the Portugal-Mexico match is underway, so I'm going to hafta bail on this. Sorry, but the World Cup take precedence over this. :p

OH GOD I FORGOT! Who scored?

I'll come back later before I start spamming this thread even more than these three sentences already have.

First of Britain would ahve pleanty of warning as a sizable (i'm talking hundreds of thousands) force would have to be developed. The US would probably have an advantage in numbers and naval superiority. hwoever with the British fighters flying from home the air battle would be won by the british. The American airforce would have to fly-from carriers while the british would be close to home and be able to replenish it's losses.

So, early on, while the Americans cross the Atlantic Britians air-superiority grows as they get clsoer and the British advantages in that area grow. There would then be a naval clash which the Americans would win. there fleets sheer size would beat the better armed and trained british fleet. Hwoever the US would lsoe more than half it's ships anbd a lot of it's aircraft and carriers.

With british air-advantage, with support pouring in from the EU and China/Russia ect the US would be in trouble. the sensable thing to do would be retreat as I think it'd be pritty much impossable for the US homeland to be taken. Mostlikly you'd have aready lost hawaii and I'm pritty sure Canada and Mexico would be arming. It would be likley that the Chinise and Russians would be thinking about invading your easten states. With the power of the red army and the russians you'd have serious problems. Alaska would probably fall to the Canadians.

But presume that you don't pull back and carry on your attack. any landing would be hellish, landing it Wales would be very, very foolish as the Welsh mountains would made any progress hard, along with the armed civillian populance (Who would be armed, no doubt the home-guard would ahev been restarted and the farmers would ahev armed themselves. I also guess you'd avoid landing in Liverpool or one of the ports, and you'd avoid attacking N.Ireland as well. I'd say you'd try to attack some secluded scottish beach or Cornwall. Cornwall ebing the most likly as it's clsoer to the key centers of power.

The problem here is that you'd be facing not only British fighters and bkmbers but also the French, attacking Cornwall would put you in range of there airforce and they would be able to land troops to support the Uk easly. You'd also have to face the EU fleet.

Presume that somehow you get a beachead. You'd make rapid progress through the coutnryside as the smaller British forces fall abck. But you'd lsoe a lot of casultys to the SAS and SBS and otehr special forces. The British troops would amke a stand in the cities and I don't think that you'd be able to take them. tehre too big, too well armed and you'd have serious casultys by this time. Support from the EU would be pouring in from the EU and the Commonwealth and slowly you'd be force back. No doubt you'd try to ruin the coutnry as you retreat but eventually you'd be forced from the isles.

The casultys would be in millions from both sides. The US would lose mroe people than the Brits though as the British forces are better trained. The sheer application of effort to attack britian would mean the Us would be weak and China, Oz, and Russia would probably invade the Western states. You'd probably lose those. the Northern states would be in touble from a Candian and EU attack as the EU coutnrys led by the remaining British troops attempts to exact revenge. The big citys would fall but casultys would be huge for both sides and eventually the EU force would withdraw leaving the US easten states decimated. I think texas may well afall as well.

In the easten states I think that the outerlying states and Alaska would fall and stay concored by China, Russia and Canada. You'd probably be able to nagotiate Calanfornia and Washington (I think there the names) back but Alaska would stay Canadian.

end result, tens of millions dead, southern England and east and West USA ruined. The EU and China appear as Superpowers while the US and Britian attempts to recover, both ebcoming second rate powers.

OH GOD I FORGOT! Who scored?

I'll come back later before I start spamming this thread even more than these three sentences already have.

Head to the thread on the match. That's probably the only one I'll be able to follow properly while I'm watching the match. ;)

I never said they were going to invade. ;) Just declare war.
Personally, I think Japan'd side with the US. We helped the rebuild and help to turn them into an economic powerhouse, I think they love us like a person loves a dog. ;) On another note, would the UK citizenry allow such an invasion/occupation to occur? Would they force the EU to pull out?

I also guess you'd avoid landing in Liverpool

[Soldier 1] Hey Hank, where'd our tank tracks go?

(Please let there be no Scousers on this thread)

[Soldier 1] Hey Hank, where'd our tank tracks go?

(Please let there be no Scousers on this thread)

nice one

Personally, I think Japan'd side with the US. We helped the rebuild and help to turn them into an economic powerhouse, I think they love us like a person loves a dog. ;) On another note, would the UK citizenry allow such an invasion/occupation to occur? Would they force the EU to pull out?

Well, we assume that if Britain is invading, they've got a reason. Maybe the US nuked Iran?

[Soldier 1] Hey Hank, where'd our tank tracks go?

(Please let there be no Scousers on this thread)
It's true, theres o many guns in our citys that it'd be hell to attack any city. Whats more the Brits would know tehre way around-and the british Special forces would run riot....and of course they'd have no tyres for there jeeps every night....

The casultys would be in millions from both sides. The US would lose mroe people than the Brits though as the British forces are better trained. The sheer application of effort to attack britian would mean the Us would be weak and China, Oz, and Russia would probably invade the Western states. You'd probably lose those. the Northern states would be in touble from a Candian and EU attack as the EU coutnrys led by the remaining British troops attempts to exact revenge. The big citys would fall but casultys would be huge for both sides and eventually the EU force would withdraw leaving the US easten states decimated. I think texas may well afall as well.

In the easten states I think that the outerlying states and Alaska would fall and stay concored by China, Russia and Canada. You'd probably be able to nagotiate Calanfornia and Washington (I think there the names) back but Alaska would stay Canadian.
You're thinking like a european, population density in the middle states is extremly low, if you secure the eastern and weastern fronts you can just claim the middle. (Assuming we don't manage to pull back large amounts of our forces.)

the americans?! hahaha... all big talk from the counrty that gave the world 'friendly fire'!! :p

It's true, theres o many guns in our citys that it'd be hell to attack any city. Whats more the Brits would know tehre way around-and the british Special forces would run riot....and of course they'd have no tyres for there jeeps every night....

Yeah, I think the defenders would find it easier to fight street-to-street though. Then again, I think the Americans (or any attackers) would have given Liverpool a good naval shelling and bombing from the air before an invasion.

Well, we assume that if Britain is invading, they've got a reason. Maybe the US nuked Iran?
So the U.S. wouldn't have a reason? What would happen if we managed to convince the E.U. to remain neutral?

[QUOTE=BogMarsh]We do what we do best, launch a big load of wooden ships.
Since the French are in no mood to help the US this time, we win all the coastal battles.
The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).

yeah and for the 3 years before yorktown when the french wernt there...who was the body guard then.....?


just a question. not trying to belittle the all powerful british army of the 18th century or anything.

Yeah, I think the defenders would find it easier to fight street-to-street though. Then again, I think the Americans (or any attackers) would have given Liverpool a good naval shelling and bombing from the air before an invasion.



the UK has nukes...America has nukes.......uhhh they'd probably nuke eachother into submission

the americans?! hahaha... all big talk from the counrty that gave the world 'friendly fire'!! :p
Aren't the Brits the ones with live fire spec ops training? :eek:

Operation 'Biting' comes to mind when talking about attacking wurzburg Radar sites and Window Technology

You're thinking like a european, population density in the middle states is extremly low, if you secure the eastern and weastern fronts you can just claim the middle. (Assuming we don't manage to pull back large amounts of our forces.)
I know ti's low population density but it's still millions of people, many of whom would ahev weapons. Even with a army of 6 million that only be one soildier for 10 or 11 Americans. inavding any highly-developed nation is impossablenowdays.e specally a Sueprpower like the US. The way I listed above would be the only way to do it, kill off it's force via a bottleneck (Britian in this case) and attacking from every direction, and even then you wouldn't be able to take most of it. The only reason I said that the western states would fall was the size of Russia and Chinas millitarys. The EU wouldn't be able to feild enough men to pacify the most densly populated states. As ay, they could take the citys for a while but would be pushed back in the end.

the UK has nukes...America has nukes.......uhhh they'd probably nuke eachother into submission
Nukes begat nukes. Look at Pakistan and India, IIRC they recently fought without nuking one another.

Yeah, I think the defenders would find it easier to fight street-to-street though. Then again, I think the Americans (or any attackers) would have given Liverpool a good naval shelling and bombing from the air before an invasion.
That'd only slightly reduce the population and give the defenders mroe to sue as cover. To be honest Liverpool is a ruin anyway so I dont' think nayone would notice...

The Russians said the shelling of Stalingrad made there job easier. The Americans rely on Tanks and the rubble would block roads and only soemone who lived there would know the ebst ways aroudn the city. I think they'd rpefer a intact city.

it would help them get a breachead tho.

the UK has nukes...America has nukes.......uhhh they'd probably nuke eachother into submission

Why bother nuking though? Britain only has a couple dozen nukes anyway I think, all on submarines somewhere or other.

Anyway, one side using a nuke would automatically become the 'bad guys' in the eyes of the world, no matter who declared war on who. A nuke would only encourage someone else to join in, now being able to claim a moral highground for joining in, and using WMD against the person who originally used nuke.

The EU wouldn't be able to feild enough men to pacify the most densly populated states. As ay, they could take the citys for a while but would be pushed back in the end.
I can accept that. Personally I'm not so sure the EU would support anyone in such a war.

Why bother nuking though? Britain only has a couple dozen nukes anyway I think, all on submarines somewhere or other.

Anyway, one side using a nuke would automatically become the 'bad guys' in the eyes of the world, no matter who declared war on who. A nuke would only encourage someone else to join in, now being able to claim a moral highground for joining in, and using WMD against the person who originally used nuke.
Yupp, every tinpot dictatorship would be itching to test it's new weapon on whoever launched nukes.

Operation 'Biting' comes to mind when talking about attacking wurzburg Radar sites and Window Technology

+50,000 points to the noob. Well done! Methinks I'm gonna like you. :D

And, to continue my rant... July 2007, nuclear winter begins. Southern hemisphere, already being in the middle of winter, is hit hardest. Except Australia, who's still like 'WTF Mates?'

Then things go one of two ways.

1.

August 2007, due to natural selection and some spare radiation, the smartest penguins survive, and get jumped to the top of the food chain, eating dead seals to survive.

September 2007, George the Penguin (translated from Penguinese) bring all of Antartica under the rule of his iron flipper.

October 2007, the Artic/Antartic cold war begins. The large influx of horrible puns that results leads to the world exploding.

Or... on a somewhat more realistic note...

2.

August 2007, massive southern/northern migrations, with the result of some seventy percent of the world's population clustering around the equator, which is the only area still warm enough to support human life. Needless to say, violence breaks out, and at the end we're down to about 30% of the world's previous population.

September 2007, at this point global warming takes over, and we're gonna skip ahead a bit to...

July 2008, As migration back to native homelands commences, we see an incredible change in wildlife, with a tendency towards lots of hair, and often greater size. Due to the amount of people who can't be bothered to move back, we see Latin America, Northen Africa, and the Middle East as the world superpowers.

+50,000 points to the noob. Well done! Methinks I'm gonna like you. :D

Operating 'Biting'? This looks like a job for...WIKIPEDIA!

Yupp, every tinpot dictatorship would be itching to test it's new weapon on whoever launched nukes.

Actually, the person who uses nukes becoming the bad guy was most of the logic behind my saying Japan weighs in with the Brits.

Operating 'Biting'? This looks like a job for...WIKIPEDIA!

If the magazine I used to work for still had its website up, you'd have even better info thank wiki could provide. We ran several articles on Wurzburgs and Window.

July 2008, As migration back to native homelands commences, we see an incredible change in wildlife, with a tendency towards lots of hair, and often greater size. Due to the amount of people who can't be bothered to move back, we see Latin America, Northen Africa, and the Middle East as the world superpowers.
population/population density does not mean power, ask India or Japan.

Actually, the person who uses nukes becoming the bad guy was most of the logic behind my saying Japan weighs in with the Brits.
Oh. Ok. I was wrong. You were right. :)

population/population density does not mean power, ask India or Japan.

Or China? Anyways, among the people that stay are... um... the really smart scientists. Yeah. I'm going with that. Like everybody stealing the German scientists after WWII.

Anyways, it's also that everywhere else is rebuilding to a far greater extent than they are.

A land invasion of America, by anyone, would not go well. I mean, you've got the Megalopolis sprawl of BosWash, a completely insane west coast, and let's not forget...the South, where everyone owns a gun and most are hunters. And it's miles and miles of gullys and dense forests in some parts. It's like the Vietnam of America, except instead of the Vietcong you'd have the rednecks.

Or China? Anyways, among the people that stay are... um... the really smart scientists. Yeah. I'm going with that. Like everybody stealing the German scientists after WWII.

Anyways, it's also that everywhere else is rebuilding to a far greater extent than they are.
Right, because a early 1st-2nd world nation could easily feed scores of refugies/new citizens without the support of major countries. :rolleyes: :p

A land invasion of America, by anyone, would not go well. I mean, you've got the Megalopolis sprawl of BosWash, a completely insane west coast, and let's not forget...the South, where everyone owns a gun and most are hunters. And it's miles and miles of gullys and dense forests in some parts. It's like the Vietnam of America, except instead of the Vietcong you'd have the rednecks.
Guns are owned not just in the South.

It's pretty much a red state thing. Your blue states will probably surrender, and the rest of the country would make the occupation of Iraq look like a holiday at a nunnery.

A land invasion of America, by anyone, would not go well. I mean, you've got the Megalopolis sprawl of BosWash, a completely insane west coast, and let's not forget...the South, where everyone owns a gun and most are hunters. And it's miles and miles of gullys and dense forests in some parts. It's like the Vietnam of America, except instead of the Vietcong you'd have the rednecks.
Have to agree, try to blockade us would be best, without our imports our economy would fall even flatter.

Guns are owned not just in the South.

It's pretty much a red state thing. Your blue states will probably surrender, and the rest of the country would make the occupation of Iraq look like a holiday at a nunnery.

When push came to shove, even those in blue states would fight back in a heartbeat. Thinking otherwise is just believing an arseload of absurd rhetoric.

Right, because a early 1st-2nd world nation could easily feed scores of refugies/new citizens without the support of major countries. :rolleyes: :p

Which major countries? They're all gone, remember? And why do you think 40% of the world's population disappeared?

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

I really hope the Brits would kick our asses. Somebody needs to.

Guns are owned not just in the South.

It's pretty much a red state thing. Your blue states will probably surrender, and the rest of the country would make the occupation of Iraq look like a holiday at a nunnery.
Depends on how hardcore the blue states are, Molotov cocktail comrade? :p

I really hope the Brits would kick our asses. Somebody needs to.
Unless Britain used nuclear weapons, the UK would be pwned.

Depends on how hardcore the blue states are, Molotov cocktail comrade? :p
Given their politics, they would welcome any UK forces with open arms.

Which major countries? They're all gone, remember? And why do you think 40% of the world's population disappeared?
Right, so they wouldn't have the support and be super hard hit, that was my point. I kinda disregarded the 40%...

PAH!
The Welsh Guards would send the invaders packing!

Men of Harlech stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming
See their warrior's pennants streaming
To this battle field

Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Stand and never yield

Form the hills rebounding
Let this war cry sounding
Summon all at Cambria's call
The mighty force surrounding

Men of Harlech onto glory
This shall ever be your story
Keep these fighting words before ye
Cambria (Welshmen never) will not yield


FUCKIN BRILLIANT SONG!!

You know, somebody raised a good point. What about Northern Ireland? No insurgency? Pff.

Might as well just let Northern Ireland run the entire defence. We'd give you Englishers lessons on insurgency techniques, and you can bask in our glory.

Given their politics, they would welcome any UK forces with open arms.
I answer with...
When push came to shove, even those in blue states would fight back in a heartbeat. Thinking otherwise is just believing an arseload of absurd rhetoric.
And the fact that hard core commies can be patriotic too. I don't agree with alot of US politics, but if ANY other country tried to impose anything on my homeland, I'd fight them tooth and nail.

Unless Britain used nuclear weapons, the UK would be pwned.
I know :(.

Seriously, my country right now is pretty much acting exactly the same way my 13 year old cousin was acting last year: getting in fights with every kid on the playground, pushing all the girls in the mud, calling everybody a "fag," refusing to do homework or learn anything in school, and generally just being a pain in the ass 13 year old brat. America needs to be grounded and sent to its room until it graduates high school.

QUOTE
+50,000 points to the noob. Well done! Methinks I'm gonna like you.
Cheers!!!!!!!! :)

I know :(.

Seriously, my country right now is pretty much acting exactly the same way my 13 year old cousin was acting last year: getting in fights with every kid on the playground, pushing all the girls in the mud, calling everybody a "fag," refusing to do homework or learn anything in school, and generally just being a pain in the ass 13 year old brat. America needs to be grounded and sent to its room until it graduates high school.
Girls? Homework? You take the metaphor a little too far. ;)

Right, so they wouldn't have the support and be super hard hit, that was my point. I kinda disregarded the 40%...

Besides, we've got a huge drop in temperature, even in the Equatorial Band, and we've got crop specialists from all over the world, who would undoubtedly gain a great deal of influence in this situation.

I find it ironic that in a discussion of who would win a war in this day and age the military is the only focus. If Vietnam and Iraq have taught us anything, is that there are two ways to win a war: militarily and politically. In Vietnam, there was not a single battle of consequence that the United States lost and in Iraq, our military successfully deposed a dictator with one of the largest armies in the world in a little over 30 days. That's unheard of in the history of warfare. And yet, somehow, we've "lost" these wars.

So, to reduce a hypothetical war between America and our brothers in the UK to mere military might and nukes is absurd. Politics is the key factor for the success of any war in this day and age. The success of the invasion, whether it is the US > UK or UK > US, would be entirely dependent upon the reasons for going to war. The only way in which a U.S. invasion of the UK would be successful is if there was a darn good reason for doing it. Assuming there was a darn good reason for doing it, it would also follow that other former allies of Britain would have a darn good reason for being against them too. In other words, with as close as America and Britain are, if there was something bad enough to cause a rift between them, it would most likely be something bad enough to cause a rift between other traditional allies. Alliances would be a huge factor. If the EU supported Britain, the invasion would fail. If the EU supported the US, the invasion would be a tremendous success. Furthermore, a war effort is only as successful as the support it receives from home. That being said, it would be difficult for any invasion on the part of the US to be successful because of Americans themselves.

Any invasion of the United States on the part of Britain, however, would be a disaster. While most Americans would otherwise prefer to stick there heads in the sand than fight, a invasion by Britain, specifically, would resurrect enough historical drama to engage them. We had to fight Britain for our Independence once, we had to fend off their invasion to keep our Independence, and I don't think any American would stand for a third round of this. Now, if another nation like, say, Canada invaded us, that's another story. I can see plenty of Blue State Americans coming up with some sort of logic to blame that on the US and justify the Canadians in doing so.

Its all about politics today. Military might is virtually irrelevent.

I know :(.

Seriously, my country right now is pretty much acting exactly the same way my 13 year old cousin was acting last year: getting in fights with every kid on the playground, pushing all the girls in the mud, calling everybody a "fag," refusing to do homework or learn anything in school, and generally just being a pain in the ass 13 year old brat. America needs to be grounded and sent to its room until it graduates high school.

Could you please elaborate?

I fail to see how retaliating against a nation that broke the terms of a ceasefire over 18 times is being a "bully." Back when people understood virtue, that would be called "justice."

Could you please elaborate?

I fail to see how retaliating against a nation that broke the terms of a ceasefire over 18 times is being a "bully." Back when people understood virtue, that would be called "justice."
I have one thing to say to you... :fluffle: ;)

I guess that explains why the British ran off in that battle.

Naw. It's just that all those bayou's are bad for our shiny red coats.

Its all about politics today. Military might is virtually irrelevent.
We haven't lost in Iraq. As for Vietnam, we should of followed through.

We haven't lost in Iraq. As for Vietnam, we should of followed through.

Oh I know. I agree. That's why I put the word "lost" in quotes. ;)

we had to fend off their invasion to keep our Independence

To be fair, it was more a counter-invasion. But still, yes, you had to fight to keep your independence. Your capital city got practically burnt down and you kept on fighting. Darn that American spirit. (Even if it did work in the 1 - 1 draw against Italy. Hooray!)

To be fair, it was more a counter-invasion. But still, yes, you had to fight to keep your independence. Your capital city got practically burnt down and you kept on fighting. Darn that American spirit. (Even if it did work in the 1 - 1 draw against Italy. Hooray!)

lol!

Oh I know. I agree. That's why I put the word "lost" in quotes. ;)
ah ok

I guess that explains why the British ran off in that battle.

As I understood it (thank you history channel), our plan was to sail a boat across the river, and for those guys to attack the US artillery from the opposite side of the river to the artillery. Then, with that artillery otherwise engaged (pun not intended...oh what the heck, yes it was), the main part of our force would attack the artillery by just straight charging at it.

Unfortunately, our boat got swept downstream furthur than expected, the artillery wasn't firing on those guys, so our main force got pretty much obliterated. I won't mention the fact we outnumbered the Americans, for pride's sake.

I won't mention the fact we outnumbered the Americans, for pride's sake.
You just did. :p

We haven't lost in Iraq. As for Vietnam, we should of followed through.
Followed through to do what?

Kill everyone?

You'd have "What were they like?" as the anthem of every university in anyway peaceful forever.

For those of you who don't know what "What were they like?" is, it was (and is, I suppose) a poem about the Vietnam war, structured in question and answer form.

Followed through to do what?

Kill everyone?

No, just drive them back into the north.

No, just drive them back into the north.

Viet Cong- Rebel group comprised of South Vietnamese Communists. Can't drive 'em back north if they weren't there to begin with.

We totally would have won if Chesty Puller was still in command, though. :)

Well, the UK does not have enough food resources to feed its people if the US stops exporting to them, and the UK has a lot less people, not to mention them all being crammed on several islands. I think because of the US's large access to military power, resources, and man power, it will definately win in the long shot even if it does not overcome the UK in the beginning with brute force.

I'm going to have to agree with Bottle here. America, my own country, pisses me off with alot of our foriegn pollicies. We feel WE should police the world, as long as it benefits us in some way, and thats just a bit obsurd IMO. Our forces could be so much better put to use, but I wont even start that rant here.

As for America invading Britian...
1 on 1- I would say we would win. Not easily. However several other countries would be quick to Britians aide, and we would surely be taught a lesson on why trying that invasion was rather stupid. Although I honestly wouldn't put something like that notion past Bush.

As for Britian invading the US.
1 on 1- Would be Britian loosing horridly. With assistance from other countries I still think in the end those invading countries would pull out due to the sheer numbers of our population being armed. The losses taken trying to fight millions of armed civilians fighting for thier country wouldn't be worth it in the end. However we would be left severly crippled ecenomically, and hard to say what exactly we would do at that point.

Just my 2c worth.
p.s. Can I come live with you guys over in the European area? You guys have all the good beers anyways :D

Followed through to do what?

Kill everyone?

You'd have "What were they like?" as the anthem of every university in anyway peaceful forever.

For those of you who don't know what "What were they like?" is, it was (and is, I suppose) a poem about the Vietnam war, structured in question and answer form.

The problem with Vietnam and Iraq is that politicians have too much control over the war. It should be left to the military.

The other problems had to do with training for jungle environments, not knowing the land, and not having enough force concentrated at one time. What we did was just bomb random places of jungle and send in a couple platoons of troops via helicopter to patrol an area. What we should have done is had rushed in with full force.

Yeah, I think the defenders would find it easier to fight street-to-street though. Then again, I think the Americans (or any attackers) would have given Liverpool a good naval shelling and bombing from the air before an invasion.

Well, it can only brighten the place up.

america would only win if they could get troops into britain and even then it would b a long shot because they dont know the land and we would be able to fight the best gorilla war ever seen
the british were recently voted the most violent in europe and 2nd most violent in the world

were i live in manchester a guy was killed by 12 chavs one had a 2x4
he was killed for being in the wrong chip shop

people from greater manchester will understand the rochdale v bury turf wars

as for liverpool, newcastle and moss side
the americans will never get in there
theres scousers, jordies and mancunians on the watch
america wouldnt be able to deal with the gangs if they went in on foot

and they wouldnt nuke us because were too close to europe

sayin they did nuke us they would have all our little friends to deal with as well

basicaly if american attacked britain they would have to fight the rest of the world especialy russia, france, canada, italy and china

china are our friends because we used to own hong kong and when we gave it back in 1992 most of hong kong wanted to remain colonial

basicaly even though most of the world hate us they still hate the americans more (no offence i personaly like the americans because i play lacrosse)

i think if america invaded Britain they would lose.

if Britain invaded america we would lose

According to some amercian litriture a friend gave me (not the best source) they have less nukes than Britain and the nukes they have are in less defndable positions

this means for Britain to counter attack the americans all we'd have to do is target their nuclear bunkers.

though i think that a sea fight would be a stalemate, an air fight would be won as all the planes crashing on British soil would be collected and rebuilt just like in WWII.

an all out war of american soldiers and British soldiers would be easily won my the British as the americans have not learnt not to throw everything at their enemy at once and wait for the smoke to clear. (Gallipoli)

also our special services are the best in the world

the american ones just suck

+ the eu and un would not be pleased that u set off nukes so close to europe
possibly even hitting europe

the final out come is that the rest of the world invades america and divides it between them selves

it would be good to see a union jack flying at the white house
and the queens head on mt rushmore

muahahaha

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

The US does not at the moment have the available forces to involve itself in an operation the size of which would be required to acomplish an invasion of the UK. Period. Full Stop. If we pulled out all units from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, peace keeping and other obligations in the Balkans, Korea, and elsewhere, and activated every reserve and NG unit, we might have the necessary manpower to invade, but we would not have the manpower to occupy.

And, as some posters are taking this the other way, the UK has neither the power projection capacity, the man power, nor the industrial base to defeat the US.

america would only win if they could get troops into britain and even then it would b a long shot because they dont know the land and we would be able to fight the best gorilla war ever seen
the british were recently voted the most violent in europe and 2nd most violent in the world

were i live in manchester a guy was killed by 12 chavs one had a 2x4
he was killed for being in the wrong chip shop

people from greater manchester will understand the rochdale v bury turf wars

You've got gorillas?!? :eek:

http://web.bryant.edu/~langlois/ecology/gorilla.jpg

Shite! We'd better call off the invasion! :p

this means for Britain to counter attack the americans all we'd have to do is target their nuclear bunkers.
Ok, it's a BUNKER it's made to withstand such an attack(not so sure if we still have these). Also, in the time it'd take for your missles to get here we'd be able to launch ALSO we have missle submarines, ALSO the rest of the world would pwn you for starting a nuclear war. Research is your friend. :cool:

also our special services are the best in the world

the american ones just suck
my cousin was in the SAS and helped train the american special forces lol

+ no one would hit anyone with nukes because they would all just intercept each other over the pond

america have reason to fear us still
i dont think britain will go out without a bang

remember winston churchills plan if the nazis invaded us

gorilla war boyz thats the way
and who does gorilla better than the SAS

my cousin was in the SAS and helped train the american special forces lol

+ no one would hit anyone with nukes because they would all just intercept each other over the pond

america have reason to fear us still
i dont think britain will go out without a bang

remember winston churchills plan if the nazis invaded us

gorilla war boyz thats the way
and who does gorilla better than the SAS

Gorillas again?!? :eek:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2003/09/30/1064921967_8534

You've got gorillas?!? :eek:

http://web.bryant.edu/~langlois/ecology/gorilla.jpg

Shite! We'd better call off the invasion! :p
we got the best gorilla of em all his name is john prescot lol

How would the war turn out?
The British would send the variouse football firms to invade the US and one week later the US surrenders.

Ok, it's a BUNKER it's made to withstand such an attack(not so sure if we still have these). Also, in the time it'd take for your missles to get here we'd be able to launch ALSO we have missle submarines, ALSO the rest of the world would pwn you for starting a nuclear war. Research is your friend. :cool:
yes but u started the war
all we did was invade egypt and take back a few colonies

*laughs* the US would crush any British opposition period. we kicked englands ass twice. they might as well surrender.

According to some amercian litriture a friend gave me (not the best source) they have less nukes than Britain and the nukes they have are in less defndable positions

That's news to me. I thought there was this whole Cold War thing in the 80s during which time we built up one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

I could be wrong though.

*laughs* the US would crush any British opposition period. we kicked englands ass twice. they might as well surrender.

Just to keep things on topic, we're talking about Britain here, not France. :p

*laughs* the US would crush any British opposition period. we kicked englands ass twice. they might as well surrender.

Oh god, not you again...

United Kingdom — Population: 60,441,457

United States — Population: 295,734,134

United States — GDP: $ 11,750,000,000,000

United Kingdom — GDP: $ 1,782,000,000,000

Budgets 2002 for NATO countries in billions of US dollars

United States of America 329.00
United Kingdom 38.40


Why did you even ask ? What was the point of this thread ?


In fact add up all these countries..

United Kingdom 38.40
France 29.50
Germany 24.90
Italy 19.40
Spain 8.40
Canada 7.40
Netherlands 6.60
Turkey 5.80
Norway 3.80
Greece 3.50
Poland 3.50
Belgium 2.53
Denmark 2.40
Czech Republic 1.62
Portugal 1.30
Romania 1.15
Hungary 1.08
Slovakia 0.45
Bulgaria 0.43
Slovenia 0.31
Lithuania 0.23
Luxembourg 0.18
Estonia 0.13
Latvia 0.12
Iceland 0.03




The US military is still in spending alone almost double ?



United States of America Country Britain
Flag
$399 Billion Yearly Military Expense $42,836.5 Million
3.9% % of GNP 2.4%
18 Min. Enlist Age 16
73,597,731 Available Manpower 14,943,016
471,500 Active Military 113,900 (6,380 women)
220,000 Frontline Personnel 65,000
18,169 Aircraft 1,891
29,920 Armor 5,121
5,178 Artillery 455
35,324 Missile Defense 1,575
2,441 Infantry Support 3,236


Umm...like dirty Harry once said..." go ahead make my day "

Naval comparison is even worse...

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp3/tsp3tab2.html

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000

The US has Naval forces larger than the rest of the world combined .

The US does not at the moment have the available forces to involve itself in an operation the size of which would be required to acomplish an invasion of the UK. Period. Full Stop. If we pulled out all units from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, peace keeping and other obligations in the Balkans, Korea, and elsewhere, and activated every reserve and NG unit, we might have the necessary manpower to invade, but we would not have the manpower to occupy.

And, as some posters are taking this the other way, the UK has neither the power projection capacity, the man power, nor the industrial base to defeat the US.


You are wrong on all counts.

The US could close off and blockade the British island and there would be nothing to do but starve a die .

What makes you think you must invade to win ? Ask Japan ......and why bother occuping ? What would be the point ?

In fact under what possible scenario could you even IMAGINE the US a Britain going to war ?

According to some amercian litriture a friend gave me (not the best source) they have less nukes than Britain and the nukes they have are in less defndable positions

this means for Britain to counter attack the americans all we'd have to do is target their nuclear bunkers.

1) I'd say that was an incredibly bad source. America having less nukes than us? Holy macaroni on a fizzlestick that's about as funny as Canada invading the USA! (Shoutout to Cluichstan!!1! (1 added for effect))

2) Not recommended. And target them with what? The Americans would shoot down any of our bombers...wait, do we even HAVE proper bombers anymore? And our missiles would likely not do much. In the case of a war the Americans would probably move them somewhere significantly underground.

What is being missed here is that America could never win because our food is so awfull to their palate...

1) I'd say that was an incredibly bad source. America having less nukes than us? Holy macaroni on a fizzlestick that's about as funny as Canada invading the USA! (Shoutout to Cluichstan!!1! (1 added for effect))

2) Not recommended. And target them with what? The Americans would shoot down any of our bombers...wait, do we even HAVE proper bombers anymore? And our missiles would likely not do much. In the case of a war the Americans would probably move them somewhere significantly underground.

Remind him of the Nuke subs ...one sub can nuke the UK all by itself into the ocean and still have ammo left for more targets.

Not to mention stealth bombers and conventional ICBM's.......


One missle armed with MIRVS will take out most of Britains major cities..just ONE .

Remind him of the Nuke subs ...one sub can nuke the UK all by itself into the ocean and still have ammo left for more targets.

Not to mention stealth bombers and conventional ICBM's.......


One missle armed with MIRVS will take out most of Britains major cities..just ONE .

please aim for newport, oh god please

please aim for newport, oh god please



If I was aiming it would hit France ..;)

Britain enjoys what the Pentagon likes to call a "target-rich environment" and gets pwned horribly.

please aim for newport, oh god please

How about we aim for Chepstow, Wales?:cool:

please aim for newport, oh god please

AIM FOR BIRMINGHAM!

Wait...I live 10 miles down the road from there.

...

It's a sacrifice worth making

Well as its an American aiming the missiles then they'd probably land on their own damn capital...

Please don't aim for Chepstow, as I live in Monmouth, South Wales, which is 18 miles away.

Though to be fair, it worked twice in '45. The system HAS been updated a bit since then mind you. Let's just hope that millennium bug hasn't found a new playmate in the missile launch system.

Then of course their is the British Army, Royal Marines, Royal Commandos, SAS, SBS.
.

Aren't the Ghurkas part of the British army?

Aren't the Ghurkas part of the British army?

Yeah they are, we let them join after they did pretty darn good defending against us. They lost of course, but we still let them in.

(200 posts! yay!)

AIM FOR BIRMINGHAM!

Wait...I live 10 miles down the road from there.

...

It's a sacrifice worth making

HARSH!!!! LOLOL!!!! :eek:

HARSH!!!! LOLOL!!!! :eek:

I hate Birmingham. The city centre anyway, and taking out Coventry's city centre so we can start again at the same time (in a few hundred years) would be a blessing in disguise.

DOWN WITH POOL MEADOW BUS STATION!

Does no one realise that the International Community would turn on America for attacking an other democracy, and America would be beaten profoundly by the combined forces of the Free World?

And, nukes couldn't be used, because Europe/Britain would fire back.

They wouldn't invade Norn Iron though. No one that crazy.

the USA vs the UK... it depends how long the UK had to get orginised. given the diplomatic spiral that would have to occur, i'd say they'd have at least a little while.

if only due to the fact taht in such a war Britain would have allies, while the USA would not, i would say odds are good of a war actually IN the uk comeing to a grinding halt with the US troops theoreticaly occupying somewhere in the order of half of it, but actually having control of only the bases they have now. assumeing no nukes were involved.

also assumeing the british navey didn't get orginized enough to sink any invasion before it landed.

just my take on that.

on the issue of the soviets vs the axis and the effect of the other allies on that war:

the us/british/whoever the heck else's Army, and the normandy invasions, probibly didn't have a lot of effect. the british airforce and navey, however, were hugely significant.

the germans best field artillary [i forget what it was called] was a duel purpose anti-tank/anti-air gun. most of these were tied up in the west shooting at british bombers, after the luftwafer[sp] was tosted so it could no longer do the job. THAT helped the russians immensly. the british navey was significant mostly in preventing any interestingness by this point. i think the german fleet was already gone? so it wasn't quite such a big deal.


one scary thing i disocovered while playing Hearts of Iorn 2, Doomsday, is the consiquences of japan joinging hte allies. the soviet union and the axis alliance both went splat in many and itneresting ways, and most of europe and asia were british or japanese. yay for empire. but that's tangental.


anyway, back to a more relivant topic: the British would have an interesting situation with their allies though: they'd have to convince enough of them, at once, to be on their side. this is because very few individual nations owuld activly support the brits against the USA for fear of being splattered. groups and blocks, however, are a whole other story.

i suspect those taht could be counted in the list of allies for the brits would be *thinks* New Zealand [even if the government didn't, you'd get... large numbers of kiwis willing to fight, if only because it's the USA] australia's kinda 50/50 due to being tied to both, canada is 50/50 due to proximity to the usa.

the french.. well, this is france. come on, they're not oging to help the brits unless THEY"RE threatend as well. the germans.. well, if you could convince them to get involved in another war, they'd join the brits, i think.

the most interesting possibility is actually china. for all taht they have no ties to the british now, the ability to remove the USA as a super power without the economic colapse taht would follow [they would be far more likely to be able to replace the ties with the usa with europan, other asian, or even pacific ties in this situation, i think] may well be all it takes to have them help out.


now, an amuseing thought is this: say the brits manage to get the kiwis, germans, and chinese onside [just as an example] and then sink/shoot down the american invasion force before it even lands. then they need only clean up the US bases. now they're in a position to counter attack. what happens then?


the minute they establish a beachead [and in this case, it amy well be two] they ahve a very large chance of getting the canadians and mexicans to help out two, leaveing the usa fighting not just two front war, but a 4 front war. now, you can't tell me THAT wouldn't suck :D

Heh. Gotta love all this talk of using nuclear weapons as urban renewal tools.



That said if we ignore allies and just reduce this to a conflict between nations, then the UK is royally screwed.


While the UK's special forces might be better trained as a whole (I wouldn't want to go up to an army delta or navy seal and piss in his coffee though if I were you Brits), the US does have more of them.

Which is just about how everything is with the US, except that in other areas the advantage goes to the US. The one big advantage going for the UK is that the US shares a ton of its military secrets with the UK, so knowledge about nuclear weapons is almost equal.



The big advantage when it comes down to just an all out brawl between nations is that the US has a working major space program. If you rule out politics and reduce it to shear military capability, then the US space f**ks the UK and there is damn little that can be done about it.




Just so everyone knows the US nuclear stockpile has been reduced dramatically since the cold war. I think the "official" count is some where around ten thousand; we all know this is bull**** but its probably close. The issue is that when you take the gloves off a surprise nuclear strike with an EMP weapon pretty much insta-f***s the UK, and makes the US' life VERY miserable. Remember these EMP weapons can have usable ranges in the thousands of square miles.


The issue is though that if you give the US full range of military capability it doesn't need nuclear weapons to incinerate a 200 square mile area with a single attack.



Taken as a hypothetical military conflict the UK doesn't want ANY part of the US. Taken in a real time simulation the politics of the situation would determine any ultimate outcomes.


And just to be clear: unless the UK uses nuclear weapons the US isn't going to either. The US doesn't have to in order to really throw out some fire power. We don't need to use ICBM's to hit mainland UK (of course the same holds true of the UK, but the UK doesn't have the same level of weapon production capacity the US has).

And just so you all know hitting the US nuclear launch sites is a bit more difficult than others are trying to make it sound. The US Mid West is littered with launch sites hundreds of miles apart and all of them are hardened facilities. Beyond this the US early warning satellites are actually pretty good at what they do, so sneaking one missile in, let alone the hundreds necessary to do the job, is going to be difficult.


And from a foreign policy standpoint Russia doesn't want to mess up the trade agreements it has with the US. Neither does Japan. So "land grabs" by either of these nations is preposterous, even a weakened US is not a prime target for a land grab. With its back to the wall the US would simply pump several of its latest high energy nuclear weapons with high gamma, high neutron, or high force emissions depending on what it wanted and would slap the crap out of any nation stupid enough to try and make a land grab.




Another thing: world-wide nuclear winter is a complete and utter fiction. You just can't throw enough dust into the air to do that sort of thing. Super volcanic eruptions going off spewing mass equal to those sorts of explosions into the air and this sort of thing lowers the global temperature by like 5 degrees. If you detonated every nuclear weapon on earth all at once you still wouldn't get any where close to a world-wide 40 Fahrenheit drop.

NT

Well, barring this (http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=18103), the invasion should go as planned. :D

France will win.

Well, barring this (http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=18103), the invasion should go as planned. :D
Not all of Britain can be muddy sinkhole...can it?

America would almost certainly win the actual war itself but could they handle the insurgency that would arise afterwards? They wouldn't like it up 'em, sir, they wouldn't like it up 'em.

Anyway, this thread is pointless. The British submarines have orders to fire their nuclear arsenal if radio contact with the main land ceases for over a week. The result would be a nuclear holocaust in both America and Britain, although Britain would be more holocausted, if I may use the term.

If I recall correctly, the brits don't have many guns. Sad fact of gun control....

Not all of Britain can be muddy sinkhole...can it?

You'd be surprised at how trashy those Brits can make their country if they want to...

Ah... London... Good times...

PAH!
The Welsh Guards would send the invaders packing!

Men of Harlech stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming
See their warrior's pennants streaming
To this battle field

Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Stand and never yield

Form the hills rebounding
Let this war cry sounding
Summon all at Cambria's call
The mighty force surrounding

Men of Harlech onto glory
This shall ever be your story
Keep these fighting words before ye
Cambria (Welshmen never) will not yield

America will kick your ass
cuz have lots of...um...grass?

We would just pull troops out of Iraq, Korea, and wherever else we have them and take the UK. Just more troops.

Yep. America lost. :)

I really hate it when nationalists claim that their side won 1812 when history clearly shows it to be a friggin draw.

The Argentines lost. Quite badly, actually, when you consider the fact that the Royal Navy was operating without support thousands of miles from home.

And the Royal Navy lost several ships because of the Argentinian tactics. :rolleyes:

Please, please let this thread die. There is no need for pages of nationalistic 'theoretical' nonsense.

You're one to talk about nationalistic.

As to the thread as a whole, My money is on the US at sea. Control Sea and Air (as will be the case) Britain will starve.

Yes, it is something that all Americans should take pride in. While the British were busy fighting the greatest military dictator Europe had ever known, America (land of freedom and democracy) helped the aforementioned dictator by opening up a second front for the British to deal with.

You seem to forget two dictators of World War II? Not to mention Stalin and others? yea talk about ignorance of history :rolleyes:

Not the first nor the last time that the word 'hypocrisy' could be used to describe American foreign policy.

Or Europes for that matter.

That's not why I attacked that statement. The War of 1812 was one of the stupidest most unresolved conflicts in recent history. If either said claims they "won", they're lying or just plain stupid.

Agreed 100%