NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

Do you know what's even more not-funny than a French Surrender joke?

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.
China will flatten Japan in a week. Not much Japan could do with their "defense force" And if this were to happen I would just smile and give my best luck to China. Pay back for the holocaust the Japanese committed in the 30s and 40s.

As far as the EU/ US it would be interesting. However with big issues such as foreign policy the EU has proven to be confused and ineffecient. Edge goes to the US. The United States is committed and united this is why they would win such a conflict.

Do you know what's even more not-funny than a French Surrender joke?
Not yet, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

China will flatten Japan in a week. Not much Japan could do with their "defense force".
It's actually pretty decent. They'd be a real problem for the Chinese trying to get any boots on the ground in Japan. Also: :rolleyes: at the Holocaust remark.

As far as the EU/ US it would be interesting. However with big issues such as foreign policy the EU has proven to be confused and ineffecient.
Let's assume the EU is unified in purpose and they all pull in the same direction.

Not yet, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

Yes. A French Victory joke.

It's actually pretty decent. They'd be a real problem for the Chinese trying to get any boots on the ground in Japan. Also: :rolleyes: at the Holocaust remark.
Really? So do you just ignore the war crimes and slaughters committed by the Japanese or are you just unaware they occured?



Let's assume the EU is unified in purpose and they all pull in the same direction.
Thats a big leap of faith, but I guess the idea of the US and EU going to war is as well. So I say the US still, just because they arent afraid to do whatever is necessary to win wars.

Really? So do you just ignore the war crimes and slaughters committed by the Japanese or are you just unaware they occured?
I'm aware, and I'm not ignoring them. But fact of the matter is that today's Japanese don't deserve to get punished for them any more than I should be punished for the Holocaust.

Which concludes the matter, because I don't want a threadjack on the first page. Start another thread if you want to keep arguing.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

If the French don't shave their armpits for fear of razorburn, then they don't stand a chance on any battlefield. They probably surrender if Germans just immigrated to France.

UK vs France

UK - Hooligans versus cheese eating panseys, no contest.

Germany vs France

Germany - Been there done that. France has already formally issued their surrender to David Hasselhoff.

China vs Russia

Draw - This one would probably go nuclear. They would wipe out each other and probably the rest of the world with it.

India vs Pakistan

India - This one would also probably result in a nuclear war, but probably no where near the scale of the last example. Edge goes to India only because they have an overwhelming lead in population, and would simply outnumber the Pakistanis.

Israel vs France

Israel - No contest, and not only because France is full of panseys. Israel is a powerhouse, dispite it's small size. Very few armies in the world could go toe to toe with them. France would not stand a chance here. Israel is hard, they are always on their toes, and France hasn't fought a war since the French/Indian. Remember, surrendering doesn't count as fighting. No offense to the French underground, who actually had some balls... they must have been immigrants to France.

Australia vs Indonesia

Australia - Superior military and a solidified public.

Japan vs China

China - US #1, China #2 and Russia #3. That's the pecking order. Japan wouldn't stand a chance against China unless the US helped.

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

North Korea - They've got nukes, end of story.

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US

US - Gun toting redneck yanks that will band together, at least for the first six munths of the war, against a group of countries all trying to find an edge for their own, who would never be able to distribute leadership in an effective manner, and, oh yeah, they have France! Surrender will come long before the six month breaking point of the American public. Edge = US.

UK vs France:
Draw: both countries sit across the channel making bad comments about each other's food and who's idea was it to make the chunnel so damned expensive.

Germany vs France:
Germany: as long as the French don't get into a soccer game and start head butting the Germans, Germany will take the French, again.

China vs Russia
China: The two countries STILL don't like each other

India vs Pakistan
Draw: In the sense that both countries become melted glass

Israel vs France
France: Assuming that the French come up with a good legal reason to violate their own laws.

Australia vs Indonesia:
Draw: I don't think either country would really want to fight. Indonesia has it's own internal problems right now and Australians really don't seem to be all that eager to leave Australia in the first place.

Japan vs China:
China: But only after Japan causes another sex scandle invloving the prime minister, 23 illegal Chinese prostitutes, the Governor of Tokyo, half the Diet, and Yasukuni-jinja.

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!):
South Korea: Dear leader is still upset about the Japanese magician refusing to give him her red panties as a gift to effectively fight a war.

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US:
US: I'm sorry, the idea of the entire EU actually going in the same direction for once is about as funny as the GOP and Dems agreeing for an extended amount of time.

Sorry, I don't have a good French surrender joke for ya.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.



UK vs. France= UK victory, The British have a much larger and more well trained military, I believe.

Germany Vs. France= Germany wins. It has a much better industrial base.

China vs Russia= China wins, they are better organized an the Russian military is pretty underequiped, with outdated weapons.

India Vs Pakistan= India wins, it has much larger population and industrial capacity.

Israel vs France= Israel wins, its military is leagues better.

Australia vs. Indonesia= Not totally sure, but as Indonesia is a more totalitarian state, it would have a (probably) more effective war machine.

Japan vs China= China wins, much larger population, as well as a better army.

North vs South Korea= North Korea wins, it has less qualms about massive civilian casualties and a state of total war, as well as a larger (albeit outdated) army.

EU vs. US= US wins through sheer military prowess.

I'm aware, and I'm not ignoring them. But fact of the matter is that today's Japanese don't deserve to get punished for them any more than I should be punished for the Holocaust.

Which concludes the matter, because I don't want a threadjack on the first page. Start another thread if you want to keep arguing.

Keep arguing, Sovietstan, you know he wants it.

And Pakistanis would flatten the Indians, because a good friend of mine is Pakistani, whereas all the Indians I know are annoying nerds (You thought I was going to say that the Indians only had bows and arrows, dincha? :p )

Let's assume the EU is unified in purpose and they all pull in the same direction.

US wins there. The US can project power to strike Europe. The combined Navy's of every EU nation couldn't take on a single CVBG and win. The US has 11 of those BTW. Once the US wins at sea, they can cripple Europe by destroying their ability to get oil. The US also has stealth abilities.

Now, a ground invasion would probably not be as favorable, but the US could avoid using ground troops altogether and fight a very long Naval and Air war with the intent of crippling the EU economically and forcing them to sue for peace.

UK vs France
UK: the Brits are stubborn and the French are having an affair with failed diplomacy.

Germany vs France
France: the Germans are too afraid of looking like the Fourth Reich to fight effectively

China vs Russia
China: better economy and more manpower

India vs Pakistan
India: more manpower and slightly better economy. Also Pakistan wouldn't have as many mercenaries flooding to help it as some other "Muslim" states do.

Israel vs France
Israel: They're God's chosen people!

Australia vs Indonesia
Not sure, but leaning toward Indonesia: some would view it as an attack on Islam (Indonesia has the most Muslims in the world) and would rush to Indonesia's aid or to potential targets in Australia

Japan vs China
China: nukes and manpower

North Korea vs South Korea
North Korea: the South Koreans already want blessed reunification

and finally, the classic: EU vs US
US: some of the EU wouldn't fight (UK and some Eastern nations, unless the US had done something horribly awful) and the EU is too afraid of war to fight effectively

My predictions all assume that the two nations are the only ones involved.

Do you know what's even more not-funny than a French Surrender joke?David Hasselhof Germany jokes.

Israel vs France= Israel wins, its military is leagues better.
I now added links to the OP, so that everyone can check.

The French military is quite decent. Their equipment and training is certainly up to standard. I don't know whether the IDF is "better", but if it is, it's certainly not by leagues.
It is ultimately limited by the size of the country it is defending. Israel just isn't that big.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

UK vs. France = My money is on a indecisive draw. The edge would be for the french, but the english would be too embarrased to admit defeat to the french, thus, a draw.

Germany vs. France = My money's on Germany. The french have become reliant on their nuclear shield, and their projective force is made of foreingners. Germany has a mix of 'westernized' economics combined with raw 'Eastern' passion. Germany takes it.

China vs. Russia = Really depends on who the 'aggressor' is. My guess, is China goes for resources in the far east of Russian territory, and Russia is too busy fighting Chechnyan's to devote resources to their far east.

India vs. Pakistan = Even though I'm ideologially predisposed towards democratic India, my gut instint tells me India wins this one if it's only India vs. Pakistan. India vs. Dar al Islam is a different story.

Israel vs. France = Huh? Uh... France. If America has no say.

Australia vs. Indonesia = Hmm... Indonesia. I don't know enough of the background info other to say that Australia's due for a surprise.

Japan vs. China = The country that isn't allowed to have a military vs. the country that doesn't have projectional power? China wins the big dust-up between the two on present conditions. Not so sure about the future...

North vs. South Korea = I don't know. Really, it depends on the hearts and minds of the southerners. The edge is for the North due to the idiotic size of their military. If the average southerner isn't up to the idea of dissidence to a 'foreign' occupier, then the south is dooomed.

EU vs. US = Come on. US takes it. I like the EU, but give me a break. The highly militaristic centralized military-industrial complex playground of the US takes the highly socialized and slightly stagnant EU hands down.

About France....
Go to google, type in "French Millitary Victories" and press im feeling lucky
then try it with fauilre.

About France....
Then tell me how that matters if a Leclerc with autoloader blows your butt into space.

I told you - if you have to, make it something original that people haven't heard before.

About France....
Go to google, type in "French Millitary Victories" and press im feeling lucky
then try it with fauilre.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

It's amazing, I've only read 3 of your posts and already I hate you.

UK vs France
UK, it has the advantage because of a slightly better economy that is not crippled by constant strikes.
Germany vs France
Same as France vs UK
China vs Russia
Pyrrhic victory for China. China has a higher population and an economy that may actually be worth fighting for, while they would take heavy losses getting through Siberia.
India vs Pakistan
I must agree Pakistan and India would both end up nuking each other completely out of existence.
Israel vs France
Same as UK vs France, add on the fact that Israel is constantly prepared for attacks on its soil.
Australia vs Indonesia
Australia, as they have more to fight for.
Japan vs China
Stalemate. Japan could never take China as it is today, even if it were allowed to have a regular military, but I believe the Japanese would still fight for their country (not for nationalism or the Emperor, but rather because they would never give up what they have gained in the last sixty years).
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)
North Korea would win, because many in the south are too enthusiastic for reunification, while the Kim family will never give up its power.
EU vs US
The US would win, as the EU would never unite itself. The UK and many of the former Eastern Bloc states (particularly Poland) that have joined the EU have closer ties to the US than some nations in Europe and would not be willing to fight a war with them. Also, something president Chirac said a few years ago to the Polish president, essentially about having a "too competitive" business environment leads me to believe that there are going to be major disagreements about the direction the EU is headed (most likely, more welfare statism or a more "Anglo-Saxon" [to use the words of the French labour law protesters] capitalist state).

US wins there. The US can project power to strike Europe. The combined Navy's of every EU nation couldn't take on a single CVBG and win. The US has 11 of those BTWThe US has 12 CVBG's, not 11.

Once the US wins at sea, they can cripple Europe by destroying their ability to get oil. The US also has stealth abilities.

If Europe was an island, yes. Thankfully, Europe is bordered by Russia.

Anyway:

UK vs France: Hmmm. UK by a wee margin. Close call though.

Germany vs France: Draw.

China vs Russia: Who can project their power the furthest? Most of Russia's centres are in 'European Russia', west of the Urals. Vast space in between. *shrug* Maybe China given the lacklustre state of the Russian military in the last decade or so.

India vs Pakistan: India.

Israel vs France: France. (I mean come on, given recent events, can you really say Israel without the US having its back?)

Australia vs Indonesia: Oz

Japan vs China: China- with gusto.

North Korea vs South Korea:Regardless, buh-bye Seoul. That loss alone could be fatally demoralising to the South.

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US: Heart says EU, brain says the US.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

It's amazing, I've only read 3 of your posts and already I hate you.

Yea! im so cool.

The US has 12 CVBG's, not 11.



It's 11. The USS John F. Kennedy is currently not capable of operations. She had a 15 month overhall cancelled a few years back and hasn't deployed since. The US Navy wants to get rid of her. She is currently just sitting in Florida.

Congress is trying to force the Navy to keep 12 CVs, but the Navy doesn't want to. The Navy knows that with a fleet of 11 CVs, they can have 9 of them to a hotspot in 30 days. There is no need for the 12th, which they see as a drain on their budget.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)
and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

UK vs. France: It's most likely going to be a draw, though I would have to say the UK would have an upper hand.

Germany vs. France: Germany. The French might put up a fight though.

China vs. Russia: Draw, due to the fact that they'll nuke each other out of existence (and taking everyone else with them) before anyone can decide who the winner is.

Inida vs. Pakistan: India, unless Pakistan has loads of mercenaries coming. It might turn nuclear though, not good. But India still wins.

Israel vs. France: Israel, it has a very good miliatry and France... well... Irael wins.

Australia vs. Indonesia: Australia, superior military, solidified public, yeah.

Japan vs. China: China's military > Japan's. China wins.

NK vs. SK: NK, they've got nukes. SK's screwed.

EU vs. US: Not to sound nationalistic... but USA pwns EU, especially military-wise. US will be a clear winner.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

UK vs. France: UK, because France has enough internal division that it can't afford to send as many troops to the front.

China vs. Russia: China. Russia is an unstable police state that doesn't have the economic or military strength to compete with China.

India vs. Pakistan: Toss-up. If Pakistan can spin it right, they turn the conflict into a jihad, and India is stuck in a long, difficult war where troop numbers are only part of the equation.

Isreal vs. France: Isreal. It has required service, and an army which is second to none in equiptment and training.

It's 11. The USS John F. Kennedy is currently not capable of operations. She had a 15 month overhall cancelled a few years back and hasn't deployed since. The US Navy wants to get rid of her. She is currently just sitting in Florida.

Congress is trying to force the Navy to keep 12 CVs, but the Navy doesn't want to. The Navy knows that with a fleet of 11 CVs, they can have 9 of them to a hotspot in 30 days. There is no need for the 12th, which they see as a drain on their budget.

If one carrier is out of operation temporarily, does that mean the whole battle group ceases to function?

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.
I'm not sure if allies count or not... I'll just do two, one with, one without. And of course this is assuming no nukes, as that is just unfair.

UK vs France
With: UK.
If they had to choose between the two, the USA would definitely side with the Brits, and then, well, you get the picture. Normandy all over again :P
Without: I think the nod still goes to the UK. Better navy will keep them safe while allowing them to strike at will.

Germany vs France
With: Germany. I think the USA and Britian would either side with Germany or stay out, so superior German forces or superior Anglo-American-German forces defeat the French.
Without: Still Germany. Better tanks, more soldiers, and better track record for this century *coughWWIIcough* :P

China vs Russia
With: Russia. I don't see the USA giving up a chance at an easy China take-down. And we've already got a 17 page thread on why the USA pwns China.
Without: China. Although Russia would be very difficult to hold, if anyone could do it, it'd be China. One billion plus people is a lot :D

India vs Pakistan
With: India. Far and away has more support than Pakistan from the West and Russia, and the only country of any importance I can see helping out Pakistan would be China.
Without: India. Bigger population, better weaponry, better economy, and the fact that they won already just 7 years ago and have been able to increase defense spending drastically since.

Israel vs France
With: Israel. USA will side with its puppet and down goes France.
Without: Draw. Neither has the navy to overcome the other's airforce and being as they are separated by sea, both will be basically unable to attack each other.

Australia vs Indonesia
With: Australia. Who is going to support Indonesia? Australia would have all the important countries either neutral or on their side.
Without: Draw/Mild Australia. I don't see the Aussies being able to hold Indonesia, but they would certainly be able to do some damage if a conventional battle broke out.

Japan vs China
With: Japan. USA, game, set, and match.
Without: China/Perhaps Draw. I'm not sure if the PLAN is quite ready to launch an invasion of Japan, but if they defeated the JMSDF completely, then the Chinese fishing boats (of DOOM!) may be the difference allowing them to put significant ground forces in Japan, which would be a deadly blow. Japan can only hope to destroy China's navy, beating it on the ground even in Japan would be basically impossible.

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)
With: RK. Even without the Americans, the rest of the West would help and maybe even China.
Without: DPRK. No way that weak little South Korean defense would be able to turn back the tide of the DPRK, which has been building up for this specific event for half a century.

EU vs US
With: Draw. I see Russia and China siding with the EU, and maybe Canada as well. Too many for the USA to challenge all at once, but no one can beat the USA in the USA.
Without: USA. Much better force, currently outspending the entire EU (EU spending plus national spending figures). Better airforce, better navy. Might be difficult to conquer the EU, but it would just be a matter of time.

Sounds like fun.
UK vs France: France. I am actually going to side with the French, because I know one. He alone has enough contempt to obliterate the UK in an orgy of sarcasm.
Germany vs France: France. For the same reason as above, plus the French have a bit more recent battle experience on German soil (Zidane! Swoosh!)
China vs Russia: China. Quarter of the worlds population. Forget guns, forget supplies. Just send them towards Moscow with the instructions to consume everything until they hit the Baltic sea. It'll be biblical...
India vs Pakistan: India. They would occupy, and eventually win. Unlike the viet cong, guerillas in Pakistan will actively seek death.
Israel vs France: Israel. They have plenty of experience feeding arabs dirt sandwiches.
Australia vs Indonesia: Indonesia. As much as I love our boys in green, they are 20,000 in number(40,000 if you count reserves). Indonesia has at least ten times that amount of soldiers. They could over run, but the superbly trained Aussies would eventually topple them after occupation. However, resettlement would have occurred by then, and 2/3's of Australia would then be Indonesian Nationals. I'm assuming that we can't call for USA's help, which is what we would do.
Japan vs China: China. Same theory as Russia, only you need 200,000,000 sets of water wings.If only 1 in 100 make it, China still wins. It'd be like a locust plague. After the invasion is complete and all of the Chinese soldiers have starved to death, Japan will be completely devoid of all organic and easily digestible matter.
North Korea vs South Korea : South Korea. North Korea would launch everything it had. Somehow every missile will end up as flotsam in the Sea of Japan, then Kim Jong Il would have a nervous breakdown as he loses the only thing propping up his vacuum state. Some weeks later the people of North Korea would come to understand what had happened, and pretend the whole North/South thing never happened. Eventually the South Koreans would catch on, and it would never be spoken of again.
and finally, the classic:
EU vs US: US. Technically, as they would all die after those in the EU once they launched every one of thier nukes at every cheese factory and post-modern architecture museum in the old world.

If one carrier is out of operation temporarily, does that mean the whole battle group ceases to function?

She isn't out temporarily. She is done. The Navy wants to get rid of her and they will get their way. Even if the Navy wanted to refit her, it would take 18 months to do the work and probably 18 months of workups until she is deployment ready. The JFK will likely be decommissioned in a few years. SHe will probably never go on a so much as a surge before that point.

As for her battlegroup, battlegroups aren't permanent organizations. A carrier has a destroyer squadron attached to it when it goes out. The squadrons totate just like a carrier's air wing rotates from carrier to carrier.

What ever DD Squadron used to be assigned to her will either work independently or be assigned to another carrier.

UK vs France- Duh. The UK, since they only follow the US, so they US would have to be involved, so...

But, if not, the UK. They have more tech (their "Area 51"-esque research is second to the US's).

Germany vs France- Germany. They make better cars, so the total war due to ensue would make Germany pwn due to awesome taks made from German cars.

China vs Russia-China. Three words: rush of infantry. China has 1.3 BILLION people... who do you think would win?

India vs Pakistan- India. Better tech and more people.

Israel vs France- Isreal.
either from
1) Isreal playing the Holocaust card and everyone else beating France

or

2) isreal's superior crack team operations destroying the government.


Australia vs Indonesia- Australia. They gots more guns.

Japan vs China- Unsure here... probably Japan, as the China navy is way worse than japan's

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)- North, as that happened last time, too...

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US- The US. Even if the EU could stay together, the threat of being uber n00ked would keep them from doing much. That and they'd be MOAB'd and copper-bombed. El US es el commandante!

Here is one: Everyone vs. The US + The EU. Who would win?

UK vs. France= UK will most likely take it. If both go at each other seriously, might be a draw.

Germany Vs. France= France, but just barely.

China vs Russia= Russia.

India Vs Pakistan= India, but not before most of it's people are radioactive corpses.

Israel vs France= France, unless Israel has U.S. support.

Australia vs. Indonesia= A very tough one. Given the recent Tsunami devistation and the fact that Australia has Steve Irwin, I'll go with the Aussies.

Japan vs China= Are you kidding me? The Chinese, by a mile.

North vs South Korea= Har, North Korea. The South would fall in a matter of months, if not weeks.

EU vs. US= Hard to say; if the EU was actually united and worked together efficiantly, then they would have no problem taking the States down like a bitch. Seeing as how that will never happen, the U.S. would just take it's time picking off induvidial EU nations.

UK vs France

UK.



Germany vs France

Probably Germany.


China vs Russia

China's economic might should give it the edge. But this is close. The Russian military is still powerful.


India vs Pakistan

India


Israel vs France

Israel, probably.


Australia vs Indonesia


Australia.


Japan vs China

China--even if Japan was allowed to remilitarize, still China.


North Korea vs South Korean
North Korea


and finally, the classic: EU vs US

US. If the EU could somehow truly band together, I'd still put my money on the US.

EU vs. US= Hard to say; if the EU was actually united and worked together efficiantly, then they would have no problem taking the States down like a bitch. Seeing as how that will never happen, the U.S. would just take it's time picking off induvidial EU nations.

No-its pretty simple to say. How many aircraft carriers does the EU have?

How many doest he US have? How much practice has the US had with them?
How many US troops & material are already in Europe ? How many EU troops are in the US-or North America, for that matter? How would anyone get any troops to the US?
They wouldnt- the US Coast Guard would interdict them all.

Would the EU send any long range bombers to the US? No. Would the EU be able to effectively prevent the US from gaining air superiority over Europe?
No again. EU radar would be eliminated early, fighters would be wiped out while still on the ground.
The US already has more battle tanks and attack helicopters in europe than the EU does. The best equipment and soldiers that have had practice using them. The US knows the lay of the land there too-having been there for decades at peace and war.

United or otherwise, the EU will go down-one country at a time or all at once-take your pick. And Poland will probably side with the US anyway. We can count on them.

I dont reasonably see the US "going down like a bitch". Thats the only thing we dont have experience at, although some of our "friends" in Europe do.

China will flatten Japan in a week. Not much Japan could do with their "defense force" And if this were to happen I would just smile and give my best luck to China.

China has almost zero force projection. It can easily stave off any mainland invasion by most forces, even Russians, but their force projection is pretty non-existent. They don't even have an aircraft carrier. Japanese navy is pretty impressive and is unmatched in the region.

China has almost zero force projection. It can easily stave off any mainland invasion by most forces, even Russians, but their force projection is pretty non-existent. They don't even have an aircraft carrier. Japanese navy is pretty impressive and is unmatched in the region.

Pretty true. The Japanese are the only navy besides the USN to have Aegis.

UK vs France - UK in a walk. The UK is very defensible, and it has a better track record in battle.

Germany vs France - Germany. Its economy is stronger. Frankly, I can't imagine this war ever taking place, but if it does, I give the nod to th Germans in a long, drawn-out affair.

China vs Russia - China. Again, it's the economy. That plus it has a billion people. Russia's land is far more defensible, but if China invades in the summer and is actually prepared, Russia's sunk.

India vs Pakistan - Draw. India would win in a walk if not for internal strife.

Israel vs France - Israel. I wouldn't fuck with Israel if I were anyone on Earth. They're strong for a reason.

Australia vs Indonesia - Indonesia. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to take that mainland, if you can call it that.

Japan vs China - Draw, assuming Japan can get mobilized. China's stronger, but Japan has a defensible position.

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!) - Depends. In a conventional battle, South Korea in a walk. If Kim Jong Il manages to get nukes launched, North Korea might win if he can do it quickly enough. That's his only advantage.

EU vs US - The U.S. wins. In terms of money, both are tough customers, but in terms of sheer brute force, the Americans win.

Canada

All I want to say is: Why are aso many people siding with Indonesia in the Aus v Ind lineup?

Indonesia once tried invading Timor... for those uninformed in the outcome, Indonesia got their ass whooped... sure, it took some time, and they did occupy Timor, but a country that size, with that many "devout Muslims" should've been able to wipe the floor with Timor in a matter of weeks.

Then again, we all know what happened with Vietnam...

Also, why is there no Greece vs Turkey? I'd like to see people's opinions on that. Personally, my heart says Greece, but my head says draw, perhaps Turkey victory.

All I want to say is: Why are aso many people siding with Indonesia in the Aus v Ind lineup?
*snip*
Also, why is there no Greece vs Turkey? I'd like to see people's opinions on that. Personally, my heart says Greece, but my head says draw, perhaps Turkey victory.

Are you serious? Everyone has been siding with Australia bar the last post. I personally don't think so. Mainly because all of our plans (yes we have plans for an invasion by Indonesia) involve the US. Alone we have 20,000 active military, and another 20,000 in reserve. Indonesia has over ten times that number. We have the tech and training, but I just don't thin 20,000 men is enough. Maybe if we conscripted. Our troops are good though, arguably the best (infantry and elite). Australians work better as a compliment to a real army. We are the bards of the military. [/D&D]

Also, you are from melbourne, hey? Greece vs.Turkey :p

Are you serious? Everyone has been siding with Australia bar the last post. I personally don't think so. Mainly because all of our plans (yes we have plans for an invasion by Indonesia) involve the US. Alone we have 20,000 active military, and another 20,000 in reserve. Indonesia has over ten times that number. We have the tech and training, but I just don't thin 20,000 men is enough. Maybe if we conscripted. Our troops are good though, arguably the best (infantry and elite). Australians work better as a compliment to a real army. We are the bards of the military. [/D&D]

Also, you are from melbourne, hey? Greece vs.Turkey :p

Ok, so maybe my reaction was a delayed one...

And yes, I'm from the great city of Melbourne, I see you are from Sydney, good work :cool:

The US already has more battle tanks and attack helicopters in europe than the EU does. The best equipment and soldiers that have had practice using them.
That's not actually true and I have my doubts if it ever was. At least as far as battle tanks are concerned. And the US Forces in Europe have definitely been weakened by the whole Iraq business.

The main bases of the US Army are in Germany. Germany's Army is made for a land war against overwhelming tank forces. That's what it is good at.

The best equipment? Well, I have my doubts. French Leclercs just across the border, British Challenger IIs from their bases in Germany, and thousands of Leos from Germany and the others. The differences would only be marginal at best.

Pretty true. The Japanese are the only navy besides the USN to have Aegis.
What exactly is "Aegis"? If you're just talking about a computer system coordinating missiles, many nations have that. According to wiki, that would be Japan, Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n_class_frigate), Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen_class_frigate) and perhaps even China (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453572.990277778.html). And many more have ships being built right now, or at least being designed.

EDIT: Oh, and then there's alternative solutions like the PAAMS system used by the British Type 45.

Ok, so maybe my reaction was a delayed one...

And yes, I'm from the great city of Melbourne, I see you are from Sydney, good work :cool:

Yes, Melbourne, the original capital. And Sydney, the original City. Together we are 'the originals'. :cool:

All my predicitions will assume no allies and no nukes

UK vs France

This one goes to the UK...France has a significant advantage in numbers for ground forces, but lacks the ability to actually invade the UK. The Royal Navy will isolate France, and likely reduce oil imports by the French to a trickle, hamstringing the French military.

Germany vs France

Draw...Germany has advantages in Armor and Artillery, but France has enough infantry based weapons and aircraft to turn any conflict between these two nations into a long, bloody stalemate. Slight edge to the Germans if they can whittle down the French airforce without taking too many losses themselves.

China vs Russia

Unlike most...I'm going to give this one to Russia. While China has an extensive manpower advantage, Russia has energy independence, and a significant naval advantage. If Russia targets Chinese energy infastructure, while employing the traditional Russian defense (draw them in, then cut them off), the Chinese war machine grinds to a halt.

India vs Pakistan

India has an almost 2 to 1 advantage in manpower and hardware. Pakistan will likely be on the defensive, and can use the terrain to their advantage, but in the end, India's superior strength would prevail.

Israel vs France

I'll give this one to France. Geography dictates that whoever has the naval/air advantage in this fight wins, and France has the edge on Israel in aircraft, and complete superiority in terms of naval power.

Australia vs Indonesia

Tough call...neither can really "defeat" the other...but Indonesia has numbers on their side. I'll call it a draw, with a slight edge to Indonesia.

Japan vs China

I'm calling this one a draw, with a slight edge to China. Japan has a powerful navy, and could theoretically end the threat of Chinese invasion. Should luck be on China's side, however, Japan simply doesn't have the equipment or the manpower to resist an actual invasion.

N Korea vs S Korea

South Korea is dependent upon the U.S. to stop a N. Korean invasion. North Korea in a landslide.

US vs EU

With significant advantages in Naval power, Air power, and missile defense systems, the U.S has the edge. Neither can occupy and "defeat" the other, but the U.S. has the ability to surround and contain the EU, while the EU cannot do the same to the U.S.

I'll call it a draw...the U.S. has what it needs to win, but the combined EU is simply too tough of a nut to crack.

UK vs France: Hmmm, close thing, but I think a slight naval superiority would mean we'd be putting our boots in France, not vice-versa, and could probably win with that strategic initiative, plus our marginally better economy, and above all, we're British, dammit, British! Stiff upper lip chaps, tally ho and death or glory! No seriously, our morale and will to win would really be a lot better.

Germany vs France: Again, better economy, and I think Germay's organisational structure is better for that kind of war, and the PR would probably balance out: Germany's become nti-militaristic, France has seldom beeb very militaristic.

China vs Russia: Probly China. Let's say detterant prevent nuking, China has been modernising its military, while Russia has been stagnating more than a little.

India vs Pakistan: Deterant rule still in effect, I'd say India through economic and population advantages.

Israel vs France: No Americans? Isreal couldn't scratch the French Navy, and a ground war could go either way, but naval superiority and supply independance says France.

Australia vs Indonesia: Don't know much about it, but I think Oz is bigger and more modern with more to fight for.

Japan vs China: Chi. Na. Come on, Japan has almost no military! Admittadly, the Chinese would have to ship their troops across battalion by battalion, but what would the Japanese do about it?

North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!): North. Though inferior, their army is just to huge, and they're infinitely better motivated.

US vs EU: EU would debate wether or not the invasion required the de-activation of all military strength. France would run around in circles shouting and blaming Britain for being to close to the US. Britan would accuse Germany of being too rich. Germany would blame it on the French for having colonies a century ago. By this time, the Americans would be five miles from Warsaw.

.US vs EU: EU would debate wether or not the invasion required the de-activation of all military strength. France would run around in circles shouting and blaming Britain for being to close to the US. Britan would accuse Germany of being too rich. Germany would blame it on the French for having colonies a century ago. By this time, the Americans would be five miles from Warsaw.

LMFAO!

China vs. Russia, Jesus Christ! talk about a slaughter fest. I predict at least 100 milion dead on each side. PER DAY!

France vs. Germany? unless Napoleon came back from the dead, Germany would invade France the same exact way it has in the past 500 years. The French still wouldnt learn, and lose.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
France. They would have a hard time getting in, but they would never have to worry about invasion. The stench is simply unbearable.
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany. History has a habit of repeating itself.
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
China would take an early lead, but Russia would use its nukes. All of them.
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
India. They would distract the Pakis with their telemarketers.
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Jewish conspiracy. Nuff said.
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Austrailia. A country of crooks has the advantage of having a populus pretrained for war.
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
China. The Japanese war bots will all have the three rules progrommed into them.
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)
South Korea. Attack of the Clones.

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)
I cannot think of anything funny, racist or otherwise discrimatory for this one.

France versus the UK? Prolonged conflict with no real winner, both trading blows in the air and the sea. Little to no land warfare would occur, other than special operations.

France versus germany? France, for sure. The french air force is simply better, more trained, and more capable of replacing losses than the luftwaffe. France would very much win in the air. While the french army couldn't defeat the german one alone, it could with air superiority.

Russia would walk all over china. China would have to have mass conscripts to stop a russian invasion, but would never be able to thrust even decently deep into siberia, much less western russia. No winner, but more damage to china.

India, but just barely. It would barely edge pakistan out with its superior trained airforce, and slowly turn the tide of pakistani thrusts with airpower and lots and lots of troops. India would sustain incredible damage, but eventually be the winner, ala russia in ww2.

France would obliterate Israel. 15 milion israeli's with hostile neighbors versus 60m strong france. France would be able to blockade Israel, and run slow attrition of israel. Israel wouldn't get supplies around it, as the ME would just decide not to let it happen. Israel doesn't nearly have the ability to replace losses for very long. While it would inflict incredible damage at first, every israeli loss would be worth many french losses, and the french could wait it out. Eventually gaining air superiority through attrition, the french would heavily bomb out the israeli's, then invade. The israeli military isn't really meant to fight against a 1st world, conventional military. Neither their equipment nor their tactics.

I don't know nearly enough about either indonesia or australia to judge. I just won't get into it. However, indonesia couldn't occupy australia. I doubt any nation in the world could.

Japan could easily fend china off, but defidentally not invade it. It could wreak havoc on chinese ports and shipping however, effectively crippling it economically.

NK vs SK... hmm... NK would obliterate seoul, and make large gains at first, but the south would slowly gain back land, and conquer NK... with devastating losses, which make the whole thing a phyrric victory for the south koreans.

US vs EU? Neither could bring a signifigantly strong enough force against the other to invade. The US navy couldn't take on the entire EU navy and airforce. Nor the other way around.

France vs. UK? Both have nukes, but I'm guessing that the UK would win in the end because of better will to victory.

Anyone saying Germany would beat France is INSANE. France has nuclear weapons. Germany does not. France would therefore simply blast a half-dozen German cities out of existance.

Russia vs. China? It's a tough one, but remember that the Russians have thousands of nuclear warheads just lying around, whereas the Chinese have just 200-300. Also, Russia is closer to the Chinese heartland than vise versa.

Pakistan and India could destroy each other quicky, but I'd say India based on the fact that it has more people and therefore more resistance to nuclear attack.

France would kick Israel's ass, hands down. Three large nuclear weapons and every circuit in Israel is fried due to EMP.

Australia vs. Indonesia- Australia, as they're more unified.

China vs. Japan is obvious. China has nukes and missiles. The Japanese don't.

NK vs. SK is also obvious. North Korea has a devistatingly huge army. South Korea does not.

USA vs. EU- don't make me laugh. The USA can turn the EU into a glass plate.

NK vs. SK is also obvious. North Korea has a devistatingly huge army. South Korea does not.
True, but SK has gas, while NK only enough for a few weeks.

UK vs France: From the perspective of pure naval power, which is what will matter in this war, I almost want to give this to France. Almost. Edge to Britain.

Germany vs France: So long as France keeps it conventional, Germany wins this one. However, the Frogs have a rather scarey policy in regards to the use of nuclear weapons, so it's debatable.

Russia vs China: Russia. China has the people, but keep in mind they're trying to bring themselves up from a 1930s level of military technology to something resembling 1980s. The fact that they buy most of their weapons from Russia is telling. Plus, Russia will trade land for time long enough for the Dragon to stick its neck out too far and then *chop*.

India vs Pakistan: India. They should have won in 71 and the next all-out war will probably see them win for real this time.

France vs Israel: Given the performance of the Israeli Army in the recent compaign in southern Lebanon, I'd say French professionalism, technology, and overall greater power projection capabilities wins this one handily.

Japan vs China: In the 1970s China launched an invasion of Taiwan. Taiwan not only repelled the invasion while inflicting rather severe losses to the PLA, but launched a counter-invasion that netted it a fourth island. Since then, China's ability to land troops hasn't improved an iota. Japan's navy and air force trash the invasion and then show China how to really project military power.

NK vs SK: The Norks have an ability to feed its army that would make a retarded 1 year-old look competant. Further, the South Korean Army has 22 divisions with modern armour and troops trained in the US Army model, but with discipline that makes American drill sargeants look like pansies (if recruits fall out during a run they're beaten with bamboo sticks until they run back into formation or pass out.)

US vs EU: Nationalism aside, the EU as it currently stands would have a logistics situation that would make a bowl of spagetti flung against a wall look neat and organized. Further, the only real carrier the Euros have is French and the combined submarine force of all the EU nations might kindly be called a joke. China has a better chance of defeating the US. The EU is on the recieving end of the beat-down of recorded history.

China vs. Russia, Jesus Christ! talk about a slaughter fest. I predict at least 100 milion dead on each side. PER DAY!

France vs. Germany? unless Napoleon came back from the dead, Germany would invade France the same exact way it has in the past 500 years. The French still wouldnt learn, and lose.

Yeah, 500 years...

How many times in the last 500 years has germany/Holy roman empire/Prussia invaded and defeated the french? Twice, 1871 and 1940.

How many times did France do the same to Germany/etc? 30 years war, 9 years war, 7 years war, napoleonic era, and ww1(counter-invasion, of course). This doesn't count the rapage that french troops took part in between the 30 years war and the french revolution, where they took german cities like candy.

Yeah, 500 years...

How many times in the last 500 years has germany/Holy roman empire/Prussia invaded and defeated the french? Twice, 1871 and 1940.

How many times did France do the same to Germany/etc? 30 years war, 9 years war, 7 years war, napoleonic era, and ww1(counter-invasion, of course). This doesn't count the rapage that french troops took part in between the 30 years war and the french revolution, where they took german cities like candy.
Yes, the French invented the guillotine as a humane punishment.

Yes. A French Victory joke.

Uh...The American Revolution.

Heh...ha-ha.

UK vs France
We successfully invade and conquer about a third of France. We get complacent, confused, lose it all and everything goes back to exactly the way it was before.

China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Everybody Dies (http://www.everybody-dies.com), in both cases.

Australia vs Indonesia
Everybody sits on the beach having a barbecue. About the most sensible course of action, really.

EU vs US
Well the Yanks are newbies and the EU have well over 10,000 country-years of war-practice between them, but they'd spend most of the time arguing about whether France or Germany should take ultimate charge. The UK would sit in the corner sulking (We're much better than both of those! Remember WWII!) and probably side with the Yanks anyway, apart from Scotland who'd side with France. Even if the US did bother to invade, probably nobody would notice or turn up to fight them as they'd be to busy arguing amongst themselves about who'd do the fighting, and the locals would just assume khaki was This Season's Color for American tourists and sell them stuff.

LMFAO!

And the best bit is I'm British. I just say what I truly believe.

I wish I could start swearing like many other Aussie's, but not on this forum with 'rules'. I think with that Australia versus Indonesia, if Indonesia invaded us, it'd be what separates us that makes the deciding factor - sea.

Aussie navy keeps control of the sea and wears down the comparably weaker opponent, most likely an eventual win. Likewise, lots of Aussies would get all patriotic (I'd go ape***t) and start purchasing more weapons. H

However, if it was us invading Indonesia, I think that would be very hard fought...not too sure on the details though.

EU vs US
Well the Yanks are newbies and the EU have well over 10,000 country-years of war-practice between them, but they'd spend most of the time arguing about whether France or Germany should take ultimate charge. The UK would sit in the corner sulking (We're much better than both of those! Remember WWII!) and probably side with the Yanks anyway, apart from Scotland who'd side with France. Even if the US did bother to invade, probably nobody would notice or turn up to fight them as they'd be to busy arguing amongst themselves about who'd do the fighting, and the locals would just assume khaki was This Season's Color for American tourists and sell them stuff.

And then the US will take over Europe and Canada. Just wait 25 years and they get Mexico due to the fact that they'd all be here anyway...

Then the first superstate would be formed. Next project: China Empire.

What exactly is "Aegis"? If you're just talking about a computer system coordinating missiles, many nations have that. According to wiki, that would be Japan, Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n_class_frigate), Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen_class_frigate) and perhaps even China (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453572.990277778.html). And many more have ships being built right now, or at least being designed.

EDIT: Oh, and then there's alternative solutions like the PAAMS system used by the British Type 45.
The computer system is just a small part of the Aegis system. The big advantage Aegis has over any similar system is the SPY-1 RADAR. It is quite possibly the most powerful air-search RADAR in widespread use.

The Japanese DDGs with Aegis are virtual clones of our Arleigh Burke DDG. The only difference is that the Japanese ones are larger (they are basically what the cancelled Flight III Burkes were supposed to be). While the Chinese strategy would be SSM missile saturation, Aegis would be able to effectively counter this. They can put up hundreds of SM-2s in a minute or 2 to intercept any incoming vampires.

I think people who are giving Indonesia the benefit of the doubt are seriously underestimating Australia's capabilities for defence and force projection. We may not have the most advanced equipment or the greatest numbers, but we're one of the best-trained military forces in the world and, (most importantly) are VASTLY economically superior to Indonesia.

Indonesian Military Expenditure=$1.3 Billion

Australian Military Expenditure=$17.3 Billion

I think people who are giving Indonesia the benefit of the doubt are seriously underestimating Australia's capabilities for defence and force projection. We may not have the most advanced equipment or the greatest numbers, but we're one of the best-trained military forces in the world and, (most importantly) are VASTLY economically superior to Indonesia.

Indonesian Military Expenditure=$1.3 Billion

Australian Military Expenditure=$17.3 Billion

Definately true still...

Indonesia’s huge population results consequently in a huge standing army; ranging, for example, from 298.000 in 1988 to as much as 476.000 in 1998.

Moreover, the whole of Indonesia is located in a mountainous jungle overgrown archipelago, posing great difficulties to any military intervention without tacit consent of the Indonesian Armed forces. What’s more Indonesia is capable of inducing large costs on any intervention force coming from the north, while it could also threaten both the major sea lanes in its straits , as well as the aviation lines connecting Australia to the rest of the world. These geographical features in addition to its huge standing army would seem to make any military intervention that is opposed by Indonesian forces a hazardous affair .

Definately true still...

Indonesia’s huge population results consequently in a huge standing army; ranging, for example, from 298.000 in 1988 to as much as 476.000 in 1998.

Moreover, the whole of Indonesia is located in a mountainous jungle overgrown archipelago, posing great difficulties to any military intervention without tacit consent of the Indonesian Armed forces. What’s more Indonesia is capable of inducing large costs on any intervention force coming from the north, while it could also threaten both the major sea lanes in its straits , as well as the aviation lines connecting Australia to the rest of the world. These geographical features in addition to its huge standing army would seem to make any military intervention that is opposed by Indonesian forces a hazardous affair . I highly doubt Australia would ever have any real interest in invading and holding Indonesian land. Most likely any military action on our part would involve high-damage precision strikes and total naval dominance/blockades to force the Indonesians into submission. Our radar and anti-air systems would render most of their borderline obsolete airforce DOA.

The computer system is just a small part of the Aegis system. The big advantage Aegis has over any similar system is the SPY-1 RADAR. It is quite possibly the most powerful air-search RADAR in widespread use.
Fair enough.

Just for the record though, the Spanish Frigates have the SPY-1D 3-D, and the Norwegian ones SPY-1F.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

If you haven't heard a funny French Surrender joke then it is true what they say about the Germans lacking humour.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea

Anyone who thinks france could even draw with England are mad.

Englands army is better trained, the french hardly have any experiance.

England has far better armoured vehicals, missiles, air force, navy.

It's a no contest.

Anyone who thinks france could even draw with England are mad.

Englands army is better trained, the french hardly have any experiance.

England has far better armoured vehicals, missiles, air force, navy.

It's a no contest.
Agreed.
-------------------------------
Oz actually 'needs' New Zealands Fighter Combat Strike wing, they've admitted that, pity Aunty Helen destroyed it.



OZ are looking to expand its ground forces by 2 Battalions within the next 10 years.
I wonder if anyone made a thread about it...

Anyone who thinks france could even draw with England are mad.
Or not English, evidently. And besides, I'm talking about the UK.

Englands army is better trained, the french hardly have any experiance.
Ooookay. The French have troops on missions all over the planet, as we speak. They took part in the combat in Afghanistan, and in Gulf War I (in which they performed very well indeed, or so I hear). Not to mention Kosovo (where with 10% of the personnel they ran 14% of the ground attack missions, illustrating their efficiency (http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=57)).
In fact, the only recent combat operations the British were involved in that France wasn't was the Iraq War now.

England has far better armoured vehicals, missiles, air force, navy.
Challenger II vs Leclerc...well, depends on the situation really. The Leclerc was made to be quick, always on the move and shower the other guy with grenades (thanks to the autoloader). The Challenger's got better armour, and main gun - but the question is whether it could score a hit.
And besides, it's the crew that makes the difference.
Missiles, well, actually apart from the Brimstone, I'd say the French have got the British licked in that area. The MBDA Mica is an example.
The air force, hmmm, the Dassault Rafale is being introduced at the moment, and I'm not sure I'd want to bet any money on a confrontation between a Eurofighter and a Rafale. As for the others...well, both fly the Jaguar and the Mirage 2000 is half-decent in its most recent versions. I'd say the outcome overall depends on who attacks whom.
And the French Navy, I guess the British get the nod here. Although the Charles de Gaulle with the right support could do some damage. Certainly moreso than the ancient carriers the Royal Navy operates until the (Franco-British) replacements are built.

It's a no contest.
Oh, it's probably one of the tightest here.

UK vs France
Germany vs France
China vs Russia
India vs Pakistan
Israel vs France
Australia vs Indonesia
Japan vs China
North Korea vs South Korea (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU vs US



France vs UK - UK. Germany proved in WW2 how hard it is to invade the UK when we don't want to be invaded. It would probably become another Battle of Britain, and I expect that again we would just wear down the French and then BAM! Invasion. Or just force a cross-channel stalemate then have it come down to special ops against key targets, in which case I'd say the SAS ftw. And this judgement isn't based on patriotism - the UK sucks lol. I genuinely think that a) France would get nowhere trying to invade and b) would weaken itself trying to the point where a counter0invasion would be successful.

China vs Russia - Jury's out on this one, but I'm leaning towards Russia. China would probably be woefully inexperienced fighting in Russian terrain, and as was stated previously the Russians would probably lure them in and then finish them off. Not to mention that since Russia has its own supplies of energy its supply lines would be far shorter and less vulnerable even if it did invade.

India vs Pakistan - Draw probably. Pakistan is tricky terrain to invade, and a nightmare when facing a determined opposition, which there most certainly would be. So India wouldn't be able to successfully invade. If Pakistan tried to invade they'd just get swamped as soon as they were out of the mountains. So again, stalemate.

Australia vs Indonesia - Another draw: Indonesia would be next to impossible to effectively invade, and I doubt that Indonesia would be able to launch a successful invasion of Australia - the ANZACs being the badasses they are :D

US vs EU - Hmm... I wouldn't say it would be easy by any means. Probably another draw, after all, the EU has much better connections to the various oil producers - the US would be quite screwed in that respect. Sure they have oil facilities, but nowhere near enough to fuel a war effort that big and that extended. Each party would be more or less impotent I expect, since an invasion of the other would require massively long supply lines, and crossing the Atlantic, which as the passengers of the Lusitania will tell you takes more than a smile. So yeah, another protracted bout of not very much being achieved.

Of course, that's assuming the Americans didn't just accidentally kill all their own troops :D:p

UK vs France-draw both have nukes-as soon a one side begins to lose ground the option of nukes becomes an option and ends the war

Germany vs France-France/nukes

China vs Russia-same as above, threat of nukes ends all wars

India vs Pakistan-India, both have Nukes but the Pakistanis don't have enough to defeat Indian and India could erase Pakistan so Pakistan will back off

Israel vs France-France-Israel's forces aren't capable of carring out sustained war any distance from it's borders, France has long range nukes/Israel is a small country only a few nukes and they would be done.

Australia vs Indonesia,-Aussies in a battle but they don't have the numbers to occupy and control Indonesia so a draw.

Japan vs China-China, they have Nukes, Japan would surrender

North Korea vs South Korea-North,nukes and they're not afraid to use them

forgot EU vs USA-draw- distance from each other makes invasion/support/occupation impossible- both sides have nukes-both sides have excellent equipment

UK vs France - UK wins (yes, France has troops on missions all over the world, but the UK still has significantly more experience)

Germany vs France - the most interesting possibility, difficult to call it

China vs Russia - long drawn out stalemate with PRC pushing to a slow grinding win, possibly ended with nukes

India vs Pakistan Nobody wins - it all goes up in mushroom clouds

Israel vs France - several small naval actions in the Med. Sea

Australia vs Indonesia - Oz wins the naval skirmishes

Japan vs China - Bye bye Dai :(

North Korea vs South Korea - Bye bye Dai again - also Seoul and more. then the NKs run out of gas and collapse

EU vs US - Team USA for the win, any way you slice it

Ireland would pwn them all. Not through warfare, but through infestation. A bunch of Irish people show up with rucksacks, people assume they're back packers. They pitch a tent in a field and disppear. In two months, there's another tent. In 4 months, there's 4 tents. Then 8. Once it gets to about 100 tents the Irish peopel leave the tents and take over the country. Since there's about 5-9 million Irish people per tent.

I'm bored. And I know how much NS likes a good grudge match about wars that are quite unlikely to happen. We just had the China vs US thread, and that's got 17 pages!

So here we go: Tell us who you think will win the following wars and how, and a few sentences for why you think so.

UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Great_Britain) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Germany) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC) vs Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Russia)
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_India) vs Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan)
Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel) vs France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Australia) vs Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) vs China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_PRC)
North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea) vs South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea) (no Americans!)

and finally, the classic:
EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) vs US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)

Also, if you want to make French Surrender Jokes (and you will), make them funny. Something I haven't heard yet.

My responses are assuming allies will NOT be called on.

1. We have a quality V. quantity situation here. France has about three times as many active military members, but England has better equipment. I'll have to go with France, though.

2. According to the population fit for military service, Germany should have more soldiers. But they obviously have much less quality equipment. And Germany doesn't have that many more soldiers than France, so France will win this one.

3. China. Hands down. China has four million more troops than Russia currently, and wouldn't hesitate to lead to mass drafts in the event of a war. Russia wouldn't draft, as they want to stay on good terms with the rest of the world. China also obviously spends much more on their military than Russia. Also, Russian troops would probably be much less motivated to fight than the Chinese.

4. India. They simply have too many numbers. Even if Pakistan had the greatest weapons in the world, India would still win.

5. France. They have more numbers, and spend about 40 billion more dollars on their military than Israel.

6. Indonesia. Once again, just plain numbers. About 40x more fit for military service than Australia. Australia may spend 23x on their military, but the numbers will simply be too overwhelming.

7. China. They, like the fight with Russia, simply have far too many numbers and spend so much on their military.

8. Tough one. Right now, SK has a much better force. But in the event of a war, NK would easily and quickly mobilize, drafting all avaible citizens, and focusing almost their entire income on the military. SK wouldn't be willing to do that. But SK will still have much better technology. I'd say it would end in a truce, as it always has.

9. The EU. It simply has too many nations under it's wing. It will combine all the technology, all the soldiers, all the capabilities of an entire twenty five countries. Not even the U.S. could stand up to that.

Fair enough.

Just for the record though, the Spanish Frigates have the SPY-1D 3-D, and the Norwegian ones SPY-1F.They have purchased it from the US. I am unaware whether or not the Spanish or Norwegian ships have been commissioned yet. I do know that they are currently being constructed though. I am looking forward to seeing how those ships perform.

They have purchased it from the US. I am unaware whether or not the Spanish or Norwegian ships have been commissioned yet. I do know that they are currently being constructed though. I am looking forward to seeing how those ships perform.
They have. They're pretty brand new (The Nansen was commissioned in April) but the Spanish one has even been assigned into a US Carrier Group. Although whether it actually did anything there is apparently unclear. But you're right, they're being developed and improved in very close teamwork with the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansen-Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n_class_frigate
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18207
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1433482.php

The Spanish one looks like someone took a Perry class FFG and put the aft portion of the superstructure on top of it. Those will be good ships, but the Arleigh Burkes are still superior just for the fact that they have double the number of VLS cells. Obviously, Spain and Norway don't have the budget the US has so they had to build their Aegis ships as frigates.

The Nansen class just has a very unique look. There is nothing I have seen afloat to compare her looks to. She is also lacking in terms of number of missiles. They are $600 million per ship. The firepower she carries for that cost definitely make her a very cost-effective warship.

6. Indonesia. Once again, just plain numbers. About 40x more fit for military service than Australia. Australia may spend 23x on their military, but the numbers will simply be too overwhelming.I think you're confusing the size of an army with the effeciency. Indonesia has virtually zero capability for force projection. It's all very well having an army of one million soldiers, but if you can't move them, they're nowhere near as valuable of 30,000 highly mobile and well-trained troops. The first Gulf War very clearly demonstrated just how useless numbers are these days in the face of superior training and equipment.

Again, however, I fully realize that Australia could never occupy Indonesia. Waaaaaay too many islands to cover and a monstrous population would probably make it the most difficult nation to conquer outright on the planet.

Having said that, Australia could completely cripple the Indonesian economy as well as shatter their capabilty to project power beyond their borders. If we wanted to prevent invasion, the pendulum would definately swing in our favour.

4. India. They simply have too many numbers. Even if Pakistan had the greatest weapons in the world, India would still win.

Actually the Indian army does not enjoy that much numerical superiority over Pakistan. India has 3 strike corps of which one has to be posted at the China border to deter China opening another front in case of a war with Pakistan.

If India can move the third strike corps to the Pakistani theatre, India will wiin outright since it will enjoy army superiority in addition to the naval and air superiority it currently enjoys.

I'm not going to respond to every one of these, since some have been covered very well by other people. So I'll stick with these three. Also, I'm going to disregard nuclear weapons in the sake of rationality, since one assumes nations would be smart enough not to use them.


Australia vs. Indonesia: This would be a more difficult battle than people realize, as the Indonesian archipelago is not easily traversed or holdable. Still, the Indonesia military would be on the defensive virtually the entire time and any threat to the Australian continent would be negligible at best. Australia takes this one handidly.

Japan vs China: People here are seriously overestimating China's military strenth. While it has grown appreciably over the years, China still doesn't have the force necessary to take back Taiwan. It has limited power projection at best. Japan's self-defense forces are surprisingly well trained and equipped. They would capably force back any Chinese invasion but would not be able to invade Chinese territory. Still, as far as a military victory goes, this one goes to Japan.

North vs South Korea: No one. Let's be clear on this. In the opening minutes of any given war, North Korean artillery would pound Seoul. That alone would kill hundreds of thousands. Both nations have large militaries, and though the South's is better equipped the North is far more willing to use force. Not to mention any war would necessitate crossing the border, which is rediculously guarded and laced with mines. The outcome would inevitably be victory for the South, but at such a large cost that it would be hard to call it a victory at all.

Yes.

Yes.

NO!

Why do you pointlessly debate over something that none of you and probabley no one on earth could know the truth about. Anything that you "know" about the "power" of any given military is from propaganda and the size of your ego. The only ways to find out the result is to witness the war or to a lesser degree war game it. And i know that no one has any results from war gaming that have any degree of sophistication and accuracy. It's like fighting over religion, no one can possibly know for certain, its just ignorantly believing that your right.

Why do you pointlessly debate over something that none of you and probabley no one on earth could know the truth about. Anything that you "know" about the "power" of any given military is from propaganda and the size of your ego. The only ways to find out the result is to witness the war or to a lesser degree war game it. And i know that no one has any results from war gaming that have any degree of sophistication and accuracy. It's like fighting over religion, no one can possibly know for certain, its just ignorantly believing that your right.

Wow, someone had a funectomy :p

Why do you pointlessly debate over something that none of you and probabley no one on earth could know the truth about. Anything that you "know" about the "power" of any given military is from propaganda and the size of your ego. The only ways to find out the result is to witness the war or to a lesser degree war game it. And i know that no one has any results from war gaming that have any degree of sophistication and accuracy. It's like fighting over religion, no one can possibly know for certain, its just ignorantly believing that your right.

Wait wait wait buddy. We are not ASSUMING we know the outcome of these wars. We are THEORIZING based on given evidence. If we see a theory which looks like it isn't correct provided given evidence, we show how given evidence would contradict the possibilites given in that theory. We don't assume we know what's going to happen.

Wait wait wait buddy. We are not ASSUMING we know the outcome of these wars. We are THEORIZING based on given evidence. If we see a theory which looks like it isn't correct provided given evidence, we show how given evidence would contradict the possibilites given in that theory. We don't assume we know what's going to happen.

All true, but I still prefer my answer :D

Wait wait wait buddy. We are not ASSUMING we know the outcome of these wars. We are THEORIZING based on given evidence. If we see a theory which looks like it isn't correct provided given evidence, we show how given evidence would contradict the possibilites given in that theory. We don't assume we know what's going to happen.

What evidence is that gathered from and based against what template is it analyzed to be in support of your position? Having 10,000 extra light infantry can mean a lot of extra things depending simply on luck. They could encounter far superior forces, get slaughtered and force themselves to having to focus on evac'ing instead of fighting or they could be instrumental in holding a city. There is no way of even coming close to accurate w/o blind luck and then you can't persuade somebody if you can't even be 25% sure of yourself.

All true, but I still prefer my answer :D

So do i. ;)

What evidence is that gathered from and based against what template is it analyzed to be in support of your position? Having 10,000 extra light infantry can mean a lot of extra things depending simply on luck. They could encounter far superior forces, get slaughtered and force themselves to having to focus on evac'ing instead of fighting or they could be instrumental in holding a city. There is no way of even coming close to accurate w/o blind luck and then you can't persuade somebody if you can't even be 25% sure of yourself.

Our evidence is based on the current military, economic, and industrial capabilities of a country. Along with that is predicted reactions a country will make in the event of a war, along with terrain advantages, and the history that country has had in war, along with the reputation of their soldiers. We do NOT take blind luck into account, as that rarely proves to be an effective source of winning a war.

UK > All

We have the SAS. 'Nuff said :P

We do NOT take blind luck into account, as that rarely proves to be an effective source of winning a war.

Well god damn. It sure as hell helps at a tactical level. In close-combat, all you can do is train well and rely on some lucky breaks every once in a while. I don't think a ground war has ever been waged w/o luck playing a huge role in it. No matter how well your force fights or how many advantages it has it can always be crippled by an unlucky break. Try the battle at baltimore in the war of 1812. A sniper gets a lucky shot, kills their general and the U.S. holds baltimore. All the analyzing in the world couldn't predict that. You could have a column of tanks moving down a street in a cramped town and the lead vehicle takes a lucky rpg and luckily disables the vehicle and all the rest are sitting ducks. So in that case, essentially one luckily placed rpg placed by one lucky soldier wins the battle against all odds.

UK > All

We have the SAS. 'Nuff said :P
But so does Oz and NZ...

Uk vs. France isn't a competition. UK would win easily.

Well god damn. It sure as hell helps at a tactical level. In close-combat, all you can do is train well and rely on some lucky breaks every once in a while. I don't think a ground war has ever been waged w/o luck playing a huge role in it. No matter how well your force fights or how many advantages it has it can always be crippled by an unlucky break. Try the battle at baltimore in the war of 1812. A sniper gets a lucky shot, kills their general and the U.S. holds baltimore. All the analyzing in the world couldn't predict that. You could have a column of tanks moving down a street in a cramped town and the lead vehicle takes a lucky rpg and luckily disables the vehicle and all the rest are sitting ducks. So in that case, essentially one luckily placed rpg placed by one lucky soldier wins the battle against all odds.

God damnit... Where the fuck is Dinaverg when you need him...

Anyways... That sniper wasn't "lucky". He knew what trajectory to set the rifle at, how the wind was, where is target was, the chances of him moving or not, etc. etc. There was no luck involved, simply the massive amounts of patiences required to be a sniper in those days.

And I think that any intelligent person would, in fact, aim for the lead vehicle no matter what, knowing that that would stop the entire column. And chances are the person aiming the RPG knows where the weakspot is, allowing them to easily disable the vehicle. There's no luck involved in that either.

Anyways... That sniper wasn't "lucky". He knew what trajectory to set the rifle at, how the wind was, where is target was, the chances of him moving or not, etc. etc. There was no luck involved, simply the massive amounts of patiences required to be a sniper in those days.
No it required luck. The shot was for outside his effective range. BTW, those days?
And I think that any intelligent person would, in fact, aim for the lead vehicle no matter what, knowing that that would stop the entire column. And chances are the person aiming the RPG knows where the weakspot is, allowing them to easily disable the vehicle. There's no luck involved in that either.
No, it really is lucky to put an RPG through a tank. I've seen 5 rpgs hit the same side of a tank and all bounce off. Plus there is no real weak spot on a tank for an RPG to disable it unless it is already damaged.

Yea, but the Aussies and the Kiwis got them via the UK. We still had the originals, forces that've been going strong since 1941 and don't show any signs of slowing down.

So do i. ;)

:eek: You mean you really did have a funectomy? But... *whispers* but I thought they were seriously illegal! :D Seriously though, chillax man, this thread is all in a spirit of fun and/or interested speculation. Allow us our moments of feeling like mega-uber generals. Why else do people play C&C?

No it required luck. The shot was for outside his effective range. BTW, those days?

No, it really is lucky to put an RPG through a tank. I've seen 5 rpgs hit the same side of a tank and all bounce off. Plus there is no real weak spot on a tank for an RPG to disable it unless it is already damaged.

But since luck is both entirely unpredictable and can work for both sides, we're factoring it out of our reckoning in the interests of making speculation of these outcomes possible.

Oh and just a note - while it would be lucky to disable the first tank in the column (or any tank) luck wouldn't have such a big part to play in that situation - sending tanks into an urban environment, especially one with so little room to manouevre that they can't even get past a destroyed comrade, is stupid. APCs/jeeps yes, tanks no.

No it required luck. The shot was for outside his effective range. BTW, those days?

No, it really is lucky to put an RPG through a tank. I've seen 5 rpgs hit the same side of a tank and all bounce off. Plus there is no real weak spot on a tank for an RPG to disable it unless it is already damaged.

Still, it required more amount of skill and patience than luck.

Yeah, the SIDE of a tank. Where there's armour aplenty. You are talking about hitting the FRONT, which is suprisingly weak for being the front. You'd be suprised what an RPG can do.

Still, it required more amount of skill and patience than luck.

Yeah, the SIDE of a tank. Where there's armour aplenty. You are talking about hitting the FRONT, which is suprisingly weak for being the front. You'd be suprised what an RPG can do.

Umm. I'm pretty sure the front is the most heavily armoured part right? The sides and back (particularly the back) are the most vulnerable. Then of course there's the treads.

You'd be suprised what an RPG can do.

No i wouldn't. I've spent 2 years in 2 combat zones and i've seen it all. An M1 is plenty capable of taking a few RPG's to the mouth. Especially in the places where we are fighting. These things are so poorly mantained that you'd be lucky to hit a car from 50m away.

But since luck is both entirely unpredictable and can work for both sides, we're factoring it out of our reckoning in the interests of making speculation of these outcomes possible.
But b/c luck plays a big role that just furthurs the complete futility of you trying to predict these things.
Oh and just a note - while it would be lucky to disable the first tank in the column (or any tank) luck wouldn't have such a big part to play in that situation - sending tanks into an urban environment, especially one with so little room to manouevre that they can't even get past a destroyed comrade, is stupid. APCs/jeeps yes, tanks no.
Yea, but every military in the world does it including the U.S. until OIF. Tanks are however an integral part of U.S. urban warfare. In fallujah, infantry, unless it was impossible, were used as scouts just to find the enemy and call in the tanks. They became a sort of 100% accurate artillery.

And hypothetically speaking if you needed to get tanks through a city to reinforce a position then rushing them all through the city is worth the risk to hold the city. So it might not be all that dumb afterall.

But b/c luck plays a big role that just furthurs the complete futility of you trying to predict these things.

Yea, but every military in the world does it including the U.S. until OIF. Tanks are however an integral part of U.S. urban warfare. In fallujah, infantry, unless it was impossible, were used as scouts just to find the enemy and call in the tanks. They became a sort of 100% accurate artillery.

And hypothetically speaking if you needed to get tanks through a city to reinforce a position then rushing them all through the city is worth the risk to hold the city. So it might not be all that dumb afterall.

:p You need to sort your quoting out, that was me that said that, not Naliitr hehe.

Yes, our predictions could conceivably be way off if we were trying to predict the outcome of one particular battle, but if we are trying to speculate on the outcome of an entire war then the effects of sheer luck diminish; the greater the scheme you are trying to predict, the more uniform the events become, as based on the various palpable factors.

Basically, it's a lot easier to predict the outcome of whole wars than single battles :D

And even if it were entirely and completely impossible and futile, so what? It's a bit of fun isn't it? And since when is anything on NS Gen ever pointed and meaningful?


As to the tanks; it is still unlikely that a tank column wouldn't have an infantry screen ahead of it, against just this sort of eventuality, which is all too easy to bring about in an urban environment.

And as for rushing to reinforce... *shrug* well it depends on the circs doesn't it. Again this is speculation on the outcome of one battle, not a whole war.

Basically, it's a lot easier to predict the outcome of whole wars than single battles :D
Well the entire U.S. gov't w/ its endless resources screwed it up so i don't see how your gonna do any better. I really don't think you understand how important one single event can mean to the outcome of the whole thing. Also, your looking at things from a material POV and not the most important thinga which are leadership and know how.

As to the tanks; it is still unlikely that a tank column wouldn't have an infantry screen ahead of it, against just this sort of eventuality, which is all too easy to bring about in an urban environment.
Not quite sure what your saying but why is it unlikely that the infantry would be integrated into the armored force. As i already said we already do it in Iraq. It is usually 1-2 tanks per infantry platoon in dangerous areas.

And as for rushing to reinforce... *shrug* well it depends on the circs doesn't it. Again this is speculation on the outcome of one battle, not a whole war.
But if the war depended on taking that city then the destroying those reinforcements wins the war for the attacking side.

Well the entire U.S. gov't w/ its endless resources screwed it up so i don't see how your gonna do any better. I really don't think you understand how important one single event can mean to the outcome of the whole thing. Also, your looking at things from a material POV and not the most important thinga which are leadership and know how.

But then tbf the whole US govt. with its endless resources completely ignored the advice of the guy they got to be Iraq in the pre-invasion simulation they ran, in which they got thoroughly kicked. Which would seem to indicate that their strategists aren't quite as on the ball as could be hoped.

Not quite sure what your saying but why is it unlikely that the infantry would be integrated into the armored force. As i already said we already do it in Iraq. It is usually 1-2 tanks per infantry platoon in dangerous areas.

What I mean is exactly that; armoured forces have infantry with them; you don't just go sending tanks trundling through a city. The infantry can therefore scout ahead of the column and remove any rogue RPGers that might threaten the column.

*Must resist urge to make D&D joke...*

But if the war depended on taking that city then the destroying those reinforcements wins the war for the attacking side.

In these enlightened days surely a single city is far less important to a war effort than in previous years? Sure it'd help to have such a definite base of operations, but think; it'd be a hotbed for insurrection, and the emphasis on places to ship in supplies is decreasing with the increased availability of air drops and such. To a certain extent aat least.

Besides, if the city were really so vital I doubt that those in charge of the war effort would be so foolish as to leave it badly undermanne,d so much so that they have to rush a tank column through hostile urban environs where they are vulnerable to attack.


But the point remains, where exactly is the harm in us speculating on the outcome of theses scenarios? Why can't you just let us have our fun? Is it really so unreasonable to base our predictions on factors such as military strength, expertise and strategic geographical influences etc?

What I mean is exactly that; armoured forces have infantry with them; you don't just go sending tanks trundling through a city. The infantry can therefore scout ahead of the column and remove any rogue RPGers that might threaten the column.
If it really is that urgent then you don't have time to scour every room of every building along the way. Plus it's just a bad bad idea to send infantry in by themselves.

In these enlightened days surely a single city is far less important to a war effort than in previous years? Sure it'd help to have such a definite base of operations, but think; it'd be a hotbed for insurrection, and the emphasis on places to ship in supplies is decreasing with the increased availability of air drops and such. To a certain extent aat least.
If you are in a serious 2gw or 3gw fight then yes, every city counts. You need to mantain your infrastructure. Plus if you give the enemy a city then it means that you now have to attack a well defended position w/ limited resources just to get back to where you started.
Besides, if the city were really so vital I doubt that those in charge of the war effort would be so foolish as to leave it badly undermanne,d so much so that they have to rush a tank column through hostile urban environs where they are vulnerable to attack.
Things don't go as planned in war, especially when you are fighting a very competent force. If a city is vital to one side then it is vital for the other side to eliminate it and they will try to overmatch the defense.


But the point remains, where exactly is the harm in us speculating on the outcome of theses scenarios? Why can't you just let us have our fun? Is it really so unreasonable to base our predictions on factors such as military strength, expertise and strategic geographical influences etc?
If you havn't noticed, this is the speculation.

If you havn't noticed, this is the speculation.

But it isn't the speculation for which the thread was intended, which is the problem. The point of the thread is to encourage others to share their idle speculations on the most probable outcome of the wars stated, just as a hypothetical.

You sir, are threadjacking :p

Incidentally I won't argue with the rest of your post as you probably know far more about it all than I :)

You sir, are threadjacking :p
And you are encouraging me:)
Incidentally I won't argue with the rest of your post as you probably know far more about it all than I :)
Got that right.

And you are encouraging me:)

Got me :D

Got that right.

In which case it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave the discussion there :)

Out of interest, what do you think would happen in the scenarios mentioned? (The original ones that is).

I really don't know shit about the composition, position, doctrine or leadership of any of those militaries minus the U.S.. So that and predicting basically being a declaration of surrender for the point i was trying to make is gonna have to force me to say im not tellin.

I really don't know shit about the composition, position, doctrine or leadership of any of those militaries minus the U.S.. So that and predicting basically being a declaration of surrender for the point i was trying to make is gonna have to force me to say im not tellin.

Nuts. Woulda been interesting to have a professional opinion :)

Ah well. Some other time perhaps :D

And with that I bid you a good morning, as it is now about half two in the morning and I'm rather tired :) Tata!

Assuming no allies to support either side.

UK v France - Close, but the RN & RAF would make it extremely difficult for France to invade the UK, whereas the British have a better force projection capability.

Germany v France - I think the French have a more complete military force than the Germans, particularly the airforce. France for the win, if they retain air superiority. Close again though.

China v Russia - I think this would just be a stalemate. China would run out of impetus in the Siberian wastes, long before they reached the vital parts of Russia. China simply have enough numbers to rebuff a Russian invasion.

India v Pakistan - I think India has a better equipped military, with a greater population, technology base & resources to draw upon. It would almost certainly go nuclear though.

Israel v France - Israel has virtually no way to attack France. France could blockade & strike Israel from afar. The Israelli military may be well equipped & trained, but the French would cut them off & grind them down.

Australia v Indonesia - There is no way the Australia could occupy Indonesia, our population & armed forces are way too small to do it. The RAN & RAAF could inflict heavy casualties on an Indonesian invading force, but sheer weight of numbers would wear us down. We simply don't have enough planes to fly the number of sorties that would be required. If the Indonesians truly wanted to occupy Australia, regardless of the cost, I believe they could.

Japan v China - Stalemate. Japan couldn't invade & occupy China, China & its population is too large. China has a very poor force projection capability, and Japan's defenses would be strong enough to hold them off.

North Korea v South Korea - North Korea's leadership is completely mad & would stop at nothing to achieve victory. Incomprehensible casualties result.

EU v USA - I'd have to say the USA, because they have a totally integrated military force, withput the internal divisions the EU has. I don't think the USA could invade & hold Central/Western Europe though, it would be a logistical nightmare, rife with geurilla attacks.