France vs United Kingdom

[Jassysworth 1]

2014: France goes to war against the United Kingdom; each side thinks the other side has started the war.

Who would win in this hypothetical scenario? Rules.

1. No nuclear weapons are allowed.

2. No other country may directly participate in this war on either side. No matter what happens, no other country may intervene in this war.

3. No other country may send any type of aid: material, monetary, or manpower-wise to either side no matter how many of their citizens may die in this war (for example, the United States is NOT allowed to intervene on the side of the UK even if a French bombing raid over London kills a dozen US citizens).

4. The war only ends ONLY WHEN one side formally surrenders and signs a paper saying they surrender and give massive concessions. Assume that any results to settle this war otherwise will inevitably fail; no negotiations can be reached for a mutually beneficial exit and if any such negotiations are reached, they are very soon violated and the war resumes. This is a fight to the death...

5. The UK and France are not allowed to take the war to other countries. They may not invade other countries in this war; they are not allowed to operate in the territorial waters of other countries or use the airspace of other countries. They may not operate military units in other countries or hide military units/supply bases in other countries. HOWEVER, they are allowed to target, destroy or capture ANYTHING that operates in international waters, outer space, unclaimed territory and within French or British airspace, seaspace, and land sovereignty + contested Anglo-French territories IF they are capable of doing so. They are allowed to kill, maim, injure, torture, rob or otherwise maltreat citizens of foreign nations in the above listed types of territories (''... international waters and within French or British airspace, seaspace...'').

6. Each side is given ONE WHOLE YEAR starting from now to position their forces for this war. They know not that the war will break out exactly one year from now but they are expecting that a war between the two countries IS coming in the near future.

7. Military spending and military composition does not change between now and the time scheduled for the war to start. The world economy does not change dramatically from now and the time the war is scheduled to start. The respective populations of both countries does not change dramatically from now and the time the war is scheduled to start. Neither France nor Great Britain will partake in any other military conflicts from now until the start of the war (assume that France pulls out of Mali right now instantly and without a cost).

8. Other rules are subject to be posted by future OP edits.

This is France vs United Kingdom... based on 2013 stats and each side is given one year to prepare... A total war just between these two until one side wins. Who will win?

Vive la France? Or God Bless the Queen?

My vote goes to France. Slightly more people, slightly more powerful economically, less vulnerable to disruptions in sea trade.

[The Whispers]

2013: France goes to war against the United Kingdom; each side thinks the other side has started the war.

Who would win in this hypothetical scenario?

Those damned dirty Chinese.

[Forster Keys]

The rules make the whole exercise pointless. Of course there's going to be material and economic aide coming in if such a ridiculous situation becomes a reality.

[Jassysworth 1]

The rules make the whole exercise pointless. Of course there's going to be material and economic aide coming in if such a ridiculous situation becomes a reality.

the rules are to avoid a situation in which the United States or the rest of the EU massively favors one side or the other and decides the outcome of the war...

This is strictly France's military vs UK's military, France's economic capabilities vs UK's economic capabilities. And their respective capabilities to disrupt each other's military and economic capabilities...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

2014: France goes to war against the United Kingdom; each side thinks the other side has started the war.

No. We know the reason why France goes to war. How better than to capture all our English teachers!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... n-english/

[Grand Britannia]

France surrenders the moment they see British troops.

/Thread.

[Byeloruss]

France surrenders the moment they see British troops.

/Thread.

[West Macedonia]

No one

[Tiami]

In 2013(our current year), the UK was placed one spot above that of France. I would still pick the UK to to win regardless. The last time I read, the UK had a larger budget for the defense spending. France maintains a larger population and economy, so they can pour more troops into the conflict, but I think that the UK holds a slight military superiority over them...so the UK may get this one. Due noted that a war between France and the UK is highly unlikely, too.
http://www.globalfirepower.com

[Forster Keys]

The rules make the whole exercise pointless. Of course there's going to be material and economic aide coming in if such a ridiculous situation becomes a reality.

the rules are to avoid a situation in which the United States or the rest of the EU massively favors one side or the other and decides the outcome of the war...

This is strictly France's military vs UK's military, France's economic capabilities vs UK's economic capabilities. And their respective capabilities to disrupt each other's military and economic capabilities...

Righto, a direct comparison. Seems more legit.

[Forster Keys]

France surrenders the moment they see British troops.

/Thread.

Well that's a tired old one.

[Royal Tradition]

It would be a complete and utter stalemate, and I shall explain why:

France and Britain both have navies of a similar size and strength, for what the French makes up in carriers the Royal Navy could cancel out with Type 45 destroyers which have been known as the most advanced warships ever built.
Britain's Air Force is the largest in Europe and the second largest in NATO, and pilots have more training hours and newer planes than the French. HOWEVER, Britain's Army (despite being battle hardened and better equipped) has been decreased by a series of brutal spending cuts and is therefore, numerically, at a disadvantage to the Arme d' Tere (or whatever it's called, basically the French Army).

Also, each sides have defensive obligations to overseas territories: The UK in places such as Cyprus, The Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean territory and the French in Indonesia where 2 million people live under France.

Both economies are not doing very well, both counties have lost their AAA credit rating and it's doubtful that either of us could fight a shooting war for more than 6/7 months. Therefore, neither side would be able to press an advantage. However, if it were purely on military technology and training Britain would probably come out tops because of the mass modernization of the armed forces due to fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years (conflicts in which the French have had little involvement, and the conflict in Mali has not been long enough to warrant massive reforms such as in the British Armed Forces).

It won't ever happen, because France and Britain are Allies and cooperate strongly in military matters with no need to go to war. Also, I like the French so why would either of us even imagine trying to destroy the other?

[The UK in Exile]

2014: France goes to war against the United Kingdom; each side thinks the other side has started the war.

Who would win in this hypothetical scenario? Rules.

1. No nuclear weapons are allowed.

2. No other country may directly participate in this war on either side. No matter what happens, no other country may intervene in this war.

3. No other country may send any type of aid: material, monetary, or manpower-wise to either side no matter how many of their citizens may die in this war (for example, the United States is NOT allowed to intervene on the side of the UK even if a French bombing raid over London kills a dozen US citizens).

4. The war only ends ONLY WHEN one side formally surrenders and signs a paper saying they surrender and give massive concessions. Assume that any results to settle this war otherwise will inevitably fail; no negotiations can be reached for a mutually beneficial exit and if any such negotiations are reached, they are very soon violated and the war resumes. This is a fight to the death...

5. The UK and France are not allowed to take the war to other countries. They may not invade other countries in this war; they are not allowed to operate in the territorial waters of other countries or use the airspace of other countries. They may not operate military units in other countries or hide military units/supply bases in other countries. HOWEVER, they are allowed to target, destroy or capture ANYTHING that operates in international waters, outer space, unclaimed territory and within French or British airspace, seaspace, and land sovereignty + contested Anglo-French territories IF they are capable of doing so. They are allowed to kill, maim, injure, torture, rob or otherwise maltreat citizens of foreign nations in the above listed types of territories (''... international waters and within French or British airspace, seaspace...'').

6. Each side is given ONE WHOLE YEAR starting from now to position their forces for this war. They know not that the war will break out exactly one year from now but they are expecting that a war between the two countries IS coming in the near future.

7. Military spending and military composition does not change between now and the time scheduled for the war to start. The world economy does not change dramatically from now and the time the war is scheduled to start. The respective populations of both countries does not change dramatically from now and the time the war is scheduled to start. Neither France nor Great Britain will partake in any other military conflicts from now until the start of the war (assume that France pulls out of Mali right now instantly and without a cost).

8. Other rules are subject to be posted by future OP edits.

This is France vs United Kingdom... based on 2013 stats and each side is given one year to prepare... A total war just between these two until one side wins. Who will win?

Vive la France? Or God Bless the Queen?

My vote goes to France. Slightly more people, slightly more powerful economically, less vulnerable to disruptions in sea trade.

both sides sign a surrender document at the start, avoiding the entire conflict.

[Sumus Individua]

United Kingdom has more votes? Really?
I slightly disagree. I am positive that France would win. Even tho neither of countries could hardly go to war due to their Centralization.
London has more population, hence it is more centralized. Sounds blunt. But honestly, in France you could find other cities with stronger industries. While in the UK, you have, London, London, London. Everything has to be in LONDON. And same with France. Paris Paris Paris. Anywhere you go, PARIS.
The only thing that kept UK from being conquered in Second World War was the sea.
Economy:
France has the world's fifth largest economy by nominal figures and the ninth largest economy by PPP figures. It has the SECOND largest economy in Europe (behind its main economic partner GERMANY) in nominal figures.
The economy of the United Kingdom is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal GDP and seventh-largest measured by purchasing power parity (PPP)
---
In 2011, the GDP surprisingly grew at 1.85% in France, more than the UK that grew by 0.6%.
---
Inflation of France: 1.5% (2010). Inflation of the United Kingdom: CPI:2.7%, RPI 2.9% (2010)
Labor Force by employment in France: services (71.8%), industry (24.3%), agriculture (3.8%) (2009). Labor Force by employment in UK: agriculture: 1.4%, industry: 18.2%, services: 80.4% (2009).
France Exports: $508.7 billion (2010 est.). UK Exports: $479.2 billion (2011 est.).
''The revised ONS figures of November 2009 showed that the UK had suffered six consecutive quarters of negative growth. As of the end of November 2009, the economy had shrunk by 4.9%, making the 2008–2009 recession the longest since records began.''

Sorry but I don't need to be a military general to know which would win with these economic stats.

[Oooghka]

I am sorely tempted to post a polandball comic.

[Great Nepal]

United Kingdom bombs French white flag production factory, significantly hampering their military effectiveness therefore causing Britain to win.

[Texacoe]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

[Azelkaeth]

United Kingdom has more votes? Really?
I slightly disagree. I am positive that France would win. Even tho neither of countries could hardly go to war due to their Centralization.
London has more population, hence it is more centralized. Sounds blunt. But honestly, in France you could find other cities with stronger industries. While in the UK, you have, London, London, London. Everything has to be in LONDON. And same with France. Paris Paris Paris. Anywhere you go, PARIS.
The only thing that kept UK from being conquered in Second World War was the sea.
Economy:
France has the world's fifth largest economy by nominal figures and the ninth largest economy by PPP figures. It has the SECOND largest economy in Europe (behind its main economic partner GERMANY) in nominal figures.
The economy of the United Kingdom is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal GDP and seventh-largest measured by purchasing power parity (PPP)
---
In 2011, the GDP surprisingly grew at 1.85% in France, more than the UK that grew by 0.6%.
---
Inflation of France: 1.5% (2010). Inflation of the United Kingdom: CPI:2.7%, RPI 2.9% (2010)
Labor Force by employment in France: services (71.8%), industry (24.3%), agriculture (3.8%) (2009). Labor Force by employment in UK: agriculture: 1.4%, industry: 18.2%, services: 80.4% (2009).
France Exports: $508.7 billion (2010 est.). UK Exports: $479.2 billion (2011 est.).
''The revised ONS figures of November 2009 showed that the UK had suffered six consecutive quarters of negative growth. As of the end of November 2009, the economy had shrunk by 4.9%, making the 2008–2009 recession the longest since records began.''

Sorry but I don't need to be a military general to know which would win with these economic stats.

As its a military conflict, the economy of either country is pretty irrelevant. I don't think any conflict between the 2 countires armed forces would be able to last long enough for any economic advantage to triumph. If as Royal tradition mentions ;

.....

Both economies are not doing very well, both counties have lost their AAA credit rating and it's doubtful that either of us could fight a shooting war for more than 6/7 months. ...

A conflict only lasting half a year doesn't really allow anything other than current military capabilities to be used. So as both are relatively close in capability it would seem, then it would come down to people.
By coming down to people i mean that it would most likley come down to which military leader was the better, which country was more motivated overall, and which countries political/military leaders were more ruthless. So not exactly something that can be predicted based upon economic data.

[Kalumba]

It would be a stalemate for the simple reason that neither side could conquer the other. The Royal Navy is ridiculously superior to the French and would have sunk the entirety of the French fleet within a few weeks of the war starting for minimal losses, meaning the French could never invade Britain.

However the air war would be a draw. The RAF and French air force would cancel each other out, I personally believe the Rafale is far superior to the Eurofighter and would win that facet of the air war, but the Type 45 Destroyers would prevent the French extending their airpower over the channel. But the French air superiority over France would prevent the British from invading.

So without resorting to a nuclear option, which is frankly impossible for either side, the war descends into a costly stalemate.

[Stonec]

It would be a stalemate for the simple reason that neither side could conquer the other. The Royal Navy is ridiculously superior to the French and would have sunk the entirety of the French fleet within a few weeks of the war starting for minimal losses, meaning the French could never invade Britain.

However the air war would be a draw. The RAF and French air force would cancel each other out, I personally believe the Rafale is far superior to the Eurofighter and would win that facet of the air war, but the Type 45 Destroyers would prevent the French extending their airpower over the channel. But the French air superiority over France would prevent the British from invading.

So without resorting to a nuclear option, which is frankly impossible for either side, the war descends into a costly stalemate.

Britain would just have to mobilize their legions of unemployed Chavs.
''A six pack of Stella and a holiday in Benidorm if you trash the fuck out of Paris.''

I expect the war to last approximately twelve hours.

[Kalumba]

Britain would just have to mobilize their legions of unemployed Chavs.
''A six pack of Stella and a holiday in Benidorm if you trash the fuck out of Paris.''

I expect the war to last approximately twelve hours.

That is a piece of military genius. Sir, I salute you.

[Calorax]

The UK is pretty awkward to conquer. I'd say we'd win, but only just.

[Tagmatium]

Britain would just have to mobilize their legions of unemployed Chavs.
''A six pack of Stella and a holiday in Benidorm if you trash the fuck out of Paris.''

I expect the war to last approximately twelve hours.

That is a piece of military genius. Sir, I salute you.

It's pretty good...

[Conserative Morality]

France wins. The Channel isn't as an effective defense as it was even sixty or seventy years ago.

[Kalumba]

France wins. The Channel isn't as an effective defense as it was even sixty or seventy years ago.

But the French could not cross the Channel. The RN controls it and the French have nothing to that could put down the Type 45 Destroyers and modern air defence makes it impossible for either side to gain air superiority to cover an invasion. Stalemate is the only possible outcome, or at best for the British their blockade could force France into a negotiated peace.