France vs United Kingdom

[Vitaphone Racing]

What's the point of making rules for every military scenario? If you just want to know who has the best conventional military, fucking come straight out and say it. All these "rules" are doing is making an unlikely scenario into an even more unlikely scenario that's completely irrelevant from the first slightly less unlikely scenario. In otherwords, it's a pointless thread of speculative dickwaving.

[Erulamia]

Either Britain just pip it or stalemate.

[The UK in Exile]

What's the point of making rules for every military scenario? If you just want to know who has the best conventional military, fucking come straight out and say it. All these "rules" are doing is making an unlikely scenario into an even more unlikely scenario that's completely irrelevant from the first slightly less unlikely scenario. In otherwords, it's a pointless thread of speculative dickwaving.

As opposed to all the meaningful dickwaving we could be doing. see below.

[SaorAlba]

Vive la France.

[Constaniana]

Vive la France.

I'm utterly shocked you'd say that.

[SaorAlba]

Vive la France.

I'm utterly shocked you'd say that.

Why ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%89cossaise

http://jean-claude.colrat.pagesperso-orange.fr/2-ecossais.htm

http://www.electricscotland.com/france/auld_alliance.htm

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In a speech which he delivered in Edinburgh in June 1942, Charles de Gaulle described the alliance between Scotland and France as "the oldest alliance in the world". He also declared that:
"In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France, and what Frenchmen feel is that no people has ever been more generous than yours with its friendship."

[Disserbia]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

That kind of thinking always leads to great things...

[The UK in Exile]

"In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France....."

he continued:

"....in victory and in defeat. Well, mostly in defeat. All right all right, entirely in defeat. My point being; when it comes to the pointless and ineffectual resistance to overwhelming force, you can't find two nations who see eye to eye better than the scots and the french."

[SaorAlba]

My point being; when it comes to the pointless and ineffectual resistance to overwhelming force,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn

[Alien Space Bats]

"In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France....."

he continued:

"....in victory and in defeat. Well, mostly in defeat. All right all right, entirely in defeat. My point being; when it comes to the pointless and ineffectual resistance to overwhelming force, you can't find two nations who see eye to eye better than the scots and the french."

On 7 September 1746 the inhabitants of Madras woke to find a French fleet sitting offshore - and an expedition of soldiers being landed on the shore. The French ships opened fire on the town - but with little effect, struggling to find the correct range and by nightfall a large portion of the garrison had been lulled into a false sense of security.

The following morning the French resumed their bombardment from both land and shore, this time with much more accuracy. The fortifications of Madras had been poorly constructed and were largely unable to resist such an attack. As the number of British casualties grew, the morale of the discipline of the troops collapsed. After a direct strike on the liquor stores, a number of soldiers abandoned their posts and drank themselves into a stupor. Civilians from the town took their places manning the defences - but it was clear resistance was collapsing.

On 9 September the Governor of Madras, Nicholas Morse sued for peace.

— Wikipedia Article on the "Battle of Madras" (1746)

Yes, I can just see that, Mark it down as one of the finer moments in Britain's long and storied military history.

All right, I need to be fair here...

At dawn on November 4, [General] St. Clair's force was camped near the present-day location of Fort Recovery, Ohio, near the headwaters of the Wabash River. An Indian force consisting of around 1,000 warriors, led by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, waited in the woods while the men stacked their weapons and paraded to their morning meals. The natives then struck quickly and surprising the Americans, soon overran their ground.

Little Turtle directed the first attack at the militia, who fled across a stream without their weapons. The regulars immediately broke their musket stacks, formed battle lines and fired a volley into the Indians, forcing them back. Little Turtle responded by flanking the regulars and closing in on them. Meanwhile, St. Clair's artillery was stationed on a nearby bluff and was wheeling into position when the gun crews were killed by Indian marksmen, and the survivors were forced to spike their guns.

Colonel William Darke ordered his battalion to fix bayonets and charge the main Indian position. Little Turtle's forces gave way and retreated to the woods, only to encircle Darke's battalion and destroy it. The bayonet charge was tried numerous times with similar results and the U.S. forces eventually collapsed into disorder. St. Clair had three horses shot out from under him as he tried in vain to rally his men.

After three hours of fighting, St. Clair called together the remaining officers and faced with total annihilation, decided to attempt one last bayonet charge to get through the Indian line and escape. Supplies and wounded were left in camp. As before, Little Turtle's Army allowed the bayonets to pass through, but this time the men ran for Fort Jefferson. They were pursued by Indians for about three miles before the latter broke off pursuit and returned to loot the camp. Exact numbers of wounded are not known, but it has been reported that execution fires burned for several days afterward.

The casualty rate was the highest percentage ever suffered by a United States Army unit and included St. Clair's second in command. Of the 52 officers engaged, 39 were killed and 7 wounded; around 88% of all officers became casualties. After two hours St. Clair ordered a retreat, which quickly turned into a rout. "It was, in fact, a flight," St. Clair described a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. The American casualty rate, among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of it unscathed. Indian casualties were about 61, with at least 21 killed.

The number of U.S. soldiers killed during this engagement was more than three times the number the Sioux would kill 85 years later at Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Big Horn.

— Wikipedia Article on the "Battle of the Wabash" (1791)

Just about everybody out there has humiliated themselves in battle at some point in time or another.

[The UK in Exile]

he continued:

"....in victory and in defeat. Well, mostly in defeat. All right all right, entirely in defeat. My point being; when it comes to the pointless and ineffectual resistance to overwhelming force, you can't find two nations who see eye to eye better than the scots and the french."

On 7 September 1746 the inhabitants of Madras woke to find a French fleet sitting offshore - and an expedition of soldiers being landed on the shore. The French ships opened fire on the town - but with little effect, struggling to find the correct range and by nightfall a large portion of the garrison had been lulled into a false sense of security.

The following morning the French resumed their bombardment from both land and shore, this time with much more accuracy. The fortifications of Madras had been poorly constructed and were largely unable to resist such an attack. As the number of British casualties grew, the morale of the discipline of the troops collapsed. After a direct strike on the liquor stores, a number of soldiers abandoned their posts and drank themselves into a stupor. Civilians from the town took their places manning the defences - but it was clear resistance was collapsing.

On 9 September the Governor of Madras, Nicholas Morse sued for peace.

— Wikipedia Article on the "Battle of Madras" (1746)

Yes, I can just see that, Mark it down as one of the finer moments in Britain's long and storied military history.

Just about everybody out there has humiliated themselves in battle at some point in time or another.

Probably a Scottish regiment.

(of course; given the location and time period, they were most likely East India Co Sepoys.)

[Costa Alegria]

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

Jesus Unholy Christ, you created another military thread? When I kicked your sorry arse in the last two?

Who would win in this hypothetical scenario?

Neither. Both their militaries are fairly equal. They French have a slightly larger navy but they are both equal in terms of training, equipment and technology.

Military spending and military composition does not change between now and the time scheduled for the war to start.

You obviously haven't figured out yet that military spending and the quality of said military isn't mutual.

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

Most of France's major sea ports are either on the Atlantic coast or the Channel ergo their trade would be affected by any naval conflicts. This is yet another scenario you haven't thought through. Firstly, no other countries being involved? They'd have to get involved somehow because the English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world because it is the quickest and one of the safest ways for ships to enter the Atlantic from major European ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg. And with the idea presented that the French and British navies are somehow allowed to plunder and capture foreign flagged vessels in international waters with impunity is just begging for another country to declare war on either of them. This isn't the 18th or 19th Centuries anymore (although with your attitude to how warfare should be conducted, it might as well be).

Once again you present an argument/scenario that you really haven't thought through at all. Why the fuck are you still making these kinds of threads anyway? Don't you realise that you are just making shit up pretending it's real?

[Costa Alegria]

What's the point of making rules for every military scenario? If you just want to know who has the best conventional military, fucking come straight out and say it. All these "rules" are doing is making an unlikely scenario into an even more unlikely scenario that's completely irrelevant from the first slightly less unlikely scenario. In otherwords, it's a pointless thread of speculative dickwaving.

Because the OP doesn't fucking get anything to do with the military. Thought you would have understood this with the Tank vs. Infantry and Commonwealth Vs. MUURICAAAA! thread.

[Jassysworth 1]

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

Most of France's major sea ports are either on the Atlantic coast or the Channel ergo their trade would be affected by any naval conflicts. This is yet another scenario you haven't thought through. Firstly, no other countries being involved? They'd have to get involved somehow because the English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world because it is the quickest and one of the safest ways for ships to enter the Atlantic from major European ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg. And with the idea presented that the French and British navies are somehow allowed to plunder and capture foreign flagged vessels in international waters with impunity is just begging for another country to declare war on either of them. This isn't the 18th or 19th Centuries anymore (although with your attitude to how warfare should be conducted, it might as well be).

Once again you present an argument/scenario that you really haven't thought through at all. Why the fuck are you still making these kinds of threads anyway? Don't you realise that you are just making shit up pretending it's real?

Most of France's major sea ports are either on the Atlantic coast or the Channel ergo their trade would be affected by any naval conflicts. This is yet another scenario you haven't thought through. Firstly, no other countries being involved?

Read rule 2, the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant.

Don't you realise that you are just making shit up pretending it's real?

Actually...

It's more like you pretending that I'm pretending to make up shit I think is real...

[Jassysworth 1]

What's the point of making rules for every military scenario? If you just want to know who has the best conventional military, fucking come straight out and say it. All these "rules" are doing is making an unlikely scenario into an even more unlikely scenario that's completely irrelevant from the first slightly less unlikely scenario. In otherwords, it's a pointless thread of speculative dickwaving.

Because the OP doesn't fucking get anything to do with the military. Thought you would have understood this with the Tank vs. Infantry and Commonwealth Vs. MUURICAAAA! thread.

without the rules there wouldn't be a context in which to evaluate who would succeed in a meaningful way...

I don't want to this to turn into a contest of who can get the support of the United States first.

[Maurepas]

They flail pretty worthlessly at each other until the UN and NATO force them to the peace table, and the crisis is averted.

[Constaniana]

I'm utterly shocked you'd say that.

Why ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%89cossaise

http://jean-claude.colrat.pagesperso-orange.fr/2-ecossais.htm

http://www.electricscotland.com/france/auld_alliance.htm

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In a speech which he delivered in Edinburgh in June 1942, Charles de Gaulle described the alliance between Scotland and France as "the oldest alliance in the world". He also declared that:
"In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France, and what Frenchmen feel is that no people has ever been more generous than yours with its friendship."

You know, there is a thing called sarcasm. People seemed knowledgeable about it last time I was in Glasgow, has that changed?

[Jassysworth 1]

They flail pretty worthlessly at each other until the UN and NATO force them to the peace table, and the crisis is averted.

in violation of rules 2) and 4) and perhaps others...

In other words, you better have voted the third option.

[The UK in Exile]

Because the OP doesn't fucking get anything to do with the military. Thought you would have understood this with the Tank vs. Infantry and Commonwealth Vs. MUURICAAAA! thread.

without the rules there wouldn't be a context in which to evaluate who would succeed in a meaningful way...

I don't want to this to turn into a contest of who can get the support of the United States first.

there is no meaningful sucess in a war between GB and France. twisting reality and logic in an effort to force one just brings us into the realm of fiction.

[Constaniana]

without the rules there wouldn't be a context in which to evaluate who would succeed in a meaningful way...

I don't want to this to turn into a contest of who can get the support of the United States first.

there is no meaningful sucess in a war between GB and France. twisting reality and logic in an effort to force one just brings us into the realm of fiction.

In which case Britain can bring out her Dalek legions, and gloriously sweep the frogs aside. *nods*

[Maurepas]

They flail pretty worthlessly at each other until the UN and NATO force them to the peace table, and the crisis is averted.

in violation of rules 2) and 4) and perhaps others...

In other words, you better have voted the third option.

Or...what? Ah, never mind, was offering a tongue-in-cheek realistic option.

Anyway, the war never really gets started. Even without outside forces getting them to the negotiating table, the UK cannot stand up to the French Navy(some historical irony there), having retired many of the principle modern pieces as a cost saving measure. Without US backing, there's simply no way they can do any damage to the French.

The UK sues for peace fairly quickly with the impending threat of an invasion.

[Kalumba]

in violation of rules 2) and 4) and perhaps others...

In other words, you better have voted the third option.

Or...what? Ah, never mind, was offering a tongue-in-cheek realistic option.

Anyway, the war never really gets started. Even without outside forces getting them to the negotiating table, the UK cannot stand up to the French Navy(some historical irony there), having retired many of the principle modern pieces as a cost saving measure. Without US backing, there's simply no way they can do any damage to the French.

The UK sues for peace fairly quickly with the impending threat of an invasion.

In spite of the dominance of the Royal Navy which possesses the most advanced submarine fleet in the world and one of the best destroyer forces. Add that to the fact the French will be unable to ever control the Channel due to their being based at Brest and Toulon. Those at Brest will be intercepted before they can enter the Channel and thoe at Toulon will be prevented from passing through the Straits of Gibralter.

[Maurepas]

Or...what? Ah, never mind, was offering a tongue-in-cheek realistic option.

Anyway, the war never really gets started. Even without outside forces getting them to the negotiating table, the UK cannot stand up to the French Navy(some historical irony there), having retired many of the principle modern pieces as a cost saving measure. Without US backing, there's simply no way they can do any damage to the French.

The UK sues for peace fairly quickly with the impending threat of an invasion.

In spite of the dominance of the Royal Navy which possesses the most advanced submarine fleet in the world and one of the best destroyer forces. Add that to the fact the French will be unable to ever control the Channel due to their being based at Brest and Toulon. Those at Brest will be intercepted before they can enter the Channel and thoe at Toulon will be prevented from passing through the Straits of Gibralter.

Most advanced in the world is probably a bit much, the US might have a word. Not that that's a good thing, but it does spend an incredible amount on ours.

But I admit, I'm mainly basing my assumption on the surface fleet, the UK, for example, lacks the aircraft carrier, and has been downsizing its fleet to save money.

[Kalumba]

Most advanced in the world is probably a bit much, the US might have a word. Not that that's a good thing, but it does spend an incredible amount on ours.

But I admit, I'm mainly basing my assumption on the surface fleet, the UK, for example, lacks the aircraft carrier, and has been downsizing its fleet to save money.

The Astute is the most advanced sub in the world, which even the USN can't find during exercises and their ASW capability is far greater than France's. And the Aircraft Carrier is of no use in a conflict in which land based aircraft can fly over enemy territory, it gives no tactical advantage and in a conflict between France and Great Britain. In fact the amount of effort the French would have to put into protecting the Charles De Gaulle would be counter-productive and a major waste of their resources.

[Costa Alegria]

Read rule 2, the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant.

I did. I was trying to address that by stating that it was stupid because other countries would inevitably get involved because you allowed for Britain or France to basically blow up or plunder their vessels in international waters. How do you expect other countries to not become involved when their vessels and nationals are being attacked or their interests are threatened.

And don't fucking ask me to "read Rule 2 again" because I am here asking you how the fuck you though said rule would be effective anyway. Anyone with a fucking microcosm of logic would tell you that shooting up foreign vessels in international waters is pretty much a half decent casus belli for having your country invaded and your naval vessels blown out of the water.

How the fuck did you think the US got into Vietnam?

It's more like you pretending that I'm pretending to make up shit I think is real...

But you do think it's real, Otherwise you would have realised a long, long time ago that everything you post is complete and utter bullshit.

Without the rules there wouldn't be a context in which to evaluate who would succeed in a meaningful way...

Because an unrealistic scenario with rules that flout logic can be evaluated in a meaningful way. Christ Almighty, do you really think that? Do you honestly think that a war can be fought in Europe with piracy and trade route raiding that will not attract the ire of states whose vessels have been seized because you and your stupidity decreed that the combatants could?

I don't want to this to turn into a contest of who can get the support of the United States first.

Fairly sure the French and the UK are big enough to take care of themselves. Not everyone needs the US these days. Not even Israel.