France vs United Kingdom

[Priory Academy USSR]

How about Britan supported by the US and France supported by the EU?
Or is that against the rules?
What about Britans Commonwealth?

Soooo what makes you think the US would support britian in this??

France came to Americas aid in the war of independence for starters

In the war against Argentina, America didnt aid britian.

It gave material aid, to say the least. Ultra modern American equipment would be a useful edge in this war. And saying that assistance over 200 years ago counts for something now is quite pointless: it didn't work during the World Wars, did it?

[SaorAlba]

Soooo what makes you think the US would support britian in this??

France came to Americas aid in the war of independence for starters

In the war against Argentina, America didnt aid britian.

It gave material aid, to say the least. Ultra modern American equipment would be a useful edge in this war. And saying that assistance over 200 years ago counts for something now is quite pointless: it didn't work during the World Wars, did it?

Mhhh correct me if im wrong didnt France also fight against Germany in both world wars???

[Herador]

It gave material aid, to say the least. Ultra modern American equipment would be a useful edge in this war. And saying that assistance over 200 years ago counts for something now is quite pointless: it didn't work during the World Wars, did it?

Mhhh correct me if im wrong didnt France also fight against Germany in both world wars???

Yes, but it being invaded was never a deciding factor for US involvement. Plus, if we're taking events that happened a very long time ago into account, I'd say De Gaulle throwing the US out of France and refusing to admit it into NATO sort of cancels out their help in the revolution.

[Thrice Crownlands]

Mhhh correct me if im wrong didnt France also fight against Germany in both world wars???

Yes, but it being invaded was never a deciding factor for US involvement. Plus, if we're taking events that happened a very long time ago into account, I'd say De Gaulle throwing the US out of France and refusing to admit it into NATO sort of cancels out their help in the revolution.

Honestly, I think the US could either A) Talk them into White Peace (If sane people are still in government and England) or B) Brow-beat into White Peace (if insane people are in governments of France and England). Uni-lateral involvement would just be silly and create bad feelings; But making peace will likely make people who don't want to be blown to bits happy.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

France has the bigger army. And better equipment. They win.

[Maurepas]

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.

Would this be your most advanced sub in the world???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty


O ....... by the way the US navy wont have to look to far... does Skye ring any bells??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322817/Royal-Navy-shame-nuclear-submarine-HMS-Astute-left-high-dry-Scottish-coast.html

Apparently they need a weeks notice to look out the periscope.

Prettymuch, the state of the UK Navy is pretty damning to its potential war-making capability, at least without significant US help.

[Costa Alegria]

France has the bigger army. And better equipment. They win.

Explain. They may have a bigger military, but so does North Korea. And as for better technology, both militaries are evenly matched.

[Jinos]

The UK Navy is a shadow of its former self, France has a literal 2:1 advantage in # of ships. The UK also does not have a large dedicated aircraft carrier (they have 3 very small ones with limited functionality).

The UK has bigger destroyers, and probably has an advantage in and ship to ship combat, given the French have no destroyers. But the French have a lot of anti-submarine frigates, and can much more easily counter Britain's sub fleet than the British can counter the French sub fleet. In terms of naval aircraft, the French have an overwhelming advantage.

The French has a much larger combat airforce, the British have more aircraft overall, but mostly because they have a LOT of trainer aircraft. Although the British have a distinct advantage in number of gunships. But an invasion would not be necessary for France to win.

Imo, the UK would be unable to guarantee shipping to Great Britain; thus be more heavily starved of fossil fuels than France, which has access to the Mediterranean and is much more reliant on Nuclear Power.

Energy shortages in the UK would likely cripple their warfighting capability and France would win by attrition.

[Alien Space Bats]

quite possibly, I couldn't find any data for the 48th (or the 45th, per ASB), but the 46th, serving in Dominica in 1810, was 25% scots. other units hover around 7-8%. odds are one or two scots were in the garrison.

If you follow the link, you'll see that the regiment was raised in Norfolk.

---

On the subject of the moral high ground, that is in fact why I spoke of small unit raids directed at infrastructure ("21st Century chevauchées"); the idea is to put boots on enemy soil and then conduct your raid in such a way as to accomplish two things:

1. Inflict maximum embarassment on the enemy government, mainly by showing that they can't stop the raid, catch the raiders, control the countryside, or protect the people from an avowed "enemy".
   
   
2. Treat the local populace with the maximum possible degree of respect, so that they have to come away from the raid thinking, "those foreign soldiers were really polite — so how bad can they really be?"

The idea here is that modern war is primarily waged in the media rather than on the battlefield; thus, victory goes to whichever side comes off looking better in the press. You make the enemy government look like a bunch of foolish, incompetent assholes who need to be turned out of power, and you make your soldiers look like noble, chivalrous figures who are only doing their jobs. You sew chaos and discontent by attacking things (the phone system, the power grid, warehouses, etc.) rather than people, and then seek to have this discontent attach itself to your foe.

As I said earlier, it's like counting coup, but on television.

[Costa Alegria]

The UK Navy is a shadow of its former self, France has a literal 2:1 advantage in # of ships. The UK also does not have a large dedicated aircraft carrier (they have 3 very small ones with limited functionality).

Calling a combat vessel an "aircraft carrier" simply because it has aircraft aboard says a lot about what you know. The Royal Navy still technically has an aircraft carrier but the combat jets were taken off it. Combat vessels such as the HMS Ocean is an amphibious assault ship similar to that of the Mistral-Class ships in service with the Marine Nationale. The other two are Landing Platform Dock ships are different to that of the HMS Ocean simply because they don't have large enough deck areas. And amphibious assault ships are different in turn to aircraft carriers primarily because they are orientated to carry helicopters and other support aircraft rather than strike aircraft.

[The UK in Exile]

quite possibly, I couldn't find any data for the 48th (or the 45th, per ASB), but the 46th, serving in Dominica in 1810, was 25% scots. other units hover around 7-8%. odds are one or two scots were in the garrison.

If you follow the link, you'll see that the regiment was raised in Norfolk.

---

On the subject of the moral high ground, that is in fact why I spoke of small unit raids directed at infrastructure ("21st Century chevauchées"); the idea is to put boots on enemy soil and then conduct your raid in such a way as to accomplish two things:

1. Inflict maximum embarassment on the enemy government, mainly by showing that they can't stop the raid, catch the raiders, control the countryside, or protect the people from an avowed "enemy".
   
   
2. Treat the local populace with the maximum possible degree of respect, so that they have to come away from the raid thinking, "those foreign soldiers were really polite — so how bad can they really be?"

The idea here is that modern war is primarily waged in the media rather than on the battlefield; thus, victory goes to whichever side comes off looking better in the press. You make the enemy government look like a bunch of foolish, incompetent assholes who need to be turned out of power, and you make your soldiers look like noble, chivalrous figures who are only doing their jobs. You sew chaos and discontent by attacking things (the phone system, the power grid, warehouses, etc.) rather than people, and then seek to have this discontent attach itself to your foe.

As I said earlier, it's like counting coup, but on television.

sure, and the 46th was raised in South Devonshire, but it still had a roughly equal mix of Scots, Irish and English. a regiments recruiting district doesn't nessecarily conform to its makeup. Its not an important point, unless your talking to someone who insists "Scottish" and "British" are not the same thing, in which case, they need to be reminded that for everyone else, it is.

the trouble with boots on the ground is, its very hard to make foreign soldiers in your country look good, because, well, they're foreign soldiers in your country. far better to have your own unit of english born turncoats. Blockade the country so that its starved of certain items (luxury's or medicine, your choice.) then send the soldiers in to strike a military target (nothing that bothers the civis), have your rear echelon and turncoat troops handing out whatever it is you've deprived the civies of and maybe spending a little cash to boot whilst your striking. make it so that whilst the military is getting hammered the public are actually looking forward to the attacks.

[Fine Fellows]

France. The only reason the Brits are even an independent nation is because they're on islands.

[SaorAlba]

If you follow the link, you'll see that the regiment was raised in Norfolk.

but that wouldn't fit in with his stereotype of drunken Scots would it?

the idea is to put boots on enemy soil and then conduct your raid in such a way as to accomplish two things

Personally I would see French troops landing on Scottish soil (against the British state) as liberators & would welcome them with open arms, as I said earlier, France & Scotland share a special friendship.

At one point the personal bodyguard of the King of France consisted purely of Scots.

unless your talking to someone who insists "Scottish" and "British" are not the same thing, in which case, they need to be reminded that for everyone else, it is.

Such a shame when the natives refuse to submit isn't it!! while I draw breath I will continue to enlighten those that don't understand that there IS a difference.

"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive".

[Geilinor]

The UK and France are roughly equals, so they'd probably fight to the death, with neither side winning.