France vs United Kingdom

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm leaning slightly in favor of France, but ultimately it does not matter.

Neither country could maintain an occupation of the other, nor would they tolerate a puppet regime.

Whoever wins would ultimately loose.

[Nazis in Space]

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.

Given that the Type 45 doesn't carry any anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, I'm not clear how it's supposed to stop a french invasion fleet. By threatening it with its billion pound pricetag?

[Kalumba]

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.

Given that the Type 45 doesn't carry any anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, I'm not clear how it's supposed to stop a french invasion fleet. By threatening it with its billion pound pricetag?

You seem to be forgetting the Skua missiles mounted on it's Lynx, which can operate with impunity under the SAM shield the Type 45 can put up. That system was sufficient to sink two US carriers in an exercise, so I believe it will happily sink the French fleet.

[Nazis in Space]

I also note that the English have historically been unable to defeat France unless it allied variously, and at times simultaneously, with the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish and the Russians.

Historical precedent suggests that London's bakeries will be producing baguettes within a week, and Prince Charles gets to sing the Marseillaise after another one.

[Kalumba]

I also note that the English have historically been unable to defeat France unless it allied variously, and at times simultaneously, with the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish and the Russians.

Historical precedent suggests that London's bakeries will be producing baguettes within a week, and Prince Charles gets to sing the Marseillaise after another one.

But whenever Britain has faced France alone, or with allies, the French have been unable to invade successfully, so historical precedent suggests a draw not a French victory surely?

[Conserative Morality]

But whenever Britain has faced France alone, or with allies, the French have been unable to invade successfully, so historical precedent suggests a draw not a French victory surely?

French Normans vs. Englishmen: French Norman sits on throne by the end of the war.

[Calimera II]

Britain is overly presented here.

[Nazis in Space]

Given that the Type 45 doesn't carry any anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, I'm not clear how it's supposed to stop a french invasion fleet. By threatening it with its billion pound pricetag?

You seem to be forgetting the Skua missiles mounted on it's Lynx, which can operate with impunity under the SAM shield the Type 45 can put up. That system was sufficient to sink two US carriers in an exercise, so I believe it will happily sink the French fleet.

I want to see a source, re: a missile with a range of 25 km and a 30 kg warhead being able to sink two US carriers in an exercise. As opposed to, I don't know. Screw up their paintjob?

Just so we're clear here - sea skua has to be fired within visual range at sea level to make it to its target. Well withgin the range of the French Aster missile, and way, way within range of the French Exocets, if it feels like sinking the Type 45 after having had a laugh at its impotence.

[Albion Rhodesia]

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.

Since wars DO NOT happen in vacuum the whole exercise is rather pointless!

[Kalumba]

But whenever Britain has faced France alone, or with allies, the French have been unable to invade successfully, so historical precedent suggests a draw not a French victory surely?

French Normans vs. Englishmen: French Norman sits on throne by the end of the war.

Not going to get into the Normans/French argument but that's still once in 1000 years. Hardly suggests French victory, considering the number of times a British army has happily raided France.

[Nazis in Space]

Also.

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

Germans occupy Channel Islands -> Serve the Germans some tea and crumpets!

It's kind of obvious who has balls and who's going to wave white flags before a single shot is fired here.

Granted, that's only the english English. I guess their brown regiments - Gurkhas - may actually know how to fight. Hence France taking a week or two to win, rather than winning by English forfeit.

[Calorax]

Also.

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

Germans occupy Channel Islands -> Serve the Germans some tea and crumpets!

It's kind of obvious who has balls and who's going to wave white flags before a single shot is fired here.

Granted, that's only the english English. I guess their brown regiments - Gurkhas - may actually know how to fight. Hence France taking a week or two to win, rather than winning by English forfeit.

The English would form a resistance quick as fuck.

[Albion Rhodesia]

Also.

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

Germans occupy Channel Islands -> Serve the Germans some tea and crumpets!

It's kind of obvious who has balls and who's going to wave white flags before a single shot is fired here.

Granted, that's only the english English. I guess their brown regiments - Gurkhas - may actually know how to fight. Hence France taking a week or two to win, rather than winning by English forfeit.

The French actually collaborated quite extensively with the Nazis, so to say that the French put up a heroic and continued resistance since the day of occupation is a total falsehood.

[Olivaero]

Also.

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

Germans occupy Channel Islands -> Serve the Germans some tea and crumpets!

It's kind of obvious who has balls and who's going to wave white flags before a single shot is fired here.

Granted, that's only the english English. I guess their brown regiments - Gurkhas - may actually know how to fight. Hence France taking a week or two to win, rather than winning by English forfeit.

You really seem to have a chip on your soldier about the british military don't you? I mean What were a couple of 1000 channel islanders do vs a couple of million French? and I know for a fact there was resistance movements on the islands in any case.

[Albion Rhodesia]

Also.

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

Germans occupy Channel Islands -> Serve the Germans some tea and crumpets!

It's kind of obvious who has balls and who's going to wave white flags before a single shot is fired here.

Granted, that's only the english English. I guess their brown regiments - Gurkhas - may actually know how to fight. Hence France taking a week or two to win, rather than winning by English forfeit.

Also the United Kingdom established the infamous Auxiliaries in the event that the German invasion was successful, however the French did very little in the way of coordinated defense planning...hell many of the resistance groups couldn't even agree on how they were going to fight the Nazis, due to ideological issues.

[Conserative Morality]

Also the United Kingdom established the infamous Auxiliaries in the event that the German invasion was successful, however the French did very little in the way of coordinated defense planning...hell many of the resistance groups couldn't even agree on how they were going to fight the Nazis, due to ideological issues.

The only thing that the French like more than fighting other Europeans is fighting each other.

[Indira]

Britain. France doesn't exactly have the best record against her fellow European powers, so...Not to mention that Britain's armed forces have both greater experience and training in recent years

[Kalumba]

You seem to be forgetting the Skua missiles mounted on it's Lynx, which can operate with impunity under the SAM shield the Type 45 can put up. That system was sufficient to sink two US carriers in an exercise, so I believe it will happily sink the French fleet.

I want to see a source, re: a missile with a range of 25 km and a 30 kg warhead being able to sink two US carriers in an exercise. As opposed to, I don't know. Screw up their paintjob?

Just so we're clear here - sea skua has to be fired within visual range at sea level to make it to its target. Well withgin the range of the French Aster missile, and way, way within range of the French Exocets, if it feels like sinking the Type 45 after having had a laugh at its impotence.

The Exocet is a minimal threat to a modern destroyer with it's minor radar signature and the development of CIWS. Even in the Falklands the Exocet wasn't that effective, only a lucky hit sunk the Sheffield and it took two hits too sink the civilian Atlantic Conveyor.

As for the source: it was a statement from my lecturer Proffesor Eric Grove regarding the most recent exercise he was invited to. I can't find anything online for you sorry, so feel free to discount it. I can provide sources to the fact the USN insist the RN turns off the stealth capability of the Type 45 on exercise showing it's effectivenes against the best navy in the world so I feel it would easily deal with the French fleet.

Also the Royal Navy would control the channel with it's submarine force which is regarded as amongst the best in the world, with the latest being almost silent and invisible to sonar.

[New Octopucta]

Don't France and the UK jointly own an aircraft carrier? That'll be awkward.

[Angleter]

Neither side would probably have the capacity to invade and fully defeat the oth-

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...

Oh, fine. In this case, Britain would win due to France running out of money first. Although both sides would probably resort to funding itself through some kind of funny money before admitting defeat. Actually, come to think of it, Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish separatism could be a spanner in the works (although I'd only expect Sinn Féin, at a stretch, to properly defect to France).

[Alien Space Bats]

France would ultimately win.

The air war would be a stalemate. The war at sea would favor the Royal Navy everywhere except in the Channel, where the close proximity of land and the use of air- and ground-based surface-skimming anti-shipping missiles (Sea Eagles, Sea Skuas, Exocet MM40 Block 3's, etc.) would quickly clear the region of any and all high-value targets. This would then effectively reduce the Channel to a very wide river, to be crossed by helicopter, hovercraft, or fast attack boat.

And therein lies the problem for the UK: Its army is too small to defend the entire Southern coast, and — frankly speaking, and with the sole exception of a few elite British commando units — the French Army is simply better across the board. Mind you, there'd be no genuine invasion; there would be small landings of platoon and company-sized units whose purpose would be to conduct running raids into enemy territory (sort of a modern version of the chevauchée), with helo insertion and helo extraction, or (for extended raids) aerial resupply. Such operations would be augmented by special forces running pseudo-terrorist attacks on enemy infrastructure (differing from genuine terrorist attacks in that the objective would be the profound embarrassment of the sitting government through induced infrastructure failure [eg., taking out the entire Breton power grid or taking the London tube system offline for a week]; both sides would likely shy away from inflicting massive civilian casualties as counterproductive [you want the enemy population to ultimately come to hate and despise their own government more than they hate and despise you]).

The thing is, even if this is total war, it can't be won through invasion and occupation, or the wholesale slaughter of the other side's population; neither side has the troops, the resources, the logistical support, or the stomach for that kind of 20th Century madness. Rather, this would be 4GW: Psychological warfare with a focus on public perception of the two rival governments through the filter of the modern media. It would be like counting coup, but on television; the goal would be to bring down the other side's government (either of the moment or, more profoundly, in the more universal sense of instigating revolution) the massive humiliation and the instigation of widespread discontent.

[The UK in Exile]

Don't France and the UK jointly own an aircraft carrier? That'll be awkward.

its VSTOL, the french would take off from one end and the british the other, they'd both then turn around and bomb the enemy aircraft carrier.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Historical precedent suggests that London's bakeries will be producing baguettes within a week, and Prince Charles gets to sing the Marseillaise after another one.

Better food and the wingnut losing his crown...what's not to like?

[Rightful Revolution]

This argument is invalid as the Germans would inevitably take advantage of the situation.

But any who my vote goes towards the Queen. The British have the experience and troops globally to pull in. France just launched a few bombing raids in Libya

[Tairoth]

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

Frances military is bigger then ours (The UK) however Britain has the best trained military in the world FACT and also Britain has a larger air force (Second largest in NATO behind America) and who ever controls the sky's have a huge advantage in the war.

But overall I think the French and British military are equal in their own rights

And besides war would never break out between the two country's.