France vs United Kingdom

[Afalia]

Britain has a better armed forces, as well as the advantage of being an island nation. Also very importantly Britain is used to a war, we've been in quite a few since WWII-the French's last war was the Algerian war. Basically meaning we're better trained and have the stomach for it. Britain would win.

But in reality we love each other and would never go to war again.

[Nadkor]

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

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

Well, the thing here is that when the Germans occupied France they occupied France. When the Germans occupied the Channel Islands they weren't occupying the UK.

So you might be able to argue that if the Channel Islands were occupied by France there would be tea and crumpets. But it doesn't work for guessing what the UK might do.

[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.

The English would form a resistance quick as fuck.

Considering that they didn't, that claim seems just a tad preposterous.

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.

You mean the auxiliaries who never had to fight and patted themselves on the back on account of poorly coordinated parades and pretending to matter? lol

Though that does seem to be a constant in English historiography - congratulating themselves over things they didn't do.

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.

A 100% hit ratio isn't effective? Regardless, kinda beats not having an anti-ship armament (Beyond artillery) at all.

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.

Excellent, I shall do so, then.

As for effectiveness, I'm afraid that everyone in Europe is building essentially equivtech destroyers/ frigates (The only significant difference I can think of it that Britain is the only country that passes on giving its destroyers an anti-ship capability for... Some reason). The Germans, dutch, Swedes, Fins, French, Italians, Spanish and British... All their new frigs/ destroyers are essentially equivalent, apart from the last country mentioned passing on anti-ship capability. The FREMM & Horizon-class are in no way inferior to the Type 45.

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.

You mean the RN would stick them in a chokepoint where they're comparatively easily taken care of by minefields? :V

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

Name a country with a better record, please.

Also, last I checked, the last time Britain was running a more or less independent operation was in 1982.

France has spent the 2000s running - either completely on its own or with outside support that still amounts to rather less than what Britain received during tthe Falklands conflict - multiple campaigns in Africa (Ivory Coast, Mali). France has actually demonstrated the ability to fight a war on its own in the past decade. Twice.

Britain hasn't.

[Tairoth]

The English would form a resistance quick as fuck.

Considering that they didn't, that claim seems just a tad preposterous.

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.

You mean the auxiliaries who never had to fight and patted themselves on the back on account of poorly coordinated parades and pretending to matter? lol

Though that does seem to be a constant in English historiography - congratulating themselves over things they didn't do.

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.

A 100% hit ratio isn't effective? Regardless, kinda beats not having an anti-ship armament (Beyond artillery) at all.

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.

Excellent, I shall do so, then.

As for effectiveness, I'm afraid that everyone in Europe is building essentially equivtech destroyers/ frigates (The only significant difference I can think of it that Britain is the only country that passes on giving its destroyers an anti-ship capability for... Some reason). The Germans, dutch, Swedes, Fins, French, Italians, Spanish and British... All their new frigs/ destroyers are essentially equivalent, apart from the last country mentioned passing on anti-ship capability. The FREMM & Horizon-class are in no way inferior to the Type 45.

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.

You mean the RN would stick them in a chokepoint where they're comparatively easily taken care of by minefields? :V

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

Name a country with a better record, please.

Also, last I checked, the last time Britain was running a more or less independent operation was in 1982.

France has spent the 2000s running - either completely on its own or with outside support that still amounts to rather less than what Britain received during tthe Falklands conflict - multiple campaigns in Africa (Ivory Coast, Mali). France has actually demonstrated the ability to fight a war on its own in the past decade. Twice.

Britain hasn't.

I would like to comment of your last quote about the Falkland's war...... Britain was outnumbered and had less supplies yet we beat the shit into the argies. and France hasn't been running military campaigns. The only one is in Mail but yet there are several other nations that have sent troops there. Stop speaking bullshit please.

[The Sector Union]

So you call for war but make rules for it? No thanks.

[Kalumba]

100% hit ration, yet only managed to sink two ships one of which was a civilian vessel. And the Skua is an anti-ship weapon, although I do agree the Type 45 is underarmed yet it is still better than anything the French have and would be easily able to offer air cover to the submarines and prevent any French aircraft crossing the Channel.

Maybe their vessels under construction are equal to the Type 45, but they are under construction. The thread and my response to it were on current military capacity of Britain and France.

You don't need you subs to be in the Channel to control it. Especially when almost the entirety of the French fleet is based in Toulon and Brest, they wouldn't be able to get into the Channel and support any French invasion attempt.

But France has hasn't fought a major conflict since Algeria, and even then it's troops were based in the country it was fighting. You also seem to forget the British in Sierra Leone, very much like the French effort in Mali, which was not done on it's own. They had to rely on the British, Belgians, Canadians, the USA and many other nations for transport planes to bring in their heavy equiptment and the Chadians and Malians to support their combat operations.

[The UK in Exile]

Germans occupy France -> Form la resistance!

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

Well, the thing here is that when the Germans occupied France they occupied France. When the Germans occupied the Channel Islands they weren't occupying the UK.

So you might be able to argue that if the Channel Islands were occupied by France there would be tea and crumpets. But it doesn't work for guessing what the UK might do.

I think a more valid point would be that whilst the french did form a resistance, at that point it was highly likely that they would be fighting against other frenchmen. The Germans occupied the Channel Islands, they didn't rely on the islanders to opress themselves.

[Rio Cana]

Since the French anthem has passion then they win. There anthem also seems to out sound other anthems.

The Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt1vQ81jNWw

[Astracarn]

A couple of the rules really ruin this. Of course other countries would join in. The UK would win if it had the full might of the Commonwealth behind it, but since it can't, France would win.

[Priory Academy USSR]

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.

Surely it could go both ways, then? If, as you say, the Royal Navy has the edge on the open sea, that leaves the west coast of France exposed to potential raids too: it is a far greater distance than that of the south coast. While I admit that Britain's population is focused around the South (IIRC, about 18 million people live within commuting distance of London), I suspect that roughly that number lives around the French coast too.

I'd like to see a source where the French Army is comparatively better than the British; the only thing I can find in the French favour is that they have slightly more soldiers, with everything else being roughly equivalent.

On the topic, Britain also holds a slight economic advantage. Given its control of Gibraltar, and as long as it doesn't fall, southern France is effectively cut off from the ocean. And if Britain wins control of the seas, it can blockade French ports and hamper their global trade. That will most likely work both ways, though: I suspect it would be too risky to use the Channel for trade anymore, and that would effect Britain a lot as well.

Please feel free to correct me if I've made any glaring strategic errors.

[DesAnges]

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.

That was more a winner-takes-all bro-off than an actual war, though.

[Alien Space Bats]

I'd like to see a source where the French Army is comparatively better than the British; the only thing I can find in the French favour is that they have slightly more soldiers, with everything else being roughly equivalent.

It's mainly subjective, based on the two nations' relative performance in Afghanistan. I think Britain's elite units are a notch above most everybody else, and we tend to evaluate the British overall on that, which can be deceptive.

And yes, the British response would likely involve operations in the South of France, where insertion would be easier for them; the chevauchées would go both ways.

Regarding trade interruption, though, I'd imagine that both sides would end up routing their overseas trade through neutral intermediaries (i.e., Ireland and Continental Europe). And no doubt both sides would look to stir up trouble among each others' ethnic minorities and/or separatist populations.

[Cocsoah]

France surrenders the moment they see British troops.

/Thread.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Anybody who says "France" is a French traitor and shall be purged when we defeat France and capture it.

[Blakullar]

Even as a Brit, I genuinely think that France would win a war between us and them. Britain has been scaling back its military, while France has been bolstering its, and they have something that we do not; aircraft carriers.

But then I suppose we're not going to fare well when we have a David Cameron, the Tories, and their claque of Liberal Democrats, implementing all of their cuts and that.

[Constaniana]

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

Yes, quite.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Even as a Brit, I genuinely think that France would win a war between us and them. Britain has been scaling back its military, while France has been bolstering its, and they have something that we do not; aircraft carriers.

*scribbles down name*

[Anachronous Rex]

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

Yes, quite.

Not to quibble, but wouldn't making the French unable to surrender basically guarantee their victory?

[Constaniana]

Even as a Brit, I genuinely think that France would win a war between us and them. Britain has been scaling back its military, while France has been bolstering its, and they have something that we do not; aircraft carriers.

*scribbles down name*

We'll get him easily. Spread rumours through Glasgow that he's a Ranger's supporter/Celtic supporter and someone will get him soon enough.

[Kalumba]

Even as a Brit, I genuinely think that France would win a war between us and them. Britain has been scaling back its military, while France has been bolstering its, and they have something that we do not; aircraft carriers.

But then I suppose we're not going to fare well when we have a David Cameron, the Tories, and their claque of Liberal Democrats, implementing all of their cuts and that.

And what role would an aircraft carrier, the only have one which has spent more time in dry dock than at sea to my knowledge, in a conflict that would be focused on the Channel? Add that to the fact the Charles De Gaulle would never get out of Brest or Toulon as an Astute would easily track and sink it with impunity.

[Blakullar]

*scribbles down name*

We'll get him easily. Spread rumours through Glasgow that he's a Ranger's supporter/Celtic supporter and someone will get him soon enough.

Glasgow and their horde of angry neds... I'm starting to reconsider my decision.

On the other hand, vive la patrie!

[Randy F Marsh]

Uncertain. The French have been pretty ballsy as of late, though I am a bit of a Francophile.

[Blakullar]

Even as a Brit, I genuinely think that France would win a war between us and them. Britain has been scaling back its military, while France has been bolstering its, and they have something that we do not; aircraft carriers.

But then I suppose we're not going to fare well when we have a David Cameron, the Tories, and their claque of Liberal Democrats, implementing all of their cuts and that.

And what role would an aircraft carrier, the only have one which has spent more time in dry dock than at sea to my knowledge, in a conflict that would be focused on the Channel? Add that to the fact the Charles De Gaulle would never get out of Brest or Toulon as an Astute would easily track and sink it with impunity.

Assuming an Astute could get to the port before it itself were tracked down and destroyed by French warships, or the Charles de Gaulle were launched before the war actually started.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ignoring that it couldn't happen, we'd see the UK win as usual, and for the usual reasons.
It's easy to defend an Island.
Unless the nuclear option is used, which would mean everyone loses.

[Thrice Crownlands]

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.

This card game is full of Bullock.

It could never, not in a thousand years, happen. Because, of course, the raw 'merica-ness of the US cancels out your rule against foreign intervention.

However, if your rule is even that strong, then it goes down like this: France wins, plain and simple. No nation is going to make major concessions unless they absolutely have to, so it would not be a short conflict; it would drag on for years and years if the people with the prerequisite amount of stupidity to make these rules valid could obtain and remain in office. Massive naval conflict in Channel; eventually, French win, if only because they have less vulnerable supply lines to get what they need to build more boats, and can built them in the Mediterranean, where the main British fleet probably won't be (if they want to keep Jolly Old England secure). The Scots, flat out tired, finally make good on their promise to leave, causing British civil war. Without Scottish coal, Britian loses some electrical output and heating; French take inative in chaos and seize major Western ports (or just blow shipping to bits.) England, not be agriculturally self-sufficient, faces food shortages. These, along with troop allocations, price inflation, and widespread hoarding, create the illusion of mass starvation. People start fighting over food; Something France need not worry about (considering they are agriculturally self-sufficient), leading to breakdown of British economy and forcing in a government who'd get the bread ships coming back in through peace.

Essentially, The French just have to take a page from the book Danger andtarget the UK's greatest weakness; the fact that its a delicate web of naval trade that keeps her alive.