PDA

View Full Version : France vs the UK



Gio
14 Aug 03,, 01:32
Who do you guys think would win?

I think France.

ChrisF202
14 Aug 03,, 01:33
UK, France dosent have the capabilities to transport troops overseas

Martin
14 Aug 03,, 01:41
The United Kingdom of course. France has never beaten us before - even when it had a bigger navy and allied with Spain - It lost. The French don't have the stomach to beat us.

As I've just said to Gio on MSN... We would sink their carrier, we have tomohawks, we have a better trained army - and... We're more intelligent - it was proven.

ChrisF202
14 Aug 03,, 02:10
exactly

Officer of Engineers
14 Aug 03,, 02:59
EXCUSE ME!!!!!

How did you guys think the FFL (French Foreign Legion) got to the Congo, Rwanda, and to Afghanistan. How do you guys think French cmdos got into Afghanistan?

You're allowing your American bias intefere with the facts.

ChrisF202
14 Aug 03,, 03:00
Thats one unit, an elite unit and they dont have very many transport assets meaning they cant send large number of troops overseas at any given moment.

Officer of Engineers
14 Aug 03,, 03:11
Tell me the distance.

Only six powers can transport bde size forces half way across the globe (US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Russia) on their own. Other countries can field larger local forces but only these six can field forces that can challenge them far from their shores.

I would remind you that the French fielded a div during the Kuwait War.

This being said, we're going to bn and coy when everybody else is sticking to div. What do you think who's better?

troung
14 Aug 03,, 03:33
Ok in the air the French Air Force has better fighter. The Tornado is not up to the Mirage 2000C or the Mirage 2000-5C. For strike the both have similar stand off missiles, the RAF/RN lack air launched anti shipping missiles so the French Air Force would no doubt savage them with Exocets. The Sea Harrier was not capable agianist the SuE, it would not stand up well with a Mirage F-1CT (which can use the Exocet).

And France has moved large numbers of troops very far around the world (Chad, Congo, Korea, Afganistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Comoros Islands, Somalia etc...).

Gio
14 Aug 03,, 03:55
Yup...

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 11:18
If that happened the UK would get an amazing infusion of the best of US weaponry. The air war would be over in a few days, and once the British Challengers and Abrams tanks starting romping through the streets of Paris, the ground war would be pretty much over too...

troung
14 Aug 03,, 17:03
:roll: :roll: :roll:

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 17:14
If you are referring to my post, please explain instead of just rolling your eyes.

Officer of Engineers
14 Aug 03,, 23:09
I've worked with/fought besides both FREBAT (Medak) and BRITBAT (Sarajevo). They're both good soldiers and can be just as arrogant as us Canucks.

Both forces are similar in outlook in that they're expeditionary in nature, meaning that they no longer expect to fight on their home soil or even Western European soil. As such, they have been tailoring their lift and forces to such scenarios. French light tanks were designed to be airlifted and while obviously not provide sufficient force against East Bloc armour, they were designed to cut African armies apart like they did to the Lybians in Chad. Lybia doesn't have an army anymore because the FFL dressed as Chadian tribesmen killed it.

The British, however, has committed to ABCA and sees the need for heavy armour in order to support the Americans or to mount their own limited expedition (ala Falklands). They have the Royal Navy, basing on the Ready Amphibious Group, that would allow them to go in first and then follow up by the heavier forces.

Seriously folks, this event is not going to happen. We're too integrated and as much as we hate each other, we need each other much more. Whatever our grievances, we've learned to let the courts decide instead of marching out on the battlefield.

If you're really interested in these outcomes, I suggest you all try the wargame TACOPS (http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/tacops4.html) which is based upon JANUS, the wargame that I used at Command School.

Be advised that this is not your typical computer wargame with lots of bangs and nice graphics. It has an extremely large database of countries' ORBAT and TOE and you can tailor the ORBAT and TOE to your liking though you may have to substitute equivelent systems from those that the spooks haven't figured out yet - ie, use the Russian T-80 in place of the Chinese T-90.

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 23:23
UK wins.

Too many carriers for France to deal with(3). The UK can actually form a nice sized battlegroup, France cannot(France has just the DeGaulle).

RN Sea Harriers have excellent radars and all are equipped to handle the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Type 42 DDG's have the old, but still quite good, combat proven Sea Dart SAM/SSM for antiship duties, as well as all the Duke FFG's which have Harpoons and the excellent Sea Wolf PMDS.

Sea Harriers can fire the Sea Eagle antiship cruise missile.

Doubtful that Exocet is going to penetrate the Sea Dart/Sea Wolf screen.

France on the other hand is sorely lacking in fleet AAW capability.

The UK also has better SSN's(Trafalgar vs. Rubis), and i'd lay money on the training and professionalism of the RN any day.

France's only advantadge at sea is it's Degaulle based E-2's.

UK also has a large Tornado fleet for LR antiship missions using the above mentioned Sea Eagle and ALARM.

troung
15 Aug 03,, 04:18
To my knowledge the RN/RAF pulled out the Sea Eagle with no replacment.

Bill
15 Aug 03,, 15:27
They put the Sea Eagles into climate controlled storage. One of those 'in case of war' measures.

bigross86
15 Aug 03,, 16:32
The Brits and the French could shell each other across the channel at some points, right?

ChrisF202
15 Aug 03,, 17:06
o yes with todays technogoly, deffinatly

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 18:01
The Brits have MLRS....they could hit France with those.

Especially if we slid em a few ATACMs missiles for the SPLL's. :twisted:

bigross86
16 Aug 03,, 20:49
A few ???? for their ???? What are those?

ZFBoxcar
16 Aug 03,, 23:47
ATACM= Advanced Tactical Missile System
SPLL= Self-Propelled, Loader/Launcher

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 02:38
What are those? Rockets, AAW, A2G, CBU's?

Bill
18 Aug 03,, 21:07
MLRS, i know you've seen em.

ChrisF202
18 Aug 03,, 21:19
MLRS, i know you've seen em.

You never saw news coverage from GWI with those?

ChrisF202
18 Aug 03,, 21:23
http://www.nae.jgsdf.go.jp/pages/gallery/datas/mlrs.jpg
a JGSDF MLRS

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 11:41
I know what MLRS is, I didn't know what ATACM or SPLL were.

Stinger
19 Aug 03,, 13:47
I recall at the WT someone once said, "Give me pointy stick and a plate of hot taco's and France will surrender within the week" Givin this highly thought out and inovative operational Plan the UK should be able to defeat France, given that they can get enough cyanne pepper and tortillias from the US or Mexico. :)


Edit: BigRoss has actually done some work (Everyone who is feeling dizzy now, make sure to take deep breaths and don't faint) and found the original post to my quote, BlackClaw said it at the WT.

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 13:53
Thankx very much, Stinger.

The url is: http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2748

The actual quote is as follows:


Arm me with a spicy plate of hot Tex-Mex tacos and a pointy stick and I'll take the whole country out in a week.

See, you guys? I'm not ALWAYS lazy. Just most of the time...

:D :) :G :twisted: 8) :Dbanana :)Clp :p :LOL O:) (w00t) laugh big grin

Horrido
27 Aug 03,, 10:31
Sea Eagles are gone. Sea Harrier FR2 pilots have refered to F-18Cs as a "prey-species" ever since they got the new radars and AMRAAMs. Besides, the Canuck overlooked one important thing about France's best unit, the FFL...they're FOREIGN! lol

I see the Frog-monkeys immediately surrendering and whimpering to have their cheese back, as UK MPs hold the cubes over their heads as the POWs jump up and down for them...Of course, I'm sure the UN would claim it as a "warcrime."

GAWD, were the French created for any other purpose than to be taunted?

bigross86
27 Aug 03,, 12:44
Yeah, to be mocked and ridiculed. They're ALMOST the same, but not completely...

Praxus
28 Aug 03,, 00:10
ATACM= Advanced Tactical Missile System
SPLL= Self-Propelled, Loader/Launcher

ATACM= Army Tacticle Missile System actually:-)

Bill
28 Aug 03,, 06:23
ATACM really = bad ass missile. ;)

bigross86
28 Aug 03,, 09:09
That also works...

Praxus
28 Aug 03,, 17:07
Yup it delivers 950 submunitions to a target over 120km away. Each submunition can blow a hole through an APC or through the top of a Medium tank like the T-55(with no reactive armor).

Stinger
28 Aug 03,, 17:19
but they can do a number on the tracks/tires of any vehicle.

bigross86
31 Aug 03,, 12:08
Pretty wicked. Doesn't the JSOW more or less do the same thing?

Praxus
31 Aug 03,, 15:52
Well the JSOW has one with Submunitions and one with a single warhead.

The one with the Submunitions carrys 145 Submunitions, but they are larger then the ones in the ATACMS.

bigross86
31 Aug 03,, 16:30
So it's a tradeoff for more munitions or more definite kills...

Bill
02 Sep 03,, 07:23
ATACMs can be launched from the ground by organic US Army/USMC MLRS SPLLs, without USAF assistance.

That means ATACMs can be employed faster and more efficiently than a emergency TACAIR interdiction request.

ATACMs is for deep strikes.

bigross86
03 Sep 03,, 12:41
So ATACM is just lots more fun, and infantry can launch it also, doesn't have be AF.

Bill
03 Sep 03,, 19:44
Not infantry, the ATACMs is(one of) the personal playtoy(s) of US Army Corps commanders.

When they see something they want hit right away, the CO can order an immediate ATACMs mission, without waiting for the USAF.

Further, ATACMs is a high supersonic semi-ballistic guided missile, so it will get on target much, much faster than an aircraft could ever hope to.

bigross86
03 Sep 03,, 19:48
Not infantry, the ATACMs is(one of) the personal playtoy(s) of US Army Corps commanders.

Meaning the USMC doesn't have it yet?

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:41
To be honest, i don't know.

The USMC's fire is SUPPOSED to come from the USN.

Seeing as how the USN is completely unprepared to support USMC forces with NGFS/NSFS, i wouldn't doubt that the jarheads would like to acquire ATACM's, if they havn't already.

There is a naval version of the standard MLRS M77 rocket with an extra stage(ie long range) that fits four to a VLS cell on USN ships called POLAR.

Of course, the USN is totally uninterested in it.

Stinger
05 Sep 03,, 01:49
I'm shocked the navy isn't interested in something that would be an asset to the Marine Corp.... I don't beleive it :D

Bill
05 Sep 03,, 04:23
I know, go figure.... ;)

bigross86
05 Sep 03,, 08:57
You know, I never understood the phrase the Marine's are sucking hind tit. How many tits are there, and why are some in front and some in back???

AzzurroItalia
05 Sep 03,, 21:17
The United Kingdom of course. France has never beaten us before - even when it had a bigger navy and allied with Spain - It lost. The French don't have the stomach to beat us.


Don't show arrogance. History is no basis for future wars. LOL! Trafalgar, did you know that the French at the time were fighting almost all of Europe? Britain alone had no chance against France.




As I've just said to Gio on MSN... We would sink their carrier, we have tomohawks, we have a better trained army - and... We're more intelligent - it was proven


:rolleyes:


OK, in my opinion, it would be a French victory. France has about 300 Rafales, and many Mirage 2000-5s. It will annhialted the British, and, in doing so, they have secured the air to attack the Royal Navy.

France to win

Stinger
05 Sep 03,, 21:40
Originally posted by bigross86
You know, I never understood the phrase the Marine's are sucking hind tit. How many tits are there, and why are some in front and some in back???

It refers to the smallest rear tit on a cow.

Praxus
05 Sep 03,, 22:18
OK, in my opinion, it would be a French victory. France has about 300 Rafales, and many Mirage 2000-5s. It will annhialted the British, and, in doing so, they have secured the air to attack the Royal Navy.

France to win

France doesn't have 300 Rafales only 61 have been ordered and only a portion of thoose have been delivered yet. But if you want to include future aircraft you got to let the British have their Joint Strike Fighters and Eurofighters.

Great Britian will have 232 Eurofighters and 60 Joint Strike Fighter. Both of which are 5th Generation fighters with more advanced avionics then the Rafale.

ROYAL NAVY
http://royalnavy.mod.uk/static/pages/2204.html

FRENCH NAVY
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/index.htm

As for the ground battle the Challanger 2 will own the Leclerc.

This is assuming the US doesn't join in with Great Britian which we would most likely do. In which case France will be defeated in a couple months.

.

AzzurroItalia
05 Sep 03,, 22:57
Originally posted by Praxus
France doesn't have 300 Rafales only 61 have been ordered and only a portion of thoose have been delivered yet. But if you want to include future aircraft you got to let the British have their Joint Strike Fighters and Eurofighters.

Great Britian will have 232 Eurofighters and 60 Joint Strike Fighter. Both of which are 5th Generation fighters with more advanced avionics then the Rafale.
As for the ground battle the Challanger 2 will own the Leclerc.

This is assuming the US doesn't join in with Great Britian which we would most likely do. In which case France will be defeated in a couple months.

.

France ordered 300 Rafales. "Rafale is a twin jet combat aircraft capable of carrying out a wide range of short and long range missions in day and night-time and in all weather conditions, previously carried out by a number of different aircraft. The missions include ground and sea attack, air defence and air superiority, reconnaissance and high accuracy strike or nuclear strike deterrence.The aircraft has been developed for the French Air Force and Navy. 76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300 (60 for the Navy and 234 for the Air Force)"

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/french.htm

Also, Great Britain DOESN'T have the Eurofighters and JSFs yet, do they? And remind me, how will Britain's challenger 2s attack the French Army? Swim?

And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. :rolleyes:

Praxus
05 Sep 03,, 23:38
France ordered 300 Rafales. "Rafale is a twin jet combat aircraft capable of carrying out a wide range of short and long range missions in day and night-time and in all weather conditions, previously carried out by a number of different aircraft. The missions include ground and sea attack, air defence and air superiority, reconnaissance and high accuracy strike or nuclear strike deterrence.The aircraft has been developed for the French Air Force and Navy. 76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300 (60 for the Navy and 234 for the Air Force)"

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/french.htm

Also, Great Britain DOESN'T have the Eurofighters and JSFs yet, do they? And remind me, how will Britain's challenger 2s attack the French Army? Swim?

And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans.


Oh my God your retarded your own post proved you wrong...

76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300

This directly contridicts your first sentence...

France ordered 300 Rafales.

Since contridictions can not exsist, one of them has to be wrong and of course it is the first sentence you said.

Less then 60 are in service with the French Air Force.

In tests in Great Britian the Eurofighter had a kill to death ratio against Su-30MKK of 4 to 1(F/A-22 had 10 to 1) and the Rafale only had a kill to death ratio of 1 to 1. It is fastly inferior to ALL other 5th generation aircraft.

It is very simple how they get their tanks in france. The US ships over a bunch of transport ships. In Philidelphia a lone(I know cause I see them everytime I go to the airport) we have at least 20 troop transports in case of a major war.

Oh and what possible self-interest would China, Russia, and Germany have in joining the side of France?

Stinger
05 Sep 03,, 23:54
Originally posted by AzzurroItalia
France ordered 300 Rafales. "Rafale is a twin jet combat aircraft capable of carrying out a wide range of short and long range missions in day and night-time and in all weather conditions, previously carried out by a number of different aircraft. The missions include ground and sea attack, air defence and air superiority, reconnaissance and high accuracy strike or nuclear strike deterrence.The aircraft has been developed for the French Air Force and Navy. 76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300 (60 for the Navy and 234 for the Air Force)"

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/french.htm

Also, Great Britain DOESN'T have the Eurofighters and JSFs yet, do they? And remind me, how will Britain's challenger 2s attack the French Army? Swim?

And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. :rolleyes: the Rafale is a piece of sh*t waiting on a toilet... or since its French, a white flag whichever comes first.

bigross86
06 Sep 03,, 18:14
History is no basis for future wars

Sure it is. We kick ass, they don't attack again.


Less then 60 are in service with the French Air Force.


76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300

I take it for face value that the article says they have 76. But the UK has better aircraft (US made) and better pilots.

Praxus
06 Sep 03,, 18:16
I take it for face value that the article says they have 76. But the UK has better aircraft (US made) and better pilots.

No 76 have been ordered, some of these havn't been built yet. There are under 60 in service whith the French Airforce now.

AzzurroItalia
06 Sep 03,, 22:27
Originally posted by Stinger
the Rafale is a piece of sh*t waiting on a toilet... or since its French, a white flag whichever comes first.

Oh brother, a regular genius.

And remind me, how will Britain attack France?

Praxus
07 Sep 03,, 00:33
Oh brother, a regular genius.

And remind me, how will Britain attack France?

ATAMCS, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, hell even tube Artillery can hit France from the area of Dover. You could also do supprise raids with Carrier Borne Harrier Jets not to mention Apache Longbows coming in under radar and hitting French forces.

You could blow a hole through French Defenses and do an Amphibious Landing on the other side of the Straights. It's not like you need large Amphibious ships to make the landing, all you need are transports, which they have plenty of.

BTW compared to other 5th Generation aircraft the rafale IS a peice of shit.

Bill
07 Sep 03,, 06:47
"And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. "

Ignoring the fact that this statement is a HUGE assumption, such a conflict would end VERY, VERY, VERY badly continental Europe.

The USN alone would wipe the skies of Europe clean, let alone adding in the USAF, USMC and RAF/RN.

Do you have any idea how much force the US can bring to bear in Europe with the bases we have in the UK?

Apparently not.

AzzurroItalia
07 Sep 03,, 22:03
A British invasion of France? That is completely laughable. Britain doesn't have neither enough amphibous capability, nor can they get complete air superiority

bigross86
07 Sep 03,, 22:21
First of all, England CAN get air superiority, especially with USAF aid. With bases in the UK alone, and perhaps in Egypt and Israel to attack on the other front, the USAF would have complete air domination. With USN in the seas and the AEGIS/SM-2 combo, PLUS F-14D's and Super Hornets, no one's flying without US permission. E-2C Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry enforce that.

Second of all, England has the Amphib equipment, plus, once again with USN and USAF aid, there will be a beachhead for USMC and Royal Marines to exploit very quickly. They will be causing so much trouble inland, the enemy won't be able to block or retake the beachhead.

By the way, did I mention the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the Big Red 1 and the 23 TFW? Any of those alone assure a European loss, combined they will be practically invincible, and impossible to stop. The hordes of French chefs, German lensmakers and Swiss bankers would just be trouble if the US forces decided to avoid them and not cause casualties instead of rolling right through.

Plus, after all the above mentioned forces, there still is the National Guard and the Reserves. If the initial forces aren't enough to win the war (which I highly doubt), than additional forces can be brought to the area within 24 hours if they are pre-positioned.

Praxus
07 Sep 03,, 23:51
We could bring to bare AT LEAST 200 F-15's, 700 F-16C's, 120 A-10 Warthogs, 450 Apaches, 150 AH-1W's, 100 Long Range Bombers, and 100 Major Suface Combatants.

Anything that survives the bombardment won't be enough to defend the beaches from a Marine Corps attack under support of Cobra Gunships and Harrier Jets. On top of this we would flank them in the rear of their defenses with Airborne troops from the 82nd and 101st Airborne and Helicopter forces which could come buy the 10's of thousands due to the short distance between Great Britian and France.

Stinger
08 Sep 03,, 17:52
Originally posted by AzzurroItalia
Oh brother, a regular genius.
Why thank you... even though I have the test scores to back it up I always appreciate it when people compliment me... unfortunatly I can't say anything remotely similar for you....

As for England not being Able to invade France... well they've put troops in at least three times the last 60 years of course the Germans were the defenders then, seems the french left all their toys for the Germans and went home.

Bill
08 Sep 03,, 19:57
The UK, by itself, probably does not have the amphibious capability to invade France. But they could make a go of it.

Stinger
08 Sep 03,, 20:02
Well if all the Brits strapped a stick of deoderant in place of their Bayonets they could likely route any French unit outside of the Foreign Legion....

Praxus
08 Sep 03,, 20:20
I don't think Great Britian has the immediate capability for a massive Amphibious Assault. But the US could put some on loan or we could sell them. We are retired a couple Amphibious Assault in the next couple years, we could ship thoose over right away.

Bill
08 Sep 03,, 21:13
Actually, with the distance so close- only 23 miles i think- they could use just about ANY boats.

That's why i think they could make a go of it.

Praxus
08 Sep 03,, 21:24
Yah they could also hit the landing site with tube artillery before an attack to soften it up.

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 21:49
Artillery, ATACMS and MLRS could all reach across the strait.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:32
Are there any mortars that could make it across that distance?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 22:35
Nope.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:36
Whats the max range of mortars in use today?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 22:44
Well the PGMM for the 120mm Mortar version of the FCS will have a range of 15km. Regular HE 120mm rounds have a range of 7.2 km.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:48
How far would the 105mm cannon on the AC-130U Spectre get if the plane was flying at approx 25,000-30,000 feet?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 22:54
I dunno but it could easily cross the Straight.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:56
Even the old AC-47's could probably shoot cross the strait

Bill
10 Sep 03,, 01:21
"Whats the max range of mortars in use today?"

The 120mm RAP has a max range of about 21000 meters, on a good day, with the right atmospheric conditions.

19000 meters is a more practical maximum range.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 02:07
That's awsome range for a mortar.

bigross86
10 Sep 03,, 14:16
So if a couple 120mm RAPs were fitted on civilian ships or Coast Guard ships and sailed about 5 miles out, they could also aid in the bombardment, right?

Bill
11 Sep 03,, 04:28
Yeah, god knows where they'd land though.

I must add, at that kind of extended range, the 120mm RAP is accuracy challenged...even on dry(non swaying) land.

bigross86
11 Sep 03,, 08:52
If it's during a mass bombardment it doesn't matter where they land. The point is to soften the beach head and every piece of ammo that drops there helps.

Bill
12 Sep 03,, 15:57
Quite true.

You wouldn't want to be calling in any DCZ missions with 120's at those ranges though. Get yourself blowed up with 'friendly' fire.

bigross86
13 Sep 03,, 18:15
For Air support on the beach I would want Hawgs, planes with HARM's and AC-130U's.

Hawg166
19 Sep 03,, 17:40
I think that anyone that states that France and England would never go to war again is a complete idiot. I think that someone that says that France was fighting the entire world on October 21 of 1805 when the Great One and the Immortal Lord Viscount Horatio Nelson kicked the combines asses of the Franch and Spanish fleets :LOL Fighting the whole world ? Openly hostile to France in 1810 was england, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The French Empire and Greater Empire was Spain, france, Italy (northern and southern kingdoms)and nominally all of the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Empire. If you think that France and Spain were defeated because there troops were spread thin, you are for one not thinking Napoleanic naval history, and secondly you need to read Mahan and the Influence of Sea Power On the French Revolution and Empire. Frances problem wasnt tonnage, number, manpower etc etc etc but rather "It was the because the government so faithfully and neccesarully reflected the social disorder , the crude the wild habits of thought which it was powerless to check, that it was incapable of dealing with the naval necessities of the day." What was the need you ask? I will enilghten you......grab a hot cup of tea, sit back and hear my yarn..............How could a nation that brought forth tremendous millitary victories under naploean bring forth utter naval DISASTERS ? Navies in the the age of fighting sail required men of "very special character, involving special exigencies, calling for special aptitudes and consequently demanding special knowledge of its requirements in order to deal wisely with it." The French put over the naval service a group of men which did not believe that these special qualities existed . The ill fated French Admiral Jean Baptiste deVilleneuve later said that "since His majesty thinks that nothing but audacity and resolve are needed tp succeed in the naval officers calling, I shall leave nothing to be desired." The Frech Revolution had caused such anarchy within the naval services, and it caused splits within the officer corps, most ntably Admiral DeLyons. The most apt and suited officers either met their cruel fate beneath the blade or fled the country. The main weapon of the fighting sail was the cannon, and its use cannot be seperated from its carriage or the ship of the line. The process of bringing that thunder to bear alongside the enemy rested in the hands of a man who could best put that carriage ina place whereby it would inflict the most damage to the enemy and stand to suffer the least for itslef. Only when placed there could the skillfull mastery of the gunners whose work of rapidity in the constant movement of the ships at sea and amidst the thunder and smoke of the gun decks; only once there could he carry out his task. So it must be that the skills of "the trained gunner, the gun and the ship, the piece and its carriage, all supplemented each other." And again "It was wielded by a living organism, knit also into one by the dependence of all the parts upon the head, and thus acting by a common impulse, sharing a common tradition, and having a common life, which, like all other life is not found fully ripened without having had abeginning and a growth." When the monarchy bequeathed the naton of france to the French National Assembly mans beliefs, morales and understamding were in an a state of anarchy and cunfusion. In that great naval service which so far above all other forms of early warfare required strict discipline in order that all the parts of that body should work together in battle, in that great service did corruption and moral decay strike first and deepest. "Insubordination, and mutiny, insult and murder, preceded the blundering measures which in the end destroyed the fine personel that the monarchy bequeathed to the Republic." Corruption and rot my freind is why the French could not have won at Trafalgar even had they been equiped with twice the ships that they and the Spaniards possesed. and that as they say is all my waffles for now.

Bill
19 Sep 03,, 20:51
Hi Hawg, it's really good to have you aboard here.

Very interesting read.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 17:07
Ok in the air the French Air Force has better fighter. The Tornado is not up to the Mirage 2000C or the Mirage 2000-5C. For strike the both have similar stand off missiles, the RAF/RN lack air launched anti shipping missiles so the French Air Force would no doubt savage them with Exocets. The Sea Harrier was not capable agianist the SuE, it would not stand up well with a Mirage F-1CT (which can use the Exocet).

And France has moved large numbers of troops very far around the world (Chad, Congo, Korea, Afganistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Comoros Islands, Somalia etc...).

You underestimate the Tornados. Britain will also soon have the Eurofighter. And it will soon have a larger airforce than France. Britain has Europe's dominant navy, the best soldiers in the world, and a soon-to-be superior airforce. AND it has the English Channel.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 17:12
Don't show arrogance. History is no basis for future wars. LOL! Trafalgar, did you know that the French at the time were fighting almost all of Europe? Britain alone had no chance against France.






:rolleyes:


OK, in my opinion, it would be a French victory. France has about 300 Rafales, and many Mirage 2000-5s. It will annhialted the British, and, in doing so, they have secured the air to attack the Royal Navy.

France to win

Trafalgar was 200 hundred years ago. Britain and France's militaries have changed quite dramatically since then.

And since Trafalgar, Britain has had to bail them out in two World Wars.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 17:16
France ordered 300 Rafales. "Rafale is a twin jet combat aircraft capable of carrying out a wide range of short and long range missions in day and night-time and in all weather conditions, previously carried out by a number of different aircraft. The missions include ground and sea attack, air defence and air superiority, reconnaissance and high accuracy strike or nuclear strike deterrence.The aircraft has been developed for the French Air Force and Navy. 76 have been ordered out of a total requirement of around 300 (60 for the Navy and 234 for the Air Force)"

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/french.htm

Also, Great Britain DOESN'T have the Eurofighters and JSFs yet, do they? And remind me, how will Britain's challenger 2s attack the French Army? Swim?

And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. :rolleyes:

You can say the same thing about the French tanks. How can ANY country, let alone France, attack the UK with tanks? France has got Germany, Europe's largest army, on its border that can attack it with tanks.

And I think in any war in which the UK is attacked, the US would fight alongside us. And vice versa.

Lunatock
19 Apr 04,, 21:53
I recall at the WT someone once said, "Give me pointy stick and a plate of hot taco's and France will surrender within the week" Givin this highly thought out and inovative operational Plan the UK should be able to defeat France, given that they can get enough cyanne pepper and tortillias from the US or Mexico. :)


Edit: BigRoss has actually done some work (Everyone who is feeling dizzy now, make sure to take deep breaths and don't faint) and found the original post to my quote, BlackClaw said it at the WT.

Correction. Give Anthony Stewart Head (British actor) a pointy stick and a plate of hot taco's and send him across the English Channel. He'd probably be in the middle of filming something, so a week would be too long a time table. :)

Lunatock
19 Apr 04,, 22:03
First of all, England CAN get air superiority, especially with USAF aid. With bases in the UK alone, and perhaps in Egypt and Israel to attack on the other front, the USAF would have complete air domination. With USN in the seas and the AEGIS/SM-2 combo, PLUS F-14D's and Super Hornets, no one's flying without US permission. E-2C Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry enforce that.

Second of all, England has the Amphib equipment, plus, once again with USN and USAF aid, there will be a beachhead for USMC and Royal Marines to exploit very quickly. They will be causing so much trouble inland, the enemy won't be able to block or retake the beachhead.

By the way, did I mention the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the Big Red 1 and the 23 TFW? Any of those alone assure a European loss, combined they will be practically invincible, and impossible to stop. The hordes of French chefs, German lensmakers and Swiss bankers would just be trouble if the US forces decided to avoid them and not cause casualties instead of rolling right through.

Plus, after all the above mentioned forces, there still is the National Guard and the Reserves. If the initial forces aren't enough to win the war (which I highly doubt), than additional forces can be brought to the area within 24 hours if they are pre-positioned.

france also has a large Muslim population to throw at an American backed British invasion. :rolleyes:

And they could always give thier tour de france riders a chance to redeem themselves against a Delta stikeforce, for not stopping Lance Armstrong this year either. :biggrin:

Lunatock
19 Apr 04,, 22:06
Well if all the Brits strapped a stick of deoderant in place of their Bayonets they could likely route any French unit outside of the Foreign Legion....

They could try to stick it to us at the UN. Over outrage at news footage of french regulars in huge jars going butta butta butta. :biggrin:

Blademaster
19 Apr 04,, 23:30
"And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. "

Ignoring the fact that this statement is a HUGE assumption, such a conflict would end VERY, VERY, VERY badly continental Europe.

The USN alone would wipe the skies of Europe clean, let alone adding in the USAF, USMC and RAF/RN.

Do you have any idea how much force the US can bring to bear in Europe with the bases we have in the UK?

Apparently not.

BULLSHIT!!!!

With the combo of Spain, Germany, French, Italians, and others, the ABCA would have a damn hard time attacking continental Europe.

This sort of thing is nothing but mental masturbation or wanking as we like to call it. Cool off the Anglo-Franco thing guys. It ain't funny anymore

StGeorge
26 Apr 04,, 10:29
france also has a large Muslim population to throw at an American backed British invasion. :rolleyes:

And they could always give thier tour de france riders a chance to redeem themselves against a Delta stikeforce, for not stopping Lance Armstrong this year either. :biggrin:

Britain has a larger Muslim population than France. It has Europe's largest Muslim population.

StGeorge
26 Apr 04,, 10:32
Britain and the US have beaten Germany, Japan and Italy combined before. I don't see if there will be much difference against Germany, Italy and France combined.

Ray
26 Apr 04,, 13:50
Britain has a larger Muslim population than France. It has Europe's largest Muslim population.

InshaAllah,

God Save the Queen!

maersk
28 May 04,, 03:16
first, this war is very unlikely. in a war strictly between britain and france (with no outside powers interfering) it would probably be a draw, both sides would slug it out in a stalemate, i highly doubt that the british could penatrate all the way to paris just as i doubt the french could take london (although london would concieveably be within artillery range of some of frances long range nonnuclear missiles) i think both sides would tire and a treaty of some sort would be signed.

Bill
28 May 04,, 03:20
"BULLSHIT!!!!

With the combo of Spain, Germany, French, Italians, and others, the ABCA would have a damn hard time attacking continental Europe.

This sort of thing is nothing but mental masturbation or wanking as we like to call it. Cool off the Anglo-Franco thing guys. It ain't funny anymore"

If you think the nations you name could stop an all out USAF/USN/RAF air attack on Central Europe you're out of your motherloving mind.

maersk
28 May 04,, 03:40
the us air force, while being very very good, is not invincible. if the us entered the war on the UK's side, then you most definatly would have russia and germany enter on france's side, those three combined air forces would be more than a match for the US & UK.

Officer of Engineers
28 May 04,, 04:01
Really?

In Operation Allied Force, the US supplied 80% of the airpower while the rest of NATO with France provided 20%.

Blademaster
28 May 04,, 16:45
"BULLSHIT!!!!

With the combo of Spain, Germany, French, Italians, and others, the ABCA would have a damn hard time attacking continental Europe.

This sort of thing is nothing but mental masturbation or wanking as we like to call it. Cool off the Anglo-Franco thing guys. It ain't funny anymore"

If you think the nations you name could stop an all out USAF/USN/RAF air attack on Central Europe you're out of your motherloving mind.


And if you think that USN and USAF can wipe out Europe's air forces, then you are one hell out of your fatherloving mind.

Bill
28 May 04,, 16:59
Yeah, whatever you say dude.

Believe me, we quake in fear of the Mighty EU airforce....snicker.

A UK/US alliance would wipe the skies of Europe clean in a matter of days.

bodybag
01 Jul 04,, 23:00
French will win ,using submarines just like kriegsmarine in ww2 they would isolate
UK on their island ,and without supplies war is over
PS.No outside powers interffering ofcourse

mtnbiker
08 Jul 04,, 01:31
Hoisted by Their Own Petain

So, after 58 years, the French have decided that they prefer Vichy after all.
It's hardly surprising. When the Vichy regime was in power, one could pretty
much do what one wanted when it came to those troublesome Jews. Yes, there were
shortages and lots of Germans around, but that's not much different from the
present. Plus, just like today, the truly intellectual could take pride in the
notion that they were part of something larger than a piddling little nation
state. And really, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!" is just so passe. Vichy knew
that too, which is why they were replaced with Travail (work), Famille (family),
and Patrie (fatherland).

Not that those are any better. The modern Vichian motto might as well be
ignorez, retarde, apaisez. Ignore, delay and appease describe the French
character as well as anything else, excepts perhaps "Unions, Vacations and
Occasional Showers!".

You can hardly blame the French. France is example number one when comes to
natural selection of a nation's character.

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of
French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are
victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two
wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get
invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants
started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but
claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over
to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first
taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more
action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second
Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the
fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also
French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due
to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear
designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy
to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United
States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with
a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of
condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain
just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien
Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a
Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of
Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the
First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to
Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese
ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

Let's face it. When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a
Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache. They've been beaten so many times
there's no fight left in them. There's no national anthem in the world as
ludicrous as France's

To arms, to arms, ye brave!
Th'avenging sword unsheathe!
March on, march on, all hearts resolved
On liberty or death.

Oh liberty can man resign thee,
Once having felt thy gen'rous flame?
Can dungeons, bolts, and bar confine thee?
Or whips thy noble spirit tame?

Can dungeons, bolts, and bar confine thee? Or whips thy noble spirit tame? Yes,
demonstrably. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French
should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France
collapses?"

bigross86
08 Jul 04,, 10:11
"How long until France collapses?"

Ummm, given the present situation, and if my calculations are correct, France will collapse in approximately how long it takes someone to get seriously annoyed at them and wave a bowl of tex-mex at them...

bodybag
10 Jul 04,, 19:12
I am wondering why this thread was even started, if all agree france will loose
anyway?

smilingassassin
11 Jul 04,, 10:13
And if you think that USN and USAF can wipe out Europe's air forces, then you are one hell out of your fatherloving mind.


The N squared rule need apply here....the U.S. and Britain combinded have far far more aircraft than the rest of europe, and you could likely throw in the Canadians in this war as well.

garytait
30 Jul 04,, 11:31
Who do you guys think would win?

I think France.

No contest UK hands down

AlexKall
30 Jul 04,, 23:16
I dont have much knowlage about the french strength, but i would think it to be rather equal.

Kelu
31 Jul 04,, 14:38
Its a simple fact of training, equipment, And deployability,

The french army is too caught up in its own personal grudges and problems it couldnt even start a war let alone finish it, "trust me, I know"

Having studies things like this and hearing it off a very close friend who happens to be a french nationalist .. comparing the mobility of armed forces, Its unlikely the entire new EU army could lay a dent in the United Kingdoms forces,

Sure they can cause mass damage, But like its been said, the only country with severe power and nuclear strike capability in Europe is Russia, Thanks to the americans for providing those, ;)

Other stated, The Royal Navy has complete dominace over International waters in europe with its 8 nuclear strike subs, And "now" fledgling smaller Royal Navy, And anything it didnt have, It could just have its good friends across the ocean sell it to them .. as they always have done ..
It seems for sometime the french have tried to underline this in words, not actions :rolleyes: Asking Britain to decrease the size of its Navy is one ..

*grins*

France is still trying to bring Great Britain into the E.U .. simple because its the only way they could possible finish the plan of bringing the E.U under one power and ruling .. and employ a EU army even capable of being a power in the west, Other than this .. The only thing the french have going for them is stations of troops in many different countries .. But lets me open .. Both British leaders and french heads spend so much time in bed with each other its possible that they might just succeed in sapping even more power from the Monarchy and bring GHB into the European Union as another head state and through its lot in with france, and germany ..

and remember I thought Germany didnt have an completly mobile army .. only a national guard :biggrin: which is followed VERY closely .. *s******s* But still lethal non the less, Is that true?

Also .. Where ever the Canadians go, Great Britain Follows, And it works the same both ways, People dont appreciate just how major parties still feel about the commonwealth and the links and bonds that still stand .. Consider the WHOLE commonwealth as a example for each of the countries it influences .. and the add the rest of them .. Pretty impressive eh? :redface:

Kelu
10 Aug 04,, 15:26
Its a simple fact of training, equipment, And deployability,

The french army is too caught up in its own personal grudges and problems it couldnt even start a war let alone finish it, "trust me, I know"

Having studies things like this and hearing it off a very close friend who happens to be a french nationalist .. comparing the mobility of armed forces, Its unlikely the entire new EU army could lay a dent in the United Kingdoms forces,

Sure they can cause mass damage, But like its been said, the only country with severe power and nuclear strike capability in Europe is Russia, Thanks to the americans for providing those, ;)

Other stated, The Royal Navy has complete dominace over International waters in europe with its 8 nuclear strike subs, And "now" fledgling smaller Royal Navy, And anything it didnt have, It could just have its good friends across the ocean sell it to them .. as they always have done ..
It seems for sometime the french have tried to underline this in words, not actions :rolleyes: Asking Britain to decrease the size of its Navy is one ..

*grins*

France is still trying to bring Great Britain into the E.U .. simple because its the only way they could possible finish the plan of bringing the E.U under one power and ruling .. and employ a EU army even capable of being a power in the west, Other than this .. The only thing the french have going for them is stations of troops in many different countries .. But lets me open .. Both British leaders and french heads spend so much time in bed with each other its possible that they might just succeed in sapping even more power from the Monarchy and bring GHB into the European Union as another head state and through its lot in with france, and germany ..

and remember I thought Germany didnt have an completly mobile army .. only a national guard :biggrin: which is followed VERY closely .. *s******s* But still lethal non the less, Is that true?

Also .. Where ever the Canadians go, Great Britain Follows, And it works the same both ways, People dont appreciate just how major parties still feel about the commonwealth and the links and bonds that still stand .. Consider the WHOLE commonwealth as a example for each of the countries it influences .. then add the rest of them .. Pretty impressive eh? :redface:

Well if all the Brits strapped a stick of deoderant in place of their Bayonets they could likely route any French unit outside of the Foreign Legion... KeKe :biggrin:



InshaAllah,

God Save the Queen

*Wipes a tear* Pure Gold


the us air force, while being very very good, is not invincible. if the us entered the war on the UK's side, then you most definatly would have russia and germany enter on france's side, those three combined air forces would be more than a match for the US & UK No, You wouldnt .. You forget this isnt just about size ... Its about money as well .. All these European nations would collapse on'themselves when the trading ceased .. And no they would not be a match for a combined power of the U.S and U.K forces .. They would quake themselves .. Giving the point likely most of the Russian army wouldnt fight ... especially when they couldnt win ... 85% of European armies are trained by Americans anyway


Yeah, whatever you say dude.
Believe me, we quake in fear of the Mighty EU airforce....snicker.
A UK/US alliance would wipe the skies of Europe clean in a matter of days

mmm .. Not quite days .. weeks ... The RAF would set themselves to defending the U.K coasts ... And would do so with relative ease having pre'empive strikes knocking out Europes major strongpoints ... It would take at least three not four for the Americans to arrive and deploy their air'alone forces alongside the Brutish, Most of the European nations would probally fall in on themselves .. The whole of europe alone would have a hard time trying to land in the United Kingdom, And with an American supported war you would have peace treaties signed in a matter of days, To the benifit of the United Kingdom and U.S alone .. Anyone who thinks that Europe can stand a high chance against the modern combined powers of the deep west is silly .. Never will the United Kingdom Or any other "old" commonwealth nation stand without the aid of others ... but then again ... Didnt the U.K just join the E.U .. *sigh* maybe Tony Blair should listen to the people and not jump straight into bed with a frenchie.

Homie Cheez 212
24 Aug 04,, 06:13
Whoever is foolish enoug to believe that France had a remote chance of defeating the UK should be shot!

The US acounts for 25% of the worlds navy. In second is the UK with 8.62%. :tongue:

They certainly have the capabilities of such a landing on France. So for you ney sayers take that. Also bring in the point of training the UK spends roughly 178,000 dollars per soldier Frace which cannout compete with that. You have to bring into account the experience that British forces have over the French.

But who am I kidding why would they go to war with them anyway. Even though it would be hilarious to watch the French lose! :biggrin:

Grundy
28 Aug 04,, 13:52
The last time the french were a force to be reckoned with was the napoleonic war which they lost to the british nd just in time prussians

Grundy
28 Aug 04,, 13:58
The french foreign legion nd french commandos wouldn't stand a chance against british marines (british marines have one of the hardest training regimes) the british SAS is the best in the world or on par with the US Delta Force (apart from technology) :)

Grundy
29 Aug 04,, 11:34
And France has moved large numbers of troops very far around the world (Chad, Congo, Korea, Afganistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Comoros Islands, Somalia etc...).[/QUOTE]

But it got an ass whoopin in vietnam if i can remember this correctly before the us deployed forces in vietnam the us payed something like 70% of the french cost (also the french aren't given credit for afghanistan or kuwait because they didn't have large contingents of forces

MeanJoe
01 Sep 04,, 05:06
Your anti-French comments are pathetic. All you guys should read a history book sometime. Bigross86 your comments are a joke. So, tell me how many wars has Israel won in the last 2000 years? Ha, you guys not only lost to the Palastinians 700 years ago, you were also kicked off your own land....Maybe you should keep your hypocritical comments to yourself..... Fucking joke race.

This is your first and last warning. Your racist anti-semetic slurs will not be tolerated on the forum.

And where did you learn history? 700 years ago there were no Jews in Israel. And the Jews were originally expelled by the Romans, the most powerful empire in the region at the time. The Palestinians did not exist. And since Israel has only existed for 56 years, your question is stupid, but Israel has won 4 wars in its 56 years. While stupid false and irrational historical "arguments" are not against forum rules, I thought I would inform you to make it easier to keep from making racist remarks as they would be factually incorrect as well as bigoted.

Kelu
01 Sep 04,, 10:30
i cant see the poll .. Only vote "yes" or "no"

Marine
01 Sep 04,, 14:41
The United Kingdom of course. France has never beaten us before - even when it had a bigger navy and allied with Spain - It lost. The French don't have the stomach to beat us.

As I've just said to Gio on MSN... We would sink their carrier, we have tomohawks, we have a better trained army - and... We're more intelligent - it was proven.
Hands down the UK.
I not sure about this but wouldent the US help the UK anyway??

Kelu
02 Sep 04,, 00:08
Most Very Possible .. If not in the form of troops or military aid then in the form of usage of their bases and constant supplies ..

Tipiak le pirat
10 Feb 05,, 16:04
France vs UK? just watch tv next sunday!! great rugby game of"le tournoi des 6 nations". Last week, we(france) won against Scotland(it was quite hard...what a shame!!!), and England lose agains Ireland( AHAAHAHHAHAHA).

Tipiak, fan de rugby

Tipiak le pirat
13 Feb 05,, 17:32
France vs UK? just watch tv next sunday!! great rugby game of"le tournoi des 6 nations". Last week, we(france) won against Scotland(it was quite hard...what a shame!!!), and England lose agains Ireland( AHAAHAHHAHAHA).

Tipiak, fan de rugby


WE WON!!!!!What a beautiful day!!! tonight's meal: roastbeef!!!

tipiak, fan de rugby

Veni Vidi Vici
13 Feb 05,, 18:06
And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. :rolleyes:

A) thats quite a leap of faith. What incentive would china have to fight on Frances side, same applies for russia. Europe I can see going to Frances side but not russia or China.
B) Your examples(except europe) are all pretty iffy whereas if England was attacked you could bet your last dollar that the Americans, Australians, and Canadians would be sending a fighting force from hell to defend their ally.

In just a strict war between UK and the Frogs(no help on either side) I would guess the Uk would win but do not know enough about it to argue. I mean to my understanding England have more carriers(3 UK; France has only one and I beleive it is currently out of service(i might be wrong)). But what do i know. :)

Veni Vidi Vici
13 Feb 05,, 18:08
PS we need to Redo this poll, I didnt know who i was voting for. Yes or no with no question is kinda hard to vote on. :tongue:

Ray
13 Feb 05,, 20:30
These replies are just a wish list.

An actual military comparison with strategic inputs would be a better way to approach the subject.

As the British Armed Forces are no pushovers, neither are the French.

Ray
13 Feb 05,, 20:37
People dont appreciate just how major parties still feel about the commonwealth and the links and bonds that still stand .. Consider the WHOLE commonwealth as a example for each of the countries it influences .. and the add the rest of them .. Pretty impressive eh?

Are you sure the Commonwealth will back the UK? Remember the Falklands?


And no they would not be a match for a combined power of the U.S and U.K forces .. They would quake themselves .. Giving the point likely most of the Russian army wouldnt fight ... especially when they couldnt win ... 85% of European armies are trained by Americans anyway

When will you learn to fight your own battles? Must you always bank on Big Brother? Even if the US trained and equipped all, what makes you think that they will support the war between UK and France, which anyway will never happen.

Ray
13 Feb 05,, 20:43
French and British forces, 2000



By Robert S. Norris and William M. Arkin
September/October 2000 pp. 69-71 (vol. 56, no. 05) © 2000 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

France

On February 22 and 23, 1996, President Jacques Chirac announced several reforms of the armed forces to be undertaken between 1997 and 2002. Chirac's decisions in the nuclear area combined the withdrawal of several obsolete systems with a commitment to modernize those that remained.

In February 1996, Chirac announced that the S3D intermediate-range missile would be retired without replacement. On September 16, 1996, all 18 missiles on the Plateau d'Albion were deactivated. Two years and $77.5 million later, the silos and complex were fully dismantled.

The Pacific test facilities at Mururoa and Fangataufa have also been dismantled. France ceased producing weapons plutonium in 1992 and highly enriched uranium in 1996. In 1998, it began to dismantle the Marcoule reprocessing plant and the Pierrelatte enrichment facility.

Bombers. In July 1996, after 32 years of service, the Mirage IVP relinquished its nuclear role. Five Mirage IVPs were retained for reconnaissance missions; they belong to the 1/91 "Gascogne" squadron at Mont-de-Marsan. The remaining IVPs were put into storage at Chateaudun.

Three squadrons of Mirage 2000N have now assumed a "strategic" role in addition to their "pre-strategic" one. A fourth Mirage 2000N squadron at Nancy--now conventional--is scheduled to be replaced by Mirage 2000Ds. The squadron may be modified to carry the Air-Sol-Moyenne Porté (ASMP) supersonic missile, with the aircraft distributed to the three 2000N squadrons at Luxeuil and Istres, along with 18 ASMP missiles once deployed with Mirage IVPs. We estimate that nearly 100 ASMP missiles were built, and 80 warheads produced for them. In his February 1996 speech, Chirac said that France would develop a longer-range ASMP, sometimes called the "ASMP Plus" (with a 500-rather than 300-kilometer range). It is expected to enter service in about 10 years.

The Rafale will be France's multi-purpose navy and air force fighter/ bomber for the twenty-first century. Its roles include conventional ground attack, air defense, air superiority, and nuclear delivery of the ASMP and/or ASMP Plus. The carrier-based navy version will be introduced first, with the air force Rafale D acquiring a nuclear strike role, possibly by 2005. The air force still plans to buy a total of 234 Rafales.

France currently has only one aircraft carrier in service, the Foch, which was commissioned in 1963. The Clemenceau, which entered service in 1961, was decommissioned in 1997. Both were modified to handle the AN 52 nuclear gravity bomb with Super Etendard aircraft. The Clemenceau was modified in 1979 and the Foch in 1981. The AN 52 was retired in July 1991. Only the Foch was modified to "handle and store" the replacement ASMP, approximately 20 of which were allocated for two squadrons (about 24) Super Etendard aircraft.

The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier was launched on May 15, 1994, but various problems encountered during sea trials have delayed its commissioning until October 2000, almost four years behind schedule. At that time, the Foch will be laid up. The de Gaulle will have a single squadron of Super Etendard (with presumably about 10 ASMPs) until the Rafale M is introduced in 2002. The navy is reportedly asking for a second ship, tentatively named the Richelieu. The navy plans to purchase a total of 60 Rafale M, the first 16 of which will perform an air-to-air role. Missions for subsequent planes may include the ASMP and/or ASMP Plus.

Nuclear-powered ballistic missiles submarines (SSBNs). The lead submarine, Le Triomphant, was rolled out from its construction shed in Cherbourg on July 13, 1993. It entered service in September 1996, armed with the M45 sea-launched ballistic missile and new TN 75 warheads. The second SSBN, Le Téméraire, entered service in 1999. The schedule for the third, Le Vigilant, has slipped, and it will not be ready until at least 2001. Chirac announced on February 23, 1996, that a fourth submarine would be built and that a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), known as the M51, will replace the M45. The service date for the fourth sub is approximately 2005. The entry-into-date for the SLBM is 2010.

We estimate that eventually there will be 288 warheads--because only enough missiles and warheads will be purchased to fully stock three of the four Triomphant-class subs. Less than full loading is the case today, with five submarines in the fleet and only four sets of M4 SLBMs.

Under a reorganization plan, the navy will base its SSBNs (formerly at Ile-Longue) and SSNs (formerly at Toulon) at Brest. The navy will shut down its SSBN command installations at Houilles (Yvelines) and transfer their activities to Brest. The submarine communication infrastructure will remain at Rosnay (Indre).

The French defense ministry released a report in 1999 detailing cost figures for its submarine program. The total acquisition cost is estimated to be approximately 45 billion francs ($9 billion), not including the cost of the nuclear warheads. The report also estimated that it will cost 100 billion francs ($20 billion) to maintain the weapons in service for 30 years.


Britain

In July 1998, Britain's Labour government announced several decisions resulting from its Strategic Defence Review:

• Only one British submarine will patrol at any given time, and that boat will carry a reduced load of 48 warheads, half the number the Conservative government had previously planned.

• The submarine will patrol at a reduced state of alert, its missiles de-targeted. It will be capable of firing its missiles within days, not minutes as during the Cold War. It will also carry out a range of secondary tasks.

• Britain will maintain fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. This is a one-third reduction from the Conservative government's plan.

• Britain will purchase a total of 58 rather than 65 Trident D-5 missiles.

When these decisions are fully implemented, the total explosive power of Britain's operationally available weapons will have been reduced by more than 70 percent since the end of the Cold War. The explosive power of each Trident submarine will be one-third less than that of the Chevaline-armed Polaris submarines of recent years.

The Atomic Weapons Establishment is now managed by an industrial consortium consisting of Lockheed Martin, Serco Limited, and British Nuclear Fuels, which took over on April 1, 2000, under a 10-year, 2.2-billion-pound contract. On April 1, 1999, the Chief of Defence Logistics assumed overall responsibility for the routine movement of nuclear weapons within the United Kingdom. Day-to-day duties are gradually being transferred from RAF personnel to the Ministry of Defence Police, with support from AWE civilians and the Royal Marines. The process will be completed by March 31, 2002.

Until recently, the Royal Air Force operated eight squadrons of dual-capable Tornado GR.1/1A aircraft. But with the withdrawal of the last remaining WE177 bombs at the end of March 1998, the Tornadoes' nuclear role was terminated, bringing to an end the four-decade-long history of RAF aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. By the end of August 1998, the remaining WE177 bombs had been dismantled. The RAF base at Bruggen, Germany, is scheduled to be closed, and by the end of 2001 approximately 40 Tornadoes now at the base will be reassigned to bases at Lossiemouth, Scotland, and Marham, England.

Britain built and deployed four Resolution-class SSBNs, commonly called Polaris submarines after the missiles they carried. The first, the Resolution, went on patrol in mid-June 1968, and the last--the Revenge--in September 1970. The four boats conducted a total of 229 patrols over a 28-year period. The Revenge was retired on May 25, 1992, after 56 patrols. The Resolution was decommissioned on October 22, 1994, after 61 patrols. The Renown was decommissioned on February 24, 1996, after 52 patrols, and the Repulse was withdrawn from service on August 28, 1996, after 60 patrols. Presumably, the Chevaline warheads they carried have been dismantled.

The first submarine of Britain's new class, the Vanguard, began its initial patrol in December 1994. The second, the Victorious, entered service in December 1995. The third, the Vigilant, was launched in October 1995 and entered service in the fall of 1998. The fourth and final boat of the class, the Vengeance, was launched on September 19, 1998, and was commissioned on November 27, 1999, at the Marconi-Marine Shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. It will enter service as part of the First Submarine Squadron, and go on patrol in late 2000 or early 2001. The submarine has a total complement of 205 men, which includes a ship's company of about 130. The current estimated cost of the program is $18.8 billion.

Each Vanguard-class SSBN carries 16 U.S.-produced Trident II D-5 SLBMs. Technically, there are no specifically American or British Trident IIs. A pool of SLBMs are kept at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic at the Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia. Britain has title to 58, but does not actually own them. A missile that is deployed on a U.S. SSBN may at a later date deploy on a British boat, or vice versa.

How many warheads will there be in the future British stockpile? Several factors go into the calculation. We assume that Britain will produce enough warheads for only three boatloads of missiles, a practice it followed with Polaris. As was stated in the Strategic Defence Review, there will be "fewer than 200 operationally available warheads." If all four boats were fully loaded (MIRVed with three warheads) that would total 192. But the purchase of only 58 missiles means there will not be a full complement of missiles for all four boats. The government also stated that normally only one SSBN will be on patrol, with the other three in various states of readiness.

A further consideration is the "substrategic" mission. A Ministry of Defence official described a substrategic strike as "the limited and highly selective use of nuclear weapons in a manner that fell demonstrably short of a strategic strike, but with a sufficient level of violence to convince an aggressor who had already miscalculated our resolve and attacked us that he should halt his aggression and withdraw or face the prospect of a devastating strategic strike."

This substrategic mission began with Victorious and "will become fully robust when Vigilant enters service," according to the Ministry of Defence's 1996 White Paper. If this has remained the policy, then some Trident II SLBMs already have a single warhead and are assigned targets once covered by WE177 gravity bombs. For example, when the Vigilant is on patrol, 10, 12, or 14 of its SLBMs may carry up to three warheads per missile, but the other two, four, or six missiles may be armed with just one warhead. There is also some flexibility in the choice of yield of the Trident warhead. (Choosing to detonate the unboosted primary only could produce a yield of a few kilotons.) With dual missions, an SSBN would have approximately 36--44 warheads on board during patrol.

We estimate that the future British stockpile for the SSBN fleet will be around 160 warheads. With an additional 15 percent for spares, we estimate the total British stockpile to be approximately 185 warheads. At any given time, the sole SSBN on patrol might carry about 40 warheads. The second and third SSBNs could put to sea fairly rapidly with a similar loading, while the fourth might take longer due to the cycle of overhaul and maintenance.

Ten nuclear-powered attack submarines of the Trafalgar-class and the Swiftsure-class are scheduled to receive upgrades to carry U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles by 2008. The first submarine to be upgraded, the Splendid, fired Tomahawk missiles during Operation Allied Force. The upgrade of a second submarine, the Triumph, was completed by the end of 1999.

Ray
13 Feb 05,, 20:44
French and British nuclear forces, 1999



By Robert S. Norris and William M. Arkin
July/August 1999 pp. 77-79 (vol. 55, no. 04) © 1999 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

France

We estimate that the French operational stockpile, which peaked at almost 550 warheads in 1991-92, now consists of approximately 450 warheads of three types. It is likely to remain at this level for the foreseeable future.

The TN 75 warhead. The TN 75 program began in 1987 and new TN 75 warheads are being produced at the Centre d'Etudes de Valduc (the Pantex of France) near Is-sur-Tille, 25 miles north of Dijon. The TN 75 is a miniaturized, hardened thermonuclear warhead, lighter than the TN 71. It uses a new coating material and has a precisely computed shape which gives it better penetration capability during reentry.

The TN 75 was tested a number of times before July 1991, but President Jacques Chirac announced in June 1995 that the warhead needed a final certification test, one of the reasons he gave for resuming testing. (The French conducted six nuclear tests between September 5, 1995 and January 27, 1996, at their test site in the South Pacific. Then, on September 24, 1996, France signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which it ratified on April 6, 1998.) It is likely that the October 1, 1995 test at Fangataufa, with a reported yield of 110 kilotons, was a full-scale test of the TN 75. Series production at Valduc probably began soon after, and will continue for the next five years or so.

Valduc dismantles warheads as well as assembles them. One-megaton TN 61 warheads from retired French intermediate-range ballistic missiles and TN 90 warheads from the Hadès short-range ballistic missile have probably been disassembled there.

Key decisions. On February 22 and 23, 1996, President Chirac announced several dramatic reforms of the French armed forces. The most significant was the phasing out of conscription and the introduction of professional armed forces over a six-year period that concludes in 2001. France also planned to decrease military manpower from almost 400,000 to 260,500.

Chirac's decisions in the nuclear area combined the withdrawal of several obsolete systems with a commitment to modernize those that remained. Many programs announced in the early 1980s would have increased the size of the French stockpile, but they have now been canceled, modified, or scaled back for budgetary and geopolitical reasons. Most significantly, in May 1992, France announced that the number of its new Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) would be reduced from six to four. There had been speculation that Chirac might not purchase a fourth boat, but he reaffirmed that he would, and he also stated that a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the M51, would replace the M45 in the 2010-15 time period.

Le Triomphant. The lead submarine, Le Triomphant, was rolled out from its construction shed in Cherbourg on July 13, 1993. It entered service in September 1996, armed with M45 SLBMs and new TN 75 warheads. The second SSBN, Le Téméraire, is scheduled to enter service in mid-1999. The schedule for the third, Le Vigilant, has slipped; it will not be ready until 2001. The service date of the fourth submarine is approximately 2005.

In actual practice, not every missile on an SSBN will be fully MIRVed. Fewer warheads are sometimes carried to increase range to the more distant targets specified in the war plan. About 300-325 TN 75 warheads will be produced for the future four-SSBN fleet. Three older SSBNs--Le Tonnant, L'Indomitable, and L'Inflexible--will be phased out as the new SSBNs are introduced.

During President François Mitterrand's tenure there were numerous plans to replace France's silo-based S3D intermediate-range missile. But Chirac announced in February 1996 that the missile would be retired without replacement. On September 16, 1996, all 18 missiles on the Plateau d'Albion were deactivated, and the silos and complex have since been dismantled.

Mirage 2000N. In 1989, the number of Mirage 2000Ns committed to nuclear missions was scaled back from 75 aircraft in five squadrons to 45 in three squadrons. On September 11, 1991, President Mitterrand announced that as of September 1, the AN 52 gravity bomb once carried by Mirage IIIEs, Jaguar As, and Super Etendards, had been withdrawn from service. From that point on France no longer had a nuclear gravity bomb. The Air-Sol-Moyenne Portée (ASMP) supersonic missile was deployed in 1988. Today there are 45 ASMPs with two Mirage 2000N squadrons at Luxeuil and one at Istres.

The three squadrons of Mirage 2000Ns have now assumed a "strategic" role in addition to their "pre-strategic" one. A fourth Mirage 2000N squadron at Nancy--now conventional--is scheduled to be replaced with Mirage 2000Ds. Those aircraft may be modified to carry the ASMP and distributed to the three 2000N squadrons at Luxeuil and Istres, along with 18 ASMP missiles once deployed with Mirage IVPs. Nearly 100 ASMP missiles were built, and approximately 80 warheads were produced for those missiles. In his February 1996 speech, Chirac said that France would develop a longer-range ASMP, sometimes called the "ASMP plus" (with a 500-kilometer v. 300-kilometer range), for service entry in about a decade.

France has chosen the Rafale D as its multi-purpose navy and air force fighter/bomber for the twenty-first century. Its roles include conventional ground attack, air defense, air superiority, and nuclear delivery of the ASMP and/or ASMP plus. The navy's carrier-based version will be introduced first, with the air force's Rafale D attaining a nuclear-strike role in approximately 2005. The air force plans to buy a total of 234 Rafales.

France built two aircraft carriers in the 1950s and 1960s. The Clemenceau entered service in 1961, the Foch in 1963. Both were later modified to handle the AN 52 nuclear gravity bomb with Super Etendard aircraft. After the AN 52 was retired in July 1991, only the Foch was modified to "handle and store" the replacement ASMP. Some 20 ASMPs were allocated for two squadrons (approximately 24) of Super Etendard aircraft. The Clemenceau was never modified for the ASMP, and the 32,780-ton aircraft carrier was decommissioned in September 1997.

A new 40,600-ton aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is scheduled to enter service in December 2000, four years behind schedule and at a cost of well over $3 billion. At that time the Foch will be laid up and decommissioned. The de Gaulle will have a single squadron of Super Etendards (presumably with about 10 ASMPs). There have been reports that the Super Etendard has been used in Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia.

The French Navy will take delivery of nine Rafale Ms between the fall of 2000 and February 2002 for deployment on the Charles de Gaulle. A second carrier may be ordered at about that time. The navy plans to purchase a total of 60 Rafale Ms. The first 16 will perform an air-to-air role; later planes may carry the ASMP and/or ASMP plus.


Britain

In July 1998, Britain's Labour government announced several decisions resulting from its Strategic Defence Review:

• Only one British submarine will patrol at any given time, and that boat will carry a reduced load of 48 warheads, half the number the Conservative government had previously planned.

• The submarine will patrol at a reduced state of alert, its missiles de-targeted. It will be capable of firing its missiles within days, not minutes, as during the Cold War. It will also carry out a range of secondary tasks.

• Britain will maintain fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. This is a one-third reduction from the Conservative government's plan.

• Britain will purchase a total of 58 rather than 65 Trident D-5 missiles.

When these decisions are fully implemented, the total explosive power of Britain's operationally available weapons will have been reduced by more than 70 percent since the end of the Cold War. The explosive power of each Trident submarine will be one-third less than that of the Chevaline-armed Polaris submarines of recent years.

Until recently, the Royal Air Force operated eight squadrons of dual-capable Tornado GR.1/1A aircraft. But with the withdrawal of the last remaining WE177 bombs at the end of March 1998, the Tornadoes' nuclear role was terminated, bringing to an end the four-decade-long history of RAF aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. By the end of August 1998, the remaining WE177 bombs had been dismantled. The RAF base at Bruggen, Germany, is scheduled to be closed, and by the end of 2001 approximately 40 Tornadoes now at the base will be reassigned to bases at Lossiemouth, Scotland, and Marham, England.

Britain built and deployed four Resolution-class SSBNs, commonly called Polaris submarines after the missiles they carried. The first, the HMS Resolution, went on patrol in mid-June 1968, and the last--the Revenge--in September 1970. The four boats conducted a total of 229 patrols over a 28-year period.

The Revenge was retired on May 25, 1992, after 56 patrols. The Resolution was decommissioned on October 22, 1994, after 61 patrols. The Renown was decommissioned on February 24, 1996, after 52 patrols, and the Repulse was withdrawn from service on August 28, 1996, after 60 patrols. The Chevaline warheads they carried have been dismantled to provide plutonium for new warheads.

The first submarine of Britain's new class, the HMS Vanguard, went on its initial patrol in December 1994. The second, the Victorious, entered service in December 1995. The third, the Vigilant, was launched in October 1995 and entered service in the fall of 1998. The fourth and final boat of the class, the Vengeance, was launched on September 19, 1998, with service entry scheduled for late 2000 or early 2001. The current estimated cost of the program is $18.8 billion.

Each Vanguard-class SSBN carries 16 U.S.-produced Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Technically, there are no specifically American or British Trident IIs. A pool of SLBMs are kept at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic at the Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia. Britain has title to 58, but does not actually own them. A missile that is deployed on a U.S. SSBN may at a later date deploy on a British boat, or vice versa.

How many warheads will there be in the future British stockpile? Several factors go into the calculation. We assume that Britain will produce enough warheads for only three boatloads of missiles, a practice it followed with Polaris. As was stated in the Strategic Defence Review, there will be "fewer than 200 operationally available warheads." If all four boats were fully loaded (MIRVed with three warheads) that would total 192. But the purchase of only 58 missiles means there will not be a full complement of missiles for all four boats. The government also stated that normally only one SSBN will be on patrol, with the other three in various states of readiness. A further consideration is the "substrategic" mission. A Ministry of Defence official described a substrategic strike as "the limited and highly selective use of nuclear weapons in a manner that fell demonstrably short of a strategic strike, but with a sufficient level of violence to convince an aggressor who had already miscalculated our resolve and attacked us that he should halt his aggression and withdraw or face the prospect of a devastating strategic strike."

This substrategic mission began with Victorious and "will become fully robust when Vigilant enters service," according to the Ministry of Defence's 1996 White Paper.

Some Trident II SLBMs have a single warhead and are assigned targets once covered by WE177 gravity bombs. For example, when the Vigilant is on patrol, 10, 12, or 14 of its SLBMs may carry up to three warheads per missile, but the other two, four, or six missiles may be armed with just one warhead. There is also some flexibility in the choice of yield of the Trident warhead. (Choosing to detonate only the unboosted primary could produce a yield of only a few kilotons.) With dual missions, an SSBN would have approximately 36-44 warheads on board during patrol.

We conclude that the future British stockpile for the SSBN fleet will be around 160 warheads. With an additional 15 percent for spares, we estimate the total British stockpile to be approximately 185 warheads. At any given time, the sole SSBN on patrol might carry about 40 warheads. The second and third SSBNs could put to sea fairly rapidly with a similar loading, while the fourth might take longer due to its cycle of overhaul and maintenance.

In October 1998 the HMS Splendid sailed to the United States to collect Britain's first consignment of Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Royal Navy has purchased 65 Block III conventionally armed missiles at a cost of 190 million pounds. Seven attack submarines of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes will be equipped to fire the Tomahawk land-attack missile from vertical launch systems. On March 25, 1999, Britain fired Tomahawk missiles at Serbian targets in support of Operation Allied Force. The incorporation of Tomahawks into the British military is bound to complicate accounting and verification measures in any future START treaty that includes the nuclear version of the Tomahawk.

Ray
13 Feb 05,, 20:45
Now with the above posts:

Seconds out of the ring. Boxers.

Shake hands.

Box on! ;)

Cjwinnit
22 Feb 05,, 15:40
And remind me, how will Britain's challenger 2s attack the French Army? Swim?

Much of the British Army is based in Germany.

1st (UK) Armoured Div. (http://www.army.mod.uk/1div/index.html)

4th Armoured Brig. (http://www.army.mod.uk/4bde/welcome.htm)

7th Armoured Brig. (http://www.army.mod.uk/7bde/index.htm)

20th Armoured Brig. (http://www.antwerpnet.de/)

molf48
23 Feb 05,, 05:29
In this conditions without nukes, without other countries support I think France will be the winner.. France have better local military industy than UK (see EF2000 does not have a made from Europe missile but a US AIM-9 and AIM-120).. Of corse the winning of France will be with great loses but a win remains a win.. The countries have equal ecomomy and sort equal military capabilities in no nuclear, chemical or biological technology (in these sectors Frace is the leader in Europe (except Russia)).. But France have better project military and space knownless this is the difference!

Cjwinnit
26 Feb 05,, 18:04
EF2000 does not have a made from Europe missile

ASRAAM, ALARM, Storm Shadow?

Veni Vidi Vici
27 Feb 05,, 00:06
What happened to Pirate? I think he disapeared.

Europeanarmy
01 Mar 05,, 06:00
In this conditions without nukes, without other countries support I think France will be the winner.. France have better local military industy than UK (see EF2000 does not have a made from Europe missile but a US AIM-9 and AIM-120).. Of corse the winning of France will be with great loses but a win remains a win.. The countries have equal ecomomy and sort equal military capabilities in no nuclear, chemical or biological technology (in these sectors Frace is the leader in Europe (except Russia)).. But France have better project military and space knownless this is the difference!

I agree. France has the lead for naval and air forces:
-French new aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) is far more modern than the three little aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy. And French Rafales are superior to British Harriers .
-French air force is equiped with Mirage 2000-5 for air superiority, also superior to British Tornados. So...the winner is obvious.

Cjwinnit
01 Mar 05,, 14:20
I agree. France has the lead for naval and air forces:
-French new aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) is far more modern than the three little aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy. And French Rafales are superior to British Harriers .
-French air force is equiped with Mirage 2000-5 for air superiority, also superior to British Tornados. So...the winner is obvious.

You miss a potent section of naval warfare: submarine forces.

And not to get into an argument over whether the British Perisher course is better than the French programme, or whether Tomahawk is a worthwhile weapon, or whether Spearfish torpedoes are the best in NATO, or whether we have numerical superiority, or whether our ASW surface forces are more numerous, better and diverse (Nimrod, Type 23....)

Whilst the Charles de Gaulle is an excellent asset to have, it's worth putting into context. A France-UK conflict would pit 1 French carrier against 3 British smaller carriers, with 11 SSN's on the UK side with 6 French ones.

Put it another way: 1 French carrier will have 11 British SSN's after it. 3 British carriers will have 6 SSN's after them. And I think we are somewhat exaggerating the threat of naval air power considering the proximity of the two countries.

Tornado is not to be sniffed at considering it is the fastest plane in the world at sea level..

jon_j_rambo
01 Mar 05,, 14:49
both sides would be destroyed. The strength of both air forces & bombers....along with missles.

Cjwinnit
02 Mar 05,, 10:44
both sides would be destroyed. The strength of both air forces & bombers....along with missles.

The French navy carrier would be wiped out in 48 hours by the Royal Navy and the British carriers would be wiped out in about 72 by the French Air Force. After that it's an open contest..

scotsboyuk
05 Mar 05,, 20:01
You all seem to have ignored the most important factor in such a hypothetical contest, which would guarantee victory for Britain, pigheaded stupidity. The reason that Britain wins so often is that we simply don't recognise that we can be defeated. We just carry on regardless of the odds and opposition until we somehow win, muddling through, it has served us well for centuries. :tongue:

Martin
09 Mar 05,, 03:40
Rule Britannia!

When it comes to war - The United Kingdom simply will not accept defeat. We have too much pride. Thankfully.

As great Winston said......

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Europeanarmy
13 Mar 05,, 17:49
Rule Britannia!

When it comes to war - The United Kingdom simply will not accept defeat. We have too much pride. Thankfully.

As great Winston said......

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Different context, different times, today the victory will be French.

dave angel
14 Mar 05,, 15:09
neither side can win - in that neither side has the ability to place an invasion force on the others territory in the face of opposition, neither side is willing to risk a nuclear confrontation given the others second-strike capability and neither side has the airpower required to destroy the enemies air-power and then destroy his field armies and infastructure.

calais and dover could be destroyed by artillery fire - no bad thing one could say - but thats about it.

the UK is more vunerable to submarine warfare - as our teutonic friends have made clear on a number of occasions, though the french always have to worry about which of their neighbours will take advantage of any difficulties they may find themselves in - they can never be fully commited to one war for fear of being stabbed in the back.

however, he who starts a war and is unable to acheive what he wants has lost.

Cjwinnit
16 Mar 05,, 00:08
Different context, different times, today the victory will be French.

What makes you think Chirac will succeed where Philip II, Napoleon and Hitler have all failed?


the UK is more vunerable to submarine warfare

We do have decent subs and ASW assets now.

The RN always overrated the threat of german submarines during world war II but it's worth pointing out we destroyed about 75% of Germany's U-boats.

Europeanarmy
16 Mar 05,, 04:29
What makes you think Chirac will succeed where Philip II, Napoleon and Hitler have all failed?


Allright, Chirac sucks, that's right. But :
Given the fact that the French Air Force is both quantitatively (160 air fighters against 70) and qualitatively (Mirage 2000-5 is superior to Harrier and Tornado) superior to the Royal Air Force, air control is likely to be French. After this, despite the strenght of the Royal Navy it would not be complcated for France to invade Great Britain. After, I don't know honestly if French land forces are more numerous and/or better equiped than the British land force.

dave angel
16 Mar 05,, 08:11
the UK operates far more air-defence fighters than the 70 you put forward.

france does not have the amphibious warfare capability to invade the UK, as the UK does not have that capability to invade france.

British strike aircraft are unlikely to be able to get to corsica as french aircraft can't get to shetland, therefore neither will be able to completely destroy the enemy's air forces as each side will always have a safe base.

personally, i don't think either side will have much luck against strike aircraft flying very low and very fast.

both sides can do a lot of damage to the other but niether can invade.

Bill
16 Mar 05,, 14:16
"the UK operates far more air-defence fighters than the 70 you put forward."

Not too many more, if he is in fact wrong about the 70. The SHARs are gone, and the UKs pre-eminent air defense fighter is the (some would say obsolete) Tornado F.3. The UK never bought all that many of them, and some of them were taken away from the AD role if i'm not mistaken.

"france does not have the amphibious warfare capability to invade the UK, as the UK does not have that capability to invade france."

France doesn't have the capability to invade the UK, but the UK has four divisions in Germany. They could obviously make some noise.

"British strike aircraft are unlikely to be able to get to corsica as french aircraft can't get to shetland, therefore neither will be able to completely destroy the enemy's air forces as each side will always have a safe base."

The RN's SSNs using TLAMs can hit any target in France, though the UK has a very small TLAM arsenal.

dave angel
17 Mar 05,, 08:17
germany, unless it decides to take advantage of france's preoccupation and effectively enter an anglo-french war, would not allow british forces in germany to attack france. they would probably expel/allow the soldiers to be taken back to the UK, but whether their equipment would follow is another matter.

germany has a bigger army and tank force than the UK, it is unlikely that the british forces in germany could force themselves through german lines to get to france.

much like US forces in europe, they cannot be used without the permission of the host countries - not for political or legal reasons, but because the host country can turn off the power, fuel, food and water.

on air-defence, while the tornado F3 is no match in dog-fighting terms for most french fighters, thats not its job.

it sits out at long-range for a long duration CAP and uses its quite good radar and AIM-120 missiles to shoot down aircraft at BVR. some - about a dozen or so - have been converted to take the ALARM missile, but they are still air-defence AC with a secondary defence suppression role. i think the RAF has about 120 F3's in operation.

the point about the RN having no effective air cover is most valid and has been discussed before, the obvious role for any british CVN in a conflict with france would be to sit in the Med and divide their forces, however, given the retirement of the Sea Harrier any such deployment would be suicide for the fleet and would have no effective punch against the french anyway.

Bill
17 Mar 05,, 14:30
I wouldn't worry much about the DeGaulle, the French just don't have the assets to protect it. Their fleet AAW might be even worse than the RNs.

Until the French address their fleet AAW, the DeGaulle is largely restricted to NATO operations(when it's actually working) because the French need other NATO ships to protect it.

At the present time among NATO members, only the US, Spain, and Italy can provide the kind of fleet AAW protection needed to defend a HVA like the DeGaulle.

Julie
17 Mar 05,, 14:33
All dressed up and no way to go. :biggrin:

SloMax
09 Jun 05,, 13:20
In history what saved the british from an invasions from Europe was the channel. On the sea british navy would win with great losses but on the continent they would lose (if Britain invades France). In the air, without interferece from the US, french airforce would win.
But I am happy that is a thing of the past! :biggrin:

british beef
14 Jul 05,, 11:36
EXCUSE ME!!!!!

How did you guys think the FFL (French Foreign Legion) got to the Congo, Rwanda, and to Afghanistan. How do you guys think French cmdos got into Afghanistan?

You're allowing your American bias intefere with the facts.
lets be real here british special forces are the best in the world. we had to releive germans out of there country just 60 years ago along with the rest of europe us brits will give anyone a run for there money were to defiant with balls of steel,my answer is we would beat france and then be saying bring on the germans.

british beef
14 Jul 05,, 11:39
we would kick frances ****

HistoricalDavid
20 Jul 05,, 12:37
Could the Americans be so gracious as to lend us an Iowa? We could then flatten everything within 21nm of the French coast. :) We were stupid enough to scrap HMS Vanguard all those years ago. :(

Really, these arguments are impossible due to the integration of the two countries' militaries.

The immiment arrival of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel paves the way for vastly better Franco-Anglo-Germano-American relations anyway.

brownboi4eva
21 Jul 05,, 08:14
Cmon guys you cant make the fight unfair by just putting US into it, say US is fully tied up in a war in China or w/e or in a 100 years blows itself up....Its just a basic 1v1 between France and Britain...Cuz the French can also randomly say they have Russia, India ,CHina, Europe the USS Enterprise manned by Captain Kirk and Luke Skywalker on their team..... ;)

Air Superiority belong to the French, at the present time the RAF just isnt as good as the FAF.....Naval superiority will belong to the UK....France cant attack UK cuz their landing ships will get blown to pieces by the RN and the UK cant land a force because the FAF will just pick the ground forces off.....So in the end i declare a stalemate

i feel smart :biggrin:

Couple of comments though - The Brits act like they won WWII and owned Germany by itself when in fact US and Russia are the main reasons for the victory....if you want i can post my thesis paper on it

m21 Sniper as much as i respect you and ur knowledge you are extremely cocky and think the US is just too strong for the Earth....things happen and **** changes so dont be too confident, cuz who you tread on now might be your masters later

im new here so i hope i didnt ruffle too many feathers

EricTheRed
21 Jul 05,, 10:03
Britan did not win WW2 alone but they put up much a better fight than the french

brownboi4eva
21 Jul 05,, 18:33
Britan did not win WW2 alone but they put up much a better fight than the french

The French had no chance because of the strategy employed by the germans, any army of the world at the time would have got overrun.....plus the British didnt help just ran to Dunkirk...the channel and hitlers stupidity saved them...

Grundy
01 Aug 05,, 21:59
And if you think that USN and USAF can wipe out Europe's air forces, then you are one hell out of your fatherloving mind.

my close friend used to be in the french air force, every year they (france,germany, nd someone else) play simulated war games against the americans, no matter how patriotic he may be he has no problems admitting that there is no contest the USAF wipes them off the face of the world

Hector
02 Aug 05,, 19:56
why all this talk of full warfare
the british secret service and MI5/6 could easily depose and annihilate the most prominent military and political heads of the French state.

with luck the same could be done with the US if it comes to that

-{SpoonmaN}-
03 Aug 05,, 02:16
why all this talk of full warfare
the british secret service and MI5/6 could easily depose and annihilate the most prominent military and political heads of the French state.

with luck the same could be done with the US if it comes to that

You're saying the French don't have spies in the UK? They probably spy on their 'allies' more than their 'enemies'.

dave angel
03 Aug 05,, 10:13
everyone spies on their friends more than their enemies, after all, you have to stand behind someone to stab them in the back.

Hector
04 Aug 05,, 16:47
let me tell you mate, i am 100% sure that the french spy system is far inferior to the British spy system.

dave angel
04 Aug 05,, 21:40
and i am 100% convinced that you are wrong.

british and french intelligence both work in the same way, they know everyone.

the french however have less hang-ups about wet-work and about dealing with those who we wouldn't touch with a burning bargepole. theirs is the more effective service.

Hector
06 Aug 05,, 13:55
funny joke, but it belongs to bill connolly.

but io disagree with you, British intelligence is on another level to the French.

Michael Sheeran
24 Aug 05,, 18:20
For the people who say the Brits don't have amphibious resources to land in France, we don't need them!! We would use the Channel Tunnel instead hahaha1! :tongue:

I am not too clued up when it comes to the Air or Naval War if there ever was a war, but I have no doubts that the superior trained British Land Forces would wipe the French of the map!!!!

The Brits all the way!!!!

sparten
24 Aug 05,, 18:47
Whenever I think of the Chunnel, I feel that Napoleon must be rolling over in his grave.


Strongly Corsican accented French cries out in the night; "ufff, if ze tunnel had existed then, I would never have had to face Wellington at Waterloo, or had to consume arsenic in St Helena"

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:16
The British would defeat the French even WITHOUT weapons, or if we had weapons but were outgunned. After all, the Frenh will just surrender and, judging by Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc etc etc, they don't have a very good war record against the British.

Having said that, not many nations do.

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:21
?

And, if America joined with England, which you wouldn't, Russia, China, Germany, all of continental Europe in fact, would join France against the Ango-Americans. :rolleyes:

No. The British would have the Italians, and the Poles the other countries in Eastern Europe and maybe the Spaniards, and also the Dutch and maybe the Danes.

After all, they all supported the US and the UK in the Iraq War, and the Eastern European countries, such as Poland and Latvia and Lithuania, are big allies of Britain in Europe, NOT allies of France and Germany.

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:24
Great Britian will have 232 Eurofighters

Yeah, we're having more Eurofighters than any other nation. France will have NONE whatsoever (although lots of people don't realise that.)

The RAF will have 232, the Luftwaffe will have 180, Italy will have 121 and Spain will have 87.

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:28
Why fighter pilots wear a Typhoon Grin

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 01/04/2006)

To say that the RAF's new fighter accelerates faster than a Formula 1 car is to sell it very short indeed.

For the first 700ft of take-off, the comparison seems apt, but then 40,000lb of rear thrust put the aircraft into a vertical ascent that feels like being in the Space Shuttle and we soar from Earth to 12,000ft in four seconds flat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/01/ntyphoon01.jpg
Thomas Harding soared to 12,000ft in four seconds

It might be coming into service late and have cost massively more than it was meant to, but the much maligned Eurofighter - the Typhoon -has certainly arrived.

For manoeuvrability there is no aircraft in the world quite like it, as I discovered when I became the first journalist to fly in an operational Typhoon from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire.

The scepticism within military circles and beyond about the Typhoon runs deep. Designed during the Cold War to fight off hordes of Soviet fighters, it has, say many observers, no relevance in today's warfare against small bands of terrorists holed up in mountains or deserts.

That perception began to change yesterday when No 3 Squadron became the first operational unit to be equipped with the Typhoon, although problems surfaced again when a display to mark its introduction was delayed after the aircraft developed a fault with its air-conditioning.

"In terms of capability, Typhoon is a quantum leap over anything we have ever had," said Wg Cdr Al Mackay, who commands 29 Squadron in charge of training the fighter pilots.

"It's in a different league to anything we have ever had before." The Typhoon can travel at more than twice the speed of sound, it can fly at 65,000ft and it accelerates very, very fast.

But its major strength is its manoeuvrability - it can twist, turn and evade like nothing else on the market.

Perhaps that is why pilots who step out of the BAe Systems plane for the first time emerge with the "Typhoon Grin".

From next month, Wg Cdr Lol Bennett will start training a very eager and excitable batch of 16 pilots in No 3 Squadron, which he leads.

By early next year, any rogue airliner that has failed to keep radio contact or whose transponder fails - as happens about once a month over Britain - will very quickly have a Typhoon for company when it joins the Quick Reaction Alert team for home defence.

"I think it's a fabulous airplane, something we can be hugely proud of as a nation," said Wg Cdr Bennett.

"It has been seen as a bit of a white elephant and Cold War relic but we have never had an aircraft that has performed like this. Best thing since the Spitfire."

By early 2008, the unit will develop its air defence capability that will mean it can go anywhere in the world.

With British troops expected still to be deployed in Afghanistan at that time, it is likely the Typhoon will see its first action in the country's mountains and valleys.

Wg Cdr Bennett's unit will be the first of five large Typhoon squadrons who will share between them Britain's order of 232 aircraft.

The criticisms that the Typhoon is outdated even before it enters service will disappear as it is adapted to become a multi-role aircraft.

It will be able to carry heavy bomb loads of two 2,000lb smart bombs, Stormshadow cruise missiles, Brimstone anti-tank weapons, reconnaissance equipment and an array of air-to-air missiles.

The heavy payload will not affect performance, the pilots say, and its ground-attack capability will come into effect at the end of this decade.

If there is one complaint, it is that cost-cutting measures have meant not enough spares - from nuts and bolts to computers - leading to a number of Typhoons being grounded.

Flying the Typhoon is relatively simple. With more than a dozen computers on board, all that the pilot needs to control is the throttle, joystick and undercarriage handle.

Wg Cdr Mackay describes the rudder pedals as "foot rests, unless you are in combat".

One computer has a female voice that cajoles pilots and warns them of dangers.

"If you fly too close to the ground she urgently says 'low, low, low' in an agitated Margaret Thatcher voice and you half expect a handbag coming over the back of the seat to knock your head."

With digital terrain mapping entered into the system, the plane provides life-saving technology telling pilots to "pull up, pull up" if they are heading into a mountain.

At 24,000ft, I find out for myself what it feels like to fly when Wg Cdr Mackay asks me to take the controls. "If you pull back the sheep get smaller, push forwards and sheep get bigger," he says.

Concentrating hard on the "heads up" display, showing our altitude, speed and horizon, I gingerly tilt the joystick. The response is immediate as the plane dips and tilts.

It is extraordinarily easy to fly, even at the hands of a novice. The point is, it frees the pilot for combat and other tasks.

We drop down for a low-level pass over RAF Leeming (which has only Tornados and Jaguars) before screaming along the Hawes Valley in North Yorkshire, telling traffic control we will become invisible to radar. Everything seems to go in slow motion - the traffic on the A1, then a pleasant looking river drifts by. Until that is, Wg Cdr Bennett demonstrates the immense flexibility by turning 180 degrees within a 1,000ft radius at 500mph, 250ft above the ground.

"Look - we're back to where we started at the turn," he said.

As the G-forces dragged my stomach towards my feet and eyes out of their sockets, I muttered an "Oh, really" before concentrating hard on keeping down lunch.

telegraph.co.uk

platinum786
30 Apr 06,, 01:52
It's evident we would win, the frech would go on strike if we fought them for long enough demanding higher pay or more sick leave...then bam!

Boltonian
30 Apr 06,, 18:43
That's true. They wouldn't want their soldiers to fight for more than 35 hours a week.

HistoricalDavid
30 Apr 06,, 19:07
Boltonian,

The parts you highlighted are not particularly impressive at all compared to other aircraft in the world.

Let's face it, the mainstream media in Britain, or any country really, is an exceedingly poor technical source of news for fighter jets.

But then you wouldn't know, considering your comments in the Type 45 thread.

PubFather
30 Apr 06,, 23:28
Ah dear sweet Boltonian - again with the inability to look at sources critically - your cut and paste of yet another source in vain....

You'd think you'd learn...

You'd think you might try thinking...

PubFather
30 Apr 06,, 23:29
The British would defeat the French even WITHOUT weapons, or if we had weapons but were outgunned. After all, the Frenh will just surrender and, judging by Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc etc etc, they don't have a very good war record against the British.

Having said that, not many nations do.
Ah thats a classic piece of moronic posting... "or if we had had weapons".. surely a grapefruit is a weapon in the right hands.. lol

PubFather
30 Apr 06,, 23:32
and, judging by Agincourt

By the way - I hate to point out that England lost the 100 years war, lost every war that Henry VIII fought etc..

I find it desperately sad that people need to go back to antiquity to prove a nebulous point about the modern world...

British
14 May 06,, 00:37
I may be british but ppl rip the Frenhc too much.

They (france) should be proud of their history.

Saving the yanks **** and shoving the british out of US.

Britain can NOT invade France and same for France with Britain.

STALEMATE gentlement.

Confed999
14 May 06,, 02:27
Britain can NOT invade France and same for France with Britain.

STALEMATE gentlement.
Wow, France and the UK don't know how to make boats anymore? Bummer for you guys...

TopHatter
14 May 06,, 02:40
I may be british but ppl rip the Frenhc too much.
They (france) should be proud of their history.
Saving the yanks **** and shoving the british out of US.
Yeah, and then immediately deciding that the young little U.S.A. would just perfect to gnaw on because they couldn't defend themselves.
That's sure something to be proud of. :rolleyes:

british beef
13 Jul 06,, 13:48
UK, France dosent have the capabilities to transport troops overseas

Thats nonsense so if the uk, and france carnt deploy troops overseas why is there 7,000 uk troops in iraq and 4,000 in afgan at this moment in time.??
Course we can send troops overseas we dont have the 2nd biggest navy in the world for nothing. ;)

dave angel
15 Jul 06,, 11:43
Thats nonsense so if the uk, and france carnt deploy troops overseas why is there 7,000 uk troops in iraq and 4,000 in afgan at this moment in time.??
Course we can send troops overseas we dont have the 2nd biggest navy in the world for nothing. ;)

we send troops overseas by airliner, perhaps you should dig into the air combat record of Airbus and Boeing products against Mirage and Rafale aircraft - you might learn something.

our navy is relatively powerful, but not against a similarly powerful navy that has aircover and when our home ports are within the strike range of their air force. we have, at best, the capability to move 2 infantry brigades by sea in any fashion where they could defend themselves, that would require the two active carriers, HMS invincible which has just been retired but is still seaworthy and has most of its kit on board, HMS Ocean as well as HMS's Bulwark and Albion. it would then require the full strength of the RN's destroyer and Frigate fleet to defend it against air and sea attack and the total strength of the RAF's strike and fighter force to keep the French air force at bay.

it would then be met by a few armoured and infantry brigedes at full strength and with minimal supply lines and the full support of the local population.

it should last about a day.

the French Air force is considerably more powerful than the RAF.

Canmoore
18 Jul 06,, 19:04
If france and England went to war, i think a civil war might break out in Canada..

like who do we support? France or England? 27% Canadians speak french as there first language...

It would be even bigger than the draft issue during WWI, when Quebecers did not want to be drafted to die for a British King..

PubFather
18 Jul 06,, 20:34
If france and England went to war, i think a civil war might break out in Canada..

like who do we support? France or England? 27% Canadians speak french as there first language...

It would be even bigger than the draft issue during WWI, when Quebecers did not want to be drafted to die for a British King..

Weren't Quebecians happy to fight alongside the Britain and France against the hated Bosch? Quite surprising...

Dreadnought
19 Jul 06,, 17:32
If France and England went to war you wouldnt have to worry it would be over in a matter of days and France would no doubt consede.

Dreadnought
19 Jul 06,, 17:34
Yeah, and then immediately deciding that the young little U.S.A. would just perfect to gnaw on because they couldn't defend themselves.
That's sure something to be proud of. :rolleyes:

And let us not forget those Yanks and Brits etc that pulled France from Hitlers grasp! For without them France would be speaking German for over 50 years now:rolleyes:

I think if France were to war with anybody it would be their OWN immigrant population first. :eek:

Canmoore
21 Jul 06,, 00:16
Weren't Quebecians happy to fight alongside the Britain and France against the hated Bosch? Quite surprising...

Nope

gunnut
21 Jul 06,, 00:43
Can I make fun of the French here?

Well, too bad, I'll do it anyways. :tongue:


Did you guys hear the French is cutting back on their military budget? Now soldiers won't be issued their individual white flags any more. They will have to surrender at platoon level to save money. :biggrin:

Dreadnought
21 Jul 06,, 13:26
Can I make fun of the French here?

Well, too bad, I'll do it anyways. :tongue:


Did you guys hear the French is cutting back on their military budget? Now soldiers won't be issued their individual white flags any more. They will have to surrender at platoon level to save money. :biggrin:


LMAO :eek:

ChrissyBoy
22 Jul 06,, 00:03
I don't pretend to be an expert but I believe that any conflict between France and the UK would ultimately end in a stalemate, I would rate the British and French armed forces as overall being about equal- yes it could be argued the French have the superior airforce and that the British soldier is more experienced but in the end I severly doubt either nation would be able to gain the upper hand though certainly inflict some serious attrition damage, I also think that the US offering assistance to the UK in the form of actual aircraft, warships etc to attack another Western nation is as unlikely as the whole scenerio, I do concede however that unofficially the Americans may favour the British and could provide the UK with intelligence reports and the like but would not publicly declare this

YellowFever
01 Aug 06,, 07:04
Man, the Limeys are out in force and crackling like proud cocks.

But to give you guys your dues, the British has, I believe the best MAN for MAN military in the world.
Technology counts alot but when all the missiles are expended and all the fighters and ships blown off the face of the earth, the Brits will have the better grunt with rifle in his hand.



I heard this somewhere and I can't give you the source but basically, during Vietnam, when asked which country's military was best , a US general said somethiong to the effect of: "I don't know which military is the best, but the French looks the best and have the highest tradition among any military...
And I believe they need that because they can't fight worth spit. They need all that traditional BS and good looking uniform because they have nothing else to fall back on."


Or as one of my friends said during the opening stages of Desert Shield, when told the French are coming to help, "Great, are they going to be on our side or Saddam's side?" :biggrin:

gunnut
01 Aug 06,, 07:11
That's like "I'd rather face 3 German divisions in front of me than to have 1 French division behind me."

I have more French jokes. Don't want to expand my repertoire too quckly. :biggrin:

PubFather
01 Aug 06,, 22:11
Oh go on... just another couple, your an absolute goldmine of French jokes... :biggrin:

Dreadnought
02 Aug 06,, 15:48
Reminds me of a night in Ireland with friends when we encountered two German fellows and one French needless to say they were a riot after many pints.

So now you have two Americans two Germans and one French guy that are drunk and carrying on while the rest in the pub watched. Sounds like the making of a good joke huh? :biggrin: Needless to say the French fellow got the brunt of it all. We just had to ask when he was going to roll out the carpet for us to walk on:biggrin:

gunnut
03 Aug 06,, 19:11
PubFather, when you run into RN sailors/officers at a pub next time, ask them if they know this trivia:

How does a French admiral inspect his fleet?

With a glass bottom boat.

I bet the Royal Navy doesn't know this highly classified piece of intelligence. :biggrin:

PubFather
03 Aug 06,, 20:55
lmao - I'll ask...

Mind you, I think thats how the RN does its recon on the French even nowadays :biggrin:

gunnut
09 Aug 06,, 19:30
Time for my weekly installment of French jokes.

Going to war with the French on your side is like bringing an accordion on a hunting trip.

PubFather
09 Aug 06,, 19:36
liking your work gunnut... keep em coming while I'm away and thanks for the heads up :)

Julie
09 Aug 06,, 19:56
Ooooh....I love French jokes !!! :biggrin:

Speaking of France.....Take a guess why we don't have a resolution yet regarding Israel and Lebanon?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T172653Z_01_N09269965_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-UN.xml&archived=False

I predict that by the time France agrees to anything, Lebanon will be fully invaded by Israel. ;)

Dreadnought
10 Aug 06,, 13:50
Ooooh....I love French jokes !!! :biggrin:

Speaking of France.....Take a guess why we don't have a resolution yet regarding Israel and Lebanon?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T172653Z_01_N09269965_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-UN.xml&archived=False

I predict that by the time France agrees to anything, Lebanon will be fully invaded by Israel. ;)

The good part is that "W" isint going to concede anything to France's copy of the resolution. France is way off base in their resolution. You might as well let Hezbollah sit on the border and contiue the attcks that provoked this war.

And bye the way nice to see you again Julie :)

Julie
10 Aug 06,, 13:55
The good part is that "W" isint going to concede anything to France's copy of the resolution. France is way off base in their resolution. You might as well let Hezbollah sit on the border and contiue the attcks that provoked this war.Yes. And being this is France vs. UK thread, how bout the UK busting that terror plot? ;) Now see the extreme differences on the fight on terror between France on UK?


And bye the way nice to see you again Julie :)Thank you so much....good to be back. :)

gunnut
19 Aug 06,, 01:39
http://www.reallifecomics.com/archive/040616.html

Funny comic strip...for geeks. This particular strip was actually by a guest artist.

dave angel
19 Aug 06,, 12:55
Yes. And being this is France vs. UK thread, how bout the UK busting that terror plot? ;) Now see the extreme differences on the fight on terror between France on UK?


given that France's record on clamping down on Islamic extremism and on intelligence co-operation with the US over 'terror' issues is - according to the US - vastly better than the UK's, its a distinct pity that such unfortunate ignorance is displayed here.


can we here something about that UNSC resolution again? - i'd love to hear how what is on the ground in Lebanon is exactly what the shaved chimp wanted and utterly not what the French wanted. ;)

fcuk me, only the deranged rantings of FreakRepublic could get a Brit to side with the French.....

gunnut
25 Aug 06,, 22:40
This week, I will share a story of an exchange I once had with a French fellow.

I collect guns, especially old military arms. Not expensive museum show pieces, but working shooters.

One day a bunch of us decided to go shooting. This guy brought his friend from work, who is French, with us on the trip. He asked me what kind of guns I have. I said I mostly have military rifles. He asked if France make guns. I said yes they do, in fact I have one (MAS 49/56). He was very excited and asked if I brought it on the trip. I said no, I didn't bring it. He asked why not. I said it doesn't work. He threw his hands up in the air and said "of course." :biggrin:

gunnut
01 Sep 06,, 08:02
I just can't stop with these...

At this rate, I'll be out of French jokes soon.

Dreadnought
01 Sep 06,, 14:34
LMAO :biggrin:

The white flag is self explanitory
The screwdriver is for screwin allies. ;)
And the opener is for that piss they call wine. :eek:

gunnut
18 Sep 06,, 20:10
Why do the French plant trees along the Champs-Elysées?

So the German troops can march in shade.

AntiSatellite
27 Sep 06,, 23:46
Tell me the distance.

Only six powers can transport bde size forces half way across the globe (US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Russia) on their own. Other countries can field larger local forces but only these six can field forces that can challenge them far from their shores.

I would remind you that the French fielded a div during the Kuwait War.

This being said, we're going to bn and coy when everybody else is sticking to div. What do you think who's better?
Ok in the air the French Air Force has better fighter. The Tornado is not up to the Mirage 2000C or the Mirage 2000-5C. For strike the both have similar stand off missiles, the RAF/RN lack air launched anti shipping missiles so the French Air Force would no doubt savage them with Exocets. The Sea Harrier was not capable agianist the SuE, it would not stand up well with a Mirage F-1CT (which can use the Exocet).

And France has moved large numbers of troops very far around the world (Chad, Congo, Korea, Afganistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Comoros Islands, Somalia etc...).

The Rafale is another great fighter
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/rafale_large.jpg
Although one could never under-estimate the British when put to the test

Francois
12 Oct 06,, 03:46
It is not fair.
A real french-bashing and nobody (except the Engineer) to defend the "Patrie de droits de l'Homme"!

Well, I have a bit studied the French/Brit battles and fights and, beside perceptions, I came to an even result (like 50/50).

But so far, the "Entente Cordiale" is still on, so it is nice. :biggrin:
My fave brit food is the Tandoori Chicken, and by fa~ar.

Remembering another joke:

Heaven is:
- German makes the organization
- French makes the food
- British makes the police

Hell is:
- German makes the police
- French makes the organization
- British makes the food
I really enjoyed the jokes in the prev pages, honestly ;)

Francois
13 Oct 06,, 03:58
The French corsair Surcouf was cought by the brits one day.
A british told him:
"It is funny, you French fight for money, we British, for the honor".
Surcouf answered: "One fight for what he does not have". :biggrin:

Mick in England
21 Oct 06,, 00:27
Vive la France :)
If not for Charles "the Hammer" Martel defeating the Muslim army at Tours-Poitiers in 732, France (and possibly England) would have become Muslim nations, and the dreaming spires of Oxford would have been minarets..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

PS - I put a post similar to this one in a french military forum where I was a member a couple of years back, and was nearly guillotined amid howls of "What's that supposed to mean??... I've never liked the English...France is a universal nation now"...

I suppose by "universal" they mean Muslim a$$- kissers..?

gunnut
21 Oct 06,, 01:14
I suppose by "universal" they mean Muslim a$$- kissers..?

Multi-culturalism at its finest...

gunnut
21 Oct 06,, 01:19
In heaven:

French are to cooks;
Italians are the lovers;
Germans are the mechanics;
Swiss run the hotel;
and British are the police.


In hell:

British are the cooks;
Swiss are the lovers;
Italians are the mechanics;
French run the hotel;
and German are the police...

Mick in England
21 Oct 06,, 05:03
I just want to make it clear I've got great respect for most French people and servicemen/women, its not their fault most of their politicians are wimps..

"The unit then moved towards Bir Hacheim, but stiff resistance from French Legionaires, commanded by general Koenig, held up the advance. The French were very well entreched just outside Bir Hacheim, and wouldn't budge. After 10 or 12 days, the French finally gave way. On the last day, the French were encircled, but during the night, they managed to break-out and escape." - (Afrika Korps Veteran Oberschütze Siebenbrot describing part of Battle of Gazala 1942)
http://www.feldgrau.com/interview2.html

PS my Brit great-uncle is buried in a military cemetery in France, he copped it going over the top in WW1..
In fact there are thousands of Brit soldiers like him buried in France..
"A many of our bodies shall no doubt
Find native graves; upon the which, I trust,
Shall witness live in brass of this day's work".. (Shakespeare, Henry V before Agincourt)

starsiege
21 Oct 06,, 05:47
View Poll Results: In a war, no nukes, who would win?
Yes
No
what kind of a shitty poll is that? can anyone make any sense out of it?

.....................??:confused: :confused:

well i think UK would win.lol

Draconion
21 Oct 06,, 16:46
Tell me the distance.

Only six powers can transport bde size forces half way across the globe (US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Russia) on their own. Other countries can field larger local forces but only these six can field forces that can challenge them far from their shores.

India presently has more than a bdg in congo and in other places aswell...in UN missions, i think india too can take a bdg, probably upto a couple of divs across to any part of the country..

Draconion
21 Oct 06,, 16:47
what kind of a shitty poll is that? can anyone make any sense out of it?

.....................??:confused: :confused:

well i think UK would win.lol

Psst...:cool: ...Gio has launched this poll...i reckon you remove this message of yours...:biggrin: :biggrin: ..or else, i should think that "bad" things would happen to you...hehehe:biggrin: :biggrin: :)

Julie
21 Oct 06,, 18:20
I'm amazed that it took 11 pages for someone to finally say that the poll is flawed. :biggrin:

The poll does NOT make sense. (and I can say that because I'm a mod. ;) )

Draconion
22 Oct 06,, 06:09
The poll does NOT make sense. (and I can say that because I'm a mod. ;) )

And i cant disagree with you, cause you are a mod...:biggrin: ;)

crooks
22 Oct 06,, 16:56
France has a better army, the UK has a better navy.
Don't know about air forces.
If there was no intervention from anyone.....I would have to say France.
The british are overstreched as it is....

Draconion
23 Oct 06,, 07:41
France has a better army, the UK has a better navy.
Don't know about air forces.
If there was no intervention from anyone.....I would have to say France.
The british are overstreched as it is....

I believe the Irish dont "love" the british much...eh?;)

crooks
23 Oct 06,, 15:58
No, but I'm not being biased.

The proddies have a great army, but I believe the French would win.

pdf27
23 Nov 06,, 20:58
To be fair, the entire British army are currently in warm and sandy climes (that or Germany) so the French could pretty much walk in right now.

Kansas Bear
24 Nov 06,, 21:51
France has a better army....


France has an army???

When did this happen??

:biggrin:

crooks
25 Nov 06,, 20:21
France has an army???

When did this happen??

:biggrin:

LOL to that!

Master Chief
02 Jan 07,, 17:10
If you would like to read about this type of war check out this book
"Cauldron" by:Larry Bond It is about such a war between france and germany against the US and UK, France does try to get russia into the war on there side. Check it out great read.

Wraith601
02 Jan 07,, 23:17
If you would like to read about this type of war check out this book
"Cauldron" by:Larry Bond It is about such a war between france and germany against the US and UK, France does try to get russia into the war on there side. Check it out great read.

It also contains a great quote.

A French general tells a German officer that German soldiers are fit only for garrison duty. The German responds by saying "True, in World War II we garrisoned Paris and Lyon."

Khan Sahab
03 Jan 07,, 10:45
UK offcoarse, bcoz it has the support of US. :biggrin:
If no one interfares, no one will actually win. (Both will ruin)

snc128
06 Jan 07,, 09:20
both of them r really primitive in terms real war skills and hot wars.but what i see is France seems worse

tankie
06 Jan 07,, 16:21
the u/k would win.

the only good thing the french have invented was,

wine and facial sex .:)

tankie
06 Jan 07,, 16:28
EXCUSE ME!!!!!

How did you guys think the FFL (French Foreign Legion) got to the Congo, Rwanda, and to Afghanistan. How do you guys think French cmdos got into Afghanistan?
.


By,BRITISH AIRWAYS and EASY JET ,economy class hence the 4 year wait for a reply , the stewardess is now serving coffee ,:rolleyes:

SuperTrooper
07 Jan 07,, 21:55
It's obviously going to be the UK