America vs Britain in war...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(29-11-2010 09:00 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Canadians hold the record in competition. The British record was real time in a fight in Afghanistan and there's some "controversy" such as, was it really that long, maybe they were killed from the other gunfire, yada yada. We're going by the record as recounted by the British snipers themselves, which can only be taken at it's word. Shrug.

The Brits I've seen at shooting ranges looked uncomfortable with their guns. The SAS is overrated.
But none of that really matters... it's just sniping. I just go by what I've seen. I've seen some of the best soldiers I know try for Delta and fail in the first few weeks. I know that the rejection rate of our special forces is at around 70%. I know we spend 660 billion dollars a year on military defense, China being in 2nd place with a mere 90 billion. (We spend more than the 15 countries after us combined) Britain is so contained in such a small area that air strikes alone would decimate it before we even sent in ground troops. Even our tanks would have no resistance since they still use the laughable Challenger 2.

This isn't the Redcoats and the Royal Fleet come to kill some farmers. It's a comparably small nation known more for rugby than for it's military might.

What a joker you are if you dont know anything about history then sure comment but since you dont the british army, the army with the biggest empire in history isnt known for its strength?? Your tanks would have a great job trying to pass the tycoons which are proven the most combat effective fighterjet in the world, all of the us equipment is built in England by BAE systems and shipped to the us in parts, like i said the us had their chance in ww2 but they Couldn't win and they knew it hence the reason operation red was cancelled, the only reason the us are our allies is because the uk are a middle man when your in shit, just think north korea threaten the us as they would go to war with them, but the uk get involved Korea back down, thats because were your only true allie and if we get involved so does the rest of the uks Allies but their here for the UK not US, the fact is tht if our treaty broke the American would be assaulted left right and centre and youd be on your own, PS the abrams are old and shit they might as well use a staw and fire paper balls
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 11:42 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
The plane is called the Typhoon, and while the USAF is in definite need of more of its newest aircraft, the Typhoons are still inferior to our F-22, and only slightly better than our F-35 due to its ability to supercruise (which the F22 can also do).

The Abrams is not a weak tank, having survived multiple direct hits from Iraqi T-72 armor-piercing main gun rounds in combat, and while the Challenger-II is the most heavily armored tank on earth, its "Dorchester" (aka Chobham-II) armor's superiority is due to the use of expensive Tungsten-Carbide outer shell, in place of the depleted uranium (DU) on the M1-A2 and Leopard II A6. Unfortunately, the brittle nature of DU when struck by HEAT rounds seems to make them more vulnerable to IEDs and repeated hits by RPGs. In combat against other MBT, however, as posited here, it would prove less of an advantage between armored formations, especially given the Challenger's relative disadvantage in mobility and the US reliance on mobility and integrated air support. Really, the best advantage of the Challenger is its long-barreled, rifled 120mm, which gives it an edge in extremely long-ranged combat.

Of course the UK's alliance with the US gives us both an enormous advantage against other foes, but given that we have over 8800 Abrams MBT versus the UK's total strength of 407, I'd say we could make up the difference in per-tank firepower. (Source: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp .) From the same website comes the US fighter aircraft strength of 2207, with 2797 "fixed-wing attack aircraft", compared to the UK's 89 fighters and 160 attack aircraft.

So unless your question is whether or not the US 1st Armored Division alone can take on the entire British armored forces, with the help of our 195 F-22 Raptors (http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+Martin...e24603.htm) against your entire fighter strength, I don't think this question qualifies as a serious one. Wink

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 11:54 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 12:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(29-11-2010 04:44 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  This is a question that often gets asked around where I live. If Britain and America went to war next week; who would win?

And there is many arguments for the war.
America has a bigger army,
Britain has a better trained army,
America Has better military hardware,
Britain has more direct allies,
ect ect ect.

Anyway I always had one answer for this: it wouldn't be a skirmish and end at that.

The reason: modern armies don't accept casualties, modern armies don't fight each other. Britain and American just won't accept war deaths. Both the countries get worked up when one man is killed and the force is put in retreat, failing to mention they left behind thousands of dead enemy.

If a force of British and American troops went into combat together, two well trained forces with the best training and weapons in the world, so many people would be killed that it just wouldn't work.

Now just a few years ago we were willing for soldiers to die in wars with other modernized militaries. Britain protecting it's borders from Argentina in the 80s, America attacking Vietnam in the 70s. But right now, I don't think any modern force is willing to put their soldiers in the firing line of an equal force.

Just what I think.

The US operates 10 Nimitz-class Supercarriers, each individual carrier alone operates a large enough air-force to rival almost the entirety of the RAF. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 11:55 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
Sorry to jump in on a necrothread, but it irked me.

Besides, I just did a bit of reading, and the Typhoon isn't even nearly as good as it claims to be:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

From the article:
Quote:What conclusions can we draw about the Typhoon? The notion that the aircraft is “almost as good as an F-22” is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants. By the same token, no upgrades performed on the F/A-18A/C would equalise the performance advantages of the Typhoon over these aircraft.

The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22).

The Typhoon's weaknesses are its F/A-18C class weight and thrust and the implications of this in combat at extended operational radii, and the longer term sensitivity of its BVR weapons advantage to equivalent technological developments in opposing fighters.

In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 04:50 AM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(07-08-2015 08:06 PM)Stuart2522 Wrote:  What a joker you are if you dont know anything about history then sure comment but since you dont the british army, the army with the biggest empire in history isnt known for its strength??

That empire started collapsing a century ago and ceased to exist after WWII.

Quote:Your tanks would have a great job trying to pass the tycoons which are proven the most combat effective fighterjet in the world,

Not according to most aviation experts.

Quote:all of the us equipment is built in England by BAE systems and shipped to the us in parts, like i said the us had their chance in ww2 but they Couldn't win and they knew it hence the reason operation red was cancelled,

Operation Red was only a hypothetical contingency plan like many others that militaries across the world engage in. It was never "abandoned" as it was never planned to occur.

Quote:the only reason the us are our allies is because the uk are a middle man when your in shit,

Right. Facepalm Shared language, history, culture, and enemies count for nought.

Quote:just think north korea threaten the us as they would go to war with them, but the uk get involved Korea back down, thats because were your only true allie and if we get involved so does the rest of the uks Allies but their here for the UK not US, the fact is tht if our treaty broke the American would be assaulted left right and centre and youd be on your own, PS the abrams are old and shit they might as well use a staw and fire paper balls

That was barely readable. And not sensible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-08-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(07-08-2015 07:43 PM)Stuart2522 Wrote:  I would call this information rubbish im a British soldier and have been to afghanistan and would definitely say that the us marines are useless, during my basic training i worked with the marines on several occasions and even as a regular recruit out menouvred them , tha abrams are slower and the shell is weaker ie the abrams takes 2 rpgs to disable were as the challenger two takes up to 8, your not counting the euro fighter tycoon, all i hear is Americans saying how great thier army is did you know that in ww2 the us had aplan of attack on britain but due to a brainwave they realized they would loose soo they pulled out, and as for experience our little island has conquered nearly half the world and if it wasnt for an act of treason and mutiny by the us independence we still would, the independence you celebrate was a show of cowardice and for what freeuntaxed water, the us army is a baby army like the north Koreans, rome was the same until our tiny island crushed the empire, America starting war with the uk would be like pissing in a hornets nest in the end you come off worse, just think America vs the Uk Germany , France , Italy , Australia ,Canada , spain , Jamaica , Portugal and the rest of the British colonies, you as americans seriously under estimate us and it will be you downfall

One thing in the favor of the US Marines... even they know how to use punctuation and paragraph breaks.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 08:28 AM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
One word: blockade.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-08-2015, 08:56 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 09:04 AM by yakherder.)
RE: America vs Britain in war...
Old thread, I'm hesitant to jump in except to insert a couple random thoughts after glancing through it, but what the hell...

First off, sheer numbers count for precisely jack shit nowadays, especially against another similarly equipped modern force. As things stand now, I'd actually be much more worried about a theoretical confrontation with the British than I would with, say, China. Masses of minimally trained troops are primarily useful for holding ground and controlling a civilian populace once the battle has been won, but barely qualify even as cannon fodder when trying to advance en masse on even a small force properly putting to use the concept of combined arms. Even in WWI this was already starting to become the new reality, but upper command is a little slow to adapt their tactics sometimes. That is one of the reasons for the mass amounts casualties inflicted in WWII. No amount of riflemen operating based on the delusion that their numerical superiority will win them the day will have a chance in hell of overtaking a well trained artillery battery. They don't need numbers. Anything that comes within range of them, and is visible enough to get a grid number on, is gonna be quickly made into human hamburger and it doesn't even take a lot of resource expenditure to make it happen.

That said, there are so many variables that make the typical "who would win?" question very difficult to answer. Of course, most people are going to be biased one way or another, which makes the debate that much more difficult. Nothing but respect for my fellow soldiers, or even foreign soldiers, but damn there's a lot of bullshit floating around regarding the big picture of how modern engagements work, even by those who have taken part in them.

The most predictable factors in regards to who wins wars are industrial output capacity, the resource control necessary to feed that industrial output, and as politically incorrect as it seems to be nowadays, patriotism. Even with the current economical situation, both the U.S. and the U.K. are more than capable of quickly modifying their industry to output a near endless supply of modern equipment, have the overseas resource domination to feed the machine, and have plenty of people willing to die for their cause. Thus, numbers of equipment and active personnel, as they stand right now, are only somewhat relevant. With that, I'd predict, based off my own limited experience, that a to the death fight between us would first begin as a world spanning fight for geographical control of resource hotspots, and whoever wins that fight would then have the edge on a mutually costly invasion.

If it were the U.S. invading England, we'd likely find (much like everyone on both sides discovered in WWII), that getting troops onto a shore defended by modern equipment is fucking suicidal, even after dishing out substantial damage.

And if it were England invading the U.S., though that sill applies to some degree, it applies less so because of the amount of coastline available from which to invade, not to mention the possibility that Canada who, as a member of the Commonwealth, recognizes the Queen as their commander in chief and may simply give them permission to invade directly from our northern border. The problem they would then encounter is a level of guerrilla style resistance that would make any kind of occupation similarly suicidal. It wouldn't even matter if the U.S. military surrendered. They'd find themselves engaged in perpetual guerrilla warfare with everyone from the various gangs and Mexican cartels looking to take advantage of the power vacuum to gun loving rednecks and hunters, many of whom I'd say are more tactically proficient, especially on their home terrain, than many of the trained soldiers I've worked with in the military. The U.S. government can barely keep this shit under control. Hell, if the U.K. thinks it can do better, half the country might just let them in uncontested. The other half would make the British soldiers' lives a living hell.

Another thing to consider is that much of the Commonwealth could not be predictably counted on. Many are already debating among themselves as to whether or not they should leave, and have chosen not to do so because they believe it benefits them. They hold no loyalty towards the U.K., they stay because they feel they get something out of it. Tell them that their alliance now involves a costly war with the U.S., whether they win or lose, and they may simply abandon that alliance right then and there.

But... I just don't see it happening at any rate. Our strategical doctrine is so intertwined at this point, we've got bigger fish to fry, and neither of us really has anything to gain from it. At best, we'd both end up in a weakened state, paving the way for our other prospective enemies to assert their control and oversee the downfall of both the U.S. and the U.K.

Fun discussion nonetheless, I suppose. Even within the military we talk the same shit. Between the Marines and the Army, or hell even between Army infantry and Army cavalry scouts, we get into some pretty heated discussions over how superior our own guys are. But when shit hits the fan, we know who's on our side. I view the Commonwealth in much the same way at this point, regardless of how history has played out.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
08-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
All of the above said, I do love the Challenger II.

Wondered what you'd have to say about it, Yak Smile

I can discuss the USAF v. RAF element of it all day, but I'm much less-equipped to discuss ground warfare doctrines. I do know that even in an even engagement, the disparity between the tanks is minimal, in terms of MBT v MBT firepower. The USA has always had faster but less heavily-armored tanks, compared to everybody else, and has relied on maneuverability doctrine to make it work. The Abrams is literally our first tank to ever give us near-parity with every other nation's heavy armor, but in today's world of guided "smart" weapons, attack helicopters, and airpower, it would largely come down to who can control the airspace... and nothing besides the Sukhoi PAK FA (when it comes online next year) can touch the F-22 Raptor. The Ozzies who also fly the Typhoon have evaluated it as not much better than the upgraded F/A-18E Super Hornet, and ridiculed the British Aerospace industry's claim that the Typhoon Eurofighter is in any way comparable to the capacities of the Raptor. Simply put, we would quickly control the airspace and then devastate any armor we encountered. I'm not knocking the British soldiers; from all I've heard they're still outstanding, highly-disciplined soldiers as good as anyone on earth... but that counts for little against an enemy that controls the skies, which we would unquestionably do.

What frightens me is what I've read about the development of the Sukhoi line of aircraft in the previous 10 years (which is what I had to catch up on in my reading, last night), and the Russian missile systems. We're about to be behind the curve in air superiority, and the Russians are already announcing their intention to sell the Su-35S and related aircraft to Chinese and other nations we don't like, have already given the technologies to India, and plans to actually work with India to manufacture the 5th-generation (equal to F-22) Sukhoi PAK-FA stealth/supercruise fighter in both nations, as well as possible sales to Venezuela and other nations we don't like. I'd say that we're looking at some nasty possibilities for disadvantaged combat in the next decade and a half, once these systems come online. In the end, US industrial output is hard to match, but I'd say full, WW2-style unlimited combat is unlikely in this day and age, given the proliferation of nukes in the nations that are nearly our industrial equals, making the biggest threat the vaporization of the human race, not "who would win the war". In a more limited/regional conflict, like trying to defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion, who knows?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 09:33 AM
America vs Britain in war...
England defeat America? No way a group of pussys are gonna do that.
[Image: 2a83f9c4eaef332e6d3932b332719e17.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: