America vs Britain in war...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 02:17 PM by cjlr.)
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  Is this guy serious.... Your showing your an idiot.

*you're.

(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  America can do the logistics of a Trans Atlantic Supply line for a War effort. I said they did it in WW2 almost 80 years ago so it wouldn't be a problem today. And they have been fighting a War on the other side of the world for over a decade.

No.

Defending a convoy on its way to a friendly port (WWII) is rather a different task than landing an invasion beachhead at the end of a hostile journey. The air and naval forces of the modern UK compared to modern America are far greater by relative strength than those of Nazi Germany compared to contemporaneous UK+USA. Read a book.

Supplying American forces (and their allies) in Iraq and Afghanistan required the cooperation and participation of dozens of other nations. Read the news.

Notwithstanding that it's still meaningless to consider the interaction in a vacuum. Or is there even more alien space bat magic keeping every other affected nation from participating?

(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  You really shouldn't post on here anymore, your embarrassing yourself!

*you're.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
11-07-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(11-07-2014 02:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  Is this guy serious.... Your showing your an idiot.

*you're.

(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  America can do the logistics of a Trans Atlantic Supply line for a War effort. I said they did it in WW2 almost 80 years ago so it wouldn't be a problem today. And they have been fighting a War on the other side of the world for over a decade.

No.

Defending a convoy on its way to a friendly port (WWII) is rather a different task than landing an invasion beachhead at the end of a hostile journey. The air and naval forces of the modern UK compared to modern America are far greater by relative strength than those of Nazi Germany compared to contemporary UK+USA. Read a book.

Supplying American forces (and their allies) in Iraq and Afghanistan required the cooperation and participation of dozens of other nations. Read the news.

Notwithstanding that it's still meaningless to consider the interaction in a vacuum. Or is there even more alien space bat magic keeping every other affected nation from participating?

(11-07-2014 01:51 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  You really shouldn't post on here anymore, your embarrassing yourself!

*you're.

I usually hate grammar nazis but this time it seems fitting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(11-07-2014 02:17 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 02:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  *you're.


No.

Defending a convoy on its way to a friendly port (WWII) is rather a different task than landing an invasion beachhead at the end of a hostile journey. The air and naval forces of the modern UK compared to modern America are far greater by relative strength than those of Nazi Germany compared to contemporary UK+USA. Read a book.

Supplying American forces (and their allies) in Iraq and Afghanistan required the cooperation and participation of dozens of other nations. Read the news.

Notwithstanding that it's still meaningless to consider the interaction in a vacuum. Or is there even more alien space bat magic keeping every other affected nation from participating?


*you're.

I usually hate grammar nazis but this time it seems fitting.

It's a sad day when one must stoop to highlighting irony.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
Wow, this are very obvious statements. So it can't be done hu.... Britain is just so superior to the U.S! Than how do you explain the fall of your Great Empire & why the U.S is the only Global Super Power? If the U.S is so inferior to Great Britain how are they a Super Power?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(11-07-2014 02:21 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  Wow, this are very obvious statements. So it can't be done hu.... Britain is just so superior to the U.S!

The United States cannot unilaterally invade the UK The UK is superior.

That's insane troll logic, right there. An insane troll logic strawman to boot.

(11-07-2014 02:21 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  Than how do you explain the fall of your Great Empire...

I'm not British.

(11-07-2014 02:21 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  ... & why the U.S is the only Global Super Power?

Their stint as sole superpower is a a very temporary one. Not that that's remotely relevant.

Sole superpower able to invade anyone at any time.

(11-07-2014 02:21 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  If the U.S is so inferior to Great Britain how are they a Super Power?

Oh, back to the strawman again.

Bro, are you even trying?

2/10 would not troll again.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-07-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
A very temporary one, so who's the next Great Super Power Britain? Lol You sound like the Nazis! And England is pretty much like the French.... Useless! England is the definition of a Has Been. When Brits think of The British Empire the first word that comes to mind is EMBARASSMENT!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
Hmm, this is all very interesting. I'm gonna go with cjlr and say that there are too many variables to accurately predict an outcome.

I think a few key points would be;

1) Nukes = everyone loses.

2) Any confrontation would probably take place on British soil as we're unlikely to attack America (though it's not impossible).

3) Superior numbers and technology doesn't necessarily mean a win (think Vietnam), it just increases the chances.

4) The EU, Commonwealth, and Russia will be key. The EU and Russia may well join because they feel that, if America controls Britain, they will have a solid base for moving further into Europe. Commonwealth support would of course be valued. China may also play a part if they decide this is a good opportunity to challenge America.

5) From what I hear American troops are less well trained than British ones. Actually, from what I hear the Vietcong considered Australian troops far more of a threat than US troops (yes I know it's not that recent but I think it's still relevant) so it's entirely possible that, man for man, a lot of countries have better fighting forces.

Tbh, both countries will probably pound each other into a stalemate.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
(11-07-2014 03:16 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  A very temporary one, so who's the next Great Super Power Britain?

Just a couple places you might have heard of.

(11-07-2014 03:16 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  Lol You sound like the Nazis!

Oh, look, trolltacular Godwin ad hom. That's bingo!

Whereas you, apparently, are trying to sound like a gibbering moron. And how!

(11-07-2014 03:16 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  And England is pretty much like the French.... Useless! England is the definition of a Has Been.

Yes, let's dismiss the 3rd and 4th most powerful militaries on the planet. It's not like they're nuclear-armed UNSC members or anything.

(11-07-2014 03:16 PM)saleen37804 Wrote:  When Brits think of The British Empire the first word that comes to mind is EMBARASSMENT!

Which is a total non sequitur in light of your previous rambling.

Thank you as ever for your valued, well-informed opinion.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-07-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
[quote=

There is hundreds of factors I hear, though my point is that Americans and British are not prepared to take so many casualties. I think the most that could happen really is two aircraft carriers shooting at each other in the atlantic and then coming home with a peace treaty and half a ship of coffins.

Well, if that is your game playing, you will be the victors in that fight! We have no aircraft-carriers.
We are having two built and it will not be available for war games for 2 years yet! However, we will need to have one from the french! But if they do not want to play or help we have nothing!

So you are the winner!!! Don't shoot me I am not worth it!!!

K:

Arguing with a zealot is only slightly easier than tunneling through a mountain with your forehead!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JONES's post
11-07-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: America vs Britain in war...
Hughsi actually has some very good points and are well thought out. I'm impressed most of the comments on here are pried fueled nonsense. I could see a lot of that being possible, but not so much with China.

I don't agree on your point of the U.S soldiers. The U.S has more modern combat experience than any other major powers of the world with 4 wars fought in the past 40 years.

Now I'm not saying Britain troops are under trained & the US troops are better. The US is a global superpower and our armed forces are among the best and the world. In my opinion the US, Britain, Russia are among the best trained in the world. It's absurd to actually think britains troops are far superior to any other one of these powerful countries. Im my opinion the U.S just has more modern combat experience not that they're any better trained than other countries. The key differences is US technology & powerful weapons of War combined with experience of Men that have been in current wars and are still serving in the military with incredible logistics to bring that force to bare anywhere in the world. Training is Great, but experience under fire is more powerful than a training for a war. Baptism under fire will teach you more & will improve your future training. The best Training only comes from the combat experience and knowing what works and what doesn't. And the US has plenty of combat experience right now.

So No Britain doesn't have the best Trained military in the world. It's among the best of these powerful nations

I think it's all pride that makes people say these things. Growing up learning about history and how powerful Great Britain used to be. I think there is a lot of Spite animosity & jealousy of the U.S rise to a unchallenged Super Power. . Not to mention that Brits have got a bad habit of thinking there always superior to everyone else. That's been there thinking for over 300 years and it still seems to be present

All of my points are made on logical ideas, facts & history. Not just saying "well we have a Better Trained Military" cause i don't think there would be much open bake field combat in a war like this
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: