If war broke out today who would win? The UK or France? Everyone else stays neutral.
>people literally do not think dark hair with light eyes is the true master race
The darker the hair and the lighter the eyes the better
France surrenders after they realise their GDP is smaller
>implying that the boundless love that we have for each other could ever fade away
>implying that either one of us could survive losing the other one
What's the point of being french if I can't be smug to british tourists?
at least compare us to someone that would put up a fight
That war would never end, it's been fought for thousands of years and we're both still standing.
must be a strange mix of both pride and sorrow to see your children go off to work.
on the one hand you're glad they're getting on in life but at the same time you hoped they would have a better life than you
>unironically canibalizing older yet perfectly functionnal typhoons to cut the maintenance costs
We're not doing that. We are bringing 2 extra Typhoon squadrons into service, the older ones. Pic related. We have 5 squadrons right now, it will be 7 soon.
muh 2025. what about right now pham?
also isn't french/british military doctrine basically keeping up with the joneses these days? i.e. being as strong as each other. i thought we were *very* evenly matched.
They have been doing it for almost a thousand years, if they started again it would just be another thousand.
The comic is a good comic but that voiceover was gay as shit.
The new Typhoon squadrons are coming before 2025.
Maybe read the post I replied to. The Pole said we were cannibalising perfectly functional Typhoons for parts. That's a lie, we're actually bringing the old ones into service.
Forgot to reply to this
>also isn't french/british military doctrine basically keeping up with the joneses these days? i.e. being as strong as each other. i thought we were *very* evenly matched.
No. We don't aim to be as strong as France. They are probably our closest ally, but we have different priorities to the French. We are strong in different areas.
>two veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council going to war with one another
All this would do is set a precedent for the other three nuking the shit out of one another. I'd like to believe our leaders have more sense than that.
No, you're both wrong. Both militaries are integrated such that they CAN work together seamlessly, but they obviously retain a capability operate independently.
Also please name these planes and ships we share with France? NATO has a few ISTAR and transport aircraft that are shared among the alliance, I can't think of anything else. If the UK uses some RAF C-17s to transport French equipment to Africa, which it did, that's not a shared asset. It's a British asset being used to help an ally.
That literally only happened one time. And everyone else was getting their shit kicked in by the Nazis, too. The only thing that really saved the UK was exceptional leadership and being an island.
They can still project, it's just very limited. The thing is they're mostly concerned with Africa and some of the Middle-East. So they don't need first rate force projection. But the UK has obligations as far as the South Atlantic and the Far East
Japan is an island, did that save them?
What being an island does, is it allows the guys who beat your navy to attack you from ANY direction. Don't pretend water is a magical forcefield, that's fucking dumb.
The only thing that has protected the UK from invasion is the Royal Navy, and later the RAF
>Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses and fungi
Depends how you classify the migrants :^)
France was invaded by Germany twice in the same way. The second time was just quicker, because Germany had done it before. Logic would dictate that the inevitable 3rd time that france gets invaded through Belgium would take less than 2 weeks.
Well yeah, as you say, England also had the best navy in Europe. And Japan probably wouldn't have managed as well as it did if it were attached to the mainland.
Fact is, if Britain were part of mainland Europe, it wouldn't have done any better than France.
>in defense of the slants you never had to go up against someone like america
Well yes, we have gone up against America. But do you understand my point? Islands have been invaded quite often throughout history. As soon as you lose the naval war, it is over.
>England also had the best navy in Europe
>Fact is, if Britain were part of mainland Europe, it wouldn't have done any better than France.
This logic is fucking warped.
Look, we have the best navy in Europe BECAUSE we are a bloody island. If our navy isn't the best, it's game over. Because we have regularly had to fight multiple opponents in the sea, by ourselves. In WW2 it was Germans and Italians for two years, then the Japanese as well, until the US navy started to arrive. In the Napoleonic War it was the French and Spanish.
If we were joined to Europe by land, with a military designed for an island nation, OF COURSE we would have no chance. But how stupid a scenario is that? If we were a land power, we would focus on the Army and not the Navy.
>Everyone else stays neutral.
What if the universe was made of cotton candy and rainbows? Please take this question seriously and don't tell me what a moron I am
It's such a ridiculous requirement that people are ignoring it
>implying the majority of the UK actually wants scotland to stay
nice meme lad, if there was a referendum tomorrow in which the english could vote the scots would be out by a majority
Of course not. We were fighting a civil war in America, French proxies in India, and the actual French, Spanish and Dutch simultaneously in three separate theatres (Europe, America, India) with 18th century logistics and communications. It would have been a miracle if we had won
>Using the 100 years war as an argument
You realize how quickly the war ended once Burgundy decided it had better things to do than fight with France for the sake of some English fags? And the English lost all of their territory in France (except for Calais that was sandwiched in Burgundian territory) as a result of the 100 years war.
The English got completely annihilated in the end. To use that war as a case to support that argument of yours is just really really silly.
How is it bad. I was replying to a guy that said the UK would be too scared to mount a mainland invasion. The Hundred Year's War was an invasion and occupation that lasted over 100 years.
Well a more obvious example is.. you know.. the handful of places we invaded after we became the UK. Some sort of empire IIRC
Because at the time of the 100 years war England had really strong allies AND it owned a lot of territory in France prior to the war (due to their Norman heritage). The kingdom the French were at war with at the time considered itself to be more French than English until the later phases of the war.
The guy you replied to never specified mainland Europe >>53290527, he just said we're scared to leave our islands
Anyway if you want mainland Europe, a great example of that is the Duke of Marlborough kicking arse all over continental Europe during the War of the Spanish Succession
He was an artist
>The Duke of Marlborough's march from Bedburg (near Cologne) to the Danube. His 250-mile (400-kilometre) march to prevent Vienna falling into enemy hands was a masterpiece of deception, meticulous planning and organisation.
He was getting old 2bh. Anyway, France didn't come out of it too badly. The Spanish were the main losers of that war. Also it was important to the UK because that is when we got Gibraltar
>Louis XIV's last war, no ?
Yes Britain won the purple territories in this map.
But the real battle for French/British influence in North America would be fought a few decades later in the Seven Years War
Their Navy/Air force has nothing on ours, but their ground troops are solid. They'd be unable to invade us, but we'd at best damage their infrastructure.
Won't happen anyway, so this is a silly question. We're friends now.
>Their Navy/Air force has nothing on ours
I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you
While our navy is smaller or can definitely hold its own, especially since we have an aircraft carrier. They likely wouldn't matter in the slightest though as any ship entering the channel at that point would be dead meat
The most important part would be the air force here and I don't think the RAF would have such an advantage. We have about as many Rafales as you have Typhoons if you include the naval air arm, plus more than a hundred Mirage 2000s.
They're definitely isn't a clear winner in the air force category imo
Wow, you sure had the biggest colored-red-on-some-map-in-london """""""""""""empire""""""""""""
Thoughdespite the massive usage of red color pencils, you somehow never could successfully invade France, (nor Germany, nor Spain, nor Italy btw) while being invaded by France twice (1066 and 1326).
Have you seen what attempts to invade and occupy large parts of mainland Europe do to the aggressor countries? It always - ALWAYS - ends in tears with horrible consequences for the aggressor, for the simple reason that they make lots of enemies.
At least when we lost our empire we weren't invaded and plundered
>he calls it successfull planing and wise decision making like they never tried to invade mainland europe
Exactly, that is exactly what I'm saying. Of course we went in with allies many times >>53292082, but that was mostly to force them to cede land elsewhere and help allies
Bon mec vas te coucher, il n'y a rien de plus important dans une force armée moderne qu'un porte avions. Le contrôle des différentes mers (y'a pas que la Manche pêh), et par la de 100% du commerce d'un pays tel l'Angleterre est un chouia plus que vital, si tu me permets d'etre pédant.
Et les terres prises par les Révolutionnaires? Cette génération sacrifiée sur l'autel a la gloire de l'Empereur, a laquelle tu dois tant ?
Be fair Chad, the head of England at the time was French refugees, that became (at some point) more powerfull than the king of France they had rejected. However, they (your ancestors) couldn't use that power to crush the tiny, little, Kingdom of France (aka at the time Paris and Orleans)
The parent post is right, the war for the throne of France was more akin of a civil war than anything else.
The ruling family of Britain at the time were French and had a legitimate claim, their cousins begged to differ. The troops were English but their commanders AND the people they fought against were French.
The French Normans were French by any definition of the term. It is true they were of mixed ancestry, but the duke of Normandy was a vassal to the King of France, they spoke a French dialect, were culturally French and led French troops. It is hard to get any more french than that.
This. The question is ridiculous, the french and the brits have too much in common to fight anymore.
Most brits have a particular affection for France, and similarly, most french have a particular one for England.