Brexit wargame

>>33846698
Muslims are pretty bad at wars outside of their home countries so I'd say uk just sits back on their island and watches them inbreed and burn their own countries down.

>>33846716
So only Trump is on here tonight?

I reckon Gibraltar is your flashpoint.

>>33846698
Assuming America sticks with dear old Dad, I think it's obvious

This is impossible to predict anything about, not only because it's a scenario that has no gravity behind it in any way
Basically Britain and France have the best shit and the best guys to send to war, because they fucking know war
The rest of the EU has massive amounts of numbers in just about everything but we have no idea of how a war would play out, who would contribute what or how the logistical nightmare would be resolved
Probably UK and France since good luck taking France and then the UK, what a nightmare that would be

>>33848286
Spain getting pissy enough to march troops into Gibraltar and Theresa May playing Thatcher isn't impossible, is it? It's certainly not likely.

>>33848286
>good luck taking France

Surely just some angry pamphlets threatening cheese stocks would do it?

>>33848312
>Spain getting pissy enough to march troops into Gibraltar and Theresa May playing Thatcher isn't impossible, is it?

Yes it is.

It is about as likely as the US and Canada declaring war. Though there are probably better reasons for the US and Canada to declare war.

>>33848312
>Spain marching troops into the sovereign territory of a nuclear power
>A power that has nukes solely as their main deterrent from attack
>While both nations are friendly and allies in then grand scheme
Yeah, nah

>>33847984
>Assuming America sticks with dear old Dad, I think it's obvious

Like Washington did or like a beady eyed anglo would?

The US cause celeb in Europe was always the frogs because of layfette and all that shit not the anglos.

>>33848286
>the rest of the EU has massive amounts of numbers in just about everything
um.

what.

What is your definition of "massive amounts of numbers"?

Because right now the fucking Argies have a bigger navy than anybody but France and the UK, and the USCG outnumbers all of Europe combined. The Texas National Guard is larger than the combined militaries of Spain, Portugal, France, and Greece. The Air National Guard has more and more current planes than Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia, Austria, Slovakia, Luxembourg (not their fault I guess), and the Netherlands combined.

The USMC has more fucking Marines than the ENTIRE FUCKING POPULATION of 2 of the EU's member nations (Luxembourg and Malta) and is close to the entire population of Cyprus.

>>33848312

Stop buying into the media hyper retard.

>>33848316
I'd be laughing when German troops sent to the front without any working logistics train gets torn a new asshole by frog soldiers who've actually been operating in combat environments before

>>33848369
>I'd be laughing when German troops sent to the front

More like drones made by Mercedes anon.

>>33848355
And in this never happening hypothetical the USA is not taking part so it's irrelevant
There's a fucking lot of sovietshit lying around the EU you know, look at the amount of tanks some former bloc countries are running with compared to the amount of MBT Frogs and Bongs have

>>33848369
>torn a new asshole by frog soldiers

Mai oui ma cherrie bosche. Prends ma fille. N'tirez pas e suis pierre et j;ai un darepau blanc!

>>33848391
Yeah right, like the government would give a shit about the state of the German armed forces even then
They see a industrial complex selling to different nations as far more ethical than spending cash on their own guys

>>33846698
>"Kim Kardashian's Mexi-pult"
I should not be curious about this, but I am.

>>33848350
The "Special Relationship" demonstrates otherwise.

>>33848398
The EU NATO countries have nore fighters, tankers, ground attack, helicopters, elite regiments, professional soldiers, aircraft carriers,

2.4 million armed foces personal in the EU (more than the US)
EU possesses 525 nuclear warheads,
7,000 MBTs, 12000APCs 8800 artillery pieces, 660 attack helicopters

31 destroyers, 80 frigates,49 corvettes,110 patrol craft, 135 minesweepers, 4 missile subs and 43 attack subs and 3 carriers, 4 amphibious assault ships, 1800 fast jets fighters and gground attack, 380 transport craft and air refuling and loads of transport copters.

The UK could not fight the Eu for a week and Russia for a month (maybe, debatable) and the Eu could probably beat China. Only the US could take on the EU and win, however it would not be easy.
The Eu actually has a fairly scary military

>>33848609
>UK could not fight Russia for a month
What scenario is this based on?
In a defensive war UK would probably win, obviously it has absolutely no chance on the attack

>>33848463
>"Special Relationship"

I saw no US troops in the falklands anon.

>>33846698
>Implying the EU cucks will be able to convince any of their population to fight for them after years of marxists propaganda and shaming manly men
>Implying the few manlets and strong indepent womyn would make a decent army
>Implying the Brits wouldn't just keep getting food from the US while poping caps all over europe through bombardment

Decisive Bong victory.

>>33848636
>>UK could not fight Russia for a monthWhat scenario is this based on?In a defensive war UK would probably win, obviously it has absolutely no chance on the attack

Typo the Russians might last a month against the EU minus the UK. the UK would only last a week against the EU.

Even with naval forces the EU just crushes the UK let alone air and land where it also crushes

The EU and UK Vs Russia less than a month before Russian defeat.

>>33848609
And are they logistically proven
How would they realistically mobilise those forces?
How many nukes does the EU have excluding France and the UK? (Not that it matters since nukes are off the table)
How exactly do they neutralise the enemy air threat, the enemy naval threat and the fact they're fighting enemies that actually have some experience fighting a war

>>33848646
>>Implying the EU cucks will be able to convince any of their population to fight for them after years of marxists propaganda and shaming manly men

They don't need to thy have about 1.3 million active personnel Vs 150000 UK and 330000 reserve Vs the UKs 69000
>Implying the few manlets and strong indepent womyn would make a decent army>Implying the Brits wouldn't just keep getting food from the US while poping caps all over europe through bombardment

Ireland was neutral last time around. Not this time.

>Decisive Bong victory.

Very rapid defeat

The brits have about 250 fast jet total Vs 1750 in the EU and 120 attack helis vs 660 EU

The UK would get slaughtered

>>33848637
That is a single example for which there are a great many counterexamples. Additionally, "troops" does not cover the extent of military, diplomatic, and intelligence cooperation.

>>33848658
What are you basing this on?

The EU can't successfully mount an invasion of the UK. Half the countries in it are neutral, the rest have bilateral agreements with the UK that transcend the EU itself. Some of them don't even have navies. Even if attempted to do so, it lacks the lift capacity to gain a foothold on Britain. The EU admits, in its common defense and security policy, that NATO and the UNSC are superior to EU combined forces and take precedence.

If the EU got over all that and started land operations against the UK, it would face nuclear annihilation from any of the UK nuc subs doing the rounds thousands of miles away.

Only France is equal to the UK within the EU and they aren't going to give up their seat on the UNSC by mounting offensive operations against another UNSC state, especially one they just signed a load of common defense treaties with.

>>33848689
>How many nukes does the EU have excluding France and the UK? (Not that it matters since nukes are off the table)How exactly do they neutralise the enemy air threat, the enemy naval threat and the fact they're fighting enemies that actually have some experience fighting a war


You are making a huge assumption excluding France which has about 300 warheads the UK has about 200.

>>33848689
>How would they realistically mobilise those forces?

They are standing professional forces of 1.3 million plays the UKs 150 thousand.

The air threat?

They crush it. The EU has vast numerical superiority in all aircraft classes. Same in naval. The UK would be lucky to last a week.

>>33848706
Stop passing over France you fuck
And explain how logistically this could work

>>33848715
>That is a single example for which there are a great many counterexamples.

How about suez when the USA shut down the british?

Where was the special relationship then?

Or Kenya?

The special relationship exists in daily mail readers heads. The USA would intervene if there was profit or power in it. Which there would not be.

>>33848754
I'm making huge assumptions? Are you fucking joking, do you read the shit you're writing
Give me some fucking basis to the trash you write
"They just do" isn't a proper fucking answer

>>33848706
What are the range of those helicopters and attack aircraft? Because if they want to attack the UK from somewhere in the EU, then they're doing it from Northern France and that's about it.

Does northern France have enough airfields and bases to mount continued air to air combat over the United Kingdom? No. Nor do those craft have the range to reach and go air to air over the bulk of the UK itself. They have no coordination, no refuelling capacity, no real AA and the French are not going to try and drag CDG through the channel.

You're letting your hatred of the UK cloud your judgement. The only near peer country in the EU is France, the rest is an irrelevance. They wouldn't even make it off the start line.

>>33848757
>Stop passing over France you fuckAnd explain how logistically this could work

You have yet to explain why France one of the EU founding nations who always opposed UK membership of the EU magically leaves the EU. They are more likely to leave NATO than the EU.

>>33848754
>They are standing professional forces of 1.3 million plays the UKs 150 thousand.

Many of those are in countries that are constitutionally forbidden to go to war. The rest have no way of landing on the UK itself, and even if they did they can't sustain ground operations there.

>>33848777

The UK has 250 jets and 150000 men Vs 1.3 million men and 1750 jets.

The UK has 13 frigates. The EU has 80. Same dominance in every single category of hardware.

The UK in the hypothetical scenario of a war with the EU would get its ass handed to it.

>>33848786
Read the OP for the full hypothetical scenario you fucking dim witted fucktard
None of this scenario will never ever happen anyway
How the fuck do any of the logistics in this even work, for a fucking baseline how do they even communicate and link up their forces effectively, how do they keep them supplied logistically, how do they do this, why do they do this?

>>33848820
Where do the EU launch their jets from and how do they reach the UK to establish air superiority?

How do they put 80 frigates to use against a submarine force that is only bettered by the USN, and how do they land 1.3 million men or even mobilize them from across a continent without anyone noticing?

>>33848437
For firing Mexicans over the wall back home?

>>33848463
>Suez
Bongs have longer attention spans than a commercial break.

>>33848689
Not that guy but
>Are they logistically proven
Not really, compared to Britain and France the other militaries in Europe have a low training budget and few commitments outside of continental Europe
>How would they realistically mobilize these forces?
They would be forced to push through France first and task their Navy with defending against British and french sorties and would have to accept they would be unable to prevent a British emergency annexation of Ireland, which has fuck all defenses and is right beside the UK while being far away from everywhere else
>How many Nukes does the EU have outside UK and France?
None lol
>How exactly do they neutralise the enemy air threat, navy etc.
They would need to capture airfields in France in order to sortie against aircraft based in the UK and attempt to damage airfields in Scotland to prevent the UK being able to sortie against any naval task force sailing N to S, this is compounded by the lack of strategic lift on the part of the EU side, dealing with Navies is equally difficult, France and the UK have the best navies in Europe and the lions share of attack submarines, the EU is further hindered by Geography, there are numerous chokepoints that would have to be navigated in Northern Europe to deploy a fleet moving N to S against Scotland or into the English channel, or to captured docks in France, to move a fleet from the med they would have to push past the choke point at Gibraltar

>>33848799
>Many of those are in countries that are constitutionally forbidden to go to war.

The scenario posed by the OP was

>>33846698
>Conditions between the bongs on one side and the Germans and the rest of the EU have deteriorated to such a degree that war is delcared.


OK that's the scenario, The answer is the bongs get crushed, smashed and spat out in a week because they are outmatched massively in any single weapons category. Their only option would be nukes but because their population is concentrated in one small space their would be zero bong survivors.

They can't win in any scenario. The brit navy is miniscule compared to the eu nations.

Britbongs forget they could only compete in ww1 and 2 because they had massive imperial forces. They don't anymore. They are long gone. They don't last a week.

>>33848771
You're listing incidents that were small in global scale and impact compared to counterexamples, and again you're ignoring the rest of the cooperation outside of the purely military sphere. See also the Five Eyes.

>>33848609
Half that shit's non-operational though.
>3 carriers
The CdG, the QE, who's got the third?

>>33848873
>The brit navy is miniscule compared to the eu nations.

It can prevent all of it from getting there by choking it through the strait of Gibraltar.

>outmatched massively in any single weapons category
You have already been explained to as to why this doesn't matter, because they aren't starting from opposite ends of one piece of landmass with an equal amount of assets on each side. There is nowhere to mount the EUs operations from. Nowhere has the capacity to meet the range, servicing requirements and logistical effort required to keep 1800 fixed wing aircraft on constant sorties.

You're letting your deep hatred of a country define your judgement. The EU doesn't even have the lift capacity to move its forces around in peacetime, never mind in war.

EU 25 destroyers
UK 6
EU 3 carriers
UK 1
EU 80 frigates
UK 13
EU 49 Corvettes
UK 0
EU 125 Patrol Vessels
UK 4
EU Minesweepers 135
UK 15
EU Missile subs 4
UK missile subs 4
EU attack subs 43
UK 7

EU Naval tonnage 1158000
UK 342,850

Air power

EU 1861 (Typhoon, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Gripen, F16, FA18,Tornado, Harrier 2, Mig 29, F35)

UK 220 Typhoon, F35. Tornado, Harrier 2)


Again. No chance as with naval.

>>33848937
And what component of the EU forces is French?
According to the OP, France is either Neutral or allied with the UK

File: btfo.png (262KB, 319x712px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 319x712px

>>33846698
The one that is a nuclear power wins

So this thread has proved one thing and one thing only.
80% of /k/ cannot read.
It will happily argue until it passes out despite this.
That's embarrassing lads. If you've made it this far and are American please go back and read the OP.

UKs military would be fucked VS the EU

Bad and all as the naval and air situation is (crushing defeat levels)

EU 7000 man battle tanks
UK 400
EU APCs 12000
UK 5000
EU artillery 8750
UK 250

Standing active military

EU
1.3 million
UK 150000

Britbongs are crushed at sea, in the air and on land. Utterly.

>>33849016
>According to the OP, France is either Neutral or allied with the UK

Actually that was to quote OP

>>33846698
>no nukesSURPRISE WILD CARD


IF anything getting sucked into France would be even worse given that nukes are out.

Also given that it tool 25000 British troops deployed in Northern Ireland and they only have 150000 active service personnel I don't see how they are just going to waltz into Ireland that readily either without trying up about 30-40% of their available forces.

>>33848904

The JCI, from Spain.

>>33849140
>26,000 ton AAS
>carrier
kek no

Granted it's better than nothing.

In the end anons by every number under the book the britbongs get crushed. With no nukes they get crushed. With nukes they get crushed, With France neutral they get crushed with France on their side they get crushed

The UK and French manpower together is about 350000 plays about a million.

Air power looks more like 1200 to eu 600 to UK and France so still 2:1

And none of the other categories stack up either.

UK looses in all scenarios.

They get to win in Ireland as it is 150000 plays 10000 and 5000 APCs VS 1000 but then 30% of the Brit forces are stuck there and they get crushed. They don't invade Ireland and they engage in France and they get crushed.

They get crushed. Not a hope vastly outnumbered in every way even with France.

>>33849116
>Also given that it tool 25000 British troops deployed in Northern Ireland and they only have 150000 active service personnel I don't see how they are just going to waltz into Ireland that readily either without trying up about 30-40% of their available forces

because ireland has no real millitary, no training and no equipment?

comparing an actual invasion(like one would even be needed) to the troubles(a police action) is like saying the US couldn't skullfuck saddam because it took 100,000 troop to police iraq

>>33849168
I think given that all they need to go is use it to get planes to Ireland that it really does not need to do much. Remember the available Brit jet forces are 220 plays 1750

the UK can't hold in any scenario. It would be a much worse encirclement than WW2.

>>33849229
>US couldn't skullfuck saddam because it took 100,000 troop to police Iraq

OF course they would succeed that is just stupid. But then they have to hold it or it will fall to the enemy.

I'm just wargaming. No need to take it personally.

Ireland has about 10000 troops and about the same in reserve. However the population is about 4.5 million (south) so you need a force to hold the place and that has never been historically easy. It extends the airspace and coast the UK must defend substantially and ties up a great deal of limited available resources.

>>33849229
>because ireland has no real military

"The Irish Special Forces unit, the Army Ranger Wing, has won a prestigious international sniper competition, beating a host of international competitors, including the US Marine Corp and the FBI.

The team won both the international and overall categories at the 15th annual United States Sniper Competition at Fort Benning in Georgia, becoming the first non-American team to win both categories.

The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces Vice Admiral Mark Mellett DSM said: “The Army Ranger Wing have long been regarded as one of the finest Special Forces Units in the world. This victory is testament to their hard training and resolve.”
"

http://www.newstalk.com/Irish-Special-Forces-take-historic-win-at-sniper-competition


Rather you than me. I think it would be a very tedious and manpower intensive operation which would be find if simultaneously they did not have to hold their eastern front in France or at the channel. As soon as the EU forces establish airpower or subs in Ireland it is game over. That means a reasonable garrison there with air and costal forces.

There is no winnable scenario for the Britbongs.

Step 1 is clearly remove potato then.

>>33849323
You are stroking yourself off to the paddies winning that sniper completion even though the SAS and DEVGRU did not attend, perhaps this means that some have better things to do?

File: Conqueror flying jolly roger after sinking Belgrano.jpg (187KB, 800x1192px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x1192px

>>33848937
>including the french when OP said don't include the french

In any case the French have tasty naval assets but they are all in the med. Transiting through Gibraltar when perfidious albion is waiting below the waves on the other side is #1 on the list of terrible naval strategies.

Astutes are sneaky fuckers(only the Virginias are sneakier) especially when they are sitting on the bottom with their reactors on natural convection playing scrabble.

>>33849236
While yes it would HELP, being able to ferry 25 and deploy 11 antiquated gen3+ planes is kinda pissing in a hurricane.

If this supposed conflict holds off long enough for them to get around to buying F35B's then that might change things, but at the moment all they can launch are Harriers.

>>33849374
>Step 1 is clearly remove potato then.

That merely ties up limited resources in already outnumbered game and make the figures disastrous. UK just has zero hope.


>>33849412

Now calm down. The point is with a population of 4.5 million and a standing infantry of 100000 assuming the 3/1 attacker assured victory win you need at least 30000 to invade and lets say an optimistic 25000 as a standing force that means that the brits have committed 20% of available manpower during invasion and 16% during occupation. However that leaves them with 120,000 standing facing between 1 and 1.3 MILLION and 125000 facing between 1 and 1.3 million.

Also I would not wish to be one of the 25000 deployed in southern Ireland with a hostile population of 4.5 million and something like 500,000 firearms (25000 privately held 250000 state held).

The Irish government has no constitutional right to surrender on behalf of the population either. You'd have to gas them. Even then Armour I not deployable in Ireland and you are limited to APCs and Irish weather is terrible for close air support (mist and rain). See operation green and sealion prepared by the Germans for invading Ireland. The best the brits could do would be to bribe the Irish to stay neutral with Northern Ireland freeing further troops and face a single eastern front, Its easy to see why Churchill made that offer for Ireland to stop being neutral in WW2


So still defeat for the bongs then.


New battle of Britain. 1750 Vs 220 but this time the poles and Czechs and Irish etc are not flying for you but against you.

Doomed.

>>33849621
Is it me or is that an abnormally tall conning tower?

>>33849621
>>including the french when OP said don't include the frenchIn any case the French have tasty naval assets but they are all in the med. Transiting through Gibraltar when perfidious albion is waiting below the waves on the other side is #1 on the list of terrible naval strategies.Astutes are sneaky fuckers(only the Virginias are sneakier) especially when they are sitting on the bottom with their reactors on natural convection playing scrabble.


OK but how the hell can the UK hold Gibraltar and face a 10/1 invasion force. Spain was neutral in WW2. Gibraltar is the first place they would head.

>>33849709
>While yes it would HELP, being able to ferry 25 and deploy 11 antiquated gen3+ planes is kinda pissing in a hurricane.If this supposed conflict holds off long enough for them to get around to buying F35B's then that might change things, but at the moment all they can launch are Harriers.


What is stopping typhoons from basing themselves in eastern Ireland?

With a 43 to 7 advantage in attack subs and an 80 to 13 frigate advantage, 49 to 0 corvette I don't think controlling the sea lanes would be a challenge for the EU

>>33849747
Very little could counter Astutes being predatory in the Straits. Even the best ASW is still not great, and when you consider pretty much everyone but the French and Brits have substandard ASW and the Brits have the best of the Euro subs and a LOOOOT of practice playing peekaboo with the US, chinks, and Russians, anybody trying to kill them would take disproportionately heavy casualties.

>>33848609
>Not easily
Ahahahahaha!

Mobilization and logistics fucks the EU, not to mention the necessity of carrier groups against an enemy like the US. Effectively ceding the air to the fucking burgers isn't going to make for a long war. Then take into account whether this is EU defensive (they're fucked) or American defensive, in which case you have zero chance for a ground war.

But now, back to the point.

Which side feeds its self better? Foreign trade of foodstuffs is going to be severely fucked as the reality of multinational trade deals being torn up by federal bodies becomes a massive problem. Then of course consider this - what's your objective for winning? Occupy the capital/landmass? How do you decide what a victory is in this case?

>>33849771
Honestly? Precious little would be stopping Typhoons being based in eastern Ireland.

I just don't think that half a wing of Harriers is a significant contribution to air power and the Spanish AAS would be better served in its traditional role of a helo bus.

So, out of curiosity, should this UK vs EU thing kick off, what would the odds of the Argies throwing in with the EU in exchange for sovereignty over the Falklands be?

>>33849791
>, not to mention the necessity of carrier groups against an enemy like the US

OP never mentioned the US. In both WW1 and Ww2 the UK could finance the US, in fact a great deal of the US financial success in the 20th century came from having sucked the British empire dry in war denbts. Why would the US engage in a vastly expensive war to defend the UK when its real rivals are Chin and not really but trying Russia?


Remember it was Germany who declared war on the US. Why the fuck would the EU declare war on the US or the US get sucked in bringing in China and Russia?

Nope the brits would be on their ass its even clutching at straws to hope the French would be neutral

>>33849809
>I just don't think that half a wing of Harriers is a significant contribution to air power and the Spanish AAS would be better served in its traditional role of a helo bus.


The UK has one amphibious assault support ship. The EU has five and the mistral class is built in France. Again on naval hello carriers the UK is smashed.

This is an interesting thread because you can see how WW2 would have been effected if Ireland and Spain had not been neutral and Russia stayed out. The bongs would be fucked.

>>33849837
>So, out of curiosity, should this UK vs EU thing kick off, what would the odds of the Argies throwing in with the EU in exchange for sovereignty over the Falklands be?


I doubt either the UK or EU would care but they would probably go for it, Whether they could manage is another thing. Maybe after the UK fell they could just buy it off the EU to help settle reparations. The Eu would break up the UK same as diiding east and west germanym Scotland would be independent and they would probably throw NI to southern Ireland and set up a state in wales.

The UK would be finished.

There would be more hope of some craxy shit like new Zealand helping the bongs than france but they are too far away to be effective and Australia can't commit because of Indonesia.

I'd be betting heavily on a fairly rapid EU victory. Its not like the Germans, Spanish, French, Dutch, Irish don't have abiding dislikes for the UK. Hell even Italy probably wants to get a boot in.

File: HMS Courageous.jpg (260KB, 1455x1146px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1455x1146px

>>33849726

yes

the Churchill class were long and thin(the nuke boat equivalent of a hungry skellington high fashion model)

>>33849771

>controlling seas with diesel boats

oh I am laffin. I don't think the british carrier groups are going to slow down to 10 knots to be "fair" like american ones do during wargames with poorfag nations

Thought

UK population
65.14 million
EU Population
678.06

Just nah. UK fucked. At every single possible level every weapons class, statistic and measure is 10 to one.

>>33849941
>oh I am laffin. I don't think the british carrier groups are going to slow down to 10 knots to be "fair" like american ones do during wargames with poorfag nations


I think you are forgetting the channel is vanishingly thin and with air numbers being 1750 to 220 and vast numerical inferiority in every single category the UK is fucked.

80 frigates to 13?
49 corvettes to zero?
43 attack subs to seven?
125 patrol vessels to four?
25 destoyers to six?

All other classes the same?

The UK can do fuck all.

It can sail a carroer group to the falklands and stay there but it can't ight the EU.

Maybe that's a strategy, Just relocate every available brit to Antarctica in a mass evacuation.

>>33849941
Remember once apon a time the UK had a merchant navy. Long long gone.

>>33849941
Just a quick sanity check. You don't seriously believe that the UK could fight the combined EU forces given the vast numerical inferiority in every single area?

I mean that is vatnik tier delusion

>>33850017

the key british naval advantage is one of detection and the engagement range of carriers

SAGs trying asail a carrier group with good AWACS and Maritime Search support is like a gang of blind midgets fighting against a basketball player: the carrier sees you first and attacks before you can get near it

the radar horizon is a bitch when 6-12 F-35s are sea skimming with LRASM or Harpoon

>>33849932
France and UK are massive military allies separate from any other membership of union, you fucking dolt