USA Vs UK.. a war in 2012, who would win?

[buck]

Buck's just demonstrated that he's pig ignorant about the cultures and societies his country slaughtered.

If I'd slaughtered anybody, it would have been while in the service of Her Majesty. Fortunately I did none, or perhaps my contribution to the Fleet Air Arm probably caused some enemies to lose their lives. They would have shortened mine if they could. So it was a fair fight. I doubt you ever your life on the line foor your country. Anyway I'm done wasting my valuable time with you, you ain't worth my spit.

[buck]

Those were the days, I miss Lord Chaverly, too. And Joe P, and too many others to mention. The forum is still a great place, it really is.

You have only to look at the input by Player and his ilk to see how low SF has sunk since youtube took over the links. This was quite a good thread going along, well balanced from both pro and anti views. While some said that Britain would have a finer fighting force, they still agreed that America would win in the unlikely event of a war. It was General Norman Schwarzkopf himself who said he was glad he had the British Army on his side. So what and where did this thing about the Phillipines come from? This is still a great forum, while we can still give old Rich a kick up the bum now and then, or be evangelized by Grahame.

[callippo]

you don't know the first thing about the Philippines though do you players. You know even less than him. And yet you still feel called upon to play the abuse card against the United States, when you don't know anything about the subject, i.e. the Philippines, at all. You don't care about the Philippines or Filipinos. You've never been there. You just think it's a great chance to offload a bit of venom against the United States and what actually happened, as in the real flow of historical events, is a bit of an inconvenient truth.

[mort]

And back to civilised debate please...

[Harleyman]

You have only to look at the input by Player and his ilk to see how low SF has sunk since youtube took over the links. This was quite a good thread going along, well balanced from both pro and anti views. While some said that Britain would have a finer fighting force, they still agreed that America would win in the unlikely event of a war. It was General Norman Schwarzkopf himself who said he was glad he had the British Army on his side. So what and where did this thing about the Phillipines come from? This is still a great forum, while we can still give old Rich a kick up the bum now and then, or be evangelized by Grahame.

 

There might be a war between the US and Europe in the very far distant future. Priorities, alliances and national interests change over great spaces of time.

 

Germany and Britain were staunch allies up until not that long before World War One and France the traditional enemy of both countries. The Prussians helped defeat Napoleon at Watreloo and the British Royal family were more German than English

 

Sometimes alliances change in a couple of decades. Italy was on our side in World War One and our enemy in World War Two. Russia started out on our side in World War One yet right after that we were sending our army to fight the Russian Bolsheviks.

 

It's crazy changing world and China and India will be the big players for the next 50 years.

 

Who would have ever thought that Britain and Argentina would have gone to war?

Argentina had many close connections with Britain and a large British expat community. Even today there are one or two communities where the Argentinians all have Welsh names

[callippo]

agree there's no chance of any war between the USA and Britain, but there's a very outside chance of war between USA and Europe. That's when Russia comes in again. China and India, well they'd love to watch that one.

[buck]

The video seems like a bit of a joke. It presumes that the war would be fought very similarly to the kind that was fought during WW1 with no mention whatsoever of air power being involved and it would have definitely been air power that would have resolved the issue one way or another.

 

Did the RAF have the Spitfire and Hurricanes operational in the 1930s. how about bombers?

 

I dont know what the Americans had for aircraft except that the first production models of the B-17 Bomber were being delivered to the Army Air Corps. As for fighter aircraft, whatever was in production, these could have been produced and entered the war at very short notice whereas there were no production facilities in Canada able to produce fighters or bombers for the Royal Air Force and these would have had to be ferried across the Atlantic and assembled on arrival in Canada. How long would that have taken and under what circumstances?

 

A smart tactician on the American side could have used India as a weapon against Britain.

An absolute gurantee of immediate independence for that country if America won the war might just have fomented an uprising on a large scale by Indian nationalists who were already calling loudly for independence from Britain in the 1930s. Britain would have had to divert large numbers of her army to deal with that situation.

 

Whatever the outcome of the war between America and Britain Hitler would have definitely been victorious in Europe.

Britain would have been in no shape to declare war on him after he had carried out his invasion of Poland and without Britain at it's side France would have had no stomach for another war with Germany.

 

Anyway it's all hooeey. I dont know why the subject even came up on the thread.

The spitfire and hurricane were in the process of development in the mid thirties. The hurricane was developed from the Hawker Fury, a biplane fighter. When knowledge about the Messerschmidt 109 becoame known, Hawker took the top wing off, made the plane have a retractable undercarriage. Mitchell designed the Spitfire based on his successful racing seaplanes that won the Schneider trophy. Many say it was the finest fighter ever built and certainly the most beautiful. But I think that honour goes to the P-51 Mustang, which would never have been built except the Air Ministry needed a fighter in a hurry and North American Aviation Company created it in just over 2 months. With the original Alison engine, it wasnt all that good, but a British Merlin engine did the trick. It was the only fighter at the time that could make to Berlin and back, saving the 8th Air force. The whitley bomber was operational in the mid thirties, a terribly slow and cumbersome aircraft,the Hamden and Blenheims were light bombers. When the war started The Wellington was the main bomber, a good and tough aircraft witha good bomb load.The first Berlin air raids were carried out by Wellingtons, until the superb Lancaster came off the production line. The Lanc had a massive bomb load culminating in the 20,000 pounder that sank the Tirpitz, and was considered the best heavy bomber of the war.

[Harleyman]

The spitfire and hurricane were in the process of development in the mid thirties. The hurricane was developed from the Hawker Fury, a biplane fighter. When knowledge about the Messerschmidt 109 becoame known, Hawker took the top wing off, made the plane have a retractable undercarriage. Mitchell designed the Spitfire based on his successful racing seaplanes that won the Schneider trophy. Many say it was the finest fighter ever built and certainly the most beautiful. But I think that honour goes to the P-51 Mustang, which would never have been built except the Air Ministry needed a fighter in a hurry and North American Aviation Company created it in just over 2 months. With the original Alison engine, it wasnt all that good, but a British Merlin engine did the trick. It was the only fighter at the time that could make to Berlin and back, saving the 8th Air force. The whitley bomber was operational in the mid thirties, a terribly slow and cumbersome aircraft,the Hamden and Blenheims were light bombers. When the war started The Wellington was the main bomber, a good and tough aircraft witha good bomb load.The first Berlin air raids were carried out by Wellingtons, until the superb Lancaster came off the production line. The Lanc had a massive bomb load culminating in the 20,000 pounder that sank the Tirpitz, and was considered the best heavy bomber of the war.

 

I'm off to an air show tomorrow. One of the planes is a Japanese Zero, the only one of it's version that bombed Pearl Harbour and still flying. It's priceless I've heard. These planes are owned by the Confederate Air Force. Among those flying will be a B-17, a B-29, a P-51 Mustang (you can take a ride in it if you cough up 500 dollars), a Sea Fury, a Mig-17 and a Harrier.

 

There's a Canadian built Lancaster that's still flying but unfortunately it wont be at the show.

 

The RAF had some great aircraft. One of the most formidable was the Mosquito with twin Merlin engines.

The Spitfire always seems to get the credit for the battle of Britain but most squadrons were equipped with the Hurricane.

 

It's a little known fact that the B-29 was originally designed to reach Europe, the thought behind that being that if Britain fell to the Germans the US needed an aircarft that could reach Germany. They would most likely have been based in Greenland.

[Harleyman]

agree there's no chance of any war between the USA and Britain, but there's a very outside chance of war between USA and Europe. That's when Russia comes in again. China and India, well they'd love to watch that one.

 

I doubt Britain would go to war without the support of the EU. Argentina was a special case since the Falklands were British. Russia never really identified itself completely with Europe and even today does not trust western Europe completely. Invaded by Napoleon, fought France and Britain in the Crimean war, twice invaded in the last hundred years. Old memories die hard and are part of the Russian psyche.

A scenario where the oil supplies start to dwindle in the middle east and vast new oil fields are located in the south Atlantic could create rivalries between China and Europe for access and Brazil could feel threatened by both since much of it would be located in their coastal waters and the US stepping in on the side of Brazil. This all predicated of course on an alternative to oil not being found in the next 50 years

[BritishProud]

I doubt Britain would go to war without the support of the EU. Argentina was a special case since the Falklands were British. Russia never really identified itself completely with Europe and even today does not trust western Europe completely. Invaded by Napoleon, fought France and Britain in the Crimean war, twice invaded in the last hundred years. Old memories die hard and are part of the Russian psyche.

A scenario where the oil supplies start to dwindle in the middle east and vast new oil fields are located in the south Atlantic could create rivalries between China and Europe for access and Brazil could feel threatened by both since much of it would be located in their coastal waters and the US stepping in on the side of Brazil. This all predicated of course on an alternative to oil not being found in the next 50 years

 

You love the EU soo much why don't you marry it!! :hihi: