cubsfan6506
Got u
Who would win the british commonwealth vrs america. Conventional war only.
Commonwealth vrs U.S
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
British Commonwealth, but only if we used the Australians as meat shields. 
cubsfan6506
Got u
The commonwealth would have no navy withen a year.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
Australians don't need a navy. They just roll up their trouser-legs and wade right in.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
That would be a great fight, one for the ages. I personally think the United States would win. Here's why.
The only Commonwealth nation that could directly threaten United States territory is Canada. Unless the rest of the Commonwealth were to put all their ground forces in Canada beforehand, I don't think there's much argument that Canada would be overrun rather fast by the USA and USMC.
That means that the majority of the fighting will be done on the high seas. The USN has almost as many submarines as the RN has vessels, to give you an idea of the immensity of our Navy. I'm rather sure even the Commonwealth wouldn't be able to defeat enough of the USN to land any sort of threatening force.
As far as Air Forces go, the United States is again in the lead, with the long-range bombing capability that few other nations have. The RAF has no heavy bomber. The F-22 Raptor is king of the skies, but our other interceptors can hold their own against even RAF fighters. While the RAAF may have Hornets, they're not in substantial numbers to do anything.
All in all, I think the Commonwealth could really give the US a run for it's money, but it's not going to win.
The only Commonwealth nation that could directly threaten United States territory is Canada. Unless the rest of the Commonwealth were to put all their ground forces in Canada beforehand, I don't think there's much argument that Canada would be overrun rather fast by the USA and USMC.
That means that the majority of the fighting will be done on the high seas. The USN has almost as many submarines as the RN has vessels, to give you an idea of the immensity of our Navy. I'm rather sure even the Commonwealth wouldn't be able to defeat enough of the USN to land any sort of threatening force.
As far as Air Forces go, the United States is again in the lead, with the long-range bombing capability that few other nations have. The RAF has no heavy bomber. The F-22 Raptor is king of the skies, but our other interceptors can hold their own against even RAF fighters. While the RAAF may have Hornets, they're not in substantial numbers to do anything.
All in all, I think the Commonwealth could really give the US a run for it's money, but it's not going to win.
If you include India, the Commenwealth could do alright.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
But you don't have Australians.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
The US would win by a landslide. Within a month the US would have complete control of the seas, and then its simply of how much bombing they can take before surrender.
Guangxi
King
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 729
i agree.
bah, ten characters.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
Well, the US couldn't finish off Iraq or Vietnam. The Commonwealth is a lot bigger and a lot more spread out than those countries. I think the US would probably win, but you can't discount the possibility of a stalemate.
And besides... Australians.
And besides... Australians.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
The Commonwealth.
I don't expect anyone in the US will agree though
I don't expect anyone in the US will agree though
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Well the OP said conventional warfare. Iraq and Vietnam were the antithesis of conventional war.
cubsfan6506
Got u
The Commonwealth.
I don't expect anyone in the US will agree though
Bet any non monarch worshpping saps wouldn't agree.
Shadylookin
master debater
the US would win. Canada will last maybe an hour, and the rest of the commonwealth that can militarize anything other than a useless token force will have no way to actually get over here
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
China.
.
.
You don't have to occupy and set up a government to win a war. All you have to do is destroy the enemies will or ability to fight. The US could defeat the combined Commonwealth in that since - in a conventional war, I'm pretty sure the US would be able to gain control of the high seas, invade Canada and begin serious bombing of England and Australia within a year. It would be bloody, but America has numbers and in a few key areas, superior units.
America could not occupy all of the Commonwealth, and set up new governments there, like we are doing with Iraq. If that's the definition of victory being used in this scenario, then no, the US couldn't. But assuming we're using a standard definition of defeat, the US would win.
zenspiderz
Just some bloke..
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,496
Guangxi
King
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 729
where does liz come into the warfare, i wonder.
