Israel vs. UK, but...

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Israel vs. UK, but...
free_man 12 7/20/2009 11:05:38 AM

Suppose Israel and the UK were geographically situation similarly to Israel and Egypt or Germany and Poland; meaning right next to each other. Who would win an all out shooting war, with each country trying to force the unconditional surrender of the other, even if it means annihilation? HOWEVER, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO NAVY, NO HELP FROM ALLIES. I think Israel wins due to recent fighting experience, the ability to mobilize many more fighting quality personnel (again experience and compulsory service) and the fact that the country has been on a quasi war footing since its inception...

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Duubz 7/20/2009 11:21:51 AM

Suppose Israel and the UK were geographically situation similarly to Israel and Egypt or Germany and Poland; meaning right next to each other. Who would win an all out shooting war, with each country trying to force the unconditional surrender of the other, even if it means annihilation?

HOWEVER, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO NAVY, NO HELP FROM ALLIES.

I think Israel wins due to recent fighting experience, the ability to mobilize many more fighting quality personnel (again experience and compulsory service) and the fact that the country has been on a quasi war footing since its inception...

Another stupid thread - the UK is an ireland nation and therefor a large chunk of our defense budget is eatten up by the navy. If the UK wasn't an island nation then her armed forces would much different to what they are now with a lot more resources being devoted to the army.

With the circumstances you have mentioned then Israel would more than likely come out on top as they have more troops ready for combat, more armor, more artillery e.t.c. e.t.c. but frankly it's like asking who would win between Russia and the U.S if neither of them could use their air force. What's the point?

Quote Reply

free_man 12 False argument 7/20/2009 11:51:47 AM

You could say that about any possible X vs. X scenario. If the US didn?t have to defend Europe from nukes from Iran/Korea they would have more $ to build more ships and F-22s; If Russia didn?t need to maintain nuclear weaponry they could invest in other areas; if the French weren?t such pussies they would invest in a better armed forces; if?

Quote Reply

free_man 12 False argument 7/20/2009 11:53:29 AM

Quote Reply

John G uk 7/21/2009 8:45:06 AM

10 times the population well over ten times the gdp... the above comparison is absolutely useless. but to answer your question if the uk magically moved several thousand miles to an inland position right next to israel it would be a close run thing.

Quote Reply

free_man 12 Size may not matter... 7/21/2009 3:42:15 PM

As opposed to earlier wars, an inland, side-by-side, all out war, in my opinion, would not last long enough for either country to take real advantage of resources or GDP. I do not think that either country would have the ability to ramp up production and resources. With today's technology and long range weaponry I think that the country that is more prepared and capable NOW would have a tremendous and lasting advantage, to the point of victory. New weapons platforms could not be developed and built in time, even the training via draft of inexperienced civilians into soldiers would be unfeasible. It would be blitzkrieg vs. blitzkrieg. The sheer size of the population alone would not necessarily lend to a competent fighting force...

Quote Reply

StevoJH 7/22/2009 2:40:20 AM

If Israel and the Republic of Ireland suddenly switched places and Israel wanted to own northern Ireland as well, Israel could not afford to increase its military spending any further then it is currently. plus with that conflict i'd question how much FMS aid they would continue to get from the US. Given a 5-10 year window of preparation, Israel would have no chance of victory.

UK places Chally 2 back in production

UK places Warrior (the upgraded version under development) back into production

UK increases rate of eurofighter production and increases order.

UK places early order for A or B model F35 (which they will get as the sole Level 1 partner)

UK places order for large numbers of new frigates OPV(H)'s to counter Israeli Saar's.

UK increases number of Tornado squadrons back to original levels by reducing attrition reserves.

Nothing Israel can do to match this other then continuing current programs as they simply don't have the money to match the UK.

Quote Reply

StobieWan 7/22/2009 9:25:58 AM

Dimmest thread award goes to...

As has been said, it's a rigged scenario in that the UK isn't allowed to recoup the money it's invested in Trident but is expected to withhold nuclear use etc.

Neither is the UK set up to fight a conventional ground war on home territory as we're an Island nation - that big blue thing called the English Channel...and your scenario calls for us to stand the navy down (but we get no credit in terms of additional forces for doing so...)

Pointless.

Ian

Suppose Israel and the UK were geographically situation similarly to Israel and Egypt or Germany and Poland; meaning right next to each other. Who would win an all out shooting war, with each country trying to force the unconditional surrender of the other, even if it means annihilation?

HOWEVER, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO NAVY, NO HELP FROM ALLIES.

I think Israel wins due to recent fighting experience, the ability to mobilize many more fighting quality personnel (again experience and compulsory service) and the fact that the country has been on a quasi war footing since its inception...

Quote Reply

free_man 12 Not really 7/23/2009 3:54:21 PM

I don't think any war that involves the use of nuclear weapons, by both sides, has a winner.

I also believe that both Israel and the UK armed forces are not built around force projection, but more about defense against aggression. I would like to see who would prevail if the both had to project to an adjacent country. I understand that each country tailors their armed forces to their particular geographical needs, but tank vs tank and man vs man, which country would prevail?

I could pose a similar thread with the UK vs France, including the use of the Navy, but the French are a bunch of pansies and they would surrender before the first shot is fired...

Quote Reply

free_man 12 Not really 7/23/2009 4:26:01 PM

I don't think any war that involves the use of nuclear weapons, by both sides, has a winner.

I could pose a similar thread with the UK vs France, including the use of the Navy, but the French are a bunch of pansies and they would surrender before the first shot is fired...

Quote Reply