UK vs France who wins and why?

[Razor Ramon]

Napoleonic France > The UK.

but in general? the UK.

How was Napoleonic France > than U.K when they actually fought against each other repeatedly during that war and the British won virtually every battle, and the war, then the sequel to the war as well?

[rorymac]

I've lived in France for 4 months and I didn't find French women that attractive.

To each his own I guess

I'm guessing you weren't in Nantes

[Drunken Cat]

you need air superiority to launch an opposed amphibious landing.

after battle of britain, an invasion was impossible.

german fighters because of their range was at a disadvantage over britain.

germans needed a p47 thunderbolt or p51 mustang type long range fighter.

as far as bombing britain, germany didn't develop heavy bombers. no flying fortresses, liberators, short stirlings, lancasters, etc.

it comes from luftwaffe bomber tactics in supporting blitzkrieg instead of strategic bombing.

besides air power has always been overrated. you can't win a war with just bombing (unless nukes)

that's why before the atom bomb, usa was preparing for invasion of japan even though they've been pounding japan.

Yeah, I agree with this.

D-Day is another relevant episode, as is the proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Air superiority as a precursor to a ground invasion from the sea.

[Sparked_26]

How was Napoleonic France > than U.K when they actually fought against each other repeatedly during that war and the British won virtually every battle, and the war, then the sequel to the war as well?

I know that one had me scratching my head.

I like Napoleon but he really is a historical hype job. He had a lot of embarrassing defeats and actually deserted his army more than once.

People love a good story of social mobility having tenuous links to Italian Nobility the little **** tried to take over the world.

[squealpiggy]

I know that one had me scratching my head.

I like Napoleon but he really is a historical hype job. He had a lot of embarrassing defeats and actually deserted his army more than once.

People love a good story of social mobility having tenuous links to Italian Nobility the little **** tried to take over the world.

His Grande Armee was indefatigable on the mainland. Napoleon was a good strategist and could motivate his soldiers like no other. Unfortunately once he was out of his comfort zone he didn't know how to react which is why his biggest defeats came in Russia, in the mountains of Spain and on sea. He could fight in one way and for most of his leadership was never put into the position where he had to be innovative with his tactics.

[Sparked_26]

His Grande Armee was indefatigable on the mainland. Napoleon was a good strategist and could motivate his soldiers like no other. Unfortunately once he was out of his comfort zone he didn't know how to react which is why his biggest defeats came in Russia, in the mountains of Spain and on sea. He could fight in one way and for most of his leadership was never put into the position where he had to be innovative with his tactics.

I am interested in all this stuff I should really read another book on Napoleon instead of snatches here and there. God knows there are enough of them out there!

From what I've read his key skill was that he was good with numbers and logistics and is a result he could huge numbers of men from one spot to another in good time. He could factor in what his army would need down to the last barrel of water. But I also read that he ran through horses no other to the point where it became a real issue and the French had old nags.

He had the whole cult of personality thing going on. Like that Wellington quote about his presence in the field being worth 40,000 men. That must have also helped him be less accountable to the losses the French incurred because they all ****** his tiny balls.

[Left Hook Tua]

His Grande Armee was indefatigable on the mainland. Napoleon was a good strategist and could motivate his soldiers like no other. Unfortunately once he was out of his comfort zone he didn't know how to react which is why his biggest defeats came in Russia, in the mountains of Spain and on sea. He could fight in one way and for most of his leadership was never put into the position where he had to be innovative with his tactics.

he was very innovative when he was young. when he got older less so. less maneuvering and more head on.

can't blame him for russia. he defeated the russian military, it was in retreat that he suffered most his casualties, which is normal.

spain was guerrila war. 200 yrs later, there is still no easy way to win one.

[Welsh Jon]

If Andre the Giant was still alive France would have a chance

[El Malo.]

The French would smack the sht out of the Brits with their baguettes then turn around and run away while throwing their croissants. French ko1

[F l i c k e r]

even without intervention the germans couldn't conquer britain in ww2. battle of britain was BEFORE US/USSR iirc.

They were very close.

No intervention. No two front war.

Germany likely develop successfully the modern jet, ICBM, and nuclear warheads in a reasonable amount of time. I mean, they successfully tested a dirty bomb and that was with both the USA coming into play and the eastern front.

That technology alone would ruin England don't you think? No jab at England, I'm just saying Germany was way ahead of it's time when it came to tech.