France vs Germany

[Kreiger815]

True, though I would credit the Russians with a little force projection due to the proximity of most regions relevant to their own defense to their own borders. Also, I'd say Britain has a good bit of force projection beyond what you would expect. Air force aside, a country's navy remains the true indicator of their strength and force projection. And carriers are the heart and soul of the modern navy, though submarines are increasingly important.

Well the issue was the choice of words "worldwide force projection". Russia can in their own region, but could not act on something in South America.

Britain does in fact have some worldwide capabilities, as does France to an extent, but that is usually only on the multi-national level.

[Ruges]

To get off topic here, but while talking about worldwide force projection. Dont forget about Iran holding joint navl manuvers with Venezualia in Gulf of Mexico.

[Kreiger815]

There's a difference between sending a couple of ships out into "Allied" waters than being able to use that force for anything.

I highly doubt a few Iranian Destroyers would be able to last long anywhere away from the Gulf in a combat situation.

[Lightbringer]

I highly doubt a few Iranian Destroyers would be able to last long anywhere away from the Gulf in a combat situation.

I don't mean this to sound like American Jingoism, but really, Russia, Britain, and France could sail their entire joint fleet into the Gulf of Mexico, start a war, and within days at most they would be completely gone. I bring America into this because the joint naval exercises that were mentioned in the Gulf of Mexico by two of the United States' most vocal detractors. Bringing ships within range of the U.S. land based air forces would be suicidal at best in a "hot" situation.

As Kreiger rightly points out, a couple of tin cans (even modern ones) hardly amounts to "force projection". Most third world countries would swat them away without much effort. Hell, a lot of street gangs in the U.S. could deal with them.

-Light

[fool]

Are you talking about those drug lords with submarines?

[Gonzar]

I voted for Germany.

For me there is an aspect that is quite important when deciding such "what if". From the roman time to the 19th Century, more or less until Germany got unified, germans had been "The" mercenaries in Europe. They fought in almost all armies and were seen always as elite troops. The only others that had similar reputation were the swiss, if i remember correctly. In almost 2000 years the germans have proof that they understand how to do warfare with success. In spanish even almost all warfare words have germanic roots, despite been a latin language.

In case of a (pretty unprobably nowadays) war between France and Germany, germans would win without much difficulties. Not because of superior equipment, but because of superior warfare capacity.

If you would ask me however who would win in a war between UK and Germany, then i suspect british would prevail, but it wouldn't be an easy campaign for neither of both.

Just my opinion of course .

[The Khan]

I don't want to vote though. We know nothing of modern warfare between two nato equivalent forces.

Since WW2, ALL warfare has been asymmetric.

Two equally big and industrious powers would be devastated. Perhaps one would win without effort, as you see, modern weapon guidance systems, missile evasions, guided bombs, and their countermeasures, and the countermeasures of said countermeasures, and so on, make warfare mostly a matter of extreme speed and luck.

[fool]

Two equally big and industrious powers

Germany is a bit bigger, though. Which is why I voted for them. And German small arms kick ass. If France is allowed nukes (which I assumed they wouldn't, because that's just unfair) then France would get my vote.