Why does everyone keep forgetting poor old Henry Tudor? He invaded England in 1485 and conquered it then.
Poll: Can England be invaded
- Thread starter Blitzkrieg8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
England is actually really easy to invadeBlitzkrieg8 said:
but if you do then you screw up EVERYTHING in all the other countries
come to think of it i would love to invade england but the whole "Only country thats gives you the playing it safe chance" makes me wanna not do it
Alright, I suppose most everyone on here is ignoring the thought of softening targets on the coast before actually invading. Why wouldn't it be possible to utilize the strategy that Allied Forces used on the Pacific islands in World War II? Bomb the living hell out of the targets, making them more vulnerable, THEN invading. England, strategically, would be more difficult to invade because a good part of the coast is cliffs. This was not the case with the Pacific islands, so English forces would be able to concentrate their own defenses onto the bottlenecks.
The statement your brother made about "If the entire world formed a coalition" is complete nonsense. It wouldn't even take half of the world. All you would need is, and I mean individually, the United States, China, and maybe still Russia. Otherwise, yes, I believe joint coalitions would be required.
I just don't understand why England seems to unbeatable. It isn't even that heavily fortified. True, they are fairly advanced technilogically, but that is about it. They don't have the space for that sizable of an army.
The biggest difficulty would be that, even once you did get on land, if British citizens adopted the "to the last man" strategy that the Russians did when Germany invaded the Motherland in WWII. House-by-house guerrilla warfare would be devastating to any invading force's numbers.
The statement your brother made about "If the entire world formed a coalition" is complete nonsense. It wouldn't even take half of the world. All you would need is, and I mean individually, the United States, China, and maybe still Russia. Otherwise, yes, I believe joint coalitions would be required.
I just don't understand why England seems to unbeatable. It isn't even that heavily fortified. True, they are fairly advanced technilogically, but that is about it. They don't have the space for that sizable of an army.
The biggest difficulty would be that, even once you did get on land, if British citizens adopted the "to the last man" strategy that the Russians did when Germany invaded the Motherland in WWII. House-by-house guerrilla warfare would be devastating to any invading force's numbers.
Holy hell.. I didn't even think of that. I guess you could do that to just about any nation.. except for the Amish nation that doesn't even exist. Seriously, those buggers are scarily independent.manaman said:
This is a stupid question. Of course England could be invaded. America could beat us easily. They've got a far larger navy, larger airforce, and better technology.
As for European powers, I think any war would be much more close cut, but if it was 'England vs. the rest of Europe', then we'd most certainly lose.
As for European powers, I think any war would be much more close cut, but if it was 'England vs. the rest of Europe', then we'd most certainly lose.
Of course you could invade England you`d just fail miserably due to our considerable military might and perhaps more importantly our high profile allies
EDIT:If however against this world coalition england would stand no chance hell against a superpower like china or the usa or russia we wouldn`t stand a chance either
EDIT:If however against this world coalition england would stand no chance hell against a superpower like china or the usa or russia we wouldn`t stand a chance either
Ermm... They found some pretty gnarly dudes up north and actually built a wall to keep themselves from being invaded (re: Hadrians wall)oliveira8 said:
Speaking of which, if we scots could get out of the bar long enough to actually co-ordinate an attack England wouldn't stand a chance.
If I remember correctly, the thinking behind it was that he would have conquered Russia before winter. He did not realize, however, exactly how damn stubborn the Ruskies can be. The other reason that the Russian winter did so much damage was because he ordered his troops to leave their winter gear on the continued assumption that Russian would be conquered before that extra clothing would be needed. It's all just misplaced confidence. Germany's invasion of Russia was the equivalent of the Allie's Operation Market Garden.berethond said:
The comment was really just my way of saying 'yes, of course we can' but ok, thanks for the info xDBigsmith said:
It could be possible, but there would be no point. Why would you waste so much time and effort disposing of England when they're are bigger, so much more dangerous fish to fry?
[GRAMMAR ATTACK!]You spelled invulnerable wrong by the way.[/GRAMMAR ATTACK!]
[GRAMMAR ATTACK!]You spelled invulnerable wrong by the way.[/GRAMMAR ATTACK!]
Exactly it wasnt worthy to fight the Celts up north, cause it would be to expensive for the Romans to fight more barbarians for a piece of land that didn't had anything worth.Sgt. Dante said:
Why bother to fight more Barbarians in an island in the middle of nowhere that didn't hold anything valueable, while there was North Africa, Persia and the rest of Asia Minor filled with riches.
