NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a good article on the assesments of UK's military strength and ability. I have personally met alot of British troops and would pick up a rifle with them any day. So heres the article. Comment as you will.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htworld.htm

Interesting article my friend. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

It is pretty well documented that the British troops are the best in the world,
and that despite smaller numbers than some countries, and less equipment than places like the US, are still outperforming.

It is possibly the way for the future of many world armies.

Smaller numbers but better trained.

Interesting article my friend. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Ditto, coupled with the recent review of the fleet that took place yesterday, and to which I went, in the south of England it restores a certain amount of pride methinks! :)

Ditto, coupled with the recent review of the fleet that took place yesterday in the south of England it restores a certain amount of pride methinks! :)

Yea! Even the USS Saipan was there too. Thirt-five nations if my local paper is right were there to participate in the re-enactment of the Battle of Tralfagar.

Yea! Even the USS Saipan was there too. Thirt-five nations if my local paper is right were there to participate in the re-enactment of the Battle of Tralfagar.

Yeah, but I was really disappointed by the re-enactment. Too much fancy lighting and not enough ships from where I was sitting. Still I got to see all the warships as I walked down the coast! I guess you were there too?

'NOTHER EDIT: Sorry got confused when you said 'local paper' and then saw your location!

I think the uk is a world power but it is embarrassing to have a govenment that wants its forces to police the world and yet spend hardly any money on them. As to the fleet review it was a sham and an insult to Nelson to have the battle reenactment as blues v reds. its political correctness gone mad!

Yeah, but I was really disappointed by the re-enactment. Too much fancy lighting and not enough ships from where I was sitting. Still I got to see all the warships as I walked down the coast! I guess you were there too?

'NOTHER EDIT: Sorry got confused when you said 'local paper' and then saw your location!

LOL! Its ok. I saw the ships on Cable News as well as the local paper. Quite an amazing site even though I wasn't there.

interesting. i live about 20 miles away from Portsmouth, where that fleet evaluation took place yesterday, and i've seen a fair few military ships pass through the solent (i live on a hill and can see down past the docks...)

Here is a good article on the assesments of UK's military strength and ability. I have personally met alot of British troops and would pick up a rifle with them any day. So heres the article. Comment as you will.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htworld.htm

One slight dent in the article...it only mentions the good stuff, not the bad stuff. The troops are exceedingly well trained, among the very best in the world...the equipment? Not so much.

You know the ships of the Royal navy have a small problem right? Anti-ship missles burn at a higher temprature than their hulls can withstand. That means that if even one missile hits the ship...the ship is lost, possibly before most personel can get off the ship.

Found out that little bugger the hard way back in the Falklands war. They had helicopters running CAP with one mission, hit any missile incoming with the Helicopter, to save the ship that it was targeting. Simple math; 2 men in the chopper, a heluva lot more on the ship. Come to think of it, they were in serious danger of losing a Prince to that operation, considering he was a helicopter pilot.

So yeah, its not a bad military power on paper. But like so much paper...it can burn easily. Little nuggets of info like that are IMPORTANT.

yes I agree about the points its not saying. But to much is spent on negatives arent they? Anyway I dont remember but were the British ships in Falklands war equiped with phalanx missle defense system?

Also another side note to what missle was used against the British fleet in Falklands. You guessed it! a early version of the French made exocet. Little bastards knew that Argentina was going to start a war and sold them anyway.

Also another side note to what missle was used against the British fleet in Falklands. You guessed it! a early version of the French made exocet. Little bastards knew that Argentina was going to start a war and sold them anyway.LOL, Crying about the Argies having a couple of exocets?

You prefer to go to war with countries who are almost unarmed???
or armend with old weapons??

don't cry for me Argentina.

Good thread. Though I'm American, I've always been proud of the British armed forces. They've been good friends and allies (except for that unpleasantness with the colonies). High-quality force.

We remain, though, the only nation that can project force anywhere in the world, day or night, and maintain it. By no means does this diminish the Brits, just a matter of scale.

LOL, Cryng about the Argies having a couple of exocets?

You prefer to go to war with countries who are almost unarmed???
or armend with old weapons??

r u Amerikan by chance?

dont cry for me Argentina.


Always someone wanting to lay a turd in every thread. Congrats!

dl

yes I agree about the points its not saying. But to much is spent on negatives arent they? Anyway I dont remember but were the British ships in Falklands war equiped with phalanx missle defense system?

Also another side note to what missle was used against the British fleet in Falklands. You guessed it! a early version of the French made exocet. Little bastards knew that Argentina was going to start a war and sold them anyway.

Hmm, well...yeah. No problem feeling good about the quality of the troops. As everyone has been saying, British troops are some of the best. Good training is something to be proud of. :)

No, I don't think most of the ships were equipped with that...I could be wrong though. Yeah, the Exocets were recently shipped to Argentina, and yes, the French have a tendancy to be bastards ;)

But still, don't play with fire unless you know the risks. The British knew about the Exocets too, but they went in anyway, they did that math and came out with the right answer, but what a morbid calculation to make.

The problem hasn't been fully fixed yet, because ships are EXPENSIVE, so lets hope that there are no British ship-to-ship actions for a long while, eh?

Always someone wanting to lay a turd in every thread. Congrats!
You are not contesting any of my view-points.

The thing i will respond to is that France and the UK are supposed allies. As are the US and France. The French knowing that Argentina was going to make a move on UK held territory sold advanced weapons for the time to said enemy. That has to be one of the lowest things a so called "Ally" can do. That is my point in my previous post. Other than that your turd still stinks.

The thing i will respond to is that France and the UK are supposed allies. As are the US and France. ...as are Argentina and the US.

LOL, Crying about the Argies having a couple of exocets?

You prefer to go to war with countries who are almost unarmed???
or armend with old weapons??

r u Amerikan by chance?

don't cry for me Argentina.

Well, it has long been the noble British method of war to fight against barely equipped native peoples. Thus the imperial conquests, with all their brutal swiftness, were very effective as the natives they invaded were frequently armed with spears, knives, and Bows and Arrows, not rifles and cannon.

Reminds me of a old Blackadder the Fourth routine...

And when did you get deleted? Was it for silly stunts like this one, or something else?

And when did you get deleted? Was it for silly stunts like this one, or something else?I dont know why I was deleted...I never got a warning.
do they send you an Email to explain?

as for the "Amerikan" comment...you are rigth...we do not have the monopoly...and we didnt invent it.

so I retract that part of my post.

as are Argentina and the US.


The US sold them some old diesel subs and outdated equip. The US immediately gave the UK intelligence help in that conflict. Which included active satelite intel along with what kind of equipment Argentina had. The equip in question was sold long before it looked as if Argentina was going to take a jab at the Falklands. French sales however were right before the conflict. When it was known that Argentina was making rumblings of a conflict.

One slight dent in the article...it only mentions the good stuff, not the bad stuff. The troops are exceedingly well trained, among the very best in the world...the equipment? Not so much.

You know the ships of the Royal navy have a small problem right? Anti-ship missles burn at a higher temprature than their hulls can withstand. That means that if even one missile hits the ship...the ship is lost, possibly before most personel can get off the ship.

Found out that little bugger the hard way back in the Falklands war. They had helicopters running CAP with one mission, hit any missile incoming with the Helicopter, to save the ship that it was targeting. Simple math; 2 men in the chopper, a heluva lot more on the ship. Come to think of it, they were in serious danger of losing a Prince to that operation, considering he was a helicopter pilot.

So yeah, its not a bad military power on paper. But like so much paper...it can burn easily. Little nuggets of info like that are IMPORTANT.

Do you know if they are eliminating the aluminum-magnesium alloy hulls on the new destroyers? The Falklands demonstrated the problem of fire after missile strike. Can't remember which destroyer was hit.

But they got the Belgrano. Funny, I don't hear much about that - it was a significant loss for the Argentine's.

Good thread. Though I'm American, I've always been proud of the British armed forces. They've been good friends and allies (except for that unpleasantness with the colonies). High-quality force.

We remain, though, the only nation that can project force anywhere in the world, day or night, and maintain it. By no means does this diminish the Brits, just a matter of scale.

Beg to differ my friend, however, the Brits have the very same rapid deployment capability that we have and can sustain it indefinately by the same methods.

The US sold them some old diesel subs and outdated equip. The US immediately gave the UK intelligence help in that conflict. Which included active satelite intel along with what kind of equipment Argentina had.I would apreciate a link about that US help.

Liverbreath']Beg to differ my friend, however, the Brits have the very same rapid deployment capability that we have and can sustain it indefinately by the same methods.

Sorry, not sure where you disagree? Yes, the Brits have similar capabilities to ours, but I guess Im talking about the scale. We can put a lot more out there - and I presume for longer. Resupply capabilities are greater, we can sustain more forces.

Our forces are designed for a brawl with a superpower (now largely defunct), and I suspect that our Navy has achieved command of the seas.

LB, I've been reading "The Pentagon's New Map", Thomas Barnett.

I'm basing my comments above on that source, though I believe there's plenty of other evidence for what I say regarding US forces.

LB, I've been reading "The Pentagon's New Map", Thomas Barnett.

I'm basing my comments above on that source, though I believe there's plenty of other evidence for what I say regarding US forces.

the book "How to Make War" James Dunnigan 2004 edition, refers to that help, as does his book "The Perfect Soldier"

Also the book "The War in the Falklands" 1985 publishing date, refers to that and other assistance, including help from US tankers, and the US taking over Royal Navy missions for the duration of the conflict

Do you know if they are eliminating the aluminum-magnesium alloy hulls on the new destroyers? The Falklands demonstrated the problem of fire after missile strike. Can't remember which destroyer was hit.

But they got the Belgrano. Funny, I don't hear much about that - it was a significant loss for the Argentine's.

Hm...You know, I don't know that. I'm not sure at all. Something to look into. Anyone else have an idea?

Sorry, not sure where you disagree? Yes, the Brits have similar capabilities to ours, but I guess Im talking about the scale. We can put a lot more out there - and I presume for longer. Resupply capabilities are greater, we can sustain more forces.

Our forces are designed for a brawl with a superpower (now largely defunct), and I suspect that our Navy has achieved command of the seas.

I am referring to rapid deployment forces (projecting force anywhere on earth, at anytime, day or night within 18 hours) with the capability to sustain itself indefinately. (without outside support)
The 82nd ABN and the British ABN are the only two forces on the face of the earth that can do this. Granted the reason one would want to for an extended period of time is beyond me. There is much that goes into supporting such operations an no other forces are designed to provide all the support necessary. It would be mind boggling expensive. As far as scale I really dont know how big the British airborne forces are now, but I believe they are similar to ours.

Hm...You know, I don't know that. I'm not sure at all. Something to look into. Anyone else have an idea?

that experience, plus the hit on the USS Stark during the Iran Iraq War, was a principal reason to revamp designs

I would apreciate a link about that US help.


Well that link was from actually living during that time and watching the news. Later it came out in Reagan documents. If I have time I will check the net.

that experience, plus the hit on the USS Stark during the Iran Iraq War, was a principal reason to revamp designs

Yeah, 'course. But what's the status on the Revamping? How many ships have been armed with anti-missle screens or phased out of service because of the problem, what's the status of the various fleets?

That's a bit too complex for me to bother going into, I'm lazy ;)

Well that link was from actually living during that time and watching the news. Later it came out in Reagan documents. If I have time I will check the net.BTW

I do think you are 100% rigth...

Yeah, 'course. But what's the status on the Revamping? How many ships have been armed with anti-missle screens or phased out of service because of the problem, what's the status of the various fleets?

That's a bit too complex for me to bother going into, I'm lazy ;)

Actually they are in the testing phase of Fiber-Reinforced-Polymer (FRP) Composites for use in larger ships. It is already in use with certain others including stealth and shallow water combat vessels.

If our government would fund our boys properly, I reckon the only force on Earth who'd be able to beat us down would be the US - and even they would NOT have an easy time of it. As it is, we've got some the best-trained men and women on the planet in our services, a match for any other force, but we have to go begging from the Americans for basic supplies. Even so, anyone who messes around is still in a whole heap of trouble, especially as we have strong, good, and reliable allies in both Commonwealth nations and the USA, and we're a hell of a force to be reckoned with. One of the few places I still have true pride in this nation.

Just wish I could join, but it seems a couple of physical conditions rule me out for pretty much every job, nevermind those I'd care to do.

If our government would fund our boys properly, I reckon the only force on Earth who'd be able to beat us down would be the US - and even they would NOT have an easy time of it. As it is, we've got some the best-trained men and women on the planet in our services, a match for any other force, but we have to go begging from the Americans for basic supplies. Even so, anyone who messes around is still in a whole heap of trouble, especially as we have strong, good, and reliable allies in both Commonwealth nations and the USA, and we're a hell of a force to be reckoned with. One of the few places I still have true pride in this nation.

Just wish I could join, but it seems a couple of physical conditions rule me out for pretty much every job, nevermind those I'd care to do.

I have trained with Brits many many times and I am here to tell you now, there has never to my knowledge been the time they have ever begged for anything. As far as military's go (at fort bragg) they knew the supply system just like we did and we both used the same one. The only difference was their uniforms and silly accents. ... and tea! It was so hard to get them properly hooked on coffee.

...
But still, don't play with fire unless you know the risks. The British knew about the Exocets too, but they went in anyway, they did that math and came out with the right answer, but what a morbid calculation to make.

The problem hasn't been fully fixed yet, because ships are EXPENSIVE, so lets hope that there are no British ship-to-ship actions for a long while, eh?also at that point in time we didn't know the exocets were so good...the French were claiming that...but every arms dealer says that about their weapons.

exocets sales exploded after the war.

morbid calculations? I would not have been too worried about the exocets...
I would been a bit more worried about the Subs...

yes the Argentinean Subs were old, noisy and in bad shape...
yes there is a Gulf of technology between the UK and Argentina.

but I do know that tracking submarines can be an expensive gamble.

Liverbreath']I have trained with Brits many many times and I am here to tell you now, there has never to my knowledge been the time they have ever begged for anything. As far as military's go (at fort bragg) they knew the supply system just like we did and we both used the same one. The only difference was their uniforms and silly accents. ... and tea! It was so hard to get them properly hooked on coffee.

lol true, us Brits love our tea (I prefer sodas myself, but I'm still young enough to get away with that xD).

Anyways, fair enough, I'm sure most groups of our soldiers have never had to ask for anything, but there was a spate of reporting at the start of the Iraq war where troops were writing home to ask parents or spouses to purchase and send supplies, and we had to garner boots and some equipment from the US forces. Overblown, I'm sure, but nonetheless somethign to be concerned about. No matter your objectives or enemy, you send your armed forces in with the best you can get them. They're putting their lives on the line, it's the least they deserve.

also at that point in time we didn't know the exocets were so good...the French were claiming that...but every arms dealer says that about their weapons.

exocets sales exploded after the war.

morbid calculations? I would not have been too worried about the exocets...
I would been a bit more worried about the Subs...

yes the Argentinean Subs were old, noisy and in bad shape...
yes there is a Gulf of technology between the UK and Argentina.

but I do know that tracking submarines can be an expensive gamble.

You forget one thing, the Torpedoes that said subs were firing burned at a far lower temp than the Exocets...So if a boat gets hit by a sub, its hurt...if a boat gets hit by a missle, the boat and most of the people in it are on fire.

Thats the calculation; hit by a torp<Exocet. The subs were a far lesser threat to the British fleet due to simple killing power.

And history bore that calculation out. If the Argentinains had used their airforce more aggressively, thousands of British sailors and soldiers on those ships would have died. The restraint of the Argentinian air force was a blessing for those on the fleet, had they been less so...the war would have turned from a quick and realitively painless war into a bloodbath. The war would have escalated beyond all reason.

Although when they start listing what 'type' everything is, I still found it mildly interesting. No mention of the foriegn legion in the french section though.

You forget one thing, the Torpedoes that said subs were firing burned at a far lower temp than the Exocets...So if a boat gets hit by a sub, its hurt...if a boat gets hit by a missle, the boat and most of the people in it are on fire. hmmm...

the subs are kinda useless?

the main problem the Argies had was that they had 1940s and 50s era hulls, limited amounts of 1960s and 1970s electronics to go with those hulls. So the modified Guppy class SSKs were all former US or British boats, and by that time the USN and RN were routinely shadowing state of the art Russian SSKs and SSNs....

so committing the Argie fleet to battle would have simply been an eleborate way for it to commit suicide. The torpedoeing of the General Belgrano, a former 1930s era US light cruiser, made that point very plain to them and they stayed home. Only the aviation branch of the Argie navy went into battle and they took pretty serious losses alongside their Argie Air Force mates.

The Argies had only about a dozen Exocets the whole war, and they did very well, sinking a RN destroyer and a large container ship that happened to carry most of the British helicopter fleet. But they actually did more damage and sank more ships with plain old iron bombs dropped at close range by extremely brave pilots.

hmmm...

the subs are kinda useless?

If you want the sub to anihillate a ship with all hands in 1 shot...yeah, those subs weren't capable of that. But they had/have their uses. Even an old sub can be used as a screen for your larger ships, target troop ships and smaller support vessels, make diversionary movements to distract the fleet. You'd have to be smart about it, because the sub was noisy and its killing power was low.

And yeah, they could hurt a large ship, and if they got lucky or had enough time for multiple shots they could sink it. But the really scary part was the Exocet would kill a ship before the crew could abandon it; and it seems that at least SOMEONE in the Agentine air force thought that was unnacceptable for some reason.

And that's what I brought up to begin with. No matter how well trained your troops are, if your equipment is such that you'd die before you had a chance to use your training; you're in trouble. And that was the British fleet in the Falklands war; it was the restraint of the Argentinian air force that prevented that war from being a tragedy.

And yes, to any that are wondering, the US had a bunch of ships that were built using that material as well...now mostly in the coast guard I understand, where it matters less. The reason they used such materials in the first place was because it was light and cheap, and allowed the vessels to achieve higher speeds than with older construction techniques.

hmmm...

the subs are kinda useless?

Never count out an enemy submarine force. The Japanese did and see what happened to them?

And yeah, they could hurt a large ship, and if they got lucky or had enough time for multiple shots they could sink it. But the really scary part was the Exocet would kill a ship before the crew could abandon it; and it seems that at least SOMEONE in the Agentine air force thought that was unnacceptable for some reason.

And that's what I brought up to begin with. No matter how well trained your troops are, if your equipment is such that you'd die before you had a chance to use your training; you're in trouble. And that was the British fleet in the Falklands war; it was the restraint of the Argentinian air force that prevented that war from being a tragedy.

there is little evidence the Argie Air Force showed the restraint you are referring too.... a large number of the bombs that hit the RN ships were duds, they fired off everyone of their few Exocets, and couldn't get anymore, hence the carefullness of their targetting.

The classic book on the subject can be found here....


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0393301982/thevanishedgalle/103-3220689-0255849

an excellent read, and extremely thorough

this one is also good

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D002536300X/thevanishedgalle/103-3220689-0255849

also excellent is the book War at Sea

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:War%20at%20Sea:1977949562:isbn=0831767863?used=1

Anyways... Its a good article. Later on, it said some good things about france(And by good, I mean non-biased observations), and while I dont agree that Britain on a whole is better than France in the field, I respect his opinions on the subject.

The British Army has always been an excellent, superbly-trained, and well-equipped force. But again it today has much the same problem as in 1914, it has an exceptional force that can likely defeat any unit of comparible size beyond the United States military (even that would be a close-run toss up). However its simply too small, where the British can send a brigade the United States can deploy a division, however, Britain can fight an independent war or be an effective partner when working with the United States as the two forces are essentially at the same level of skill and equipment. I suppose the doctrine during the Cold War would involve a British brigade beside a US army Division giving the Soviets a very bloody nose... if the British ever had to form a mass army again, the same idea would probably hold true...considering the UK is a nation of 60 million people, it cannot be expected to match the United States a nation of 290 million people in force numbers, but it can be a strong ally and probably the most capable Nato ally, as well as being able to deploy worldwide, even if in smaller numbers.

Never count out an enemy submarine force. The Japanese did and see what happened to them?
so what happened?

The thing i will respond to is that France and the UK are supposed allies. As are the US and France. The French knowing that Argentina was going to make a move on UK held territory sold advanced weapons for the time to said enemy.
...
France acted just like the United Kingdom did. Two British Type 42 destroyers were sold to Argentina... erm... in 1976 and in 1981, IIRC.

so what happened?

US submarines sank nearly 70% of the Japanese merchant fleet during World War II, including nearly all of their tankers, as well as a battleship, several carriers, several cruisers and numerous other warships

The US Submarine fleet made up only 3% of the US Navy and suffered the highest casualty rate of any branch of the military during World War II (52 submarines were lost)

The US submarine warfare campaign, and the German campaigns (in 2 wars) are why NATO spent so much money, resources, time and energy on antisubmarine warfare during the Cold War.

The British did almost as well in the Med against the Italian merchant fleet as well by the way

You forget one thing, the Torpedoes that said subs were firing burned at a far lower temp than the Exocets...So if a boat gets hit by a sub, its hurt...if a boat gets hit by a missle, the boat and most of the people in it are on fire.
The subs were a far lesser threat to the British fleet due to simple killing power.US submarines sank nearly 70% of the Japanese merchant fleet during World War II, including nearly all of their tankers, as well as a battleship, several carriers, several cruisers and numerous other warships.
one of you got it right...only one.

either the Subs are weak..."lesser threats"...

or...they are very efficient killing machines (3% of our fleet killed 70% of the japanese merchant fleet !!)

one of you got it right...only one.

either the Subs are weak..."lesser threats"...

or...they are very efficient killing machines (3% of our fleet killed 70% of the japanese fleet !!)

Your the one wrong when you said subs are weak.

Submarines are very efficient. Why? They are silent. Sub tech is so advanced these days that I can probably use a sub, sneak up on a unsuspecting ship and blow it up. Never count out a submarine. They can paralize nations.

Your the one wrong when you said subs are weak.

Submarines are very efficient. Why? They are silent. Sub tech is so advanced these days that I can probably use a sub, sneak up on a unsuspecting ship and blow it up. Never count out a submarine. They can paralize nations.read the posts...If you read them all you will see that my subtle message is:

"Cornelio is rigth, Niccolo is wrong"

Incidently, the British SSN that sank the General Belgrano used a single wireguided torpedo. The old light cruiser went down very quickly in the icy waters of the south Atlantic, hence the very high death toll as many of the survivors died of hypothermia.

It basically proved what most navies already knew.. that the submarine is the primary ship killer of the 20th Century. However, RN helicopters wrecked a Argie submarine (the Santa Fe) proving once again that aircraft are the primary submarine killers of the 20th century.

The Argies had old boats (the Santa Fe had seen service in the US Navy, the Venezuelean Navy and finally the Argentinian Navy, it also was featured in a movie once called Murphys War), and they were relatively slow compared to the British SSNs, had older electronics systems, and would have been helpless against the extremely well trained and experienced RN ASW helicopter crews and Destroyer/Frigate crews who routinely operated in the North Atlantic shadowing an extremely well equipped and decently trained Soviet submarine fleet.

Basically a pro team took on a semi pro team and won. The impressive element of the Argie side was the bravery of their pilots who in spite of severe losses managed to inflict substantial damage to the RN.

Liverbreath']I am referring to rapid deployment forces (projecting force anywhere on earth, at anytime, day or night within 18 hours) with the capability to sustain itself indefinately. (without outside support)
The 82nd ABN and the British ABN are the only two forces on the face of the earth that can do this. Granted the reason one would want to for an extended period of time is beyond me. There is much that goes into supporting such operations an no other forces are designed to provide all the support necessary. It would be mind boggling expensive. As far as scale I really dont know how big the British airborne forces are now, but I believe they are similar to ours.

Oh, ok. I was speaking more of the big picture, carrier airpower, rapid deployment, Marines, long-range bombers - combined forces. And the larger combined forces that we can bring to bear later if necessary. We have an advantage over other nations here - just the naval air power alone sets us apart.

I'm saying we have a greater ability to project force than other nation, and key to this is control of the seas to protect and re-supply it, under attack if need be. That advantage is clearly ours.

I didn't intend to say that we were the only nation that can project force , just that it's a matter of scale regarding how significant that force can be. You are correct regarding the rapid deployment forces only.

one of you got it right...only one.

either the Subs are weak..."lesser threats"...

or...they are very efficient killing machines (3% of our fleet killed 70% of the japanese merchant fleet !!)

**laughs**

c'mon man, think about this one really hard. How old were those subs in the Falklands war? How old were they in WW2? What was the tech level of the British fleet compared to the Japanese fleet? Who had the better part of half a century to learn how to find subs?

It kinda stands to reason that a weapon that is devestating in one war could be kinda old, outdated, and no longer quite as stealthy in the next. I would not be one to ride an old WW1 tank into a WW2-era Panzer formation, or even a group of Shermans.

We're also talking about a very different ship too! Warships can take a bit more punishment than a Tanker. Tankers are also less likely to blow the crap out of a Sub if they CAN find them.

Sheesh.

**laughs**

c'mon man, think about this one really hard. How old were those subs in the Falklands war? How old were they in WW2? What was the tech level of the British fleet compared to the Japanese fleet? Who had the better part of half a century to learn how to find subs?

It kinda stands to reason that a weapon that is devestating in one war could be kinda old, outdated, and no longer quite as stealthy in the next. I would not be one to ride an old WW1 tank into a WW2-era Panzer formation, or even a group of Shermans..half a century....and did you learn how to find subs? (I m assuming you are brit...correct me if I am wrong)

half a century....and did you learn how to find subs? (I m assuming you are brit...correct me if I am wrong)

Did you learn how to defeat what can find subs?

Did you learn how to defeat what can find subs?no, but I did stay at the Holiday Express Inn last nite. :D :D :D :D

BTW your IQ is showing Corneliu...

no, but I did stay at the Holiday Express Inn last nite. :D :D :D :D

BTW your IQ is showing Corneliu...

Your IQ is showing more OD2! BTW: When did OD1 get banned?

BTW here is a pic of the symbol of the Falklands Wars Victory coming back home

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/29/HMS_Conqueror_%28S48%29.jpg/300px-HMS_Conqueror_%28S48%29.jpg

you can find it both at the English and Spanish wiki pages
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

with one old Torpedo he made up the minds of the Argie generals...game over Argentina.

When did OD1 get banned?2 or 3 days ago...im not sure...

half a century....and did you learn how to find subs? (I m assuming you are brit...correct me if I am wrong)

(Not a Brit, wrong side of the pond.)

Good thread. Though I'm American, I've always been proud of the British armed forces. They've been good friends and allies (except for that unpleasantness with the colonies).


Oh yes. The American Revolutionary War, what unpleasantness. Silly unpleasant upstarts and their demands. Crush them! Crush them I say!



We remain, though, the only nation that can project force anywhere in the world, day or night, and maintain it. By no means does this diminish the Brits, just a matter of scale.

The British did it before you. Accept they were not so hated. The reason why the British lost their projectionary power was paying the huge financial debt it owed to the US for equipment used in WW2, a debt which nearly bankrupted Britain, but made America rich.

Your 'friendship' in WW2 came at a price. Such friendships are not friendships, but merely a pimp making a profit out of the misfortune of others. Ever since WW2, the British have been made to feel they are indebted to you.

They were. Financially.


Nobody needs 'friends' like that.

State of it!? WTF!? tell the indians and black we massacerd we were less hated. The British Empire was a testimant to inhumanity, run by absoulitionist for themselves. And we collapsed because we got to greedy, to big for our own strenght and mainly because of liberation movement, because EVERYONE HATED US!

The British did it before you. Accept they were not so hated. The reason why the British lost their projectionary power was paying the huge financial debt it owed to the US for equipment used in WW2, a debt which nearly bankrupted Britain, but made America rich.

Your 'friendship' in WW2 came at a price. Such friendships are not friendships, but merely a pimp making a profit out of the misfortune of others. Ever since WW2, the British have been made to feel they are indebted to you.

They were. Financially.


Nobody needs 'friends' like that.

You cant be serious. The British were not as hated than the US? Hmmm let me check with some Indian nationals to see if thats true.

Currently the US is most hated by Muslim extremist. Also a large part of the leftist communities and other ignorant peoples. I can live with that myself.

The US bankrupting the UK of lend lease equipment that was written off? When has the British ever been felt indebted to the US. Now if you named France as that country then I can understand. But the British? Cmon now...

Lend lease was never written off - we're still paying it now, and will complete this year; source http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031014/text/31014w06.htm taken from Hansard, an official record of all parliamentray business.

It should be recognised however that without the aid given by the US in the first year of the war, we would have found things much more difficult due to shortages of material and equipment.

Lend lease was never written off - we're still paying it now, and will complete this year; source http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031014/text/31014w06.htm taken from Hansard, an official record of all parliamentray business.

It should be recognised however that without the aid given by the US in the first year of the war, we would have found things much more difficult due to shortages of material and equipment.

I stand corrected. But I know that a majority of that was written off and never paid for. I will have to look up some info. But am suprised that the UK is still paying for it today. But no doubt part of the US current debt is probably leftover from WWII also.

<snip>

Your 'friendship' in WW2 came at a price. Such friendships are not friendships, but merely a pimp making a profit out of the misfortune of others. Ever since WW2, the British have been made to feel they are indebted to you.

They were. Financially.


Nobody needs 'friends' like that.

Regarding lend-lease: anyone else in the world offer the Brits such aid? No, only their friends in the US. You'd have been up the creek without the ships and raw materials. Certainly there were terms of repayment which the Brits agreed to at the time. It is expected that nations repay their debt, though much of yours was written off.

We also came to your aid in WW2, albeit reluctantly - and the only price you had to pay was putting up with some arrogant Yanks for a bit. Saved you learning a new language.

Friendship? Yes, with conditions . But not pimping, either. Tell me your nation always conducted itself altruistically in foreign affairs.

I consider our nations friends, but suit yourself.

State of it!? WTF!? tell the indians and black we massacerd we were less hated. The British Empire was a testimant to inhumanity, run by absoulitionist for themselves. And we collapsed because we got to greedy, to big for our own strenght and mainly because of liberation movement, because EVERYONE HATED US!
Um in fact they did not. The British Empire did far more good than any other of the time, and abolished slavery while bringing numerous improvements to the lives of people all around the world. Including India. My family did not massacre anyone. Before you write making these ridiculous statements in future, remember that some of us are proud of the empire and proud of what it achieved.
And furthermore we returned colonies back to their inhabitants because that is what we believed was right. It collapsed for a number of reasons, the main one being that we had fought the second world war and were no longer capable of running it. We, unlike France, returned colonies peacefully. And this is something we should also be proud of.
Please keep your contempt for your nation's history to yourself.

Regarding lend-lease: anyone else in the world offer the Brits such aid? No, only their friends in the US. You'd have been up the creek without the ships and raw materials. Certainly there were terms of repayment which the Brits agreed to at the time. It is expected that nations repay their debt, though much of yours was written off.

We also came to your aid in WW2, albeit reluctantly - and the only price you had to pay was putting up with some arrogant Yanks for a bit. Saved you learning a new language.

Friendship? Yes, with conditions . But not pimping, either. Tell me your nation always conducted itself altruistically in foreign affairs.

I consider our nations friends, but suit yourself.

You are right. I too consider our nations to be friends. America has been a friend we have been regularly been able to depend upon. Whatever our views on recent events, this should not change that our nations are possibly the two greatest allies who have ever existed. The relationship is not perfect, but then what relationship is? America is our friend and we should continue to treat it as such.

Regarding lend-lease: anyone else in the world offer the Brits such aid? No, only their friends in the US. You'd have been up the creek without the ships and raw materials. Certainly there were terms of repayment which the Brits agreed to at the time. It is expected that nations repay their debt, though much of yours was written off.

We also came to your aid in WW2, albeit reluctantly - and the only price you had to pay was putting up with some arrogant Yanks for a bit. Saved you learning a new language.

Friendship? Yes, with conditions . But not pimping, either. Tell me your nation always conducted itself altruistically in foreign affairs.

I consider our nations friends, but suit yourself.
This is only a side-issue. More important is the question of when Germany starts paying reparations to the US/UK (France get none for being cowardly collaborators). They've got the 3rd biggest economy now and so can afford to pay reparations if the money is extracted slowly. That way we get our money back and there will be none of the 1918-34 problems. japan should also pay as they've got the world's second largest economy

State of it!? WTF!? tell the indians and black we massacerd we were less hated. The British Empire was a testimant to inhumanity, run by absoulitionist for themselves. And we collapsed because we got to greedy, to big for our own strenght and mainly because of liberation movement, because EVERYONE HATED US!
Get bent! It's people like you with your self-loathing (and probable left-wing leanings) that have ruined England. Go live in france, a country that will welcome people of your temperament.

The British did it before you. Accept they were not so hated. The reason why the British lost their projectionary power was paying the huge financial debt it owed to the US for equipment used in WW2, a debt which nearly bankrupted Britain, but made America rich.

Your 'friendship' in WW2 came at a price. Such friendships are not friendships, but merely a pimp making a profit out of the misfortune of others. Ever since WW2, the British have been made to feel they are indebted to you.

They were. Financially.

Nobody needs 'friends' like that.

Have you actually ever really studied European and American history or more importantly, World War II history (in this particular case)?

The US and UK have worked together as partners on a very real level since 1941 to the benefit of both. Not even including Lend Lease, which barely passed Congress by the way and was considered by Nazi Germany to be almost an act of war, US warships were escorting convoys to Iceland and the Mid Ocean Point in early 1941, before US entry into the war, and were sending position reports on Nazi submarines even before that date.

The US was also repairing damaged British warships by 1941 as well, and the Panama Canal was closed to Axis shipping well before US entry into the war but never to Allied shipping even when the US was actually officially neutral.

The US also provided intelligence information it obtained via Magic on Japanese intentions even as the British were supplying the US with information it obtained through Ultra. Once again before the US entry into the war officially began.

Although occasionally ignorant Americans will brag about how we saved Britains ass (to use a typical quote) those who studied know that the partnership was definitely between equals for nearly the entire World War II and Cold War period and continues to this day.

Another important thing a lot of people don't realize is that the US Navy and Royal Navy have worked hand in hand in Asia, the Caribbean and off Africa since the War of 1812 in dealing with piracy, slave trading, and shows of force as well as protecting each others nationals and property.

sources include the books
Savage Wars of Peace
The Ultra Secret
several books by James Dunnigan
John Keegans books on World War II, and the Price of Admiralty
and numerous other books as well

As far as the British going broke is concerned. US Law required a cash and carry policy regarding war supplies to the Allies because of the perception that the US entered World War I to protect its loans made to the Allies during that war. It was a bad policy, made on bad information, but no more so than some of the Allied policies on Appeasement made during the between the Wars period. Lend Lease set that law aside when it became clear that the British Empire was rapidly about to exhaust its supply of foreign exchange, including gold, and it was clear to far sighted US policy makers including Roosevelt that allowing the British to lose the war against Germany because it ran out of money would be foolish in the extreme. Lend Lease was passed because it was vital to US interests to keep the British Empire fighting Germany so that the US would not have to do so one day alone.

So yes, Lend Lease occured because it was in the US interest, but clearly it also was in the interest in the British Empire, and later the Soviet Union, China, and France, for it to do so, and ultimately, like the Marshal Plan, was one of the most important acts of economic policy ever committed to action by any nation at any time.

<snip>


Well said. And certainly there is a cultural basis for friendship as well.

This is only a side-issue. More important is the question of when Germany starts paying reparations to the US/UK (France get none for being cowardly collaborators). They've got the 3rd biggest economy now and so can afford to pay reparations if the money is extracted slowly. That way we get our money back and there will be none of the 1918-34 problems. japan should also pay as they've got the world's second largest economy

Yeah, damn those french! They only fought alongside the americans in africa, italy, and back through France and through germany. I mean, its not like the US or Britain would have beaten, if they were in the same position as France, bordered by a larger neighbor...

Regarding lend-lease: anyone else in the world offer the Brits such aid? No, only their friends in the US. You'd have been up the creek without the ships and raw materials. Certainly there were terms of repayment which the Brits agreed to at the time. It is expected that nations repay their debt, though much of yours was written off.

We also came to your aid in WW2, albeit reluctantly - and the only price you had to pay was putting up with some arrogant Yanks for a bit. Saved you learning a new language.

Friendship? Yes, with conditions . But not pimping, either. Tell me your nation always conducted itself altruistically in foreign affairs.

I consider our nations friends, but suit yourself.

Well you missed the one chance Hitler had to invade, so we wouldn't have been invaded or learning a new language, esp after Hitler thought that going eastwards was a stroke of genius...

Well you missed the one chance Hitler had to invade, so we wouldn't have been invaded or learning a new language, esp after Hitler thought that going eastwards was a stroke of genius...

Yeah, I suppose. Make an interesting speculative thread sometime : "what would have happened if the Yanks didn't enter war in Europe" or "what would have happened if Hitler didn't make mistakes".

But you get my drift regarding friendship, I hope.

Yeah, I suppose. Make an interesting speculative thread sometime : "what would have happened if the Yanks didn't enter war in Europe" or "what would have happened if Hitler didn't make mistakes".

But you get my drift regarding friendship, I hope.

Of course, without the US the european campaign would have been impossible. Also much of our defence would have been half as effective if that.

But we survived without you military intervention ok, just not without your logistical intervention :)

The US sold them some old diesel subs and outdated equip. The US immediately gave the UK intelligence help in that conflict. Which included active satelite intel along with what kind of equipment Argentina had. The equip in question was sold long before it looked as if Argentina was going to take a jab at the Falklands. French sales however were right before the conflict. When it was known that Argentina was making rumblings of a conflict.
Actually, from someone who was serving in the RAF at the time, the US was selling equipment right up to the war. The RADAR which I ran, captured from the Falklands was a westinhouse TPS43 which was pretty up to date and only lacked frequency agility (which I retro-fitted in about 2 hours). This meant it didn't count as "military" even though they knew there was a war coming. :rolleyes:

Strangely the same RADAR was in service with the US military and they had a team of about 60 people to erect and run it. They were very good but totally dedicated to a single job. 8 people (I think - this was some time ago) were just employed to put the wheels on. We only had 8 people on our entire team.

This is the flexibility that the UK forces have. I was an electronics engineer but would often be found cooking or digging ditches, on guard, putting on wheels, mending air conditioning etc etc.

On another note the ships sunk by exocets were unsuitable for the job they were given but upgrades to the 909 RADARs (which I did in my next job) menat they could hit a 6" shell at extreme range and they all had goal-keeper gattling guns fitted. These destroyers were designed to fight at speed and sitting still amade them very vunerable.

Interesting article my friend. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Dito here, did not know that the UK is so weak and has such an old army versus France. I enjoyed this article that gave the facts of a comparision.
Very detailed information of that guy. Beter then the nationalistic bla bla here.


http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-45068.asp

Dito here, did not know that the UK is so weak and has such an old army versus France. I enjoyed this article that gave the facts of a comparision.
Very detailed information of that guy. Beter then the nationalistic bla bla here.


http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-45068.asp

The British would still beat the French though :D

Everyone can beat the French. :D

The British would still beat the French though :D

Everyone can beat the French. :D

Well, perhaps they need to clone Nelson again :)

Everyone can beat the French. :Dthe US cant.

the US cant.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Your so funny. The US would destroy the French. Moreso than the Germans or Russians can.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Your so funny. The US would destroy the French.Yes...AND France would destroy the US...

the Bushites are good and ready to bully small countries like Iraq or Syria.

but when its about France they only good to use their mouths...

If "its so easy to defeat France" why don't you try it...I cant wait.
I just cant wait...show me how easy is to defeat France...

the Bushites can talk all they want...but so far they only fighting badly equipped countries that cant smack you back...

France can smack your big mouth...they are no pushovers.

the US chikenHawks(repubs) can sure Talk the Talk, but can they Walk the Walk?

The British would still beat the French though :D

Everyone can beat the French. :D

CNN-Breaking News-M-45 MIRV launched from Le Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine hurtles towards D.C.!

CNN-Breaking News-M-45 MIRV launched from Le Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine hurtles towards D.C.!*Activates StarWars shield system.*

we are safe from the French nukes now [/sarcasm]

I consider the US and UK to be two of the closest countries on the planet. I'd quite like it if we put aside our petty prejudices, but what're you gonna do? (By we I mean Britain. I very rarely see anyone in the US railing against us, in fact they're usually happy to pile the praise and support on. Worst we get is a little banter about tea and the Queen.)

On the WW2 issue, I've come to the conclusion that the UK probably could have survived, but with far more civilian deaths. Moreover, I doubt we'd have been able to take the Reich out, which means either Germany or the Soviet Union come out on top, neither being very good, as you'd likely either have a Reich from Brest to Moscow, or a Union from Anadyr to Poznan. Even worse, they could have come to an agreement and ended up not engaged in active hostilities.

I don't think WW2 could have been won without most of the allies, and every single one of them deserves full recognition for the contribution they made in the face of horrific odds. Bear in mind also that the USA had the oft-forgotten (By Europeans) Pacific Theatre to worry about. All most of us ever care to say about that is that the nukes were bad. :rolleyes:

Yeah, damn those french! They only fought alongside the americans in africa, italy, and back through France and through germany. I mean, its not like the US or Britain would have beaten, if they were in the same position as France, bordered by a larger neighbor...


The first ground action by Americans in the European/African theater was against French troops. We did fight with the french and they then decided to "fight" along side us.

I can tell you any British or American citizens would not have laid down and took it in the ass like the french. Would be a cold day in hell before that happened.

CNN-Breaking News-M-45 MIRV launched from Le Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine hurtles towards D.C.!

Fox News-Breaking News: France was turned to radioactive dust when a nuclear missile was launched at DC. Luckily the ABM shot it down but France was destroyed in the ensuing nuclear exchange.

The first ground action by Americans in the European/African theater was against French troops. We did fight with the french and they then decided to "fight" along side us.

I can tell you any British or American citizens would not have laid down and took it in the ass like the french. Would be a cold day in hell before that happened.

Maybe because the germans said the french had to fight, or lose algeria/etc? Or should they have "Taken it in the ass" from both the germans and the americans?

Say what you want, but if you bordered germany, and had a similar population to the french, with no large gun ownership, etc, the same thing would have happened. Its not a matter of national feeling, its circumstances. But I suppose its pointless, obviously they wouldnt. They are americans, the perfect people.

Fox News-Breaking News: France was turned to radioactive dust when a nuclear missile was launched at DC. Luckily the ABM shot it down but France was destroyed in the ensuing nuclear exchange.

Yeah, I forgot the US has a working ABM program against MIRV's.

Oh wait, they dont.

Yeah, I forgot the US has a working ABM program against MIRV's.

Oh wait, they dont.

One thing about the US defense abilities. They are kept very secret for a long time. You only find out about programs after they are ages old or have there replacement program in the works.

Maybe because the germans said the french had to fight, or lose algeria/etc? Or should they have "Taken it in the ass" from both the germans and the americans?

Say what you want, but if you bordered germany, and had a similar population to the french, with no large gun ownership, etc, the same thing would have happened. Its not a matter of national feeling, its circumstances. But I suppose its pointless, obviously they wouldnt. They are americans, the perfect people.


Look the Americans told the French they were coming. Told them to lay down there arms and no harm would come to them. Yet they decided to shoot anyway. So a bunch of French were killed until there surrender instinct kicked in. then it was over.

As far as Americans being perfect. Far from it. But I noticed you didnt mention the British as I stated earlier. Hmmmm... Anyway France isnt America I understand that well.

The first ground action by Americans in the European/African theater was against French troops. We did fight with the french and they then decided to "fight" along side us.

I can tell you any British or American citizens would not have laid down and took it in the ass like the french. Would be a cold day in hell before that happened.


Well, if the Vichy troops surrendered Algeria, their homeland, thus far unoccupied, would be occupied, and their homes and families would be under even worse conditions, while they would be cutoff. Not to mention the US had been one of the only nations to really deal with Vichy as if it were a legitimate government, and Vichy was officially nuetral.

Also, guiding American troops in, fighting alongside them, and fighting their own countrymen in the Levant, were Free French troops. It was more us deciding to fight with "them" after the big bad Germans declared war on us (as opposed to France, which DOW'd Germany).

One thing about the US defense abilities. They are kept very secret for a long time. You only find out about programs after they are ages old or have there replacement program in the works.
http://www.lookoutnow.com/cartoon/images/shield.jpg

Re: Falklands:

Exocets: Struck their targets, but failed to explode (both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyer)

Argentine bombs: Many were old, several were armour-piercing bombs that didn't explode because modern warships haven't the hull thickness to bring about detonation

Torpedoes used on the Belgrano: The Belgrano was struck by two of three WW2-era torpedoes fired by the Conqueror

Yeah, I forgot the US has a working ABM program against MIRV's.

Oh wait, they dont.

actually the US has developed one in the past... look up Project Safeguard, and the ABM Treaty... should be easy to find.

the trouble was that the missiles required nuclear warheads, and that was viewed as an unsatisfactory system for a number of reasons. The Russians still ahve their system, and it is still armed with nuclear missiles. Look up the Galosh system

the current ABM effort was to come up with a way of destroying inbound nuclear missiles without having to use a nuclear warhead.

You DO know that the SAME website lists the U.S. as the world MOST powerful, right?

And anyhoo, I don't think I've ever disputed that the British are a world military powerful. They aren't a "superpower", but more like a "great power".

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Your so funny. The US would destroy the French. Moreso than the Germans or Russians can.
You're a bit naive and your biased, stupid hate, blinds your eyes for the millitary facts:
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-45068.asp

You just can not and the UK surely not.

You're a bit naive and your biased, stupid hate, blinds your eyes for the millitary facts:
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-45068.asp

You just can not and the UK surely not.

WE are still number 1. We can defeat France. What makes you say that we cannot? We have more carriers, More troops, better equipment, and better Technology.

I want your reasons why the US cannot defeat France! I also want your reasons why Britain cant defeat France too.

Edit: Done by a Frenchmen-french stratege! Sorry but I find it to inaccurate to be factual. Not to mention most of what he describes is out of date whereas the US has the most advanced navy on Earth. Their SSBN are outdated and need to be overhauled where as we have nearly a dozen Ohio Class SSBNs in service and running around loose. We also have far more nukes than the French and if they want to have a nuclear war, we'll be hurt but France would be destroyed.

Now do you still hold to the opinion that France can beat us?

You're a bit naive and your biased, stupid hate, blinds your eyes for the millitary facts:
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-45068.asp

You just can not and the UK surely not.France do have an overall edge over the UK...

but France is never going to attack the UK for the same reasons the US would never dare to attack France...

the Brits have their own nuklear subs...

France do have an overall edge over the UK...

but France is never going to attack the UK for the same reasons the US would never dare to attack France...

the Brits have their own nuklear subs...

And the US has a bigger navy than both nations. I found a list of those ships currently serving in the US Navy as well as those that are currently in the French Navy. I wouldn't want to be in the French Navy if France and US go to war with eachother.

You DO know that the SAME website lists the U.S. as the world MOST powerful, right?

And anyhoo, I don't think I've ever disputed that the British are a world military powerful. They aren't a "superpower", but more like a "great power".
I would say the Brits are a Superpower ...because they can destroy any country who dares to attack them...including France and the US.

in practical terms they are undestructible...unless you are willing to comit suicide...only 4 countries have that status...

If nukes did not exist...only the US could be counted as a superpower.

and is general terms the US is dfined as the sole Superpower.

We dont actually need military forces to beat France, we just ship over a few ferryloads of Millwall fans and wait for the French to surrender. :p

Our Military forces are in a sad and delapidated condition, the RAF cant fly the training missions they require to keep standards up, the Army is so overstreatched that the Navy were supplying swabbies to man border posts in N.Ireland until "peace" broke out and 1/2 the Navy's ships dont leave port because they cant afford the fuel.
The situation only appears to improve now and then because Tony cuts the forces, the upcoming cut of 14 RN ships will mean far fewer sitting at dock and therefore "improving" the fuel shortage.
:(