Youtube comments of 1IbramGaunt (@1IbramGaunt).
-
174
-
172
-
147
-
120
-
115
-
106
-
93
-
75
-
73
-
62
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
44
-
40
-
38
-
34
-
32
-
@stc2828 except they're not even doing that, respectfully dealing with the dead who still lie there first- bones are often found by the scrap metal workers amidst the bits of rusty cut-up metal that're crudely torn from the wrecks, and they're just told by their bosses to keep quiet about it and keep working. As for the matter of the metal-salvaging itself, it doesn't matter how justified or sensible you feel it is, it's still completely illegal and something never done elsewhere to war-graves, ONLY to the ships unfortunate enough to be sunk in East-Asian waters, and around Malaysia in particular, not just with these two British battleships but with WW2 warship wrecks of EVERY nationality, American, Japanese, Dutch, French, Australian, New Zealander, you name it if they sank anywhere near there they've been looted, DOZENS of ships, maybe HUNDREDS by now
32
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@jojodio9851 yes, they were, John Strong was the first to land on the islands in 1690, not counting Native people that probably went there first in prehistoric times, and various other sailors (from Spain yes but also from Holland, France and England) who possibly saw the islands in passing in the 1590's and early 1600's sure, but didn't land on them, and those accounts are up for debate and unconfirmed. What IS confirmed is that the French were the first to have a settlement there in 1764, quickly followed by the British in 1765, the Spanish didn't turn up on the Falklands until 1766 and even then only acquired the already-existing settlement the French had created there rather than building their own; they tried kicking the British out of theirs in 1770 but the threat of open war made the Spanish back down, and we only left at all in 1774 because of the whole American Revolution thing starting and our suddenly needing all our resources and attention elsewhere. However we left the islands voluntarily, never officially relinquished our claim to them and left a plaque behind saying as much, that we'd officially claimed the Falkland Islands for King George III, that the land was still ours regardless of Spanish occupation; and when we came back in 1833, about four massive wars later haha, all we did was renew an already-existing claim to the islands and kick out Vernet (and JUST Vernet, who was sent safely back to Argentina, all the other guys working for him were allowed to stay on the Falklands and were paid to work for us instead, so don't get started on your expulsion myth bullsh*t again). And no, the various treaties agreed upon in the intervening time during the 1820's between Britain and Argentina never included full official recognition of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, they did to other places including all of what we recognised as being Spain's old territory on the mainland but NOT to our islands, they weren't included. Oh the Argentines may have interpreted it that way sure as it suited their own interests to, but that doesn't mean they actually DID legally get given those islands. Feel free to actually properly look those treaties up (in a source not written by an Argentinian) if you don't believe me
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Wrong, you beat us once, sort of, with a lot of outside help so jury's kinda still out on that one, you also LOST to us in 1812, was a draw at the most, whether you count that as a win yourselves to butter up your own ego's or not; and as for 'saving' us, turning up late and only after you were yourselves attacked, twice and trying to claim all the credit at the end, twice while bankrupting us through lend-lease more like, TWICE. As for the Falklands though if selling us some overpriced missiles and jet-fuel and some intelligence reports that turned out not to actually have that much use in the end counts as 'helping' then I'll give you that one
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jojodio9851 tell me, what do you think would've happened if, for whatever reason, during the 40 years since the Falklands War we'd decided to stop defending the islands so heavily? Hmm? It IS after all a massive drain in money and resources keeping such a large powerful garrison down there 24/7, so I'm sure the British government would LOVE to pull out all the troops, ships, missiles, guns, tanks and planes and leave the islands almost defenceless again, leaving only a token force behind, just like things had been before the 1982 invasion. What do you think Argentina would do if that had happened, GIVEN how obsessed with getting those islands the people there clearly still are?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@Venatt1 four warships, the rest WEREN'T Royal Navy vessels but either Royal Fleet Auxiliary or commandeered civilian ships. And either way that's eight ships out of OVER ONE HUNDRED. As for the ground war? well if that's what you say fine, either way at the end of the day you still STARTED that war and you still LOST that war didn't you. As far as I'M concerned it's because they were almost all a bunch of half-trained conscripts, who didn't wanna be there and that had been forced there by a brutal military junta; who, however you cut it were going up against what were and still are some of the toughest, most feared and most highly-trained professional soldiers in the WORLD, and who, on the other hand were there because it was their JOB to go there and to free British citizens and rightfully British territory from the unjust rule of foreign invaders. And as for "equipment" and "support" well the Argies WERE operating less than 400 miles from home and WITH clear air superiority, with what at the time were still perfectly good aircraft that you had a hell of a lot more of, at least at first (don't seem to recall much Argentine efforts to air-drop supplies to them while that was the case do you), and they'd also had a good two months there at least, completely unmolested to get brought whatever supplies or reinforcements from home they bloody needed, by air OR sea, so it was a bit late to complain about that by the time of the damn taskforce arriving wasn't it lol. And sure the British had superiority at sea, so did have more support that way, but only because your OWN navy basically just ran for home when Belgrano went down; and there was little major difference worth mentioning between how the individual soldiers were armed or equipped on either side. And regardless of all this, the fact is all the British had, of every kind was whatever they'd brought with them, from over 8000 f*cking miles away, with NO chance of immediate resupply or reinforcement whatsoever, if it ran out or was captured or damaged or lost to enemy fire, that was that
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@jojodio9851 nope, pretty sure if you'd actually bothered to properly read everything I've said in this comment thread instead of just rejecting it immediately, just like I have yours, that you'd see I've been very calm, patient and accepting with you, and every time you've talked about references to treaties or accounts of explorers I've never heard of that to your mind back the Argentine claim, I've humoured you and looked into them myself as well, because unlike you I'm actually perfectly willing to accept that there's two sides to every argument and that BOTH viewpoints may have merit; every time I HAVE looked into the things you've talked about though, there's been nothing about them that can't be disputed in the British view's favour just as much as that of the Argentines, vague and contradictory treaties with multiple clauses to them favouring neither side fully, or accounts from earlier explorers who could well have been mistaking the Falklands for completely different islands. Every time I have tried to explain my own views on these pieces of evidence however, you've either flat out ignored my points or just changed the subject and presented some new kind of evidence without discussing the previous one further
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sidewinders are air-to-air heat-seeking missiles, not really intended or suited for attacking land bases or warships, you're probably meaning more the all-British conventional bombs and rockets our all-British Harrier and Vulcan planes used on those; the Sidewinders WERE used to destroy Argentine aircraft and they did, in rather large numbers actually, they were and still are however widely commercially available, many countries around the world besides us and the Americans use them and they were bought, paid for and became all ours to use of our own accord, just like the French-built Excocet missiles and Dassault Super-Etendard aircraft the Argies bought were all theirs too, and they continued to be theirs- right up to and including the moment they were used to sink several of our own ships, killing, burning and maiming many in the process. So if you're expecting us or the Americans for that matter to start apologizing profusely over the ships, planes and bases we destroyed or us to stop taking credit for the victory in the Falklands because it was in part achieved with foreign equipment and intelligence you've got another think coming. Our guys down there 'survived' and, moreover, WON whether you want to admit it or not, not because of superior equipment or intelligence reports but because the men on our side were professional, dedicated and well-trained REAL soldiers, sailors and airmen, well-led by inspirational and charismatic real veterans from a nation with a long and proud military history, not conscripts who didn't want to be there forced to fight by borderline-Nazi thugs and bullies whose only prior military experience was earned against their own people
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alganhar1 ok fair enough, and I actually do realise it's a complicated and difficult conversion process, but THAT complicated and difficult? SIX YEARS to even just do a single production model OF one of them and actually give it to the troops so they can try it out, even though they already DO have a complete working prototype one to show the press, right here in 2021 ready to go? Still seems a mite long to me that, especially considering the original proposal for this thing was way back in 2005. Isn't as if I'm expecting any miracles here, I'm not expecting all 148 in one go, I'm just saying a lot can happen in those six years, six years that we won't have a single one of these things fully really ready for combat, despite their practically having announced them as such back here in 2021! And what's with the only ten-year expected service-life after it DOES enter service, you don't think THAT'S a little odd? (Considering the previous models served well over twice that and are STILL considered a capable MBT even now)?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonyblack1964 well that's fair enough but frankly I'm glad they WEREN'T given free reign, (A) because the military just doesn't tend to work that way usually haha, (B) because national pride does matter to the country as a whole even if it doesn't to individuals, and (C) because I just generally consider the Challenger series superior- the armour IS far stronger after all, hence more survivable surely, and they're relatively reliable & easy to maintain, and a Challenger 1 scored the longest range tank-on-tank kill in history. In any event though, let's agree to disagree shall we, and my thanks and wholehearted respect for all your service 🙂 love the Chieftain too incidentally, great tank in it's own right, dodgy engine or not
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Farweasel not anymore, the only thing ludicrous about the new Queen Elizabeth Class? We went to the huge effort and expense of not only building them, and not just one of them but two, but also getting the tremendously pricey F35B Lightning II to fly from them; aaaand then chose to use straight decks and ski-ramps rather than angled decks and catapults, for whatever pennies that would save, and ON a massive full-size fleet carrier that then goes on a round-the-world voyage, so the whole bloody world sees it and how penny-pinching we are. Oh yeah and we then get the planes for them piecemeal and agonisingly slowly (and those we do get are operated by the RAF not the FAA and so spend most of their time operating from land-bases); so these new carriers, the pride of the Royal Navy mind you, basically become a pair of huge 70,000-ton helicopter-carriers that occasionally are visited by F35's, THAT'S the truly ludicrous thing
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stiffchocolate7546 really, well thankyou for your service, IF that's true that is (frankly anyone can claim to be a veteran on the internet), but either way I stand by what I was saying before- fighting to defend this country isn't just some act of blind patriotism or some kind of gung-ho warmongering, it's fighting to defend those you care about, holding the line to defend all you hold dear sheltering behind it, to have the back of the men and women beside you doing the same, and of course ultimately to do that fighting and perhaps being wounded or dying yourself so others back home don't have to. Even disregarding all that though, all high-minded concepts aside, if you ARE in the British military it's also your duty and your JOB to do it at the end of the day though lol, there's no conscription, no draft, National Service in Britain ended in the 60's- these days the only way you ever will end up fighting for your country in the first place is if you signed up to do so, no-one tricked you or forced you (and let's face it the pay's nothing to write home about and the recruitment ads suck, so something else must have brought you there)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@siko9799 not if it's 2 or 3 hundred Challengers backed up by thousands of other tanks of our ALLIES they won't, all the Abrams, Leopard 2's, Ariete's & Leclerc's that NATO can muster in the area, along with all the older Russian tanks of the former Warsaw Pact countries to boot, and that's not even including all the infantry, artillery, aircraft and lighter vehicles with their assorted anti-tank weaponry. Pretty difficult to overwhelm one particular tank-force if they've got plenty of friends all around them ready & willing to back them up, and there's a LOOOOTT of those friends in between Russia and Great Britain. Also there's the minor matter that each Challenger's frontal Dorchester depleted-uranium composite armour (which is now fitted on not just the turret but the lower plate and sides too when going into battle) is virtually impenetrable to any known battlefield weapon, and is widely regarded as the single strongest tank-armour in the world. As for Russian armour, by comparison? On older models like the T-72? See every tank-battle of either Gulf War for the proven effectiveness of that lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not necessarilly, remember there might only be 148 of them but these will be 148 of arguably the toughest, most advanced and most powerful western MBT's ever built; plus as you say, the chances of us ever getting in a tank-fight on our own these days are pretty slim anyway. And even if we somehow DID end up fighting against someone on our own again, Falklands-style? It probably just wouldn't involve tanks anyway, and would be limited to infantry, light vehicles and air & naval combat instead, just like it was there; and, if somehow there was such a war again but where that wasn't the case, if it WAS somehow just us in a small limited-scale war like that again, but this time it DID somehow involve full-on tank-on-tank combat? 90% of the countries we ever COULD possibly end up in a fight with like that don't have anything in their arsenals that can even come close to a Challenger 3 lol, those "only" 148 tanks would wipe the f*cking floor with whatever they came up against
2
-
@garyhewitt489 only certain countries are gonna have the money, resources and the industrial & technological capacity to actually build and field stuff like that in any real quantity though, of those only Russia and China are real threats, and frankly anything they can come up with we CAN either make our own version of or find a way to counter, or both, or if we can't ourselves one of our allies can and will instead. As the MOD have themselves stated, one of the primary reasons they ARE only gonna be making 148 of these tanks, is because the need for more isn't considered as pressing as the need to focus on stuff LIKE drones, cyber-warfare, stealth aircraft and advanced defensive systems, areas which the UK Armed Forces definitely ARE gonna be giving plenty of attention. As for the need for tanks, even IN this fancy tech-dominated age we're entering, I still say there is one so long as there's other hostile countries out there that still have tanks too, and also so long as they're of use for supporting our infantry
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not necessarilly, remember there might only be 148 of them but these will be 148 of arguably the toughest, most advanced and most powerful western MBT's ever built; plus the chances of us ever getting in a tank-fight on our own these days are pretty slim anyway. And even if we somehow DID end up fighting against someone on our own again, Falklands-style? It probably just wouldn't involve tanks anyway, and would be limited to infantry, light vehicles and air & naval combat instead, just like it was there; and, if somehow there was such a war again but where that wasn't the case, if it WAS somehow just us in a small limited-scale war like that again, but this time it DID somehow involve full-on tank-on-tank combat? 90% of the countries we ever COULD possibly end up in a fight with like that don't have anything in their arsenals that can even come close to a Challenger 3 lol, those "only" 148 tanks would wipe the f*cking floor with whatever they came up against haha, and that's only even more certain if we have our Nato allies at our side with all THEIR tanks, as we virtually always will
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Foxtrop13 we had already officially laid claim to the territory a long time earlier though, REGARDLESS of who happened to be living there during the intervening time, Argentina didn't even EXIST when we did lay claim to them; and even if Spain, very debatedly, had a claim at one point? one we don't recognise EITHER incidentally, but even if we did? That's Spain then, not you, different countries, and only certain former colonies of theirs were ever granted to you and the Falklands were NOT among them. As for that Beunos Aires nonsense? for the last time those were SMALL NAVAL RAIDS not proper invasions! (think about it, what good would it do us to control one city and not the rest of the country?), and you didn't "kick us out" of jack shit, we just pulled the raiding forces back out and went home of our own bloody accord
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gusgone4527 Having said all that, 148 tanks (or 227 for that matter), however good those tanks may be, is certainly still not enough even for a largely second-rate military power, so one way it seems we could actually get a sensible number of tanks again at some point in the near future, AND the capacity to make more, is to follow the example of Poland of all people, and buy not the Leopard 2 or Abrams, or even upgrade more old Challengers, but instead turn to the South Korean K2 Black Panther. It's a first-rate modern MBT on the cheap, that we could even acquire the rights and plans and tooling to make more of ourselves like the Poles are planning to, perhaps helping with jobs and the economy in the process; could even alter the design a bit and put our own spin on it with our own Chobham/Dorchester armour
2
-
@gusgone4527 Whatever we need tanks for in the future it won't be a fight we're in by ourselves, and that's my biggest point that you seem to be missing. I would LOVE for us to still have a military like we had 50 years ago that could fight and win a large-scale conventional war against another great power single-handed, I'd LOVE to see us have tanks in the THOUSANDS again not the hundreds, just as much as you would, but we don't have the money or industrial capacity for that anymore and sadly we're not going to anytime soon, and that's simply the harsh reality of the situation; it doesn't mean Britain can't fight and win wars by ourselves altogether mind, I'm actually completely confident that we could win a second Falklands War as I mentioned above even if this time they had Chinese help; but that would still be a relatively small-scale proxy-conflict at the end of the day. The big stuff? Leave that to the Americans (and if they can't help I guess whoever it is will have to fend for themselves), with us just helping on the sidelines where and when we can, and THAT's where our small army comes in- an expeditionary force, much like we had for a large part of our history as a matter of fact, small and lean but professional and well-trained & equipped, with the Royal Navy constituting most of our true offensive fighting-power for the majority of the time, something that IS I'm happy to say getting at least some real money, time and energy put into it again at least after decades of neglect
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidhouseman4328 Emals?! who needs Emals?! The Americans are still having trouble with that whole system anyway, just use old-fashioned, tried & true, completely-proven steam catapults! and as for time well we INVENTED the damn things, and the cat & trap system to boot, we used to make whole assorted different CLASSES of them never mind just one or two carriers and at one point had HMS Ark Royal in particular, a big carrier with an angled deck, single island and cat & trap system launching and catching F4 Phantoms and Blackburn Buccaneers, substantially bigger heavier aircraft than any F35, yet the whole package was still diesel-powered and half the price, size and complexity of anything the Americans were making, and that was over 40 years ago. Would've thought we understand this concept well enough at this point to get the job done rather quickly should time be an issue ("skip the spinning rims, we're on the clock" haha), and just the one carrier could be built rather than two or three if necessary. Nah I think money was definitely the deciding factor here, and as it is with the economic and political situation now, wouldn't be surprised if Prince Of Wales if not BOTH carriers end up getting sold off at some point by the damn penny-pinchers, hoping not with all my heart of course but it IS unfortunately very possible (and if so I just hope it doesn't come back to bite us in the arse, as in 1982 in the Falklands the Argies were actually trying to use one of our own old carriers we'd sold against us)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ds1868 and two British destroyers, two British frigates, two British supply-ships, a British nuclear attack submarine and a British aircraft carrier. Along with 8 of the jets and all of the helicopters. Britain's KINDA giving the most important national contribution of the three there don't you think lol? It is a British Strike Group because the flagship is British, the majority of the ships and majority of the personell are British, and all but two of the commanding officers, including the commodore in charge of the whole strike-group, are British. The American and Dutch contributions may be very helpful and respectfully appreciated during this transitional period, but if need be we COULD have made this strike-group entirely British, just added an extra Type 45 and/or Type 23 instead and made do with less jets; and if it becomes necessary to in the future, we may well do so next time. The fact that the Americans and Dutch are helping us while we're still finding our feet with carrier operations again after over a decade without any IS appreciated and extremely useful, right now we DO need the help don't get me wrong, but that's all it is and it sure as hell doesn't mean they're calling the shots
2
-
2
-
@alexyoung7125 well without nuclear weapons we lose not only our seat at the top-table as a first-line military power, but Nato also loses a big part of the overall nuclear deterrent to the Russians in that particular area of the world! and seeing as there's only the four "boomer" subs, since we'll never have more THAN four even when the future Dreadnought-class replaces the Vanguard's, and since we've plenty more conventional attack subs too and even the Vanguard's can fire conventional weapons instead if need be, I don't see why the RN just having those four particular boats is a problem! And yeah sure so we rely on the Americans for some elements of that nuclear capability, that's true of half the stuff we HAVE at this point and is true of plenty of other countries too these days, all nationalism or patriotism aside I don't see why that's a real issue either, not when they're our closest allies, and it's highly unlikely that's ever gonna change (and even if it DID I'm sure we could build, maintain & supply our own nukes if we had to, we HAVE in the past after all, it's just cheaper, simpler, quicker and more convenient to let the Yanks handle it for the moment though)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@armageddonarmada6869 that's what they said about the Titanic 40 years before, after that people weren't so gullible. The only people who thought those battleships actually were invincible were idiots or fanatics, everyone who actually was involved in building them, served aboard them OR fought against them just thought of them with pride as fine, powerful ships, well-built and well-designed, or with grudging respect as mighty and worthy adversaries- but either way were under no illusions as to the fact they could be sunk in battle like any warship, one way or another, especially after battles like Tsushima or Jutland, and even more so by the time those ships actually saw combat in WW2. Besides, like that other commenter said I thought this was about them being NAMED as such rather than their just being proudly called it
2
-
Why can't we? There's always gonna be some kind of frigate or destroyer watching over them while at sea, probably two or three plus submarines, supply & support vessels, patrol boats, minesweepers and of course aircraft of all kinds, both her own and land-based, and if they ever do find themselves outmatched they'll just call in more, not to mention our allies. There's also the fact Russia is still very much only a LAND power and frankly it always has been, as has China, oh they talk big but so long as America's around that isn't changing, especially with Nato. As for the other major threats frankly North Korea and Iran barely count as HAVING navies lol. All of the above also, again aren't exactly flush with allies, ones that DO have large, advanced & powerful fleets, we ARE. As it is even just ONE Type 45, along with a Type 23, an Astute-class sub and a squadron of F35's, all with highly-trained, well-motivated and professional crews, are more than a match for anything they're likely to come up against
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matthewrobinson4323 and no, sadly 😕 always wanted to but I'm disabled, have glasses, clumsy, slow, not exactly ideal military material unfortunately, and am too old to join now anyway. Got a whole family of servicemen past and present who did join up though ☺ got an uncle who was in the Royal Navy, my Father and Grandfather were RAF, my Mother's Father was in the British Army as were both my Great Grandfathers on my Dad's side, and I've not one but two cousins presently serving in the U.S. Marines no less, long story haha. My Father's Mother's Father was a Knight and a Major-General. Military family, guess I'm the black sheep
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RoderickTheRed as for thinking the war was really about oil, not the land itself or the people living there, if you truly believe that you've clearly never spoken to an Argentinian about the subject- while they certainly like the idea of getting that oil along WITH the islands, the islands themselves are always the first thing to them with the oil just being a kind of added bonus. Remember in the 70's and 80's there was just THEORETICALLY massive oil-wealth there but with no actual oil-drilling infrastructure, the Falklanders were a bunch of poor tenant-farmers raising sheep and horses not rich Texan-style oil-barons, and while the industry there is more about tourism and holidays and catering to the military garrison these days it still certainly isn't all about gas and oil there. The war was a real throwback in a way, as it truly wasn't about resources or Capitalism versus Communism, but just about territory, principle, pride, patriotism, internal politics and just plain war for war alone's sake. Argentina wanting (and still wanting) land they believed we'd "stolen" from them "back" (with of course the ulterior motives for the Junta of distracting the Argentine people from domestic troubles and uniting them in common cause), and the UK retaliating against it's sovereign territory being invaded and occupied for the first time in decades if not centuries (depends what you consider British sovereign territory doesn't it), with of course Thatcher also having the ulterior motives of her own of rallying the people behind her and likewise distracting them from their domestic issues, along with perhaps the chance of bringing some lost glory back to a fading power; but still, for neither side it was never really about the oil
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why? Aside from making a few anti-British people and hardline left-wingers happy, the people who always rant on about slavery despite it being us who ENDED the slave trade, what else is actually changing for the better here, for Barbados or anywhere else? They're already all self-governing for the most part, all these Carribean former colonies turned Commonwealth Realms or Overseas Territories, just with the Queen as a Head Of State figurehead who's considered important but with little real power there anymore besides having her face on the money. Canada, Australia and New Zealand which are frankly all substantially larger and more important places all seem ok with carrying on the exact same centuries-old traditions that don't hurt anybody, keeping some reminders of their British past while looking to the future, as for that matter do the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Cyprus and many OTHER small remote islands or cities that are or used to be British colonies, they're all happy to keep the historical and ancestral links alive while ALSO managing their own affairs without needing Britain to hold their hands anymore, as they are all completely free and able to do, Nepal even still happily lets us recruit Ghurkas for the British Army; hell even India seems happy to be a close friend and ally that maintains strong political, economic and military links as of course does America. Only reason Hong Kong isn't still a British colony in their case is because in 1997 we respected their wishes and willingly handed them over to Communist China, a decision they're definitely regretting now lol or would be if they were still allowed to talk about it, something other places wanting quote "freedom" should definitely keep in mind, given China's desire to control anything it sets it's sights on while at the same time hypocritically banging on about "Imperialism"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicolaslopez2662 we did not ever officially abandon our 1690/1765 claims just because we'd left the islands, and we left a plaque behind saying as much, that the islands were still claimed for King George III and his descendents in perpetuity, regardless of there no longer being British people living there and regardless of temporary Spanish or Argentine occupation; when we came back in 1833, with matters elsewhere finally quiet enough to turn our minds back to the matter, we were simply reasserting a prior claim that, as we saw it we'd never officially given up. "Pirates"? Maybe haha, but if so we were pirates operating under official colours and with legal land-claim rights, so more like "Privateers" lol. In any case even if we don't agree 100% on the history, thanks for at least being understanding in your case, and agreeing the wishes of the islanders themselves in the here and now is what truly matters
2
-
2
-
@jojodio9851 what he was asking was where this "Article IX" (9 in Roman Numerals, dumbass) you keep talking about actually IS as I couldn't find that either. And yeah you clearly believe everything you've said is true, that doesn't mean it's not absolute horsesh*t. You agree that the accounts of early explorers visiting the islands are all disputed, you agree that there is no definite consensus on them having landed on the islands at all let alone multiple times, and you agree maps at the time were inexact and unreliable so therefore cannot be used as evidence (other than as explanation for how they ended up on a Spanish map in the wrong place, i.e. guesswork and second-hand accounts rather than the mapmaker actually ever going there himself). That leaves John Strong then, doesn't it, the first man it is COMPLETELY UNDISPUTED went to those islands, landed on them, thoroughly explored them and most importantly wrote it all down, including the island's exact position, number, shape and size, before going home again. Others, MANY others may or may not have visited them and/or seen them over the centuries prior, including the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and even other Englishmen, and probably the Native Americans at some point or other before all of them; but the only point all sides definitely agree on? is John Strong in 1690
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sandrider1406 and we have nuclear submarines, guided-missile destroyers, surface-to-air missile launchers and air-superiority jet fighters with Beyond Visual Range capabilities, silent-but-deadly drones, nigh-unkillable Main Battle Tanks, aircraft carriers the size of small TOWNS carrying state-of-the-art Stealth Jets, Trident II nuclear missiles, and some of the best-trained and best-equipped battle-hardened professional soldiers in the world including the world's deadliest special forces operators, so there YOU go. Britain is holding on to the Falkland Islands and is gonna carry on holding on to them, from now until the end of bloody time if necessary, and if the international community doesn't like it they're welcome to say so but they'd better be careful how they say it for THEIR sake
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cesargabriel5716 nah sorry you just wasted quite a few minutes typing that, 'cos if that's supposed to make me suddenly say something like "hey! The Argie fanatics were right all along!" You'll be waiting a long time lol. The people living there are the people living there, right or wrong, it's their land and as far as we're concerned it always has been and always will be for a half-dozen different reasons, as has already been discussed to death in this comment thread (hell it's theirs just by good old basic RIGHT OF CONQUEST if nothing else, just like Spain's original claim over what's now Argentina). The fact they also want it TO stay their land, and to stay British land at that, is just an added bonus and the final nail hammered home as far as we're concerned rather than the thing in it's entirety, just one more item in the British claim's favour, added in addition to all the other evidence already presented, like having the longest-standing claim or the backing of the most other countries FOR that claim; it's far from the only card in our hand in other words, y'know like your whole "they're much closer to us" thing
2
-
2
-
@abdulmismail no, they CLAIMED and SETTLED the EASTERN island a year before we claimed & settled the WESTERN island, both islands however had been discovered by the English and the English alone in the previous century, and the French had as far as anyone knows never set foot on the Western half of the Falklands at all. If Spain or France want to renew their claim to the Eastern island they can, that's fine, THAT'S actually legal and something they can seek a diplomatic case on; doesn't mean BOTH islands are theirs however, or that South Georgia is, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean they're all Argentina's, or automatically that we HAVE to hand the islands over to anyone, as even disregarding all of the above, AND the wishes of the islanders living there? they're ours until we say otherwise anyway by sheer British military dominance
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garyhewitt489 as for your robot soldiers theory, possible but that's still kinda a long way off in the future yet I feel lol, and as for the whole swarm of bees UAV thing, there are VERY fast-firing defensive weapon options, already out there like Phalanx, Aegis, Sea-Ceptor or Sky-Sabre and still in development but getting there like Dragonfire, as well as computerised radar-guided targeting systems that can detect, track, lock onto and destroy targets faster than any human gunner ever could; plus of course it doesn't have to stop at defensive warfare, we're developing drones of our own after all too, including ones with air-to-air combat capabilities that could simply be launched in response to the enemy's ones and have a sort of drone dogfight with them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damicocu3860 and no-one's dismissing the achievements of Saab, quite the opposite! Those guys are awesome as are their planes, and wish we still had a stand-alone combat aircraft company like them here in Britain, frankly, they're something everyone in Sweden should be very proud of. As it is though, what we DO have here is BAE and Rolls-Royce, and they've not exactly been idle either; it's just that while they've actually plenty of experience, and at that experience in considerably more advanced and complex projects than anything Saab's done, it's rarely if ever been something done at home and with them "leading the pack" as you put it, whereas this is; this is definitely Britain's chance, it's "big break", if Tempest and Taranis work out then they're definitely gonna be the start of a new era in British-led aircraft projects
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d-rob5513 actually I'm pretty sure I do. While the idea is to finally replace them with something new like Sky-Sabre in the near future, that hasn't actually happened yet, and even when it DOES there'll be a single launcher for a completely untested system, plus the Type 45 or Type 23 aren't always there, so aside FROM those Typhoons, the main air-defence the Falkland Islands actually have? ARE bloody 80's Rapiers still. And like I said before, let's not forget that while at present the Argentine air-force's EQUIPMENT may be a joke, their actual PILOTS sure as f*ck aren't. And as for being certain of supremacy with those Typhoons, the previous point of mine you seem to be completely missing here is that we still don't know jack-shit in terms of CONFIRMED, DEFINITE FACT about the REAL combat capabilities of Chinese aircraft and weaponry, and until they actually show their capabilities in a real war we still won't, nor of course do we know how the Typhoon will fair in a real dogfight against other modern jets EITHER, those Meteor missiles are very impressive on paper sure but they never actually HAVE shot anything down Beyond Visual Range, have they. THEREFORE, until such time as something like a second Falklands War, or Heaven forbid actually a full-on war with China actually happens? The only way we CAN truly have full confidence in our defences down there right now is overall superior numbers and preparedness, rather than relying on technological or qualitative advantage alone
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noodles169 I'm not so confident of that. While, don't get me wrong, I AM fully confident that one-on-one the Typhoon would wipe the floor with the JF17 or any other Chinese fighter, it's a 3-to-1 advantage in the Argentine's favour we're talking, possibly more if they don't just stop at 14, and we don't actually have much definite cold hard information on the JF17's real combat capabilities or upon those of Chinese missiles, so it's still up in the air; let's not forget quite how skilled, effective and suicidally brave the Argentine pilots actually were in the 1982 war, and that was with far less capable aircraft. And of course there's also the fact that the Typhoon itself still has yet to get into a real life live-fire dogfight with other modern jets, so things aren't 100% certain there either. And I don't like not being sure about such things, hence my desiring more Typhoons, pilots and ground-crew be sent down there to make it a full-on squadron of them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters oh sure but I just feel like, while the donations are certianly gonna help in wider terms, we're not actually doing much to help in the fighting itself, and sure we're sending AT & AA missiles but not much else, no actual helmets or body-armour or rifles or machine-guns or ration-packs, no ammo or medical supplies to speak of. I'd go volunteer myself if I thought I'd be any use to them, but nope, too old, too fat, no real relevant training or experience. Would donate but I've hardly any money to do so in a meaningful way, am on benefits
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Teh Weh yeah but what YOU need to understand is that I'm not the one that needs educating here, it might seem 'simplistic' or 'backward' or something but I KNOW I'm right about what I'm saying, IN the way I'm saying it. Yes, the British aren't perfect angels, yes, the British did some terrible things over the years and yes, the bad parts of our history shouldn't be ignored, covered up or overshadowed; but the GOOD parts ALSO should be remembered and celebrated because there's a hell of a lot more of them whatever anyone on here chooses to beleive and one of them was the bombs dropped by, among many others the Halifax a good friend of mine once flew in as a tail-gunner; yes, one here or there might have hit a school or nursery or hospital, and many more hit ordinary people's homes. But still MORE of them hit the factories and assembly plants producing some of the most deadly weapons the world has ever seen placed in or around those same cities and worked in by the people that lived there, or burned up their fuel supply or broke the damns giving them power, or hit the docks and submarine pens that provided a safe haven to the sleek 'grey wolves' of the Atlantic who were so effective at nearly starving us into surrender. Those bombs were not dropped to murder civilians they were dropped to shorten the war and break the Nazi's ability to sustain it, and they did just that, making up a large part of why you can freely hate or judge us OR like us and agree with us from your nice 21st-century Germany without a picture of a man with a tiny moustache glaring at you from the wall
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Teh Weh and may I add a few more: York, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull, Glasgow, London, COVENTRY. They started it, they did it first, they reap the whirlwind. YOU'RE f*cking welcome, maybe read a book that's not anti-British sometime
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kristianxoto as for 'hypersonic' or 'supersonic' missiles (A) well we DO have supersonic ones, and as for (B) the so-called 'hypersonic' sort guess the whole of NATO would be 'toast' too then lol as no-one except Russia and China, according TO Russia and China, actually has apparently successfully developed that so far, which given the technological and budgetary gap between them and NATO in every other department is pretty impressive. You'll excuse me if I don't take their word for it. Oh and (C), the faster you make a missile the harder it is to control or guide if your target isn't prepared to just sit there and take it, and there IS such a thing as countermeasures, i.e. flares and so on, along with C-WIS guns and variations on them, the new 'Sea-Ceptor' defensive missile, and of course the new laser defence technology being developed, including the British 'Dragonfire' system- I don't care how fast you make a missile it's not getting past one of THOSE
1
-
1
-
@kristianxoto helicopters can drop torpedoes and fire guns, rockets and missiles and if they were that useless in combat every major power wouldn't have been using them continually since World War 2, Apache ring a bell. And the ship IS ready, we have 18 F35's so far not 8, 5 of them on the ship right now and more on the way, the pilots are either in training with the Americans or ready as well, the USMC already HAS plenty of planes and pilots completely ready to go to make up the numbers until we have enough of our own, and as for her 'weapons' she also has something called ESCORTS i.e. completely ready-to-go-already-for-carrier-groups destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines, some of the best in the world, and plenty of patrol, support, minesweeper and amphibious assault vessels. What part of all that is "not even close to operational", yeah so she doesn't have 40 jets all in British markings with all British pilots lined up in neat rows on her deck and hasn't been officially declared to be fully operational yet, big deal
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah well clearly you're talking out of your arse right now as while you'd be right about that with any other sort of armour Dorchester can stop any heat round in it's tracks, it's not about the thickness it's what it's made of. That particular tank just didn't have TES on it yet, and no, the RPG would never have completely destroyed the tank through a lower front glacis penetration like that no matter what angle it was fired from, and sure as hell wouldn't detonate the ammunition (again it's multi-part ammunition with the propellant part stored in a specially-designed armoured water-filled container low-down in the centre of the vehicle, you'd need a direct hit on it with an APFSDS round in a very specific place for that). The RPG might've taken out the driver but nothing else, and in this case not even that; nobody else was seriously injured and that tank was back in action within 24 hours. As for the 2006 roadside bomb incident I think you're talking about yeah, he lost his legs and one other guy was minorly injured, but that sure as hell was no mere RPG that time. The tank was still repairable and the whole crew survived, and that time from a massive point-blank IED blast that would've torn one of your precious T-72's clean in half and of the same sort that had been doing far worse damage to other supposedly-superior vehicles like the Abrams. Nobody's saying the Challenger 2 is invincible mind, as they said at the time about that incident "No one has ever said Challenger tanks are impenetrable. We have always said a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle." It doesn't take away from the fact that in this case the bomb still WASN'T big enough and that yet again the armour did it's job with flying colours, that tank is easily one of the toughest if not THE toughest on Earth and the facts do back me up in that statement, whether you're prepared to accept it or not
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelmazowiecki9195 sorry didn't see your replies immediately and well as for the far east and the US-command thing we'll see, again CSG-21 happened smoothly enough and that was just with American help not under American command; plenty of other allies operate navies down there too, Australia, India, South Korea, New Zealand, Japan, all under American GUIDANCE perhaps but not under American control, and if we did send a task-force down there it'd be to help one or all of them out, not to act solely out of our own interests, doesn't need to be a NATO operation for that to happen
1
-
@michaelmazowiecki9195 the Falklands incidentally does bring to light one reason we desperately NEED a strong navy especially aircraft carriers, and a blue-water navy at that, and that is because we do still have small far-flung territories, bases, colonies, weak-but-close allies and Commonwealth countries all over the world that we're supposed to help protect. It's not always ABOUT just "power projection" but about actual military capability in places a very long way from home. If the Falklands War had happened but we'd not had those two carriers, just like now, we WOULD have lost that war, because while it was contested even with them, WITHOUT the carriers there the Argentines would've had total air-superiority, and we're seeing right now in Ukraine what it's like fighting a war when that's the case. Before 1982 I bet a lot of people were calling the then-new Invincible-class carriers "anachronistic" too
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reccerat4446 Sure the platform is just as old if not older haha but so is the Abrams, another NATO tank with similar firepower and armour, and how many T-72's did nine Abrams knock out in one day in the 1991 Gulf War at the battle of 73 Easting? "EINSTEIN"?! I don't need to have served to know this stuff and you having done (which anyone on the internet can claim doing without having to show proof) is, contrary to popular belief, not a pre-requisite for knowing more than someone who hasn't, indeed it can often have the opposite effect, since, having apparently served in one of these tanks yourself (IF you really have at all), you therefore immediately assume you know all there is to know about it without having to actually do any additional research and with a very your-own-experience-only biased perspective, whereas I'm coming at it with a fresh, relatively non-biased objective one
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EyeInTheSkypaulmcmenamin exactly, obviously there's a good chance they won't be prepared to spend the extra money but that's true of all the other stuff you've suggested too, AND the reason why these carriers are VTOL/STOVL-only ramp-carriers as well, rather than cat & trap like they were originally supposed to be- money and the lack there-of basically. Doesn't mean these carriers can't still be made to be an effective asset though and even just relying on what's available as-is those Merlins would still be there for those AEW, transport and in-air refueling roles; they're still good, large, reliable choppers in their own right, with a decent range and highly versatile, Ospreys would be better still of course but Merlins are still a lot better than nothing any day (plus bear in mind we have a substantial fleet of large, long-range land-based tanker aircraft too anyway, and bases all over the world to launch them from, wouldn't necesarilly have to rely solely ON what the carriers themselves have aboard)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
H L if you mean the recent unpleasantness between Israel and Gaza, pretty sure Britain already IS one of several countries trying to bring diplomatic pressure on both sides of that conflict to find a peaceful solution, just without directly taking either side if we can help it and staying neutral. Y'know, the sensible thing to do when it's a conflict that's genuinely none of our business to interfere with and that both sides have genuine justification for? If you're asking my personal opinion I think we should back Israel, hell I think we should already be directly militarily involved with such conflicts a lot more than we already are; but that's just me, I ain't a politician haha, just isn't my call either way. As for direct British military intervention in the region, we possibly WILL get involved that way as peacekeepers if things get bad enough, but only as a last resort and almost certainly as part of a coalition rather than by ourselves, and mostly employing the Army, Marines, Special Forces and RAF if so, doubt the Navy would be involved much there besides transportation. No excuses there, just the truth as far as I know it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
H L as for my confidence in what the modern Royal Navy can do to the modern PLA navy today though, I'm not "over-confident" of ANYTHING, not in terms of modern warfare and certainly not in terms of what the future might bring; I do however have the full confidence and the sure and certain knowledge that our ships and the men crewing them still are and always have been among the very best there are in this world. There might not be many of them, not compared to China certainly, but every part of the ships, subs and aircraft we DO have are works of art, designed and engineered to last by true craftsmen at the absolute peak of their craft, with centuries of tradition in every knut and bolt, and every single man or woman aboard each OF those ships is a highly-trained professional sailor, pilot or marine who is loyal, honourable and steadfast; absolutely dedicated to their duty, they're the best of the best and they know it, genuinely brave men and women who are absolutely ready to fight and if necessary die to defend their homes, families and COUNTRY and to protect freedom and democracy the world over. Aaaand in the Chinese corner lol? a bunch of brainwashed Commie cannon-fodder actually unironically called the "People's Liberation Army" by a mass-murdering Communist dictatorship lol, who'll be pushed out to fight with ships, weapons and equipment made as quickly and cheaply as possible to give the biggest most impressive-looking fleet possible, and made from materials to match, crewed by men whipped there like slaves to do the bidding of their masters, not for the Chinese people but for the glory of the CCP and Winnie The Poo. I know who my money's on
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThatCarGuy oh the Arliegh-Burke's great don't get me wrong, but so's the Daring-class in it's own separate way, and I'm pretty sure making our own ships is generally considered a cheaper option than buying someone else's lol, and the AB is simply not sufficiently superior to warrant the extra expense, or the re-training or re-tooling or re-supplying for it. There's also national pride to be considered of course, and supporting our own shipbuilding industry. We also were originally gonna build twelve Type 45's, the order just ended up getting halved because of government penny-pinching; shame, but 6 is still enough, just, if you only have two carriers to defend anyway and only one to defend at a time, and if you have other stuff like frigates and submarines and patrol-ships available to help make up the numbers and fill in elsewhere, which we do
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laidbare819 which is why we are not only keeping tanks in service but will have over 250 of them, counting both models, and are indeed getting a newer upgraded model of tank equal to the best out there at the moment, as well as investing in either upgrading and/or updating or just completely replacing virtually every other ground vehicle in our army too from ambulances to AFV's, along with maintaining a standing army of at least 70,000 men, not counting reserves, cadets, military police or special forces- might not be the biggest army out there but it's a damn formidable one; and of course Britain very rarely fights alone anyway these days, our greatest advantage over somewhere like Russia or China remains being a key part of NATO, as always
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannyfootball3608 all that said America should certainly be proud of it's own achievements over the years including that one, you're certainly right about the fact the rebels had knowledge of the terrain, good fighting spirit, were superb shots and had excellent leadership, don't get me wrong it's true they deserve every respect for taking on the greatest military power in the world at the time and coming out on top; what's ALSO true though is that it was touch-and-go for a good chunk of that war, those same rebels actually LOST to the British on many occasions, Washington himself only escaped his and his army's anhihalation by the skin of his teeth more than once and their morale was often at rock-bottom as was their supply situation, and without that aforementioned French, Dutch & Spanish help they'd definitely not have been able to keep the fight going after doing so, something American historians definitely gloss over a bit, and in the war of 1812 even more of that gloss is required to make it seem like 'kicking our asses' haha. My point overall though is that was NEVER the case with us in World War One or World War Two, oh we lost battles sure and were close to defeat in 1941 by the U-Boats sinking so many convoys at one point, we had secured air and sea superiority by the following year though and prevented an invasion of Britain (WITH outside help true but my point is they could've managed without it) and that 'Greatest Generation' grimly and defiantly tightened their belts, buried their dead and kept going, and fought on three different fronts against three great military powers in two World Wars and WON BOTH TIMES
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gunner-rear the original commenter said "someone to rally round", a great leader people can turn to FOR leadership and for stoicness, for steadfastness in dark times, and whatever else Churchill might have been those were definitely qualities Churchill had in abundance. The comment never said anything about wanting a "man of the people", nor is mine going to (as frankly any politician of any major party that's found a way to raise high enough through the ranks of Parliament to stand a chance at the top job, yet still DOES somehow call himself a "man of the people" with a straight face? Is pretty much guaranteed to be the exact opposite). That's why personally if forced to choose any of this lot I'd choose Tom Tugendhat, not because of any actual political style or stance he has, and certainly not because I think he's a "man of the people", but because he's a veteran with actual experience successfully leading people through tough situations, and therefore someone I actually RESPECT as a result, and would be willing to listen to
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry but this is just bullshit, there's no way Hitler would ever just 'not invade' Russia, they and Bolshevism as a political movement were his principle enemies right from the very beginning, the other allies were simply in the way to him and he wanted to broker a peace with them over and over again simply so he could indeed concentrate on Russia. And even if somehow we ignore the above facts and say he didn't, the British had been constantly working to rebuild, re-train and re-arm their forces ever since Dunkirk and the Battle Of Britain bought them the time required- it would never have simply 'kept going' and was by it's very nature not a matter of attrition but an actual battle with a clear winner, and it WAS won long before Operation Barbarossa even STARTED. Operation Sea-Lion would never have worked as it had been planned out in 1940; the landing craft were mostly converted river barges which were not truly seaworthy by any stretch of the imagination, they didn't HAVE air superiority after the aforementioned battle and would not be able to simply 'get it back' immediately afterward so could never have used the Tirpitz or Bizmark in the English Channel for fear of being Yamato-ed; as for the rest of the Kriegsmarine including all the U-Boats they already had their work cut out trying to sink convoys without getting sunk themselves, Russia made little change to that, especially considering WITH air superiority the Royal Navy- which it again WOULD HAVE- was completely superior and could easily have blown the entire invasion fleet out of the water with minimal losses. And finally if we somehow STILL ignore all of the above and get straight to the invasion itself, the British KNOW the Germans are planning to invade and are making their military dispositions ACCORDINGLY. Yes, the Germans, assuming they were actually able to get ashore in any kind of numbers probably would have the advantage in numbers and possibly in tanks and heavy equipment, what they would NOT have would be any element of surprise whatsoever and be subjected to constant counter-attacks by well dug-in troops fighting on their own ground; where necessary the vast numbers of Home Guard volunteers could be easily used in second-line duties to the north allowing all the regular forces, most of which would be battle-hardened veterans well used at this point to fighting German tactics and German weapons, to be concentrated on repelling the Invasion forces. Blitzkrieg only works if your enemy isn't expecting it and hasn't had ample time to prepare
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrysmith1070 and yep probably so, but since we're playing the 'what if' game already haha? would a much bigger and more heavily-armoured ship like that actually BE affected the same way? Affected like a Type 42 or Type 21 or even something like Belgrano would be, all substantially smaller and thinner-skinned ships, regardless of age? HMS Hood after all, even WITHOUT that refit Drachinifels was talking about and despite what happened to her against Bismarck, was no mere escort or light cruiser but a full-on full-size wartime BATTLECRUISER, a warship DESIGNED to take heavy-calibre surface-to-surface hits in full-on naval battles with other capital ships, in a way no modern destroyer or frigate would be. Is an interesting question isn't it, sure she wasn't designed to take hits from an Excocet (or ANY anti-ship missiles for that matter), but the Excocet wasn't designed to sink stuff like her either- and HMS Warspite was smaller, just as old and DID survive a direct hit by a Fritz-X missile in WW2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewrobinson4323 Eh? I meant HOLLAND was the Republic being defeated by a NON-republic not the other way round? but ok if you want to get into historic examples fully how about this one, Julius Caesar versus Pompey Magnus and The Senate in Ancient Rome. Corrupt and debauched though they may have been they WERE a damn republic, one of the ORIGINAL republics built on the Greek model, and led into battle by Pompey The Great no less, but defeated by a single all-conquering military man with aristocratic background- and with a vision; a man who wished to sweep away the old order, put a new one in it's place and make himself dictator for life, much like the later kings, kaisers and emperors he would inspire- and who, briefly, SUCCEEDED. Before he did though they probably arrogantly sneered at him for daring to put himself up against their oh-so-mighty republic, believed they could crush Caesar like an insect- they were wrong
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArrowBast they did and still do have canoes, including pretty big multi-person ones, and could have got there slowly, bit by bit while hugging the mainland coast right up until they saw the islands in the distance from the closest point, it's far from impossible; they are (or certainly were at the time) already island-dwellers and (short-ranging) sea-farers, and used to relatively cold climates, and supposedly a pre-European skull has been found there that's believed to be Yahgan, or so I've been told, and some stone arrowheads and the remains of a canoe too, on East Falkland specifically. They clearly didn't stay there long though, if it was them and they did go there, and it's easy to see why, the Falklands are not exactly the most hospitable of places in terms of weather or terrain at the best of times haha and have little in terms of natural resources (ones that'd be useful to them that is) that couldn't be gotten far easier and more plentifully on the mainland or other islands further North
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1