Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "BFBS Forces News"
channel.
-
105
-
62
-
58
-
49
-
34
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1