Youtube comments of 1IbramGaunt (@1IbramGaunt).
-
197
-
174
-
172
-
153
-
138
-
133
-
120
-
115
-
106
-
93
-
84
-
75
-
73
-
65
-
64
-
62
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
34
-
34
-
@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
-
32
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
Two regiment's worth, with maybe a third if the older Challenger 2's in reserve "mothballs" were activated too in an emergency, 250 tanks tops, with only around 148 of them Challenger 3's. Not as many as I'd like but it's a hell of a lot better than no tanks at all, and of course that's 148 of arguably the best Western MBT in the world, thing's gonna be an absolute BEAST (strongest armour, best gun, newest ammo, most advanced up-to-date systems) and backed up by THOUSANDS of Abrams, Leclerc's and Leopards in almost every possible conflict involving them, little thing called Nato haha. Plus at the end of the day it's not as if Britain's in much danger of a land-invasion being a bloody island is it haha, so it makes sense to send the majority of the money to the Navy and RAF instead, but while still keeping at least SOME tanks for contribution to overseas conflicts
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@keenzoblock5782 well I disagree 🙂 simple as that really, no I don't think it's ANY different whether it's a couple of tiny islands with 2000 people at the end of nowhere OR the whole world, because it's a question of PRINCIPLE, of war being justified if it's in the name of defence of justice and liberty and rightful sovreignty against aggression by an outside force, against tyranny and oppression, the principle of standing up to a bully. Nor do I agree Thatcher only did it all as some kind of political stunt and that she didn't truly care about the islanders or their fate, I've no doubt that gaining popularity through the victory was part OF her motivation as it DID probably save her previously very unpopular Conservative government and get her re-elected, I'm sure that WAS part of it, but not all of it. She was far from perfect, just as with any politician, but she was still a human being with a family and feelings, and still a British patriot who believed in her people. Say what you like about Trump in the present day but whether you like him or loathe him he IS a proud American and a human being, again with friends, family and feelings toward and about others. You see all this one way and I see it another, simple as that
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thirsty Sexpert well I think I've already made it clear that I disagree with you on all of this and it's doubtful we'll ever agree, but as I kept saying in my earlier comments that's FINE, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own favourites and I'm sick of getting into unnecessary, pointless drawn-out arguments with people over stuff that really isn't that important in the long run, so to end this discussion I will simply say that the British Army and British Government will be completely aware of everything we've just said, will have taken on board criticism and praise of aspects of the tank alike and made their own decisions, hence the upgrades presently underway. It's probably gonna get a smoothbore gun now ANYWAY so it can use the same ammo as it's allies, the armour will get better yet lighter at the same time, the engine will become more efficient, it'll get newer rangefinding and detection technology, and maybe even the new Mk.2 B.V. that comes with biscuits as standard for dunking lol. Although it probably won't actually be called the Challenger 3 and will still be the same tank underneath, it'll be sufficiently modernised that it might as well be a brand new tank, at a fraction of the cost of actually procuring a new one
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
-
@cartmanbrah01 yep, thought so, can't actually factually dispute what I'm saying so you fall back on that old chestnut, well done you, you COMPLETELY destroyed my argument there 😑🙄 (that's called sarcasm by the way). There's kinda a difference between a military defence against a military invasion, or indeed taking back our own territory by a military invasion of our own, and a bunch of unwanted civilians taking advantage of our trust and hospitality. Not something I or my fellow British patriots agree with or wish to see happening but unfortunately there's not a lot militarily speaking we can actually do about it is there, short of starting a damn second civil war here. And in any event it does not change the fact we DO own those islands as our rightful sovereign territory, and the physical distance from Britain has absolutely nothing to do with it, by that stupid non-logic Britain, France, Germany and Norway all have claim over each other's homelands, as they're all much closer together than the Falklands ever have been to Argentina. If that is seriously the best argument for Argentina's 'right' to them you can come up with I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon. As for Argentina buying new weapons from you or anyone else (A) ever heard the old adage "it's not the weapon, it's the soldier who uses it", (B) yeah I'm sure weapons from you are going to be of MAGNIFICENT quality and (C) they also need a kinda important little thing called 'money' for that
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
jordi castro and without Britain to launch the invasion FROM it would never have happened AT ALL. Not to mention things like the Battle Of Britain, Battle Of The Atlantic, Battle Of North Africa, breaking the Enigma and Lorenz codes, dropping supplies to resistance forces, sending in commando raids to disrupt and sabotage, sending wave after wave of bombers to attack German cities, sending supply convoys to Russia, and of course storming in on D-day, both in the air and on the beaches, right alongside our allies (despite what 'Saving Private Ryan' seemed to be trying to say); we kinda did rather a lot more than fucking hide and our allies would've been unable to win without us
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
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Pax Atomica. The ship's actually been designed from the ground up to be adapted for a cat and trap system, not the very latest true but the older steam system's worked fine for decades so not an issue, if it ain't broke don't fix it; and your very American obsession with nuclear reactor superiority has obviously blinded you to the fact the 'lowly' diesel engines and generators that ship has could power a decent-sized city, it's basically a floating power station and if we DO eventually completely run out of oil altogether to fuel it frankly the WORLD will have too and powering an aircraft carrier will be the least of our worries lol, but I'm sure an alternative fuel source could be found and it'd STILL be cheaper than anything nuclear. That ramp comes right off, just like the rest of the ship it's a separate section not integral to anything else, a week or two in port and it's gone, I bet even I'D be able land a Typhoon or Rafale on it then no problem whatsoever, let alone an STOVL like all the variants of F35; ski-jump's cheaper though always has been, always will be and if it worked in the Falklands it'll work here, the F35 is all the fighter we're gonna need on this thing and it flies off a ramp just fine with the added bonus of extra fuel and carry-weight- plus the option of VERTICAL take-off no other fighter jet would have if the runway gets taken out or becomes otherwise inoperable (well except the Harrier of course but there's a reason we're replacing them with it's partly British-designed descendant, it's still a great aircraft and we should've kept some on as reserves or a stop-gap but it's also very old and we've gotta move with the times). It's the most versatile, all-rounder fighter jet yet built and perfect for British interests, meaning we only HAVE to cater for it and not for other types as well; after all why would an F18 or Rafale want to land on our carrier anyway? They'd supposedly 'always' have much bigger and better ships of their own to go back to. As for the differences between variants they're both gonna be carrying the same weapons and pilots with the same skill-levels so in an actual real dogfight or especially in beyond visual range fighting they'd definitely even each other out there, and thanks to that ski-ramp launch and dedicated infrastructure the British one's likely to have more fuel and ammo left hence be able to stick around longer, a good thing as it'd doubtless be outnumbered due that higher aircraft carrying capacity- but even so it's never the weapon or number of weapons but the man at the controls. All of this is academic though as several people above tried to point out; the US and Britain are allies and STAYING allies and your closest ally just got a lot stronger militarily, something you should be congratulating us on and being genuinely glad about as you've lost a lot of other friends and gained a lot of enemies lately whereas we get on with pretty much everyone most of the time and are pretty good at settling things when we don't, so frankly you're gonna need us a lot more than we're gonna need you in the next war
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Interesting scenario to consider there. I needless to say am rather biased here BEING a Brit haha, but I still don't think even Germany and Russia combined would've actually been able to successfully invade us no matter what; oh it'd certainly make a big difference to the war overall, but even if they beat us in the Middle East and bombed the crap out of us here at home, that still wouldn't actually mean they could defeat the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force sufficiently overwhelmingly to take Britain itself- remember they were arguably the best navy and air force in the world at the time, (certainly the biggest and most powerful in the Royal Navy's case U-Boats or no U-Boats), highly-trained, well-armed and battle-hardened; and they would've been far more motivated to fight to the bitter end, our guys wouldn't be fighting for oil or supporting an ally or trying to hold on to some distant old colony, they'd be fighting for their own homeland, their own families, fighting for everything they knew and loved, against an overwhelming force composed of the two evil big bads of Europe (Fascism was bad enough but Communism was the boogey-man, the decades-old enemy everyone feared and hated). A massive looming obvious threat, definitely hell-bent on conquering us. And of course even if the 'Jerries' and 'Ruskies' actually DID somehow get as far as the actual landing on the beaches stage? they'd still have to actually get through a still largely-intact British Army, WITH full reserves activated and hundreds of thousands of Home Guard volunteers helping (many of which were WW1 veterans); all fighting on the defensive, often in urban warfare Stalingrad-style, and fighting on ground they knew far better than the enemy, well-supplied and supported fully by a population that would be actively engaged in guerilla warfare, sabotage and spying in their own right; I honestly think we'd still stop the f*ckers cold even if they DID invade. Also any Axis alliance that huge and powerful and already-hated? would DEFINITELY bring America into the war on our side sooner anyway, especially if you throw the threat from the Japanese in too, and America would've likely already been sending us massive amounts of supplies right from the get-go in that situation even if they weren't openly fighting beside us yet
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The biggest excuse (and that's all it is, an excuse rather than a legitimate believable reason) given for the military being so ineffective and so easily-overwhelmed in most zombie stuff, like The Walking Dead and World War Z, is that soldiers are primarily trained to aim for the centre-mass of the body rather than specifically the head, which is true; however if you are shooting someone there and nothing happens, it isn't gonna take a highly-trained professional soldier long to switch his fire to other parts of the body until he finds something that DOES work, and the second target of priority after the main body would always BE the head, and as soon as one soldier does that successfully so will all those beside him, and the information would immediately be radioed and relayed everywhere else too; also unless you've strapped the armour from a damn TANK directly to your body before becoming a zombie lol, direct hits from real bullets from military-grade weapons on ANY part of your body WILL always slow the human body down at the very least if not actually throw it backward, just from the impact and muscle-damage alone, zombie or not- which in turn would of course be buying the aforementioned soldiers time to figure out where to aim next. As for the other big reason given, psychological impact of seeing the dead come back to life, I honestly don't think that would have the same impact on soldiers as it would on other people (even in a world WITHOUT zombies in every other movie, video game, book and TV show they'll have ever watched, read or played lol). They're already highly-trained, intensely-disciplined professionals expecting to be sent to war, they're taught to expect & accept violent and horrifying injury, carnage, death & destruction being all around and to find ways to keep going with their duty despite it (oh they'll get PTSD later sure but in the heat of the moment they'll keep going- fight now, grieve and brood later); and of course many of the older soldiers will already be combat veterans anyway so they'll be even less affected, and they can in turn steady the resolve of the newer recruits around them
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
@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
-
@cartmanbrah01 as for defending Hong Kong yeah because street-to-street, house-to-house fighting, in a large built-up city on an ISLAND, while up against an enemy fighting not only for his country but in many cases for his own home turf that he knows like the back of his hand, that's always REALLY EASY right lol? I'd turn that city into a mini fucking Stalingrad. We outright lost one major war, ONE, in the last thousand years. We fought right through two world wars and countless smaller ones and conquered the largest empire in human history while circumnavigating the globe. We invented & discovered more stuff than even I can remember, we ended the slave trade and in general were pivotal to the course of human history. and in all that time, from 1066 to the present day, our home island has never fallen to a foreign military invasion. When was the last time China actually FOUGHT IN A WAR let alone won anything, against anyone except their own people that is. A brainwashed horde with no real combat experience, relying solely on sheer numbers and the cheapest possible weapons don't count for much fighting against a relatively small, tight-nit force of highly-trained professionals with the best equipment, especially when the latter are fighting with their backs to the wall, are well-supplied by sea and air and are assisted by the majority of the civilian populace, people determined to fight to the death for their freedom. Every street would be a contained kill-zone and death would be waiting around every corner, down every alley and from every window and rooftop
3
-
3
-
3
-
@georgebarnes8163 (A) old information pal, Prince Of Wales DOES have fixed wing aircraft now, only four F35's and some drones (which it now can also operate using a special catapult-rig), but it's a start with more to come, maybe consider actually looking this stuff up before commenting next time lol 😉 (B) the F35 is actually partly British designed and built and the B variant was directly inspired by the ALL-British Harrier, which if course can operate from her too as can any other VTOL, STOVL or STORL capable aircraft in the world, whether fixed wing or rotary, of which there are in fact many kinds; (C) there is nothing antiquated about the Merlin, we are not in short supply of them, there is plenty of other helicopter types we have that can operate from a QE-class besides a Merlin; and even if they WERE old helicopters? Complaining about that is pretty damn rich if it's coming from America or Russia or China lol. (D) there are 8 British F35's on QE at last count, not 6. Oh and (E) right now there is no Royal Navy F35's no, but that's not permanently gonna be the case and so long as there's British jets of ANY branch that're still operating off British carriers with British pilots I don't see what the hell difference that makes
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
-
@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
-
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
-
I said 'in the majority' and I meant it, this movie is based around pretty much the entire BRITISH army being evacuated BY THE BRITISH. Yes, the French made up the bulk of the numbers in the crucial rearguard, I'm actually fully aware of it and I have nothing but respect for their efforts, they did go on fighting right through the evacuation and played a crucial role holding the Germans back, couldn't have done it without them; however none of you lot complaining about the French not being shown or talked about enough ever talk about the BRITISH troops fighting right beside them, my own Grandfather's regiment included, or the Belgian and Dutch troops fighting beside THEM, or the fact a good number of the above were evacuated TOO. This was an ALLIED force comprised of the remnants of several different country's armed forces and that's how I've been thinking of and referring to them this whole time in terms of the real history; however in the MOVIE we're supposed to be talking about it's far more narrowed down, and rightfully so as it would otherwise have gone waaaay over-time and over-budget IF it was ever finished at all, unless they resorted to ditching the awesome practical effects and just made the whole thing out of CGI in which case it would've SUCKED. If you want to make a movie about the French troops, MAKE IT, but do it in France with French people otherwise it's just not the same 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
-
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
-
Yeah, and the Admiral Graf Spee should have blown the Exeter, Achilles and Ajax out of the water on paper, having more collective armour, speed and firepower than the three of them put together. The battle of the River Plate at the start of WW2, to save you Googling it as I'm sure you've never heard of it, three relatively puny British cruisers against one German 'Pocket Battleship' that on paper was in every way their superior, the equivalent of one Tiger tank supposedly being the equal of half a dozen Shermans or T34's, again, ON PAPER. You can quote me anything you like but the only real answer to this question would be in an actual, real-life dogfight, where 'the metal hits the meat' to quote your Colonel Hal Moore of the Vietnam War
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
-
Well I'm actually from Sheffield, 'PAL', my mother was from London and my father from Glasgow, and I'm a working-class 32-year-old British-as-it-gets car mechanic who will talk or type however the hell he wants thankyou very much, and who just happens to also read a lot of actual BOOKS in his spare time especially about military history, a subject I love and know well; and if you think I give a flying steamy monkey-fuck about you, your grammar, MY grammar or anyone else's or indeed whether you actually read what I'm typing you're an even bigger shithead then you seem, although the very fact you bothered to say all that about something you'd supposedly ignored kinda shows you did, found I was right and you were wrong, and resorted to pointlessly attacking me instead of calm discussion and indeed, DEBATE. The unnecessary insult is always the first and last resort of the mentally-challenged bully in a school playground, somewhere you should definitely go back to as you clearly haven't grown up enough to talk rationally with the adults yet
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
The Leopard in it's latest form IS the superior tank anyway in some areas, no question. There's others where it just ISN'T though, especially protection. The areas where the Leo IS superior like speed and firepower are nothing that sufficiently well-thought-out upgrades to the Chally couldn't overcome, and as for the question of cost? i.e. that buying 4 or 5 hundred already-up-to-date, new off the production line Leopard 2's would be cheaper and more financially efficient than upgrading 2-300 old already 'worn-down' Chally hulls? that surely goes out the window when you realise that if we did this we wouldn't just have to buy the new tanks themselves, but EVERYTHING TO GO WITH THEM, not just for right now either but for the next 30 years or more, a whole new logistics and spare parts entourage for them, re-training for the crews, re-training for the support and maintenance guys, new ammunition as it's different weapons, probably new fuel too, re-setting up of storage hangers and aircraft and bridges and landing craft and ships and rail-transport as it's a completely different size, shape and weight of tank. I honestly don't think those guys at Forbes or wherever have really thought this through. Even taking national pride and sentiment out of the discussion, it just doesn't make logical sense to me, if you're trying to save money with something like this, to throw everything you already have out the window and then literally start over from scratch (isn't like anyone's gonna actually BUY all this old
Challenger stuff off us first after all right to help make up the numbers, guess Oman maybe could? if they don't guess we're screwed as isn't many other likely bidders I can think of out there? Fingers crossed I guess)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardjbarlow we have enough escorts either ready to go or on the drawing board already, so long as we don't suddenly scrap or sell off half of them after some stupid defence review anyway, we only HAVE two carriers to escort after all. The main big problem, as every QE-class hater out there points out again and again, with our new carriers and their F35's is actual combat range, payload and the duration they can stay IN combat, thanks to the ski-ramp and VTOL approach we've taken; that and yes the actual number of jets each can carry of course, but that's never gonna be as many as the Americans no matter what. And, as I say the present number of actual F35's is enough for going on with and can be kept if some of the conventional helicopters are switched out, only a couple of Ospreys for each ship will be needed anyway, we don't need vast numbers of these things
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@devilhex2802 numbers aren't everything, despite what Binkov seems to think, and despite whatever CCP-brainwashed bullsh*t "Andrew Krause" is gonna say next, trust me the British armed forces CAN and WOULD be more than a match for the Chinese, they have the quantity sure but we have the QUALITY, we have simply better and more advanced hardware operated by better-trained people, many of which have actual, real recent combat-experience, and trust me that's what really would make the biggest difference. And of course that's just Britain, formidable enough by itself, in any REMOTELY realistic scenario though we'd have allies at our side anyway, and a lot of them, including almost certainly a still completely-intact India of course haha, along with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and several others, oh yeah and y'know, AMERICA
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ASMR GentleMan they didn't just "do some good things as well", for all the conquest and bloodshed of those days being in and of itself bad things the British Empire also brought the ideas OF democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the world, along with more technological progress and innovation in a shorter space of time than any other nation on the face of the Earth- much of which came into being IN Britain itself, or would never have become the inventions we know without Britain, including the devices and electronic super-highway connecting them we're discussing this on right now. Oh and a little thing called ENDING SLAVERY. I'm not gonna pretend we never did anything wrong as a country, you don't create the largest empire in history that brought modern civilization, for good or ill to the four corners of the globe by being nice and polite about it all the time, despite the stereotype haha; but the GOOD things we did FAR outweigh any bad we DID do in my opinion and that's not ignorance or propaganda, that's my honest feeling DESPITE being well aware of the Empire's darker side
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
-
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
-
@cartmanbrah01 oh and as for 'what we have' in terms of missiles we have the originals that you have the cheap Chinese knock-offs of lol, that's what we have. And yes, Hitler and the Third Reich failed to defeat us (pretty sure they had boats moron, google 'Kriegsmarine'), Kaiser Wilhelm failed, Napoleon failed, Phillip Of Spain failed, PLENTY have tried but no-one has conquered Britain since William The aptly-named Conqueror in 1066 (and say what you like about the Normans but if it wasn't for them this country would never be what it later became, and they did at least try to actually assimilate the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Vikings living there with their own culture rather than refusing to). Since then, no-one. Definitely wasn't just because our enemies couldn't figure out how to cross 30 bloody miles of water
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@con_boy It's true mate, verified historical fact, she's named after an old battleship that was in turn named after the first queen of England by that name, look it up if you don't believe me. Also we live in a constitutional monarchy where kings and queens, though mere figureheads now were for millennia the ultimate symbol of power and authority, hence surely it's only natural for that country's most impressive warships, being as they are floating extensions of that power and enforcers of that authority, should be named after those same monarchs OR, more often notable ones from the past, especially those responsible for important deeds that made them household names. Queen Elizabeth I, the 'Virgin Queen' or 'Good Queen Bess', was the queen who oversaw the defeat of the Spanish Armada, achieved under her orders and in her name was one of the greatest naval victories of all time, certainly in British history surpassed only by Trafalgar- for which achievement similar ship-naming took place
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
-
Two regiment's worth, with maybe a third if the older Challenger 2's in reserve "mothballs" were activated too in an emergency, 250 tanks tops, with only 148 of them Challenger 3's. Not as many as I'd like but it's a hell of a lot better than no tanks at all, and of course that's 148 of arguably the best Western MBT in the world, thing's gonna be an absolute BEAST (strongest armour, best gun, newest ammo, most advanced up-to-date systems) and backed up by THOUSANDS of Abrams, Leclerc's and Leopards in almost every possible conflict involving them, little thing called Nato haha. Plus at the end of the day it's not as if Britain's in much danger of a land-invasion being a bloody island is it haha, so it makes sense to send the majority of the money to the Navy and RAF instead, but while still keeping at least SOME tanks for contribution to overseas conflicts
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where are YOU from may I ask, or more specifically of what descent is your nationality? I'm guessing India from the above? if so there would BE no India as we know it without the repeated invasions and eventual conquering by the British and their subsequent domination and imperial colonization of the landmass it is situated upon, and more importantly the people living there; this had numerous results, both good and very, very bad ramifications throughout the long history of the 'Raj' as I'm sure you're very aware, ones that still affect India to this day in fact, and I won't go into them in detail here as this comment is going to be long enough as it is haha; my point is that if you're going to start reacting like that maybe, before ending up, as you do sounding rather superior and holier-than-thou you should consider your own (presumed ancestral) historical position, due to the undeniable fact that India's entire history as a nation was being heavily influenced by outsiders and Great Britain in particular centuries before 1947, and that the above 'statement' that this whole stupid Youtube 'comment war' was somehow started by was clearly referencing overall national identities as we commonly think of them far more than the landmasses they're sitting on or what they were in ancient times; in other words think before you type please. While I'm here I feel I should also add the aforementioned 'statement' was clearly not intended to be politically intelligent or sensitive on any serious level but simply a rather poor and predictable attempt to get a few laughs, and I'm only responding to you with such seriousness due to your own taking of it so seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mattheos Clemence ask them, seriously, ASK THOSE CITIZENS if they were better of as citizens of a thriving, ultra-modern western democracy or as vassals of a corrupt, brutal, unethical regime that considers itself within it's legal rights to imprison, torture, kill and sell the organs of it's own people for practicing the wrong form of worship or even, god forbid, complaining about human rights, before promptly showing a completely different softy-softy panda-cuddling face to the rest of the world so no-one ever asks any questions
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eexpers there's a reason no-one gave a shit back in the seventies until this happened and they nearly died though, drama is drama, humans need it on some level to avoid becoming bored with an experience and most of the time successful space flights and operations pass without incidents dramatic enough to BE memorable, and even when they DO happen it rarely sticks in the mind for long because they're dealt with calmly and professionally by those involved just like Apollo 13, to a non-scientific-minded man or woman in the street "about as exciting as taking a trip to Pittsburg". Now I know, you know and Nick knows full well that for all their calm, collected ways of dealing with it there's plenty of interest going on, but the fact is to someone who's not aware of any part of the situation other than what they're seeing on their TV, phone or computer screens it's BORING AS HELL a good 90% of the time, just people floating around and talking without any real 'action' to keep them invested, then and now
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@Skybreaker1337 the only reason the Emu's quote "won" the Emu War in Australia was because they were tens of thousands of Emu's, up against about four rather incompetent dudes in a truck, with just two WW1 Lewis Guns. No tanks, no artillery, no warships, no cruise missiles or drones, no helicopters, jet-fighters or strategic bombers, no elite special forces commando-teams or genius scientists or massive logistical support, NONE of the stuff America would definitely have in abundance in a zombie apocalypse, no, instead it was just a single squad of off-duty Aussie morons with inadequate training & equipment and obsolete weapons. And they still killed a good thousand Emu's
1
-
1
-
@Pilotmario the reason Japan didn't have very good tanks at first was because they were NEVER a priority to them, when the war broke out they were still using early-1930's designs, which they'd never replaced as just like the other military equipment they had it had worked fine against the Chinese so why bother, if it ain't broke don't fix it right; they also unlike the Germans never thought of tanks as the new big thing, never developed fancy new tactics, strategies or entirely mechanised units around them, and what's more the navy and air-force got all the good resources, know-how and budget for new vehicle designs anyway. It was only right at the end of the war when the allies were really breathing down their necks with powerful, modern tanks they'd surely soon invade with that the Japanese finally started making up-to-date designs, too little, too late- and they STILL HAD boxy shapes and flat armour-plates
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josesierraromero8316 a war of attrition against them would be a sinister prospect for ANYONE, let alone a small island nation the size of Idaho lol, but that doesn't mean we'd stand no chance at all, and damn right I'm a patriot, someone still has to be lol; however we're not fools and no we're not blind, patriotic or not we know we don't still have the old Empire and are not a superpower anymore. BUT we are at least allied with those that ARE. We're a key and leading part of Nato, the world's strongest, most stable military alliance and peacekeeping force. That's one factor the YouTube channels comparing one country's military against another in 'what-if' scenarios rarely seem to take into account. And of course in particular we've America on our side, and while they might not be prepared to get their hands dirty in quote "some little scrap over an old British farmer's sheep-pasture" (seriously that's how one American politician actually referred to the crisis over the Falklands right before the war there started lol), they WOULD get involved on our side immediately against somewhere like Russia or China, and Russia and China know that as well as we do
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josesierraromero8316 the modern Royal Navy doesn't have the numbers of ships it did in 1982 no, but those we DO have in 2021 are amongst the most advanced and powerful in the world and numbers alone mean JACK SHIT in modern warfare, quality beats quantity, as China will find out very quickly if they try anything. Argentina is basically no longer a serious threat at this point and everyone else in Britain's immediate neck of the woods is either an ally of ours, is ALSO no serious threat these days or has other countries between them and us anyway like Russia; oh Russia's navy and air-force could still get to us but not with anything we couldn't blow out of existence before it even got close, with the obvious exception of nukes, but good old M.A.D. renders those basically unusable anyway. So yeah, that leaves China, between us and them is a shitload of ocean and other countries, and a little thing called the US Navy, backed up by our own new Carrier Strike Group and whatever other help is needed from Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan. China is powerful, don't get me wrong, but not THAT powerful, and unless they want a repeat of the Opium Wars all over again they'd better not forget that
1
-
1
-
@josesierraromero8316 I agree on that completely, unfortunately, I fully do expect the next big war to be a no-holds-barred battle for supremacy in Asia against China, and probably not to be too far off in the future either. And people thought 2020 was a bad year... my only big disagreement is that China would be this all-powerful force sweeping through all before it, as I believe that we CAN still very much match them especially in the air and on the seas, they have the numbers but we have the QUALITY, we have the experience, the training and the better-made & more advanced hardware, we CAN beat China in conventional warfare- especially with the support of our allies, which realistically we definitely WOULD always have in a war like that, and right from the start, no question. My only real concern there though is that such a conflict may actually turn nuclear if China gets desperate enough, and might drag other countries in, World War 3 in other words
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhouseman4328 if it's such a crisis that more are needed than those our current fleet of aircraft can carry and those that are stationed in other parts of the world already, then that's when we call NATO my friend, the OTHER reason besides the above that we don't actually NEED thousands of tanks or thousands of ships and planes to bring them? We have lots of allies who already DO, think two hundred or so Chally's is more than enough if they're backed up by two THOUSAND Abrams lol, not to mention Leopards, Merkavas, LeClerc's, Arietes, Type 90's and so on and so forth to back THOSE up. And if for some reason our allies can't or won't help directly, then (A) see this is why we nevertheless still need our OWN damn tanks and (B) well in that case you make the best of whatever you DO have and fight a delaying action, say with lots of well dug-in infantry with anti-tank weapons instead, until such time as more Challengers DO eventually arrive by sea as THAT'S still our main method of transporting them en masse
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ignacioburkhardt789 and we do not recognise that Spanish 1590 claim either, so yeah, here we are again. Frankly the Spanish probably claimed they won a certain battle with us a few years earlier in 1588, during that little fracas with their Armada, and that therefore Britain ITSELF belongs to them by 'right of conquest'. Yeah good luck with that. Regardless of who first discovered the land, they were officially claimed as our territory in 1765 (and UNofficially in 1690, and on neither occasion was there any Spaniards already there at the time and certainly no Argentines), and our claim is the one recognised by the United Nations under international law, and the people who actually LIVE there and whose ancestors have for generations want to stay British, and as long as they do that's how those islands ARE staying. Now if you have a problem with all that, or indeed the Spanish do, fair enough, feel free to take it up with the UN, or indeed even try taking it up with the Falklanders themselves instead (and the over 1000 professional heavily-armed soldiers, sailors and airmen protecting them 24/7), but if it's the latter I'd do so politely, calmly and unarmed if I were you
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaq6976 no worries, any time. And frankly I wish we'd just fought on the same side back then against the Communists (like we of course basically WOULD later on in the Cold War haha but I mean fought for real). Or indeed Tsarist Russia, before the World Wars even started in 1905, just before Tsushima at the Dogger Bank Incident. If that had started a war it would have been a war we'd have been fighting on the same side, and (so long as no-one was dumb enough to try an actual full-on ground invasion of the buggers this time) a war we'd win, actually outright WIN the old-fashioned way, just beat their navy to a pulp then make them sue for peace, no trench warfare stalemate, and that would quite possibly mean no later World Wars (as we know them) at all and no rise of Hitler, no splitting of Germany or fall of the old Empires including Britain's, no end to the old ways of honour, glory, chivalry and gentlemanly conduct
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Here we go again lol. The usual bullshit of no allies whatsoever, no matter how unlikely we are not to have any, or indeed how stupid it would be for us to go to war in the first place against somewhere like India without any, or for the Americans to literally just ABANDON the entire region like that let alone stab their closest and most dependable and valuable allies in the back like that as well; aaaand of course, there's always the same old chestnut that the UK has to lose no matter what, no matter how advanced or powerful our military gets or how unlikely we are to lose in any REMOTELY realistic scenario. There's literally ONE video I can remember watching of his featuring us, where the British actually win something lol! ONE, and even IN that one it was only because it was against Argentina lol, i.e. a scenario so one-sided in our favour that there was literally no way he COULD sensibly make Britain lose; and we're still awaiting the version of that Battle Of Britain video of his where it's the MODERN Royal Air Force rather than the 1940's one haha?! Y'know given he DID give the Germans their modern Luftwaffe, YET still somehow travelling back in time and fighting in WW2, it seems only fair we should get a video where it's the other way around? Hmm? 🙂 British Typhoons and F35's, and maybe even a sixth-gen Tempest prototype or two, why not lol, against Messerschmitts, Stukas and Heinkels lol?
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
-
@robertballard4611 call Vietnam what you will, think seeing as Vietnam is, again not only still here but a free, prosperous and still proudly Communist nation (but one that rather ironically kicked China's arse a few years later), don't see how you can really claim victory there. As for what those pirates may or may not have said or signed on a bit of paper, the thing that truly stopped their effectiveness and eventually most of their actual attacks as a result was the first gradual, then rapid, development of more modern heavily armed and armoured european iron n' steam warships that the lightly-equipped, mostly still sail-powered North African pirates couldn't overpower and couldn't outrun anymore. As for 1812 does Canada exist as a separate nation? Yes? Again, you didn't f*ckin' WIN the WAR overall then did you lol, or at least achieve more than restoring the national borders to not far from where they started from in the first place, NEITHER side achieved their full war-goals, neither side could achieve a true victory over the other's homeland and France or no France and 'Old Ironsides' or no 'Old Ironsides' Britannia still ruled the waves all the same, so it ended as a drawn-out and bloody STALEMATE, not a win OR a loss but a draw, and that was my point about all of them, well that and pointing out that America clearly needs to re-evaluate it's history a little sometimes when they bang on about how star-spangled awesome they are, when was the last time they outright DID win anything outside their own soil and without direct outside assistance
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewkrause6956 that was the NINETEENTH century not the seventeenth, the Opium Wars happened in the 1860's? Part of what I believe you guys call China's 'century of humiliation', and it's called that with good reason. As for the Yangtze River Incident or Amethyst Incident, which I assume is what you were talking about before, where a small British warship, HMS Amethyst ended up getting temporarily trapped behind Communist lines whilst on that river in 1947 during the Chinese Civil War, well I seem to remember she actually SURVIVED, despite you guys firing everything you had and the kitchen sink at her for days on end lol, and she and her crew eventually managed to escape back home just fine, and yet they would've LEFT ANYWAY BEFOREHAND if you lot had let them, that's the ironic thing; I also recall during that incident you actually tried to pretend that it was the BRITISH who shot first too lol and that it was a deliberate act of aggression against China, yeah suuuure, I suppose even if that complete horsesh*t WERE actually true that it justifies firing continuous volleys of heavy artillery at lifeboats full of wounded helpless men? long after the British had stopped firing back? That ship was supposed to be there, she was on her lawful and peaceful business and was a completely neutral party in that war, if unmolested she'd have left for home of her own accord anyway without a shot being fired, and it was the Communist Chinese forces of the "People's Liberation" Army that themselves CHOSE to openly attack her, THEY started that incident, THEY fired first, THEY carried on firing at wounded men in the water (and also at OTHER British warships that came there simply to try and rescue the first), and then after all that they outright refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for any of it! tried to pretend they were nothing but innocent victims
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan every one of those cities had thousands of soldiers and Nazi leaders and officials in and around it too, living in barracks, training and on leave; and more importantly many had docks, factories, assembly plants, construction yards, ammunition dumps and oil reservoirs ALSO in and around them, vital to the German war machine, had these not been continually bombed night after night, day after day Nazi Germany could well have been unstoppable. Bomb-sights were not very accurate back then, whether the British were deliberately trying to kill civilians back then or not there would have been no way to bomb military-only targets WITHOUT collateral damage. Also it was hardly only such targets the Germans bombed nor was it only one city, they bombed every major British city within reach and, as they became more desperate toward the end of the war just started lobbing unguided cruise missiles at Britain in general
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ngocha-xt4ec well we don't consider armed conflict involving warships, soldiers, sailors and heavy artillery to BE a 'massacre' here, we lost a lot of guys to the Chinese in the Korean War after they decided to suddenly get involved in a foreign war that had nothing to do with them and started sending vast human wave attacks at us, you don't hear us crying foul about that do you, war is war. I am sorry so many civilians died in that incident but these things sadly happen, tens of thousands of British and German civilians died in air-raids on cities in WW2, doesn't mean all RAF and Luftwaffe bomber pilots are murderers. As it is though I do wish I could go back in time and stop those incidents from happening, can't though sadly, and well glad to hear you don't hate us because while I'm none too fond of your present government, their politics and some of the stuff they've done I have nothing against the Chinese people themselves myself either
1
-
@primuszorn2907 alright, you wanna go there let's go there. As I said to the other Chinaman if a non-British warship had been in the Thames they'd either have every legitimate and lawful right to be there and the paperwork to prove it, as Amethyst did, 'wandering' my arse, or they'd have been sunk before getting anywhere near. As for recognising that Orwellian nightmare you call a country as 'legitimate' as far as I'm concerned you're still NOT, but my government has chosen to do so and unlike with the glorious leader now known as 'Winnie The Poo' one man's opinion is not enough to decide policy here. As for the American Revolutionary War yeah we lost, ONCE, literally the only major war we have in a fucking MILLENNIUM and I've lost count of the number of humiliating defeats CHINA'S had in that time but yeah we did, wup-dee-fucking-doo. No-one actually knows WHO officially fired first in that conflict though, but since that figurative first shot of that war is still called "the shot heard around the world" I think you'll find who fired first often kinda DOES matter, and it clearly did in the Amethyst incident too- otherwise why lie about who DID fire first until nearly 40 years later
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my opinion while the Colt C8's a fine weapon, and definitely should be used by special forces or Commando units as the need arises in small numbers, I don't think the SA80 should be completely replaced by it nor by anything other than a new British weapon, because national pride and patriotism is important (yeah the newer versions're two thirds German lol but it's still a British DESIGN at least, and there's nothing wrong with it now thanks to H&K). I just feel we should be using our own stuff as much as possible to keep our seperate identity, especially when it comes to the military; and frankly I just don't see what sufficiently-major advantages the C8 really has over the latest SA80A3's to warrant total replacement, as it's still firing the same cartridge using the same magazines and the same optics & accessories, the SA80 being a bullpup the overall size difference is marginal, and sure the C8's lighter but not THAT much lighter, if an SA80's too heavy for you at 11 pounds you need to get back in the damn gym lol, people griping about that should try a Lee-Enfield or SLR sometime. Think the only major insurmountable advantage is the non-transferable right-shoulder only thing, which IS a fair point. Frankly that never seems to have been that big of a problem in previous actual combat use of the SA80 though, not something I've heard many veterans grumble about including the ones that definitely DID have plenty of other grumbles about that poor much-maligned rifle lol. At the end of the day the way I see it most people ARE either right-handed or ambidextrous anyway, and if you need to lean out of cover to the left of a wall in an emergency that's when you just DO use it from your left shoulder anyway and accept risking a bit of hot brass hitting you because better that than actual enemy bullets
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callumdouglas7460 true although just like with the Germans in WW2 there's no way in hell all America's troops, tanks, planes or ships could EVER all come over at once or be used to full effect like that, that numerical advantage wouldn't actually help them much I feel, not while operating that far from home and directly from the sea or air rather than from the land, little thing called the Atlantic Ocean in the way. And regardless, for whatever American forces that DID get here? every single British soldier they DID meet (and they would be meeting them RIGHT AWAY as soon as they arrived mind and immediately engaged in brutal street-to-street, house-to-house fighting), well that British soldier would be fighting with everything they had, balls to the wall tooth-and-nail all-out last stand fighting. They would be fighting on his or her own ground that he or she would know far better than an American EVER would, and fighting not just for his or her country or government or money or resources, but for his or her actual PEOPLE, his or her own freedom and ideals, his or her own home and family, for everything they held dear, everything they believed in. Trust me when I say in that situation they WOULD fight to the last man and the last f*cking round. If America really did commit to doing this you would basically have to kill virtually every Brit, everyone here capable OF fighting back anyway, and certainly destroy pretty much everything and anything of any real value here to win. America would win eventually, sure, through sheer numbers and resources if nothing else, but it would be about as f*cking "easy" as Korea, Iraq or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Vietnam were, or all those little Japanese-held islands in WW2 (and, unlike in those conflicts, our forces are armed with MODERN equipment, vehicles, training and weaponry equal or better to anything the Americans have. Yeah, "easy" my arse). And, even if despite all that they did still indeed win? there likely wouldn't be much of a Britain left WORTH having by the time they finally did. Frankly all that's missing from THAT pretty picture is Bush and his "Mission Accomplished" banner lol. We might be small, we might not have that great old Empire anymore, and of course we might be more politically and socially divided right now than ever, but something like THIS? A massive, full-on, unprovoked outright invasion by a foreign enemy COMBINED with the betrayal of it being formerly our closest allies? it would give us a common foe, make us put aside our differences in the face of a common threat, and the first innocent blood spilled would make us about as ready to give up and surrender at that point as Churchill himself was in 1940. Underestimating a truly determined and united Britain, standing together as one people with a cause to fight for, is never a good idea under ANY circumstances, EVER, and anyone who doubts that frankly needs to go and read a bit more history
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my opinion while the Colt C8's a fine weapon, and definitely should be used by special forces or Commando units as the need arises in small numbers, I don't think the SA80 should be completely replaced by it nor by anything other than a new British weapon, because national pride and patriotism is important (yeah the newer versions're two thirds German lol but it's still a British DESIGN at least, and there's nothing wrong with it now thanks to H&K). I just feel we should be using our own stuff as much as possible to keep our seperate identity, especially when it comes to the military; and frankly I just don't see what sufficiently-major advantages the C8 really has over the latest SA80A3's to warrant total replacement, as it's still firing the same cartridge using the same magazines and the same optics & accessories, the SA80 being a bullpup the overall size difference is marginal, and sure the C8's lighter but not THAT much lighter, if an SA80's too heavy for you at 11 pounds you need to get back in the damn gym lol, people griping about that should try a Lee-Enfield or SLR sometime. Think the only major insurmountable advantage is the non-transferable right-shoulder only thing, which IS a fair point. Frankly that never seems to have been that big of a problem in previous actual combat use of the SA80 though, not something I've heard many veterans grumble about including the ones that definitely DID have plenty of other grumbles about that poor much-maligned rifle lol. At the end of the day the way I see it most people ARE either right-handed or ambidextrous anyway, and if you need to lean out of cover to the left of a wall in an emergency that's when you just DO use it from your left shoulder anyway and accept risking a bit of hot brass hitting you because better that than actual enemy bullets
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saidtoshimaru1832 nope, having looked it up we did indeed lose, you guys won those battles fair and square, so full props to you. I still wouldn't really call them "invasions" as such though, although yeah "raids" does make them sound small and unimportant, so "incursions" perhaps is a better word, not invasions though, trust me if we really were full-on invading Argentina we'd have sent far more men and ships. As it was we were only trying to take control over those particular areas from the Spanish during a much larger conflict after all, secure control over the River Plate and deny reinforcements or supplies to and from Spain's colonies, rather than actually take all of Argentina or even permanently hold on to Beunos Aires. compared to an actual Normandy-style invasion it was, to use an appropriate-to-the-time example, more like the Battle Of Quiberon against the French, or the various other British-supported ultimately-doomed attempts by the French Royalists to regain a foothold on their homeland; or indeed like Market Garden or Dieppe in WW2, high-risk complex & dangerous operations to complete specific objectives toward a far larger goal; aaaand just like with those, the River Plate operations failed miserably too. Other times we did pull it off though :) you win some you lose some
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alex Gonzalez we don't actually beleive that stuff anymore, we're not the British Empire anymore and we know it, and yes other countries have bigger navies now it's true. What we DO have is a long and glorious history and we like to remind the rest of the world of it once in a while, THAT'S why we still say that stuff sometimes, but it's not in the present tense. As for the carriers one of them's ready to go and the other's not far behind, they'd be operational already if it wasn't for the Americans we're buying the planes for them off dragging their heels; and in regard to YOUR carrier krr-ching thankyou, you're welcome :p as for liquidating us Argentina, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea are all welcome to try it but they'd better remember what happened to all the countries that DID try, with the exception of the one that later became our strongest ally- the United States Of America
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Volley fire might not work as a concept in modern combat with modern weapons involved but it sure as hell worked then, especially for the British while fighting defensively in line. Superior training meant they could do it faster, higher-calibre musket balls meant they could hit harder and superior discipline meant they could hold their formations better, even under heavy artillery bombardment or cavalry attack. And while the main infantry regiments WERE, both literally and figuratively haha, 'holding the line', our own light infantry, including, of course the famous riflemen, the 'Greenjackets', with their Baker Rifles would stay in cover or on the flanks and make short work of any opposing 'Voltiguers' trying to pick off the stationary line of Redcoats
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Macumazahn I'd say he, like myself as a fellow Brit (from Yorkshire in Northern England in my case), has a relatively fair and unbiased view, being not only a century and a half removed from it but from what was a neutral country in that war (one of the few times we HAVE been in a major conflict from start to finish without any direct military involvement, and given it would only have made everything even WORSE if we had really stuck our noses in you're welcome for that on BOTH sides). I really do see merit from both points of view, I beleive there were genuinely good and honourable soldiers and bloodthirsty murderers and criminals on BOTH sides and everything in between, that neither side was wholly good OR evil, that it's a tragedy so many had to die with that being the case; and yes we do indeed find it remarkable that you've since had a relatively war-free 150 years, at least at home, guess it was enough to get it out of your systems, definitely something to at least ponder ourselves too in Britain, in Europe and in the world in general
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
-
@MikeBrown-go1pc if there's ever even the remotest possibility suggested of those little brainwashed Commie shitheads actually attacking with enough of their crappy knock-off weapons TO overwhelm the far, far superior Type 45 there's gonna be more than one escort in that carrier group ANYWAY, probably either another Type 45 or a Type 23, 31 or 26 frigate and an Astute or Vanguard class submarine along with all the assorted British air power within range that can be brought to bear, both land and carrier-based. And of course, not to mention allied ships, as any operation against the Chinese involving British ships is gonna involve a little thing called the US Navy too lol, and probably the Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, New Zealanders and Indians too. Gonna overwhelm all of that too I suppose
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well they shouldn't because British pride haha (yeah the newer versions're two thirds German lol but it's still a British DESIGN at least, and there's nothing wrong with it now thanks to H&K); I just feel we should be using our own stuff as much as possible to keep our seperate identity, especially when it comes to the military, and I don't see what major advantages the C8 really has over the latest SA80A3's, as it's still firing the same cartridge using the same magazines and the same optics & accessories, the SA80 being a bullpup the overall size difference is marginal, and sure the C8's lighter but not THAT much lighter, if an SA80's too heavy for you at 11 pounds you need to get back in the damn gym lol, people griping about that should try a Lee-Enfield or SLR sometime. Think the only major insurmountable advantage is the non-transferable right-shoulder only thing, which IS a fair point. Frankly that never seems to have been that big of a problem in previous actual combat use of the SA80 though, not something I've heard many veterans grumble about including the ones that definitely DID have plenty of other grumbles about that poor much-maligned rifle lol. At the end of the day the way I see it most people ARE either right-handed or ambidextrous anyway, and if you need to lean out of cover to the left of a wall in an emergency that's when you just DO use it from your left shoulder and accept risking a bit of hot brass hitting you because better that than actual enemy bullets
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeBLOWFHB yeah if that's the best response you can give I'm not gonna talk to you any further, consider acting like an adult if you want to be treated as one. To sum up though, in my opinion the Matilda II, all versions of the Churchill and to a lesser extent the Valentine were all excellent designs by late 1930's/early 1940's standards, and were more than a match and certainly no worse than the equivalent German, Italian or Japanese tanks of the same era they came up with, and in particular when put up against tanks only armed with 37mm guns they wiped the floor with the enemy. At the battle of Arras the only thing that stopped the Matilda II's there was the 88mm AA gun, something that NO tank of that era stood much chance against, and before the Germans came up with the idea of USING said 88's for tank-killing they were running for their bloody lives as their normal anti-tank weapons, Pak 37's were having no appreciable effect whatsoever. Let's say, hypothetically, that for whatever reason there'd not been any 88's there that day, say the anti-aircraft defense for the area had been left to quad-mounts of light flak guns instead. What would've stopped the British? Certainly no ordinary German tank of that era. Kinda proves my point surely, that under the right circumstances and when used correctly, British tanks and in particular British heavy tanks weren't just good but a true force to be reckoned with. Don't need to be fast if you've got the thickest armour and best gun and the Germans aren't actually fielding anything better at the stage of the war in question
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@casematecardinal they USED TO have those advantages, the Challenger 3 will change all that with it's new engine, just as it will the rifled to smoothbore problem- I never actually claimed the tank didn't need improvements or upgrades. And the Chally was always still fast and powerful ENOUGH regardless anyway, last time I checked it wasn't a race lol, Challenger tanks of both versions got where they needed to go, when they needed to get there, and did what they needed to do and got their crews home alive every single time, for over 40 years and through both Gulf Wars, there's not many other modern main battle tanks that can say that (tanks that have seen genuine combat that is, including against IED's, ATGM's and other tanks). To men who are alive to tell the tale now thanks to that amazing Dorchester armour, it's definitely the best tank in the world and always has been- plus of course it can make tea, as an added bonus 😁
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1