Youtube comments of Jim Taylor (@jimtaylor294).
-
603
-
233
-
166
-
155
-
150
-
149
-
145
-
141
-
140
-
135
-
134
-
131
-
114
-
112
-
109
-
107
-
103
-
100
-
100
-
88
-
87
-
82
-
81
-
79
-
78
-
76
-
71
-
70
-
66
-
63
-
61
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
50
-
49
-
47
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
Weirdly enough, a class of ships named HMS Ampersand , Apostrophe , Bracket , Comma , Degree , Hyphen , Interrabang , Percent , Quotation , Slash , Squiggle , Star & Thorn ... don't sound bad at all ^_^ .
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
^ SNAT bot confirmed XD.
The Scots are going nowhere but with the rest of GB, as anyone versed in economics and law can assert.
The EU is disintergrating, and in no position to "encircle" anyone; whilst the Russians are an overhyped irrelevance, made a bogeyman by western politicians desperate to refight the cold war, a war the Russians withdrew from generations ago, having finally grasped the economic futility of contesting the US, and that communism just doesn't work.
The main threat today is China, and its insidious activities worldwide. Only in that, is the west being complacent, as it has been for decades.
(1989 having proved Nixon's grand plan to be a dismal failure, as PRC despotism proved more resistant to domestic calls for democracy than expected)
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
^ Complete nonsense. A~and nope, more than six nations had Capital Ships.
Fact is, from the Tudor period until WWII the Standing Navy was the best political symbol of national power, that also gave a physical real world ability to contest world trade.
The Must-Have Weapon thereof for centuries was the Battleship (different names over the years but functionally the same thing; the most expensive, best armed & protected class of ship in the fleet's Battle Line). Every country that could try to build them had to if they were to remain militarily - and thus merchantably - relevant. The French tried to flout convention in the late-1800's and got stuck in catchup mode for decades after, usually behind the relative newcomers of Germany & the USA 😆 .
(even Brazil for a time had a better pair of ships than they did)
Postwar the Politicians moved onto Nukes, the buckets of instant sunshine that some even claimed rendered conventional forces themselves redundant (they of course weren't), but finally lost Navies their Premier place, with the three branches of every country's military then battling for as many slices of the nuclear arms pie as possible.
(Spoiler, the Army lost that race almost every time, as did most surface ships)
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
-
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
-
@andro7862 One manga does not a trend make, especially when the latter medium is chiefly known for Fiction. Last time I checked anything can be depicted in fiction.
It is also a given that a few will take an uncategorically militant nationalist position on Japan in WWII, but that's no different than the small minority of people whom idolize the NSDAP era in Germany.
It's also a myth that Japan denies the existance of comfort women, as that was one aspect of the postwar reperations. It's also of note that in contrast to prisoners of war that were used as slave labour, comfort women were by most accounts recruited, and paid. Those whom took such work generally were condemned as collaborators after WWII, and treated poorly.
As for war criminals: a large number were brought to account by the US, though the latter knew as much as the allies in Germany, that such efforts wouldn't catch everyone. It's also an inescapable fact that almost no-one in Japan today was of fighting age back then, and blaming / holding accountable the rest of the country for their ancestor's actions is as absurd, as it is immoral.
And as aforementioned; the actions of a substantial part of the IJA, and of the Kempeitai as a whole, are known and generally accepted in Japan.
Given how much of a recurring trope it is for the media [here in the uk at least] to wheel out the topic whenever there's a slow newsday, as well as shit on the history of one's own country almost everyday, I would say that the typical person in Japan today is justified at least in refuting the notion that their ancestors were somehow all baby munching sadists, which is a wholly reasonable position.
(the IJN hoving to and rescuing the surrvivors of HMS Exeter for instance, being as noteworthy and commendable as the german cruiser Admiral Hipper rescuing the surrvivors of HMS Glowworm)
After all the penalty for both murder and violating children in Japan is death by hanging, unlike much of the western world today, where unfortunately such crimes seldom result in actual life inprisonment, and where the criminal can live off the taxpayer.
The lattermost reality is as disgusting to a typical Japanese person, as it is to many of us.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
^ The inevitable "bu~but France won so many wars!!"
Not most of the wars that counted.
They lost heavily in the 7 Years War, the last two Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, WWII & the 1st Indochina War.
Performance in WWI was poor also, despite having a better prewar defence budget than Germany. Until the British Army stopped the germans on the marne, the german advance toward Paris looked unstoppable.
The French are ridiculed as to war though, because of WWII, and the almost comically ungrateful and distorsionist claim by DeGaulle in 1944 that ""France has liberated herself!".
Postwar french war narratives wouldn't help this either, with even more straight up lying as to the scope of the other allies contribution.
The Allied troops and politicians alike would never forget that slight, and the french remain a topic of humour in CANZUK countries, as a result.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@brianlong2334 I think you've overanalyzed the examples I gave, and missed the point entirely.
As such I'll clarify:
1. The example of "30 million Panthers" was figurative. Germany lacked the effciency & resources to build enough Tanks to meet their needs, but even had they possessed both the afore', they would've still lost as they didn't have the fuel or replacement crews to match.
2. The Germans Lost the Battle of the Atlantic. What they did sink during it is irrelevant as the British/Canadians & USA outfought them whilst replacing ships faster than they could be sunk.
3. They lost the war for Oil. Making psuedo-oil from Coal was a costly and ineffcient act of desparation, as Romanian Oil wasn't enough, they'd failed to steal any of the USSR's vast oil supplies by force, and overseas oil was kept from them by the allies.
4. The point on the A Bomb being a war ender should've been obvious. With conventional bombs hundreds of aircraft were needed to = the results of 1 A Bomb, from a single aircraft. For all their bluster the Luftwaffe failed completely in their hubristic claim that "no enemy plane shall fly over the reich".
It's also well known that the Manhatten Project's first target was to be Germany, and that had the latter not surrendered when it did / had the allies taken a few months longer to force them to, then we'd be discussing the nuking of somewhere like the Rhur Valley or Wilhelmshaven, rather than Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
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
-
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
-
^ The US didn't "bail out" the UK. We'd entered into a material aid agreement during WWII, and simply game to an agreement postwar as to how to pay for it, not a great deal when considering that everyone else's material aid was waved in light of the by then obviously approaching Cold War, but a deal none the less.
The UK retained a defence budget of more than 11% of GDP post-1945, and would until 1957, where for political reasons it began to shrink toward the 2% typical today.
With that timeframe in mind; everyone of note still had Capital Ships in the postwar period, even the hapless French. Standing navies were already 2nd fiddle to the new Atomic weaponry, and the means to deliver them, but that was not clear in 1942/43 nor 1945.
The RN did in the late-'40's what everyone else did; take stock of their assets, retire the outdated ones, and keep the most modern. This was the same as after WWI, and as the KGV's & Vanguard were the only modern Capital Ships in the fleet capable of topping 25 knots only they were kept. Until 1949 the plan was to restart the Lion class (with modifications), though changed government priorities meant this didn't happen.
Only when it became clear that the USSR was unable to build new Capital Ships, and their cruisers downgraded in threat perception, did the politicians have their excuse to cut the fleet further.
There was no reason not to preserve Vanguard, as unlike with Warspite (a ship that actively was considered for preservation in 1946) the ship was in prime condition and the apitomy of several centuries of Royal Navy engineering, so much so she'd always topped the USN's lowa class ships in gunnery competitions.
Same thing with HMS Ark Royal (R09) in 1978*, and HMS Illustrious in the 2010's. The means and public support was there, but the politicians just didn't give a shit.
*A decision everyone would regret in 1982, as operating Phantoms & Buccaneers down in the S-Atlantic was no longer possible.
(not until after the conflict was won & the islands given a fighter squadron anyway, only then did Phantom FGR's get down there)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
P.S. The allies DID outfight the Kreigsmarine in the Battle of the Atlantic, as demonstrated by the simple fact that the U Boat arm had the proportionately highest casualty rate of any part of the German armed forces.
Incidentally: that was over 780 German Submarines lost in action, with over 30,000 crew.
That: And the allied casualties ARE irrelevant by contrast, because they won the Battle of the Atlantic, and the Germans didn't.
Then again I know by now that this fact will be ignored, alongwith the reality that Germany could never have won WWII, rather only hoped to force a negotiated settlement.
The Battle of the Atlantic was their sole oppotunity to achieve that, as they lacked the scientific means to produce a working A Bomb, couldn't use their Bio/Chemical weapon stores because they were inferior to those the British could respond with, and couldn't invade the UK due to:
1. Failing wholesale to defeat the RAF.
2. Being hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by the RN, which as in WWI both out-fought and comfortably out-built them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
A few details about the Doodlebug, or Buzz Bomb :
• It was the V1, not V2.
• It was a Luftwaffe project, and one of the first standoff weapons (yes, they sometimes launched them from HE-111 bombers)
• They were loud; emitting a constant droning sound, until the motor cut out and you knew to take cover.
• The first one to reach Britain missed its intended target completely, and ended up blowing up a few mildly annoyed Spuds in a farmers field.
• They were fairly fast, as it took late model Spitfires, Mosquitoes and the few Gloster Meteor's available at the time to catch upto them.
• If hit by AAA or a fighter's guns, the V1 would violently explode, so RAF pilots preferred to either tip them, or shoot at angles were they weren't in the V1's wake at the time.
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
-
Existance of private enterprise is not proof of a state being non-socialist. Under that logic the USSR wasn't socialist for several points in its history, as private enterprise was permitted to exist there for part of the Lenin era, and most of the Gorbachev era.
Pepsi was also permitted to operate in the USSR for decades, as was KFC, albeit in the latter case via a proxy.
The NSDAP were more interested in nationalizing the race, than industry, and they stated as such on several occasions.
(they also were nationalist-centric instead of internationalist, rather like Stalinists in the USSR)
As such on paper you could be a multi million reichmark businessman in this era, but if you said or did anything the NSDAP didn't like, they and the state union would render it all to naught, likely followed by said businessman ending up in a concentration camp... or meeting with a 'accident'.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GregWampler-xm8hv If Boeing "warned" DH about the windows (which weren't the source of the problem), then they didn't heed their own "advice" if looking at the 707 😂 .
(see video for example)
It's also worth noting that the American view of the Comet when she debuted - according to aviation historian James Patterson - was typically that the UK had sized a 20 year lead on the US; that was how seriously they took it.
I'd also dispute the "not innovative" line, as the Comet was - as pointed out in the video - flying at an altitude higher than any other commercial aircraft had ever done, as well as higher than basically all WWII Bombers, and was one of the first uses of swept wings on an airliner, among other new features. Objectively speaking DH went all in with innovation, whereas others in the industry were still making prop' 'planes with straight wings and tailsitting landing gear.
Tis of note also that the Comet set a quantum leap in aviation safety measures and investigation methods, while by contrast the contemporary Soviet passenger jet TU-104 remained a temperamental death trap right up until full retirement in the 1980's.
(the TU-104 also has the weird accolade of having killed more Soviet admirals than the Germans did in all of WWII)
Last off: the Brabazon Committee makes sense as a wartime move, when considering the UK saw the efforts of chaps like Kaiser in the US, and knew that the US would be robust industrial competition after the war. Thus any kind of an edge was rather important, and being the smaller nation also requires an emphasis on innovation.
That said the US didn't ironically take over in Shipbuilding after the war, for while Kaiser had proved he could build entire cargo ships faster than some aircraft companies could build a single aircraft, overall the US still wasn't peak competitive on cost (of labour & of end product), relative to the British.
We both lost in the latter ultimately though, with wartime shipping loser Japan starting from scratch with an all new approach, while us westerners were slow to adapt and now only really build warships domestically.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The "GB had a choice of German or US vassalage... and chose the US!" and "GB was bankrupt and a US puppet postwar!" fallacies also fall apart when availed of a knowledge of postwar history, and using ones brain:
. The UK didn't lose her empire, she turned it into something else, after having an empire at all had become economically irrelevant.
. The UK still had the means for developing an independent nuclear deterrent, and vast military spending, that even in the 1950's still represented 11% of GDP. All this whilst spending tons on public sector welfare.
. Under said fallacies logic the UK would have gone into Vietnam when asked, given the Argies the Falklands when asked by Reagan, and approved the invasion of Grenada... she told the US Nope on all three.
(and that's just the best known examples)
Only a country without control over their foreign policy, is a vassal to another.
(example Korea, which has always been servile to one regional power or another, and in the present case; two)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
^ In other words; you're willing to accept a demonstrable tribalist falsehood (and a cliched one at that), over fact. #Noted
From the middle ages until 1945 a Standing Navy was the ultimate symbol of national power, prestige and engineering ability, and though not always called such, there was always a form of Battleship therewithin.
(the very word 'Battleship' means '[foremost] ship of the line', shorthand for 'line of battle ship')
The Carrier never supplanted the Battleship, rather simply surrvived* the postwar political shift, that would see strategic and tactical nuclear arms take a lions share of the budget, that would once have been for navies.
Indeed it was Navies snatching some of the nuclear pie back from airforces in the form of SSBN's, that helped them remain politically favoured.
*Let's be real, without the postwar inmovations of the British (Angled Deck, Optical Landing Sight, Steam Catapult, Skijump, etc), Carriers would have died off, as the ever increasing size, speed & weight of aircraft postwar was pushing the WWII stock of Carriers into near irrelevance, compared to landbased airforces.
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
^ #OKWehraboo 🙄🥱😆🤣
Cute attempt at lying though, as the TU-104 had a far worse accident record (largely because the Soviets didn't give s shat about lives lost... until more Admirals died in one TU-104 crash than in all of WWII 😆), and the Comet 4 didn't have her last flight until the late 1990's in standard form, and the 2010's in Nimrod form.
A~and nope; engines in the wing roots made perfect sense in context, especially as reducing Parasitic Drag was an important factor, and large bypass fan engines [which are only really practical in pods) were decades off when the Comet was designed.
Contrast that with the TU-22 Blinder, where the engine placement was so bad, it was never revisited by any subsequent design 😆
Lastly; nope. The Comet brought various innovations together for the first time, in a package that flew higher than all those that'd pioneered such features, and in a different way as well.
(tis not a difficult concept to grasp boyo, that an Airliner doesn't use pressurisation in the same way as a Bomber [that didn't fly the entire way there & back pressurised, partially because of the risk of catastrophic depressurising in the advent of enemy fire over the combat zone])
Having to factcheck your hilariously biased diatribe aside; Happy holidays.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A company doesn't change nation when bought; that's a comical oversimplification.
Take Jaguar-Land Rover , they are owned and partially funded by a Indian company... but the R&D and manufacturing are still British.
Why?, because the indian owners aren't stupid. They bought Jag' & L-R because the latter British firms can design and make what indian companies cannot make, nor profitably sell domestically.
(even the TATA Nano, a dirt cheap car by global standards, was too expensive [especially for what it was] for most Indians)
Foriegn ownership of a UK firm has two main outcomes:
1: It's asset stripped into non-existance, as Rover Group was by the germans.
(they bought it only so as to off a former rival, despite lying profusely to the contrary)
2. The JLR example, which has proven a better partnership than the prior Ford one (less low end plastic switchgear for a start)
So nope: JLR's still British, in all meaningful measures, as are other such firms.
Aston Martin also has proven in recent years that a firm can go from wholly foriegn owned (by Ford), to partly British owned again... so it's hardly a one way street.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scottydog9997 Well I've stated my perspective on the matter; I don't believe in taking a better euthanise than risk it approach to children, as it's been my observation that for every potential Stalin, there's far more potential upstanding members of society.
To be blunt: my father was a phillanderer, one of my uncle's a thief & child abuser (and I suspect he's a murderer too), and my own half-sibling a criminal who's actions cost me over £14,000 and considerable mental distress (in a court of law I'd have had at least 5 offences to prosecute her with)... but those three turds were only three people, in a larger family of people that, in my view, are good upstanding members of society.
If a good family can produce monsters like the three I've discribed; then the opposite is inevitably also true.
Aye; there is a cost to the taxpayer of keeping orphans until adoption / they come of age; but that is a price that can be sociologically and economically justified as a net positive, unlike paying for systematic infanticide, as is the present situation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikereger1186 That's rather too relativist for me, and my point was upon how - by the standards of the time and situation - the allies [as the UK was involved] had a simple choice to make re' Japan, and chose the one that was expected - and for once also did - to have the lowest bodycount.
I should also note that the key difference [ideology wise] between [Classical] Liberalism and Authoritarianism, is that the former advocates for vicarious use of force, and in the case of war to use the actions of your enemy to set the precedent. An Authoritarian by contrast will capriciously use force, for show or to enforce their personal / ideological will.
It's no coincidence that the [western] allies spent most of WWII - and WWI before it - responding to their enemies precedent, instead of setting it.
For example: the RAF had access to plentiful supplies of Mustard Gas throughout WWII, and the Germans [who had built up Chlorine Gas & Sarin stocks in the '30's] knew it. Hitler and others in his circle knew [first hand] the horrors of when the allies in WWI had responded in-kind to German use of chlorine gas, and refrained from their use throughout the war.
It's unknown if the Germans knew that the RAF also had access a small stockpile of Weaponized Anthrax by 1944, though the latter detail makes it fortunate that:
1. The UK wasn't an authoritaritarian state.
2. That the Germans didn't give the UK a counter-strike motivation to use their CB weapon stocks.
My bottom line (as far as meaning is concerned) is that if the allies could have struck first, and hit the axis with the very worst weapons in their arsenals... but they didn't . In many ways this restraint from setting precedent can be demonstrated to have lengthened WWII (such as Chamberlain & his french counterpart refusing to authorize bombing of Germany in 1939; even though Poland was desperate for any kind of military aid from the west), but in others it also saved lives in other areas of the conflict.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nah. Sounds more like lack of mantainance / incorrect use by the end customer, which still affects tons of electronics today.
I recall when the Sony PS3 was new, lots of owners where complaining of overheating... when in most cases the console had been set up incorrectly by them, and was not able to draw enough air to cool itself... or worse, was drawing in carpet fibers which swiftly broke the fan and caused the circuit board connections to melt... complete idiocy on the part of the end user, as it said in the manual [to paraphrase] do not obstruct air flow around the unit, nor place on a carpeted/rugged floor.
Similar daftness happened in the car sector, with the Triumph Stag getting a bad rep' for blown engine head gaskets, which often was actually due to the end user not having read the manual on how often to get the timing belts changed / service garages not being appropriately aware of it.
Product failure is often blamed on the manufacturer in this country [often by a comically underinformed media carping upon matters for which they know nothing, nor bother to], yet later turns out to be someone else not using the thing as directed in the first place.
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
-
^ Disagree entirely, because you're blaming the wrong people.
Enfield were tasked by the government to make the L85A1, but given no money to retool the factory. As such they had no choice but to manufacture a brand new weapon with worn out tooling, making the end result inevitable.
Instead of realizing their mistake and getting the plant overhauled, the government lumped Enfield with the blame, and tried to cheapskate their way out.
This has been a theme of defence pocurement, since the postwar era.
(of government taking the easiest and cheapest route, even if it meant putting underdeveloped kit into service, or wasting the full potential of an existing bit of hardware)
As for design faults; most of those can be attributed to not being allowed time to properly test anything, another age old trend of defence pocurement.
Having actually used and done mantainance on an L85A2, I would say that the L85A1's underlying design was always good, but should have been afforded the same level of prudence the politicians did afford Challenger II when she was being developed. To this day the latter is still the most rigourously tested bit of kit [prior to service entry] in British Army history, though Vickers were later cheated out of the full order of 600 units the government had placed, so still not a happy ending for the manufacturer, despite having put so much into the project.
(though Vickers had at that point spent most of the postwar era being screwed over by the government)
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
-
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
-
@susannamarker2582 It's also worth noting that having a chip in one's shoulder means nothing if you lack the ability to do anything about it.
The French for instance are still rather salty about losing the Seven Years War to the British, and aided rebels in 1776 partially in retribution to it... but never got back what they'd lost, as they knew they couldn't. Indeed French possessions in the Americas only declined after the Seven Years War.
(even Napoleon failed to reverse that, despite seriously trying in places like [what's now] Haiti)
Similar thing with Spain: losing not only their empire but their status as a 1st rate geopolitical power post-Napoleonic Wars grated... but they were unsuccessful in doing anything to reverse it, thus eventually had to accept their lesser place in the world.
Germany too would have had to accept such a fact, sooner or later, had they been denied any oppotunity to rearm, or faced with force on their first attempt at land grabbing.
Again: not comparable to Russia though, as they have native Oil, H Bombs, and more besides.
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
-
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
-
@johnmartin4119 I see where're your coming from there.
To be fair to prager u though; the focus of the video was pretty evident as being to list his less well known but still positive accomplishments, rather than to be an all-encompassing account.
Given that many a mainstream narrative focuses only on the negative (whilst trying to spin it as negatively as possible, largely for ideological purposes), I think PU's approach was reasonable, and far more productive, for - as you put it - one cannot learn from those of the past, without knowing the complete picture... or at least most of it. Positive deeds also do far more to inspire people to better themselves, than negative, which whilst also important, shouldn't be quoted in isolation, nor without context.
One could focus - for instance - solely upon Winston S. Churchill's [in hindsight] misguided statement in the early 1930's toward not building a batch of proposed Cruisers, with "There will not be a war with Japan in my lifetime"... but that would sell the man rather short, and be rather bereft of context.
2
-
@johnmartin4119 Technically I did state that PU's video made sense in as much as it being a reply to a slew of purely negative ones, by otherwise inclined / only partially informed authors.
As a general rule presenting both aspects of a man - or woman - at once is my preference, though there is still the risk of falling into the 'Judging the past by the standards of the present' trap, or otherwise projecting one's own perspective upon the topic, without seperation from the objective facts.
Both are commonplace, even among supposed "experts".
An interesting comparison and contrast to JDR, a man whom could be said to have done intentional & accidental good; is the comparatively little known Thomas Midgley Jr., whom by all indications meant well by his inventions and discoveries, but several of them ended up doing accidental harm to countless millions, as well as the enviroment.
(such as Leaded Petrol, meant to reduce Engine Knock, and the pioneering of CFC use in consumer products)
He lived a much shorter life than JDR though, and met [IMO] a painful and rather tragic end at age 55, that he certainly didn't do anything [by intent at least] to deserve.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's omitting that Bismarck was relying on the Prinz Eugen a lot for firing solutions during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, because the Bismarck's radar director has broken earlier in the mission.
That, and the Bismarck was severely damaged* in the battle, with the Battleship Prince of Wales puncturing a main fuel tank on the German ship, as well as inflicting two other 14"/45 hits which dsnaged the forward hull, slowing the Germans down and produced the oil slick that an RAF Catalina would re-aquire the ship's position with.
The British mission killed the Bismarck as a usable asset in Operation Rhine, with just three hits to the ship 😂.
In the end it took only one Swordfish TB and the direct efforts of four Warships* to put the Germans on the bottom.
*PoW, KGV, Rodney & Dorsetshire
Rodney in particular, which Bismarck tried and failed to counter-battery, while Rodney was systematically demolishing them 😂 .
(also is the only known instance of a Battleship in WWII using her onboard Torpedoes against another ship)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A handful of notable details, albeit amidst a narrative that omits a lot of inconveniant facts, such as, though not limited to:
• Hitler's adherence to the - then commonplace but since discredited - Shrinking Markets theory.
• The existance of vast state social programs under the NSDAP, such as the KDF.
(all part of their own version of cradle to grave indoctrination)
• The then unprecedented explosion in the size of the German Civil Service under the NSDAP. So large and powerful did this red tape machine grow, that aquiring parts for war industry during WWII was as much a beauraucratic nightmare as it was industrial.
(it shrank again dramatically in the postwar, and firmly capitalist, FRG)
• The fact that All rival political factions were banned after 1933, with members of any political shade being repressed thereafter, simply for not towing the NSDAP line, which was that the party and the state were the same thing, and the state itself was [essentially] god.
• That the NSDAP deliberately endeavoured toward Autarky, under the assumption that "Living Space" in the east would ultimately provide the resources they had traditionally had to trade for.
(such as oil from venezuela & romania, rare metals from turkey, ball bearings & iron ore from sweden, etc)
• That "property rights" meant little if anything to the NSDAP. A businessman [on paper] could own a business, but at a whim the NSDAP controlled state could take it all away, without compensation nor a given reason.
Same thing if in basically any other aspect of german society.
• The USSR also had a single state run trade union, albeit with a gulag labour system for those whom displeased the state, or anyone within the political class.
• That the NSDAP for most of their rule considered British and US style mass production with scorn, rather like conservatism & classical liberalism, which the NSDAP & Communists alike considered antithetical to their ideologies.
The NSDAP were very much like gangsters, but that was also true of Stalinism, where the slightest whim of one man, meant no position below him was secure from arbatrary incarceration &/or murder, for pretty much anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A vast subject, that was more recently covered by Drachinifel, but this was the first youtube video that covered it in detail, which also; deserves to be remembered ;-) .
Slight correction: Though often stated in tv documentarys and even some books over the years, we Brit's didn't forbid the 2nd Pacific Squadron from using the Suez Canal (despite the Dogger Bank incident and near war situation that followed), nor did the French whom had part ownership thereof.
The Russians sent some of their ships through it, but Admiral Rozhestvensky opted to send the bulk of his ships - including himself - via the long route, because:
• The entire fleet would've created a traffic jam in the canal, only irritating the British and other countries more.
• The Red Sea was one place the IJN genuinely did possess the means to lay an ambush for them (but didn't).
Some interesting details of note are that when the seven ships surrendered; they had already fought hard, were hopelessly outgunned & outnumbered, as well as some of the oldest ships in the squadron.
Several of the Battleships thst were sunk also in several cases didn't cease firing back, until they capsized. Whether this was due to refusal of the gunners to surrender, or because they never got the order to abandon ship & fought to the end, will never be known.
Admiral Togo was also dubbed "The Nelson of the East" in the UK press, and highly commended for his fleet's efforts.
Most Japanese accounts concluded that the battle was hard fought, and that in many cases the Russians fought well, a firm compliment from the IJN, whom respected opponents that didn't yield easily.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For a less OSK limited refutation though:
""your number are not correct""
Ironic XD
""Main battle tank was used as a term""
False, because no such doctrine existed.
""people like you""
Ah; pigeon holing. Cliche much? XD
""like to claim all German TD and SPGs as other vehicles yet don't do the same for eney other nation to inflate numbers""
Projecting your hypocrisy onto others now?. Pathetic.
""I just prospered my self for a come back I assumed you would try and stated before you even said it.""
That doesn't even make grammatical sense XD.
"I would also argue heavy tank are not out of date"
Because of course you would XD.
Heavy Tanks faded out after WWII for two primary reasons:
1. The Shaped Charge - and Square Cube Law - made simply having thicker RHA steel armour no longer worthwhile. A cold war era TOW missile for instance, could punch through RHA Steel over 1ft thick, far beyond what a practical Tank can heft. MBT armour trends reflected this reality, particularly with AMX-30 & Leopard 1.
2. WWII proved that Heavy Tanks were too impractical. Armies like being able to traverse bridges without them collapsing, cross ground without sinking in the mud, and not require double or triple heading by tractors during battlefield recoveries.
""The TD were all but dead after ww2, the 10,000 or so took out some 2x there number 20,000, yet only one nation built them after ww2 and only stopped in what the 80 or 90s""
Questionable stat's aside; casemated self-propelled guns were generally the result of wanting larger guns on hulls too small to mount them in turrets, thus saving on development time, resources & money. WWII ending removed this raison d'etre, and there were few other reasons for such vehicles postwar, besides being able to fit large guns on relatively light chassis'. Neither the British nor the US bothered fielding one, with most R&D examples being for niche purposes.
""We build tanks for all rolls now, a jack of all traids""
Let me guess... Spell Checking's for nerds? XD
""if there is a ww then you find the return of all other type's""
I could refute this in quite a few ways; but I think the simple fact that WWIII will never happen without a nuclear exchange renders the entire topic moot. Standing Armies are no match for split atoms.
""SPGs are still present in small numbers in most of the top 10 most powerful nations doesn't mean there obsolete just there not much need for them so only a few hundred are needed.""
A handful of casemated SPG's isn't going to spontaneously turn into thousands, for pretty self-evident reasons. There's also no indication of any 1st world country having considered one in decades. MBT's are the paradigm.
And again; name dropping two YT channels you clearly haven't actually watched as a crutch for unsourced word salad, isn't a substitute for putting a verifiable source, as I did, and you ignored because it was inconvenient to your narrative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well put. I used to swap sides of the fence on this a lot, until I'd read up upon the finer details, and just how determined the Imperial Japanese Army was not to surrender, having never known defeat in a total war, despite over 1,000 years of history.
A fair number of Japanese books & films over the years have illustrated just how much more destruction was wrought by the prior firebombing, which only abated prior to the A Bombs usage, because the USAAF had run out of firebombs.
As it was the A Bomb shattered [most of] Japan's will to wage war, permenantly, whilst an invasion would likely have led to their near extinction.
All things considered; the Germans got lucky, in that they surrendered before the weapon - which had been designed with Germany very much in mind - was ready.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikereger1186 I'd have to differ re' the Atomic Bombings, as there's an entirely rational and demonstrable causation for their use and effect.
After all: The Japanese [and the Germans before them] had set the precedent for bombing civilians, though the Japanese were the only ones to use air-dropped Chemical/Biological weapons [and IIRC only upon China] during the period.
By that point in 1945 Japan's government were still refusing to surrender, despite being militarily depleted, under a supplies blockade of all materials needed from outside Japan, and most of Japan's cities having been destroyed by firebombing. Instead they [Japan's government] were preparing the population to resist an allied invasion to the death . The allies had taken heavy casualties on Okinawa [and seen the lengths their opponent would go to], and expected the combined death toll [allied personnel & the servicemen & armed civilians they faced] of taking Japan's home islands as being far higher for all concerned.
As such: the decision to send the Japanese government an unsubtle demonstration of the abject futility of not surrendering, ultimately can be demonstrated to have saved lives, by ensuring an invasion that was expected to be a mutual bloodbath, was supplanted with an uncontested landing of troops, in a country that had unconditionally surrendered.
It could also be argued; that without the double precident for their use; M.A.D. wouldn't have been as effective in deterring war between first world nations, as it has been since 1945.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^
""I do think the advent of guided munitions was what really put the nail in the coffin for the battleship""
A demonstrably false notion, as no allied Capital Ship was ever sunk by such a weapon, and no [non-nuclear] example of such a weapon was ever used postwar to successfully sink an armoured warship, of any kind
.
In practice Guided Munitions ended up being a tool used By postwar Battleships, and other vessels of similar size and purpose. This was a logical choice as a smaller vessel [such as a Destroyer] had neither the operational range nor the hull capacity for such large weapons, nor their complex firing and guidance systems.
(as Drach' tries at length to point out; sensors & computers [+ the operators] take up a lot of space and tonnage on ships)
""I mean, if you look at it this way, a battleship is only a show of power for a nation heavily reliant on overseas trade.""
Hardly. Every major nation in the world engaged in global trade, and thus had a stake therein, requiring a Navy to police their share of it. Within that structure Capital Ships were just one of various assets, all to be used in combination to maintain peace, and achieve victory in war.
""I mean the British’s supposed most potent weapon had a range of about 30 miles from the coast...yeah.""
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. "most potent" also means nothing without context.
Look up the use of shipboard missiles between WWII & the 1990's; there isn't much in the way of instances, nor success. In the Falklands the British and Argentines both had shipboard Exocet missiles, yet neither made a serious effort to use them, nor did the British consider having them a counter to a WWII Light Cruiser with 6" guns (otherwise the fleet commander wouldn't have had to go to such lengths to get a Nuclear Attack Sub' to eliminate said Cruiser).
Incidentally: That Cruiser had a gun range of just 15 miles, yet that was deemed more of a threat than the taskforce's missile armed ships could cope with.
Heck; the most visual use of shipboard missiles [with a theoretical anti-ship capability] in the war, was in an ad-hoc shore bombardment, intended to both rid the ships of obsolete weaponry, and inspire the troops as the [Sea Slug] missiles were militarily unfit to do much damage to anything, but looked rather impressive when launched.
One decent Cruiser or Battleship; could have shortened said conflict for the British considerably, pounding the enemy with un-returnable ordinance, from an armoured warship they lacked* any counter thereto.
*contrary to what some may think; most ASM's aren't even designed to penetrate armour, and indeed missiles are ill suited for armour penetration full stop. For why see what a A/P shell from a [relatively small caliber] gun does to a concrete block, vs a fighter plane crashing into one at high speed.
2
-
^ "now as for guided munitions"
Worded like a 2nd comment; a typing mistake or has YT deleted something?.
"not sinking any capital ships, that’s just wrong."
No it isn't; for I stated "no Allied [and Modern ] Capital Ships", which is demonstrably True. Roma* was an Italian vessel, and Warspite was neither modern nor sunk.
Indeed: the allied nations only lost one modern Battleship in the entire war, whilst Germany & Japan lost all of theirs. whilst Italy lost one and surrendered two.
Kindly read a statement before replying. Saves everyone time.
*Furthermore; Roma was mid-voyage to being surrendered to the British. She had barely enough fuel and thus was steaming at reduced speed. She also had no Radar Direction for the AA Armament [which was also inferior to allied standards] and had only a partial crew compliment. All of those and more are factors in her being lost to a weapon that had failed [thrice] to sink a vastly older warship.
""The fritz x (guided bomb) sunk many ships""
sank*, and no. The weapon is considered an operational failure, as only small warships and merchantmen were lost thereto. Even the Kaiten and Kamikaze achieved more in WWII.
""proving to Britain and in fact the world, that battleships at this point were nothing more than expensive toys""
As nonsensical a statement as it is demonstrably false. The British retained a Battleship force long after WWII, alongwith the French. Defence cuts and shortage of threat countries with counterparts [the USSR gad no modern Capital Ships nor the means to build them until the 1970's] put paid to them; not Glide Bombs, which saw no postwar use with any country.
Indeed: The USN had Capital Ships in their inventory, right into the late 00's. The last one wouldn't be de-registered until 2011.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^ laughs in SMS Pommern
Seriously though; the Germans were the only ones to lose a Battleship at Jutland (of any kind), as well as the only Capital Ship in the battle to be lost with all hands. They learned their lesson; and would never again risk the Pre-Dreadnoughts in open sea combat.
They almost lost a Battlecruiser to explosion in a prior battle too, to the same issue as that of the British (relaxed ammo' handling practices), so no german exceptionalism there either.
The armour on WWI German ships is also overstated, as they lost the newest Battlecruiser of all at Jutland (to Gunfire), and their ships proved to be vunerable to every gun caliber (12" [45 & 50], 13.5", 14" & 15"/42) the British had present, to the extent of several being completely disarmed, despite issues with the RN ammunition that reduced their effectiveness.
(showing how much of a one-sided slaughter Jutland could have been for the Germans if but one factor had been otherwise; and they knew it)
Germany also never adopted All or Nothing Armour (not even by WWII), unlike the UK & US.
So yeah; they had fine lines, but like the French & Italian stuff; let's keep an ounce of wider perspective too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waltjacob3776 Amen. It's illustrative of how little the left don't understand high concepts like Hypocrisy & Irony, that they repeatedly self-victimize with the claim that they have been / are being repressed, whilst being nothing but agressive to their opponents, and using symbols such as a clenched fist.
The left today calls everyone "racist", because they are in reality the racists, using devisive ideology like ""social justice"" to sow their stratigem of Divide & Rule, throughout society, along any class, "gender", racial & theological lines they can find.
They also still deny that National Socialism (Racial Socialism), was one of their ilk.
2
-
Not really, as there's a great difference between "obsolete", and less useful.
Post WWI the gun caliber had jumped to 15"/42, with 16" & 18.0" having already made some appearance. Fleet speed was also rising from 21 knots, to 24.
As such would happen after WWII, the RN set the minimum new gun standard (in this case 15"/42), and planned to phase out all other ships, in order of oldest to newest.
The change in standard was unpopular with some though, as export countries with British 12", 13.5" & 14" guns feared an ammunition shortage. Australia gave up their namesake Battlecruiser, partially because of this concern, as their politicians didn't want to have to spend the cash needed to produce the shells domestically.
In this the Colossus class were directly behind the Orions, Iron Dukes & KGV's.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 made video as always, though I politely disagree with the narrative.
SAM's were making R&D bounds in this period, but they were still crude, unreliable, and easily fooled by countermeasures. For some reason the USAF forgot that something as basic as Strips of Tinfoil ('Chaff' in UK nomalcature), was enough to blind radar guided missiles, as was jamming equipment.
(demonstrated many times by the Avro Vulcan in NATO exercises)
Equipped with proper countermeasures and Standoff Air Launched Ballistic / Cruise Missiles', the B58 Hustler and B70 Valkyrie, would have been an ongoing threat to targets in the USSR, whom by this point had already equipped their own Strategic and Tactical Bombers, with Standoff weapons.
The B52, B1.B and B2 though achieved the latter in the end, becoming airborne battlestations, able to bring down ordinance from above upon command, conventional & otherwise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lusa_Iceheart I recommend brevity & paragrsphs in comment writing, as that was a headache to read 😅 .
I also disagree on various points, but will keep it simple:
• The UK was never skittish about taking on escaped slaves from the US. Heck when they left the 13 Colonies in 1783 a lot of blacks opted to with them, knowing they'd have better odds of a better life, and invariably they did.
Similar story when the UK withdrew from territories captured in the War of 1812.
• The Canadian territories were sparsely populated for most of their early history, so if anything they benefitted from runaway slaves.
• India (or more precisely the myriad of disunited kingdoms that the British ended up ruling) actually had anything but a ""parasitic"" experience, rather it was the UK that put more in overall than they took out.
This is proven by looking at the in depth economic side of things, as well as the fact that the British expended a great amount of money, time and resources there. For example:
1. There was barely any civil plumbing - nor sewage treatment- before the British (and since the 1940s it's slipped backwards in many ways).
2. All but one of India's railway lines were built by the British.
3. There was no domestic Tea industry in India - nor anywhere in the region besides China - before the British not only managed to get the precious plants from out of the Qing's clutches, but also set up successful plantations across India, Ceylon, East-Africa & other locations.
...among various other aspects one could name.
In other words; don't take school history books too seriously; they're mostly fiction and outright lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AdamMGTF I have to disagree, partially because I am British and have looked into this topic a lot over the years. Like you I have had family that lived through WWII and fought in it, but unlike yourself their experience was more of experience-based apathy of the government, its immense wastefulness and the sheer amount of self-induced destruction it brought upon the country postwar, while under its self-delusion that ""big government won the war"".
(ironically WWII had proved the opposite, but politicians and civil servants will believe what they want to believe, as well as whatever feathers their own nest)
Debates about ""free healthcare"" (an oxymoron in of itself) and other non-arguments aside, the fact is that the Royal Navy did consider Warspite for preservation, and that the government could afford to do so without prejudicing other commitments. The reason it didn't happen was partially down to postwar weariness yes, but also - quite bluntly - that those in power didn't give a damn (unlike those whom weren't behind a desk filing paper for most of the war), as indeed has long been the case.
The fact remains is that the "there was no money" argument falls apart completely when considering the various occasions from the 1950's to present day where the country was in good stead, yet calls to preserve a notable warship was blocked or ignored by the government of the day; most infamously HMS Illustrious in the 2010's, the fate of the Warship Trust on Merseyside (which had government corruption all over it), HMS Ark Royal (R09) in the late-1970's - which also prompted the Falklands crisis mere years later - and HMS Vanguard in 1959/60.
Contrast this with the salvage of the Mary Rose and SS Great Britain, feats which would ostensibly seem impossible in a country whos government perpetually claims to be broke, yet were undertaken successfully and without prejudicing other commitments.
I suppose you could summarise this as, Don't chalk up to lack of money, what can be attributed to lack of effort or interest by those in charge .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anyone wants an example of how much better our quality of life and health is; read up on how bad inner-cities pollution was in the mid-1800's.
With poor quality but cheap Black Coal in typical use, Horses the main mode of transport, industries like Tannaries close to / amongst residential areas, and all the same public health issues that'd existed since medieval times... and the result was fetted, gloomy, stinking and often smog blanketed visions of hell [to anyone in the present day], where life was short, infant mortality was through the roof, disease was everywhere, and prospects poor.
Put it this way: Can anyone alive today say they've even heard of someone getting Rickets on Land?.
(in the 1800's multiple cities had cases of it, due to a combination of poor diet and [due to smog] sunlight deficiency)
1
-
1
-
@LittleLion93 I wasn't stating that FF's weren't still dirty, rather that we've progressed in reducing to near insignificance the very worst aspects thereof.
(from coal dust & soot, to atmospherically damaging sulphur emmissions, we're much better off now, and still improving upon the methods that made that possible)
In the grand scheme of things, it makes sense for society to gravitate toward the least dirty fuel source that is practical. That's why roads are no longer ankle deep in horse effluent, like Paris routinely was in the 1800's, and why Trains and Ships now run on Diesel, instead of Black Coal.
The latter in particular is of note, as coal wasn't just dirty, but harder and more labour intensive to readily transfer. Coaling Yards had to damp down the coal with water, lest the air get choked with highly flammable & toxic [to humans anyway as it would mix with moisture in the lungs to produce suffocating thick black gunk] coal dust.
If we can progress that much in a few generations, then I'd say we'll be even better off in the near future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Spelling errors aside; dumping dozens of uncited statistics doesn't accomplish much, as an unreliable statistic, is worse than useless.*
The claim about Tanks is demonstrably false, as in 1940 the UK was producing more Tanks than Germany, and in 1942, production had geared up so much - by more than 40% - that the UK achieved double the German production figures.
In Aircraft the UK started the war behind Germany; yet as factories got going & standardization enforced (unlike in germany which was starkly inefficient), domestic production shot up. Having nearly doubled on the prior year's efforts, in 1940 the British produced over 15,040 warplanes, to Germany's 10,240. The UK at that point in the war was producing more domestic aircraft, than any other country on earth.
Germany lost nearly 2,000 aircraft & over 2,500+ aircrew in the BoB alone, so their production figures are even weaker when accounting for such voids they had to fill.
In WWII the Germans produced 120,000 aircraft, compared to the British 131,000+. The latter wasn't far off the Soviet figure of about 158,000 (and unlike the USSR or the Germans the British had modern Heavy Bombers & in quantity), with the US's production making the total allied figure 0.6 Million aircraft, five times that of Germany.
The USSR protecting their Oil from the Germans prevented a wholesale Russian collapse, but they Still requested the allies send them oil, suggesting they still had shortages thereof.
Oil is also useless to a country without hardware to put it in; which the Russians were desperate for the allies to send them, and we did.
In four years the UK sent the USSR, among other material:
Over 4,000 Trucks
Over 5,000 Tanks
Over 6,700 Aircraft
& 12 Warships
Unlike Germany the UK had a stable supply of oil thoughout the war, with the Autarky loving Germans failing wholesale in attempting to sever the UK's trade networks in the Battle of the Atlantic.
To illustrate this: in 1940 alone the UK outbuilt Germany in naval vessels, by 20 to 1.
Bare in mind also that despite being noted for Submarines, the Germans started WWII with only 57, whilst the RN had at least 74. During WWII the UK & the USA would demonstrate greater capacity for producing Submarines, and superior designs for long range use.
(U Boats are more widely thought of, but the onboard ergonomics were abismal, so much so one was even lost... to a toilet malfunction)
The Kreigsmarine Sub' casualty figures relative to their RN opposites illustrates quite well, how hard the Germans lost the war at sea.
At D Day the British provided nearly 900 of the 1,100+ vessels (of all types & sizes), and over 3,200 of the 4,070+ Landing Craft.
The RAF & USAAF also outnumbered the Luftwaffe on the day by a factor of over 30 to 1.
The point re' coal is also meaningless; as Germany had mostly poor quality Brown Coal; demonstrably inferior lb for lb when compared to the deposits under the UK.
Unlike in WWI too Germany was heavily reliant on oil to wage war, and no amount of coal conversion efforts could negate that. Coal was also by then useless for Warships... though brown coal was not well suited for even in the last war.
(the Germans almost being handed several major defeats at sea back then due to the coal quality gap)
*Statistics sourced from the BBC, War Factories S1, and the ONS.
1
-
1
-
^ Says a wehrboo grade A moron, whom clearly hasn't actually watched either 'tuber, and is just pissing in the wind after being repeatedly disproved on all points proffered XD.
The UK & USA swamped NSDAP Germany with a tide of mass production, and kept the only planned economy in the allied camp - the USSR - from collapsing. #GetOverIt
Chris_Wooden_Eye Overall I'd agree. Germany had only three credible ways to win the war:
A. Win the Battle of the Atlantic, forcing a conditional or unconditional negotiated peace with the UK.
(ultimately impossible, due to the NSDAP having spent too little on Sub' R&D and building; though in retrospect the Germans certainly Could have produced Sub's of comperable quality to the Oberons or Gato's, with enough political dedication)
B. Somehow defeat both the RAF & the RN's Home Fleet, so as to facilitate an sustainable invasion.
(being outnumbered more than 8 to 1 in naval assets alone & having lost the BoB; that was seriously unlikely to ever happen)
C. Develop an Atomic Bomb first, and force a conditional or unconditional diplomatic settlement with the UK.
(politicial disinterest in the project & thus inadequate human & material resources ensured that was not going to happen; whilst the UK was putting much more into their project)
In hindsight: a German conquest of Russia was only really viable if Germany had possessed a reliable oil supply, and because their trade link with Venesuela was severed by the British in 1939, they simply didn't have one.
(given the defence pact with Poland; the UK & France were unlikely to have ever agreed to Labensraum, and the NSDAP knew it)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidjones332 I see where you're coming from, but in a situation where screw-ups / willful negligence costs lives, I take the view that I'm not being "harsh" enough, and that BR was allowed to get away with negligent homicide.
That; and BR as forced mega-mergers is concerned was a fundamentally bad idea from the start, a bit like BAC in 1957 and BLMC of 1967; the very concept of nationalising the entire rail network was fundamentally bad from the start, and unpopular at the time (a detail often overlooked).
It's no coincidence that government interference in the Railways post-WWI tallies with when the railways started to lose money overall... and that post-WWII all they ever did was lose money, despite being an essential part of the nation's infrastructure.
It's also no coincidence that BR did more to denude the country of railways, than the Germans' efforts across 10 combined years of total war.
I agree that APT was scuppered purely by underfunding (especially relative to Concord) and incompetent press management, and have always personally liked the InterCity 125 & 225, but can also say with certainty that the railways wouldn't have ended up in their overall postwar state as heavy loss makers, had the government kept its hands off, and simply supported the companies whom had built and knew how to run the railways... instead of the civil service beaucratic empire builders being delusional enough to think they knew better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Pointless use of multiple comments (obvious bot behaviour), misuse of the word "obsolete" (among others), and repetition of demonstrably untrue diatribe, already disproved earlier in the thread 🥱 .
The air intake claim is active misleading, as only the Comet 1 had the over-rotation issue related to the intakes, which was addressed and corrected for in all subsequent variants of Comet, alongwith pilot training being updated to account for the pilot error component in the applicable accidents.
(Pilots failing to be familiar enough with a type of aircraft during takeoff roll that led to too much pitch being applied that caused the loss of the airframe... it's almost like there was a learning curve in the period or something, eh boyo? 😏😆)
Finally: Good job BTW in outing yourself as a liar (either that, or agressively stupid) as well as comically biased / rather anglophobic, as the Nimrod is a direct repurposing of the base Comet 4 fuselage, with the first examples being conversions of preexisting airframes. Good luck trying to claim that to anyone remotely versed in aviation and written sources, you'll be laughed to scorn... and rightly so 😆🤣 .
(as you might as well claim the Chrysler Sunbeam wasn't a derivative of the Hillman Avenger platform and parts bin 😆)
Later; plastic German
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Complete nonsense.
Blaming Thatcher for Bliarism, is as absurd as blaming Douglas Hume for the economic illiteracy of Harold Wilson. Labour knew they couldn't win on the same platform as they'd had pre-1979, thus started parodying the Tories. The result of that was Bliar.
Implying that Thatcherism is Centrist is also blatantly false.
As for the Left and nationalism; demonstrably false. Socialism has Always had an Internationalist bent, and only styled itself in [faux] patriotism when the situation suited the regime doing so [see Stalin's Communism in One Nation ], or some overriding ideological bent [see NSDAP era Germany].
Labour's ping ponged itself between a psuedo-nationalist & internationalist position repeatedly since its inception in the late-victorian era. Michael Foot's generation had some genuine patriotic sentiment for their home nation, yet by the 1960's and Wilson, a cynical Internationalist position had taken root, with Wilson and his cronies siding with the Pro-Marketeers of Heath & co on joining the EEC and lying to parliament & people as to the purpose of the "European Project". By the late-1980's Labour had flipped to a distinctly Internationalist, Anti-Patriotic & Pro-EU position, ironically sparking a partial opposite flip to nationalism for the mainstream right.
I'd also refute that there is any other natural state of being for a high street Bank, than private ownership. Just look at Communist countries - and their consistent history of failure - for a case in point of why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anyone wants an example of how much better our quality of life and health is now, alongwith the state of our typical living enviroment; read up on how bad inner-cities pollution was in the mid-1800's.
With poor quality but cheap Black Coal in typical use, Horses the main mode of transport, industries like Tannaries close to / amongst residential areas, and all the same public health issues that'd existed since medieval times... and the result was fetted, gloomy, stinking and often smog blanketed visions of hell [to anyone in the present day], where life was short, infant mortality was through the roof, disease was everywhere, and prospects poor.
Put it this way: Can anyone alive today say they've even heard of someone getting Rickets on Land?.
(in the 1800's multiple cities had cases of it, due to a combination of poor diet and [due to the smog] sunlight deficiency)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^X2
That makes no sense as a counterpoint (especially as wholly British owned firms use some foriegn designed &/or made parts, or indeed outsource production entirely [usually because politicians & trade unions have made it cost inefficient to make everything domestically]), and misses the point entirely.
@smorrisby Granted, foriegn ownership is definitely not preferable to entirely British ownership (especially not with strategic industry / infrastructure), but I didn't state that, rather that the notion that a British company that's foriegn owned is thus no longer British is not accurate, at least not inherently.
A supplimentary point, is a lot of foriegn made products (from the cheapest tat to highest end luxury goods) are often ordered, imported & marketed by wholly British owned firms (particularly a lot of the stuff sold in Pound Shops), blurring the line even more.
I wouldn't say the latter fact is a good one, but it's a pretty significant example of what happens when it costs more to make a product domestically, than to ship it from another country which is more compeditive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davecooper3238 It's a vast topic aye, though I think most of those examples of law breaking is due to the Police niether having regular boots on the ground, and being increasingly distant from and indifferent to the public they're supposed to protect & serve.
Some do want less cops aye, though in my observation most who do are either fed up with the Police being inadequate / corrupt, or have vested criminal interests in less law enforcers.
I do think that the situation can be put right, though it would require someone in the right place, with integrity and drive similar to the chaps who brought the Police Force about in the first place.
As it is though society seems to go through trends in a waxing & waning form; with the present one being one of accute lawlessness and lack of social coherence, but at some point likely to be swept away again by a more socially-conservative one.
In some ways we already have. Social attitudes to Arcitecture for instance, where once in-vogue stuff like Open Plan Housing & Gardens are very much out of fashion.
Either way: I hope E-Scoot's go the way of a thousand prior fads, ending up alongside bellbottoms and google glass, in history's dustbin of cringium
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ You must know it isn't that simple -_- .
Several conditions have still to be met for Crop Oils before a straight up conversion would be viable:
1. Enough of it being grown to meet demand, which is still some time off.
1A. The quality of Biofuel being consistently high, which it isn't at present.
2. All applicable engines being modified to best run on it (no engine besides a Pulse Jet is truly "multi fuel", rather is best optimisable for one specific type).
Like the domestic switchover from Coal Gas to Natural Gas in the '70's (UK), or the switch from Leaded Petrol to Unleaded, such a switch cannot be done overnight, and will require considerable investment.
I think it worth persuing, but hopefully that illustrates part of why Oil will still be around for a while yet.
With Petrol engines though, being optimised to run on a non-oil crop derivation, Alcahol, would meet condition 1 already.
(given the sheer quantity of crops that can be used to make an industrial grade booze, and the vast amount already going spare everyday, due to wastage and being otherwise unfit for human consumption)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When a boxer throws a punch; it's not considered unfair for the opponent to punch back harder, rather a instance of superior ability.
The British and US - unlike Spain, Poland, Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, the USSR et al - had superior ability, and the will to pound Germany into submission.
That the allies hit Germany harder is a case in point not of allied capriciousness, but of German inferiority in this aspect of the war.
(for had they possessed good four engine bombers in quantity and bombs like Grand Slam, they would have used 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
-
^ False, on all points.
Carriers replaced nothing, and nearly died out after WWII, until multiple innovations by the UK (Angled Flight Deck, Mirrored Landing Sight & Steam Catapult) saved it from oblivion.
What was rendered obsolete by WWII was the Torpedo Bomber, when its painfully slow attack airspeed - limited by the laws of physics - made attacking warships with Air Search Radar, Radar Direction for the AAA, and Proximity Fuses... well suicidal.
Battleships by contrast: the west made none after 1946 not because they were redundant or not wanted... but because the only threat country left [the USSR] lacked the ability - for various reasons - to build any. That, and the west had plenty of modern ones in service anyway.
Politically though: everyone wanted Atom Bombs after WWII: Navies ended up in a solid 2nd place re' funding priority, apart from where nukes were includable.
A~and no: there are various instances of warships having Spotter 'planes onboard for gunnery spotting against other ships (as well against shore targets), though Radar would see greater use as events played out.
Examples of this are HMS Exeter during the Battle of River Plate (tried to launch the 'plane, only for enemy fire to scupper it), the Bismarck (which had one, yet due to an engine defect couldn't use it), and HMS Warspite during the Battle of Narvik, where the Spotter 'plane both bombed a U Boat, as well as performing recon' and fire spotting of shot for Warspite.
(said battle led to Warspite sinking a group of Kreigsmarine Destroyers)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 that's a lot of tired guardian cliches you've recited... but nothing more.
1. The Falklands was a significant conflict in the eyes of all whom mattered. Not acting would have been a national humiliation, and demonstrated that the UK wasn't committed to protecting her territory or people.
By all means call Falklanders worthless to their faces... but you'll need a lot more insurance if you do :P .
2. Overstatement much?. UK Manufacturing had been in decline for twenty years prior to 1979. From Cars to Shipbuilding, most of it was already dead in all but name.
(or does the detail that Labour closed more coal mines, railways & shipyards between 1964 - '70 than Thatcher in twice as much time not fit your narrative? :P )
3. False. Thatcher got the UK the rebate, whilst Bliar gave most of it away for nothing. By 1986 the penny had dropped on the EEC's cronies trying to woo the Labour Party (successfully) to Euro-Federalism, which they'd regret as Thatcher theteafter kickstarted euroskepticism on the center-right, where hitherto there'd been little.
(the founder of UKIP himself [the only reason we finally got an EU Referendum] admitted that one of her speeches started the precursor to said party)
4. Rioting Miners*. That latter aspect is always overlooked. They came looking for a fight (literally, as most were bused in far-left radicals), and got one. The government runs the country, not mob rule.
That; and simce when were Cops not "armed"?.
(even in Victorian times they were armed, albeit with Swords instead of Truncheons)
5. Community Charge*, and technically not a creation of Thatcher's. The same government replaced it with the Council Tax we still use today... so... big deal.
1
-
>yawn<
As predictable a reply, as it's cliche.
Kudos for conceding the point on industry though.
Ironic though that you say she should've gotten us out (no easy feat at the time), yet belittle the UK and its overseas commitments, just as remoaners do.
The Trade Unions' self-victimizing may be convincing, yet the reality was they were far-left luddites trying to ignore the changing reality of the coal industry, which had been on a declining trend since the UK started converting to Oil in 1904, and ceased exporting it in the '30's.
(nobody talks about the vast mountains of coal [mined at the taxpayers expense] that lay unsold in the '50's & '60's for months on end, which had to be flogged off on the cheap)
As for "using armed police"; they'd been used to suppress football riots and other public discontent prior to then. The trade unionists were also violently obstructing Public Property, and hurling bricks / other projectiles at vehicles that tried to go in or out.
(the US Government by contrast has used the Military for such domestic unrest, not Police with truncheons)
And nope; Bliar was Labour's cackhanded attempt to mimic the Tories (out of desperation after loosing for nearly two decades) and US style plastic faced politics, yet with all the same mistakes and economic failure as all prior Labour governments.
1
-
1
-
Translation: You're just another Toryphobe, out for an argument, reality and facts be damned.
(debunking basically everything you've stated hasn't been difficult)
A~and really, "liars all" is the best you can come up with?. You do know that's what ALL politicians do as part of their job... right? :P .
(not heard the ", his lips are moving!" joke I see, among other things)
As for claiming I don't know you're claiming to being in the leave camp, you missed this:
'Ironic though that you say she should've gotten us out of the EEC (no easy feat at the time), yet belittle the UK and its overseas commitments, as all remoaners do.'
Ironic also; because Thatcher would admit after leaving office (and its proverbial hall of mirrors concealing daggers), that we should leave the EEC.
It wouldn't be until the latter turned into the EU though, that the grounds for another referendum - which Bliar considered as a public rubber stamping exercise but then chickened out on after fearing he'd lose - were there. Having two Referendums on the EEC was simply not going to happen, nor should've (neverendum situation much?). Gaining a pro-leaving majority on parliament though (as Peter Hitchens stated as his preference) and leaving the EEC manually, that would've worked... at MP's dissillusioned with the EEC made up enough of parliament in the late-'80's / '90's, which it didn't :/ .
P.S. I voted Brexit Party once, when it suited to do so. After all I don't consider any MP that doesn't believe in the UK being an independent nation, or at least put the will of their electorate above personal ideology, as worthy of being an MP at all.
In short: If the leave MP for my constituency most likely to win is blue, light blue, purple or otherwise; they'll get my vote :P .
(said candidate probably will be tory, as they aren't stupid; my area voted out with a firm majority and over 80% turnout)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except that even the brussels sprouts know the only bit of the UK worth having (economically anyway) would still be outside their control, would have more money to spend if they no longer had the scots to pay for... and would still telling the EU where they can shove it XD.
Meanwhile the Scottish Nazi Party would be crapping themselves, after realizing they'd have no more money from down south, no currency, no gold to hold up one, not enough population to tax without living like methodists as far as public services are concerned... a~and the Germans sighing that they've got another liability like Greece to deal with... albeit only after the SNP's tinpot ministate spends years on gruel to meet the EU's joining requirements XD.
(meanwhile suppressing regional sessionists, a brain drain to the UK, and capital flight in general)
Not to mention that the vast majority of scot's trade is with the rest of GB... which an R-UK would have no reason to sustain, nor economic benefit to doing so.
Not that any of this matters though; as the majority of UK voting constituencies (not regions) voted out of the EU, by over 60%. Just like in General Elections, a Referendum effecting the entire UK requires the bits whom don't like the result to #GetOverIt, and move on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ False, as aforestated.
In 1940 the UK was producing more Tanks than Germany, and in 1942, production had geared up so much - by more than 40% - that the UK achieved double the German production figures.
The Germans Never had enough Oil to meet demand, and by all meaningful measures had lost the war by 1943, with the only question being whether they'd last long enough to be the first axis power to get nuked.
The USSR protecting their Oil from the Germans prevented a wholesale Russian collapse, but they Still requested the allies send them oil, suggesting they still had shortages thereof.
Oil is also useless to a country without hardware to put it in; which the Russians were desperate for the allies to send them, and we did.
In four years the UK sent the USSR, among other material:
Over 4,000 Trucks
Over 5,000 Tanks
Over 6,700 Aircraft
& 12 Warships
There was also no such thing as the "Main Battle Tank" (or Universial Tank) during WWII. Said paradigm came after, rendering most Tanks from the war - including all the "Heavy Tanks" - doctrinally out of date.
Statistics sourced from the BBC, War Factories S1, and the ONS.
(rather than out of thin air)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GARDENER42 I'm not "wrong", for I researched the term rather more thoroughly than those whom write dictionaries, or make tv documentaries.
The term "Capital Ship" is inherently linked to the Line of Battle, over the centuries, and always was. Carriers don't operate as part of one, and thus do not count. Same with SSBN's, which only have names in common with past Capital Ships, and the role of 'most potent weapon in the navy'.
(in potency of directed firepower, SSBN's vastly outclass Carriers, and always will)
The fact that a Carrier's main weapon isn't even a part of the ship itself, doubly disqualifies it.
They'll always be carrier tribalists in navies whom like to talk up their asset as being the "capital ship", but that's no more true now, than when Admiral Yamamoto claimed it in the 1930's.
1
-
1
-
^ Ah, rattling off tired distortionist cliches that've been debunked ad nausium, yet remain popular with tribalists as a lazy narrative, how predictable XD.
Refer to my prior statements for why, as I don't do repetition.
I will add though; that Torpedo Bombers were outlasted on the USN's books by the Iowa class, by nearly half a century.
Why? ... because TB's are an actual case of obsolecence*, whilst the Battleship is not.
*TB's after all had hit an impassable wall of physics, where the drop speed of the 'fish' couldn't be raised higher, and flying so low & slow in visual range of a modern warship's AAA & FCS [even in 1943] was suicidal.
(the allies losing only 1 modern Battleship in the entire war being case in point, with even that solitary loss being due to mitigating factors; including faulty FCS & construction defects)
This is why only Submarines use torpedoes against ships today, with only anti-sub torpedoes featuring on anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for whether Hood was a Battlecruiser... the historian and well known author of military history book Anthony Preston, asserted otherwise.
Battlecruisers after all had always featured not just less armour than contemporary Battleships... but less guns as well. This was true of all examples built.
Hood had the speed range & hull form of a Battlecruiser; but the same guns and weight of armour, of the RN's QE & R class Battleships.
Thus it'd be more apt for the Admiral class - of which Hood was the only one finished - to be retrospectively considered early 'Fast Battleships', lacking only the "all or nothing" armour scheme generally seen therein, which the G3 class - a Nelson class precursor - was to have been the first RN example*, and was the reason Hood's three sisters were cancelled, as they were too far progressed to be redesigned, but not as close to completion as Hood.
*The R class was a partial example of AoN armour distribution however.
Past the Renown class, the "baltic battlecruiser" triplets & Admiral Fisher's "HMS Incomparable" concept, "Battlecruiser" was just a term used by the RN for a Capital Ship with a high top speed.
As for the myth that BC's were somehow fragile or prone to easy loss: HMS Tiger, HMS Lion and HMS Renown - not to mention SMS Seydlitz & Derfflinger - all disprove that notion, quite conclusively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ You certainly should be ignored (normally), as that diatribe is mostly contrarian, vacuous and over-generalized 🥱 .
Fact is that manned Jet Bombers still operate at altitude (some opting to fly lower at points in the mission, but usually only in the strike phase), and that both the USAF & Russian Airforce operate them, and others like the PLAAF & Indian AF have operated them, and have explored domestic successors.
The Missile lobby has overplayed their capabilities for nearly eight decades now, and yet isn't called out on their nonsense anywhere near often enough.
Fact is that Chaff (strips of tinfoil) was still effective on Missiles in 1982, as it was at blinding/confusing German ASR in WWII.
In several joint exercises, Vulcan B.2's with ostensibly ancient avionics not only penetrated US airspace, but successfully conducted their simulated gravity nuke drops... on the USA.
(a country with far better & more modern air defences than the then usual targets in Soviet Russia)
And don't even get me started on the F-111, a crap aircraft with a misleading designation, born of a nonsensical & engineering sense bereft program (the TFX) that only existed because politician & prize moron Robert Macnamara couldn't accept that Carriers needed two types of aircraft, and that any hypothetical aircraft built to do both would be substandard at both.
The F-111 was inferior even to the F4 Phantom at being a Bomber, so much so that the 111's were withdrawn from Vietnam, converted into secondary roles, and the B1 Lancer ultimately introduced to fill the role of Tactical Bomber that the 111 had failed in absolutely.
(to say nothing of what a badly designed & badly made deathtrap the 111 was)
A~and as for the TU-22M & TU-160; funny; NATO certainly takes them seriously, alongwith the old but well armed TU-95MS's that periodically drone around, reminding everybody that Bombers are still relevant in the Tactical & Nuclear strike roles, as part of the wider deterrent force.
(the US after all tried to persuade the UK Government to keep the RAF's Strategic & Tactical nuke deterrent, as a Twin Prong compliment to the SSBN's)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ You had me going there for a moment, until that last bit when you started spouting the sort of cliche drivel a teenage troll would espouse.
(playing the veteran card doesn't hold much weight with me either, as I care more about what someone has to state, than whom they were, are, or claim to be)
Worth noting too:
• The RAF can want or not want something, but it's the Politicians that decide what they do & don't get.
If it were otherwise; the RAF wouldn't have still had aircraft in service in 1996, with avionics dating from before 1956.
(a bit like the Army wouldn't have continued with the hapless L60 engine of the Chieftain)
• With a service life that lasted upto 2006, and a far above average safety record, EE Canberras' were hardly a high risk posting.
• Claiming that someone anecdotally claimed that a solution existed doesn't constitute proof, of anything. Unless it's documented and tested, it's nothing but rumour.
• Stating that I'm "inaccurate" & "demeaning" without a syllable devoted to why, is just glib deformation; nothing more.
Try tackling the topic, not the man. If you think the ejection problem was so easily solved, why do no aircraft in service today - including Jet Bombers - have sidewards or rear facing ejector seats?.
(as even if the RAF really had such an option and [for political reasons or not] not adopted it, another airforce would have)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ He was incorrect in his main assertion, and so are you in most of yours.
Whittle's design did work, but the RAF - a bit like the Luftwaffe & USAF much later - had little initial interest in the idea, being still operators of various Biplane Fighters at the time.
The Germans flew a crude jet before the British, but that's irrelevant because Whittle had to wait so long to get his engine through. Thanks to Whittle though the RAF had the most mechanically reliable jet of WWII, due to Whittle having the rare earth metals & knowledge to do what Germany couldn't.
(ME262's for instance had to have their engines rebuilt after every flight, because the mostly steel components kept melting; this also curtailed performance, with engine fires & explosions not uncommon)
It's also negligent to not have pointed out that by the end of WWII aerospace companies in the UK & USA had both independently developed Axial Flow Turbojets (at least two of which were capable of propelling an aircraft to beyond 1,000mph), thus the Germans developments therein were hardly unique nor exceptional.
The claim about Centrifical Flow Jets is also false, as they saw extensive postwar use, particularly in the Korean War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Schwarzvogel1 A few asterix's to the matter aye (nobody doubts the bravery the Poles exhibited), but the result was still a German victory, with the USSR joining in only when Stalin was sure who was winning... and getting the minority share of territory accordingly.
The point though was that Poland had a much smaller Tank force than the Germans, which while not the only factor in the outcome, was a major one.
To date the only instances I know of when a country without Tanks turned the tide on another that did have them, is Finland vs the USSR in the Winter War (it helped that the one in charge of leading the Soviet ground efforts was an unqualified dullard put there by Stalin), and Greece vs Italy... which when considering how bad both Italian Tanks and their leadership were, was also a bit of a forgone conclusion.
(plus the Greeks had some airpower to counter with, excellent mountain troops fighting on home soil, and direct military backing from the British; took direct German intervention to salvage Italian goals, albeit at the cost of their pride).
1
-
@varun009 Oh please: Drones are as much of a non-statement as those who once claimed airpower alone could win a war, a claim disproved time after time.
Indeed: Precident has proven, time after time, that boots on the ground, supported by vehicles, is essential to hold ground. Airpower is only good at keeping the enemy off balance, and providing recon' information for the troops.
(and no: historical precident is all too relevant in providing proportion to this topic, for the past is from where we draw all conclusions upon matters, whether we like it or not)
An unwashed nobody in a ditch with a handheld ATGM may get lucky enough to disable or destroy a MBT worth millions of quid; but he is no substitute for said asset.
After all:
Can he hold ground?, No
Can he carry dozens of tons of armour, heavy armament and sophisticated sensors... and do so over all sorts of terrain at over 30mph?, No
Can he see in all weathers and complete darkness?, No
Can he surrvive at all in a CBRN contaminated battlefield?, No
Can he shrug off even a single RPG hit, let alone 15 of them, plus a Milan ATGM?, No
(a Challenger II did in 2003, look it up ^_^ )
I could go on, but I think you get my point. Tanks aren't going away anytime soon.
(despite pundits claiming that they would for over 104 years now, and counting...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jabba Woki I fail to see your point. It is an easily verifiable fact that the Exocet had terrible reliability issues, and was easily confused by countermeasures.
Example A: The veteran accounts from RN ships equipped with it have a negative consensus, compared to its replacement, the Harpoon.
Example B: The day that Sheffield was hit; the Argies had fired two missiles; at an entirely separate target. The first missile crashed into the sea before getting anywhere near a target, and when the actual target released Chaff, the 2nd Exocet lost target lock. Sheffield only got hit because they failed to detect the missile [due to the radar being switched off for a long distance transmission], thus didn't release Chaff.
Despite hitting the ship, the missile failed to detonate; the warhead being thought to be defective. Instead it was the missile fuel combined with inadequate fire suppression measures on-ship, that resulted in Sheffield being crippled. The ship strictly speaking was not sunk by the missile, rather defects with the vessel itself.
The loss of Atlantic Conveyor also doesn't count for much, as an unarmed merchantman is by definition not a warship.
Most warships lost in the Falklands were to "Iron Bombs", with the largest ship to be sunk during the conflict being by a 21" MK.VIII Torpedo... and was sunk by the British.
As such the Exocet's rep' is comically exaggerated, unlike weapons such as the Tomahawk, SeaEagle or Granit missiles.
1
-
^ Ah the typical ad hominem diatribe, thinly disguised with nonsensical word salad. The first resort of those with nothing worth stating.
Also a laughable case of hypocrisy & projection on your part, as you clearly don't know dogshite about the topic you're typing upon, and have shown me no respect at all. Good job too in proving you're a Plastic Veteran by wheeling out the meaningless "Durr Hurr 'ave you surved!?!?" question / accusation.
[an asinine notion; as by that logic nobody whom isn't 1,500+ years old can talk about the Roman Legions]
The key detail to take away from HMS Sheffield is Don't have your Radar switched off while in a combat zone*, not that the Exocet was somehow noteworthy because it locked onto the Wrong Target, having been confused by *Strips of TinFoil .
[yup; that's all Chaff is... #SoMuchForModernTechnology XD]
The Sheffield's C/O was court-marshalled for losing his ship, and found guilty of negligence in command thereof; for had the Sheff's Radar been switched on and chaff used, no loss would have occurred.
Destroyer design was revised after the war, adding superior Active Sensors and ECM equipment which made the Exocet doubly redundant as a credible threat to a competently commanded vessel.
Worth noting too that the only achievements of any note in the Exocets' entire history have been by Aircraft mounted weapons. The Shipboard version was of no useful application in the Falklands conflict, was poorly regarded by the RN even before the war, and was replaced by Harpoon less than a decade after it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannyoliver6251 I'd have to disagree. Germany didn't surpass the UK when it came to Economics until the late-1960's, and that was the result of the then Labour government of Harold Wilson being ditheringly incompetent.
[a topic in itself]
Prior to that the UK had also demonstrated general industrial superiority to the Germans in capacity and general ability to produce weapons. Take the Shipbuilding Sector for instance, where the UK was STILL the world leader in market share in 1945; albeit with the US enjoying a government funding boosted production surge during the war, aided by the ingenuity of a certain Mr Kaiser.
Only the US compared well with the British for shipbuilding in WWII, with the Japanese. The USSR didn't really factor into it as they lost the use of most of their biggest shipyards between 1941 & 1944.
Incidentally for the sake of comparison; here's the numbers of [just] Battleships each country brought about during WWII:
USSR: 0
Germany: 2, +2 units cancelled in early build.
France: 2, +2 uncompleted & 4 cancelled units.
Japan: 2, +5 delayed & ultimately cancelled units.
Italy: 3, +1 uncompleted.
Great Britain: 6, +6 others cancelled in favour of Convoy Escorts.
USA: 10, +2 uncompleted & 5 cancelled units [albeit at higher overall unit cost to what was typical for UK yards]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Cute pro-big government distortionist narrative, but nope; "neglected lines" wasn't a feature of the generations of pre-BR railway companies in the UK, unlike the entire BR era, where the national network lost money year after year, while the quality of service continually declined.
Fact is that the Railways were profitable and generally effective (especially in examples such as the GWR & LSWR), before the government became arrogant enough to think they knew how to run a business they had no role in the rise thereof (besides rubber stamping peices of paper, which's what government is usually supposed to be limited to), and proceeded to kill yet another goose that'd laid them golden eggs in the period they'd let it mostly be.
(same with aerospace, cars, housebuilding, shipbuilding, steel, and pretty much everything else 😮💨)
Japan has proved that a privately owned, sectorized railway network is far better, than the god awful worst-of-both-worlds system (devised by some moron in 1970's/'80's Sweden) we've been lumped with since 1994, which is basically state ownership with a few subcontractors 🤦♂️.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airplane1831 You're welcome, though I do not agree.
The reason why is that the pre-grouping rail companies managed quite well to sustain themselves. The reason why was minimal government interference, which insured they could be competitive on both passenger and - most importantly of all - Freight traffic.
Most railways - excluding those built specifically to deliver coal to ports or power stations- had mixed traffic of both types, with Freight being the main factor in why the Railways had enough cash for R&D and service expansion in passenger terms.
I think TIK's point was chiefly that it was the government's meddling that destroyed that balance, and turned the railways from prosperity to loss making embarrassment.
I also wouldn't be surprised if he lives in part of the railway desert areas of the country, which are due to the mad chopping of Macmillain, Beeching and Wilson. No amount of cuts would've solved BR's underlying woes, just like more government interference is just beating the long dead corpse of a goose, that once laid golden eggs.
It's worth noting that subsidy technically doesn't make anything less expensive, it just hides the true cost by making the passenger pay twice through their taxes; which was the main reason why BR was always a fundamentally unethical idea.
(perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I don't believe in paying twice for a one time service rendered, let alone being double charged by stealth)
The railways could be saved, but it would require the government to accept that politicians and civil servants can't - and shouldn't - run a railway, nor have any role short of:
• Final approval for planning permission.
• Oversight of [now extremely rare] major accidents.
• Ensuring safety regulations are adhered to (in which the Germans wholesale failed in the '90's).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ False, actually. The British had trialled a turreted vehicle in 1915, prior to the introduction of the MK-1 on the western front. It was found that the center of gravity would be too high for the terrain, and sponsons were deemed an acceptable compromise.
The placement of the engine on the Rhomboidal Tanks was also not without reason, as it meant - in theory at least - being able to perform repairs while the Tank was under fire.
(which happened more than once).
The Landships Committee after all was chiefly staffed by the Royal Navy; which knew more about turrets than any navy on earth. They also had plenty of marines serving in flanders, thus a vested interest in having a Tank that could navigate the awful terrain.
The sole surrviving vehicle from the Landships Committee's testing period, Little Willie , even has the mounting points for said rejected turret.
(she's at Bovington, take a look for yourself)
The french had a decidedly inferior design team, as evidenced by the fact that the FT-17 was not only poorly armed and pretty much unarmoured, but had abysmal lateral stability, and even poor longditudinal stability when descending a slope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@susannamarker2582 Well people tend to focus on the NSDAP getting into power as the key detail in Germany rearming... yet the Communists had similar ambitions, and Weimar Germany had already been putting some of its US loans into rearming.
(case in point the secret Tank, Aircraft & Submarine development pacts with third party countries like the USSR, and a certain class of overgunned Cruisers)
Germany only got enough arms to be a threat again though, because the countries supposed to enforce the treaty were so divided:
• The French favoured a hard line, and did where they could.
• The British were less & less eager to be firm on Germany (until being blindsighted in 1938), and opposed French measures in the '20's.
• The USA pretty much did nothing after the early '20's , favouring isolationism.
• Italy did basically nothing, as only Austria remaining seperate from Germany really mattered to them.
(until Hitler won Mussolini over to letting that happen)
• Russia was by then communist and thus was shunned by most, and had no baring on the treaty.
• Belgium wanted Germany kept weak but also didn't want to be on bad relations... plus had no teeth to enforce anything.
• Romania had not had any real say at the peace talks and thus was external to it all, was more concerned with Hungary, and had gained a lot from Bulgaria.
...which all led to a weak front re' German rearmament and re-expansionism; despite Germany being relatively weak for most of the interwar period re' Oil supplies and actual fighting power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WALTERBROADDUS Opinion noted, but irrelevant (as this isn't your Q&A section)... and demonstrably untrue as well, as 1939 proved the Polish lack of a counter for any of the German Capital Ships, giving the Schleswig-Holstein free reign to demolish their fortresses in Westerplatte, disrupt Polish troops movements and so much more, functionally unopposed.
Denmark similarly was walked over, as unlike Sweden, Finland & Norway they & Poland lacked even a Coastal Defence Ship or two, meaning even ancient ships like Schleswig-Holstein could walk all over them.
Given Poland was a military dictatorship at the time, this gap in defence capabilities is even more ironic, and interesting.
(at least in the contemporary Dutch case of naval capability gaps we know they tried to develop a counter for the Scharnhorst's, only to be too slow in getting their ships built)
1
-
1
-
^ Two accounts, same tiresome blowhard 😆🤣 .
Cute repetition of irrelevant details, as retirement from civil service often doesn't = retirement from use, and the fact that DH-106 Comet 4's were still flying into the late-'90's and in the Nimrod subvariant was still in service in 2010, is incontrovertible fact.
That, and the Comet outlasted the awful TU-104, which by the '80's was military use only, and canned even then because a prominent crash killed more Admirals than WWII 😆 .
(it's well documented; look it up, it speaks volumes about how little airline safety mattered to the Soviets, as the 'plane never stopped crashing & killing; the Soviet population even had a derisive song about it 😆)
That; and Dan-Air being the majority operator by the '70's tis irrelevant, as the Comet 4 was a generation old by that time and government ineptitude in handling the aerospace industry meant there'd be no further development (duh). This is not unusual for civil aircraft, with various Boeing subvariants being relegated / run like humdrum buses until retirement because they weren't a top seller.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AdamMGTF I state all this as a Brit' that's worked in both the public sector and private, and has had plenty of family that've done the same.
There's no golden goose, no prosperous success story of this nation, that the government hasn't found a way to run into ruin or zealously strangle.
As an example: ask anyone whom worked for Handley Page Aviation; the company was straight-up blacklisted from military and public sector airline orders by the civil service because the company refused to be merged into the government mandated British Aircraft Corperation or Hawker Siddeley aerospace combines... as such what had been a highly successful company that'd given the V Force its most successful member and pioneered successful civilian aircraft as well, was reduced through strangulation into bankruptcy.
Another would be the Railways, which in 1924 were one of Britain's most successful businesses and a healthy employer, yet by 1954 was a loss making government owned basketcase, and by 1974 had been butchered harder by shortsighted and economically illogical cuts than Luftwaffe bombs ever could have.
By 2024, the government was trying to gaslight us into thinking more government intervention in the railways would solve its problems, yet in the past 76+ years (yes, ""privatisation"" in 1994 was nothing of the sort, rather a demented Swedish derived system of leasing by another name) they have been wholly to blame for its failings, at our considerable expense and inconvenience.
Hope this communicates the point across well, as I believe it's an important one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ As nonsensical an argument as its SPaG is lacking.
If I was seen to order military hardware from abroad as a civilian, my home nation would [quite reasonably] have concerns long before I would over delivery XD.
As for what I assume your metaphor was aiming for: nope. the PRC's companies really doesn't give a damn about honouring deals with individuals abroad, as the latter can do nothing about it.
(same thing with IP Infringement, which the PRC ignores all the time, with even wealthy corperations like BMW getting nowhere legally)
Within the legal framework of the 1910's, Turkey lost the ships thrice over, by:
• Reacting in bad faith to the building nation stating they would temporarily be appropriating the ships for national defence (as is the right of any nation re' stuff in her shipyards), but would reimburse the Turks and re-offer them for sale at a later date.
• Later going to war with the building nation, ensuring all agreements with the latter no longer had to be honoured at all, as no sane goverent supplies completed weapon systems to the enemy, during nor after a war therewith.
• Losing the war they'd started with the building nation (enough in itself to invalidate any prewar arms deals) and then ceasing to exist as a state.
By contrast no other nations the UK was building ships for behaved so, and got their orders after the war, with Chile being compensated in cash after one of the 'Admirale Cochrane' couldn't be delivered, and political disagreement in Chile itself over what to buy instead led to cash being chosen instead.
A~and as such; only the Turks hold any blame for the collapse of the deal, and paid the price for it too, as the Greeks and [pre-revolution] Russians foisted any naval ambitions they may have had during the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Ah yes the "5 year plans", the comically inept examples of "be better" programs that saw even larger numbers of people starve and worked to death, to erect great edifices in the permafrost, of monolithic stalinist folly.
It took repeated imports of foriegn knowhow and material to get the USSR going post civil war, and keep it from collapsing during WWII, and post-1953 to 1991 [in food imports chiefly] to prevent mass starvation, as had been repeatedly transpiring since 1945.
It took post-soviet Russia many years to bring down the foriegn debts from the bad old days, and the former soviet bloc, will likely remain poor, rabidly politically corrupt, and backward.
(ask any Romanian, Albanian, Latvian or Pole; they certainly don't miss the periods when their countries were totalitarian prisons, nor like living in grinding poverty now as a knock-on result of those times)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Socialist codswallop.
State schools are crap, always have been crap, and always will be.
Why?, because the reason for their creation, wasn't to educate children - what an idea - ... rather it was a move by the Labour Party to give the Trade Unions more control over schools (Grammar School staff were rarely into unions at all), and to tell kids What to think , instead of How to think.
Sincerely, someone who experianced state schools, non-state schools, and home education.
The foremost of which I wouldn't wish upon the offspring of my worst enemy, whilst the latter two taught me everything of any worth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ That's a lot of words, for a disjointed assortment of overstated, misquoted and discontextualized "points" .
Then again you do seem to think that pointing out that the Dutch lost the 4th war is a grave insult of some kind; when I was simply stating a fact.
How effective Dutch troops were is also rather irrelevant, for reasons aforementioned.
(can't send troops to another country's turf when they have naval superiority, among other advantages [various French & Spanish kings, Napoleon & Hitler both learned that the hard way])
Here's some hard facts though about the period:
• The UK was the #1 economy, with the leading currency. The US had grown but was still smaller in both aspects, for various reasons.
• The UK at the turn of century held 80% of the global Shipbuilding market; a record never surpassed by any nation since, nor likely to be.
• The RN had a relatively high standard officer corps (especially those who'd been trained to use their own initiative); see the Russian Navy for an example of what you're thinking of.
Also: By century's turn UK-German relations had not only started to sour, with Kaiser William II's poor diplomacy being mostly why, but the Kaiserlichemarine had started its expansion... a race that it lost, as the UK proved she could not only outbuild the boch, but stay ahead of them technologically. By WWI the RN was not only larger, but outmatched the Kaiserlichemarine in firepower, range, speed and how swiftly ships could be repaired / replaced.
The previous Kaiser - aided by Bismarck - had been wiser, in keeping his navy chiefly small and mostly for coastal defence.
(a period incidentally where the UK also was happy to build warships to order, for Germany)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GodPikachu Technically the BAe Typhoon (Eurofighter was a politically conveniant marketing title, for what was [like Tornado] a British design, produced in part by smaller partners) predates the YF-22 & 23, with the BAe EAP project that led to Typhoon starting in the '80's, after yet another deal with the french fell through.
Though a Brit' I've never heard of Typhoon being considered for a name like 'Spitfire II'. Rather like our naming conventions for people over here (with the exception of monarchs), it isn't RAF tradition to use numbers after names, with the sole exception being variant numbers.
(like F.6, short for 'Fighter MK.6')
The Germans certainly were salty over Typhoon, but mostly as I recall in a "Agh. Zee Could Var ist overh!. Vee vant to spengt lhess on defunse!" kind of way. This nearly led to the UK opting to go it alone, perhaps still with the Italians & Spanish as partners responsible for subcomponents.
Is rather amusing that they were fine with Typhoon as a name though XD.
The wholly seperate 'BAe Replica' - and no I've no idea why they chose that name - was the British project to produce a pure air superiority fighter of comperable generation to F-22, with much of the work being done in Cambridgeshire. That changed however when a certain Tony Bliar cancelled the project, about a year after coming to power.
I suspect that the USAF's nsme for F-35 will be ignored by the RAF, assuming they don't name its UK specific variant something else.
(a bit like how lend lease Warhawks were renamed Tomahawk for RAF service)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1