LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by kalniel
Well I think we have it nearly right i.e professional forces for small wars and in NATO for anything larger.
Well I think we have it nearly right i.e professional forces for small wars and in NATO for anything larger.
Up until 2000 i was in the Armed Forces and have served all around the world.
It saddens me to see some people saying that we are no longer a world power and that Iraq/Bosnia/Sierra Leone/etc were not our problem and we should leave well alone.
WE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE a huge influence on world peace and this should be realised.
Most of you have no idea what its like to be in a place like Iraq (for nearly 10 months as i was) and all you hear about is how every day people back home disagree with what you are doing.
It makes you:
a) annoyed because that is nothing short of cowardice
b) wonder why you are there if no-one else has faith in you
c) upset because your families have to endure the 'French-Like' attitude from people at home that should be encouraging you to do WHAT IS RIGHT.
I sincerely hope that none of you ever have to see some of the things our armed-forces have to put up with.
But at least try to remember that a bit of national pride isn't hard.
Basically fellas...you are either with us or against us.....there is no middle-ground on this one.
What Blitzen said is certainly true, once our democratically elected government has decided we are at war, we should support our troops.
What isn't the case, and never should be, is a blind faith in the leadership of said government. I have nothing against the army, they do as they are told, and do it bloody well imho. What I do have a problem with is the very one sided 'Special Relationship' and its connotations for our domestic and foreign policy. Britain has long been a world power, and will continue to be, but our expertise sets us apart, not the number of troops we can muster up at the drop of a hat. America has that role, we don't need to. We also don't need to involve ourselves jus because 'America said so', we are big enough and ugly enough to make our own decisions, I just hope the government realises this.
I have a massive amount of respect for our armed forces, and will continue to do so,.
Well...tbh...the Americans are a little trigger happy to say the least but!!!
Would you rather be with them or against them?
I would much rather be associated with a country such as USA than one like France.
Its nothing to do with doing what America says. If anything we are a calming influence on the USA.
Its completely to do with having the courage and conviction to stand up, be counted and do whats right!
Lets not forget if it wasnt for them we would all be goose-stepping to work every morning.
If I'm honest, the Russians had more to do with that than the Americans...but that's another matter entirely.
With America, I wasn't suggesting being against her, personally I find that quite unlikely considering we are both Liberal Democracies based on the ideas of Capitalism, but I do think we play along too much with the wishes and needs of America. Lets not forget, it was only recently that we finished paying back the money lent under lend/lease, which had interest charged on it. Allies, but still making money out of us.
Not at all. I think our troops are doing an excellent job and support them in that. I still dont think they should be risking their lives there, though.
Afghanistan, maybe. Iraq, no.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
it is another matter entirely but Im afraid you are wrong - without american lorries and boots the Red Army would have starved to death
No one is disputing the value of US supplies, but the arguments on this side of the Atlantic are........ "What did the US army and navy do for us?".
Even the "mighty" USAAF only dropped 2/3rds the tonnage of bombs compared to the RAF.
Of coarse US forces had some affect in the war this side, but not as much as Hollywood would have us believe.
Thats simply not true.
The 2nd World War, without the aid of the Americans (and the Russians) as pointed out by Dave87 wouldve been lost.
Whose arguing with that as it turned out? But you can then argue without the UK in the war Russia was lost maybe the USA eventually.
So what was the most important event in WW2? Well quite a few historians say "it all leads to Dunkerque, the Battle of Britain and Churchill".
Probably not starved to death. It would have just moved at a much slower pace, adding a year onto the war. Horsedrawn transport and trains would have been used to a greater extent.
Most German transport was horsedrawn right through the war, a fact often overlooked. They didn't starve, pockets excepted.
80% of all German military casualties occured on the eastern front, so the debate about US trucks, and aircraft, and tanks and cloth and chemicals will go on but one thing is certain. If Germany had millions of extra troops available in the west we would have never made it past Calais.
Yorkie - people win wars, not equipment. The Russian's had the overwhelming superiority in conventional forces, be it men, Tanks (the Russian's made their own, not very good, but enough of them so it didn't matter).
***Tanks (the Russian's made their own, not very good, but enough of them so it didn't matter).***
Huh! The T34 was so good the Germans copied some innovations like sloping armour, shame that instead of the US mass producing crappy Shermans (they only become more dangerous to German tanks when fitted with a British gun), they should have spied on the Russians to produce a clone of a T34.
T34 was very good, but the German tanks were technologically superior. Their downfall, however, was the availability of spares (because they made so many variations). The Russians had one design of Tank they punched out. Wasn't as sophisticated as the German ones, but had numerical superiority.
no they dont
logistics wins wars.
Without American trucks and supplies the Soviets would have struggled IMMENSELY
The Sovs superiority in numbers didnt help them in 1941. If Britain and the Americans were out of the war, apart from the troops in france the Germans would have had far more 88mm guns in the east to kill tanks etc
all in all it was an allied effort. If Britain and the USA had not supplied the USSR then they could not have reached Berlin at least - the vast gains made by Soviet forces later in the war would have been impossible - also without Britain and the USA supplying much of the Sovs logistical train then the USSR would have had to make their industry more balanced - i.e. more trucks, less tanks. It is hard to over-emphasise this - logistical equipment is more important in a conventional war (ignoring guerilla warfare before Vietnam gets mentioned) than most other factors. Even the best troops cant do very well without ammunition
However if Britain and the US had stood alone, they could have won - nuclear weapons. With Hitler dead there would be a good chance at a negotiated peace at least.
As far as I remember it, the USA only had two A-bombs, they were both used in the Pacific theatre. So if they had used them in the European theatre, the war in the Pacific would have continued for longer...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote