Has Britain Resigned?
Discussion
Mojocvh said:
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
OK then... Please explain how you think making a comparison between the number of troops in our Armed Forces 250 years ago and now (or even 100 years ago and now if you want to make it easier) is in any way relevant to any debate?
If you like, you can put it in terms of how you'd approach the battle? Let's make it specific... You can have the 68,000 troops available to Wellington at Waterloo, and all the weapons they had at their disposal. I'll have a single Tornado with ground crew and weaponry. You tell me how you're going to beat me.
You might also like to point to the bit where I said I thought we had too large a military capability now. Let me help you out with that.... I didn't. I don't have the expertise to know whether we have sufficient military power now or not. Anyone with half a brain cell to rub together has enough expertise to know that comparing numbers of military personnel now and in the 1770s is a pointless distraction though.
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
Just like to point out the battle of the Somme was in 1916If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
Kermit power said:
Mojocvh said:
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
OK then... Please explain how you think making a comparison between the number of troops in our Armed Forces 250 years ago and now (or even 100 years ago and now if you want to make it easier) is in any way relevant to any debate?
If you like, you can put it in terms of how you'd approach the battle? Let's make it specific... You can have the 68,000 troops available to Wellington at Waterloo, and all the weapons they had at their disposal. I'll have a single Tornado with ground crew and weaponry. You tell me how you're going to beat me.
You might also like to point to the bit where I said I thought we had too large a military capability now. Let me help you out with that.... I didn't. I don't have the expertise to know whether we have sufficient military power now or not. Anyone with half a brain cell to rub together has enough expertise to know that comparing numbers of military personnel now and in the 1770s is a pointless distraction though.
?
Please read my edited account re the numbers game.
Mo.
Luke Warm said:
Our hands are tied by debt, the EU, green b
ks, memories of past indiscretions, NIMBYs, and a self-entitled population.
China's turn to rule the waves.
Major civilisations almost always destroy themselves, seemingly losing the will to live. That's where the UK is. We are over run by 5th columns and acquiescing in our own decline. The military is a symptom not a cause. Most of our enemies are internal. ks, memories of past indiscretions, NIMBYs, and a self-entitled population.China's turn to rule the waves.
Mojocvh said:
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
OKAY I'll say this just the once [to keep up the comic theme] the numbers game..
Say you have a force of 48 offensive airframes.
At any one time 1/4th of that number are unavailable due to maintenance cycles etc.
Of those [36] airframes available, due to contractual issues they can only carry 1/2 the number of bombs that they were meant to do.
So instead of 8 bombs you now have 4 per aircraft. So you can deploy 144 precision guided warheads per sortie wave.
BUT due their small size [to fit in the aircraft in the first place] of 208lbs their effectiveness is limited with some targets requiring multiple targeting to ensure destruction.
So we say 1/4 of those bombs [36] will be "wasted" on multiple attack profiles.
So now you can only effectively attack 108 "targets" per sortie wave.
Unfortunately, despite your best planning and technological "advantage", your warheads are being destroyed as they approach their targets [due to the fact they use active sensors] at the rate of 1/3 so you now have only 72 "kills" from your 144 pgm's per sortie wave.
You find that despite what the brochure said, your aircraft are vulnerable to detection and attack.
Whilst your superior defensive tactics have prevented any airframe losses so far, you find that a further 1/3 of attacks are being turned back to prevent airframe loss so now you only have 48 kills from your 144 pgm per sortie wave.
Which is exactly the number of extortionately expensive airframes you started out with...ps guess what airframe we are discussing
Surely what's relevant is our military capabilities today compared to any potential threat we're likely to face today, not one we might've faced in the 1770s?
Smollet said:
Kermit power said:
Purely from a military perspective, that article strikes me as utterly absurd. OK, so we're going to shrink our armed forces down to the size they were in the 1770s... So what? Given the advances in weaponry over the last 250 years, shouldn't we actually be utterly shocked by the fact that our armed forces are even as much as 10% of the manpower they had back then?
If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
Just like to point out the battle of the Somme was in 1916If you look at a typical 1770s battleground, you would've had thousands of men standing facing each other at a distance of about 30 yards firing at each other with woefully inaccurate weapons that even the best soldiers on the battlefield couldn't reload more than about 3 times per minute, followed by a charge with bayonets.
Move forward to now, and about 50 people in a shed somewhere in rural Norfolk or wherever could've wiped out every 1770s standing army in Europe from a distance of hundreds of miles away without having to ever even see them, and without the loss of a single human being.
In total, we lost 453 in Afghanistan, and 2,116 forces personnel were hospitalised as a result of enemy action.
Compare that to July 1st 1917. The British 4th Army suffered 57,470 casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed in just the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether we project enough military power as one of the largest economies of the 21st century, but making any sort of comparison to the past based on manpower is just pointless and disingenuous.
Kermit power said:
If you like, you can put it in terms of how you'd approach the battle? Let's make it specific... You can have the 68,000 troops available to Wellington at Waterloo, and all the weapons they had at their disposal. I'll have a single Tornado with ground crew and weaponry. You tell me how you're going to beat me.
Forced march to Brussels, spread everyone out as widely as possible around the buildings in the city, and wait until you run out of munitions. Exactly the same as ISIS are doing. davepoth said:
Kermit power said:
If you like, you can put it in terms of how you'd approach the battle? Let's make it specific... You can have the 68,000 troops available to Wellington at Waterloo, and all the weapons they had at their disposal. I'll have a single Tornado with ground crew and weaponry. You tell me how you're going to beat me.
Forced march to Brussels, spread everyone out as widely as possible around the buildings in the city, and wait until you run out of munitions. Exactly the same as ISIS are doing. It's all a bit of a ridiculous conversation anyway as we're not going to be fighting the Duke of Wellington. The only sensible thing to measure our military capability against, both in terms of technology and manpower, is that of other countries, and in particular the ones we are most likely to fight in any future confrontation.
AJS- said:
It's all a bit of a ridiculous conversation anyway as we're not going to be fighting the Duke of Wellington. The only sensible thing to measure our military capability against, both in terms of technology and manpower, is that of other countries, and in particular the ones we are most likely to fight in any future confrontation.
That was precisely my original point. 
AJS- said:
It's all a bit of a ridiculous conversation anyway as we're not going to be fighting the Duke of Wellington. The only sensible thing to measure our military capability against, both in terms of technology and manpower, is that of other countries, and in particular the ones we are most likely to fight in any future confrontation.
Of course we're not going to be fighting Wellington, he's one of ours. We should be fighting the French, it's the Raison D'etre to be British Mojocvh said:
BlackLabel said:
Mojocvh said:
elster said:
Our military capability is one of the best in the world. Definitely Top 5.
Utterly Delusional.BlackLabel said:
Most appear to be put together by military websites or publications like Jane's Defence Weekly. I suppose this is a difficult thing to quantify but just how far do you think we've fallen then - are we now behind nations like France, Germany, the South Koreans, Japan?
Oh come on!!! Be serious! Nobody is behind the French! Well... except the Italians, of course.Military capability to do what?
Repelling an Argentine invasion of the Falklands is a very different proposition militarily to conducting air strikes in Iraq or fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland.
An aggregate index of military power is useful for top trumps but the only thing really worth assessing our strength against is the threats we actually face.
Repelling an Argentine invasion of the Falklands is a very different proposition militarily to conducting air strikes in Iraq or fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland.
An aggregate index of military power is useful for top trumps but the only thing really worth assessing our strength against is the threats we actually face.
One possible area we could take a (principled) stand...the FA announcing it will no longer be associated with FIFA.
Not going to happen, but still (and of course our domestic game is above reproach).
In fact it should be enforced by law that any 'national' body cannot associate with corrupt international governing organisations. So that's the end of F1, athletics, cycling, football and cricket for now...
Not going to happen, but still (and of course our domestic game is above reproach).
In fact it should be enforced by law that any 'national' body cannot associate with corrupt international governing organisations. So that's the end of F1, athletics, cycling, football and cricket for now...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff