| Is U.K. Defence Important? 19:49 - Sep 8 with 6657 views | Churchman |
As things stand, this country could field at most two brigades. It might last a fortnight with a little good fortune. The ‘army’ (size wise, a militia) is set to reduce to 62,000 from 74,000 this year. UK possesses about 20 surface warships. Of its five most modern only one can be at sea because there aren’t crews for the other four.
The two aircraft carriers were built with the government meddling with spec and cost cutting. They spend most of their time in harbour, not least because of their propensity to catch fire. Air force? Not much left. Our capability is less than Italy’s and on a par with Greece.
As a percentage of GDP spending will be no more than 2%, probably less with the shrinking of what’s left of the army.
Starmer promises to meet the commitment of 2.5% GDP when finances allow. I.e. never. Support for Israel is basically over and with that will come withdrawal of support for the U.K. by the US, especially if Trump get in.
Yes, yes, yes, we know what the tories and their predecessors have done since WW2 and I’ve no doubt blame will continue to be heaped on them in the decades to come.
But I’m more interested in what Starmer and co intend to actually do. We have an unstable world in which an aggressor attacked another country in Europe 2.5 years ago. Our response? Continued disarmament.
Do people think peace begets peace and as long as Sir Kier buries his nose in Putin’s rug in supplication in due course all will be well, or do we think the problem will just go away if we ignore it and pursue other perceived priorities? Does anyone really care? |  | | |  |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:19 - Sep 9 with 1853 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:01 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
I didn’t respond to Guthers’ post because the OP was very much a basis for discussion. I also didn’t read it properly (apols). Re-reading it I’ve upvoted it.
Sir Kier’s nose in the Axminster? Very much a stirring soundbite / theoretical outcome with zero basis - but with a question. If for theoretical argument we were to get tired and give up on defence (v unlikely) and rely on Russia to ‘protect our interests’, what price would he extract? Given how technically independent countries like Belorussia respond, I’d hate to be in that position. |
We're not going to "give up on defence" and we're not going to "rely on Russia to protect our interests", so I don't think you need to worry about those. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:29 - Sep 9 with 1842 views | bsw72 |
Just to be clear - you know how NATO works right? The fact that NATO has supported Ukraine, and as such Ukraine has been able to resist a vastly bigger Russia military for 2+ years now demonstrates the effectiveness of the coalition.
Russia had a vastly bigger military force than we have ever had in the UK, yet have been unable to invade a NATO supported country. If conflict was just a numbers game, then Ukraine would have fallen within weeks.
You cannot look at just a single country's military as just numbers in isolation, that is a very narrow measure of a country's ability to defend itself, consideration has to be made across all other geopolitical and economic variables. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 10:31]
|  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:42 - Sep 9 with 1808 views | Radlett_blue |
Britain has the 6th largest defence budget in the world so I think we are spending far too much on it. You could argue others should be spending more (especially if they want to remain in NATO), but good luck with that, as defence expenditure is largely non-productive.
My bigger issue is how we spend it e.g. the 2 white elephant aircraft carriers, which we cannot afford to equip or defend. We don't need more squaddies & tanks; we need better protection against cyber warfare, more money on drones etc. |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 10:48 - Sep 9 with 1789 views | Mookamoo |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:08 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
I guess your last sentence is what I’m asking.
Yes, we all know what the last scumbags did and their predecessors, but we are in the here and now. ‘It’s the Tories fault’ will not progress anything. It is what we choose to do next that is important.
Nuclear deterrent? You cannot de-invent something so I believe it’s critical. But if you have it, you have to make your enemies (Russia and China etc) believe you will use it otherwise it’s just a dangerous toy and a waste off money.
The govt made it clear to Putin it never would. Putin made it clear he might and every decision since, such as allowing Ukraine to attack targets in Russia using U.K. weapons has been based on that. Fear - probably justified.
Are we threatened by enemies? I believe so, but many people do not. But then the willingness to believe all is well knows no limits, as shown by Labour and others’ demands to cut military spending after Chamberlain’s infamous Munich agreement in 1938. |
Are we also overlooking the impact of how ex-services help in a wider context?
All the friends I know that went into the military have all come out with a trade, or a service that they now use. They're plumbers, engineers and a couple now work as mental health nurses on the most serious wards, because they have had the training and exposure to handle it.
We might not need the boots on the ground to go an fight, but it seems like these are the positions in our workforce we are crying out to fill. |  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 11:38 - Sep 9 with 1739 views | Kievthegreat |
I feel like the UK military tries to do too much and in doing so, leaves gaps in capability. Example, the UK has 2 large aircraft carriers, but lacks sufficient numbers of support vessels, sailors and aircraft. It's like buying an F1 engine and strapping it to a cheap Mondeo that is falling apart. The UK on current expenses, but possibly even increased expenses cannot support carrier task groups, nuclear deterrent, large air force and a large army. Nor does it need to within a large alliance. I personally would scrap Challenger 3 upgrades, buy some Leopards or do a deal with America for top range Abrams (not the normal export variant), get IFVs off the shelf rather than over engineering and pivot to Navy/Airforce. We've got the carriers already, let's just pivot and build out the navy with more frigates and destroyers so we can actually operate a reasonable carrier group and patrol our strategic waters.
On total funding, the 2% thing is misleading. It includes an extremely expensive nuclear programme and then things like pensions and give misleading impressions as to our conventional capabilities. It's part of the explanation for why the army "might last a fortnight" too. It is because we (and every country in Europe) lacks any level of supply of things like Ammunition and spare parts. Apparently we really struggle to keep Ukraine stocked up with spare parts to keep their Challengers going. We only gave them 14 and at least one was destroyed! Having 150 tanks is not a large force, but they are paper assets if you can't operate them in numbers.
I think that's part of the problem when it comes to spending the right amount now. It's one thing to say, "we need money for *big shiny toy*". It's harder to justify that we cannot properly field the equipment we have, so we need money just to make use of our current toys, let alone new ones.
I do feel your last paragraph is a bit unfair. While I've no confidence in Kier doing anything at all to change things for the better, I don't think it's fair to characterise that as burying "his nose in Putin's rag of supplication". |  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 12:11 - Sep 9 with 1701 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 09:47 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
So your view is disarm, make better use of the money and ‘let others do the heavy lifting’. Fine, so rely on nice Mr Trump and Macron and hope a Dictator not too far away goes away and is the last?
It’s a view and that’s all the OP asks for. |
No that’s not what I said.
With the country in a complete mess I just happen to think education, health and infrastructure are more important for the limited funds at the government’s disposal - and that overfunding the armed forces with questionable procurement comes way down the priority list.
You may be interested to learn what happened in the last major European war - the British army ran away at the first sign of armed conflict and only escaped at Dunkirk thanks to the French holding the Germans back. Of the entire European army only the Guards took their weapons with them such was the haste to retreat.
Since those days the empire has disappeared - so no we don’t need a hugely expensive armed forces who’s primary reason le nowadays seems to be to drive fuel tankers and fire engines during strikes |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 13:42 - Sep 9 with 1662 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
Surely the question regarding traditional, large-scale, military capability is only relevant in the context of what would most likely be a full-on third world war.
And that's not going to happen (certainly in none of our lifetimes anyway as things aren't anywhere near THAT bad) as it would almost certainly mean nuclear attacks and large-scale, or total, mutual destruction. Right?
No?
Erm... |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 14:48 - Sep 9 with 1611 views | mellowblue |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 12:11 - Sep 9 by ElephantintheRoom |
No that’s not what I said.
With the country in a complete mess I just happen to think education, health and infrastructure are more important for the limited funds at the government’s disposal - and that overfunding the armed forces with questionable procurement comes way down the priority list.
You may be interested to learn what happened in the last major European war - the British army ran away at the first sign of armed conflict and only escaped at Dunkirk thanks to the French holding the Germans back. Of the entire European army only the Guards took their weapons with them such was the haste to retreat.
Since those days the empire has disappeared - so no we don’t need a hugely expensive armed forces who’s primary reason le nowadays seems to be to drive fuel tankers and fire engines during strikes |
Extremely harsh assessment of the withdrawal from France. The Germans punched through the Ardennes and pushing through the low countries with ease, punching a dirty big hole between the bulk of the French forces and the B.E.F and threatened to cut off any chance of retreat. The B.E.F was in an untenable position and had to get out to be able to continue the war. The British and French forces were very green compared the battle hardened Germans.
If we had stayed it would not have ended well as the French forces despite being a sizeable force could not match what the Germans threw at them. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 14:54 - Sep 9 with 1602 views | OldFart71 |
Just like many Government departments if waste was cut drastically there would be much more to spend on the things needed. Using contractors that basically charge what they want despite there being a need for those handing out contracts to have at least three quotes to choose from. Admittedly certain things cost a fortune. Not sure of the cost now, but a set of blades for an Apache helicopter were around £30,000 a time. But the scrapping of projects part way through and a seemingly inability to get things that work as they should doesn't help. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:09 - Sep 9 with 1512 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
The lessons of the fallout from the Iraq War, Civil War in Syria and rise of ISIS are that it is incredibly difficult to occupy an unwilling nation, and that Improvised Explosive Devices can be asymmetrically powerful against a Superpower.
The lessons of the Ukrainian War so far are that it is incredibly difficult to occupy and unwilling nation and that Improvised Drones can be assymetrically powerful against a Superpower.
The word Defence is important here.
The UK, in an era of aerial and marine drones, should be easy to defend against a conventional invasion.
Recruiting and training drone pilots would seem to be the most cost effective way forward for the UK military. And building hundreds of thousands of marine and aerial drones (and possibly land drones if the technology is cost effective) coupled with Dragonfire and other laser anti-drone technology.
The Aircraft Carriers you mention are practically obsolete, now. The way forward is extending cruise missile ranges by pallet launching from cargo planes, and extending the safe and effective bomber range of bombers by adapting the glide bomb strategy further.
Plus loads of Patriot systems. Loads and loads.
That's Defence covered.
If we are talking "Projecting the UK's military might" then the answer is: too expensive, not worth it.
It seems like UK defence bods have lucked out by going all in on Trident as "our" nuclear deterrent "delivery platform", as Submarines seem to be least impacted by drone defence.
So far.
We might have to give up the Falklands, though.
Serious question: does anyone know what percentage of the UK defence budget is going into drones? | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:24 - Sep 9 with 1501 views | lurcher |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:09 - Sep 9 by ArnoldMoorhen |
The lessons of the fallout from the Iraq War, Civil War in Syria and rise of ISIS are that it is incredibly difficult to occupy an unwilling nation, and that Improvised Explosive Devices can be asymmetrically powerful against a Superpower.
The lessons of the Ukrainian War so far are that it is incredibly difficult to occupy and unwilling nation and that Improvised Drones can be assymetrically powerful against a Superpower.
The word Defence is important here.
The UK, in an era of aerial and marine drones, should be easy to defend against a conventional invasion.
Recruiting and training drone pilots would seem to be the most cost effective way forward for the UK military. And building hundreds of thousands of marine and aerial drones (and possibly land drones if the technology is cost effective) coupled with Dragonfire and other laser anti-drone technology.
The Aircraft Carriers you mention are practically obsolete, now. The way forward is extending cruise missile ranges by pallet launching from cargo planes, and extending the safe and effective bomber range of bombers by adapting the glide bomb strategy further.
Plus loads of Patriot systems. Loads and loads.
That's Defence covered.
If we are talking "Projecting the UK's military might" then the answer is: too expensive, not worth it.
It seems like UK defence bods have lucked out by going all in on Trident as "our" nuclear deterrent "delivery platform", as Submarines seem to be least impacted by drone defence.
So far.
We might have to give up the Falklands, though.
Serious question: does anyone know what percentage of the UK defence budget is going into drones? |
Give up the falklands? The islands are protected by our largest military base, Mount pleasant, with about 1000 people on it. The island has Sky Sabre surface to air missiles, 4 euro fighters, a warship and a patrolling submarine. The base has an all weather runway and can have more forces deployed in about 48 hours. |  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:59 - Sep 9 with 1446 views | Radlett_blue |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 14:54 - Sep 9 by OldFart71 |
Just like many Government departments if waste was cut drastically there would be much more to spend on the things needed. Using contractors that basically charge what they want despite there being a need for those handing out contracts to have at least three quotes to choose from. Admittedly certain things cost a fortune. Not sure of the cost now, but a set of blades for an Apache helicopter were around £30,000 a time. But the scrapping of projects part way through and a seemingly inability to get things that work as they should doesn't help. |
THe cost of blades for a helicopter is the sort of thing that would send Elon Musk into orbit. He rightly dsiparaged NASA & its cost-plus mentality & worked out that many of these components could be sourced at a small fraction of what NASA was paying. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 21:01 - Sep 9 with 1443 views | itfc_bucks |
There's certainly an argument to be made to pivot to a much larger reserve force with a lower number of FTE service personnel, particularly in infantry, logistics/supply chain and communications.
The first problem we've got is the lack of a working culture to support Reserve service and training. Many reservists have to sacrifice their own free time to train and the pay for so doing is pitiful, particularly in view of the family time lost.
The second problem is the frankly bizarre approach we take to army enlistment medical standards where trivial things can preclude service. I applied with a view to joining 77Bde in a desk-bases function and was rejected on account of an injury sustained as a 14 year old, which subsequently fully healed, was medically assessed as being no more likely to reoccur than a first time instance in anyone else and despite the fact I run ultramarathons!
For a desk based role! | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:32 - Sep 10 with 1335 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 14:48 - Sep 9 by mellowblue |
Extremely harsh assessment of the withdrawal from France. The Germans punched through the Ardennes and pushing through the low countries with ease, punching a dirty big hole between the bulk of the French forces and the B.E.F and threatened to cut off any chance of retreat. The B.E.F was in an untenable position and had to get out to be able to continue the war. The British and French forces were very green compared the battle hardened Germans.
If we had stayed it would not have ended well as the French forces despite being a sizeable force could not match what the Germans threw at them. |
You forget that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. So on that basis you’d think they were prepared and ready to wage war against a very thinly spread German army whose feted blitzkrieg tactics were fronted by tanks armed with pop guns and outdated stukas - all resupplied by horse and wagon. It’s not as though that hadn’t been seen before.
You also forget that having run away with their tails between their legs Britain didn’t try again for four years, by which time the war was all but over - largely due to the efforts of the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other who realised the need to reduce Germany’s industrial capacity and destroy the Luftwaffe as a fighting force was more important than roasting civilians.
The British armed forces have been a side show for nigh on a century now - and if anyone seriously believes that banging a drum and fantasising about Rorke’s Drift is more important than infrastructure, education, healthcare - and saving the entire world from warm weather needs their head examined - which would of course require further cuts in the badly regulated and exaggerated defence budget. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:08 - Sep 10 with 1299 views | blueasfook |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:32 - Sep 10 by ElephantintheRoom |
You forget that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. So on that basis you’d think they were prepared and ready to wage war against a very thinly spread German army whose feted blitzkrieg tactics were fronted by tanks armed with pop guns and outdated stukas - all resupplied by horse and wagon. It’s not as though that hadn’t been seen before.
You also forget that having run away with their tails between their legs Britain didn’t try again for four years, by which time the war was all but over - largely due to the efforts of the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other who realised the need to reduce Germany’s industrial capacity and destroy the Luftwaffe as a fighting force was more important than roasting civilians.
The British armed forces have been a side show for nigh on a century now - and if anyone seriously believes that banging a drum and fantasising about Rorke’s Drift is more important than infrastructure, education, healthcare - and saving the entire world from warm weather needs their head examined - which would of course require further cuts in the badly regulated and exaggerated defence budget. |
Yep let's just forget about the North African campaign which was fought between 1941 and 1943, led by Field Marshall Montgomery, which pushed the axis powers (along with the Vichy French cowards who sided with Hitler) out of North Africa and led to the later Italian invasion to defeat Mussolini. |  |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:39 - Sep 10 with 1286 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:08 - Sep 10 by blueasfook |
Yep let's just forget about the North African campaign which was fought between 1941 and 1943, led by Field Marshall Montgomery, which pushed the axis powers (along with the Vichy French cowards who sided with Hitler) out of North Africa and led to the later Italian invasion to defeat Mussolini. |
Erm - you need to get your facts straight. The 8th army was far more than a British Army - and Montgomery was mercifully not around for most of the North Africa campaign which was an isolated side show of little or no consequence - given geographical and political reality.
If anything the key general in the North Africa campaign, if not the entire war, was a fascist dictator called Franco who chose not to evict allied forces and close the Straights of Gibraltar despite Hitler asking him nicely. | |
| |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 16:49 - Sep 10 with 1209 views | Churchman |
Thank you for such interesting and varied responses. My wish with the opening post was for just that so forgive me for the less than knowledgeable and provocative comments at certain points - ok so I have certain connections, done a bit of this and that, but I’m well out of touch now and my knowledge a bit lacking bar what I read - and don’t trust. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 17:45 - Sep 10 with 1175 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:32 - Sep 10 by ElephantintheRoom |
You forget that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. So on that basis you’d think they were prepared and ready to wage war against a very thinly spread German army whose feted blitzkrieg tactics were fronted by tanks armed with pop guns and outdated stukas - all resupplied by horse and wagon. It’s not as though that hadn’t been seen before.
You also forget that having run away with their tails between their legs Britain didn’t try again for four years, by which time the war was all but over - largely due to the efforts of the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other who realised the need to reduce Germany’s industrial capacity and destroy the Luftwaffe as a fighting force was more important than roasting civilians.
The British armed forces have been a side show for nigh on a century now - and if anyone seriously believes that banging a drum and fantasising about Rorke’s Drift is more important than infrastructure, education, healthcare - and saving the entire world from warm weather needs their head examined - which would of course require further cuts in the badly regulated and exaggerated defence budget. |
About the only factually correct element of this post is that Britain declared war on Germany.
Germany had 141 divisions, including reserves, numbering about 3.3m men in the west, the allies 135 divisions and a similar number of men. Germany air force was stronger in quantity and quality but not in tanks or artillery. Britain fielded just 10 of those divisions, 390k men. Interestingly, they were the only fully mechanised army in the field. They were also well trained. It isn’t hard to see why command of the armies fell to the French with the numbers disparity and action to be fought on their land..
Whilst a Char B tank might have been technically superior to a Panzer 3, it was how these weapons were used. It was always that way. A Bf109E3 was possibly a little better than a Spitfire 1/1a, but not unless it was allowed to do what it did best (free chase climb and dive, basically).
France effectively tried to fight WW1 while forgetting its lessons. The Germans did not. They were flexible and used the armour and mobility with initiative, independent action (e.g. Guderian) and daring. The French, whose army was of mixed quality, were utterly outmanoeuvred. It’s command and control poor to non existant.
The BEF was commanded by Lord Gort VC. A very brave man but not suited to high command. As France was torn asunder by the Panzers, the French plan when France was clearly lost was to counter attack with a pincer movement, the BEF attacking from the north. The plan stood no chance and Gort made the right decision to fall back to the coast. Alternative? Lose the lot and the war right there and then.
The bravery and skill of much of the BEF was amazing, as was the French in the perimeter defence at Dunkirk. The discipline of the BEF overall remained good in the circumstances, with exceptions of course. The actions of Brooke and Montgomery were brilliant and saved the BEF in its retreat and the rescue of soldiers under the organisation of Ramsey rightly the stuff of legend. As for discarding weapons they were usually ordered to do that. Dynamo was about saving men, not equipment.
The Ju87 was essentially flying artillery/ close support. While it was technically getting obsolete, it was in service through to 1945. There wasn’t anything better at what it actually could do and its record is astonishing. The nearest thing to it was the Japanese Aichi D3A. Ok, they got mauled during the Battle of Britain. It was not its job to go against fighters. It is one of the world’s great aircraft.
The North Africa and Italian campaign was not a waste of time for all sorts of reasons I won’t bore in this over long post.
DDay was conducted by 50 American Divisions, 55 British/Canadian/Commonwealth. Most of the naval assets and majority of air force ops were by the latter so please do not belittle their contribution. Leave that to the Americans. Dieppe raid in 42 showed how tough amphibious operations were and what you needed to stand a chance.
Stalin pleaded with the allies to invade sooner. Not realistically possible given commitments across the world and what was needed, even down to landing craft, LCT build, Mulberry and Pluto, Hobart’s funnies etc etc - all built in Britain. The Americans and British fought a mechanised, industrial war with a view to keeping casualties down to a minimum. A concept not understood by Hitler, Stalin or even to this day, Putin
Please do not belittle what British and Commonwealth people did in WW2. It’s plain wrong and insulting to them and their descendants. | | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:46 - Sep 10 with 1111 views | EdwardStone |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 17:45 - Sep 10 by Churchman |
About the only factually correct element of this post is that Britain declared war on Germany.
Germany had 141 divisions, including reserves, numbering about 3.3m men in the west, the allies 135 divisions and a similar number of men. Germany air force was stronger in quantity and quality but not in tanks or artillery. Britain fielded just 10 of those divisions, 390k men. Interestingly, they were the only fully mechanised army in the field. They were also well trained. It isn’t hard to see why command of the armies fell to the French with the numbers disparity and action to be fought on their land..
Whilst a Char B tank might have been technically superior to a Panzer 3, it was how these weapons were used. It was always that way. A Bf109E3 was possibly a little better than a Spitfire 1/1a, but not unless it was allowed to do what it did best (free chase climb and dive, basically).
France effectively tried to fight WW1 while forgetting its lessons. The Germans did not. They were flexible and used the armour and mobility with initiative, independent action (e.g. Guderian) and daring. The French, whose army was of mixed quality, were utterly outmanoeuvred. It’s command and control poor to non existant.
The BEF was commanded by Lord Gort VC. A very brave man but not suited to high command. As France was torn asunder by the Panzers, the French plan when France was clearly lost was to counter attack with a pincer movement, the BEF attacking from the north. The plan stood no chance and Gort made the right decision to fall back to the coast. Alternative? Lose the lot and the war right there and then.
The bravery and skill of much of the BEF was amazing, as was the French in the perimeter defence at Dunkirk. The discipline of the BEF overall remained good in the circumstances, with exceptions of course. The actions of Brooke and Montgomery were brilliant and saved the BEF in its retreat and the rescue of soldiers under the organisation of Ramsey rightly the stuff of legend. As for discarding weapons they were usually ordered to do that. Dynamo was about saving men, not equipment.
The Ju87 was essentially flying artillery/ close support. While it was technically getting obsolete, it was in service through to 1945. There wasn’t anything better at what it actually could do and its record is astonishing. The nearest thing to it was the Japanese Aichi D3A. Ok, they got mauled during the Battle of Britain. It was not its job to go against fighters. It is one of the world’s great aircraft.
The North Africa and Italian campaign was not a waste of time for all sorts of reasons I won’t bore in this over long post.
DDay was conducted by 50 American Divisions, 55 British/Canadian/Commonwealth. Most of the naval assets and majority of air force ops were by the latter so please do not belittle their contribution. Leave that to the Americans. Dieppe raid in 42 showed how tough amphibious operations were and what you needed to stand a chance.
Stalin pleaded with the allies to invade sooner. Not realistically possible given commitments across the world and what was needed, even down to landing craft, LCT build, Mulberry and Pluto, Hobart’s funnies etc etc - all built in Britain. The Americans and British fought a mechanised, industrial war with a view to keeping casualties down to a minimum. A concept not understood by Hitler, Stalin or even to this day, Putin
Please do not belittle what British and Commonwealth people did in WW2. It’s plain wrong and insulting to them and their descendants. |
Many good and valid points in your post
As a note, Spitfires were not sent to France in '39/40, they were wisely retained in UK although they did provide some air cover over Dunkirk
The Hurricanes supporting the BEF were running on 87 octane fuel and as such they were a little outclassed by Bf109s they came up against.
The USA began to provide 100 0ctane fuel to us in the summer of 1940 and this superior fuel gave the RAF fighters planes much improved performance, much to the surprise of some Luftwaffe pilots [Post edited 10 Sep 2024 20:48]
|  | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 21:26 - Sep 10 with 1083 views | EdwardStone |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 08:39 - Sep 10 by ElephantintheRoom |
Erm - you need to get your facts straight. The 8th army was far more than a British Army - and Montgomery was mercifully not around for most of the North Africa campaign which was an isolated side show of little or no consequence - given geographical and political reality.
If anything the key general in the North Africa campaign, if not the entire war, was a fascist dictator called Franco who chose not to evict allied forces and close the Straights of Gibraltar despite Hitler asking him nicely. |
I am not sure if you mean to come across as so mean spirited and sarcastic, but, as a former serving soldier, I find the general tone of your contributions to be belittling and dismissive
You are also a past master in selecting some facts to fit your twisted narrative
The North Africa campaign was not " a side show of little or no consequence" ... it denied the Axis forces access to the Persian Gulf oil fields and also kept the Med/ Suez canal open for shipping to the Far East
The loss of control of both of these would have had a profoundly negative effect on the progress of the war
As a side note, I had a relative who served in the Glosters, he was involved in the perimeter defence at the Dunkirk evacuation and he was a PoW for the remainder of the War.... were he still with us I'm sure he would vigourously disagree that only the French Army defended the perimeter [Post edited 10 Sep 2024 21:27]
| | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 22:03 - Sep 10 with 1049 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 20:46 - Sep 10 by EdwardStone |
Many good and valid points in your post
As a note, Spitfires were not sent to France in '39/40, they were wisely retained in UK although they did provide some air cover over Dunkirk
The Hurricanes supporting the BEF were running on 87 octane fuel and as such they were a little outclassed by Bf109s they came up against.
The USA began to provide 100 0ctane fuel to us in the summer of 1940 and this superior fuel gave the RAF fighters planes much improved performance, much to the surprise of some Luftwaffe pilots [Post edited 10 Sep 2024 20:48]
|
I should have differentiated - you are right. Spitfires were held back until Dynamo where they operated largely inland away from sight of the soldiers in the beach, hence the accusation ‘where were the RAF?’.
The Hurricane squadrons were mostly operating Mk1s, mostly with two blade propellers and as you rightly point out lower octane fuel. Some were the early dope covered wing versions.
Camm’s Hurricane was technically obsolete in 1940 - it was little than a reworked Hawker biplane, enlarged, canopied, Merlin powered with thick enough wings to take 8 machine guns and later 20mm Hispano cannon. It had limited development potential but was a masterpiece of design. Easy to fly, nice wide track under cart, stable gun platform, easy to fix and service - the mechanics were well used to servicing aircraft made that way,
It gave distinguished service through the war. Its place in history is underrated and it should never be forgotten that it equipped two thirds of Fighter Command throughout the Battle of Britain.
In France the main problem was no radar. The squadrons were often scrambled to who knows where usually too late leading to them getting bounced more than they should have been. The 109 was a better fighter, but the Hurricane’s performance was good enough and close enough to give a Luftwaffe pilot a very bad day if used/positioned right.
Height pretty much everything. The RAF was left with an impossible job in France and paid the price. It’s to Dowding’s enormous credit that he stood against Churchill to prevent Fighter Command bleeding to death. [Post edited 10 Sep 2024 22:04]
| | | |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 22:23 - Sep 10 with 1034 views | Churchman |
| Is U.K. Defence Important? on 07:32 - Sep 10 by ElephantintheRoom |
You forget that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. So on that basis you’d think they were prepared and ready to wage war against a very thinly spread German army whose feted blitzkrieg tactics were fronted by tanks armed with pop guns and outdated stukas - all resupplied by horse and wagon. It’s not as though that hadn’t been seen before.
You also forget that having run away with their tails between their legs Britain didn’t try again for four years, by which time the war was all but over - largely due to the efforts of the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other who realised the need to reduce Germany’s industrial capacity and destroy the Luftwaffe as a fighting force was more important than roasting civilians.
The British armed forces have been a side show for nigh on a century now - and if anyone seriously believes that banging a drum and fantasising about Rorke’s Drift is more important than infrastructure, education, healthcare - and saving the entire world from warm weather needs their head examined - which would of course require further cuts in the badly regulated and exaggerated defence budget. |
I forgot to mention that your nasty comment shows a quite staggering level of ignorance on the air war over Germany, what Bomber Command did and what happened before it. You know nothing about it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
