OK, this is my first 'serious' political thread...
What's your guys views on the proposed MoD cuts? Do we need trident? or 9 astute class submarines?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960440 for reference
I find it to be sickening that we have so many nuclear weapons (n.b. I dont oppose them btw) and yet few Helicopters, Mine proof vehicles etc.
Why do soldiers do without, so we can have some more subs? We dont need them anymore, or at least not nine, we need stuff for afghanistan, not antarctica, sort the priorities out!
Yes, cuts are needed, but I also think that we need to maintain if not increase spending on equipment that helps and saves the lives of our men on the ground.
I also think it's ludicrous that the MoD has 85,000 civil servants and 100,000 armed soldiers... cue rant about bureacracy.
Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.
Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies, we are up against insurgents and dug in militias. Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.
Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.
Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,
At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.
we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.
'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.
Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.
That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.
What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.
Nothing to worry about there, the Argentinian military has had vast finical problems for over 20 years now. Its stagnated and shrank since 82.
As to the topic. Slashing the ballooning number of civil servants in the MOD is a welcome move. But I fear the Conservatives (and to be fare labour) will do as they have done in the past, and make drastic cuts to the capabilities of the Armed forces only for them to need those very same capabilities a few years later. The cuts too the Navy in the years before the Falklands and the reduction in Helicopters in the past decade, being examples of political cost cutting decisions that ultimately cost people there lives unnecessarily.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.
Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.
Why? What bloody purpose do nuclear subs actually serve any more? Also, it isn't mental to wish to continue to correctly fund the public sector. WTF do we need with billion quid burning stationary nuclear subs when we can put that money into state hospitals or state schools.
Albatross wrote:
Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,
At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.
What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.
Albatross wrote:
we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.
'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.
This reeks of patronisation. Rise above that please. Don't score emotional soundbites like that, it makes you smell of Jeremy Kyle...
Albatross wrote:
Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.
That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.
So, ultimately, you agreed with me, cool, thanks for that, shame about taking the long road about it but as long as you got there, that's cool. Because things did change rapidly, that's why the current makeup is out of sync with what's being asked of it.
My understanding is that Trident will be funded out of existing MOD funds. I'd rather that was later rather than sooner, my understanding is that the proposed Afghanistan pull out should happen before Trident's renewal becomes vital.
Its highly unlikely that the Royal Navy would actually scrap a significant number of ships or submarines. They would be mothballed in order to minimize costs, and preserve assets for future engagements.
You can only prepare for wars that have been fought.
This said it is obvious that if you are going to invade a country, take away its capacity to defend itself and make war AND change the direction it takes in the future you need to bring massive military force to bear.
I think that overwhelming your opponent is pretty much standard military thinking.
Less for less is a political argument which suits current western cultural thinking.
We don't want to fight wars and hate seeing body bags, but the bags are going to keep coming back with the piecemeal way in which military planning goes ahead.
Less bureacracy, more man power and the political will not get involved in wars where there is no ultimate objective.
Mr. Burning wrote:
We don't want to fight wars and hate seeing body bags, but the bags are going to keep coming back with the piecemeal way in which military planning goes ahead.
Are you supposing that body bags will stop coming back if the military exercise greater force? I mean, I suppose that's true in the abstract, but the coalition casualty counts in Iraq and Afghanistan are incredibly low given the length of those conflicts. Moreover, in both cases, the established military arm of the state was overrun in good order.
What we're seeing now is the natural consequence of occupying large tracts of land filled with potential hostiles. You suggested that Britain should avoid such conflicts, and I agree. But I'm forced to wonder why you want more men in the military when the only real use for large amounts of manpower is occupation. I mean, it isn't as if England is going to be under threat of invasion any time soon.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.
You have never actually read much about the Falklands war then mate eh?
Massed infantry blocks of Argentines? It was hard fighting in the Falklands war, after disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines yomped with all of their equipment across the islands covering 56 miles in three days with absolutely everything on their backs, something nobody expected or even thought possible across the terrain, goose green? Mount Harriet? Two sisters? It was hard fighting that bugger, a short but bloody and brutal war for the lads involved.
What the hell was "massed infantry blocks" about argies dug in, in fortified positions, getting assaulted uphill in their bunkers by sweating pissed off commandos?
I also read that if they had taken 5 more days to dig in we would never have won that war, and if it wasnt for the true grit and the training of the lads on the ground i have no doubt at all that we would have lost it.
Anyway, all that aside, i think cuts are needed, they have gone across the board, why not the military?
Having recently left though and now working for local government, i can see what the real problem is. Greed and incompetence.
The police, fire department and every single aspect of government seems to me to be an absolute shambles, nobody wants to do their job properly and everything is top heavy. The "Parks and Open spaces" department for York City has 12 staff and 7 managers, the waste services department is about 60/30 and the NHS is as bad, im pleased with the way Mr Cameron has been operating since taking over and i honestly believe he really does need to take a hatchet to the public sector across the board more aggressively than he seems to be. This country has been left in a fething shambles by the desperate gambler that was squatting in Downing Street up until recently.
Now, what to cut? There is a question. I reckon we could cut the Navy Army and Air Force by 20% personally, i did it for ten years and there was just too many loafing bastards who didnt seem to actually do a job, but unlike many of the internet intellectualls that seem to think they know all the answers to the worlds problems on dakka, ill merely use the old soldier addage and think that "people with fatter pay slips than me can make those decisions"
Your taking the quote out of context M, I said I wanted the money from obsolete nuclear subs redistributed, especially into enhancing the elite units of infantry.
having worked in both the NHS and Social Services, I entirely concur with you over the number of middle management who are just thumb twiddling. I don't say cut, I say redistribute. Remove # managers, replace with # social workers and nurses.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cease trident, cut the subs by 1/3 and reinvest half into the special armed services, half into the NHS.
Seriously though, plough MORE money into the public sector?!? That is mental. If our government DID decide not to renew Trident (cutting isn't even an option, it's not even on the table), then the money saved should be used to service our country's debts. I think the review should leave our submarines alone - the entire frontline capacity of the RN, even.
Why? What bloody purpose do nuclear subs actually serve any more? Also, it isn't mental to wish to continue to correctly fund the public sector. WTF do we need with billion quid burning stationary nuclear subs when we can put that money into state hospitals or state schools.
Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding. Your answer, like most socialists, is to simply shovel more money into an already bloated system, a system which has already wasted billions over the last few years. Now, the MoD has wasted billions too - it's inefficient, no-one doubts that. But the answer is to streamline it, not rob Peter to pay Paul. We have huge debts a defecit about the size of Greece's, and you want to pump more money into the NHS black hole? This isn't the government's money we're talking about, this is the tax-payers, and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.
Albatross wrote:
Warfare has shifted now, our theatres aren't open wars against standing armies and navies,
At the moment. Although UK forces did fight standing armies last decade, the decade before and the decade before THAT.
What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF?
What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Do you deny that UK forces fought conventional armies in the past few decades? The Argentines had a Navy, Air Force and army, there were tank battles in the First Gulf War, conventional land forces in the second (although they surrendered pretty sharpish). Quit being a smart-arse.
Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.
Elite infantry units such as...? The Royal Marines? There are only around 6000 of them and they each cost a few million to train and equip, IIRC. UK Special Forces cost even more. To implement your plan we would need to increase numbers of marines and SF by a factor of at least 5. And that's not the way to win the war in Afghanistan, in my opinion.
Albatross wrote:
we are up against insurgents and dug in militias.
'We' aren't up against anyone MGS - 'we' are siting in the comfort of our homes, typing out opinions onto a wargaming site, whilst others do the fighting for us. Let's remember that. Not being a dick (well, not TRYING to be.. ), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.
This reeks of patronisation. Rise above that please. Don't score emotional soundbites like that, it makes you smell of Jeremy Kyle...
Stay classy, MGS.
Albatross wrote:
Our military model was gears up in the cold war against the soviet empire, it is not well suited to the current climate.
That's true. The UK Armed Forces need a strategic reshuffle, fair enough. But we can't sit here and say that our forces will be only fighting insurgencies for the next 20 years. Things change, rapidly, and when you least expect them. I'd like the UK to be prepared for most, if not all, eventualities. I think the procurement side of the MoD needs a root-and-branch makeover, sweeping reform. That could potentially produce big savings. But yeah, we probably don't need hundreds of tanks.
So, ultimately, you agreed with me, cool, thanks for that, shame about taking the long road about it but as long as you got there, that's cool. Because things did change rapidly, that's why the current makeup is out of sync with what's being asked of it.
So your answer is to change to better reflect the CURRENT climate? How remarkably short-sighted.
And I'm not agreeing with you - the stuff about the NHS was the sort of nonsense I would expect from a pie-in-the-sky socialist mouthpiece. I was going to say 'I think you're better than that', but actually, I don't think you are.
What do we want to do in the world?
What forces do we need to do it?
How do we get them in for a price we can afford?
Do we want to project force globally, or is it OK to defend ourselves in Europe?
If we are going to project force, what force do we need to project? Will we fight anyone with a significant modern conventional army -- let's say the Koreans or Argentinians?
If we do, then we not only need plenty of tanks and heavy artillery, we also need a way of carrying those tanks, their crews and support over to Korea or Argentina, then landing them safely. That means we need a substantial amphibious capability backed up by a navy capable of defending it thousands of miles from home, accompanied by the auxiliary units to supply that navy. We'll also need plenty of nuclear subs to defend the task force from the defending conventional coastal subs.
You see how it all starts to multiply?
OTOH maybe we just want to carry out counter-insurgency operations as we have done in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone. The forces needed for that are infantry supported by light armoured vehicles and helicopters. No tanks or heavy artillery are required. The equipment needed can be airmobile if we have enough large transport aircraft. We don't need serious air supremacy fighter cover since the enemies we will be fighting don't have air forces.
Let's say we abandon global adventures and stick to defending ourselves in Europe. Who are our enemies here?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What, wait, where? Do you mean the massed infantry blocks of the Argentines? The Golden Horde of Iraq? WTF? Unless we want to start fights with serious contenders and have land battles, the current makeup of the UK armed forces would be better served with far more elite infantry units to insurge the insurgents and go into hills and caves and bring terror to terrorists.
You have never actually read much about the Falklands war then mate eh?
Massed infantry blocks of Argentines? It was hard fighting in the Falklands war, after disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines yomped with all of their equipment across the islands covering 56 miles in three days with absolutely everything on their backs, something nobody expected or even thought possible across the terrain, goose green? Mount Harriet? Two sisters? It was hard fighting that bugger, a short but bloody and brutal war for the lads involved.
What the hell was "massed infantry blocks" about argies dug in, in fortified positions, getting assaulted uphill in their bunkers by sweating pissed off commandos?
I also read that if they had taken 5 more days to dig in we would never have won that war, and if it wasnt for the true grit and the training of the lads on the ground i have no doubt at all that we would have lost it.
Don't forget the lads had a little help from "Bravo November, bless 'em!
And remember folks, there is indeed a direct correlation between a Defence White Paper and the amount of blood, sweat, and tears the grunts on the ground have to spill to get the job done...
Albatross wrote:
Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding.
...and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.
What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Quit being a smart-arse.
Stay classy, MGS.
...the sort of nonsense I would expect from a pie-in-the-sky socialist mouthpiece.
...I was going to say 'I think you're better than that', but actually, I don't think you are.
Welcome to ignore.
'...And throughout the kingdom there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.'
I take the point of the 'defending Europe' argument, but would offer the counterpoint: 'Why Britain?' Does the UK not do enough on the world stage already in terms of military intervention, relative to it's size? Our country has commited a relatively large number of troops to Afghanistan so that our european 'friends' don't have to. It should be left to countries like Belgium, France, Germany and Italy to put their money where there mouths are. Britain does enough.
Correctly funding the public sector? I was going to try and be nice this time around, but the arrogance of that is astounding. Your answer, like most socialists, is to simply shovel more money into an already bloated system, a system which has already wasted billions over the last few years. Now, the MoD has wasted billions too - it's inefficient, no-one doubts that. But the answer is to streamline it, not rob Peter to pay Paul. We have huge debts a defecit about the size of Greece's, and you want to pump more money into the NHS black hole? This isn't the government's money we're talking about, this is the tax-payers, and I thank my lucky stars that narrow-minded idealogues like you aren't in charge of it.
So the public sector is bloated (yet needs more money) while the nuclear sub sector is is not? The hell are you talking about?
What's your fething problem, man? Are you incapable of being civil? Do you deny that UK forces fought conventional armies in the past few decades? The Argentines had a Navy, Air Force and army, there were tank battles in the First Gulf War, conventional land forces in the second (although they surrendered pretty sharpish). Quit being a smart-arse.
The argentine military was a joke and it still is. It couldn't hold a candle to what Sadaam had and his army fell in three days. Englands military can not, and will not stand up to largescale modern militaries such as chinas or the US and no one else will ever go to war with you for the simple fact that it's impossible due to a lack of national force projection in virtually all other states (argentina being a special case since you own an island thats basically touching them and is stupidly far away from you). Don't bring up argentina like it was some sort of brilliant triumph, you beat up a whiny child of a country with a fraction of your military power after it surprised one of your colonial island territories and didn't think you would respond in full force.
Elite infantry units such as...? The Royal Marines? There are only around 6000 of them and they each cost a few million to train and equip, IIRC. UK Special Forces cost even more. To implement your plan we would need to increase numbers of marines and SF by a factor of at least 5. And that's not the way to win the war in Afghanistan, in my opinion.
Most experts believe that more bodies on the ground with a stronger emphasis on reconstruction and civilian protection is the way to win in afghanistan.
Kilkrazy wrote:Beating the Argentinians wasn't hard. Getting the forces there to do it was rather difficult.
I don't see why. The UK has a good number of boats and even aircraft carriers (though small). They have the ability to project force well beyond what the argentines could handle on the faulkland islands. It just took a little while to get there.
Get rid of the unfunded purchases currently on the table. If we don't have the money, we dont buy it.
Sorry but the nuclear deterrent is a political weapon not a military one. Central Government should bear the cost not the MoD.
RN Aircraftcarriers. We don't need two new ones. Get rid of one.
Army. Give the lads on the groud what they need to do the job.
RAF. I think were tied into Typhoon? so we have to continue. But scrapping any of the planes, Tornado or Harrier is stupid until our commitment to fight in Afghan is over.
Bottom line there is that the MoD will never be self sufficient unless they're allowed to bring the contents of the banks back from the countries they invade.
Civil Service. Too many chiefs not enough indians. Who makes the choice as to redundancies? Guess who gets made redundant? Have an external body review what is necessary, that way it at least seems fair. And stop bashing the Civil Servants, they do a hard job at times, for below average wages, which are made up for by the 'perks' of the job, ie leave & pension. The only time wages are above average are when you get to the Senior Civil Service. Oh and scrap PPI's they cost way more than they ever saved.
Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.
Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.
It's all just statistics and cold internet logic to you mate, I mean, look at ganners and Iraq, I'm sure that the politicians are well happy with the coalition casualties after 8 years of war, its been a better casualty rate than 3 to 1, but would you say its been easy?
I envy my grandad, ww2 was a line firmly drawn in the sand, the current war is a clusterfeth, you have to smile and shake hands with the guy who might be trying to gut you an hour later!
Vietnam, 66,000 dead Americans, 2 million dead Vietnamese.
Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.
Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.
As someone who has recently studied the entire campaign from a military perspective, using the extensive resources of a large University library, I can now infer from this that you have little to no idea as to what actually went on in the Falklands War. However, from previous knowledge gained from debating with you, I also know I could write you a 3000 word essay on the entire campaign, step by step from the air war, to San Carlos, to Goose Green and beyond, and you'd still ignore all facts pointing to the contradiction of your statements. Therefore I won't bother, and I advise no-one else to either, it's a waste of time.
So the public sector is bloated (yet needs more money) while the nuclear sub sector is is not? The hell are you talking about?
The hell do you know about it?
Have you any idea how much the UK spends on the NHS? An obscene amount, and it's potential for eating up the public finances are pretty much infinite. Our public sector would have needed pretty large efficiency cuts even if there WASN'T a financial crisis. Also, I said that if we were to scrap the new subs, the money should be used to service our debt - although I personally wouldn't scrap them. I wouldn't scrap anything without a massive review/audit of all government departments followed by streamlining and restructuring in the form of efficiency savings - basically 'right, what's YOUR job? What do you actually DO?'. Only after that would I start actually scrapping things lock stock and barrel.
If I were Prime Minister.
The argentine military was a joke and it still is. It couldn't hold a candle to what Sadaam had and his army fell in three days. Englands military can not, and will not stand up to largescale modern militaries such as chinas or the US and no one else will ever go to war with you for the simple fact that it's impossible due to a lack of national force projection in virtually all other states (argentina being a special case since you own an island thats basically touching them and is stupidly far away from you). Don't bring up argentina like it was some sort of brilliant triumph, you beat up a whiny child of a country with a fraction of your military power after it surprised one of your colonial island territories and didn't think you would respond in full force.
I wasn't bringing it up like it was a brilliant triumph (although I think it showed the skill and professionalism of British forces), I was bringing it up as an example of a time that the UK fought a conventional military force.
And man, you lot across the Atlantic are scared of the Chinese, aren't you?
Most experts believe that more bodies on the ground with a stronger emphasis on reconstruction and civilian protection is the way to win in afghanistan.
Most American experts, perhaps. You can tell by the focus on 'MORE BODIES!'. The second part is closer to what British commanders wanted to do at the outset of war in Afghanistan, similar to what Britain did in the Malaya Emergency. They were ignored by the Americans. Seriously, read up on it. I recommend 'A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan' by James Fergusson. An interesting book.
Incidentally Shuma, what were you actually tring to DO with that post? It wasn't addressed to you...
One thing I want to know is why we as a nation are building/have built 9 astute class subs, those are subs solely for naval operations i.e attacking ships and other subs. I mean come on, Ever heard of overkill?
It's all just statistics and cold internet logic to you mate, I mean, look at ganners and Iraq, I'm sure that the politicians are well happy with the coalition casualties after 8 years of war, its been a better casualty rate than 3 to 1, but would you say its been easy?
I envy my grandad, ww2 was a line firmly drawn in the sand, the current war is a clusterfeth, you have to smile and shake hands with the guy who might be trying to gut you an hour later!
Vietnam, 66,000 dead Americans, 2 million dead Vietnamese.
Nice ratio as well right? That make it easy?
Had we succeeded with those numbers, yes. Casualty rates aren't indicative of success in COIN warfare unlike territory warfare. The same holds true for vietnam which was counter revolutionary as well as a proxy war. Vietnam also lasted 20 times as long as the falklands war and resulted in 240 times the casualties (for us) and we didn't win. I think one of the pre requisites for a war to be easy is that you actually have to succeed (and quickly). I mean, what made the falklands war hard exactly? You had to plan a bit? Gee, yeah, it's real difficult to plan things. Clearly it wasn't the engagements or travel aspects since those all wen't swimmingly. Do you just hate having to put on your thinking caps?
I wasn't bringing it up like it was a brilliant triumph (although I think it showed the skill and professionalism of British forces), I was bringing it up as an example of a time that the UK fought a conventional military force. And man, you lot across the Atlantic are scared of the Chinese, aren't you?
God yes, theres like sixty billion of them and they don't care about copyright law.
Most American experts, perhaps. You can tell by the focus on 'MORE BODIES!'. The second part is closer to what British commanders wanted to do at the outset of war in Afghanistan, similar to what Britain did in the Malaya Emergency. They were ignored by the Americans. Seriously, read up on it. I recommend 'A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan' by James Fergusson. An interesting book.
More bodies are required for the civilian reconstruction and protection efforts. Any way you slice it the western presence in the country is well under strength and always has been.
Incidentally Shuma, what were you actually tring to DO with that post? It wasn't addressed to you...
I was commenting.
As someone who has recently studied the entire campaign from a military perspective, using the extensive resources of a large University library, I can now infer from this that you have little to no idea as to what actually went on in the Falklands War. However, from previous knowledge gained from debating with you, I also know I could write you a 3000 word essay on the entire campaign, step by step from the air war, to San Carlos, to Goose Green and beyond, and you'd still ignore all facts pointing to the contradiction of your statements. Therefore I won't bother, and I advise no-one else to either, it's a waste of time.
I know it's like your only military victory since world war two, but don't pretend it's something it's not. You took a small island back from argentina. Despite them having every advantage you did it in a matter of months and with a very favorable ratio of trade against them. Thats not "a difficult war". Thats just "A war", and a short one at that.
By the way, the UK won a COIN, anti-revolutionary campaign in the Malayan Emergency, though you could argue this was an alliance campaign as it involved Commonwealth troops.
That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.
I said in my first post that your primary difficulty was that you were prosecuting a war quite far away from any centers of military power. Thats about the extent of the difficulties cited in that account. Midair refueling is difficult, but this account didn't make it sound like a difficult war. Maybe I just have a jaded view of what makes a war hard, I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either.
That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.
ShumaGorath wrote:................................. I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either....
For someone that claims to be so well read and educated you do say some blooming silly things.
If you have read the participants accounts then imagination should be all you need, statistics merly detail the butchers bill.
You should not dismiss the efforts of those who fought (on both sides) so easily.
ShumaGorath wrote:................................. I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either....
For someone that claims to be so well read and educated you do say some blooming silly things.
If you have read the participants accounts then imagination should be all you need, statistics merly detail the butchers bill.
You should not dismiss the efforts of those who fought (on both sides) so easily.
So by this logic every war ever fought is a difficult hard fought war because people fought in it valiantly. Should I use a different word when stating that the russian invasion of georgia was easier then the russian invasion of germany? Or were they both equally hard fought. If they weren't then where exactly am I allowed to draw the line? Should I just not be discussing this with people from the UK? It's clear that theres a strong emotional attachment to the conflict that functions beyond logic, and which places the shortly lived low casualty conflict up with the communist revolution in china or Vietnam in "level of hardness (lol)".
How much of the requirement for a nuclear capability is part of the desire to remain as a permanent member on the UN Security Council?
The defence reviews in the past seem to have made serious errors in the past to try to save money........
Would it not be better to try and claw back some money for the people who caused the whole recent ressession - the banks - especially those heads of the banks who resigned with golden parachutes - or maybe just forcibly enlist them for service in the war zones - make them bullet shields maybe?
Mr Morden wrote:How much of the requirement for a nuclear capability is part of the desire to remain as a permanent member on the UN Security Council?
The defence reviews in the past seem to have made serious errors in the past to try to save money........
Would it not be better to try and claw back some money for the people who caused the whole recent ressession - the banks - especially those heads of the banks who resigned with golden parachutes - or maybe just forcibly enlist them for service in the war zones - make them bullet shields maybe?
Not at all, I am merly suggesting that you shouid prehaps discuss the at hand without the denegrating specific topic being discussed.
Why shouldn't all war fighting be difficult anyway? Whether you were chucking spears or dropping 1000 pounders from the heavens all of these endevours have complexities of their own.
Deploying armed forces to another hemisphere in 1982 had many difficulties as previously alluded to, made only more complex by the state of the nation at that point (gripped by strikes, scant years from near bankrupcy as we were). Britons rightly see it as a triumph over adversery.
Back On topic.
We will always have nukes as long as the French have them.................and the Indians....................and the Pakistanis..................and maybe the Israilies.
They all have far too many axes to grind with us not to be cautious.
I said in my first post that your primary difficulty was that you were prosecuting a war quite far away from any centers of military power. Thats about the extent of the difficulties cited in that account. Midair refueling is difficult, but this account didn't make it sound like a difficult war. Maybe I just have a jaded view of what makes a war hard, I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either.
That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.
What is also true?
The wars concerned were fought as part of alliances.
Korean War -- UN forces
Vietnam War -- Korean, Australian and Vietnamese forces
Gulf War 1 -- UK, Saudi Arabia, and others
Gulf War 2 -- UK, Spain and others
Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:OK, this is my first 'serious' political thread...
What's your guys views on the proposed MoD cuts? Do we need trident? or 9 astute class submarines?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960440 for reference
The reasoning behind 9 (btw only 7 have been confirmed) is that typically at any one time 1/3 will be undergoing maintenance 1/3 will be preparing for deployment and 1/3 will be on deployment. Its the same for the other ships in the navy, salt water is a very corrosive environment for lumps of metal to bob around in.
Submarines dont just go around sinking Merchant ships like WW2 anymore. British subs have cruse missiles now, and its also there job to protect the surface ships from enemy subs, gather intelligence and deploy special forces. There has been a huge increase in Submarine sales around the world in recent years, just like every one and there dog building Aircraft carriers these days.
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.
cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.
You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force
cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.
You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force
I saw a documentry on BBC2 about a month ago (I want to say it was called Gigantic or Massive Machines?) about the construction of these subs and they we absolutely fething amazing. Well worth digging out on iPlayer if you interested in them.
cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.
You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force
I saw a documentry on BBC2 about a month ago (I want to say it was called Gigantic or Massive Machines?) about the construction of these subs and they we absolutely fething amazing. Well worth digging out on iPlayer if you interested in them.
Yeah, I saw this. It was great. Funnily enough, I also know someone who worked on the breathing systems for SF submarine insertion on some of the newer subs. Someone mentioned that earlier, IIRC.
The cuts look like they will be MoD based rather than to regiments and naval units. Some items might be left off the procurement list but I dont think the forces will be reduced much below what we have. Blair sent us to war while cutting the military, furthermore he simultaneuosly boosted the military bureaucracy partly to insert his own yes men. The civil service was supposed to be impartial, however impariality died since 1997. Those who were not Labout 'didnt fit in with their jobs', those who spouted the dogmas got promotion.
This is not just an MoD problem its accross the board, its why select primary school head teachers get 250K a year, a mind boggling sum, they were there to dogmatise the education departments. I have little doubt the MoD is little different, just better protected from press scrutiny.
Now the new government needs to deal with this, not only does the nation need the gross overspending to be curtailed, but the government itself has good motivcation to do the right thing. Too many people in the civil services are now politcally partisan, often well paid to be politcally partisan and are laible to pull the rug from under the feet of the government for party politcal motives. This sort of politcs was not a feature of British bureaucracy until recently, sure the bureaucracy was unthinking and monolithic, but largely impartial regarding mainstream left-right politics.
There is a huge gravy train out there of public sector jobs set up bby the previous government on the principle of spout our dogmas and you will get extra beucoup salary. The MoD is not immune to this, I wont repeat the stories of dogmatisation in the MoD, I will only add that it took Blair eight years to replace the civil service with yes men, it might take about as long to set the balance right. However the gross overspend has to stop, and much of that goes on inflated salaries of key personnel, often suspiciously paid a significant amount more than people in similar jobs in a similar department.
AndrewC wrote:Sorry but the nuclear deterrent is a political weapon not a military one. Central Government should bear the cost not the MoD.
That's just shifting numbers around. The cost is the same whether you put the budget line under MoD or elsewhere.
RN Aircraftcarriers. We don't need two new ones. Get rid of one.
The aircraft carriers were actually part of the post Cold War budget review, the Royal Navy realised it's specialised role in the US/UK alliance as an anti-submarine/minesweeping operation was no redundant, and now they wanted to gain greater force projection capabilities. That means aircraft carriers. It's all good and well to have troops on the ground, but it's having planes over their heads that really matters.
Army. Give the lads on the groud what they need to do the job.
Sure, and right now the absolute priority is gear for regular troops to fight insurgents.
Problem with military budgets is that the nature of the next war is an unpredictable thing, and so there is always a danger of over-specialising to fight the last war, and leaving yourself incapable of fighting the next.
But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today. Specialising to fight the known conflicts of today, and maintaining flexibility to fight the unknown conflicts of tomorrow is not an easy thing.
So keep the aircraft carriers. If nothing else, they're really cool.
But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today.
It's fun having as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined and having most of them be twice the size as the standard for the rest of the globe.
Albatross wrote:It's landlocked where I live - my lawn is a pretty big distance from a body of water deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier in.
TACTICAL VICTORYYYY!!!
We'll just keep the aircraft on the launch lines and have them drag the carriers in. It'll be like james and the giant peach, except with jets and a fleet of 110 tonne aircraft carriers.
sebster wrote:That's just shifting numbers around. The cost is the same whether you put the budget line under MoD or elsewhere.
But those numbers matter when you're overall budget is being cut. It has the net effect of cutting your available budget by over 50% in one year. That is going to hurt badly.
The aircraft carriers were actually part of the post Cold War budget review, the Royal Navy realised it's specialised role in the US/UK alliance as an anti-submarine/minesweeping operation was no redundant, and now they wanted to gain greater force projection capabilities. That means aircraft carriers. It's all good and well to have troops on the ground, but it's having planes over their heads that really matters.
But we don't need two, one is sufficient for our needs
Problem with military budgets is that the nature of the next war is an unpredictable thing, and so there is always a danger of over-specialising to fight the last war, and leaving yourself incapable of fighting the next.
But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today. Specialising to fight the known conflicts of today, and maintaining flexibility to fight the unknown conflicts of tomorrow is not an easy thing.
Agreed, but at the moment we can't fight anything.
Albatross wrote:It's landlocked where I live - my lawn is a pretty big distance from a body of water deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier in.
TACTICAL VICTORYYYY!!!
We'll just keep the aircraft on the launch lines and have them drag the carriers in. It'll be like james and the giant peach, except with jets and a fleet of 110 tonne aircraft carriers.
I'm thinking Special Boat Service armed with a big pair of scissors. Like, a REALLY big pair.
AndrewC wrote:But those numbers matter when you're overall budget is being cut. It has the net effect of cutting your available budget by over 50% in one year. That is going to hurt badly.
No, really, it is just numbers moving around. They cost what they cost no matter what part of government they're formally funded through.
But we don't need two, one is sufficient for our needs
I'm not sure anyone who isn't a military grognard could actually make that assessment.
sebster wrote:No, really, it is just numbers moving around. They cost what they cost no matter what part of government they're formally funded through.
Not for the people who rely on that money for other things. Yes the Gov't pay for it out of a single pot of money, but the MoD are allocated cash for a specific purpose. If they are then told that they have to pay for something else not normally associated with those funds, it become problematic.
You pay tax on your income for local services. So it's a bit like then being told that on top of your taxes you have to by a new fire engine for the fire brigade. The Military doesn't need trident, the politicians need trident.
I'm not sure anyone who isn't a military grognard could actually make that assessment.
Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?
Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?
Andrew
One Aircraft carrier is of little use other than a national vanity project. As I said in a earlier post Ships are not available for deployment 24/7 year in year out. They need to undergo regular maintenance and intermittently lengthy refits in dry dock. When you really need it it may not be available.
The French for example have had a turgid time with there lone carrier in recent years with it rarely going to sea. Having two means you can keep them in constant rotation so you always have one available when the other isn't.
But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.
We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.
The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.
cpt_fishcakes wrote:
One Aircraft carrier is of little use other than a national vanity project.
I don't know about that. The de Gaulle has played a significant role in several conflicts. The French would be better off with two carriers, but one is hardly useless.
cpt_fishcakes wrote:
The French for example have had a turgid time with there lone carrier in recent years with it rarely going to sea. Having two means you can keep them in constant rotation so you always have one available when the other isn't.
Stormrider wrote:Korea, Lebanon/Israel/Iran, China/Taiwan, Russia/former Soviet satellite state they are pissed at today
I see lots of reasons to keep a military ready to smack the miscreants of the world around.
I can't see why any Western state would be obliged to act in any of those instances; save Korea (where US troops are already stationed), and any former satellite that is a NATO member.
AndrewC wrote:Not for the people who rely on that money for other things. Yes the Gov't pay for it out of a single pot of money, but the MoD are allocated cash for a specific purpose. If they are then told that they have to pay for something else not normally associated with those funds, it become problematic.
Thing is, you're making the assumption that the MoD is just given a flat amount of cash, and then told what they have to do with that money. So that if nukes were taken away from them and put into another department, the MoD would get the same amount of money and be able to buy more tanks and stuff. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, department budgets are built with funding allocations towards specific requirements. If the nukes were shifted out of the MoD, the attached funding would be shifted as well.
Believe me on this, I've spent most of my working life dealing with government budgeting.
Pass. When do we ever need to project airpower to the extent of two aircraft carriers?
Whenever you want to make an amphibious landing in another country, or provide air support to any ground operations where you don't have ground based runways nearby. The odds of that happening without being an joint US operation (so you could then rely on their carriers, as they have more than enough for everybody) is the big question. I honestly have no idea.
AndrewC wrote:But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.
We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.
The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.
You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.
You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.
Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before? By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).
AndrewC wrote:But thats just it, the aircraft carriers are just a national vanity project.
We can't afford the planes to put on one of them let alone two. Lets face it, the UK is not a 'superpower' in National Politics, we are a second level power who has had a superlative past. I can't help but think of the Centauri from B5 as an apt example.
The only thing that keeps us on the National Security Council is the fact that we can/do/did build nukes.
Cheers
Andrew
What about the Eldar, do you think the UK is like the Eldar in relation to your second level power comment? =)
ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?
I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.
By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).
Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.
ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?
I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.
By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).
Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.
I think it goes too far though.
The U.S. isn't particularly happy about the situation either. Getting other NATO member states to commit, or even pull their weight is seemingly very difficult. Europe's for the most part gotten complacent militarily.
ShumaGorath wrote:Has there ever been such a stratification of global defense spending and projectable power before?
I don't know. I'd guess not, but maybe one of the great empires might have... good question.
At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled. That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.
By comparison to the U.S. every other military on the planet looks ramshackle. It's fairly easy to short the stature of other countries, especially ones allied to such a wildly disproportionate military power. This isn't meant to really be a sleight, it's just the general reality of the situation when we have a larger fleet and airforce then the rest of the world combined and generally take Nato and western issues in general in hand personally. I believe it's had the effect of making other states look less favorably on their own military capability and defense spending. It's a lossy department of any government after all with no real tangible benefits (besides defense itself, which is easy when you can hop on our carriers).
Yeah, I think comparison to the US certainly leads to other countries diminishing their own capabilties. Which to an extent is sensible, what the UK could handle with complete deployment could be handled by a fraction of US operating forces. Then there's issues of dependance on the US for actually putting troops into the field.
I think it goes too far though.
Well, to be fair the last couple of conflicts have been American-led. The British intervention in Sierra Leone was done without American assistance, IIRC.
I went to sierra Leone when it all kicked off, it was awesome. But yes, no yanks there, cept maybe for some cia who wanted to see how we got on with the locals.
Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.
Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.
Despite the fact you clearly know very little... At least we didnt get beaten by blokes wearing black pyjamas.
Indulge yourself and read up on the Malayan campaign to see how you should have done it in Vietnam.
As for other conventional wars of the British Army post WW2... Korea, Suez, Falklands, Iraq (Round 1) and Iraq (Round 2) spring to mind. Of course we lost more men in GW1 to the Yanks than the Iraqis... Someone really should point out whose side we are on to Warthog pilots, though they also manage to hit their own troops with pin-point accuracy too.
As for cuts... Its the way of the beast.
Personally I would prefer to see some of the money ploughed into rotary assets, more MRAPs to get the WMIKs off the field and countless other things that may make life in 'Stan a bit more bearable.
Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.
Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.
Despite the fact you clearly know very little... At least we didnt get beaten by blokes wearing black pyjamas.
"I was kind of involved in the conflict because I lived near the place where people talked about it happening. It was really hard man, you don't understand. All your numbers and statistics! Margaret thatcher was there, it was rough. You just don't get it."
At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled. That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.
In army size, but historically the same could be said for virtually any major empire as compared to nations such as china or russia. In actual ability to project force we are unequaled. We have as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined, and most of them are 2-3 times the size of the competition anyway. A nimitz class carries enough airpower to match or easily defeat the airforces of most other nations on the planet. Chinas military is rapidly modernizing, but it's still a far cry from being particularly modern, it's poorly run, poorly led, poorly equipped (still) and primarily designed for defense. That is changing, but it hasn't changed enough to be of particular importance at this point. In a war the U.S. military could easily declaw the chinese. We couldn't hope to mount a particularly successful invasion of the mainland (aside from taking some coastal territory) but we could certainly make them unable to fight back effectively. We are certainly a more powerful military force as opposed to our direct competition then the english empire was as opposed to its. Your navy was three times the size of your closest rival, ours is ten.
In army size, but historically the same could be said for virtually any major empire as compared to nations such as china or russia. In actual ability to project force we are unequaled. We have as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined, and most of them are 2-3 times the size of the competition anyway. A nimitz class carries enough airpower to match or easily defeat the airforces of most other nations on the planet. Chinas military is rapidly modernizing, but it's still a far cry from being particularly modern, it's poorly run, poorly led, poorly equipped (still) and primarily designed for defense. That is changing, but it hasn't changed enough to be of particular importance at this point. In a war the U.S. military could easily declaw the chinese. We couldn't hope to mount a particularly successful invasion of the mainland (aside from taking some coastal territory) but we could certainly make them unable to fight back effectively. We are certainly a more powerful military force as opposed to our direct competition then the english empire was as opposed to its. Your navy was three times the size of your closest rival, ours is ten.
Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion.
Yeah, hows the empire doing right now? Still keeping india under your thumb? Still pushing china around?
At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people.
Yeah, you certainly did better with all your military might. It must have been easy before people could just put together a cellphone and few sticks of TNT and kill hundreds.
That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China.
You're our only vassal state .
America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
It's a different world. We have the capability of killing every single human being on the planet within five seconds of eachother. The best you could manage was some smallpox blankets. America has power the "Empire" couldn't even dream of, but it's a different world, and that power means different things now. One of our ships is heavier than a significant portion of your vaunted fleet. It's not like you had better luck against third world rebellions either.
Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
Different times, different weapons, different laws, different tactics.
It's not power it's will actually. We don't have the will, ten years of quagmire will do that do you. We have the military, but we don't have the will to really use it properly. We've been in a war for ten years, in a giant country with a force smaller than that which we would use to police a state that the same size, while most of our army is in Europe preparing for WWIII.
Honestly Albetross, why do you need to prove anything here. It's quite obvious americans get a kick out of being a world superpower, flaunting their countries achievements as their own etc. You don't need to drag us down to that level. The British empire was created to give us someone to play at cricket, not to give us bragging rights.
Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion.
Yeah, hows the empire doing right now? Still keeping india under your thumb? Still pushing china around?
Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - I was just imagining how the USA would have dealt with Northern Ireland.
In case you haven't noticed, the British no longer control the Indian subcontinent - but The Empire managed to keep on top of it (as well as Persia, most of Africa...) for 100+ years. How long did it take for the US to give up on Vietnam? Iraq? Your smugness is misplaced, as usual.
At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people.
Yeah, you certainly did better with all your military might. It must have been easy before people could just put together a cellphone and few sticks of TNT and kill hundreds.
Yeah, it's waaaaay easier to rule 100s of millions of people than it is to eliminate a handful of insurgents with a knack for DIY explosives. Poor you.
That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China.
You're our only vassal state .
Erm, not really. If that were the case Al Meghrahi would never have been released.
America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
It's a different world. We have the capability of killing every single human being on the planet within five seconds of eachother. The best you could manage was some smallpox blankets. America has power the "Empire" couldn't even dream of, but it's a different world, and that power means different things now. One of our ships is heavier than a significant portion of your vaunted fleet. It's not like you had better luck against third world rebellions either.
Please, please, please read more history books. Please.
Also, try not to conflate America's power with your own personal power. You are not powerful.
Really? Sir, you need to learn your military bases
You mean like this I suppose
Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,
In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.
50% was an exaggeration, but it's still plenty.
Does England or any ally of the United States need a military, Id say yes we don't always see eye to eye. Two aircraft carriers doesn't seem like much, especially when you think about rotations an upgrades. It's always good to have one ready. It's not like England is Mexico or Canada, love the Canadian armed forces, but are they really necessary? Probably not
Andrew1975 wrote:50% was an exaggeration, but it's still plenty
Question: How many US Troops are Stationed Overseas?
Answer: Less than 30% World Wide, including active combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Troops were stationed overseas that aren't in Iraq, Afghanistan, and related regions? 12% of the total force, and that's 12% of the DoD I might add, not the armed forces.
You can cherry pick Germany if you like but "most" is about the worst word you could use other than "all." We're hardly preparing for WWIII. If you're reading that anywhere I suggest you dump the documents from the 1950's and pick up with some more current information as to why we have troops in Europe
Please, please, please read more history books. Please.
Also, try not to conflate America's power with your own personal power. You are not powerful.
Sure I am! I should have specified insurgent rebellions though. My bad. We've managed to put down rebellions as well, theres a difference thats pretty stark between that and putting down one that draws it's recruits from a generally resistive population with access to explosives. Coin warfare was far easier when everyone just had swords or when guns had to wait a while to shoot a second person.
Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - I was just imagining how the USA would have dealt with Northern Ireland.
Depends on when. Civil war times? Bayonet. Modern times? Failure. WW2? Nuke.
In case you haven't noticed, the British no longer control the Indian subcontinent - but The Empire managed to keep on top of it (as well as Persia, most of Africa...) for 100+ years. How long did it take for the US to give up on Vietnam? Iraq? Your smugness is misplaced, as usual.
We're still working on getting puerto rico, but ours isn't a colonial empire. It's just one titanically powerful state.
Yeah, it's waaaaay easier to rule 100s of millions of people than it is to eliminate a handful of insurgents with a knack for DIY explosives. Poor you.
It is actually. The American nation consists over over 300 million people and we're having problems with roadside bombs. Russia's got the same problems. You do too actually! Just without having to manage a large country at the same time.
Erm, not really. If that were the case Al Meghrahi would never have been released.
You can let him go. Just don't let thatcher anywhere near us.
Albatross wrote:At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled.
Hmm, but right now the US accounts for about half of all worldwide military expenditure, which is not a thing the British could have ever claimed. You make the point that it was a measure of British naval dominance that their fleet was three times the size of their nearest competitor, but the US fleet is greater than everyone else combined... and the US isn't even a purely naval power.
That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.
You think so? From about the 70s onwards the Soviets had a fraction of the strength of the US, it was only because it suited both the Soviets and the Americans to pretend otherwise that everyone kept talking about them in equal terms.
Right now China is a growing power, but nowhere near the scale of the US.
Albatross wrote:Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.
Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?
sebster wrote:Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?
It's both impressive and disturbing that a country can afford to do what the US does militarily while spending a comparable % GDP as other developed nations
It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.
Also consider technology. At the time Colonialism began, Western Europe was light years ahead of everyone else. The West still is in many ways, but not quite to the same degree. Used to be you could go in with guns and a well trained and organized army, and find people still fighting in mob formations using swords and spears. Not anymore.
LordofHats wrote:It's both impressive and disturbing that a country can afford to do what the US does militarily while spending a comparable % GDP as other developed nations
It's not an equivalent percentage, the US spends about 4% of GDP on it's military, compared to China spending about 2% and the UK spending 2.5%, France 2.3%, Germany 1.3%, Japan 0.9%. The average expenditure across the globe is around 2.5%.
Put another way, the US has 24% of the world's GDP, and 42% of the world's military expenditure.
Also consider technology. At the time Colonialism began, Western Europe was light years ahead of everyone else. The West still is in many ways, but not quite to the same degree. Used to be you could go in with guns and a well trained and organized army, and find people still fighting in mob formations using swords and spears. Not anymore.
Yeah, this is a big part of it. I'm not sure it was technology exactly, anyone could get their hands on a rifle, and rifles were often given to local forces but they still weren't as effective. I think a lot of it was training and organisation, a disciplined rifle platoon was the dominant unit of war, and even though they could get their hands on rifles it took training to make them really effective, and training took a level of organisational capacity that didn't exist among the native populations.
Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.
sebster wrote:It's not an equivalent percentage, the US spends about 4% of GDP on it's military, compared to China spending about 2% and the UK spending 2.5%, France 2.3%, Germany 1.3%, Japan 0.9%. The average expenditure across the globe is around 2.5%.
That's somewhat more disturbing. I could have sworn the US expenditure was 3%, but maybe the figures I saw were old or I'm mixing them up with something else.
Still. Just 4%? To equal everyone else combined? Yeah, impressive and disturbing...
Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.
And you can make a bomb with the stuff under your kitchen sink and find instructions on the internet. That certainly doesn't help.
LordofHats wrote:
That's somewhat more disturbing. I could have sworn the US expenditure was 3%, but maybe the figures I saw were old or I'm mixing them up with something else.
It was 3% under Clinton.
LordofHats wrote:
And you can make a bomb with the stuff under your kitchen sink and find instructions on the internet. That certainly doesn't help.
Soon enough, that bomb will have a reasonable chance of containing fissile material.
Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.
Oh yes it does...
Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...
Taking any person and turning them into a viable military asset takes time and organisation. Its part of the reason contemporary insurgent groups rely on IEDs and VBIEDs. Personnel resources are minimal and you will always find martyrs.
Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed. It worked for the Viet Cong and it still works now. Add in the abilty to vanish into the local populace, where even carrying a gun is no certainity of them being hostile, makes the job very hard. Then include the freeform borders and its a nightmare. Given the situation, I think ISAF is doing the best it can in a place that simply will never accept outside influence in its involvement.
Insurgencies are heavily organised. Their ability to source and use upto date weaponary shows the level of capability and when tied with usual insurgency abilities of resourcefulness and initiative, it makes for a dangerous enemy.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Sure I am! I should have specified insurgent rebellions though. My bad. We've managed to put down rebellions as well, theres a difference thats pretty stark between that and putting down one that draws it's recruits from a generally resistive population with access to explosives. Coin warfare was far easier when everyone just had swords or when guns had to wait a while to shoot a second person.
Yet another generalisation with no basis?
Most actions by the British in India were not strictly COIN warfare. If we take the fighting that occured in Afghanistan from 1840 - 1919 then it is generally one of attempting to subdue a country to protect India's border and curtail Russian influence. There was no 'insurgency' simply a hostile population.
As for 'guns having to wait to shoot a second person' do you have any idea of the weapons in use during the period?
The introduction of the Martini-Henri and the Schnider rifles gave breech loading weapons that vastly increased firepower rates. By 1879, at the time of the Second-Anglo Afghan War the Afghan Army had large numbers of such weapons, having bought them from varying sources and as well as breech loading rifles, they also possessed up to date modern artillery. What it came down to was lack of adequate training and leadership, not the weapons that made a difference. Ironically these rifles are still in use today among the Afghans.
There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.
Those men with 'swords' that you dismiss so readily often taught the British Army lessons in complacency. The Zulus slaughtered an army at Isandalawana, the Afghans massacred an entire army in the 1840s, and again caused a heavy defeat on the British at Maiwand in 1880. The British Army generally spent the first weeks/months of a campaign being over confident and under estimating the enemy until a massacre took place, after which it relearnt its methods and went on to win. This was repeated over and over again throughout the lifetime of the Empire.
The fact that the British and Indian forces managed to hold control of the Afghan-India border for the best part of 100 years with few major incursion is remarkable considering the times they fought in, but it was done only through sheer hardwork and the spilling of much blood.
One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...
What I find the most sad is the difficulty of some, both US and British, to actually understand anything in history and accept that both the US and British have highly effective military forces that work very well together. They dont seem to indulge in points scoring, except for some good natured competition, yet armchair generals seem to love rubbing each other up the wrong way. Daft really and it denigrates the wonderful work that US and British servicemen have undertaken together over the years.
Just remember neither the US or the British won WW2... The Allies won it (well actually the Russians won it, we all just helped out).
Very true p, all the actual servicemen get on great, train together, live together and work together well and with great effect, but this is the internet... and real life doesn't count for much here.
Have you heard how people speak to each other in general? It's nothing like a real discussion at all, I mean, if everyone talked as big as this lot Di, nobody would survive an interaction with another man without getting brained!
sebster wrote:Thing is, you're making the assumption that the MoD is just given a flat amount of cash, and then told what they have to do with that money. So that if nukes were taken away from them and put into another department, the MoD would get the same amount of money and be able to buy more tanks and stuff. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, department budgets are built with funding allocations towards specific requirements. If the nukes were shifted out of the MoD, the attached funding would be shifted as well.
Believe me on this, I've spent most of my working life dealing with government budgeting.
Not the British one! Central Gov want to shift the responsibility for funding the nuclear deterent without the funding, thats why the MoD are so unhappy about it. And the MoD isn't given a flat amount of cash, they like every other dept have to put forward a spending plan and based on that plan they are allocated funds. If its not in the plan, they can't buy it.
Whenever you want to make an amphibious landing in another country, or provide air support to any ground operations where you don't have ground based runways nearby. The odds of that happening without being an joint US operation (so you could then rely on their carriers, as they have more than enough for everybody) is the big question. I honestly have no idea.
Short of war, there is no reason for us to support such an operation.
You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.
I'm not diminishing our place, we have the finest trained body, that is our armed forces, anywhere, bar none. Qualitively we outrank anybody. Quantatively we don't, and we need to recognise that.
That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.
You think so? From about the 70s onwards the Soviets had a fraction of the strength of the US, it was only because it suited both the Soviets and the Americans to pretend otherwise that everyone kept talking about them in equal terms.
Right now China is a growing power, but nowhere near the scale of the US.
Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity. There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy. It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.
Also, although the Soviet Union might not have had parity with the USA for very long, it was (and is arguably still) capable of destroying the USA several times over. That isn't something the The British Empire had to contend with.
Albatross wrote:Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.
It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.
Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.
Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?
No, fair enough. But military power is only one measure of power. My point, I suppose, is that the power of a nation can also be measured in the relative power of those it seeks to dominate. The fact that a relative handful of insurgents armed with IEDs is enough to provide a significant obstacle to American interests is an illustration of this. There are no American 'Omdurmans'. The Empire didn't have such problems and thus was able to exercise it's power more readily. Massive military power is worthless if you can't actually use it - it's just implied power, which is only marginally less useless than no power at all. In my opinion, American military power is just a sideshow - the USAs TRUE power comes from being a financial hegemon. But as most of us now accept, that period of unparralleled financial power is starting to draw to a close.
Edited for spelling mistakes due to distraction of a bed being delivered!
What I find the most sad is the difficulty of some, both US and British, to actually understand anything in history and accept that both the US and British have highly effective military forces that work very well together. They dont seem to indulge in points scoring, except for some good natured competition, yet armchair generals seem to love rubbing each other up the wrong way. Daft really and it denigrates the wonderful work that US and British servicemen have undertaken together over the years.
What I find sad is that you would post so much that had truly so little with any of my posts concerning the subject and then decry my lack of historical knowledge.
Most actions by the British in India were not strictly COIN warfare. If we take the fighting that occured in Afghanistan from 1840 - 1919 then it is generally one of attempting to subdue a country to protect India's border and curtail Russian influence. There was no 'insurgency' simply a hostile population.
Yes, I know. Thats why the post you were quoting was seeking to separate the two.
As for 'guns having to wait to shoot a second person' do you have any idea of the weapons in use during the period?
IT was a long period, there were quite a few with many varying capabilities. The empires decline coincided with the increased prevalence of more deadly personal weapons. You're not exactly arguing against what I'm talking about here. You're just arguing.
There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.
The mentality is the same, but it's still quite different. That same zealot can load up a ford truck with C4, drive it up to a checkpoint, and kill 80 people and wound 250 others. I'd like to see an afghan assassin pull off a similar feat. Intentons aren't relevant, only capability.
One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...
We aren't fighting people with swords, and we didn't exactly have to fear them in Japan.
Big P wrote:Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...
Why do you think their casualties are so much higher than ours? The problem is that there's so many of them.
Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed. It worked for the Viet Cong and it still works now. Add in the abilty to vanish into the local populace, where even carrying a gun is no certainity of them being hostile, makes the job very hard. Then include the freeform borders and its a nightmare. Given the situation, I think ISAF is doing the best it can in a place that simply will never accept outside influence in its involvement.
It's not really a matter that they're organized. The Taliban like most insurgent groups are horribly unorganized, but they want it that way. Breaking organization on purpose and leaving themselves loose makes them flexible. Other than that you're right.
There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.
Except now the tools available to that mentality are vastly more effective at getting the job done.
One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...
They aren't fighting with swords.
(well actually the Russians won it, we all just helped out).
The Russians won it? That's funny .
Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.
China has no economy without the US. They don't get to count that in their favor
There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy. It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.
Apply that theory to Rome. Let me know if that works out. Empires collapse for multiple reasons, not just economic ones, though economy is a telling sign. Britain's Empire collapsed because of struggles in Europe tying up resources. People in foreign lands growing increasingly difficult to control and better at fight them too. And frankly, Britain overextended itself. It did an awesome job at building its empire. One of the largest in history. But it was too large. As they lost the technological advantage and trouble in Europe increased, they fell behind and eventually lost.
Also, although the Soviet Union might not have had parity with the USA for very long, it was (and is arguably still) capable of destroying the USA several times over. That isn't something the The British Empire had to contend with.
The Russians like to talk. Doesn't mean they can or would do it. Their nuclear arsenal is as old as their navy and it's falling apart just as quickly.
Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.
I would agree that in relative terms, at it's height the British Empire was superior. But then in relative terms so were the Roman and Mongol Empires. In relative terms Alexander's Empire was probably the greatest mankind has ever known (Depending on how we determine which were the greatest).
You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?
I wouldn't even try and argue that one, I actually have the facts and figures at my fingertips if necessary. Truth is, we launched D-day in order to stop the Russians from gaining complete control of mainland Europe. In doing so, we sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but the fact remains that the Russians ultimately had that one in the bag.
Ketara wrote:You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?
Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way. Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.
Anyone claiming any one nation won the Second World War (Russia of them all) shows little understanding of the war itself. If we were to pick one country and claim they won the Second Word War, it would be Germany. Germany won WWII for the Allies because frankly, they sucked at logistics and were strategically led by a mad man.
Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...
You're missing the point of my statement over the specifics of the quality of an AK47. My point is that destructive capability that once took a platoon (and therefore required the funding and organisational capacity to keep a platoon of troops in the field) is now achieveable by one person. It doesn't have to be one guy with an automatic rifle today compared to a platoon of riflemen in times gone by, it can be an IED today compared to a team of engineers a hundred years ago.
The point is that you can now put out considerably greater destruction without needing that great a level of resourcing or organisation. While the level of organisation in Western militaries is even greater than it has been in the past, it isn't so decisive because you can now bring a lot more destruction without it.
Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed.
They sure are. It makes me laugh when people talk about civilian owned guns being the thing that keeps government in check. To run a successful insurgency you need a very sophisticated cell structure, that provides mutual support without allowing the compromise of one cell to compromise the whole organisation. If you can achieve that, getting your hands on guns is easy.
AndrewC wrote:Not the British one! Central Gov want to shift the responsibility for funding the nuclear deterent without the funding, thats why the MoD are so unhappy about it.
Ah, fair enough then.
And the MoD isn't given a flat amount of cash, they like every other dept have to put forward a spending plan and based on that plan they are allocated funds. If its not in the plan, they can't buy it.
Yeah, that's what I was saying before. But from what you've said it sounds like this is a plan to remove funding from the MoD by stealth.
Short of war, there is no reason for us to support such an operation.
That's exactly when you'd need it, yes. Thing is, you never know what's around the corner. It is a dangerous game to start removing capabilities from your defence force based on what you'll probably be doing in the future.
I'm not diminishing our place, we have the finest trained body, that is our armed forces, anywhere, bar none. Qualitively we outrank anybody. Quantatively we don't, and we need to recognise that.
Quantitatively you come in third in the world, or possibly fourth behind France, depending on how you rank different capabilities. You're a mile behind the US, but that doesn't make your capabilities negligible.
Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.
Not really. The debt is an issue but the current Chinese economic model is as dependant on the US as the US is dependant on China.
There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy.
If China can achieve a level of GPD/capita roughly equivalent to Mexico then it'll be the world's biggest economy, that's just how it works given their immense population. But achieving that level of productivity is a long way off for China, their planned economy is excelling at the early stages of industrialisation, as most planned economies do, but it's the next stage that they'll need to move into to sustain growth, and planned economies do not innovate.It's a near impossibilty.
It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.
True, and a fair point. I would argue though, that the British decline began when the colonies themselves stopped being profitable - the world moved on from colonisation and the British domination ended with that. I think the US model is still the best model, their financial problems are due to poor decision making. It's a much more solveable problem, though the jury is out on whether the US will be able to resolve the issue.
Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.
No, but no empire was built on military successes alone. It's the economic model that really builds the empire. Think about it, you guys had to go and put a colonial government in place, ship troops over and start building infrastructure. The US just signs a trade deal with the foreign government and watches the corporate sector start building its own factories there.
Massive military power is worthless if you can't actually use it - it's just implied power, which is only marginally less useless than no power at all.
That's a fair point.
But as most of us now accept, that period of unparralleled financial power is starting to draw to a close.
It is by no means certain, but the last decade has been a very poor one for the US, and it is certainly possible that they will not be the dominant power within our lifetimes.
LordofHats wrote:Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way.
It's basically impossible to consider a WWII without Russia. The German expansion was always geared towards expanding into Russia.
I think it's an interesting hyopthetical to consider what would have happened if Russia had stayed out of the war. How would the Western allies have done? I don't know, personally.
Thing is, I've been quite vocal on this board for arguing that Russia beat the Germans, and could have done it by themselves. You only have to look at the casualty rates (85% of all German casualties were suffered on the Western front) to realise who did the heavy lifting in the war. The point is not that Russia is best and the Western allies are weak, the point is that the Western Allies never approached anything like the level of total war of Germany and the Soviets.
People talk about handing in spare buttons, certain foods becoming scarce, that's nothing compared to what the Germans and the Soviets undertook.
Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.
The only point where greater German pushes could have knocked Russia out of the war was at the end of the first stages of Barbarossa. If the Germans had managed a greater level of operational planning and completed their encirclements they could have taken another two hundred thousand Russian troops captive, but they weren't that capable, those Russians were used in the defence of Moscow and any hope of German victory was done.
But I do agree that we should all be thankful for Germany's many strategic errors. At the start of the Barbarossa campaign they had the entire industrial capability of continental Europe behind them, but they lost because they made some incredibly blunders. Thank God for that.
Sebster wrote:It's basically impossible to consider a WWII without Russia. The German expansion was always geared towards expanding into Russia.
It would have been a completely different war without Russia. The Axis powers were always doomed to lose in the long term, but Russia hastened the defeat of Germany greatly.
That said a WWII without Russia would make only a fun to talk about hypothetical. German and Japan needed the same thing desperately; Oil. Knowing that, a WWII that didn't involve the post war super powers is impossible. The US and Russia were destined from the start to be involved in WWII no matter how you slice it.
I think it's an interesting hyopthetical to consider what would have happened if Russia had stayed out of the war. How would the Western allies have done? I don't know, personally.
A question worthy of volumes. So many ways the Germans could have redeployed those forces. We can make educated guesses but I guess we'd never really know without a time machine... and maybe messing with the out come of WWII wouldn't be the best idea in human history
Thing is, I've been quite vocal on this board for arguing that Russia beat the Germans, and could have done it by themselves.
Don't get me wrong. They could have. I just disagree with the notion that they were solely responsible for victory in WWII as we know it. Conflicts in other regions greatly aided Russia in surviving long enough to launch a counter attack in the way it did. Without the War in North Africa, Germany's supplies could have been more focused.
The only point where greater German pushes could have knocked Russia out of the war was at the end of the first stages of Barbarossa. If the Germans had managed a greater level of operational planning and completed their encirclements they could have taken another two hundred thousand Russian troops captive, but they weren't that capable, those Russians were used in the defence of Moscow and any hope of German victory was done.
In early 1943, most of Russia's army was pretty much vehicles and equipment with no man power. The initial push into Russia didn't win it for Germany, but it bleed Russia's already weakened military dry. Another strong push could have won the Eastern Front. But instead of attacking, Hitler, in his infinite genius (yeah, thank god the crazy ones are, well, crazy) decided to prepare for a battle in Kursk instead.
Like many moments in WWII, I think the Germans showed overt aggression when a degree caution would have been better, and too much caution when it came time to be aggressive, usually at key critical moments. Compound that with constant supply troubles, and Russia lived long enough to bounce back. Without other campaigns in Europe and North Afirca distracting German attention, the Eastern War may have ended very differently (Likewise of course, the war in North Africa could have ended very differently had Russia lost or never entered the war).
German planning honestly did suck. They had some good leaders, good disciplined troops, but their logistics were just horrible, and the head hanchos were none to bright.
LordofHats wrote:It would have been a completely different war without Russia. The Axis powers were always doomed to lose in the long term, but Russia hastened the defeat of Germany greatly.
Germany wasn't destined to lose, unless you start talking about the instability of extremist empires but that's really besides the point. They certainly weren't destined to lose a US/UK alliance, as while the US had the industrial capacity to match the German war machine it's very dubious to think the political will was there to completely reform the economy on that scale. Seriously, while the changes in the US economy were very impressive, they were still miles short of what happens under total war.
Stalemate is a much more likely circumstance.
Don't get me wrong. They could have. I just disagree with the notion that they were solely responsible for victory in WWII as we know it.
They didn't do it alone, I'm not arguing that they did. Everyone who fought contributed and deserves to be recognised. And in fighting as they did the Western powers certainly protected Europe from Soviets occupation, which is something to be very thankful for.
Conflicts in other regions greatly aided Russia in surviving long enough to launch a counter attack in the way it did. Without the War in North Africa, Germany's supplies could have been more focused.
Sure, but the point I'm making is that people don't realise how focussed they were on Russia already. The other theatres were tiny in relation to the Eastern Front, 85% of German casualties were suffered there.
In early 1943, most of Russia's army was pretty much vehicles and equipment with no man power. The initial push into Russia didn't win it for Germany, but it bleed Russia's already weakened military dry. Another strong push could have won the Eastern Front. But instead of attacking, Hitler, in his infinite genius (yeah, thank god the crazy ones are, well, crazy) decided to prepare for a battle in Kursk instead.
That's a pretty different view of things, where are you getting that from? By the time of Kursk the Soviets had achieved a marked superiority in men and material, having executed Operation Uranus and inflicting immense casualties on the Germans. There was no thinking among the German high command of being able to break the Soviets, Kursk itself was limited in scope, planned as an effort to delay the Soviet offensive. That was all the Germans were capable of against what had become an incredibly powerful Soviet war machine.
Like many moments in WWII, I think the Germans showed overt aggression when a degree caution would have been better, and too much caution when it came time to be aggressive, usually at key critical moments. Compound that with constant supply troubles, and Russia lived long enough to bounce back.
I think the primary issue was the inability for the Nazis to think in operational terms. They had terrific officers up and down the ranks, but the nature of war at the time, that they themselves blundered into in their victory over France, required a level of understanding between the tactical and strategic level. They didn't have this, and so were unable to support their offensives in the early days of Barbarossa. The Soviets did understand this, and so their breakthroughs were consistantly more complete.
Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.
Not really. The debt is an issue but the current Chinese economic model is as dependant on the US as the US is dependant on China.
Well, yes. But that level of interdependence means that the USA lacks the sort of leverage over China that they enjoyed over the Soviets. It also means that the USA would not be able to 'win' a conflict with the Chinese. I use parentheses here because although the US could win a military conflict, the massive damage caused to the global financial market, and thus the US, would mean that it would be hard to call any victory a 'win'. The USA is the world's biggest debtor and much of that debt is held by China - militarily attacking your creditors isn't the best way to attract investment. There are precedents for this sort of situation - the British Empire and German Reich were so interdependent in the 19th century that war between the two was thought to be impossible, although the Germans had less exposure to British sovereign debt (and vice-versa) than China currently does to the US. We all know how THAT turned out...
It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.
True, and a fair point. I would argue though, that the British decline began when the colonies themselves stopped being profitable - the world moved on from colonisation and the British domination ended with that. I think the US model is still the best model, their financial problems are due to poor decision making. It's a much more solveable problem, though the jury is out on whether the US will be able to resolve the issue.
It's not all that solveable - they are staring down the barrel of a $45 trillion gap in the public finances over the next 50 years, a number which will increase as long as people keep being born, getting sick, or growing old.
Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.
No, but no empire was built on military successes alone. It's the economic model that really builds the empire. Think about it, you guys had to go and put a colonial government in place, ship troops over and start building infrastructure. The US just signs a trade deal with the foreign government and watches the corporate sector start building its own factories there.
Actually, you've just highlighted the problem. The US doesn't actually do enough of that. The vast majority of capital flows between 'developed' countries at the moment - a much larger proportion than during the British Empire's period. The problem is that the US doesn't do enough to encourage investment in the third world. The Empire, for all it's faults, actually DID do this by occupying the territory and making sure property rights were enforced, thus encouraging investment. It also helps a territory to have a financial juggernaught underwriting your finances and acting as guaranteur when you try to sell your bonds. It makes them a safer bet.
Ketara wrote:You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?
Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way. Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.
Anyone claiming any one nation won the Second World War (Russia of them all) shows little understanding of the war itself. If we were to pick one country and claim they won the Second Word War, it would be Germany. Germany won WWII for the Allies because frankly, they sucked at logistics and were strategically led by a mad man.
Hang on. You're actually tell,ing me you think Germany had begun it's decline by 1942?
Hooboy. I didn't want to do this, but to quote a certain cartoon, 'Someone is wrong on the internet!'
Okay. Let's break this down into steps.
The point of view I shall be advocating here, is that compared to the Russians, the Allies were a very minor drain on Hitler's resources up to 1944, and that Germany would have collapsed against the Soviet Union even if the UK had declared peace in 1940, and the US had never entered the war. I shall do this by summarising the various allied fronts, and exactly how minor a toll they took on Hitler's resources until the very end.
Let's start by summarising the number of US/British fronts in World War II. The first would be the aerial campaign to bomb Germany, and knock out it's infrastructure. The second would be the Northern African campaign, culminating in the invasion of Italy, and the southern push towards Germany. The third would be the front opened up in Western Europe after the D-Day landings in Normandy.
So, the bombing campaign against Germany....
'From 1940 to 1942, the actual effect that Allied bombing had on Germany was negligible. Most of the damage done by bombing was done to the civilian economy, and thus, was easily absorbed.
In virtually all cases, German production increased, as the German war economy was scaled up, in order to better accommodate the needs of the war machine. In 1942 alone, in the war economy, overall production rose by 50%. Added to the fact that Germany still had considerable reserves of oil, chemicals, metals, and many other raw materials stocked up before the wars beginning, it quickly becomes evident that that initial Allied bombing caused little to no damage at all. For example, the German estimate of oil losses due to bombing up from the start of hostilities up until the end of 1943 was a mere 150,000 metric tons. Whilst this may sound substantial, when it is realised that in the Year of 1940 alone, a total of 4,578,000 metric tons were produced, it quickly becomes apparent that the scale of loss was irrelevant to the German economy. '
'By the end of 1942, it is estimated that the combined Allied Bombing was accounting at best for a mere 2.5% loss of production in the Reich. And this figure includes civilian production for non-essential consumer goods, building, and so on. So the actual damage done to the German war economy itself would be much smaller. Whilst you could consider this a substantial figure when considering the amount of production lost or destroyed, this was clearly a failure to achieve the main objective set down, which was to cripple or destroy the German war effort. As Germany was consistently raising it's production of all war essentials throughout this period, from raw materials to finished goods, Allied Bombing during this period was most clearly ineffective. '
'The situation begins to change however in 1943. As Albert Speer, the former Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production said in his interrogation in 1945,' The first heavy attack on Hamburg in August 1943 made an extraordinary impression. We were of the opinion that this type of attack upon another six German towns would inevitably cripple the will to sustain armaments manufacture and war production.....the raids on the ball bearing industry at Schweinfurt in July 1943 evoked a renewed crisis'. Both of these attacks were on a massive scale, involving hundreds of heavy bombers, yet the failure to repeat them consistently, and regularly meant that German industry had time to begin to disperse, and set up additional AA defences. The still constantly increasing overall production rate in Germany meant that the war machine was able once again to absorb the damage taken through bombing without showing too much adverse effect. Yet regardless of the additional measures taken by Germany, their war industry did begin to show signs of wear and tear. There was an estimated 9% loss of production in Germany in 1943.'
'From 1944 onwards, the Allied bombing began to fulfil its main objective, as American bombers joined English ones, and large scale raids took place all over Germany. Indeed, Albert Speer regards 1944 as the period in which the bombing began to have an effect all across the board, 'Up to the year 1944 neither the air attacks nor the defence measures taken to meet them disturbed armaments production....with regard to the year 1944, on the other hand, it may be assumed that on average there was a fall in production amounting to 30/40%, for had it not been for the air attacks, the projected output programme would certainly have been achieved...' The Allies had also steadily increased raids against German oil, and fuel production sites, which resulted in severely incapacitating the German war machine. The Luftwaffe was short of fuel from September 1944 onwards, and the Army suffered serious shortages from December 1944 onwards. Indeed, it was one of the key reasons for the failure of the winter offensive in Dec 1944, as many of the tanks had no fuel. There were also shortages of coal from Autumn onwards, although steel production continued to climb. The elimination of transport capability however, meant that even in cases where production might not have been falling, it was increasingly difficult to move resources, and finished products to where they were most urgently needed. This breakdown in the rail network proved decisive to the failure of the Ardennes offensive. The lack of coal distribution also meant that power networks across Germany began to run short of fuel. The loss of the upper Silesian Coal mines and industry in January 1945 tolled the death knell for the final collapse of armaments and war production.'
That pretty much summarises the Bombing campaign against Germany, and is extracted from a 4000 word essay I wrote on the topic including academic citations. I shall provide a few of them now, just so you can double check my facts and figures if you really so desire.
(The Luftwaffe War Diaries-Cajus Becker-Corgi Books 1969)
(History of the Second World War, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945, Volume 1 to 4,-Sir Charles Webster & Noble Frankland)
(Royal Air Force 1939-1945, II The Fight Avails-Denis Richards-Her Majestys Stationary Office)
Examining these facts, it becomes clearly apparent, that until the latter period of the war, Allied bombing was ineffectual. Certainly, by the time it began to make a noticeable impact, the Russians were already 'knocking on the front door'. From that, we can conclude that even had the Allied Bombing Campaign been halted altogether, it would have made little difference to the outcome of the the fierce fighting in Russia, and the reversal of German fortunes on land.
So, our next point of examination must be Northern Africa, and noting what kind of a drain on resources that provided for the German military machine....
'When on the 22nd of June 1941, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the German Army fielded some 3 million men in 146 divisions. German strength in the desert peaked at about 50,000 men in four divisions. The Wehrmacht committed less than 2 percent of it's strength to the desert war.Had it committed 3 percent at the right moment, it could have won.' (~Alamein, Stephen Bungay~)
From that one simple figure, it is more than possible to establish that the desert was nothing more than a sideshow for Hitler, a very minor concern at the edge of his ambitions. Had he bothered to actually dedicate a serious amount of his resources to the African war, he would have swept the British out of North Africa in the same way he did Greece. Until the Allied troops began landing in Italy, and Hitler was forced to divert the Tenth Army to fight off the Allies, the Northern Campaign was relatively irrelevant to deciding the outcome of the war raging on mainland Europe. It had no impact on the resources Germany used to fight in Russia for the first two to three years, and by the time it began to be enough of a problem for Hitler to divert the Tenth Army, German forces were already in disarray and falling back from the might of the Soviet Union.
The third front would be the D-Day landings, but as they only took place in 1944, it is possible to say with a relative degree of certainty, that this front had absolutely no bearing on the mainland war against Russia until a much later stage.(1943 at the earliest, as Hitler was preparing for a possible Allied landing)
To summarise, if the UK had withdrawn from the war in 1940, and the Allies never entered it, it would have made virtually no difference to the inevitable German defeat at the hands of the Soviet military machine. If necessary, and you still want to belabour the point, I'll pull up the casualty and production figures, as well as the major battles, and break them down to show exactly how the Germans really did have no chance of defeating Russia after they lost their initial momentum, Allied distraction or no.
Conversely, had the Russians never entered the war, I seriously doubt there would have been the political US willpower to invade mainland Europe, and soak up the kind of resources and manpower it would have required to take on the entire Nazi war machine. Indeed, it's not even possible to say the US would have defeated Nazi Germany, it would quite possibly have ended in a stalemate, or the Germans launching an invasion of America 10 years down the line.
At the end of the day, it was essentially the Russians who defeated Nazi Germany. The rest of the Allies simply sped up the end by a few years.
sebster wrote:That's a pretty different view of things, where are you getting that from? By the time of Kursk the Soviets had achieved a marked superiority in men and material, having executed Operation Uranus and inflicting immense casualties on the Germans. There was no thinking among the German high command of being able to break the Soviets, Kursk itself was limited in scope, planned as an effort to delay the Soviet offensive. That was all the Germans were capable of against what had become an incredibly powerful Soviet war machine.
The Red Army had lost most of its man power by the end of 1942. In early 1943 they had little. Rather than make a dedicated push Germany spent it's time reconsolidating to prepare for larger engagements, and by mid 1943 the Red Army was back to strength. Perhaps saying Russia would have lost isn't correct. A dedicated attack at that time would have prolonged the Eastern War, and it would have taken Russia longer to begin its push into German occupied Eastern Europe.
Hang on. You're actually telling me you think Germany had begun it's decline by 1942?
I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to. They stalled out in 1942, by which I mean their advances halted. The failures in El Alamein and Stalingrad were defeats Germany never recovered from. Technically one could say Barbarossa was where the war turned about, but there were still events following Barbarossa that could have allowed Germany to win. After El Alamein and Stalingrad failed, Germany had lost its chances of winning the war (In hindsight, I don't know what German leadership thought at the time).
To summarise, if the UK had withdrawn from the war in 1940, and the Allies never entered it, it would have made virtually no difference to the inevitable German defeat at the hands of the Soviet military machine. If necessary, and you still want to belabour the point, I'll pull up the casualty and production figures, as well as the major battles, and break them down to show exactly how the Germans really did have no chance of defeating Russia after they lost their initial momentum, Allied distraction or no.
I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.
Conversely, had the Russians never entered the war, I seriously doubt there would have been the political US willpower to invade mainland Europe, and soak up the kind of resources and manpower it would have required to take on the entire Nazi war machine. Indeed, it's not even possible to say the US would have defeated Nazi Germany, it would quite possibly have ended in a stalemate, or the Germans launching an invasion of America 10 years down the line.
Britain wasn't going down, not on the isles anyway. Operation Sea Lion had been called off as a failure long before Barbarossa was even passed initial planning. So long as Great Britain didn't surrender, the US would have aided in an invasion of Europe and in the closing battles of North Africa. US involvement in Europe was as inevitable as their involvement in the Pacific.
You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign and how starved for oil Germany was. Logistics were a constant issue in the German army, and they were beginning to ration what oil they had well into 1941, and even before 1940 the German industry found itself with plenty of means of production but few raw materials to work with. The lost in North Africa meant that Germany could never reach the middle east, or its oil. Likewise the failure of Stalingrad meant that Germany never made it into the Cacasus or the oil there. It's not just a question of man power its a question of resources. Many of Germany's moves following the start of the war were moves to obtain resources they needed, chief among them oil. Crap logistics and limited resources constantly stalled Germany in the war and were key to its defeat.
My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory. EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.
Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.
I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.
The US has little or no hold on China, China on the other hand has a large hold on western economies, and everyone elses too.
It's an interesting argument, I would say they are more intertwined. Without one you really can't have the other. The world economy as a whole would take a giant crap without the U.S. economy. China's economy needs other strong economies to buy products.
Sure its interrealted but dependency usually flows one way or the other, less commonly both ways. China doesnt need us, they have seen to that by careful manoeuvering, now they are ensuring that we need them more and more.
LordofHats wrote:I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to.
*coughs*
Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe.
LordofHats wrote:I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.
But they did. As I just pointed out, extensively, with academic citatations, facts and figures, the US/UK forces had a minimal effect on the resources of Nazi Germany until 1943 at the absolute earliest, by which stage the Soviet Union had rearmed, learned how to launch a successful offensive, and were forcing the Germans back. By the time we began to noticeably affect Germany's ability to defend itself, the war was already a foregone conclusion. Germany had lost. And the main reason for this was Russia.
Britain wasn't going down, not on the isles anyway. Operation Sea Lion had been called off as a failure long before Barbarossa was even passed initial planning.
You do realise that Germany almost successfully won the Battle of Britain by targeting airfields right? RAF command estimated we were a week away from complete destruction, only Hitler(enraged at a British bombing run against a city), ordered Goering to change the focus of the aerial campaign to cities, as opposed to military targets. When you factor in the relatively successful U-boat campaign to sink shipping, it's not impossible to envisage Britain being defeated if Germany had decided to focus all it's resources on it, as opposed to striking for Russia.
So long as Great Britain didn't surrender, the US would have aided in an invasion of Europe and in the closing battles of North Africa. US involvement in Europe was as inevitable as their involvement in the Pacific.
On one hand you declare the absolute invulnerability of the British isles to German attack, and on the other state that US involvement was 'inevitable'. You seem to like dealing in absolutes. I admit, I stated an absolute when I said Russia would have defeated Germany with or without US/UK forces, but I have the statistics, and factual evidence to back that statement up. I would be interested in seeing your ironclad evidence for the two absolutes you have delivered above.
You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign
Not really. For the British, it was incredibly important, as it was the only surviving land front they had against Germany, and losing it would have been terrible for morale, whilst a victory immensely good. For Germany it was a sideshow. As stated above, less than 2% of Germany's military resources went into that campaign. Less than 2%. Had it been 5%, the British would have most likely been swept out of Africa. But Hitler simply didn't regard that front as even a slight priority. I've read communications between him and Rommel, several discussions involving the two above and the General Staff, and I can tell you right here and now, Germany did not regard this front as important. If you'd like, I'll dig around and find the exact quotations and documents necessary for you, but in exchange, I'd like you to present evidence pointing to contrary first, otherwise it's unfair that I do all the legwork.
Logistics were a constant issue in the German army, and they were beginning to ration what oil they had well into 1941, and even before 1940 the German industry found itself with plenty of means of production but few raw materials to work with.
To quote the Becker article:-
The Germans realized the graveness of their fuel situation and took action. Their infamous peace treaty with Russia in 1939 yielded them 4 million barrels of fuel per year (starting in 1940) and the Russians were diligent in delivering the fuel. Imports of oil from Romania was also drastically increased until imports reached 13 million barrels in 1941. The Germans also expanded their own small domestic production of oil and that of Austria which had been annexed by Germany in 1938. By 1944, the total domestic oil production had increased from 3.8 million barrels (1938) to 12 million barrels.
Additionally, about 5 million barrels of fuel were captured during the early military campaigns of World War 2 in western Europe in 1940.
Now I'm not saying that fuel wasn't critical, or that Germany wasn't in dire need of more supplies of it. Hitler's desire for the caucasian oilfields is well known and documented, however, he NEVER regarded the middle east and the desert campaign as a serious alternative. He never thought he'd need to until the Russians had him on the back foot, and by that stage of the game, his defeat was, as you like to say, 'inevitable', regardless of whether he'd had the oil supplies or not. Germany was incapable of matching the sheer industrial power and weight of numbers that Russia was capable of putting in the field, by the time oil was an issue.
My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory.
I never said they should be. What I did say, was that our military intervention on continental Europe was entirely unnecessary in toppling Hitler in 1943/4, as the Russians already had it in the bag. We sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but most of the hard work and fighting was already done by the Russians. Case in point.
EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.
Indeed. However, by examining the facts and sources available to us, we can deduce what would have been more likely outcomes. Bar some kind of divine miracle, I can't see the Germans pulling off a final victory over the Russians from 43 onwards, regardless of Allied intervention. I make this analysis simply by using the facts and figures available to me.
Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.
LordofHats wrote:I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to.
*coughs*
Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe.
And it appears I did
LordofHats wrote:But they did. As I just pointed out, extensively, with academic citatations, facts and figures, the US/UK forces had a minimal effect on the resources of Nazi Germany until 1943 at the absolute earliest, by which stage the Soviet Union had rearmed, learned how to launch a successful offensive, and were forcing the Germans back. By the time we began to noticeably affect Germany's ability to defend itself, the war was already a foregone conclusion. Germany had lost. And the main reason for this was Russia.
So they had an effect after 1943? Hmm. Sounds like they helped... Being the main reason and being the sole reason are completely different creatures.
You do realise that Germany almost successfully won the Battle of Britain by targeting airfields right? RAF command estimated we were a week away from complete destruction, only Hitler(enraged at a British bombing run against a city), ordered Goering to change the focus of the aerial campaign to cities, as opposed to military targets. When you factor in the relatively successful U-boat campaign to sink shipping, it's not impossible to envisage Britain being defeated if Germany had decided to focus all it's resources on it, as opposed to striking for Russia.
The state of the RAF wasn't in my argument. I merely stated a fact (rather poorly I admit as I often express what I'm trying to say in next to the worst way possible ). The British Isles could have persevered for several years without the Russian invasion. So long as the UK remained uninvaded, US intervention in Europe was bound to happen because the isles provided an excellent location to gather the materials needed, and the US had the industry to make said materials. Even without the RAF Germany didn't have the capacity to invade the British Isles. Their navy was too small to attempt it, which is one of key reasons Sea Lion was called off.
That said, IF the British Isles surrendered, then I agree with you. It's hard to invade a land mass when your staging area is 3000 miles away.
You seem to like dealing in absolutes. I admit, I stated an absolute when I said Russia would have defeated Germany with or without US/UK forces, but I have the statistics, and factual evidence to back that statement up. I would be interested in seeing your ironclad evidence for the two absolutes you have delivered above.
If I felt like digging through the internet and pouring through books I'd try. I'm not as dedicated as you are I'm afraid
And again, I never said Russia couldn't have won without others. I said that in the war we have, they didn't. Just because they made Germany bleed the most doesn't mean they were the only ones responsible for victory in the war.
Not really. For the British, it was incredibly important, as it was the only surviving land front they had against Germany, and losing it would have been terrible for morale, whilst a victory immensely good. For Germany it was a sideshow. As stated above, less than 2% of Germany's military resources went into that campaign. Less than 2%. Had it been 5%, the British would have most likely been swept out of Africa. But Hitler simply didn't regard that front as even a slight priority. I've read communications between him and Rommel, several discussions involving the two above and the General Staff, and I can tell you right here and now, Germany did not regard this front as important. If you'd like, I'll dig around and find the exact quotations and documents necessary for you, but in exchange, I'd like you to present evidence pointing to contrary first, otherwise it's unfair that I do all the legwork.
I'm well aware of the disagreements between Rommel and Hitler concerning North Africa, as well as Hitler's preference for focusing on the Eastern Front. But ultimate goals in Africa were to beat the British and capture the Suez canal, and later push into the middle east and take control of its oil fields.
He never thought he'd need to until the Russians had him on the back foot, and by that stage of the game, his defeat was, as you like to say, 'inevitable', regardless of whether he'd had the oil supplies or not. Germany was incapable of matching the sheer industrial power and weight of numbers that Russia was capable of putting in the field, by the time oil was an issue.
You go through oil fast when you have tanks, ships, and aircraft. Considering the wretched fuel economy of vehicles back then, what Germany took early in the war wasn't going to last them long. Hence why they pushed for more. It's also well documented in both the North African Campaign and the Eastern Front that the Germans were having trouble with their oil supplies. It was an issue from the start of the war till its end.
I never said they should be. What I did say, was that our military intervention on continental Europe was entirely unnecessary in toppling Hitler in 1943/4, as the Russians already had it in the bag. We sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but most of the hard work and fighting was already done by the Russians. Case in point.
I think the main problem here was simply that you thought I was trying to hand 100% of credit for winning the war to the Russians. That's not the case, I simply believe that the Allies weren't a major enough factor to have swayed the final outcome, the Russians would have won regardless.
I still believe you're overstating the importance of the desert campaign though. You say:-
But ultimate goals in Africa were to beat the British and capture the Suez canal, and later push into the middle east and take control of its oil fields.
I disagree. The main German objectives were to support and prop up the Italians. Rommel led a token force in order to show Reich support for Mussolini. There were never any plans for a serious campaign in the desert. Rommel kept on slipping his leash, and envisaging grand objectives, and due to the incompetence of Auchinleck in Operation Crusader, he got far further than he should have done. However, what Rommel wanted, and what German High Command and Hitler wanted, were two very different things.
And I may come across as 'dedicated', but I'm afraid as an actual degree level War Studies student, I have most of this material readily to hand anyway. I'm not normally this clued up!
Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.
Chinas domestic market is rapidly growing, but the foundation of their economy is most definitely still export driven, with the U.S. by a long stretch being it's largest trading partner. The chinese state would likely collapse if we simply stopped trading with them.
Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.
Chinas domestic market is rapidly growing, but the foundation of their economy is most definitely still export driven, with the U.S. by a long stretch being it's largest trading partner. The chinese state would likely collapse if we simply stopped trading with them.
However so would we.
Actually China are hedging their bets, they have managed to create new markets in India and Africa and a large market in Europe to counter the problem of having only one major client. They are exporting because thats where the power is, not out of dependency. They are creating our dependency, not a mutual interpredency, and western politicans are too short termist to realise the implications.
No, they realize the implications. Its simply that the pain caused by the process of cutting off Chinese exports is at best no worse than the pain caused by living in a Chinese, hegemonic world.
Regardless, China is dependent on the US by simple numbers. They will not be dependent on the US in the future, but they are now. Both countries are trying to break the dependency, and both countries have a difficult road ahead of them.
Andrew1975 wrote:Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.
I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.
The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.
The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.
It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.
Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .
The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.
It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.
Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .
Nope, the Soviets were going to hold anyway. The Germans stopped within sight of ther Kremlin due to interference from Hitler. Lend Lease didnt really make any sizable difference until mid 1942 and was mainly a political token in the Soviet Union.
Once Barbarossa failed Soviets were going to win the war by themselves, that was inevitable once the one chance was blown and the snows came in 1941.
It's easy to fall into the error of considering that history is practically predetermined, because we view it from the fixed side. But things could have changed for all sorts of reasons.
One thing worth remembering, if the Soviets had not allied with the Germans in 1939, the history of the whole war would have been very different.
The effects of the lend lease program have been vastly overstated in western history, it was honestly more moral support then anything. The japanese were a non threat, they were absolutely useless in large scale ground warfare. When the russians fought them in Manchuria the japs just crumbled.
It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.
Your lend lease argument is integrating, got any references? .
Honestly the japanese had one of the worst fighting forces ion the world at that time, they only won their early battles because of vastly superior numbers, and the only reason it was so had hard to dislodge them form the islands was because they were able to dig in and hide in the mountains and jungles
The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[7]
Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[citation needed]U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.
The greatest contribution from lend lease were trucks, the soviet military was ridiculously large, the 19,000 aircraft we gave them only accounted for 1/5 of their military aircraft, they had over 100,000 military aircraft the largest air force in the world, and those planes were one of are largest contributions yet had very little actual effect
Albatross wrote:Well, yes. But that level of interdependence means that the USA lacks the sort of leverage over China that they enjoyed over the Soviets. It also means that the USA would not be able to 'win' a conflict with the Chinese. I use parentheses here because although the US could win a military conflict, the massive damage caused to the global financial market, and thus the US, would mean that it would be hard to call any victory a 'win'. The USA is the world's biggest debtor and much of that debt is held by China - militarily attacking your creditors isn't the best way to attract investment. There are precedents for this sort of situation - the British Empire and German Reich were so interdependent in the 19th century that war between the two was thought to be impossible, although the Germans had less exposure to British sovereign debt (and vice-versa) than China currently does to the US. We all know how THAT turned out...
Sure, but it needs to be remembered that interdependance goes both ways. The Chinese would be equally crippled by hostile actions with the US.
It's not all that solveable - they are staring down the barrel of a $45 trillion gap in the public finances over the next 50 years, a number which will increase as long as people keep being born, getting sick, or growing old.
The US has no significant liability that the rest of the developed world doesn't share. We have the political will to tax sufficiently to cover the liability (well, more so than the US anyway) but it isn't as if the US just can't ever cover the liability.
Actually, you've just highlighted the problem. The US doesn't actually do enough of that. The vast majority of capital flows between 'developed' countries at the moment - a much larger proportion than during the British Empire's period. The problem is that the US doesn't do enough to encourage investment in the third world. The Empire, for all it's faults, actually DID do this by occupying the territory and making sure property rights were enforced, thus encouraging investment. It also helps a territory to have a financial juggernaught underwriting your finances and acting as guaranteur when you try to sell your bonds. It makes them a safer bet.
There is a lot of capital flowing into the developing world, although not just from the US. There is a reasonable argument to be made that this capital is not sufficiently improving the lives of the people living there, but in terms of accessing resources and cheap labour and thereby enhacing the wealth of the countries providing the capital, it's a very effective system.
LordofHats wrote:The Red Army had lost most of its man power by the end of 1942. In early 1943 they had little. Rather than make a dedicated push Germany spent it's time reconsolidating to prepare for larger engagements, and by mid 1943 the Red Army was back to strength. Perhaps saying Russia would have lost isn't correct. A dedicated attack at that time would have prolonged the Eastern War, and it would have taken Russia longer to begin its push into German occupied Eastern Europe.
You're making the mistake in assuming the Germans cuold have simply decided to continue going. Consolidation after the early stages of Barbarossa was a product of German logistic shortages
By the time you get to Kursk, which from your earlier post seems to be the point when the Germans should have attacked sooner the war was, in hindsight, over. A quicker attack there would have fed less German troops into the meatgrinder, but a victory was beyond them.
I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to. They stalled out in 1942, by which I mean their advances halted. The failures in El Alamein and Stalingrad were defeats Germany never recovered from. Technically one could say Barbarossa was where the war turned about, but there were still events following Barbarossa that could have allowed Germany to win. After El Alamein and Stalingrad failed, Germany had lost its chances of winning the war (In hindsight, I don't know what German leadership thought at the time).
Basically, you have to drive a really long way into Russia to conquer them. It's a hell of a hard thing to keep supplying a war machine that far from home, so they really couldn't ever have afforded to give the Russians time to prepare a proper defence. Barbarossa needed to take more Russian troops out of the war than it managed, and from there Germany didn't really have the capability to destroy Russian forces faster than it was replacing them.
I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.
I don't think anyone is saying Russia alone won the war. The presence of one soldier somewhere else in the world shooting a single German trooper makes that an incorrect statement. But the vast majority of the losses inflicted on Germany were inflicted by the Russians. As in 85% or more of German casualties were inflicted by the Russians.
You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign and how starved for oil Germany was.
No, as Ketara's excellent series of figures shows Northern Africa was a sideshow.
My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory. EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.
No-one said full credit. It would be incorrect to say "the US beat Japan singlehandedly" but it would be correct to say "the US was the overwhelmingly dominant partner in defeating Japan, and could have defeated Japan by itself". We're just saying the same thing about Russia and Germany.
Andrew1975 wrote:Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.
Lend lease was important, but it wasn't the difference between the Soviets surviving or not. I mean, trucks and bazookas are cool but they don't turn an army from a loser into a dominant winner.
Thing is, Stalin was very good at hiding Russian strength. When Operation Uranus was launched and the sixth army encircled in Stalingrad, the overwhelming Russian reserves weren't just a shock to the Germans, they were a shock to the Western Allies as well. Stalin hid his strength in part because he paranoid, and in part because if the Western Allies ever realised how powerful the Russian war machine was, they would have stopped giving him all those tanks.
I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.
Certainly, it needs to be remembered that if it wasn't for D-day the Russians would never have stopped at Berlin. Bloody good things the Americans did that.
As to the possibility of the Soviets continuing on against the US/UK, it's a good question. The Allies had overwhelming air superiority and they would have inflicted tremendous losses on Soviet offensives, but the sheer scale of the Soviet war machine was a long beyond what the US and UK had in the field. Any meaningful level of counter attack would have been impossible, the question really becomes if the air superiority of the Western Allies could have forced a stalemate before the Soviets reached Paris.
Then you consider the idea of a US that was dedicated to wiping out the Soviets. What if the US had tuned its economy to war production on the same scale as the Nazis and Soviets. Politically not an option, but this is a what if...
Andrew1975 wrote:It's an interesting statement. I think without the U.S. occupying the japs, the combined power of the Japanese and Germans would have been crushing, especially without lend lease to keep help keep Moscow supplied during the initial push and siege. I think it can be said that Moscow almost fell (the Germans were stopped only miles short) with lend lease and without the extra pressure that an unfettered Japan would have exerted.
I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the capabilities of the Japanese war machine and it's threat to the Russians. When the Japanese and the Russians did meet in the early stages of the war in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, the result was an overwhelming defeat of the Japanese that saw the Japanese sign a non-aggression pact and turn their focus entirely to the south. The Japanese had a first rate navy but the Imperial army was grossly under supported and had no effective tactical doctrines for overcoming a modern military. The Japanese only managed to survive against the US due to the difficulty of capturing islands, as Guadalcanal shows the Japanese were not capable of initiating an effective military offensive against a prepated, effective resistance.
For the rest of the war the Japanese were stuck piling more and more troops into China, even without the US and their incredibly effective submarine campaign, the Japanese were not capable of moving North against Russia.
By the end of the war, when the Russians turned their attention East, you see what happens when a serious war machine takes on an Imperialist power dependant on it's navy in a land war. In the week of the atomic bomb being dropped, 1.6 million Soviets piled over the border, within a few days they'd killed almost a hundred thousand Japanese troops for the loss of about ten thousand, and gotten within 50 miles of Japan's northern most island.
Seriously, outside of Axis and Allies there was no real issue of Japan being any more than a nuisance to Russia.
As soon as the russians realised the japanese,were not going to attack from the east.
All those troops stationed in sibera were sent westward to fight the germans.
Used to fighting in cold weather, they had better equipment.
The t34/76 had wide tracks to travel over the snow, Where the german tanks were designed for western europes more temperate climate.
I.E. Narrow tracks smaller tanks for fighting in built up areas. When the german panzer III /IVs czech 38ts came up against the russians they were outclassed.
North Africa was a sideshow in military terms but it was politically important because it kept the British physically in the war and got the Americans into combat against the Germans as early as possible.
), but I think it's worth mentioning. What I want is for our government to to make the correct decisions that will give the fighting men and women of our country the best chance of coming home to their loved ones without a flag draped over them. All politics aside, mate.
Andrew 
.
). The British Isles could have persevered for several years without the Russian invasion. So long as the 