www.ditl.org

Aye, all one big melting pot of one thing we didn't have in abundance: cold, hard cash.

So what the hell do you plan to do if someone decides to mess with something of yours?

So what the hell do you plan to do if someone decides to mess with something of yours?

The politicos take the gamble that it won't happen. If it does... well the Falklands happened when we just barely had enough Navy left to do something about it. If the Argentines had waited another couple of years we probably would have had to cede the islands.

The really annoying thing is that there's no party you can vote for that will give the military genuine increases. The conservatives sell themselves as the party of defence, but historically they haven't done that well. I only wish somebody would step up and say "We're fighting wars; military budgets need a hefty increase, NOW."

It's not as if the public don't want it either. I know pretty much everyone I ask says that the military needs better equipment. I admit, I live in a town that is heavily linked with the navy (Gosport is just across the harbour from one of the largest UK naval bases in Portsmouth) but it still says something.

Oh okay. So basically you're just fraked, got it.

I think its high time the US let Japan start rearming in force again if the UK is a roll over now.

Deepcrush wrote:So what the hell do you plan to do if someone decides to mess with something of yours?

The same thing we did in '82 - drop everything else, commandeer half the merchant fleet, bundle every squaddie we can find into a boat and charge south. The one thing the British armed forces have going for them is the quality of their people - they're always too small, badly equipped, and in the wrong place, but manage to win despite that.

The problems with this method are that 1) it requires us to abandon all our other commitments for the duration of hostilities and 2) it gets far more people killed than if we'd been able to apply adequate resources and equipment.

Yeah, good luck with that. Really! I wish you guys the best for that plan.

It's worked for centuries. Sort of. It would, however, be nice if, for once, some fucking politician got the brainwave of equipping the armed forces for the wars they're likely to have to fight, rather than those that some idiot in Whitehall thinks they're going to fight.

Umm, not so much. The UK used to have a standing military that mattered.

Deepcrush wrote:Umm, not so much. The UK used to have a standing military that mattered.

We still have. The fact that it's inadequate to fulfil its obligations doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most powerful in the world.

Historically, the armed forces have always been badly supported in times of peace - "Tommy this and Tommy that", as Kipling so ably put it. The navy was generally treated better, although that didn't necessarily mean it was of the quality and quantity required, but the army was generally treated like shit. The only war I can think of that we went into decently prepared was WW1, and that turned to ratshit after the old BEF was wrecked at 1st Ypres and we had to build up a continental-style army from nothing. Most of the rest we went into poorly prepared and without enough people - the reason the impression of quality is given is because the wars tended to last long enough to build up and reorganise into the force needed.

With regard to the navy too, at the time where we were at our prime, it was entirely because of the navy for various reasons. Trade, slave trade, colonization, naval policing...to manage a territory the size of which the British Empire possessed in it's height, the navy would have had top priority. Hell, the only reason we had an empire at all was because of the navy.

...one of the largest ships in the world? Did the article maker forget about the Aircraft Carriers?

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:...one of the largest ships in the world? Did the article maker forget about the Aircraft Carriers?

8000 tons is still bloody big, regardless of the fact that bigger warships exist.

Captain Seafort wrote:We still have. The fact that it's inadequate to fulfil its obligations doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most powerful in the world.

Some how I find it hard to believe that. The "One of the most powerful in the world" part. Is the UK even in the top ten?

USA, Russia, India, China, Israel... So umm, not top five at least. Who am I missing?

Depends somewhat on how you define "powerful". One can have a navy with many ships and lots of weapons, but no ability to operate them at great distances. The Royal Navy can sail significant numbers of ships to any point in the ocean and conduct military operations there. That's something very few other navies can do.