Bluefish2009 wrote:
This site may be of interest to some
http://www.globalfirepower.com/
http://britam.org/stats/MM.html
This site may be of interest to some
http://www.globalfirepower.com/
http://britam.org/stats/MM.html
Thank you.
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,389,800
- Online Now:
- 1,999
- Msgs Sent:
- 157,443,049
- Photo Ads:
- 745,626
- User Pics:
- 579,536
- Video Chat:
- 170
Bluefish2009 wrote:
The wife told me size does not matter
Dave__Notts wrote:
203,000 in the US Marine Corps, just one of seven military arms of the US Forces.
113,000 in the whole British Army.
Yep I can see why you think we are still first rate. The armed forces would agree that it would be a tad stupid to take on a force this size and expect to win. We could hold our own mano a mano but times have changed and our military capability has reduced to a state that we are unable to support fully the theatres we go into. That is not first rate to me.
Dave_Notts
kentswingers777 wrote:
Bang on the money Essex.
A third rate military? I think most of the armed forces would find that offensive in itself.
essex34m wrote:
Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
Dave__Notts wrote:
We have been a second rate military since 1945.
We have been a second rate military since 1945.
Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
Bang on the money Essex.
A third rate military? I think most of the armed forces would find that offensive in itself.
203,000 in the US Marine Corps, just one of seven military arms of the US Forces.
113,000 in the whole British Army.
Yep I can see why you think we are still first rate. The armed forces would agree that it would be a tad stupid to take on a force this size and expect to win. We could hold our own mano a mano but times have changed and our military capability has reduced to a state that we are unable to support fully the theatres we go into. That is not first rate to me.
Dave_Notts
The wife told me size does not matter
Well just like the cheques in the post she may have erm,been economical with the truth
essex34m wrote:
They are not just infantry, their selection, training and roles does make them elite, and they are not the equivalent, by your definition, because they are not infantry, they are the envy the world over, and to say otherwise shows a significant amount of ignorance to their operational activities.
They are not just infantry, their selection, training and roles does make them elite, and they are not the equivalent, by your definition, because they are not infantry, they are the envy the world over, and to say otherwise shows a significant amount of ignorance to their operational activities.
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve. Other Regiments that are serving on operations would look at this statement that they are inferior to the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marine Commandos and wet themselves laughing. Each believes/knows they are the best and each has proved themselves capable to do the job that is required of them. For example the Staffs (now Mercians) were at Arnhem but public memory puts it down to a Parachute Regiment operation only. Commandos was originally an army term that was adopted by the Royal Marines. Normal infanteers that volunteered.
So I believe I have said otherwise, and showed that I do not have ignorance of the regiments that have done the job.
essex34m wrote:
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.
History taught Hitler and Napolean in a full scale war that it is right.
Individual battles are different though. The time of a single battle to decide the war passed us by from the 16th Century onwards. From that time on it has usually been the mightiest that has won. The only exception is when the armed forces could not consolidate the ground. Most famous is Japan in China in the 30's, France and USA in Vietnam in the 50's and 60's...........and time will tell with us in Afganistan. Without getting a solid political will in the region then all this will be in vain.
Dave_Notts
Dave__Notts wrote:
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
essex34m wrote:
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.
History taught Hitler and Napolean in a full scale war that it is right.
Individual battles are different though. The time of a single battle to decide the war passed us by from the 16th Century onwards. From that time on it has usually been the mightiest that has won. The only exception is when the armed forces could not consolidate the ground. Most famous is Japan in China in the 30's, France and USA in Vietnam in the 50's and 60's...........and time will tell with us in Afganistan. Without getting a solid political will in the region then all this will be in vain.
Dave_Notts[/quote]
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
essex34m wrote:
I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
Dave__Notts wrote:
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
I agree with the true elite troops i.e. SAS/SEALS/GSG-9/Spetsnaz/etc but the Paras, Marines, Gurkas do no different to any other infantry regiment except by the way they get to the battlefield. They take it, consolidate and defend. Same as all other infantry.
essex34m wrote:
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
The Finns had some spectacular successes though and these tactics were copied by the Russians against the Germans in the 40's, where weight of numbers won the day again.
Dave__Notts wrote:
I agree with the true elite troops i.e. SAS/SEALS/GSG-9/Spetsnaz/etc but the Paras, Marines, Gurkas do no different to any other infantry regiment except by the way they get to the battlefield. They take it, consolidate and defend. Same as all other infantry.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
The Finns had some spectacular successes though and these tactics were copied by the Russians against the Germans in the 40's, where weight of numbers won the day again.
essex34m wrote:
I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
Dave__Notts wrote:
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.
I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
I agree with the true elite troops i.e. SAS/SEALS/GSG-9/Spetsnaz/etc but the Paras, Marines, Gurkas do no different to any other infantry regiment except by the way they get to the battlefield. They take it, consolidate and defend. Same as all other infantry.
essex34m wrote:
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
The Finns had some spectacular successes though and these tactics were copied by the Russians against the Germans in the 40's, where weight of numbers won the day again.
Surely some of this is subjective.
My father fought alongside the Gurkas during WW2, he held them in the highest regard as probably one of the finest fighting men on this planet. Highly trained, highly motivated, and fearless. Just one mans view I know.
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Surely some of this is subjective.
My father fought alongside the Gurkas during WW2, he held them in the highest regard as probably one of the finest fighting men on this planet. Highly trained, highly motivated, and fearless. Just one mans view I know.
Surely some of this is subjective.
My father fought alongside the Gurkas during WW2, he held them in the highest regard as probably one of the finest fighting men on this planet. Highly trained, highly motivated, and fearless. Just one mans view I know.
Exactly. They are all infantry and mano a mano do a great job.
Have a read about the Glorious Gloucesters a tad after WW2. Each Regiment has its finest hour........even the enemies.
Dave_Notts
The Chinese have a saying;
"Quanity brings it's own quality"
John
"Quanity brings it's own quality"
John
Yes and this is a valid point John.
I think its just we all measure things in different ways.
For instance, if one has 2 pints of a quality real ale on one table and 5 pints of cheep lager on another table. If I drink the five pints of lager I would be far more drunk than drinking the 2 quality ales, But the ales are still the better ones. Well thats an insight into how my brain works
And I see the army in the same way, they may loose a battle if out numbered but they were still the better warrior.....
Or maybe its just because I am British
Last edited by on 14th Sep 2010 - 5:57pm; edited 1 time in total
I think its just we all measure things in different ways.
For instance, if one has 2 pints of a quality real ale on one table and 5 pints of cheep lager on another table. If I drink the five pints of lager I would be far more drunk than drinking the 2 quality ales, But the ales are still the better ones. Well thats an insight into how my brain works
And I see the army in the same way, they may loose a battle if out numbered but they were still the better warrior.....
Or maybe its just because I am British
Last edited by on 14th Sep 2010 - 5:57pm; edited 1 time in total
Dave__Notts wrote:
The Russians won by weight of numbers
essex34m wrote:
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Or maybe its just because I am British
Or maybe its just because I am British
That is the main reason.
Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Dave__Notts wrote:
The Russians won by weight of numbers
essex34m wrote:
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The link you supplied showed that the Finns lost and had to cede 11% of its country to the Russians.
The weight of numbers paid off as the Russians could keep sending their infantry to their deaths and had the manpower to replace them........where as the Finns couldn't.
The Winter War is studied to show how less can defend, but ultimately in an attritional war the numbers pay off.
So the Russians won by weight of numbers and forced the Finns into a humiliating armitice. So much so that they joined the Germans to fight the Russians a year or so latter. What they signed up to was to advance up to their original borders and they did not go any further i.e. just north of Leningrad.
Dave_Notts
Dave__Notts wrote:
The link you supplied showed that the Finns lost and had to cede 11% of its country to the Russians.
The weight of numbers paid off as the Russians could keep sending their infantry to their deaths and had the manpower to replace them........where as the Finns couldn't.
The Winter War is studied to show how less can defend, but ultimately in an attritional war the numbers pay off.
So the Russians won by weight of numbers and forced the Finns into a humiliating armitice. So much so that they joined the Germans to fight the Russians a year or so latter. What they signed up to was to advance up to their original borders and they did not go any further i.e. just north of Leningrad.
Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Dave__Notts wrote:
The Russians won by weight of numbers
essex34m wrote:
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.
The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The link you supplied showed that the Finns lost and had to cede 11% of its country to the Russians.
The weight of numbers paid off as the Russians could keep sending their infantry to their deaths and had the manpower to replace them........where as the Finns couldn't.
The Winter War is studied to show how less can defend, but ultimately in an attritional war the numbers pay off.
So the Russians won by weight of numbers and forced the Finns into a humiliating armitice. So much so that they joined the Germans to fight the Russians a year or so latter. What they signed up to was to advance up to their original borders and they did not go any further i.e. just north of Leningrad.
Dave_Notts
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
essex34m wrote:
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.
Dave_Notts
In answer to the original post
As a lifelong pacifist I find myself in a dilemma in that it's against my beliefs to prepare for agression BUT......the economic shambles that exists makes the subsequent boost to the economy pretty important.
Thinking longer term.....without this investment.....and assuming some of the dire forecasts for the economy could prove accurate....I'm also fearful that riots ....or worse.....could be the end result if such investments are NOT made.
As it seems unlikely that this present government are likely to invest in such projects to the scale where it would have a significant impact on any strife.......Where do I go to follow my principles???
As a lifelong pacifist I find myself in a dilemma in that it's against my beliefs to prepare for agression BUT......the economic shambles that exists makes the subsequent boost to the economy pretty important.
Thinking longer term.....without this investment.....and assuming some of the dire forecasts for the economy could prove accurate....I'm also fearful that riots ....or worse.....could be the end result if such investments are NOT made.
As it seems unlikely that this present government are likely to invest in such projects to the scale where it would have a significant impact on any strife.......Where do I go to follow my principles???
Dave__Notts wrote:
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
Geordiecpl2001 wrote:
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
Dave__Notts wrote:
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
The one thing that makes me wonder is why did we declare war on Germany who invaded from the west on 1st September but did not declare war on Russia who invaded from the east on 17th September 1939.
Dave_Notts
Dave__Notts wrote:
The one thing that makes me wonder is why did we declare war on Germany who invaded from the west on 1st September but did not declare war on Russia who invaded from the east on 17th September 1939.
Dave_Notts
Geordiecpl2001 wrote:
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
Dave__Notts wrote:
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
The one thing that makes me wonder is why did we declare war on Germany who invaded from the west on 1st September but did not declare war on Russia who invaded from the east on 17th September 1939.
Dave_Notts
Because by 17th September Polish collapse was a fait accompli so Stalin could argue he was only securing his Eastern Border.
awayman wrote:
Because by 17th September Polish collapse was a fait accompli so Stalin could argue he was only securing his Eastern Border.
Dave__Notts wrote:
The one thing that makes me wonder is why did we declare war on Germany who invaded from the west on 1st September but did not declare war on Russia who invaded from the east on 17th September 1939.
Dave_Notts
Geordiecpl2001 wrote:
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
Dave__Notts wrote:
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
essex34m wrote:
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.
But going back to the original point and looking at these two factions........
The Finns were the best infantry and had the best tactics. Yet they still lost. A shame really, but being selfish I am glad they did as Britain was just about to send troops to aid the Finns. Thankfully we never went to war with the Russians.Dave_Notts
Ah, but what if, in 1939 Mr A Hitler had been real clever and said to Joe Stalin, "we'll both invade Poland together on 1st Sept"............then Hitler didn't !!!
Imagine if the Soviet Army had stormed into Poland, would Britain and France have declared war on the USSR? Then Mr Hitler could have come in on our side !!
John
The one thing that makes me wonder is why did we declare war on Germany who invaded from the west on 1st September but did not declare war on Russia who invaded from the east on 17th September 1939.
Dave_Notts
Because by 17th September Polish collapse was a fait accompli so Stalin could argue he was only securing his Eastern Border.
That was the excuse the British Gov came up with to explain it away from the link up there ^^^^^.
We know now and they did then this was not true.........so why didn't they?
Gutless? Or knew they could never take on the USSR?
Dave_Notts
Speed of defence review 'could put operations at risk'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11306982
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11306982
