Jump to content

firefly1

Members
  • Posts

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by firefly1

  1. . One "small" problem with the above is that the Nazi's did not just restrict themselves to obliterating the Jews. They were also intent on killing off as many "Untermenschen" as they could. They killed an awful lot more Russians (both civilians and POWs) than jews.
  2. . Yes, see : http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Champion-Top-Tanks-World/dp/0811714373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422191441&sr=1-1&keywords=Armored+Champion Also ; http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Factory-Military-Development-Establishment/dp/0750961228/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422191605&sr=1-4&keywords=development+tanks http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tanks-General-Military-Richard-Ogorkiewicz/dp/1472806700/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422191919&sr=1-1 And ; "Canada's Pride - the Ram Tank and its Variants" See about halfway down ; http://www.servicepub.com/
  3. . Out of date, already. He should have said "frigates". See ; http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/navy-ships-idUSL1N0UU1GU20150115 Jan 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on Thursday said the Navy would rename the modified Littoral Combat Ships it plans to build in coming years as "frigates," given their enhanced capabilities. "One of the requirements of the Small Surface Combatant Task Force was to have a ship with frigate-like capabilities. Well, if it's like a frigate, why don't we call it a frigate?" Mabus told the annual conference of the Surface Navy Association. Mabus said the changed designation would apply primarily to the next 20 ships to be built, but 32 earlier Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) that have either been built or ordered would also be reclassified if and when they are retrofitted with additional weapons. .
  4. . Another nail in the coffin of the deniers' folly ; http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ .
  5. . Name me one country that isn't. .
  6. ........... I note you ignored the other points about how the BBC is basically a Foreign Office tool, and indeed was funded by them............. Oh dear ........ AND YOU have now ignored your own (selective) quote. The Foreign Office during the Cold War paid for PART of the WORLD SERVICE to broadcast truthful factual and cultural programmes to countries it wanted to influence or to counter propaganda from other countries. Editorially the content was under BBC, not Foreign Office control. Most of the World Service was broadcasting to Commonwealth or other countries (including the USA) where English language programmes would be appreciated and to colonies/independent states where a mixture of English and local language programmes were broadcast. It was NEVER like "Voice of America" (which the British tought of as anti-productive. It would SEEM that it is now you who are being deceptive by selectively quoting yourself and trying to mislead people. ---------------- ( Just to remind you - the relevant part of YOUR original quote from post 10469 ; Were you even aware of the Foreign Offices involvement in funding the BBC that just recently ended. Well, officially ended at least.... ) .
  7. . How many millenia has China remained "a single stable entity" ? .
  8. . What a weird way of looking at international relations. It especially doesn't fit with Indian sentiments (at least up to the 1990s) where non-alignment was seen as important. India (in a sense continuing British concerns when they were there) looked at Russia, but mainly China, as nuclear neighbours who had to be considered in all matters (much as American pressure had to be considered). In championing the Non-Aligned Movement India was attempting a realpolitik version of neutrality - somehow that upset America and they turned to Pakistan and turned them into a militaristic monster. .
  9. . Only speaking for the UK, no I think we see the military and civilian as much more of a whole - more on a level. The rather weird way that the US speaks of and treats the military harks back to the 19th century and earlier where somehow being in the military was meant to elevate someone.
  10. . The framing of the question suggests that India’s and China’s good standing in the international community are contingent upon whether the US shall continue to permit this state of affairs to continue. .................... .............................. With respect to India’s standing and how that could change, I do not know. My hunch is that under other geopolitical circumstances, the United States could have confronted India – perhaps with severe consequences for Indian stability - on its illegal nuclear weapons program. And didn’t it illegally annex territory from Pakistan in the 1970’s? Anyways, the overall impression is that India’s best asset has been its generally compatible interests with both the west and Russia. ........................ . You should remember some of the USA's more peculiar decisions in the Cold War. India (as a minor part of the legacy of Gandhi) decided to be non-Aligned during the Cold War, and indeed was a leading member of the Non-Aligned Movement. This expression of "free will" and "freedom of expression" got the US all upset and they started supporting Pakistan as a way of pressuring India. All this led to a downwards spiral whereby India gradually went away from western (mainly UK) supplied military equipment towards Soviet (and indigenous) equipment but they maintained their democracy. HOWEVER, Pakistan with mainly US supplies and influence gradually went into militarisation and has ended up the basket case that it is now (especially their intelligence organisation). The idea that India (the world's largest democracy) somehow needs America's permission to be accepted by the international community is odd, to say the least. .
  11. .............. They also ignore that I long opposed the ABM system because I predicted just the kind of silliness that it did lead to. ........ ........... Despite that, I still find Putin's actions unjustifiable, and I note that im not alone in this belief. Good Lord, even Angela Merkel agrees with me it seems, and she is about as sympathetic an audience that Putin might find. That he has even estranged her I find quite telling. Even the French are utterly hacked off with Putin, and they were sitting in his pocket in 2003. Not to mention the Japanese. Australians. Malays, Dutch................. Yes. I wish this site had "agree" (or disagree) buttons. .
  12. Even during the Cold War, I think it's fair to say that the US was the prevailing judge on justice within the western side vs SU. .......... . Only to the US ! ( Much like the rather weird idea of being the "leader of the free world" ). .
  13. . Well, the British Government did similar with Marmite (!) - they used the Marmite fermenting equipment to produce anthrax in WW2. NOW you know why you "either love it, or hate it" as their advertising says. .
  14. . The British wanted open bridges for night-fighting (AND there were certainly traditional views that the officer conning the ship should be exposed to the weather. Experience in Norway against dive bombers meant that ships open bridges were cleared of overhead obstructions (where necessary/possible) and air defence positions might be expanded. US observers took this experience back to the USN and SUPPOSEDLY some mods to USN ships were put in hand. Enclosing bridges started towards the end of WW2, BUT the proper redesigns occurred in the early/mid-50s with "ABC" protection considerations (Atomic/Biological/Chemical) including wash-down. This led to, at the extreme the conning of frigates from the Ops room (with periscope) with a small conning/observation position on the front face of the bridge ; http://www.leander-project.homecall.co.uk/Leander/Berwick.jpg .
  15. . The problem the Argentinians have is that they need to put RAF Stanley out of action AND get a large amphibious force to the islands before the RN can get one or two nuclear subs down there. The Su-24s are NOT enough, unless they have some wonderful stand-off weapon which will destroy Stanley's runways (or fuel system or similar .....). Also, further Typhoons, and Tornadoes, or whatever can quite quickly be sent "down south". IF the Argentinians try an "out of the blue" attack it then comes down to a race between RN nuclear submarines and Argentinian mobilisation and shipping - I doubt that many would bet on the Argentinians at the present. IF they had the money and REAL desire maybe 10 years would be a different matter. .
  16. . First, "Americans" should remember that socialism and communism are different things, Communism is a subset of Socialism. The Kibbutz movement was much more an idealised version of socialism ( IN that sense "Marxism") than anything to do with Communism. It came from the European intellectual movement. .
  17. . For the French and British "Dig, Dig, Dig" and "manufacture, manufacture, manufacture" - prepare for defence until a major push in 1916 or 1917 - wear down any German attacks and try to increase the blockade. For Germany, withdraw down to minimal levels on most of the front, concentrate supplies, armaments and men on two or more main attack points - all out attacks when the weather is set fair (late spring ?). Keep Allies under artillery fire.
  18. . Yes, the way the US has acted on the tanker contract HAS affected UK politicians (remember the UK makes the wings). Also the software "negotiations" for the F-35 REALLY did affect UK military attitudes to the USA. .
  19. . Whilst militarily I TOTALLY agree, the way the US has used politics in various deals actually works in favour of the Airbus option(s). .
  20. . There is an awful lot of politics in the choice of a future MRA - either "American" (Boeing P-8A Poseidon) or European (Airbus A319/320) or even the "cheaper" Airbus C-295 ASW. Some want US compatibility, some want more friendly upgrades from Europe, some look at the US Tanker competition and see problems. It will be 75% politics, 20% money and 5% real capabilities. Nothing about modern UK defence procurement makes military sense. .
  21. . Whether you believe the public announcements or not, but supposedly most of the Sosus network was decommissioned about a decade ago. There are RUMOURS of new ones in more active areas and even of semi-mobile installations, but whether this is sane or insane I have NO idea. .
  22. . There's a Fairey Swordfish readily available from the RN's Historic Flight. ------------- More seriously, I doubt the story about the periscope, but the idea that the UK needs to ask allies to patrol its own territorial waters is utterly disgusting - I hope Cameron and Osborne are cringing. . Not only is the problem the lack of Maritime Reconnaissance Aircraft, but the main surface ASW asset, the Type 23's are so stretched (due to lack of surface ship numbers) that they TEND not to have Merlin ASW helicopters on board and don't have their "tails". Pretty dire for the navy which until relatively recently prided itself on its quality of ASW. .
  23. . There are lots of videos and pictures, e.g. http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/300768-low-level-wales-12th-13th-nov-07-a.html http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/316110-lfa-7-wales-low-level-27th-28th-29th-feb-08-a.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289185/Navigators-gag-amuses-plane-spotters-fighter-jet-races-Snowdonia.html And this is an excellent compilation page (but there are some nearly unbelievable ones in it) my favourite is the Sunderland doing a "touch (scrape) and go) with the dramatic Lightning and Bucaneer a close 2nd and third. How the Mig 17 survived I do not know. http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/en-CA/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx ( The YouTube videos have LOTS of links to all sorts of aircraft. ) .
  24. . Such euphemistic type swearing was VERY common in the 1950s (and indeed still continues but to a much lesser degree). I am NOT saying that such places as military bases, heavy industry and pubs weren't full of swear words, but in public spaces, by and large, you heard hardly any (even street markets) - it was seen as unacceptable. There were lots of the "polite" (?) alternatives, but words like bloody, sod, bastard all still were shocking (in public). These things were changing, but (for instance) a recent episode of "Grantchester" (set in the late 50's showed a senior policeman swearing at a vicar in public in a Police Station. Such behaviour would have had him up before the Chief Constable THEN, despite the fact that that evening ALL the policemen would be swearing at all the drunks in custody. .
×
×
  • Create New...