Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Roman, UK is still in the top ten on that list, nothing to be ashamed of.

I am a little surprised to see Brazil ranked as high as they are. Maybe that list is a little suspect?

 

I am NOT bashing Russia in any form. I am using it as a yardstick for nations that have an influence far in excess of their capacity. Russia is number one by a long shot.

 

Also, regarding China

Russia and the rest of the world ignores Chinese growth at their peril.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the E type has a problem. It's skin is so thin it rusted if you looked at it. Even worse, mechanics restoring it hate it. It's just so bloody awkward to put together.

 

The mini is another good example. Enzo Ferrari said of the copper mini, if it wasn't so ugly, he would have killed himself. But Ferrari made money on his cars. BL didn't. It lost money on every mini made in the 60s. People forget that now, but it is the cornerstone of the problem.

I say Landrover survived everything that British senior management could throw at it. Landrover was the only node of Leyland making money, so instead of reinvesting it into their money making product, they sucked it dry and failed to keep up, so eventually Landrover lost out to Toyota and Mercedes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to get nasty, is there? :D

I had a GT6+ back in the day. The designer should have been shot. Rear radius rods attached to the floor pan and no reinforcement. 3 years and they were no longer attached to the floor pan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman, UK is still in the top ten on that list, nothing to be ashamed of.

I am a little surprised to see Brazil ranked as high as they are. Maybe that list is a little suspect?

 

I am NOT bashing Russia in any form. I am using it as a yardstick for nations that have an influence far in excess of their capacity. Russia is number one by a long shot.

 

Also, regarding China

Russia and the rest of the world ignores Chinese growth at their peril.

For assessing a countries economic strength, both ppp and nominal need to be considered. For domestic activities, PPP is better. Pay for soldiers and workers and any domestically produced food and energy will be drawing from the PPP rate. Nominal rate takes into account the differences of strength of various currencies. So buying items abroad be it energy, high tech, machinery, military equipment, food from abroad, will be drawing from the nominal GDP rating. If a country has a weak currency but still has domestic energy and a military industry, than trucking a long on only high PPP with low nominal is workable. Pretty much only Russia has that. Brazil doesn't have such a military industry and doesn't have so much of the domestic energy. So for Brazil, nominal is more accurate to assess their power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing India combined with the hobbling effect of the dependency created by the economic exploitation of it from 1765 to the 1930s certainly should be considered a factor. That this would not prepare a nation and its people well for economic takeoff in the post colonial era is not surprising in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

British empire oil source was probably secured in the various stages of autonomy in Iraq and Persia tbroughout the 30s and 40s. Maybe that secure level was lost in both countries in the 1950s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lucas was way ahead of its time. They wisely began preparing the British people for post-apocalyptic life, when motor vehicles will be static displays, and the only light will come from oil lamps run by rendered rats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the E type has a problem. It's skin is so thin it rusted if you looked at it. Even worse, mechanics restoring it hate it. It's just so bloody awkward to put together.

 

The mini is another good example. Enzo Ferrari said of the copper mini, if it wasn't so ugly, he would have killed himself. But Ferrari made money on his cars. BL didn't. It lost money on every mini made in the 60s. People forget that now, but it is the cornerstone of the problem.

I say Landrover survived everything that British senior management could throw at it. Landrover was the only node of Leyland making money, so instead of reinvesting it into their money making product, they sucked it dry and failed to keep up, so eventually Landrover lost out to Toyota and Mercedes.

 

 

Im astonished it survived the British Leyland era looking back. They screwed up everything they touched.

 

There is perhaps a case for saying it survived because they didnt need to innovate. It was a fairly isolated part of the market (Farmers didnt want frills) and it got by with fairly modest advancements from the 88, tot he 109, to the defender. Its notable though there seems to be much more drive in it post 1978. I remember going into a landrover dealer in the early 1980's, and they had a big drive with lots of fancy brochures and the like.

 

But now, they are seriously innovating. Jaguar landrover are going to setup an electric vehicle plant in the UK, which is a promising development.

https://www.business-reporter.co.uk/2019/07/10/jaguar-land-rover-to-build-electric-cars-at-uk-plant/

 

 

Lucas was way ahead of its time. They wisely began preparing the British people for post-apocalyptic life, when motor vehicles will be static displays, and the only light will come from oil lamps run by rendered rats.

 

I can still recall my father in the late 1970's cursing whilst trying to get his Ford Cortina MkIII started in the wet. The words 'HT Leads' were firmly impressed on my early vocabulary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing India combined with the hobbling effect of the dependency created by the economic exploitation of it from 1765 to the 1930s certainly should be considered a factor. That this would not prepare a nation and its people well for economic takeoff in the post colonial era is not surprising in various ways.

 

Come on, that is absolutely not true. If Britain was dependent on it, it wouldn't have inovated the industrial revolution. We would just have done what spain did, kick up its heals and live off its Empire. I would argue the Empire was as much a drive for industrial inovation as territorial Britain. itself. Look at how many railways we built in India, or quite how much track we laid across Africa. In fact I seem to recall we developed new industrial dyes, despite having the ones from India, because the price of the ones from India was too expensive to ship. The Indian economy took a dive on that one I believe.

 

Did we get hit when India left? Yes, but I would argue losing the oil producing nations of the middle east was a greater hit. The WORST hit, the one everyone ignores, is we had an EU like safe trading area from Australia to the Bahama's. Its no surprise British industry declined when we gave the American's access to that trading area, and more importantly, when we lost that territory entirely. If there was a lack of innovation in British industry, it might be partly due to our having a secure base, and not needing to innovate. Besides, the 1930s, and the 1940's were not exactly the right time to learn.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no reason to get nasty, is there? :D

I had a GT6+ back in the day. The designer should have been shot. Rear radius rods attached to the floor pan and no reinforcement. 3 years and they were no longer attached to the floor pan.

 

 

There was a television documentary on about a Triumph Stag restoration some years ago. Now the Stag was an elegant vehicle, that really should have been the rennaisance of British Leyland. But it had a reputation as a dog, and it was plagued with engine problems. But they remain popular, largely due the Italian styling.

 

Restorers have different approaches. Some people put an American V8 in it, which is what it was designed for, not the 2 Triumph Dolomite engines welded together it got (I exaggerate, but not much). Some people put a new aftermarket fan on it. But the guys restoring this one on TV tried a different approach. They put it back as it was supposed to be built. They purged the system, bolted it together properly, and they had absolutely no problem's with it. None. Which just goes to show, how bad the production standards were at BL. They took a solid design and utterly ruined it in assembly.

 

British Middle Management. Once upon a time we could export them to the colonies to be slaughtered in their droves by the unruly populace, now we have to give the buggers jobs. No wonder the country took a nose dive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me how older land rover owners in east europe talk that this was such a nostalgia trip, like in soviet cars, after you got the brand new vehicle, first thing you took the wrench and re-tightened every nut

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the size of the armed forces is very fitting to the economic strength and threat level the UK faces. The mission and expectations just do not match with the economic reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman, UK is still in the top ten on that list, nothing to be ashamed of.

No disrespect at all - as for me (and as i said in the beginning) UK is performing quite good for country of its size and position, and i do not think it is "broke" . Yes UK is no more on position to challenge China or even Russia near Chinese or Russian borders\waters - so what, why should they be able to? Spain is also unable to (even dealing with Gibraltar is problem for Spain) but they somehow live with it. UK is in better position as the world we now live in is to great extent shaped by British Empire to make it convenient for UK both in terms of business and culture and will stay like that for another couple of generations at least, if not forever.

I think the problem is UK Gov still somehow feel they are to flex their muscles from Donetsk (once founded by Britt) to Capetown to HongKong while this task is far above their means.

 

 

Also, regarding China

Russia and the rest of the world ignores Chinese growth at their peril.

I think it is high time for another quote representing official Rus position on China growth and relations with China

https://youtu.be/FbY0VpyjtuI?t=987

 

 

on China’s maritime strength

https://youtu.be/FbY0VpyjtuI?t=1691

Edited by Roman Alymov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joan must have slipped something in my coffee this morning because I'm sitting here nodding in agreement with everything Stuart and Roman are saying. :)

 

We are not broke. It has nothing to do with socialism. There are very successful economies out there, far more socialised than ours that deliver far better services and lifestyles and happiness for their citizens and still have reasonable to downright outstanding defences. Introducing socialism into a debate is usually about one step up from comparing your opponent to Hitler and just as productive.

 

Our (ironically named) defence posture is largely built around the notion that joining up with Uncle Sam and a few of the usual subjects and sticking the boot in far from home against relatively defenceless opponents will hasten the Worlds inevitable progress toward secular western style democracy and capitalism. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different outcome from the bloody chaos that inevitably ensues.

 

Confronting or even attacking China, in her own back yard and even with "allies". Let's not go there. I mean REALLY not go there. Ever.

 

Closer to home, we are meant to be helping defend Europe from Russia, yet there are obvious problems with this scenario.

 

Firstly I can see no motivation for Russia invading and an awful lot for them to lose. Secondly, their interest appears confined to areas formerly within the Soviet Union with large "ethnic Russian" populations. Lastly, Russia has demonstrated the means to attack us conventionally in ways that would massively disrupt our economy without resorting to nukes. There will be no possible, let alone economically viable defence against these kinds of attack for decades if ever and their capacity to mount them is steadily increasing. Having five Apache helicopters and a platoon of MBTs in situ only gives their propagandists photo opportunities. Some of the things the US has been doing have been highly provocative. B52s over Estonia and armed US serviceman posing for photos with the Neva river behind them. Would Uncle Sam tolerate this kind of behaviour if Mexico or Canada were Russian allies?

 

So, we can save a fortune and lots of lives by not doing out of area at the whim of the US. Since we are unwilling to entertain the changes to society and defence posture necessary to confront Russia, we can at least stop poking them with a stick.

 

At the moment, our armed forces exist as they are largely through institutional and cultural inerta/momentum. There is no will to have a sensible national debate about what the strategy should be going forward and how we create and maintain the force structure necessary to implement it. Expect to see more of the same, but with ever less personnel and platforms to accomplish it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Closer to home, we are meant to be helping defend Europe from Russia, yet there are obvious problems with this scenario.

 

Firstly I can see no motivation for Russia invading and an awful lot for them to lose.

 

I don't see the motivation either. But I've seen the motivation of taking the Krim only after 2014, and I have no access to what Putin really thinks, believes, wants. Professional defense planning shouldn't circulate around intents, but must focus on capabilities. Russia has certain capabilities that make it a threat to the Baltic Republics especially, so NATO better be prepared to neutralize such capability (other than by threatening with nuclear retaliation, a doctrine that stopped sounding convincingly as early as in the 1960s).

Edited by Ssnake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joan must have slipped something in my coffee this morning because I'm sitting here nodding in agreement with everything Stuart and Roman are saying. :)

 

We are not broke. It has nothing to do with socialism. There are very successful economies out there, far more socialised than ours that deliver far better services and lifestyles and happiness for their citizens and still have reasonable to downright outstanding defences. Introducing socialism into a debate is usually about one step up from comparing your opponent to Hitler and just as productive.

 

Our (ironically named) defence posture is largely built around the notion that joining up with Uncle Sam and a few of the usual subjects and sticking the boot in far from home against relatively defenceless opponents will hasten the Worlds inevitable progress toward secular western style democracy and capitalism. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different outcome from the bloody chaos that inevitably ensues.

 

Confronting or even attacking China, in her own back yard and even with "allies". Let's not go there. I mean REALLY not go there. Ever.

 

Closer to home, we are meant to be helping defend Europe from Russia, yet there are obvious problems with this scenario.

 

Firstly I can see no motivation for Russia invading and an awful lot for them to lose. Secondly, their interest appears confined to areas formerly within the Soviet Union with large "ethnic Russian" populations. Lastly, Russia has demonstrated the means to attack us conventionally in ways that would massively disrupt our economy without resorting to nukes. There will be no possible, let alone economically viable defence against these kinds of attack for decades if ever and their capacity to mount them is steadily increasing. Having five Apache helicopters and a platoon of MBTs in situ only gives their propagandists photo opportunities. Some of the things the US has been doing have been highly provocative. B52s over Estonia and armed US serviceman posing for photos with the Neva river behind them. Would Uncle Sam tolerate this kind of behaviour if Mexico or Canada were Russian allies?

 

So, we can save a fortune and lots of lives by not doing out of area at the whim of the US. Since we are unwilling to entertain the changes to society and defence posture necessary to confront Russia, we can at least stop poking them with a stick.

 

At the moment, our armed forces exist as they are largely through institutional and cultural inerta/momentum. There is no will to have a sensible national debate about what the strategy should be going forward and how we create and maintain the force structure necessary to implement it. Expect to see more of the same, but with ever less personnel and platforms to accomplish it.

You say that, but....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River

 

Once again, you are assuming we choose the deployments we make. If someone flew a 777 into Parliament next week, we would need an expeditionary capability presumably. The real world has an alarming habit of demanding the capablities we need, and we ignore them at our peril.

 

As for what motivates Putin, its very clearly the hope of getting as much back of his Soviet Union as he can manage. No, i don't think he wants to fight for it. I think he figures our own apathy will dump it in his lap, and ive half a mind to agree with him. There is also the problem of what happens when the populist wave Putin has been riding runs out. Is he going to bow out gracefully, or is he going to take a leaf out the book of those Argentinian generals who thought an easy victory would be just what was needed to stabilize the regime? Nobody predicted Crimea. Nobody predicted Donbas. Nobody predicted Georgia. So for me, we must take him at his word every time he says he intends to protect Russians outside his borders. That is a casus belli for everywhere from Eastern Europe to New Jersey.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again, you are assuming we choose the deployments we make. If someone flew a 777 into Parliament next week, we would need an expeditionary capability presumably.

 

To do what, get bogged down in another war on opposite side of the globe, waste more money and lives and retreat from ruined country leaving situation worse than it was before your intervention?

And about motivation and capabilities - let me remind you UK is in direct and long territorial conflict with another country (not Russia), sometimes balancing on the edge of shooting war - and in this shooting war UK would find itself in very uncomfortable position from geography point of view. What is making you focusing on Estonia again and again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in general there's somewhat of a malaise in Western society today, and the UK is just an example of that (although sh*t, I'd much rather be a poor person in 2019 London than 1819 London) and a general sense that we just don't have our act together as much as we did in the past. All of the WW2 discussions have kind of brought that home for me -- the US engaged in a logistical feat over 4 years that I don't think we'd be able to replicate nowadays, despite all our technological advantages. I don't think our forefathers were necessarily more intelligent/driven/patriotic than us, but there's like a systems failure or something.

Edited by Brian Kennedy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Losing India combined with the hobbling effect of the dependency created by the economic exploitation of it from 1765 to the 1930s certainly should be considered a factor. That this would not prepare a nation and its people well for economic takeoff in the post colonial era is not surprising in various ways.

 

... Spain did, kick up its heals and live off its Empire.

 

 

Well, if you do not know well the history of your own country, you are not expected to know the history of other countries. :P

 

Hint: How many universities were founded in Spain's overseas territories, and how many were founded in the English colonies?

 

Reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...