Originally posted by dave lukins
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
More troops to be cut as MoD gets its sums wrong.........................
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View PostHi all, didn't want to start a new thread and all so forgive me If I am going a little of topic but...
..I understand the anti cuts feeling on this board with many of you being in the military but what is the point of spending £Billions a year on defense when the same cash can be used as investment for education? Why does the UK need a large armed services? I can understand a rapid response force to counter threats to the Falklands, and the navy's need for new carriers but aside from that what is the point? Why don't we except that we no longer are going to be a major player on the world stage and quit while we are ahead? The money could be better spent elsewhere, in the long term economic growth is better achieved through investment into other more sustainable areas of government"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostWhat happens when British nationals are threatened in other parts of the world? Would you like to send in the Royal Marines to extract them or send in the teachers?No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostWhat happens when British nationals are threatened in other parts of the world? Would you like to send in the Royal Marines to extract them or send in the teachers?
Comment
-
Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View PostPlus I see no need to cut the likes of the marines, but the unneeded regulars?
Comment
-
Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View PostPerhaps a better question would be what happens if we continue to spend needlessly on defense, the economy goes down the drain and we have no money to spend on defense. Plus I see no need to cut the likes of the marines, but the unneeded regulars? And before you say they were needed no they weren't, I don't see any nation other than the US invading Iraq, if we hadn't got involved in the middle east 7/7 would probably have never happened. Its seems we didn't learn from Suez
How much does the UK spend on defense every year as a percentage of GDP?"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
I think the reality is, like Germany, France, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, and dozens more, everyone is counting on the good 'ol USA to ride to the rescue. Why spend all that hard earned money for defense when you can finance the socialist services and all the wonderful benefits to Anglo-hating muslim immigrants, and let America spend her blood and treasure to protect you and allow you to live that life style, pay the teachers, while condemning American militarism...
Comment
-
Originally posted by ZSARU View PostI think the reality is, like Germany, France, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, and dozens more, everyone is counting on the good 'ol USA to ride to the rescue. Why spend all that hard earned money for defense when you can finance the socialist services and all the wonderful benefits to Anglo-hating muslim immigrants, and let America spend her blood and treasure to protect you and allow you to live that life style, pay the teachers, while condemning American militarism...
When they don't need us, it's "Down with the USA!""Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View Post2.5%, which is the second-highest in Europe after Greece and 25% above US demands towards NATO-EU."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostHey you must feed all the crown-hating immigrants, cut the navy.
Paratroopers hit by pay cut on return from Afghanistan - Telegraph
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View Post
However, I disagree with some of the accusations made on the Enfield No.2 revolver. I own a derivative of the original design known as Webley Mk IV (38).
My remarks in blue...
A break action six-shot revolver based on the Webley Mk6 but in .38 S&W rather than .455 calibre. The Enfield No.2 is a well made and accurate revolver but .38 S&W is a Nancy Boy cartridge in comparison to the butch and manly .455 and is best suited to disposing of unwanted kittens and hamsters, rather than bringing down charging SS stormtroopers.
The version of .38 S&W used was called .380/200 in British parlance: it was a .38 S&W cartridge with a big 200gn bullet at 630fps (giving an unimpressive 175 ft-lb) (instead of 145ish gn at 685fps, developing an even more paltry 150ft-lb, and indeed Smith & Wesson had already superseded it with the .38 S&W Special around 1900.) Not entirely true. The 38 S&W was used by various US police forces up until the middle of the 20th century.
Why they adopted the whimpy .38 S&W and not the more adequate .38 Spl (158gn doing 950 fps & generating 430ft-lb) is a total mystery. It may have something to do with the top-break design and the limited pressure it could handle with existing metallurgy. Apparently there was a dominant school of thought in the British military that heavy, slow bullets were better manstoppers than faster, lighter ones, even though this is contrary to most informed opinion. That is the common perception until recently, and in fact, most in the US civilian market still believe the 230 gr. 45ACP round is better than a 9mm round moving at a higher speed as a "manstopper." In addition, the long 200gn bullet was alledgedly a little unstable and tumbled when it hit bad guys (where've we heard this before?) Tumbling is good. It makes the round a better "manstopper."
The original British specification for a submachine gun, or 'machine carbine' as they were called in British parlance at the time, was that it should chamber .380/200 to simplify ammunition supply issues in the field. But then someone pointed out that this was a totally ridiculous and unworkable suggestion.
It is however doubtful whether anyone other than the owner has ever been hurt by a pistol wielded by an officer. Data from WW2 shows that pistols caused more injuries to those who carried them than to the enemy [See The Face of Battle by John Keegan for instance] After all, the reason an officer gets a pistol is so that he doesn't go shooting at things but rather works out what his men should be shooting at.
As a wartime economy measure (and as a sop to the cavalry who wouldn't wear a closed holster & complained that the hammer spur caught on bits of the tank when bailing out), the hammer spur was deleted and the revolver was made double-action only (No.2 Mk.1*). As a further economy, the trigger safety was deleted (normally a bar blocks the striker unless the trigger is correctly pulled so that if the pistol is dropped or the hammer is thumbed back & dropped accidentally it doesn't go off), thus rendering the revolver not drop safe (No.2 Mk.1**).
So, there you have it - the Enfield No.2 Revolver: yet another one of many British Military Procurement Mysteries.
In the early '70s I was issued one of these as a personal protection weapon, whilst I worked with the UDR for two weeks. I was issued six rounds of 1950s dated ammo. Before handing it back to the armoury I fired the six rounds: two were misfires, two just managed to get the bullets out of the barrel, one fired correctly and the other round lodged in the barrel."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
Comment