Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More troops to be cut as MoD gets its sums wrong.........................

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
    We may one day ask the 'old enemy' to lend us a ship...Oh! the shame
    Hey you must feed all the crown-hating immigrants, cut the navy.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View Post
      Hi 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
      What 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?
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        What 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?
        From what I heard, chances to recover the hostages safe are bigger with the teachers. The hijackers will only have to attend class for one day to give up :D
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          What 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?
          Perhaps 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

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View Post
            Plus I see no need to cut the likes of the marines, but the unneeded regulars?
            Who are these unneeded regulars? Every Solder, Airman, Marine and Sailor serving today or who have served their Country is/was needed. From the lowly storeman to the mighty baton carriers they were and are needed. What price would you put on your defence NgatimotiNutter? What price would you put on you sleeping safely in bed every night whilst the Forces are ensuring your, and your family's safety? Your safety comes with a price and sometimes that price is high...not monetary but in lives. Are these lives from your "unneeded regulars" less devastating than from needed regulars?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by NgatimotiNutter View Post
              Perhaps 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
              Spend needlessly on defense? How about the needless welfare? Cut those.

              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                How much does the UK spend on defense every year as a percentage of GDP?
                2.5%, which is the second-highest in Europe after Greece and 25% above US demands towards NATO-EU.

                Comment


                • #53
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ZSARU View Post
                    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...
                    Yeah...when they need us, it's "Where is the USA?"

                    When they don't need us, it's "Down with the USA!"
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      *yawn*

                      It's not exactly 1950 anymore, you know? Even if a lot of people on the island would think in that time's terms too.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by kato View Post
                        2.5%, which is the second-highest in Europe after Greece and 25% above US demands towards NATO-EU.
                        2.5% of $2.17 trillion is $54 billion. Where is that money going to? And why cut it? 2.5% sounds like a good number for a major power and a world player. Unless UK really wants to retreat from its global interests, I don't see a major power can cut below that.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                          Hey you must feed all the crown-hating immigrants, cut the navy.
                          Someone must have read your suggestion but chose the wrong service. ;) It has been reported today that the Para's have will loose 10% of their pay. Apart from the two year pay freeze this must come as a blow anytime never mind in the recession. The beginning of the end of the Para's methinks.



                          Paratroopers hit by pay cut on return from Afghanistan - Telegraph

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            Where is that money going to?
                            British Military Procurement Mysteries - ARRSEpedia

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Sums it up very well , its what we have been saying for years

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Ha! I love to read about boondoggles in other military worse than ours, like the Bulava missile of Russia. But these take the cake.

                                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.
                                The opinions expressed by this site seem somewhat slanted based on this single article I've read. All militaries have waste and fraud. That's not a reason to cut military spending. Cutting spending doesn't remove waste or fraud. Cutting waste and fraud will lessen waste and fraud.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X