Britain's navy lost its greatness when they lost their empire. In WWI, the German navy far surpassed the British navy in terms of efficiency and
tactics; it was one of the reasons the British lost so many ships. The Germans could load the guns on their battleships far more efficiently (and more
safely) than the British were. Also the way the German ships were commanded was superior. The British military today is pretty good, but they have not
regained their naval greatness in the same way they used to have.
Hmm, I think you are getting confused. We "lost" our Empire after WW2. During both world wras, we had the largest, most powerful navy on the Planet.
In you ref to the Germans being "better" than the Royal Navy during WW1, i am assuming you are referring to the Battle of Jutland.
Errors where made on both sides, like the British not shutting magazine hatches, which was the cause for the few losses we suffered.
But on the wholse, the battle was a damp squib, and the German Navy retreated to port never to emerge again, so in effect, the Royal Navy won.
devilwasp, one naval exercise does not prove that the American navy doesn't lead in tactics
Ok, if one doesn't cut it, then I can suggest a few more, where a British frigate outwits the US navy.
Back in '98/99 (forget which year), my brother served on HMS Iron Duke.
It outmaneuvered a US destroyer, then turned its Radar on full wack to lure the Destroyer in to a trap, "killed" it, and then went on to "sink"
one of your subs, which the Destroyer was supposed to be guarding.
The whole time, the US Navy didn't know if they where coming or going.
So did the U.S. realize this, and it had the ability, so it created one of the most powerful navies on the Earth (the Japanese Imperial Navy and
German Navy was also very good). After the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were gone, America's Navy became THE most powerful in
the world.
Not sure where you're getting your history from, but the most powerful Navy in 1939 was the Royal Navy. For shear power, none came close.
As for your assumptions that the German Navy was powerful, I think you are confusing a few excellent battlecrusiers with an almighty fleet.
Nazi Germany placed no emphasis on building a massive fleet, as it knew it could not compete with the RN.
They made a few great, modern b/cruisers, but they all got sunk or captured in the end. The Germans focused their Naval power on U-Boats, which all
got sunk as well.
It's like the French and British navies back in the old days. The British Navy was the best and most powerful, but that didn't mean the French
didn't have a very fine navy as well. Just their navy wasn't as powerful as the British Navy at the time. Well right now I am sure Britain has a
very good navy for what it can do, but America has the best one right now
The French Navy was ok, but that too was mostly destroyed in 1940. By the Royal Navy.
And I am not really referring to Britain when I speak of Europe itself. Britain itself has a very fine military, and when compared to the U.S., I'd
say man to man, it probably is a bit better considering you guys are probably more patriotic to your nation than a lot of the losers the U.S. military
gets in it; however, there are a lot of very hard-working and patriotic people in the American military as well. Remember, the American military is
far larger than these individual European militaries, so it is a lot easier for them to have higher-quality troops. It is like the United States
Marine Corps in comparison to the United States Army. The average U.S. Marine has a higher standard of fitness than the average Army person and is
trained as a rifleman, which not all Army personnel are. But that is because the Marines are far smaller than the Army, and thus can give their people
more combat training. And since their training on average is tougher, they attract more quality people (as loser-types who are lazy generally go to
the Army).
Man for man, the British
have to be better. They are expected to do more, on a tighter budget. In the Army for example, tank crew are expected
to be able to fix their tanks, in contrast, REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) are expected to be good soldiers as well as engineers.
Everyone is expected to good at more than just their immediate task, as our Army is limited in size and funding.
And what's this with the U.S. like Britain in another decade or two??? We don't have colonies everywhere to lose the way Britain did, and we don't
tax the planet. Another decade, and I think things will be pretty much the same as they are now.
The
one reason we "lost" our Empire was Germany. Two world wars with them took away the British desire to fight further wars, and also the
British ability to be able to do so. We had no choice but to give up the Empire, as it was just to expensive to run.
I wouldn't exactly call Europe powerful as they are not united; until the day comes that they ever unite in the same way the United States is united,
they will never be as powerful, because there are too many individual militaries that would have to work together.
I don't see a problem with several militaries working together. This has been done countless times before without problems. There would be a clear
chain of caommand, with the leading nations taking the command role, and the smaller nations providing specialist forces.
And as for the U.S. having a lot of responsibility around the world, it is not exactly "self-appointed." The U.S., in order to remain the superpower
it is, and thus keep countries like China and Russia in their place, has to go and secure where its interests are. The U.S. doesn't exactly go around
securing places around the world for the sake of imperialism; it goes into areas that contain materials it needs to remain a global power, which these
days it must. True, other countries say that is unfair, that everyone should share, but that is just how it is.
Confirms my belief about the US. Sod everyone else, as long as the US is alright hey? Good way to make friends.......
And yes the U.S. DID help rebuild a lot of Europe, it is one of the reasons our national debt is up there
No, it's not. It's nothing to do with that. When Clinton was in office, you were running a budget surplus.....
[edit on 31/1/05 by stumason]
