Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK Armed Forces

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Ok then if you think im a traitor come and fight me in a duel as i am offended by your remarks. Im from Derbyshire in England and my Ancestors have lived here for over a thousand years.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

And as I have said, you cant be british, I know of no briton who would say such a thing about his own country, except a traitor.


Harsh words dot you think? Now you know how I feel when my fellow Americans gang up on the armed forces

But don't worry they will learn one day that its the bureaucracy and the politicians to blame no the people in uniform.

On a much lighter not he F/A-22 is by far better looking than the Black Widow and the EF Typhoon.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   


And as I have said, you cant be british, I know of no briton who would say such a thing about his own country, except a traitor


Thats a bit strong, DW!

He might well be a Brit, but he is a bit of a dopy one. We've all shown that his ill thought out remarks are pure canine mess, but he will insist on pressing the issue......



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ok then if you think im a traitor come and fight me in a duel as i am offended by your remarks. Im from Derbyshire in England and my Ancestors have lived here for over a thousand years.

I duel no traitors...it doesnt matter how long you have lived here or who your ancestors where, no briton I know of would say such things.
You better be offended, frankly no briton I know would proclaim thier armed forces to be bad, would proclaim all british tech to be years behind the yanks and no briton I know would say we should become the 51'st state!


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Harsh words dot you think?

Yes they are a bit harsh but they convey my feelings.


Now you know how I feel when my fellow Americans gang up on the armed forces


The amercans dont gang up and say american gear is 20 years behind the brits, or say its the amred services fault they dont have enough money.


But don't worry they will learn one day that its the bureaucracy and the politicians to blame no the people in uniform.

Oh I dont think of that, in uniform and out of it there is bureaucracy, just in diffrent shapes and forms.


On a much lighter not he F/A-22 is by far better looking than the Black Widow and the EF Typhoon.

Yeah right up until the moment they pull the "2nd best jet in the world" tarpolin off it.



Originally posted by stumason
Thats a bit strong, DW!

Strong was needed my friend.....


He might well be a Brit, but he is a bit of a dopy one. We've all shown that his ill thought out remarks are pure canine mess, but he will insist on pressing the issue......

Yes I know but frankly it seems to me more and more people lack the basic idea how this countries armed forces work.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ok then if you think im a traitor come and fight me in a duel as i am offended by your remarks.


- How come?
You're regularly on here and PATS slating the UK in partnership with Europe (an equal partnership with full voting rights and a seat on every 'controlling' board) and have said you'd rather we just slavishly sided with the US and have done with it often enough.


Im from Derbyshire in England and my Ancestors have lived here for over a thousand years.


- Given that humanity didn't spring up in Derbyshire or anywhere else in Britain, so what? What's that meant to mean?
Your family are basically immigrants like everyone elses.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Yeah right up until the moment they pull the "2nd best jet in the world" tarpolin off it.


Ha, ok fair enough.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hello Dopey English bloke here again, I only criticize our Government for not giving the soldiers the basic kit to fight with, they have had to use substandard equipment for ages. Look at the guns they had, SA80 used to stop working getting jammed all the time. Then the radios that were issued to them did not work, what about invading Iraq and most of the Brits were in European camouflage and pit boots, instead of desert equipment. I'm not a traitor just pointing out some facts to you who think the UKs forces are the best. The men are the best in the world but we let them down by giving them crap stuff to work with.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Hello Dopey English bloke here again, I only criticize our Government for not giving the soldiers the basic kit to fight with, they have had to use substandard equipment for ages.

No your critiseing the british armed forces.
The government in effect doesnt see the need for us to have a strong military power, why?
Look who our friend over the pond is..

[qutoe]
Look at the guns they had, SA80 used to stop working getting jammed all the time.

Its the most accurate assualt rifle in the world, the british army had to change the sniper entry levels due to its high accuracy level.
It is not a sand weapon, its a european weapon and every L-98 I have used, wich is the exact same except it fires single shot, has worked fine here.


Then the radios that were issued to them did not work,

Every military makes mistakes.


what about invading Iraq and most of the Brits were in European camouflage and pit boots, instead of desert equipment.

6000 troops is not most of the army.
The lack of camo gear is absolute bull, the british army had 92,650 desert lightweight jackets and 89,700 pairs of desert lightweight trousers.

Tell me do 26,000 men need 92,650 pairs of lighweight jackets?
Thats 14650 spare jakets and 11700 spare tousers giveing men 3 pairs each.



I'm not a traitor just pointing out some facts to you who think the UKs forces are the best.

You are trying to say european matriels are crap and the US is the best in the world.


The men are the best in the world but we let them down by giving them crap stuff to work with.

The equipment they have is the best we can get and some of it is the best in the world.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ok i give up , if the British are the best equiped forces in the world , im Homer Simpson, i wont post on this subject anymore because its not looking at the facts and more to do with people having a pissing contest.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   


Ok i give up , if the British are the best equiped forces in the world , im Homer Simpson, i wont post on this subject anymore because its not looking at the facts and more to do with people having a pissing contest.


Its you who doesn;t look at the facts, Bulldog. Everything you quoted has been a Sun headline at one point or another, whereas myself, DW, Smink, Waynos and the rest actually do know something about the state of our military.

Don't listen to tabloid hype and listen to those in the know. You might learn something.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Hmmm, DW posts;


The equipment they have is the best we can get and some of it is the best in the world


And Bulldog52 sees;


the British are the best equipped armed forces in the world


I think 'Dopey' may have beent he right description


Besides, what about your ill informed BS about the Typhoon? Care to back any of that up with facts or stats, or is it just 'crap, because it is'?

[edit on 23-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Its ovious whats happening.... DUH!
our... i mean the uk is cutting back on its armed forces because it wats to upgrade its forces....
RN it will replace the ships that have been scraped with the new type 45 destroyer

RAF the eurofighter and the f35 jsf

Army well im not sure i dont take an intrests in the army much

abut what about the nukes, were scapping them all will thay get replaced with some top secret cool american missile system???



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
There seems a lot of love in this thread


Thought people might like to see the actual equipment of our armed forces:

Army: Equipment
Royal Navy: Surface Fleet
Royal Navy: Fleet Air Arm
Royal Navy: Subs
RAF (currently down so i can't find the exact links - sorry)

The British military is one of the best militaries in the world, it has a proud history, a fine standing army and a bright future.
That does however not mean we are perfect, yes there are some major problems within our armed force some due to the politicians some due to armed forces and some due to the situations that can't be avoided.
But all in all, the men and women deserve our respect and admiration, they put their lives on the line to defend the safety of the world.

Thanks



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
There seems a lot of love in this thread


- I think there are more than a few around here with past and present connections to the UK forces who've been around long enough to know that whilst they have problems from time to time the 'tabloid' version of them (usually just using them for obvious cheap party political point scoring) is invariably the most superficial and partial ignorance on a grand scale.

......and I think it gets recognised easily and people say so.


The British military is one of the best militaries in the world, it has a proud history, a fine standing army and a bright future.


- For the most part I totally agree (barring the odd dodgy bit of history due to the prevailing politics of the time).


That does however not mean we are perfect, yes there are some major problems within our armed force some due to the politicians some due to armed forces and some due to the situations that can't be avoided.


- Again spot on Wizard, t'was always so.


But all in all, the men and women deserve our respect and admiration, they put their lives on the line to defend the safety of the world.

Thanks


- Indeed.

Nice post Wizard (and top one on the links, have a way above.)

Incidentally has anyone seen the Trafalgar web-site?
You can have a little look to see if your relatives might have fought there, check it out.
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Read this, its from the year 2000 but its still relevant

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Bulldog 52 www.philipjohnston.com...

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Bulldog 52]

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Bulldog 52]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Read this, its from the year 2000 www.philipjohnston.com... but its still relevant today.


- Your link doesn't work.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Try again ive fixed it.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Yeah lets trust the sunday telegraph over the MOD....



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Funnily enough I had a little look around at who Philip Johnston was when I found the link wasn't working and saw a reference to the Torygraph but I thought no, I'll leave it, I'll not comment on this just in case it's not him, obviously I shouldn't have bothered.

One of Conrad (a guy, not British - like many of those owning large chunks the UK press, with a seriously pro-USA, ultra right-wing agenda if ever there were!) Black's paid mouth-pieces slates the MOD.......

.....which, let's be honest, they'd do anyway irrespective of the 'colour' of British gov seeing as it's the - to them, hated - 'public sector' and a gov department but there's nothing quite like the enthuisiasm and relish they have for it when there is a Labour gov and they get to bash Labour too, right?

Coooo, big credible news there, eh?

As usual these guys just use the forces to make their very obvious narrow little party political points.

Wake up.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Thats what I thought Smink.

I am not going to quote the article directly (too much effort for such pap), but I remembered points it made about the Chally 2 not being inservice in 2000....WTF? My dad was working on Chally 2's since the mid 1990's, at least.

The point that they disguised as a criticism was that the Chally 2 "finally" got an operational deployment to kosovo in 2001, as if that was the first time it worked.

What a load of bollocks.

We just didn't have any need to ship dozens of 60 ton tanks around the world before then, hence we had no chance to operationally deploy the tanks, not, as the article implied, that this was the first time we got to use them because they didn't work.

And it went on to bash almost every other procurement in the past 20 years. For some reason they chose the Rapier (even though this has been inservice for at least a decade) and other well tested and worthwhile pieces of kit (possibly one the best SAM systems around too).

What the article fails to point out, is that all these items they highlited may have been overun (show me any Project that complex that doesn't) but the need to actually have a fully functional and worthwhile weapon on the battlefield far outweighs the need to rush it so the Politicians can feel happy about spending.

The papers would be the first to complain if any equipment deployed to early and was faulty was responsible for any battlefield failings or worse any loss of life.






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join