It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

total man power uk+new type 45

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
is it true that the uk navy has a fighting life of six days?.also if all uk forces were brought home due to invaision what would be our true strenght how would uk forces do in todays world. i think iam geting it across ok.also i have pics of the new type 45 on the clyde doing its trials if anyone would like to see just let me no




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I think if UK had to fight a battle a battle for survival with a major power, it would all come down to missiles, air force, and submarines. Since the UK is #2 in the world in all of those categories (to my knowledge) they'd probably win against any adversary except for the United States.

If they had to go against Russia I think it would be a hard-fought battle but I think they'd survive.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
gorgouk, I think in reference to your "six days" figure, you might be harking back to the Cold War. In those day's, the RN's one and only objective was to block the GIUK gap in an ASW role, to prevent the Soviets breaking out into the Atlantic. I believe we were expected to survive 6 days, before the Americans could muster enough ships.

Our current strength, while in manpower terms is less than the Cold War, is rather good. We're over stretched with commitments, but we are busy.

IF everyone was at home, the UK would be uninvadable. As it has been for nearly a millenia.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Stumason, how would the UK beat a massive American air assault followed by the insertion of paratroopers?

Such a situation will probably never happen, but it's an interesting intellectual exercise.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Stumason, how would the UK beat a massive American air assault followed by the insertion of paratroopers?

Such a situation will probably never happen, but it's an interesting intellectual exercise.


Good question.

The Americans have to get the aircraft into range first. Are they THAT confident they can get a couple of CBG's into range without being mauled by attack submarines?

The US Navy is not as invincible as you might think, especially against a comparable navy (technology wise), in home waters.

The RN surface fleet would also cause problems. It may be small, but in exercises, single British frigates have successfully taken out combinations of US Destroyers and Submarines.

Also, if we have the two new carriers in service during this "invasion", they would be out at Sea the moment we thought we'd be facing an invasion.

Paratroopers would, should they manage to gain Air Superiority first, have to get from the states. Long haul.

Even if they did manage to perform the drop, they would be cut off from re-supply and eliminated. Paratroopers are only useful if you can follow up to their position with land forces in a reasonable amount of time. Without them, you've sent men to their deaths.

Look at the Operation Market Garden. The land follow up stalled and the whole Op was a cock up. Many, many men died.

Also, to drop enough troops to overwhelm the British Army, I'm not sure that even the US can airlift that many men. Your talking many tens of thousands, whose transports would be at risk of SAM and A2A engagement.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
As the United Kingdom has nuclear capability it's highly unlikely that it will ever get invaded and if it did get invaded the invader would also have to have nuclear capability so more than likely they would have to strike first then invade a nuclear wasteland


What a victory



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Yeah, however you slice it, the British Navy must be defeated first...I think America could do it, it would be a hard-fought fight but at the end of the day I think our capabilities are still superior.

There's also a decent chance USN would lose, however.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Yeah, however you slice it, the British Navy must be defeated first...I think America could do it, it would be a hard-fought fight but at the end of the day I think our capabilities are still superior.

There's also a decent chance USN would lose, however.


You would eventually win by sheer weight of numbers.

I think major losses would be incurred by the USN, so maybe a British win could be foreseen, depending on the level of attrition the USN is willing to accept.

EDIT: I'll add that even if the Rn was wiped out, you then have the RAF. With 350+ combat aircraft, to gain air superiority, you'd need 3 or 4 carrier battle groups, maybe more. You'd also be without your F-22, as I doubt they could make the trip to the UK from the US, let alone loiter.

[edit on 8/8/07 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
1 RN sub eluded a seawolf and sank the entire cbg in an excerise near australia around 1998>1999 - its not only about having a good boat but having a good captain and a well trained crew.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Exactly, Harlequin...while USN definitely has numerical advantage, the skill and technology (dunno if UK is superior or not) could win the day here for the UK.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
i can see the RAF and RN co-ordinating an attack against any cbg (or whatever this months term for them is) - as an air attack with missiles would create ideal conditions for a sub to pick off any targets.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Pointless discussion, more interesting is a far off war, say in the Pacific between the British and an Asian power. In that scenario the British are worse off now than they were during the Falklands war or during the Cold War.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
i wonder who would win in a fight between batman and spiderman?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Exactly, Harlequin...while USN definitely has numerical advantage, the skill and technology (dunno if UK is superior or not) could win the day here for the UK.

I am a firm believer that the Royal Navy is #1 when it comes to skill and training. The Royal Navy might be small, but it packs a punch and its the little guy you always have to watch out for as the saying goes.

And this is coming from an American who has always held tremendous respect for the UK armed forces, their skill and discipline throughout history and still today across the world amazes me. Where you guys send a few battalions we might send an entire division and yet the Brits can still manage to get the job done just as good as we would with a whole division with just a few battalions.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Just out of a matter of complete curiosity, can I see some links for that "eluded a seawolf and sunk the whole CVBG" claim? I dont deny it, but it seems a bit far-fetched. Something about all of those sonars working together...I will happily stand corrected if you give me a link, however.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Pointless discussion, more interesting is a far off war, say in the Pacific between the British and an Asian power. In that scenario the British are worse off now than they were during the Falklands war or during the Cold War.


Oh they are. But responsibility for everything "East of Suez" was passed to the Americans forty years ago. With the transfer of Hong Kong to PRC ten years ago there's no real reason for a British presence in that neck of the woods at all, other than as a token flag waving exercise. You might as well start a discussion about naval wars between random nations from all over, Indonesia versus Brazil or whatever you fancy. It'd be just as irrelevant.

Far more relevant would be a discussion about how the USN would counter a Chinese naval threat.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
My two pence worth

Long before any troops would be dropped in country or CBG were within striking distance, US long range bomber forces would have turned most of the RAF major bases into rubble with standoff weapons. There's no way that the RN surface ship would get anywhere near a CBG. The RN subs would be hunted down long before any CBG would move towards the UK to strike. It wouldn't be an easy task and both sides would suffer tremendous losses.

It is a horrific thought but I'm sure that in some dark and secret place, a plan to take the UK exists in case the govt or nation should fall into unfriendly hands. Likewise I've little doubt that the UK has plans somewhere should the US's Command and Control be taken over by a mad village idiot or a blood sucking vampire.

Hey! Wait a minute. It has happened ! What the f*** are you blokes waiting for?!



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
It's not wise to underestimate the RN or the RAF.

The RN in particular has a tradition going back hundreds of years - and whether you like it or not, this counts. Experience in modern warfare backed up by tactical nous gained over that time period? Job Done. RN has some of the best tacticians and battle planners in the world, despite what Tom Clancy might think.

RAF also can call on tacticians and planners of the very highest level, and with the eurofighter coming into service, have an aircraft with great capabilities.

Is it any coincidence that UK losses in Iraq are so much lower than US losses?
We're talking discipline of the highest order here, and the fact that UK soldiers see using their weapons as a last resort, rather than the ill disciplined, trigger happy attitude of US troops.
UK army is a small army of elite, well equipped, well trained, disciplined soldiers, who can fight as hard, if not harder than any other troops in the world.

The UK has always managed to win when threatened, since warfare became more sophisticated - and this is no accident.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niall197
It'd be just as irrelevant.


True, but the premise is still valid since you can substitute Asia for other regions of the world. In any case it is a far more likely scenario than the UK versus the US.


Originally posted by budski
Is it any coincidence that UK losses in Iraq are so much lower than US losses?


No it is not a coincidence but it has very little to do with "training and discipline", if any, and more to do with other factors which you have not considered. If the UK was in the same position as the US their losses would be just as high, if not higher.


Originally posted by budski
...rather than the ill disciplined, trigger happy attitude of US troops.


You are in no position to make such a claim, so lets refrain from such comments shall we?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You are in no position to make such a claim, so lets refrain from such comments shall we?


^^ and you are not a moderator so stop pretending to be one ok.

one of the reasons for the massive difference in casualites is relevant experience for handling populations that are hostile to you - the british have 25 years in belfast to learn from - the US went to Israel for there training and we all know how the Isaelies deal with `situations` like thsi.

here we are 4 years on and the south is much more passified than the north. hmmm i wonder why.

[edit on 9/8/07 by Harlequin]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join