Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Just 2 Carriers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Namehere
Its relevant because it proves my point that you don`t have to be large to be superior.It shows that at that time in History Britain was forward thinking in that area.We had a unit that had been training long before it was required.Sure it`s not exactly relevant to aircraft carriers but just because America thinks it needs a large Naval Force dosn`t mean it`s right.


Also didn`t some little boat succesfully attack one of your ships when in dock in Sommlia?


[edit on 12-6-2004 by weirdo]




posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason


im not going to comment, most of that isnt correct except the french and germans spend more on military, in the uk its 5% unemployment vs 9.1 in france and 9.8 in germany, the uk and german economies are the best in europe with france right behind them.

[edit on 12-6-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Namehere
Its relevant because it proves my point that you don`t have to be large to be superior.It shows that at that time in History Britain was forward thinking in that area.We had a unit that had been training long before it was required.Sure it`s not exactly relevant to aircraft carriers but just because America thinks it needs a large Naval Force dosn`t mean it`s right.


Also didn`t some little boat succesfully attack one of your ships when in dock in Sommlia?


[edit on 12-6-2004 by weirdo]


in dock any ship is vunerable, also without air power ground forces have a harder time when facing heavy resistance, large air support is just part of a bigger strategy, its not the most important area nor should it be relied on obviously, but some wars there is no way to bring air power without a carrier so the strategy varies with the situation.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mickjb
Its not enough but the govenment expect that the US will provide the extra firepower in any (the next) war


You realise that Tony 'The Traitor' Blair thinks we'll be in the EU 'Nation of the Beast Defence Forces' and that (s'n-word') the EU will defend itself (open laughing) by the time those carriers are built.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
1/3 of all currency transactions worldwide are settled through the London Exchange. this translates into more money changing hands in one day in London, than the entire year on the New York Stock Exchange.
The London Gold exchange, is still the main arbitrage site to settle the daily price of Gold, as well as Silver.
For every dollar that Japan has invested in the US, England has 7
England did have a worldwide Military Empire...through which England invested in Mineral and precious metal Mines, Oil fields, financial instututions, shipping companies, agricultural concerns, etc.
an example is Royal Dutch SHell, the most prolific cash machine in the world. It is 1/2 owned by England.

England stood alone against Germany and underwent daily bombing every night for over a month, and came back fighting. The Brits have always been as example of courage and valor under hard conditions. They dont need a naive american explaining anything to them.

Just telling it like it is, so you dont appear foolish next time.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
carriers project more power then any thing on earth. its like a stardestroyer on the water. it makes ya wonder if an entire continent could be conquered with carrier power. politics fly out the window when 20 raptors ripping through space.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kogigaiden
carriers project more power then any thing on earth. its like a stardestroyer on the water. it makes ya wonder if an entire continent could be conquered with carrier power. politics fly out the window when 20 raptors ripping through space.

carriers project power ? no they project a large sign saying "bomb here"



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Everything that is better then the older thing that is being replaced gets build at a smaller number.

Out,
Russian


Yes but I feel there is a limit. Just 2 carriers. In time of war, would both carriers be available quickly and you never know. One or more could be sunk.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

UK's first order of business should be regaining its empire


Would we really like to end up like America. Probably the world's most hated country. I'm sure most people who want to see the British Military Forces get the stuff they deserve, don't want to see it used for conquering other countries and imperialism.

[edit on 13/6/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Namehere


In dock any ship is vunerable.


Don`t you Americans ever get tired of defending yourselves.Ask yourselves why dos this only happen to you people.And then go and sort you ego`s out



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Namehere
Its relevant because it proves my point that you don`t have to be large to be superior.It shows that at that time in History Britain was forward thinking in that area.We had a unit that had been training long before it was required.Sure it`s not exactly relevant to aircraft carriers but just because America thinks it needs a large Naval Force dosn`t mean it`s right.


Also didn`t some little boat succesfully attack one of your ships when in dock in Sommlia?


[edit on 12-6-2004 by weirdo]


God you're more stupid than I thought.

First...Britain has NEVER been ahead of the game. It has always relied on SUPERIOR NUMBERS to over-come its enemies.

In the War of 1812, the British lost every Naval engagement to the American fleets of a whopping 6 vessels. 600 vs. 6 you do the math.

In the War against France, the French Men-of-War still had more guns to a ship.

In the end of the 1800s, America sailed its Great White fleet around...showing just how worthless every other ship in the world was at that time.

In World War I, the German Navy albiet 1/4th the size of the British still were able to match them gun for gun.

In World War 2, the British did not have special forces, unlike the Germans who had the Brandenburgers. (Equivalent would be say US Navy Seals). The Britts had to create on the spot the "commandoes" named after rebel militias in the Boer Wars...who kicked the Britts ass. (A bunch of native colonials kicking the Britt's ass who would have thunk it? :@@


Today you are making a whopping 2 new Carriers? And retiring the other 3?

Ok...well huh...America has more than 10 active super carriers (carrying more than 60+ aircraft).

And is building 4 more.

And when the last is built the Constellation...an oil-powered Kitty-hawk class carrier will be retired to a training vessel.

Sure we had the Cole incident...but this only goes to show your ignorance 10 fold.

You see, if that Aegis class ship were in a war-time situation, nothing of that sort would have gotten close to it. The terrorists took advantage of the fact that we were not going to blow-up fishing boats floating by in what was thought a friendly harbor.

However you don't see any more such incidents now do you...and it wasn't Somalia...

You are too nationalistic...it's like watching a pacific islander proclaiming himself emperor of the world.

Britain was too weak to want to maintain its control on the world, so now we are the rulers. And even now you're seemingly unwilling to do anything about it, which is equally good for us.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
FreeMason

We could argue that your dad`s bigger than my daddy and my daddy`s cars better that yours all day long.

I prefer to use examples of modern times that are relevant to tody not two hundreds years ago,otherwise we could argue about your Indian problems that took you so long to sort out


I was showing that Britain leads the way in unconventional warfare.You used use to find scuds for you guys.Don`t call people stupid without using a little more convinving arguments and childish comments your the one then that looks stupid and you should try hard in school



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
free manson in ww1 the german navy could not meet us gun for gun they had less ships but better gunners
the other reason was that the fuhrur didnt want to risk his fleet
u think that britain needs superior numbers? exsplain the mons then.

also "we are the ruleers of the world" ha ha ha omfg you are full of ur self arnt ya?
the usa controls what ? 1 country? thats it woho whoopty do we control 3

also if i dont remember NO country had SF in world war 1. hell we trained urs
also good job on your fleet superior tactics will always win. BUT if i dont remember we beat the french/spanish fleet with only 27 ships when they had 33
you say we're 2 nationalistic well frankly youv got patriatism coming out your ass. there's loyalty 2 your country and theres takeing the piss .and your level of patriatism is takeing the piss



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
FreeMason...

Good job! Yours are the first posts that have made me reconsider bothering to take part in these forums. Everybody else seems to be here in order to take part in reasoned debate - you, apparently, are a flagrant flame-baiter.

Leave before you are (hopefully) left behind.




posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I think they should make more. From what it looks like the carriers are brilliant! But still in any war the U.S. will help.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
We need at least 3 carriers, so there can be at least 2 operational at all times.

BTW-to get the money for the 15, lets sell the Falklands - what kinda cash do you think we could get for them.

And in the best navy debate - Royal Marines. SBS.
Case Closed.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Time to return to sensible debate on the reason the the thread was started.


link to Navy managment

Whilst navy fleet has reduced by 30% inthe last ten years the demand has stayed the same.

Whats the point running a large fleet like the Americans if it is not required.When was the last time the U.S used it`s fleet in several conflicts at the same time.
There still working on the fact that during ww2 Pearl Harbour was destroyed and severally restricted America`s abbility ,so they have increased the size in the hope that would not happen again.

P.S when there fleet does operate at once this site starts threads that the world is about to end.The current excercise that has started is being disscused at the moment on this site


[edit on 13-6-2004 by weirdo]

[edit on 13-6-2004 by weirdo]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo

Whilst navy fleet has reduced by 30% inthe last ten years the demand has stayed the same.



Like most things it is important to get a balance. The UK Government shouldn't expect the military to do all these wars well unless they give them the money they deserve. Luckily the British armed forces always find a way through but if they continue to get so little funding, even they will not be able to do good jobs. So give them the funding they need or stop expecting them to effectively defend the country.

[edit on 14/6/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Hyperen u tell it like it is !
u go !
take this 2 the streets !



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Sorry to bring it up but at the time of the Falklands we only had 2 carriers (another couple months there would have been only one for a period before HMS Illustrious was commissioned - which was accelerated because of the Falklands).

As a point of interest Casper Weinberger US Sec. of Def. at the time offered the UK a Forrestal class carrier - indeed apparently certain works was carried out to prep matters should UK accept.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by Popeye]





new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join