I hope not. In my opinion there is actually very little difference amongst the English speaking nations. UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Ireland. Granted the UK and Ireland are the brothers who do not like one another all that much. English speaking nations certainly have more in common than not.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
For most of the 18th and 19th, and even some of the 20th century the US navy paled in comparison to European navies. There were even periods of time when there was virtually no USN, it was only after the Manifest Destiny and Mahans writing did the USN start to expand.
--------------------------------------------
"A navy doesn't get built in 2 years. If we want to have a new navy by 2050, then we should have started yesterday." Vysotskiy
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The United States considered the oceans its protection for some time. A navy wasn't given priority.
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"I hope not. In my opinion there is actually very little difference amongst the English speaking nations. UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Ireland. Granted the UK and Ireland are the brothers who do not like one another all that much. English speaking nations certainly have more in common than not. "
one difference is apparante.....new zealand is insigfinicant compared to all the other anglo countries....
-------------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"one difference is apparante.....new zealand is insigfinicant compared to all the other anglo countries...."
If and when the resources of Antartica are developed NZ would be a perfect base. It has deep water ports, massive amounts of food. In WW2 a study estimated that if needed NZ could produce enough food for all alied forces in the Pacific.
The New Zealand military, while small are highly trained. They always punch higher than their weight. Of course successive liberal governments have decimated the NZ military regards equipment.
NZ SAS have operated in every conflict since their inception in the 1950s. You may want to read about NZ soldiers during WW1 and WW2 and beyond.
As the world population grows NZ's importance will continue to grow.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Don't worry R102.. Hawk seems to be confused when it comes to the word "insignificant".. He calls Canada that too.. yet thousands of his fellow countrymen risk their lives and show up in Sea Crates, packed like sardines, just to live here.
Military power is not all that is significant. Canada can produce enough oil to fuel out allies during any conquest against China. NZ is in a key position in the world to, as you said, act as a hub for our allies.
These may seem insignificant to a self loathing Chinaman who thinks he has the same rights and freedoms in China as there are in the West (when his own countrymen here say that's not true) but in the grand scheme of things, it's not a forum response you have to worry about.
Just play into his ego. It's more fun that way.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The British navy is more or less doomed to third tier status. They will be down to a lousy 8 destroyers soon. US dominance will continue, but the UK has decided to contribute very little to the Anglo component of Anglo-American.
This message has been edited by irkut on Jul 4, 2009 3:57 PM This message has been edited by irkut on Jul 4, 2009 3:55 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The royal navy maintains the worlds second most potent navy. With three carrier groups compared to Russia's Moribund ''Kuznestov''. highly trained submarine force not to mention.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sorry friend, the Russian submarine fleet is vastly bigger and much better. The Russian submarine fleet alone is sufficient to sink the entire British navy with room to spare. The English will soon only have 8 destroyers to escort their 3 carriers so they dont really have 3 carrier battle groups. They have 3 carriers and virtually no escorts for them. Good luck dealing with 3 dozen Russian nuclear subs and another dozen SSK's with just 8 destroyers.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"USA surpassed Britain as world's largest Navy in WW2.:
I agree, but it took this book to start things rolling.
--------------------------------------------
"A navy doesn't get built in 2 years. If we want to have a new navy by 2050, then we should have started yesterday." Vysotskiy
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The UK has power projection capabilities as proved int he falklands war. Russia on the other hand has never engaged or emerged victorious in a war far from its borders. Its only attempt with the japanese during the Russo-Niponese war ended in a shameful defeat for the Ruskies. Russia not a global military power but a regional one.. save the use of strategic nukes its military cannot venture far from the ''RODINA''
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the Rodina occupies half the eurasian landmass. There arent many places to go that we dont already own! As for venturing far from the Rodina -- we did take Berlin and once upon a time the forces of the Czar did march into Paris!
This message has been edited by irkut on Jul 4, 2009 6:14 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
If you want to go back to the Falklands, then we can compare it to the Soviet navy of the time. If you want to talk about the Russo-Japanese war then mention the fact that Russian forces were outnumbered most of the time, and how many men the japs lost winning that war.
The Russian navy is still 2nd, there are still 4 heavy cruisers with fantastic naval aviation support and the 2nd best submarine fleet.
--------------------------------------------
"A navy doesn't get built in 2 years. If we want to have a new navy by 2050, then we should have started yesterday." Vysotskiy
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
American Naval Dominance, with the little poodles all following Big Daddy
"We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." - Patrick Henry -
"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
- Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership -
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." - Virginia Bill of Rights -
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
That's what I was thinking...Especially when the word Anglo-saxon comes up, it basically denotes US/UK.....However all the insiginficant cannuks and kiwis are got worked up and cum in their wet dreams...
-------------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Jul 6, 2009 5:12 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Pathfinder (Login Pathfinder_tr) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: Anglo American Naval Dominance
No score for this post
July 6 2009, 4:27 PM
And let's not forget about the Japanese Navy, they may have no carrier (apart from the recently launched helicopter carrier), but they have high number of destroyers. Same can be said about South Korea and India in the future.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
LOL! Is this another mutual @ss kissng exercise or simply total lack of information?
The Russian and Chinese navies are already ranked above RN...
Going with the Toic title, the Anglo part of this "Dominance" is already a sweet WAFFER's dream.
Passed 2020 the UK will be hard pressed to align a stronger navy than France too...
Oh, look another sad, self hating French man with a Napoleon complex. Has france achieved anything since the revolution? Your "secret agents" were caught by New Zealand police after there "heroic" attack on a Greenpeace ship. It is no surprise that your agents surrendered.
Good thing you all have the Foreign Legion. I believe they are the only military unit in France that does not fly the all white flag with pride.
This message has been edited by R102 on Jul 7, 2009 2:48 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So explain to us all how exactly the kings German legion did more than everybody else to win that battle ?.
You must be refering to the KGL and not the Prussians surely.
The Prussians played a smaller role in the battle compared to the Allied army. Less Prussians were committed, less became casualties and they were in the fight for less time than the Allied army.
Winning the battle of Waterloo was a combined effort certainly, the combined effort of the Allied army and the Prussian army, but if one did more to attain the victory than the other (and i'd agree one did) it would be the Allied army, which fought for longer, committed more troops and suffered many more casualties.
That army was British led and British troops made up the largest element of it. Yes there were Belgian, Dutch (both former allies of France and considered less than reliable) and Hanoverian troops in the Allied numbers but they pale in the insignificance compared to the British troop numbers and their parts in the battle don't compare to the actions that British troops were involved in.
To suggest that German troops won the battle for "us" is complete bullsh>t.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
True, the Brits did by far the most during the battle of Waterloo. You made just one error, Belgium (it didn't exist in 1815) and the Netherlands were NOT allies of France back then. Actually, no one was. It's just that the French conquered, by force, those lands.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
""Belgium (it didn't exist in 1815) and the Netherlands were NOT allies of France back then. Actually, no one was. It's just that the French conquered, by force, those lands.""
I see your point but it's a fine line.
Either way, whatever the motivation, Dutch and Belgian troops fought alongside France before 1814, even making up a small amount of the Grand Armee that invaded Russia in 1812.
The same can be said for Italy, Naples, the Duchy of Warsaw, Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Wurtenberg, all were allies of France voluntarily or not and fought in Russia and in the Peninsular and by all accounts (at least as far as the German states were concerned) fought pretty well.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Without the Prussian the "allied" were toast, it was their late intervention that turned a defeat into a (close) victory.
End of the story...
As for ther topic subject it is still unclear what role can the RN play into naval dominance today, the last time it deployed not one single carrier went out.
NO CAG, non-operational T45, a shrinking surface fleet stiken with obsolescence, new generation SSNs still not operationals due to a long serie of technical problems.
Sorry guys but it sounds like the Russian navy at its darkest hours.
No need to claim anti-British fool or bashing up, only following the news and chain of even since the Astute and T-45 programes is enough.
The USN is of course the world's first navy but RN is far from being on top of the rest today, wait another ten years to see if it can reach the top 3 or not, my guess is it will be a tougher call than Waterloo altogether...
""Without the Prussian the "allied" were toast, it was their late intervention that turned a defeat into a (close) victory.""
Even if that were true, and you have no way of knowing that any more than i do, there's a world of difference between the Prussians intervening half way through the battle and clinching a close victory from a close defeat and what you originally claimed which was that the German won it for us.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Boy i know my history and our group Leader Erix could confim this too.
No score for this post
July 7 2009, 1:34 PM
I also have way to know many more things than you do simply by pure interest.
No need for Wiki, we didn't have this at school but here goes...
A French view of the reasons for Napoleon's defeat
General Baron Jomini, one of the leading military writers on the Napoleonic art of war had a number of very cogent explanations of the reasons behind Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.[129]
First steel cut ceremony took place today, 7th July 2009
However, the MOD's website says this:
Manufacturing activity is continuing across the country, with the assembly of the bow for the Queen Elizabeth well underway at Appledore and work on the aircraft lifts progressing in Rosyth.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
""Even taking into account the other factors, Napoleon had it wraped up until Blucher arrival.""
You have got to be joking, have you taken time to study the battle even a little bit.
The French army had failed to secure Hougemont or La Haye Sainte (both positions changed hands several times throughout the battle but ultimately, and at the time of Prussians joining the fight, were occupied by British troops) and as a consequence failed to secure the flanks of any potential advance on the Allied army lines. Until these positions were taken Napoleon was incapable of even closing with the main Allied force without suffering large casualties, just as Wellington had forseen which is why he put so much effort in to defending them and why Napoleon put so much effort in to taking them.
In addition to this the French army had also failed in any mounted attempt to break the forward elements of the Allied army and had only succeeded in breaking themselves upon British squares with no artillery support and suffering ruinous casualties as a result.
An uninformed person may see the fact that Napoleon was constantly on the offensive (unsuccessfully) and that Wellington was almost always on the defensive (successfully) during the first 2/3rds of the battle as an indication of French dominance on the field but that's simplistic thinking to put it mildly. Napoleon was an offensive General, his whole ethos was to dominate with artillery and push his columns in to the attack while out flanking with his cavalry in order to gain victory as quickly as possible. He was a pounder that relied far too much on artillery to gain victory on the battlefield. This usually worked but when that artillery advantage was matched as at Borodino or when it was made less effective through other ways (as in the use of reverse slopes at Waterloo) he had a much harder time of things. Wellington on the other hand was no pounder, he was a counter puncher who's main (but not only) tactic in battle was to draw the enemy on to his defences until they were exhausted and then counter attack. Wellington used this approach many times just as he used the reverse slope tactic to position his reserve and nullify the effects of artillery many times.
Given the different approaches to battle of the 2 generals it stands to reason that the first 2/3rds of the battle of Waterloo were always gonna be French attacks against Allied defences, that's the way it was supposed to go. It dosn't mean Napoleon was winning.
The arrival of the Prussians didn't relieve pressure on the Allied army as you think, it increased it. Even though the British defensive positions at Hougemont and La Haye Sainte were still intact the Prussian pressure on the French right at Plancenoit forced Napoleon in to a full frontal attack on the Allied army positions in order to try to drive us from the field as quickly as possible so he could then turn on the Prussian army elements on his right, it failed badly. Those French columns advancing were not only fired on in their flanks by British troops at Hougemont and La Haye Sainte but were then cut to pieces by massed British musket fire to their front.
If the Prussians had never arrived would Napolweon have succeeded in winning the battle ?, i don't know and neither do you but the battle had hardly followed his tactical plan up to that point and his army was practically exhausted. Could the Allied army have won the battle alone without Prussian help ?, again i don't know but it's doubtful that Wellington would have been able to acheive a resounding victory as his army was also exhausted. It perhaps could have forced a temporary French withdrawal from the field to fight another day but that was hardly the point of the battle in the first place now was it.
This is what people like you fail to understand. The whole point of bringing Napoleon to battle at Waterloo was because it gave Wellingtons army great defences to play with. Defences he could use to acccomplish the main objective, to hold the French army in position fighting the Allied army while Blucher bought the Prussians to the field, the whole point of the battle was to pin Napoleon in place to await the arrival of the Prussians and then use our combined numbers to overwhelm the french army.
If it hadn't been for this plan the battle would never have been fought in the way it was, at the time it was or at the place it was.
Things may not have gone perfectly and it was certainly "a close run thing" but at the end of the day Napoleon was pinned fighting Wellingtons army all day, Blucher did turn up in time to add a proportion of his forces to the battle and in the end it was an Allied/Prussian victory, job done.
I'm afraid your take on the battle is way off.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Britain didn't WIN waterloo alone and England wouldn't have won it without blusher.
Now, boy, MOVE on back to the topic subject if you can dig any form of intelligent arguments, your trolling is tiring and getting old, you're far from being a specialist let alone not BIASED.
I'll trust a professional military historian over all the crap a WAFF's Red Coat can throw at him any time.
""Britain didn't WIN waterloo alone and England wouldn't have won it without blusher.""
I at no time said they did, in fact i said it was joint Alied/Prussian victory quite clearly.
You're the only idiot here who attempted to suggest anybody won the victory alone when you said "the Germans won it for you", remember.
And his name is Blucher dipsh.t not Blusher.
""Now, boy, MOVE on back to the topic subject if you can dig any form of intelligent arguments, your trolling is tiring and getting old, you're far from being a specialist let alone not BIASED.""
Firstly i'm not your boy, secondly i'll continue talking about anything i fu>king please.
I just posted an intelligent. concise and easy to understand (even for you) point of view on the battle of Waterloo, i didn't troll once in it. In fact thats not my thing, its yours. Me thinks that the only reason you accuse me of trolling is because your so limited on the subject you have no come back to counter my argument. That's called being unable to "dig any form of intelligent arguments" by the way.
Clearly compared to you i am a specialist on this subject.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
ARE you or ARE you NOT a General, one of the leading military writers on the Napoleonic art of war?
If the answer to this question is (as i strongly suspect) NO, then try to do better next time because this time, you shot yourself in the foot very publicly.
Just making sure . Someone there has the same avatar as you. Not as good as WAFF, it's mainly British military personnel there and VERY slow, new threads like once a week lol.
"one difference is apparante.....new zealand is insigfinicant compared to all the other anglo countries...."
Hmmm...your on some insignificance tangent now...contemplating your own significance in the universe are we? In the grand scheme of things all individuals and organizations (i.e. nations) are relatively insignificant! Just remember that there is a possibility that some random collision in the Oort could be the most significant occurrence in human history!
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Don't we chide the Chinese for their mastery of Photoshop when they represent their military?
As for on topic...my guesses over the next half century;
- number of US CSGs will drop over the next 20 years as the US works desperately over the next few decades to stop it's financial hemorrhaging, suspect somewhere around 6 or 7 of them being operational by mid-century
- China will continue to expand it's navy, but the CCP is so focused on it's domestic survival it has no interest in competing with the west, but look to it to support multinational naval deployments with ever increasing frequency to counter balance western power.
- Russia is content counting it's oil and gas revenues and secure in the knowledge they have enough SSBNs to end any conflict.
...and just for Hawksss
- Canada will continue to rely upon it's infiltration agents (codename Castor canadensis) to destroy the shipbuilding capabilities of it's rivals. Please don't mention to our politicians that ships are no longer made of wood...it keeps the bureaucrats out of my way.
- New Zealand will continue it's policy addicting the world's leaders to lamb (I swear the cuter the animal the better it tastes...baby seal must be delicious) thereby controlling global events from behind the curtains...
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
This message has been edited by coalde on Jul 8, 2009 1:27 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"@R102
No score for this post July 7 2009, 2:52 AM
After Yorktown and DeGrasse, it takes a lot of guts to pretend that you dont kiss US @sses, boy.
You didn't WIN Waterloo, the German did it for you remember?
So Quid of the RN now?"
No, I was never there. By Germans, do you mean Prussians? Amazing how the British or Germans have been kicking French arse for the past couple of hundred years or more. When is France ever going to win a fight?
You required a bailout in WW1 and WW2 from the rest of the world. Now, you are all about appeasing the muslims in France.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
![[linked image]](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070406-N-7730P-011.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/windin/usa_2c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/liuhejun/uk_royal_std_2c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/liuhejun/UK_c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/liuhejun/canada_c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/liuhejun/australia_c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/liuhejun/new_zealand_c.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.wood.army.mil/TVC/ABCA/Image1.gif)
![[linked image]](http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2444/combineflags9dk7vviv2bs.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4999/oakridgetext.png)
![[linked image]](http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj40/aviator113/20090304110847.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/06/world/06russia01-600.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i3.iofferphoto.com/img/1114066800/_i/6506675/1.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/SmilesWAFF/smilwy2.gif)
![[linked image]](http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc188/tezelturk/turkiyeee.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/beatthis1ak.gif)
Thunder Supports ![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/Rafale_logo.png){kind=logo}
. Someone there has the same avatar as you. Not as good as WAFF, it's mainly British military personnel there and VERY slow, new threads like once a week lol.
![[linked image]](http://www.tnfj.com/Images/Smilies/asthanos.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.cgfm.mil.co/CGFMPortal/Cgfm_files/Galeria/solimoes.jpg)