War in Ukraine

[Stirlingsays]

Honestly I'm afraid I'm not going to talk to you on warfare fella, I don't think you know very much at all. You just don't get the significance of Argentina hitting all those ships and nothing happening. Those bombs would've sent those ships to the bottom no problem had the bombs been correctly fused, the whole Task Force would've been done for, war over and the carriers failed to prevent that regardless even if they did manage to get a few sidewinders away at the cost of about 5 Skyhawks. There were a few other key events too that we got lucky on btw.

I get that you are patriotic but in this case it's blinding.

As for WW2 I know far more about that than the Falklands but I'll derail the thread. The view that Russia won it is the most ridiculous myth spouted about, it really doesn't hold water.

We took 8000 landing troops to the Falklands.

These were distributed thus:

• SS Canberra: This ship carried approximately 3,000 troops, including the 40 and 42 Commando Royal Marines and the 3rd Parachute Regiment.
• Queen Elizabeth 2: This ship transported over 3,000 troops, including the Welsh Guards, Scots Guards, and the Gurkha Rifle
• HMS Fearless: This amphibious assault ship could carry up to 700 troops for short periods.
• HMS Intrepid: Similar to HMS Fearless, it could also carry up to 700 troops for short periods.
• RFA Sir Galahad: This landing ship logistics vessel could carry up to 534 troops.
• RFA Sir Tristram: Another landing ship logistics vessel, it could accommodate up to 350 troops.
• RFA Sir Lancelot: This vessel could carry up to 340 troops.

The last five ships weren't all carrying their full capacity.

The important fact is that either the two main landing ships nor our carriers were hit by any bombs.
Our air defence and our warriors succeeded in protecting them and we lost heroes and had sometimes badly injured ones in doing that.

Because the main bulk of our fleet were protected and both our troops and aircraft able to operate, the result on the ground was inevitable due to the quality of our troops and their equipment.

The truth of the Falklands conflict is that we could have lost more troops and ships and that of course there was risk involved....Argentina lost a lot of aircraft in hitting the ships they hit, but they didn't manage to get at the core ships.....there were four ships where anyone of them sinking would have probably ended the operation.

Yep, I also recognise that my views on the second world war are currently controversial in our country....though my position isn't as minority held as some perhaps think......I would have had the same reaction to my opinion only a few years ago as I was raised with a lot of myths. I have no desire to convince or change your opinion, I just respond with what I understand from factual inquiry to be the truth.

Look I understand that you disagree and don't want to talk warfare.

Differences of opinion are the language of forums and if you think I'm wrong then that's cool.

 

[nead1]

It hasn’t. It’s been asserted by our resident font of all knowledge.

If it exists I am sure you can find it and share the link.

Exactly which is the reason why I asked; easy to pump out a lot of innuendo, misinformation and idle gossip as is so often the case both on this site and from other quarters.

Lets see what, if anything, comes back. I wont be holding my breath.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Exactly which is the reason why I asked; easy to pump out a lot of innuendo, misinformation and idle gossip as is so often the case both on this site and from other quarters.

Lets see what, if anything, comes back. I wont be holding my breath.

Really? So you imply that I pump out 'innuendo, misinformation and idle gossip' on this without even checking? Despite Eagle having told you that details had already been shared on the 2022 deal.....the details are even discussed in the thread.

But instead of looking, you prefer to automatically make assumptions just because someone you presumably mostly agree with raises doubts.

Eagle was referring to post #456.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Really? So you imply that I pump out 'innuendo, misinformation and idle gossip' on this without even checking? Despite Eagle having told you that details had already been shared on the 2022 deal.....even discussed in the thread over its details.

But instead of looking, you prefer to automatically make assumptions just because someone you presumably mostly agree with raises doubts.

Eagle was referring to post #456.

You are either a very confused or disingenuous man. An offer is not a deal until it is accepted. Many offers are made that are deliberately intended to be unacceptable—window dressing to impress the gullible being the tactic of those seeking to recruit willing internet foot soldiers.

If Palace offered £50 and a bag of chips to Bayern Munich to bring Olise back, would you be telling BM they were fools not to have accepted it if his career was ended by injury a couple of months later? You judge things at the time they are made. Not with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Eagleman13]

Honestly I'm afraid I'm not going to talk to you on warfare fella, I don't think you know very much at all. You just don't get the significance of Argentina hitting all those ships and nothing happening. Those bombs would've sent those ships to the bottom no problem had the bombs been correctly fused, the whole Task Force would've been done for, war over and the carriers failed to prevent that regardless even if they did manage to get a few sidewinders away at the cost of about 5 Skyhawks. There were a few other key events too that we got lucky on btw.

I get that you are patriotic but in this case it's blinding.

As for WW2 I know far more about that than the Falklands but I'll derail the thread. The view that Russia won it is the most ridiculous myth spouted about, it really doesn't hold water.

The ships that were hit, including the one i was on, were not bombed, they flew Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. Skyhawk & Mirage ground attack planes. They even had some British Canberras which the UK sold them in the early 70's. We, on the other hand had the Sea Harrier.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You are either a very confused or disingenuous man. An offer is not a deal until it is accepted. Many offers are made that are deliberately intended to be unacceptable—window dressing to impress the gullible being the tactic of those seeking to recruit willing internet foot soldiers.

If Palace offered £50 and a bag of chips to Bayern Munich to bring Olise back, would you be telling BM they were fools not to have accepted it if his career was ended by injury a couple of months later? You judge things at the time they are made. Not with the benefit of hindsight.

You often seem to resort to ridiculous arguments like this. Whether something is called an 'offer' or a 'deal' is an extremely weak argument. Who cares....Tell you what, consider the deal on offer in 2022 using whatever words you want to.

The deal was already half agreed on, this was why Johnson flew over to Kiev personally to talk to Zelensky. Both Biden and Johnson convinced him to reject the deal......This is hardly a controversial point to make as Johnson spoke about rejecting the deal at the time.

Finally, you speak of 'judgement at the time' and really this stands at the centre of everything that has transpired since. Poor judgement does not deserve reward and poor judgement is what you have displayed on this forum since you turned up....All you seem to do is back the establishment and make excuses for it, from grooming gangs to foreign wars. It cannot be said that arguments weren't being made for bringing this war to an end in 2022. Many people were advising against this disaster of a war once they had looked at it.

 

[Spindle]

America could have won the war alone with numbers and production capacity, but given enough time, the Nazis would have developed the atom bomb. No one, including you, knows what would have happened had Russia not eroded German resistance.

What if's and maybe's. There is always plenty of those when discussing history.

I recall saying it was the allies that won, and it wasn't Russia as claimed. I also said that Russia would've likely been beaten by Germany if not for the allies. So we're in agreement.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The ships that were hit, including the one i was on, were not bombed, they flew Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. Skyhawk & Mirage ground attack planes. They even had some British Canberras which the UK sold them in the early 70's. We, on the other hand had the Sea Harrier.

You are part of our proud history Eagle and I tip my hat.

 

[Spindle]

It's a bloke.

Yes, he has an agenda...one I mostly agree with....and I might add that we are always being led by people with agendas.

What matters is how the agendas pan out and I only see neo and social liberals continually fecking things up.

Sure, but I don't think Poll of Polls have an agenda, the just post up the polling numbers for all polls.

 

[Eagleman13]

You are part of our proud history Eagle and I tip my hat.

Thank you Stirling, just replying to a bit of 'miss-information'

 

[Stirlingsays]

I recall saying it was the allies that won, and it wasn't Russia as claimed. I also said that Russia would've likely been beaten by Germany if not for the allies. So we're in agreement.

I never said Russia won the war, I stated the fact that it killed 4 out of 5 Germans, which was the bulk of the killing.

I also didn't disagree that Russia required support and that Germany would have probably beaten it if it hadn't been fighting on two fronts.....that's not controversial either.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Sure, but I don't think Poll of Polls have an agenda, the just post up the polling numbers for all polls.

Yes he certainly had that wrong, even though it wasn't the point of what he was saying but instead was rather reflecting the point that Starmer was unpopular. That said, as it wasn't accurate it's a fair point to raise.

 

[Spindle]

The ships that were hit, including the one i was on, were not bombed, they flew Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. Skyhawk & Mirage ground attack planes. They even had some British Canberras which the UK sold them in the early 70's. We, on the other hand had the Sea Harrier.

Yes they used Exocet from Super Etendard but I wasn't referring to those, and we had a rift with France over it, but other ships were hit too except unlike an anti ship missile there was no detonation. Had there been you'd have seen huge casualties and the Skyhawks would've moved on to new targets, instead of persisting.

Thatcher loved dictator Pinochet because he parked his army on the Argentine border for us, so that kept Mirage at home instead of joining in the attacks, and it's a far superior machine.

Had we lost most of the landing fleet do you think we'd have persisted? I don't. There wouldn't have been enough force to take out the remainder, Thatcher would've bought it in the commons (highly unpopular at the time, the victory saved her), and some deal would've been reached a la Zelensky

Did you have a moustache at the time? I bet you did 😉

 

[Spindle]

Yes he certainly had that wrong, even though it wasn't the point of what he was saying but instead was rather reflecting the point that Starmer was unpopular. That said, as it wasn't accurate it's a fair point to raise.

Starmer is certainly not popular but also not unpopular. The Southport situation turned out to be a gift for the right wing media outlets

 

[ASCPFC]

Yes they used Exocet from Super Etendard but I wasn't referring to those, and we had a rift with France over it, but other ships were hit too except unlike an anti ship missile there was no detonation. Had there been you'd have seen huge casualties and the Skyhawks would've moved on to new targets, instead of persisting.

Thatcher loved dictator Pinochet because he parked his army on the Argentine border for us, so that kept Mirage at home instead of joining in the attacks, and it's a far superior machine.

Had we lost most of the landing fleet do you think we'd have persisted? I don't. There wouldn't have been enough force to take out the remainder, Thatcher would've bought it in the commons (highly unpopular at the time, the victory saved her), and some deal would've been reached a la Zelensky

Did you have a moustache at the time? I bet you did 😉

The Atlantic Conveyor was lost early: really should have been operation over, but it wasn't.
Secrets that have come out since: Chilean radar detected and conveyed Argentine take offs to Britain.
USA gave Britain their early GPS system. Meaning British artillery and air strikes were coordinated and pinpoint. (Still details are secret).
MI6 had an operation where dud exocets were sold to the Argentines. They didn't have a viable warhead. Unfortunately, cuts in fire defence systems and uniforms meant the missile fuel (essentially rocket fuel) caused heavy fire damage. Which was what caused the deaths of sailors and soldiers. RIP.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Starmer is certainly not popular but also not unpopular. The Southport situation turned out to be a gift for the right wing media outlets

It's not how I'd describe it.

It's not a 'gift' we want. If people like us were listened to those children would still be alive.

Mostly good people have been locked up by a system....that I regard with contempt.

 

[Spindle]

I never said Russia won the war, I stated the fact that it killed 4 out of 5 Germans, which was the bulk of the killing.

I also didn't disagree that Russia required support and that Germany would have probably beaten it if it hadn't been fighting on two fronts.....that's not controversial either.

Yes, because the bulk was on that front, and the bulk came later too. The west plugged a gap that would've seen them fold, they just didn't have any kit, so the arrival of western kit saved them, very much like western kit stopped the Russian thrust today.

 

[Spindle]

It's not how I'd describe it.

It's not a 'gift' we want. If people like us were listened to those children would still be alive.

Mostly good people have been locked up by a system....that I regard with contempt.

I was referring to the way it was handled rather than the attack itself

 

[Stirlingsays]

Yes, because the bulk was on that front, and the bulk came later too. The west plugged a gap that would've seen them fold, they just didn't have any kit, so the arrival of western kit saved them, very much like western kit stopped the Russian thrust today.

Russia had a massive production base and Stalin was willing to fight to the last person to save his regime....and the sheer weight of numbers wore down the Germans.
Even without our support it was it was a miscalculation by Hitler as he simply didn't have the manpower to take all of Russia while fighting on another front......He was betting everything on the very best outcome.....Stalin to fall or the allies to join him. He bet everything on red which is similar to this war.

He knew himself that without a quick victory it was over.....Germany didn't have the demographic size. Even so he came remarkably close.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I was referring to the way it was handled rather than the attack itself

Fair enough.

However, the way it is handled was fully supported by just about every Labour activist out there. The vast bulk of the Labour party see it exactly how Starmer saw it and I might add to that the vast bulk of our judiciary.....who are also mostly higher middle class Labour supporters....at least on social policies.

Even our Police are effectively filtered to remove right wing opinions and are subject to DEI and other left wing social policy training.