EU to integrate military forces

[bmk1245]

4 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

It is a good question whether Britain would have been able to stand a land invasion even before nearly all their armour and vehicles were lost at Dunkirk. I suspect not; It's superior tactics (if not superior equipment, which it wasn't particularly) will win out over old fashioned organisation and command structures, which the British army was certainly in comparison. Sorry to sound a pessimist .  

Yeap, Sad, but true.

[stevewinn]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

Not just simplistic assumptions, but from the facts of how fast Germans rolled over France, Poland, and large swaths of USSR. You can gloat whatever you want, but the fact remains - Britain was saved by the water channel.

Your original post said FACT. I pointed out it was speculation and you've continued in the same vein. you are speculating the outcome of a battle that never occurred.

in 1940 with Germany having invaded and occupied Northern Europe with access to the entire coastline, all the treasures and resources at their disposal are you saying the English channel was insurmountable to the German War machine.

[bmk1245]

9 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Your original post said FACT.[..]

It was, and it is

9 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

[...]. I pointed out it was speculation and you've continued in the same vein. you are speculating the outcome of a battle that never occurred.

[...]

Outcome would have been the same. I don't doubt Brits would have put helluva fight.

9 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

[...]

in 1940 with Germany having invaded and occupied Northern Europe with access to the entire coastline, all the treasures and resources at their disposal are you saying the English channel was insurmountable to the German War machine.

How did German reached western shores? (Seriously, don't insult frogeaters).

Edited December 24, 2017 by bmk1245

[stevewinn]

3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

It was, and it is

Outcome would have the same. I don't doubt Brits would have put helluva fight.

How did German reached western shores? (Seriously, don't insult frogeaters).

You are speculating on what you think the likely outcome would have been. you admit as much in your sentence above "I don't doubt the Brits would have put up a helluva fight"  well did they put a hell of fight or not? you cant answer that question because it never happened But you can speculate on the outcome of a battle that never occurred. that shows its NOT FACT.

1938 when Germany annexed Austria, Britain & France should have attacked Germany and prevented Poland getting invaded and thus WWII. FACT. its not a fact because it never happened. im just speculating in the same way you are. see the difference.

 

 

 

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

You are speculating on what you think the likely outcome would have been. you admit as much in your sentence above "I don't doubt the Brits would have put up a helluva fight"  well did they put a hell of fight or not? you cant answer that question because it never happened But you can speculate on the outcome of a battle that never occurred. that shows its NOT FACT.

I can answer: Brits would have been desolated. Period. Please elaborate how, say Dunkirk disaster, was the show of British might?

[Space Commander Travis]

40 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

 

1938 when Germany annexed Austria, Britain & France should have attacked Germany and prevented Poland getting invaded and thus WWII. FACT. its not a fact because it never happened. im just speculating in the same way you are. see the difference.

 

 

 

It would have been pretty much impossible,and would probably have had an even more disastrous result than France in 1940 I'm afraid, since the RAF didn't have any bombers capable of reaching Germany, and their fighter force was hopelessly inferior to what it was in 1940,  and they had hardly any tanks worthy of the name.  

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Tell that to Poles, obnoxious shmuck.

Well we take great pride in telling it to the French.

But I offered no insult in my response but my point is valid.

The British Navy retained its maritime supremacy throughout the war.  In your scenario with a landlocked UK, no Navy would be needed sparing both manpower and resources for more appropriate defence.

I am guessing the fact that all you have to offer are insults demonstrates how correct I am.

[bmk1245]

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Well we take great pride in telling it to the French.

But I offered no insult in my response but my point is valid.

The British Navy retained its maritime supremacy throughout the war.  In your scenario with a landlocked UK, no Navy would be needed sparing both manpower and resources for more appropriate defence.

I am guessing the fact that all you have to offer are insults demonstrates how correct I am.

Heck, even smeghead 747 disagrees with you. And, BTW, I'm not throwing insults, I'm just stating facts.

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

I can answer: Brits would have been desolated. Period. Please elaborate how, say Dunkirk disaster, was the show of British might?

Would have been? your speculating again!

On Dunkirk.

Who said the BEF was a show of British might? it was a show of solidarity to our allies and mainly the defence of France in the face of aggression shown by Germany invading Poland.

The BEF made up just 8% of the total number of Allied forces. the Belgium forces alone where 4x larger than the British. The disaster was the D-plan not Dunkirk, Dunkirk was the result of a battle lost elsewhere, the evacuation from Dunkirk obviously was turned into a moral victory, one of many that would enable us to ultimately turn the tide and eventually win the War. (reference Churchill El Alamein speech 1942)

I know you like reading up on these things being a graduate from the University of Wikipedia. Google D-plan see how the Belgians and their "neutrality" caused the disaster that followed and led to Dunkirk. for starters the Belgians abandoned their defence pact with the French, then King leopold III and the Govt refused to allow the French and BEF forces into Belgium even when intelligence showed the Germans planned on coming through Belgium. If the allied forces where allowed into Belgium things could have turned out different, as the D-plan was a defensive line, the plan was enacted only after Belgium was invaded and it was this shambolic plan that caused chaos in the allied ranks and led to ultimately the fall of Belgium France and retreat to Dunkirk. 

So Dunkirk is not the disaster you think.

Edited December 24, 2017 by stevewinn

[bmk1245]

9 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Would have been? your speculating again!

[..]

No matter what you feed chickens, you will crush eggshell everytime you step on it

9 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

[...]

On Dunkirk.

Who said the BEF was a show of British might? it was a show of solidarity to our allies and mainly the defence of France in the face of aggression shown by Germany invading Poland.

The BEF made up just 8% of the total number of Allied forces. the Belgium forces alone where 4x larger than the British. The disaster was the D-plan not Dunkirk, Dunkirk was the result of a battle lost elsewhere, the evacuation from Dunkirk obviously was turned into a moral victory, one of many that would enable us to ultimately turn the tide and eventually win the War. (reference Churchill El Alamein speech 1942)

I know you like reading up on these things being a graduate from the University of Wikipedia. Google D-plan see how the Belgians and their "neutrality" caused the disaster that followed and led to Dunkirk. for starters the Belgians abandoned their defence pact with the French, then King leopold III and the Govt refused to allow the French and BEF forces into Belgium even when intelligence showed the Germans planned on coming through Belgium. If the allied forces where allowed into Belgium things could have turned out different, as the D-plan was a defensive line, the plan was enacted only after Belgium was invaded and it was this shambolic plan that caused chaos in the allied ranks and led to ultimately the fall of Belgium France and retreat to Dunkirk. 

So Dunkirk is not the disaster you think.

It was disaster, no mater how you paint it.

For example, Russkies still paint Borodino battle as some sort of win. It was disaster and battle defeat. Period.

Stick to the facts, stewie, landlocked Britain would not had a chance.

[stevewinn]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

No matter what you feed chickens, you will crush eggshell everytime you step on it

It was disaster, no mater how you paint it.

For example, Russkies still paint Borodino battle as some sort of win. It was disaster and battle defeat. Period.

Stick to the facts, stewie, landlocked Britain would not had a chance.

Oh well another post wasted on you. I've pointed you in the right direction more than the right direction and you dismiss it. Okay Dunkirk was a disaster your right stay ignorant. as long as it makes sense to you.

Oh look landlocked Britain now, more made up scenarios. stick to the facts. oh you cant never mind.

 

 

 

[LV-426]

6 hours ago, Black Monk said:

However, it was a small contribution - around 19.5% according to my maths.

I'm as proud of Britain's role in WWII as anyone. My grandad was in the RAF during WWII, although he was stationed in Africa.

My problem is with belittling the role allies played, as if we won the war ourselves. All the Poles, Canadians and other nationalities that served as volunteers in the RAF - whether displaced through the war, or part of the British Empire - were risking their lives defending our homes and our families, often far away from their own homes and families.

Churchill was a class act in describing ALL pilots who defended our skies as "The few." I can't imagine he ever considered breaking it down to maths.

[Grey Area]

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Chanel is what saved you. 

That is utter drivel as well.  Germany had a strong navy, if it was only the presence of water that stood between the UK and and German invasion then the UK would have fallen as soon as Germany had taken France.

Fortunately, the presence, capability and reputation of the British Navy and the brave seamen that served, forced them into an air war.  The rest is history and FACT.

I realise that it can at times seem a little tiresome to people who may not have been at the centre of world events, but I believe us Brits have earned the right to be a little big headed about the WW2.  It was our parents and grandparents that risked their lives to do what was right.

If having pride in my countries actions and my Granfathers contribution makes me obnoxious then I guess I will live with that.  

[bmk1245]

11 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Oh well another post wasted on you.[,,,]

Not exactly, you got familiar with some keys on your keyboard.

11 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

[...] I've pointed you in the right direction more than the right direction and you dismiss it. Okay Dunkirk was a disaster your right stay ignorant. as long as it makes sense to you.

Oh look landlocked Britain now, more made up scenarios. stick to the facts. oh you cant never mind.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

23 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

 Germany had a strong navy,

if you count submarines, yes, although they actually had pretty few of them in 1940. Otherwise the navy had pretty much been wiped out in Norway. They had no amphibious force ready and waiting, they had to improvise to get any kind of invasion fleet together.

I'm not sure whose side I am taking in this argument, I've kind of forgotten what this thread was about to be honest.

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Its not fact because it didn't happen. But if your going down that road of what ifs buts and maybes what about the fact Herr Hitler offered Britain on three occasions stay neutral and Germany would guarantee Britain and her colonies would not be attacked. what if we'd have accepted that offer? That would have denied Britain being the unsinkable "carrier" from which to assault Europe and liberate Europe. ponder that. But as we know Britain declined. now that's FACT. what also is FACT is Britain once again showing that it always does the right thing even when its not the easy option.

 

Bolded: very few countries can lay claim to being on the right side of history during the 20th century. Great Britain being one of them. no one sane would deny it. British fortitude is why the world isn't under tyrannical control BUT again you have diverted from the original question and gone directly into propaganda mode. thank God GB is an Island otherwise history and humanity would have been very different. 

[hetrodoxly]

5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You can call it speculation, but it is a fact. USSR military power was way superior to that of British, so, for landlocked Britain assault would have been quick and swift.

Sorry this is just BS, if Britain wasn't an island we wouldn't have let Germany arm itself after WW1, prove that's not true, if we'd lost the battle of Britain there wouldn't have been a north Atlantic fleet feeding and arming Russia, no RAF based in Russia (little known fact) no one bombing the German war machine, etc.

Edited December 24, 2017 by hetrodoxly

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

No matter what you feed chickens, you will crush eggshell everytime you step on it

It was disaster, no mater how you paint it.

For example, Russkies still paint Borodino battle as some sort of win. It was disaster and battle defeat. Period.

Stick to the facts, stewie, landlocke

2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

No matter what you feed chickens, you will crush eggshell everytime you step on it

It was disaster, no mater how you paint it.

For example, Russkies still paint Borodino battle as some sort of win. It was disaster and battle defeat. Period.

Stick to the facts, stewie, landlocked Britain would not had a chance.

d Britain would not had a chance.

Have you ever read or listened to the statments of the BEF troops under French command who didn't want to fall back or the second battle of Arras where British troops counter attaked Rommel stopping him in his tracks thinking he was being attacked by 20 divisions when in fact it was just 2, but if you want a  real comparison El Alamein where Monty kicked Rommel out of Africa and the birth of the SAS.

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"Just because you may feel Putin is justified in whatever actions he decides to take doesn't mean that others don't think he's a threat. "? what the hell has he done? "He invaded plucky little Ukraine!! That's proof that he would like nothing more than to gobble up Eastern Europe, because that's what tyrants always do!" Yes, and plucky little Ukraine had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Obama's State Deportment and CIA may have done, was it. No.  He assisted the tyrant Assad in defeating, er, Islamic fundamentalist extremism that was dewcribed not so long ago by the former Obama adminisnration as the greatest threat we face? 

No need to be hysterical, man.  I have said before now that my government shouldn't have pushed him when he was down.  Ukraine should have been supported politically but attempting to foment a change of alliance was too much and the bear reacted exactly as should have been expected.  As to "what has he done", I could make a list of aggressive signals but none of them would be unjustified, based on your shared opinions here.

[bmk1245]

12 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Sorry this is just BS, if Britain wasn't an island we wouldn't have let Germany arm itself after WW1, prove that's not true, if we'd lost the battle of Britain there wouldn't have been a north Atlantic fleet feeding and arming Russia, no RAF based in Russia (little known fact) no one bombing the German war machine, etc.

Good point. Can't argue against that.

BTW, German pilots were trained in USSR back in 1930s...

11 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Have you ever read or listened to the statments of the BEF troops under French command who didn't want to fall back or the second battle of Arras where British troops counter attaked Rommel stopping him in his tracks thinking he was being attacked by 20 divisions when in fact it was just 2, but if you want a  real comparison El Alamein where Monty kicked Rommel out of Africa and the birth of the SAS.

Right... Remove east front from the picture and put all that German manpower into North Africa. What are the chances that British forces would win against that? Answer: zero, ziltch, nada, zip.

[bmk1245]

13 hours ago, Grey Area said:

That is utter drivel as well.  Germany had a strong navy, if it was only the presence of water that stood between the UK and and German invasion then the UK would have fallen as soon as Germany had taken France.

Fortunately, the presence, capability and reputation of the British Navy and the brave seamen that served, forced them into an air war.  The rest is history and FACT.

I realise that it can at times seem a little tiresome to people who may not have been at the centre of world events, but I believe us Brits have earned the right to be a little big headed about the WW2.  It was our parents and grandparents that risked their lives to do what was right.

If having pride in my countries actions and my Granfathers contribution makes me obnoxious then I guess I will live with that.  

Relax, take a deep breath.

Brits (and colonies) did played substantial role in defeat of nazies. It took collective efforts to defeat nazies.

Now, fun part: would've Brits withstood full scale assault from soviets (Viktor Suvorov makes quite compelling case)?

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Good point. Can't argue against that.

BTW, German pilots were trained in USSR back in 1930s...

Right... Remove east front from the picture and put all that German manpower into North Africa. What are the chances that British forces would win against that? Answer: zero, ziltch, nada, zip.

You can talk if's and but's about every battle that's ever taken place and it's all meaningless, that's not what happend.

Rommel's africa corps were supposedly the best, more numbers wouldn't have made much difference as small groups of SAS using guerrilla tactics had a massive influence on the outcome.

Edited December 25, 2017 by hetrodoxly

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, hetrodoxly said:

You can talk if's and but's about every battle that's ever taken place and it's all meaningless, that's not what happend.[...]

Oh boy, really? You are missing the point.

1 minute ago, hetrodoxly said:

[...]

Rommel's africa corps were supposedly the best, more numbers wouldn't have made much difference as small groups of SAS using guerrilla tactics had a massive influence on the outcome.

For f's sake... With all German army being wasted in the east front, how much Brits have chances to win single battle in N.Africa? None to zero.

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Now, fun part: would've Brits withstood full scale assault from soviets (Viktor Suvorov makes quite compelling case)?

Impossible to say.

At the outbreak of hostilities not a chance.  After Hitler betrayed Stalin and Russian factories were blue-tacking together a thousand tanks a day and commissars were pressing every person who could lift a rifle then that’s different, but then they would be facing battle hardened Brits and several years of improvements and Mk’s to their armour and aircraft.

[Space Commander Travis]

31 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Impossible to say.

At the outbreak of hostilities not a chance.  After Hitler betrayed Stalin and Russian factories were blue-tacking together a thousand tanks a day and commissars were pressing every person who could lift a rifle then that’s different, but then they would be facing battle hardened Brits and several years of improvements and Mk’s to their armour and aircraft.

Would you fancy the chances of any British tank (at least until the Comet) against masses of T-34s? The Churchill for strength of armour perhaps (the Russians quite liked it themselves), but it was slow, and always under-armed until the 75 mm, and then that was so-so at best. Not to mention the sheer rate of production.