The Falklands War

Pathfinder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iy1DvEytgo&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7uDG8tyaI&feature=related


The 70 mile march across the Falklands by troops carrying 110lbs of kit, is one of the British armies greatest military achievements. By rights Argentina should have won the war, after sinking the Artic conveyor, the ship carrying the troop helicopters and other equipment, so the British walked fighting hand to hand bayonet combat on the way.

I remember seeing one young Scots Guardsman, who lost an arm in the battle for Mount Tumbledown calmly smoking a fag, doped out of his head on morphine, sitting on a rock, while he waited for hours for the medics to arrive.

The Falklands are 400 miles from Argentina, in international waters, discovered by Britain and with a British population. Argentina had no claim to them.

Black Swan

Pathfinder wrote: »

The Falklands are 400 miles from Argentina, in international waters, discovered by Britain and with a British population. Argentina had no claim to them.

British history? I wonder how Argentina history would read?

How would British history treat Ireland if written before 1922? Would it differ from Irish history written after?

Pathfinder

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

British history? I wonder how Argentina history would read?

How would British history treat Ireland if written before 1922? Would it differ from Irish history written after?

Don't understand your question.

Enjoy this one.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl8etDqvvmQ&feature=related

Morlar

Pathfinder wrote: »

Don't understand your question.

Aside from posting up little 'the british army are great' videos not really understanding the point of your thread in all honesty.

Not to be pedantic but it was the atlantic conveyor not artic and I am pretty sure things would have turned out very differently if the argentinians had gotten hold of more exocet missiles in time.

robinph

The exocet missiles would have been of limited use as the french would have given over codes to disable them.

Morlar

robinph wrote: »

The exocet missiles would have been of limited use as the french would have given over codes to disable them.

It was actually a bit more complicated than that - but yes british intelligence efforts in europe - combined with pressure on the french won that war imo.

This is one you might find interesting (or not) I remember seeing this years ago and being staggered at how close the argentinians actually were.

http://www.stage6.com/History---Modern-Wars/video/1779558/The-Falklands---How-Close-To-Defeat

Its called 'The Falklands - How Close To Defeat' - a discovery channel documentary that outlines the argentian exocet dilemna.

AngryHippie

Morlar wrote: »

Aside from posting up little 'the british army are great' videos not really understanding the point of your thread in all honesty.

Not to be pedantic but it was the atlantic conveyor not artic and I am pretty sure things would have turned out very differently if the argentinians had gotten hold of more exocet missiles in time.

Agreed.

Have a read at Naomi Kleins "The Shock Doctrine" Some very interesting background into the causes and motivations behind that war.
Did Thatcher precipitate the whole think by indicating to the Argentinians that ceding the territory was a long term goal ?

I don't mean to demean the British Armies "Achievements" but I'd give the defence of Khartoum more credit.... Yeah they persevered in the face of some very tough conditions in an utterly pointless war, But did they achieve anything other than a wave of patriotism that put thatcher right back in the saddle for another term ?

Pathfinder

Morlar wrote: »

Aside from posting up little 'the british army are great' videos not really understanding the point of your thread in all honesty.

Not to be pedantic but it was the atlantic conveyor not artic and I am pretty sure things would have turned out very differently if the argentinians had gotten hold of more exocet missiles in time.

What counts is the outcome, what ifs can be applied to any situation or war.

The reality is it was a tremedous military achievement, the British army was possibly the only army on Earth whos troops could have achieved such a feat on foot.

Its a thread about the Falklands war.

Don't you like British military history being discussed a Chara ?

Argentina lost the war due to strategic error, instead of sinking frigates if she had gone for supply ships only, she would have won, but she never.

The British tactic of having frigates on the edge of the Royal Navy task force to protect it, served its purpose.

British generals now admit at the start of the campaign Argentina had a 60/40 advantage.

The fact Thatcher knew this and still went ahead is to be admired.

It was a tremendous achievement the average British infantryman was 19 years old,

Tipsy Mac

Pathfinder wrote: »

The Falklands are 400 miles from Argentina, in international waters, discovered by Britain and with a British population. Argentina had no claim to them.

The first European explorer to sight the islands is widely thought to be Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600. Although several British and Spanish historians maintain their own explorers discovered the islands earlier, some older maps, particularly Dutch ones, used the name "Sebald Islands", after de Weert.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port St. Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Pathfinder

Ok, theres claims the Dutch sighted them, but they have been British territory for a very long time, longer then the nation of Argentina has existed.

You left out....................


The islands are referred to in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690,


Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765 British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766.

Pathfinder

AngryHippie wrote: »

Agreed.

Have a read at Naomi Kleins "The Shock Doctrine" Some very interesting background into the causes and motivations behind that war.
Did Thatcher precipitate the whole think by indicating to the Argentinians that ceding the territory was a long term goal ?

I don't mean to demean the British Armies "Achievements" but I'd give the defence of Khartoum more credit.... Yeah they persevered in the face of some very tough conditions in an utterly pointless war, But did they achieve anything other than a wave of patriotism that put thatcher right back in the saddle for another term ?

They are strategically important and for Britain a claim on resources in the area.

They were invaded by force, Britain had a duty to defend British citizens and territory.

McArmalite

Pathfinder wrote: »

The reality is it was a tremedous military achievement, the British army was possibly the only army on Earth whos troops could have achieved such a feat on foot........It was a tremendous achievement ,......The 70 mile march across the Falklands by troops carrying 110lbs of kit, is one of the British armies greatest military achievements.

Jayus :rolleyes: as I've said before and will have to repeat many times again - you just LOVE yourselves don't you, you just ADORE yourselves. What else could you expect from the conceited nation that likes to fool itself that it alone defeated Germany and it's allies in WW2 and WW1. :rolleyes:

Morlar - " 'The Falklands - How Close To Defeat' - a discovery channel documentary that outlines the argentian exocet dilemna. " Yeah seen it Morlar, good programm. They were pretty damned lucky and the outcome was not as inevitable as they tried to portray. And ultimately important, without the secret satellite photos the Americans supplied to them, they would never have been able to land on the Malvinas anyway as the old maps they had of the place were decades old and of little use for modern millitary logistics. So much for " the British army was possibly the only army on Earth whos troops could have achieved such a feat "

AngryHippie - " achieve anything other than a wave of patriotism that put thatcher right back in the saddle for another term " Exactly, so Snathcher could put more people out of work, destroy the NHS and try and bring in the poll tax. Brillant victory for the ordinary people of britain alright.

BTW Pathfinder, since " the British army was possibly the only army on Earth whos troops could have achieved such a feat " how come britian didn't do the same when the Americans invaded Grenada the following year ?? ( Without even asking/telling the british they were going to, so much for the 'special relationship' )

No Royal Marines dashing over to fight the US Marines ??

Andrew H

The 70 mile march across the Falklands by troops carrying 110lbs of kit, is one of the British armies greatest military achievements. By rights Argentina should have won the war, after sinking the Artic conveyor, the ship carrying the troop helicopters and other equipment, so the British walked fighting hand to hand bayonet combat on the way.

Is this the excuse given by the Britsh Army for their roll in war crimes that were commited against the Argentinian conscripted soldiers (i.e they were continously on the move and had no time to guard pow's);

By NATHANIEL C. NASH,
Published: August 23, 1992
"Argentina and Britain are looking into reports that Argentine soldiers were summarily executed by British soldiers in the Falklands war in 1982.

The inquiries, announced this week by both countries, spring from accusations in a book written by a former British soldier who says he saw Argentine soldiers who had surrendered being pushed off a cliff and shot to death by British troops".

As has previously been stated the victors write the history.

Pathfinder

Andrew H wrote: »

The 70 mile march across the Falklands by troops carrying 110lbs of kit, is one of the British armies greatest military achievements. By rights Argentina should have won the war, after sinking the Artic conveyor, the ship carrying the troop helicopters and other equipment, so the British walked fighting hand to hand bayonet combat on the way.

Is this the excuse given by the Britsh Army for their roll in war crimes that were commited against the Argentinian conscripted soldiers (i.e they were continously on the move and had no time to guard pow's);

By NATHANIEL C. NASH,
Published: August 23, 1992
"Argentina and Britain are looking into reports that Argentine soldiers were summarily executed by British soldiers in the Falklands war in 1982.

The inquiries, announced this week by both countries, spring from accusations in a book written by a former British soldier who says he saw Argentine soldiers who had surrendered being pushed off a cliff and shot to death by British troops".

As has previously been stated the victors write the history.

If true I'm sure Argentinians who saw such things would have publicized it by now, as would their govt.

Morlar

Pathfinder wrote: »

What counts is the outcome, what ifs can be applied to any situation or war.

You are not making much sense here.

You started a thread in order to post video links about how great the british army are in relation to the falklands/Malvinas conflict . . . . . presumably this is to trigger some kind of critical discussion where alternate viewpoints can be assessed & debated in order to reach some kind of informed consensus.

Yet when someone (ie me) responds to your one sided posts (to point out how close the argentinians came to victory) you say 'what ifs dont count'. And immediately launch into your brit army fanboy nonsense again.

Pathfinder wrote: »

The reality is it was a tremedous military achievement, the British army was possibly the only army on Earth whos troops could have achieved such a feat on foot.

This is just drivelling sycophancy - It was not a 'tremendous militrary achievement' despite the british tabloid rag propaganda of the time.

And no the british army were not the only army on earth who could have made that march - what a ridiculous claim to make on both scores.

Would you care to back that up with anything whatsoever ? On what basis was it a 'tremendous military achievement' also what proof do you offer that the british army are the only army on earth capable of that march ?

Pathfinder wrote: »

Its a thread about the Falklands war.

Your not looking for a critical discussion your looking for a circle jerk of praise for the brit army - there is a difference.

Pathfinder wrote: »

Don't you like British military history being discussed a Chara ?

I have no more an issue with people critically discussing the british army than I do with people discussing the italian or french armies - that is to say none at all. That is providing the discussion is from a critical perspective and not of the fanboy-masturbatory-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda variety. Which is all that you have contributed so far. As for the Chara remark - aww thats sweet.

Pathfinder wrote: »

Argentina lost the war due to strategic error, instead of sinking frigates if she had gone for supply ships only, she would have won, but she never.

Its just not that simple in my opinion. One factor you are not counting is that they ran out of exocet guided missiles which is the point I originally made. The argentinian pilots had to travel 300 miles to get there - they had a 3 minutes airtime slot over the islands due to fuel restrictions (and the fact that they did not lengthen the runway on the islands before the convoy arrived). They approached at 200+mph about a metre or so above water and had to make lightning speed decisions on which ship to attack as they had a window of seconds and were under very heavy fire and intense psychological pressure at the time.

So they didnt 'decide' to target frigates instead of supply ships.

Whether you like it or not they were intelligent enough to know that a taskforce that far from home cant logistically survive without supplies for very long.

This was a primary british weakspot. Any retard with a map of the world and a red pen could tell you that - to presume the argentinians were not aware of that is a bit simplistic and dismissive. In my estimation thats a lot more simplistic and dismissive than the brit commanders at that time would have dared to be.

Another of many factors you seem incapable of assessing is the fact that most of the argentinian bombs went straight through the british ships as the satefy fuses were set to a delay so as not to risk destroying the argentian fighterbombers in the explosion - in retrospect this was another error,

They had a border conflict with chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with england the chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite argentian troops were stationed along the chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the argentinians on the islands were conscripts from the north (ie warm) part of the country - they were not accustomed to the weather they encountered and this is a factor also.

Pathfinder wrote: »

The British tactic of having frigates on the edge of the Royal Navy task force to protect it, served its purpose.

If you think thats an impressive 'tactic' then you are easily impressed.

Pathfinder

Morlar wrote: »

You are not making much sense here.

You started a thread in order to post video links about how great the british army are in relation to the falklands/Malvinas conflict . . . . . presumably this is to trigger some kind of critical discussion where alternate viewpoints can be assessed & debated in order to reach some kind of informed consensus.

Yet when someone (ie me) responds to your one sided posts (to point out how close the argentinians came to victory) you say 'what ifs dont count'. And immediately launch into your brit army fanboy nonsense again.



This is just drivelling sycophancy - It was not a 'tremendous militrary achievement' despite the british tabloid rag propaganda of the time.

And no the british army were not the only army on earth who could have made that march - what a ridiculous claim to make on both scores.

Would you care to back that up with anything whatsoever ? On what basis was it a 'tremendous military achievement' also what proof do you offer that the british army are the only army on earth capable of that march ?



Your not looking for a critical discussion your looking for a circle jerk of praise for the brit army - there is a difference.



I have no more an issue with people critically discussing the british army than I do with people discussing the italian or french armies - that is to say none at all. That is providing the discussion is from a critical perspective and not of the fanboy-masturbatory-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda variety. Which is all that you have contributed so far. As for the Chara remark - aww thats sweet.



Its just not that simple in my opinion. One factor you are not counting is that they ran out of exocet guided missiles which is the point I originally made. The argentinian pilots had to travel 300 miles to get there - they had a 3 minutes airtime slot over the islands due to fuel restrictions (and the fact that they did not lengthen the runway on the islands before the convoy arrived). They approached at 200+mph about a metre or so above water and had to make lightning speed decisions on which ship to attack as they had a window of seconds and were under very heavy fire and intense psychological pressure at the time.

So they didnt 'decide' to target frigates instead of supply ships.

Whether you like it or not they were intelligent enough to know that a taskforce that far from home cant logistically survive without supplies for very long.

This was a primary british weakspot. Any retard with a map of the world and a red pen could tell you that - to presume the argentinians were not aware of that is a bit simplistic and dismissive. In my estimation thats a lot more simplistic and dismissive than the brit commanders at that time would have dared to be.

Another of many factors you seem incapable of assessing is the fact that most of the argentinian bombs went straight through the british ships as the satefy fuses were set to a delay so as not to risk destroying the argentian fighterbombers in the explosion - in retrospect this was another error,

They had a border conflict with chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with england the chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite argentian troops were stationed along the chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the argentinians on the islands were conscripts from the north (ie warm) part of the country - they were not accustomed to the weather they encountered and this is a factor also.




If you think thats an impressive 'tactic' then you are easily impressed.

Your what ifs can be applied to anything, what if the cloud cover during the battle of the bulge had not lifed, what if JFK had a bullet proof car, what if Argentina had more exocets.

Thatcher had been told Britain was the underdog going into the war

Marching 70 miles with 110lbs backpacks in 3 days, sleeping rough in freezing conditions, fighting with bayonets in hand to hand combat, on route was an incredible achievement, name the other armies with troops fit enough to carry out such activities ?
Futher Argentinian troops held the high ground, professionl marines and special forces were also deployed, not just conscripts.
An Argentinian air force general since said, they choose the wrong tactics if they had sacrificed 10 warplanes and gone for the supply ships and bailed out over the Falklands they would have won he was right.

Instead they went for the frigates as the British wanted them to 20 miles around the taskforce.

Morlar

Pathfinder wrote: »

Your what ifs can be applied to anything,.

I see what you mean. Like 'What if' this thread had a point other than jingoistic wartime tabloid pro-brit army propaganda.

Pathfinder

Victory led to the fall of a fascist regime, but then being an insecure republican that does not intrest you, slagging off Britain comes first.

One of the things that is often overlooked in these discussions is what the Argentinians had planned for the Falklands.

Immediately after the invasion they started the process of converting the Islands (& the people) to be like an Argentinian province.

The first thing they did was to force traffic to drive on the right, then they renamed public buildings to their spanish equivilant, they even had spanish teachers on standby to be brought in to hasten a language shift to spanish.

The post office was using Argentinian stamps during the occupation, the currency was due to be replaced as well.
There were also plans to import large numbers of Argentinian families to displace the existing population, who incidently were offered free passage off the islands to go anywhere they wished.

As for the British army's "remarkable" trek, all troops do a tour in Norway as part of their training and this type of "yomp" would have been a typical exercise.

Another crucial part of the jigsaw in reclaiming the Falklands was the use of the Ascension Islands as a staging post, made an enormous difference to the logistics.

The use of old maps would not have caused any major difficulties as the topology of the islands wouldn't have changed, there is little in the way of manmade infrastructure on the islands in any case.

Satellite images were vital as they showed to location of the Argentinian bases etc.

Morlar

Pathfinder wrote: »

but then being an insecure republican . . . .

Name calling isnt as big or clever as you think it is and only underlines the total vacuosness of this thread and your entire contribution here.

McArmalite

Morlar wrote: »

You are not making much sense here.

You started a thread in order to post video links about how great the british army are in relation to the falklands/Malvinas conflict . . . . . presumably this is to trigger some kind of critical discussion where alternate viewpoints can be assessed & debated in order to reach some kind of informed consensus.

Yet when someone (ie me) responds to your one sided posts (to point out how close the argentinians came to victory) you say 'what ifs dont count'. And immediately launch into your brit army fanboy nonsense again.

This is just drivelling sycophancy - It was not a 'tremendous militrary achievement' despite the british tabloid rag propaganda of the time.

And no the british army were not the only army on earth who could have made that march - what a ridiculous claim to make on both scores.

Would you care to back that up with anything whatsoever ? On what basis was it a 'tremendous military achievement' also what proof do you offer that the british army are the only army on earth capable of that march ?

Your not looking for a critical discussion your looking for a circle jerk of praise for the brit army - there is a difference.

I have no more an issue with people critically discussing the british army than I do with people discussing the italian or french armies - that is to say none at all. That is providing the discussion is from a critical perspective and not of the fanboy-masturbatory-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda variety. Which is all that you have contributed so far. As for the Chara remark - aww thats sweet.

Its just not that simple in my opinion. One factor you are not counting is that they ran out of exocet guided missiles which is the point I originally made. The argentinian pilots had to travel 300 miles to get there - they had a 3 minutes airtime slot over the islands due to fuel restrictions (and the fact that they did not lengthen the runway on the islands before the convoy arrived). They approached at 200+mph about a metre or so above water and had to make lightning speed decisions on which ship to attack as they had a window of seconds and were under very heavy fire and intense psychological pressure at the time.

So they didnt 'decide' to target frigates instead of supply ships.

Whether you like it or not they were intelligent enough to know that a taskforce that far from home cant logistically survive without supplies for very long.

This was a primary british weakspot. Any retard with a map of the world and a red pen could tell you that - to presume the argentinians were not aware of that is a bit simplistic and dismissive. In my estimation thats a lot more simplistic and dismissive than the brit commanders at that time would have dared to be.

Another of many factors you seem incapable of assessing is the fact that most of the argentinian bombs went straight through the british ships as the satefy fuses were set to a delay so as not to risk destroying the argentian fighterbombers in the explosion - in retrospect this was another error,

They had a border conflict with chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with england the chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite argentian troops were stationed along the chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the argentinians on the islands were conscripts from the north (ie warm) part of the country - they were not accustomed to the weather they encountered and this is a factor also.

If you think thats an impressive 'tactic' then you are easily impressed.

No worries Morlar, you more than wiped him with - " the fanboy-masturbatory-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda variety. " ......... " little 'the british army are great' videos .........On what basis was it a 'tremendous military achievement' also what proof do you offer that the british army are the only army on earth capable of that march ? " You've hit the nail on the head |Morlar, my advice, don't argue with a fool as he'll only drag you down to his level. Let him waffle on, everyone can see he's full of fanboy-masturbatory-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda.

"The bulk of the argentinians on the islands were conscripts from the north (ie warm) part of the country - they were not accustomed to the weather they encountered and this is a factor also." Good point. Didn't most of the officers of the concsipts run off back to Argentina before the brits started attacking ??

Pathfinder wrote: »

Victory led to the fall of a fascist regime, but then being an insecure republican that does not intrest you, slagging off Britain comes first.

No it gave rise to a fascist regime - Thatcherism.

Been an insecure little schoolboy who swallows word for word every iota of tabloid propaganda and Andy McNabb SAS/UVF daring-do sh!te and then pontificates to the world just how great the british army really are !!!!! Sad, very sad. Anway, if the brits are so great, how come you didn't take on the Americans for invading Grenada instead of been humiliated and the laughing stock of the world yet again.

Pathfinder

602 Commando company and Amphibious Commandos Group were not conscripts but professional soldiers, and they held key positions on high ground.

The island of South Georgia was also held by 602 commando company, who fought against the Royal marines mountain and arctic warfare cadre.


Taking the Falklands on foot was an incredible achievement the average Royal Marine was 19.

Pathfinder

Morlar wrote: »

Name calling isnt as big or clever as you think it is and only underlines the total vacuosness of this thread and your entire contribution here.

Being a citizen of a country which has invented nothing, nor built one building of note since 1921, this thread must break your heart.

Morlar

Pathfinder wrote: »

Being a citizen of a country which has invented nothing, nor built one building of note since 1921, this thread must break your heart.

I think somone needs a huggle.

Snickers Man

That which was acquired by conquest can always be reacquired by reconquest.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

That which was acquired by conquest can always be reacquired by reconquest.

aint that the truth.

When are we going to start hearing about all the attrocities and government backed terrorism then McArma****e, or have you included the Falklands in your sig for the sake of it with nothing more than the chip on your shoulder as a basis.

Tipsy Mac

Pathfinder wrote: »

Being a citizen of a country which has invented nothing, nor built one building of note since 1921, this thread must break your heart.

Might not have built alot but we are your nearest neighbour and through over 800 years of war and all your military power and experience your lot still couldn't take the place fully over, an achievement in itself I would say

Fratton Fred

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Might not have built alot but we are your nearest neighbour and through over 800 years of war and all your military power and experience your lot still couldn't take the place fully over, an achievement in itself I would say

The Submarine.

an early submarine was developed by a fenian brother who wanted to use it against the Royal Navy. He went to the US to build it but no one was interested, until the Royal Navy came along and took up his idea.

Brilliant, but ironic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philip_Holland

McArmalite

Pathfinder wrote: »

Being a citizen of a country which has invented nothing, nor built one building of note since 1921, this thread must break your heart.

Ohhhh, we're getting upset aren't we now - STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT JUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ANSWER MORLAR QUESTIONS AND ASSERTIONS ??

Well considering that Ireland is one, if indeed not the biggest developers of software ( you Irish IT boys come shed light on this ) in the world I don't how you can say " has invented nothing ". And as for " nor built one building of note ", what the hell have all the feckin' tower cranes in Dublin alone been doing ?? What would you call Croke Park which is one of the biggest stadiums in Europe ? And your forgetting ofcourse Philip & Joans Little House on the Prairie down in Rosscommon http://dolanbaker.info/


BTW I see Prince Big Ears brother has been waffling about the Americans ignoring british advice in Iraq. ( Can you imagine the reaction of the American command - "What the f**k is that silly goddam f**king brit on about " !!!) It's mainly thanks to british 'expertise' that the middle east has inherited a history of repression and instability in the first place !!!! But I knew it, I said it from the first days the brits were going in there, if it goes wrong - it's the incompetent yanks fault. If it goes right- it's all down to our brillant 'expertise' and the british sense of fairplay, and the fearsome reputation of the SAS blah, blah, blah, . It's an endemic part of the british character, you just LOVE yourselves don't you ??

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1304026,00.html

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

It's an endemic part of the british character, you just LOVE yourselves don't you ??

well, it beats self loathing.

meathstevie

Folks, no matter what your political convictions there are some fine combat units in the British Army. Just like I wouldn't like to be on the wrong side of for example certain French, German or even Dutch, Belgian and Scandinavian units. There's no need to underestimate a good few European armies or at least certain units in them. If it ever came to the point when a joint European defence policy became reality on a political as well as a practical level you wouldn't need a lot of imagination to concoct a quality standing army that would be a credible counterbalance for the US's current sole superpower status.