The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

Minn said:
Well, if we are going to shut down an armed service, can someone list the aircraft shot down by RAF jet fighters since 1945
Click to expand...
The RAF is already scheduled to shrink and any further cuts would render it incapable for supporting the Army. So the question is not relevant.

The fundamental point is this, cut the Army or RAF budget by 50% and Britain could no longer field an Army brigade on a mission overseas. If the RN budget was cut 50% we could still be a major player in Western coalition military ventures.
 
Last edited:
jonjo3 said:
Code:
Yes, I suspect it was called The Liberal Elite and the quisling culture at the MOD that has evolved over 13 years to fit in with New Labour executive incompetence.

It is time for the lap dog RN Admirals to realize they are the custodians of an institution with 300 years of noble history. Regime change is just around the corner and based on present performance and/or public perception, the politically astute choice of a Tory Government would be to let the brunt of the defense cuts fall on the RN.

Next time there is a chance, the RN captain at the sharp end should throw the circuit breakers on the Northwood command channel, then lock and load and do what the Royal Navy used to do. The captain's career and his ships's company is depending on him to save them from the breakers yard.
Click to expand...


Not just this government.
Read Mike Rossiter's book Sink the Belgrano and you will see that political and military command at Northwood is only about indecision, dithering and 'minimum force' **** that effectively ties the hands of the people on the ground (water) at the sharp end. We probably need a return to the gunboat diplomacy that kicks the arse of the bad boys and makes thme cut and run when the grey boat appears on the horizon.

I am not a supporter of a 'fluffy' military.

To be very controversial, if the military kicks butt the bad boys will eventually realise it is not worth the risk and the loss of an innocent life or two now, will save many in the future.
 
Minn said:
This thread is has become very silly.
Click to expand...

Why, because I advocate that the military works best when applying maximum force? A good example of apeasement and minimum force was in Bosnia where the Dutch allowed hundreds to be slaughtered because they didn't want to risk a few deaths by defying the Serbs.
 
I agree with the Major. We do not need a fluffy military - we need a military which is seen as really bad baztards and not to be tangled with. A deterrant.

I'm trying to remember the report I read about the goings on by the Russians at the time of Terry Waites et al being held hostage. Basically there were one or two Russians held for a short time by the baddies. Russia asked for them to be released or else. When nothing was forthcoming a head which had belonged to one of the friends/family of the hostage takers was found on the doorstep of the people they had asked to free their men. The same happened a few days later. A third was not required. Message received loud and clear. Hostages released and no more Russians were taken hostage.
 
Last edited:
Major Catastrophe said:
We probably need a return to the gunboat diplomacy
Click to expand...
We don't have enough suitable gun boats in the RN. The most suitable boats are owned by the e-Boarders department and tasked with implementing Gordon Brown's police state at sea.

Major Catastrophe said:
I am not a supporter of a 'fluffy' military.
Click to expand...
And the Royal Navy is particularly adept at putting its fluffy foot forward. Just look at those ship commander profiles, they all look like vicars and accountants who cannot wait to get home on leave to do a spot of topiary.

The most effective thing the First Sea Lord could do to increase the military effectiveness of the RN would be to fly Annie Leibovitz around the fleet with a brief to make the vicars and accountants look like gnarly mean blood thirsty warriors who would never surrender.

Edit: Just noticed Duncan has similar thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
Well I agree the RN website is fluffy.

But I do wonder why when I last sailed past I noticed that the range launch at Dungeness belongs to Smit International and is chartered by the Army - are squaddies not safe in a boat?
Click to expand...

Quite rightly it was decided years ago that squaddies should be training to be killers and not peeling potatoes, painting coal and driving range boats. You may be surprised to know that the army has disposed of hundreds of 4 ton lorries and now transport troops to and from ranges and training areas in civvy coaches, as lorries do not figure in today's battlefield.

[Troll] Sometimes the MOD do get things right and the money saved can go towards civil service bonuses. [/Troll]
 
Major Catastrophe said:
Why, because I advocate that the military works best when applying maximum force?
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think that the very idea that the military don't use maximum force is detrimental to anything they attempt to do. With complex rules of engagement or an unwillingness to attack the economic base of an enemy there is no hope of success, see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea (although less so there), Somalia, Bosnia and to an extent the Falklands.

If you aren't willing to use any means necessary to destroy the enemy then it's not time to commit the military. Which brings us back to using a fleet auxiliary tanker as a piracy patrol vessel where they aren't allowed to shoot people.
 
There's some gloriously silly stuff in this thread, from the Dirty Harry school of armchair naval tacticians, all of which seems to boil down to "the end justifies the means".

Here's one example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minn
""4 - Helo continues over to mother ship and rakes bridge with m/g fire".

The "mother ship" in this case was a large Singapore owned container ship;"

reply : "The ship might have once been owned in Singapore but the time in question it was a commandeered enemy combatant vessel supporting an act of violence against a British vessel in international waters. The owners would have to pursue damages through the Somali legal system.

As to the cost of a tow, I say put the container ship on eBay as a RN prize of war."
unquote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minn
"the pirates M.O. is to assemble the entire crew on the bridge; this is well known to those who actually have to deal withy these situations, which certainly includes the commanding officer of the RFA "Wave Knight" "

reply "That is handy, now the captain of Wave Rider is free to direct fire from his 30mm cannon into other parts of the ship to disable vital systems."
unquote.

So, a large ship flying the flag of a friendly Commonwealth country (Singapore - the Kota Wajar is owned and flagged there) which herself is the victim of a pirate attack, with her crew of 18 or so held hostage, is to be shot up by the Royal Navy just because two British yachtsmen have been kidnapped.

There's a word for attacking innocent merchant ships - it's called piracy.

But of course its consistent with Catastrophe's wish to "apply maximum force".

Curiously for someone whom one takes, from his strictures on what the Navy should do, to be a British subject, he uses American slang:

quote

if the military kicks butt the bad boys will eventually realise it is not worth the risk and the loss of an innocent life or two now, will save many in the future

unquote

"kicks butt" ?? "bad boys" ??

Too many Rambo videos and not enough fresh air and exercise.

Amongst the ships detained off Somalia at the moment are two from nations not known for the "fluffiness" of their military or their sensitivity to human rights - a North Korean tanker and a Chinese bulk carrier. The PLA Navy have, and had, units in the immediate vicinity of the Chinese ship but they have not tried to "take out" the pirates.

It is not that simple.
 
Last edited:
"kicks butt" ?? "bad boys" ??

Too many Rambo videos and not enough fresh air and exercise.
Click to expand...

I used 'Kicks butt' because I assumed my first choice Anglo Saxon word would be censored by the forum swear filter. As my post now contained an 'Americanism' I decided to continue in the literary vein for the sake of consistency.

As it happens, 'arse' seems acceptable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top