It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ukraine Style war would mean UK forces would be done in 6 months

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: bally001



We dont even have any silos on the island to launch missiles bally001.

All our cruise missiles are air or sea-launched, and our nuclear deterrent comprises SSBNs.

So i dont expect Britain to launch much from the mainland bar F-35 or Typhoon to coap with incoming Bears/Backfire/cruise missiles should Russia be silly enough to try, not that i imagine they would nether despite all the bluster.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Not much difference to WWI really.
The old, professional army was killed off by 1915 and then came the citizen army of Kitchener.

Hopefully this doesn't turn into the same kind of meat grinder.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: stu119

We're a part of NATO so wouldn't have to fight on our own , not saying funding isn't a problem but the Woke agenda that's watering our forces down also needs to be addressed along with badly managed procurement processes.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Occurring to this guy the English Channel is not an obstacle..


originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: andy06shake

With today’s advancements in technology, your beloved English Channel is no more than a minor obstacle to overcome now. You are clinging to your 16th century mentality there. Your channel can't/won't save you in these times.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Lazy88

It presented quite an obstacle for the Nazis Lazy88 and that was merely in the last century, and not the 16th.

And you also need to consider the water way will be being policed by some of the best submarines in existence in this day of age.

The channel has stopped any sort of serious invasion forces for a 1000 years.

They would need 100s of ships and barges packed to the seams with storm troops and tanks/apc.

I simply cant imagine where they would get the men, equipment, or supplies, now.

And they are never apt to gain complete control of the skies thus they would be blown out of the water or irradiated long before they ever reached England.

It's just not viable, hence they won't try.

On the flip side of that, if Russia wanted to cripple the entire island, they could probably do so with around 10 ICBM + accompanying warhead payloads.................But the favour would be returned about 50 minutes later.
edit on 5-12-2024 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: andy06shake

Occurring to this guy the English Channel is not an obstacle..


originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: andy06shake

With today’s advancements in technology, your beloved English Channel is no more than a minor obstacle to overcome now. You are clinging to your 16th century mentality there. Your channel can't/won't save you in these times.





Strange how it was so effective in WW2.

Where I live on the West coast is protected by 120 square miles of quicksand/quickmud that only specialy adapted hovercraft can move on with over 30ft difference from high to low tide so any invading forces would be killed by that long before getting close to dry land.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 06:14 AM
link   
So you europeans are just dandy with sending troops to fight in Ukraine?

I see lots of BS about UK being invaded which will never happen, but France and UK are seriously thinking about sending your young into Ukraine to defend it. You support that?



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

I would never want my kids fighting for the godawful rulers of this country.

If the last 30 years has taught me anything its that our real enemies are based in this country and send their kids to public school while running down the state schools we have to send our kids to.

No way any sacrifice could ever be worth it when it serves those interests.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

The thread is about a hypothetical conflict on UK soil.

Also the UK has ruled out sending any troops to Ukraine due to our longstanding commitments to keep troops out of theatres of conflict. UK: We're not sending troops to Ukraine

France raised the suggestion of troops to monitor any hypothetical ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine if DMZ is established but there was a disinfo campaign falsely claiming it was for active warfare against Russia rather than peacekeeping role in the DMZ zone the Trump admin have suggested.
UK and France discuss options for deploying peacekeeping troops as part of Trump's ceasefire deal

Here's a link to the DMZ plan Trump's upcoming special envoy to Russia and Ukraine has drafted that wants the UK in charge of the DMZ
America First, Russia, & Ukraine

The idea of the UK being sole peacekeeping force isn't based in real world capabilities and would make us vulnerable to attack by overstretching forces and bankrupt defence and would raise the risk of direct Russia-NATO conflict in my opinion - Senior UK defence officials have been very angry about the unrealistic suggestions that benefit Putin at massive cost to Ukraine and UK.
edit on 5-12-2024 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64


So you europeans are just dandy with sending troops to fight in Ukraine?


Who has said that?
Please provide sources and quotes etc.

The OP is about the claim that UK forces wouldn't last more than 6 months if they faced a Ukraine like war or invasion.
Nothing whatsoever mentioned about sending British troops to fight in Ukraine.


......but France and UK are seriously thinking about sending your young into Ukraine to defend it.


I know it has been mooted in France but its never been seriously suggested here in the UK and it has incredibly minimal support at best. Its not going to happen anytime soon.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

UK and France ready to send troops to Ukraine.



The United Kingdom and France are discussing the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine as part of efforts to disrupt Vladimir Putin's actions.


According to CNN. People acting like they never heard of this.... BS



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 07:40 AM
link   
You've all got the wrong end of the stick. You're blowing it up out of all proportion. All that it's about is MONEY. He's using the Russia Russia Russia frighteners Which some people in the government and by the way an awful lot on ATS believe would happen if Russia got their way in Ukraine, take over Europe BS. When all it's about is the Defence budget has fallen for quite a long time and all they want is more money. Whether they get more troops etc. with that extra money or more likely a good chunk syphoned off into their pockets.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

CNN?
Because they obviously will know far better than those living here.

UK troops will not be sent to fight directly in Ukraine.

ETA.

Just to reiterate, this thread is NOT about the UK sending boots on the ground to fight in Ukraine, its about the UK's ability to fight a concerted campaign like the one currently going on in Ukraine.....but you know this.
edit on 5/12/24 by Freeborn because: Add ETA



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

No-one is denying our military has been ran down by every single government from Thatcher onwards and yes, we need to invest and upgrade in lots of areas including regular and reservist manpower.

If Russia had gone unopposed in Ukraine it would have given Putin the green light to engage in more expansionism, as it is that likelihood is now highly unlikely. That was the main reason it was/is important to aid Ukraine....but that does not include boots on the ground being actively engaged with Russian forces regardless of if they are Russian, North Korean conscripts or African mercenaries.

If or when a significant increase in defence budget spending is agreed then we should ensure that adequate oversight and auditing is in place to make sure the nefarious dealings of politicians and vested interests does not result in the 'syphoning off' of money and the profiteering we have become all too accustomed to....though unfortunately I am sceptical that would happen.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Bluntone22

I think the battle of Britain and the RAF might have had something to do with that Bluntone22 along with the rest of our armed forces, whilst we stood alone.

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much been owed by so many to so few" Winston Churchill.

en.wikipedia.org...




I think you forget Dunkirk.
Water was the only thing that stopped the Germans.
As good as the RAF was, even they couldn't stop a dozen armored divisions.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn



If or when a significant increase in defence budget spending is agreed then we should ensure that adequate oversight and auditing is in place to make sure the nefarious dealings of politicians and vested interests does not result in the 'syphoning off' of money and the profiteering we have become all too accustomed to....


🤣Yep, good luck with that. Your skepticism is well warranted. War is good business and business is good.



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Actually, Hitler gave an order to spare our troops.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-12-2024 by Oldcarpy2 because: (no reason given)


See under "Halt Order".
edit on 5-12-2024 by Oldcarpy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
with that extra money or more likely a good chunk syphoned off into their pockets.


Oh yeah they couldn't run a piss up in a brewery without spilling 9 out of 10 drinks for accounting purposes with reference to B.. Syst...
as they all p*ss in the same pot of waste and I'm not talking human type. People go on about the waste in the Russian military also the Yankee one too, yet they wouldn't believe where our taxes go in the relationship between the above and the MOD. They pass on something from Toolstation and move the decimal point!



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Dunkirk was a s@it show.

I think you are choosing to disregard history never mind the decisive battle in question.

Its clear that the RAF was the decisive component where fighting the air battle and subsequent land invasion that would have occurred if they had failed.

And it was not so much the RAF being good, as a lot of the poor sods only had the very minimum of basic training, both on Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes.

It was the detection system aka early radar that allowed them to target the fighters and bombers effectively.

Thus stand a chance, well that and the fact that silly Hitler decided to go for London and not the airfields any longer.

History has spoken on that score.

I mean if I'm wrong tell us all how the Nazis would have managed to invade the UK when they failed to attain air superiority?

Just like today, as well as with during the Normandy invasion, air superiority is required if you wish to win the day and take the field.
edit on 5-12-2024 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2024 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Bluntone22

Actually, Hitler gave an order to spare our troops.

en.wikipedia.org...

See under "Halt Order".



What does that have to do with my post?
The only reason the troops were stuck at Dunkirk is that they would need to swim to get home.

Unless you thought I meant the water stopped the Germans at Dunkirk. I meant it stop an invasion.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join