UK intoduces new Royal Navy uniform

I'm British and no, you Americans didn't "save" us. You just joined in the end to claim the victory. Most of the work was done by the Soviet Union, I'll admit that with them, Britain would have probably been invaded. The Germans had to send their armies east to fight of the Russians; this gave Britain more time to fight them off.

I believe that not only was red the cheapest dye, they believed that having officers hide from the enemy wasn't "honorable". so therefore officers should stand out more than enlisted men.

reply to post by RestlessNRG


cheap and cheerful and easy to replace, budgets are getting tighter, that is all, nothing of any excitement here

Wee Mad

Due to budget cuts around the time of the falklands war navy uniform was mostly cheap polyester and highley flammable, which they discovered.

Wow

The navy gets new duds and world war three breaks out!!...

And that is just on this thread!

Oh this is pathetic!

Really guys, can we ALL not have a decent exchange of words without:

1) Sarcasm
2) Hatred
3) Finger pointing
4) One-up-manship

This site is getting beyond a joke. It's like walking through a schoolyard hearing "My dad is better than your dad" argument. It's pathetic! Grow up!

In regards to the uniform... Ahhhhhhh forget it! Armies of the world can dress themselves in a ballerina get-up while using magic wands as weapons but they are just as bad as each other.

really so the Invasion of Normandy was no help, the taking of fortress Europe not a big deal. The driving the Germans and Italians fascists from Italy nothing big, the taking of North Africa nothing right.

The Russians didn't just defeat the Germans after there first offensive, it took them 3 long hard fought years to push them back to Germany. With the Americans and British coming from the west and the Russians from the east that is what was able to defeat the Germans.

The large buildup of US troops in England durning 43' and 44' was defenitley a big reason why Hitler decided not to try his ivansion plans again it wasnt just because of the Russians.

Originally posted by caf1550

Originally posted by Justwork

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Justwork

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
And it shall be painted in blood whence they land in afghanistan. Those uniforms are the uniforms of oppressors. I have never understood why the guards of the queen were red...maybe its because of their satanic bloody worship.

Well at least our soldiers don't go around abusing animals and shooting up innocent Afghan civilians, which is more than can be said for your joke of a nation and military.

Oh yes, you guys are perfect little angels!

Revenge attack on Iraqi civilian by British troops

British troops murder numerous Iraqi civilians

British troops torture and kill Iraqi civilians

British Army war crimes

Civilians killed by UK armed forces, including 8 year old little girl

British troops exposed killing Iraqi civilians

Mounting evidence of British war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan

British soldiers allegedly shot or bombed Afghan civilians, including women and children, on 21 different occasions


Stop pretending your # don't stink, and keep your retarded comments to yourself or you'll just keep getting owned.

Do we really need to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this? You killed at least 200,000 innocent people in those attacks, but since Americans don't have a problem killing innocent people for no reason, the 4,000+ people you also killed through years of funding and arming the IRA slots nicely into the huge ammount of bodies you are responsible for.

You realize that if the US did not bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki that the American and British forces were going to invade mainland Japan, and that the invasion would have suffered casualties in the millions. In bombing Japan millions of lives were saved. It happens in war. get over yourself. Im assuming you don't even know what the Japanese did to the countries they took over right.

We would have never used the bombs or even invaded if we had just accepted their offer of surrender. Like they tried doing the whole summer before it happened.

Originally posted by caf1550

The large buildup of US troops in England durning 43' and 44' was defenitley a big reason why Hitler decided not to try his ivansion plans again it wasnt just because of the Russians.

Yet another example of Americans casting aside the years of suffering, the sort of suffering you and your people couldn't imagine in your worst nightmares, casting aside the years of fighting we suffered, just so they can claim victory in a war they arrived late for.

What a joke.

reply to post by Justwork


A war we arrived late for we joined in 1941, the British joined in in 39'

OMG you were barely fighting for 2 years before us.

As for the Japanese offers of surrender the summer before, that would make it the summer of 44', what offers were there of surrender please enlighten me.

Also the USSR didnt enter the war until 41' either.

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by Justwork

 

A war we arrived late for we joined in 1941, the British joined in in 39'

OMG you were barely fighting for 2 years before us.

And again. The Blitz mean anything to you? Or the 30,000+ people who were killed in them? Barely fighting?

reply to post by RestlessNRG


I like but I don't think much of the red emblem

What the hell are the things in the middle of their chests ? Put em back on the shoulders where they belong ffs !!
They look like bloody James Bond hideout soldiers. While I'm at it, the baseball caps simply have to go. I like Americans and American culture, but not on an Effing war ship. Its not blimmin Mc'donalds.

As far as the deterioration of this thread abuse wise. Does divide and conquer ring any bells ? Unity wins the day

LOL Could this discussion be any more off topic?

But I'll play along,

I am American, just getting that out there.

Germany in World War 2 was fighting both the soviets and the British before we even entered the war; up until that point we had been supplying the soviets and british with suppies to help them fight Germany.

Can we say that Britain would have fallen without american intervention, I don't think so. The Nazi forces while powerful were fighting on too many fronts to dedicate the man power needed to completley take Britain and would have likely come down to who could out last the other as britain would have less resources to go on the offensive and Germany would still be fighting others besides the british. the key player here is not really america but the soviets, the Nazi's were depleting much of their resources holding the eastern front of germany; and had they tried to commit to invading Britain as well the soviet would have crushed them. and then of course, hitler before and all throughout the war was trying to establish a peace treaty with Britain and even said in his book "Mein Kampf" that he wished germans to be more british. In reality hitler wanted britain to work with him against the soviets, which the british denied.

My views are that while playing an important role in world war 2, we cannot say with certainty that without us britain would have fallen into Nazi hands.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Justwork


Do we really need to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this? You killed at least 200,000 innocent people in those attacks, but since Americans don't have a problem killing innocent people for no reason, the 4,000+ people you also killed through years of funding and arming the IRA slots nicely into the huge ammount of bodies you are responsible for.

No, we don't need to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this, but apparently you feel the need to backtrack since it was proven your previous statement was idiotic.

Now instead of "at least we don't kill civilians!!!" it's "well at least we haven't killed more than you!!"

I'm sorry, that certainly makes you so much better!!

PS. remember Pearl Harbor?? They shouldn't have messed with us, and should have surrendered when given the ultimatum to either do that or face prompt and utter destruction.

Is so upsetting to think a country can become so successful and change the world and how wars are fought. By creating a new weapon that could change the world unimaginly.

Originally posted by Bixxi3

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Justwork


Do we really need to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this? You killed at least 200,000 innocent people in those attacks, but since Americans don't have a problem killing innocent people for no reason, the 4,000+ people you also killed through years of funding and arming the IRA slots nicely into the huge ammount of bodies you are responsible for.

No, we don't need to bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this, but apparently you feel the need to backtrack since it was proven your previous statement was idiotic.

Now instead of "at least we don't kill civilians!!!" it's "well at least we haven't killed more than you!!"

I'm sorry, that certainly makes you so much better!!

PS. remember Pearl Harbor?? They shouldn't have messed with us, and should have surrendered when given the ultimatum to either do that or face prompt and utter destruction.

Is so upsetting to think a country can become so successful and change the world and how wars are fought. By creating a new weapon that could change the world unimaginly.

I know, I agree. Nuclear weaponry should have never been messed with.

But humans are creatures of curiosity and destruction.
It was bound to happen eventually.

- delete.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Justwork

 

Didn't we rescue you in WW2 from the Germans?

No, you certaintly helped though. UK won the Battle of Britain, if we lost that skirmish we would've been screwed, Churchill constantly bigged up our armed forces at the time which made the German's a bit weary and gave us time for an attack.

However, I'd like to thank all those brave Americans that sailed across the pond to help defeat the German's.