Posted on 06/19/2022 1:59:13 PM PDT by blam
The incoming commander of the British Army has reportedly told his troops to prepare to fight a land war in Europe, citing Russia as a significant threat to peace.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, the British Army’s newly appointed overall commander, is said to have told his troops to prepare for potential deployment in Europe in order to counter the threat of Russia.
According to a report by the Daily Mail, General Sanders — who only assumed full command of the UK’s army last week — told his troops that they are now facing the possibility of having to fight a war on the European continent, an eventuality that they now have to be prepared for.
“I am the first Chief of the General Staff since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power,” the senior army officer reportedly wrote.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underlines our core purpose – to protect the UK by being ready to fight and win wars on land,” he continued. “It is my singular duty to make our Army as lethal and effective as it can be.”
“We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again,” Sanders is also reported as saying. “There is now a burning imperative to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle.”
German Chancellor Says West Will Support Ukraine ‘as Long as Necessary’https://t.co/r77n6QP85y
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) June 19, 2022
The incoming commander’s comments come as leaders across the Western world steady themselves and their nations for what now looks like it could be a long war, with the chief of NATO telling German publication Bild that the current conflict in Ukraine could last years.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
All I've gotten so far is a Victory Day card.
“Literally, defective American bombs were the only reason why most of their fleet wasn’t sunk.”
That must be some of your Russian propaganda talking points, bad-mouthing America again. There was nothing defective about the bombs; what was defective were the Argentinian air crews.
The fact is that the Argentine pilots had not been trained to bomb surface vessels, and even failed to learn how to set the bombs’ timers properly, such that hits that were made never detonated. They were far more effective with the Exocet anti-ship missile, but they literally only had a half dozen on hand. Had they had a more robust supply things could have got dicey for the British fleet.
The Brits sent some 120 ships to the Falklands War; four were sunk, and eleven were damaged. The two carriers (Hermes and Invincible) were never seriously threatened, though a nearby transport ship carrying helicopters was sunk.
BTW: A nuclear-armed British submarine was on station in the area, just in case Britain wanted to send a big “Hi there!” to Buenos Aires.
“As a side note, per scale this war was rather pathetic.”
How condescending of you. I’d love to see your beloved Russia undertake such an operation under similar conditions. The one aircraft carrier it has, has to be towed most of the time. So, forget any air involvement by Russia. And we’ve seen how the Russian Black Sea fleet has performed, so if that’s any indication of Russian naval prowess Argentina (or whomever) need not worry too much.
The simple fact is, in 1982 there were only two countries that could have pulled off what Britain did (the naval armada and its successful attack): Britain and the US. In 1982, Argentina chose poorly.
Do you realize the actual scale of hostilities? As for nuclear-armed submarine, going nuclear over Falklands is a little bit crazy, isn’t it? Perfectly in line with the recent idiotic statements of the redcoat chiefs. The UK is a threat for mankind for sure, but other than a few nukes they are all fart and no fecal matter.
“Do you realize the actual scale of hostilities?”
Yes.
“As for nuclear-armed submarine, going nuclear over Falklands is a little bit crazy, isn’t it?”
It didn’t go nuclear, did it?
“Perfectly in line with the recent idiotic statements of the redcoat chiefs. The UK is a threat for mankind for sure, but other than a few nukes they are all fart and no fecal matter.”
The UK is a threat for mankind? Son, put down the vodka and go outside for some air; maybe grab a bite to eat.
It has been a threat since 17th century.
“It has been a threat since 17th century.”
Do you consider Russia threat for mankind?
It never enslaved and killed near as many people as the UK did.
“All I’ve gotten so far is a Victory Day card.”
LOL, May 9th was a friggin’ joke. Bunch of old farts celebrating victory in Red Square while the war rages on. Just a tad premature.
“It never enslaved and killed near as many people as the UK did.”
Prove it.
But, you still have not answered my question (which you appear to be avoiding): Do you consider Russia a threat for mankind? Simple question, and you can give a simple answer. Yes or no?
Much less a threat than average. The examples of the British thuggery are widespread.
I think it had less to do with "defective" American bombs, and more to do with the Argentines. The Argies had lots of bombs, but few Snake Eyes. The Snake Eye attaches to tail of a dumb bomb, and slows its fall, allowing the bomber to drop it at a low altitude, and zoom off to safety before the bomb explodes. The Navy used some Snake Eyes. Not sure about the Air Force.
Without Snake Eyes, the Argies had to fall back on setting a timer, electronic, or controlled by a spinning fan blade, on their bombs, preventing them from exploding until several seconds after release, so that their high speed, low level, attacks did not become de-facto kamikaze missions. The problem was that the successful Argie pilots were using attack profiles that were right up on the edge of suicidal, and dropping their bombs so closely to the British ships that they often did not arm before impact. It is accepted by everyone, including the Brits, that if all the Argie bombs had detonated, the Brits would have sailed away.
As a side note, per scale this war was rather pathetic.
ought-six:
NorseViking's stage four Russophilia blinds him to the fact that Russia could never, in its history, have launched a successful invasion of the Canary Islands, much less the Falklands. And given that the Russian Army has finally found something that it can do, he is of course convinced that doing it represents the pinnacle of military development. Perhaps one day he will read a book about about the Second Battle of the Somme, and discover that over a century ago the Brits had worked out the idea of lining up several hundred artillery pieces per mile of front, and they were firing millions of shells a day, not tens of thousands.
Why should Russia invade Canary Islands?
“Much less a threat than average.”
What’s the average? And how did you arrive at it?
For the same reason Russia invade everything between Nizhny Novgorod and Fort Ross, California. Because it could.
Oh wait, my bad. Russia can't invade the Canaries, so I suppose it has no reason to do so. Although it would give your Kleptocrats a nice place to park their Yachts. We may see a lot of activity at the shipyards Putin is conquering from Ukraine, if he can work out how to pound them to fragments with artillery without rendering them nonoperational.
“Why should Russia invade Canary Islands?”
Oh, for God’s sake. He was just making a point. The Canary Islands are closer to Russia and easier to access than the Falklands.
Count the foreign adventures of the other powers, and Russia is not really aggressive.
Bullshit Kazan,
Any attempts to justify what Russia is doing aint gonna work.
Go back to making silly predictions of how Russia finished the war back in April. They are at least a bit humourous
“Russia is not a communist nation. It’s a conservative nation”
LOL! Than write me up as a liberal!
“You realize Russia could have conducted a “shock and awe” bombing campaign “
The only “shock and awe” Russia has been doing is in the form of deomnstrating how pathetic their military is. Four months and still havent beaten the undergunned and undermanned Ukes.
CodeToad is a faggot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.