That data doesn't really back up your point. The 2014 number is around half the level for 2013 or 2010.
Why the big decline in 2014.
The 2014 number is still several multiples of the figure for the year in which the 1998 Act came into force, which puts to bed the notion that the 1998 Act has stopped applicants going, or having to go to Strasbourg. The figure obviously varies from year to year. It more than doubled from 2001 to 2002, fell by 31% from 2002 to 2003, before surpassing the 2002 figure in 2005. The steady trend until 2012, however, was up. If there is any non-cyclical explanation for the fall since 2012 (p. 150), when there were 3,038 cases, it is reductions in legal aid due to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. A lot of meretricious cases are no longer being funded by the state.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Cavalry (usually fighting as mounted Infantry) certainly had a role exploiting breakthroughs in the East and policing the frontiers of the Empire. Supply transport in the BEF was entirely motorised, in contrast to the German armies being dependent on horses and wagons. The role of logistics in war is often neglected, but the motorisation of the Allied armies had a major role in the breakthroughs against the Germans later on in thd war. Horse drawn transport was just too slow in offensive operations. There is an interesting piece on the failures of German logistics in this wikipedia piece.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Possibly, although whether that was why they were retained is another question.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
LOL! Lloyd George's War Memoirs are very funny in parts. There's one entry in the Index "Military Mind. Narrowness of. Regards thinking as a form of mutiny.". Captain Liddell-Hart's views on the use of armour were ignored by the British army in the 30's, but assiduously studied by the Germans.
But, on the Eastern front, road and rail links were dreadful, making it far harder to deploy armour effectively, or transport troops by vehicle. A horse is far more use in dense forest or the Pripet Marshes than a tank. And, engines often seized up in sub-zero temperatures.
80% of the Wehrmacht was non-motorized even at the peak of German domination during the middle years of the War.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
This needs to be the relentless argument put forward by the Out campaign. There is no Status Quo, it's either the Superstate or we leave and trade with the expanding part of the world. The In campaign will talk about 3 million jobs, Out need to talk about joining the Euro and will find plenty of European politicians to provide helpful quotes on the matter in the next few months.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
The whole point of the negotiations is to keep us safely out of ever closer union and the euro. Walking out will leave us no different to that with all the added fun of somehow re renegotiating a relationship from a position of ... well no position at all.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
This needs to be the relentless argument put forward by the Out campaign. There is no Status Quo, it's either the Superstate or we leave and trade with the expanding part of the world. The In campaign will talk about 3 million jobs, Out need to talk about joining the Euro and will find plenty of European politicians to provide helpful quotes on the matter in the next few months.
The same three million jobs which were supposed to be lost if Britain didn't join the Euro or if Britain left the ERM etc.
Just as the City was to relocate to Frankfurt and inward foreign investment was to end if Britain didn't join the Euro or if Britain left the ERM.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
This needs to be the relentless argument put forward by the Out campaign. There is no Status Quo, it's either the Superstate or we leave and trade with the expanding part of the world. The In campaign will talk about 3 million jobs, Out need to talk about joining the Euro and will find plenty of European politicians to provide helpful quotes on the matter in the next few months.
The same three million jobs which were supposed to be lost if Britain didn't join the Euro or if Britain left the ERM etc.
Just as the City was to relocate to Frankfurt and inward foreign investment was to end if Britain didn't join the Euro or if Britain left the ERM.
Agree entirely, but that is the soundbite and it will be repeated endlessly without challenge by the BBC and other friendly media in the run up to the vote. The Out side need to be similarly organised and have their own repetitive sound bites. We may not like this sort of politics, especially on a blog of the well-informed- but the well-informed are not the majority of the electorate for the referendum.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
The whole point of the negotiations is to keep us safely out of ever closer union and the euro. Walking out will leave us no different to that with all the added fun of somehow re renegotiating a relationship from a position of ... well no position at all.
No the whole point of the 'negotiations' is to convince people that Britain is safely out of ever closer union and the Euro.
Just as the whole point of the 1975 'negotiations' was to convince people that Britain had only joined a 'Common Market' and not some 'ever-closer union' on its way to a superstate.
As to renegotiating a relationship Britain has the position of strength in that it runs a massive trade (and tourism) deficit with the EU but a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
I do wonder if we're ever going to get the F-35s. They sound (and look) good on the computerised graphics, but the costs keep going up, the technical problems multiply, and the numbers ordered and confirmed diminish.
Hello again SeanF Russian tanks operated very effectively in boggy and snowy ground and their engines did not size up in the cold. The Germans developed their panzer tactics in secret from the west in Russia as part of the Russian 'deep battle' theory.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
I do wonder if we're ever going to get the F-35s. They sound (and look) good on the computerised graphics, but the costs keep going up, the technical problems multiply, and the numbers ordered and confirmed diminish.
Just read up on Wikipedia that the US has ordered 1700! Blimey.
Nobody was injured fortunately. I'll eschew a diatribe and just say that one of my favourite books is "Dynamics of Vehicle Collisions" by R. H. Macmillan.
(Lord ) Bob Kerslake on Sky now. He started this morning on the radio. He is very in favour of social housing and against moving any into the private sector. No wonder the Government struggles getting things done with people like him in charge of the civil servants. A distinctly unimpressive man.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Possibly, although whether that was why they were retained is another question.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
LOL! Lloyd George's War Memoirs are very funny in parts. There's one entry in the Index "Military Mind. Narrowness of. Regards thinking as a form of mutiny.". Captain Liddell-Hart's views on the use of armour were ignored by the British army in the 30's, but assiduously studied by the Germans.
But, on the Eastern front, road and rail links were dreadful, making it far harder to deploy armour effectively, or transport troops by vehicle. A horse is far more use in dense forest or the Pripet Marshes than a tank. And, engines often seized up in sub-zero temperatures.
On the other hand, horses get tired, can't travel as far without collapsing from exhaustion, can't overwhelm locally with concentrated firepower, and require huge amounts of fodder.
The Wehrmacht were an incredibly well-drilled, innovative and dangerous military force. But I do wonder how well they really would have done against the USSR in 1941-1942 had they not decimated their own through purges in the 1930s.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
I do wonder if we're ever going to get the F-35s. They sound (and look) good on the computerised graphics, but the costs keep going up, the technical problems multiply, and the numbers ordered and confirmed diminish.
Just read up on Wikipedia that the US has ordered 1700! Blimey.
1700 F35s, yes. How many though of the F35-B variants, the Harrier replacements with the massive fan in the middle that we need to fly off our catapult-less carriers..? Very different aeroplanes.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
Unless you have overwhelming force than carriers and the like are pretty immaterial. The defensive needs of the UK are not the same as those of the US. We should have the best fighter jets in the world, and the best radar. We need inshore submarines capable of wiping out Dover and any flotilla neat it.
When the realm is safe then maybe some other expenditure. Personally I think very long range air resources are the answer.
When we were entirely broke in the 1950s we somehow managed to have extraordinary defense projects.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
We could have bought more F18 etc etc and perhaps been better off with a proper carrier with a catapult. There is an electronic warfare version as well. Theoretically removing the need for stealth. Our own Typhoon is pretty good though and has been developed to be a lot more than an interceptor. We are committed to sharing developmemt of the F35 with the USA and other nato countries, but thanks to the carrier mistakes we are probably buying the wrong variant.
The catapult carrier would certainly have kept many more options open when deciding what to fly from them. 35-B could yet be either stillborn or used only by us, with associated maintenance and development costs.
I do wonder if we're ever going to get the F-35s. They sound (and look) good on the computerised graphics, but the costs keep going up, the technical problems multiply, and the numbers ordered and confirmed diminish.
Just read up on Wikipedia that the US has ordered 1700! Blimey.
Yup. Last time I checked we were ordering well under at tenth of those. Perhaps even less than 100.
Mr Casino ... Italy are developing a multi multi millions of dollar facility for final assembly and operating and servicing F35s in Europe. In other words final assembly of F35s is due to start shortly in Europe. There is plenty of time for orders to be cut back but the programme is continuing with scores if not hundreds of planes already built. I think we made a mistake when labour and the RN thought it a good idea to go with the jump jet version.xs
Hello again SeanF Russian tanks operated very effectively in boggy and snowy ground and their engines did not size up in the cold. The Germans developed their panzer tactics in secret from the west in Russia as part of the Russian 'deep battle' theory.
I'm not denying the usefulness of armour on the Eastern front. But, it was less useful than in the West, with its fine roads and more open terrain. The German armoured attack slowed to a crawl when they had to build roads made of tree trunks across boggy terrain.
Mr Casino ... Italy are developing a multi multi millions of dollar facility for final assembly and operating and servicing F35s in Europe. In other words final assembly of F35s is due to start shortly in Europe. There is plenty of time for orders to be cut back but the programme is continuing with scores if not hundreds of planes already built. I think we made a mistake when labour and the RN thought it a good idea to go with the jump jet version.xs
They could be obsolete entirely in 15 years time, when air combat may be done entirely by drones, but that's aerospace technology for you.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Possibly, although whether that was why they were retained is another question.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
LOL! Lloyd George's War Memoirs are very funny in parts. There's one entry in the Index "Military Mind. Narrowness of. Regards thinking as a form of mutiny.". Captain Liddell-Hart's views on the use of armour were ignored by the British army in the 30's, but assiduously studied by the Germans.
But, on the Eastern front, road and rail links were dreadful, making it far harder to deploy armour effectively, or transport troops by vehicle. A horse is far more use in dense forest or the Pripet Marshes than a tank. And, engines often seized up in sub-zero temperatures.
On the other hand, horses get tired, can't travel as far without collapsing from exhaustion, can't overwhelm locally with concentrated firepower, and require huge amounts of fodder.
The Wehrmacht were an incredibly well-drilled, innovative and dangerous military force. But I do wonder how well they really would have done against the USSR in 1941-1942 had they not decimated their own through purges in the 1930s.
Very badly. By 1935, the Red Army was an extremely well-equipped force, with the most innovative and forward-thinking officer corps in the world. Then Stalin purged them, and appointed loyal incompetents to command.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
The whole point of the negotiations is to keep us safely out of ever closer union and the euro. Walking out will leave us no different to that with all the added fun of somehow re renegotiating a relationship from a position of ... well no position at all.
No the whole point of the 'negotiations' is to convince people that Britain is safely out of ever closer union and the Euro.
Just as the whole point of the 1975 'negotiations' was to convince people that Britain had only joined a 'Common Market' and not some 'ever-closer union' on its way to a superstate.
As to renegotiating a relationship Britain has the position of strength in that it runs a massive trade (and tourism) deficit with the EU but a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world.
You are clearly in too deep with your conspiracy theories.
Hello again SeanF Russian tanks operated very effectively in boggy and snowy ground and their engines did not size up in the cold. The Germans developed their panzer tactics in secret from the west in Russia as part of the Russian 'deep battle' theory.
I'm not denying the usefulness of armour on the Eastern front. But, it was less useful than in the West, with its fine roads and more open terrain. The German armoured attack slowed to a crawl when they had to build roads made of tree trunks across boggy terrain.
Not so Sean. You are looking at one part of the Russian campaign and extending it to the whole front. On the Steppes of Ukraine and Southern Russia the tanks of both sides were ideally suited. Which is why the great tank battles of WW2 Europe took place on the Eastern Front.
Hello again SeanF Russian tanks operated very effectively in boggy and snowy ground and their engines did not size up in the cold. The Germans developed their panzer tactics in secret from the west in Russia as part of the Russian 'deep battle' theory.
I'm not denying the usefulness of armour on the Eastern front. But, it was less useful than in the West, with its fine roads and more open terrain. The German armoured attack slowed to a crawl when they had to build roads made of tree trunks across boggy terrain.
Not so Sean. You are looking at one part of the Russian campaign and extending it to the whole front. On the Steppes of Ukraine and Southern Russia the tanks of both sides were ideally suited. Which is why the great tank battles of WW2 Europe took place on the Eastern Front.
Kharkov vs to name a point. In the west absent 1940, armour was, perhaps absent the rush across France post-Falasie and bits of North Africa, secondary to mobile logistics.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
I think that you will find that it is the British public that will tie Britain to Europe (or not!) Daves vote counts for no more than yours or mine.
But what 'Europe' is that though ?
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
The whole point of the negotiations is to keep us safely out of ever closer union and the euro. Walking out will leave us no different to that with all the added fun of somehow re renegotiating a relationship from a position of ... well no position at all.
No the whole point of the 'negotiations' is to convince people that Britain is safely out of ever closer union and the Euro.
Just as the whole point of the 1975 'negotiations' was to convince people that Britain had only joined a 'Common Market' and not some 'ever-closer union' on its way to a superstate.
As to renegotiating a relationship Britain has the position of strength in that it runs a massive trade (and tourism) deficit with the EU but a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world.
You are clearly in too deep with your conspiracy theories.
No I merely look at what's happened in the past, at what European leaders openly say about building a superstate and at economic data.
You though have clearly run out of lines on which to argue.
Comments
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II
The European establishment is open about building a single state.
So just as the 1975 vote tied Britain into the 'European train' as it moved from the 'Common Market' to the European Community to the European Union a similar vote in 2017 would tie Britain into the 'European train' as it moves towards its destination.
Staying as we are is not an option being offered but that is what we will be told a YES vote will amount to.
The In campaign will talk about 3 million jobs, Out need to talk about joining the Euro and will find plenty of European politicians to provide helpful quotes on the matter in the next few months.
No one on the BBC said that the PB Tories and Jack W had it right all along EWCAWNBPM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11644277/Twenty-Audis-plunge-through-roof-of-Milton-Keynes-dealership.html
IIRC these are modular design of building optimised for fast construction time. I wonder how many identical buildings will be closed for engineering inspections tomorrow?
Just as the City was to relocate to Frankfurt and inward foreign investment was to end if Britain didn't join the Euro or if Britain left the ERM.
Just as the whole point of the 1975 'negotiations' was to convince people that Britain had only joined a 'Common Market' and not some 'ever-closer union' on its way to a superstate.
As to renegotiating a relationship Britain has the position of strength in that it runs a massive trade (and tourism) deficit with the EU but a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Russian tanks operated very effectively in boggy and snowy ground and their engines did not size up in the cold.
The Germans developed their panzer tactics in secret from the west in Russia as part of the Russian 'deep battle' theory.
The Wehrmacht were an incredibly well-drilled, innovative and dangerous military force. But I do wonder how well they really would have done against the USSR in 1941-1942 had they not decimated their own through purges in the 1930s.
Unless you have overwhelming force than carriers and the like are pretty immaterial. The defensive needs of the UK are not the same as those of the US. We should have the best fighter jets in the world, and the best radar. We need inshore submarines capable of wiping out Dover and any flotilla neat it.
When the realm is safe then maybe some other expenditure. Personally I think very long range air resources are the answer.
When we were entirely broke in the 1950s we somehow managed to have extraordinary defense projects.
Pfftt
You though have clearly run out of lines on which to argue.