It's slightly off topic but here's my favourite WW2 story regarding Ireland.  

Many British and German aircrew and sailors found themselves POW in Ireland.  They were treated very well and received their normal pay from their respective governments.   Their imprisonment was very relaxed and they were able to leave the camps if they made a written statement promising not to escape. 

A US pilot fighting with the RAF promised to escape but then escaped and returned to the UK.  This was unsporting and he was subsequently returned to Ireland. 

He made the best of things by taking up foxhunting. 

He was subsequently repatriated to the US just in time to join the US airforce for the rest of the war.  

Even 10 U-boats in Irish waters could have done significant damage to any invasion fleet.  

At this point of the war we were figting the Axis in North Africa and the far east with limited success.  

Invading Ireland and then occupying it just wasn't feasible. Consider how much effort we put into defending the UK from the IRA when there wasn't a war on. 

Now image the IRA much, much bigger and armed with a plentiful array of weapons.  

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

Again no chance that happens. NATO wouldn't turn to diplomatic relations if a small piece of a member country was invaded by Russia, it would be retreat or die. There's a reason Russia is anti more countries joining NATO.

So......let me pose some hypothetical questions to you. 

Russia stages a small chemical attack on UK citizens.  Would NATO declare war?

Russia stages another small chemical attack on UK citizens.   Would NATO declare war?

Russia shoots down a South Korean airliner filled with Dutch Citizens.  Would NATO declare war? 

A Russian pilot lock's onto an unarmed RAF plane and fires.  The missile fails. Would NATO declare war?

A Russian pilot intentionally collides with a NATO  surveillance drone International airspace.  Would NATO declare war?  

Russia moves a border post on the Estonian border 2 mm towards the west.  Should NATO declare war? 

3mm? 

2cm? 

20cm? 

2m? 

3m?

Before you answer, let me remind you of Trump's recent comments that he would encourage Putin to do as he wished to a NATO country if they weren't paying their way. 

56 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Wouldn’t be surprised if Britain invaded Ireland first to pre-empt that. 

The UK had suffered a massive defeat in Dunkirk and was fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa. 

Had the UK begun preparing an invasion of Ireland it could have prompted Ireland to simply join the Axis. 

2 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I've been wondering particularly what might have happened had the Nazis successfully invaded Britain in 1939 or 1940. 

The real threat was the Nazis would invade neutral Ireland and use it as a stepping stone.  Aberdovey beaches still have the defences we put in place to defend an invasion from Ireland.  Pershore still has anti tank defences that are designed to defend an attack from Wales. 

A succesful Nazi invasion of Ireland leads to some interesting hypothetical dilemmas.  Liverpool docks wouldn't last long.  Could the RAF defend attacks from 3 sides?  

2 hours ago, villa89 said:

There won't be any Russian invasion. Ever. Under any circumstances. 

Russia invaded Ukraine because they thought they would over run Ukraine and face little resistance. An invasion of a NATO country would be David vs. Goliath. Russian's are stupid enough to ever attempt that. People don't pick fights they know they are going to lose. Russia invading Georgia on the other hand is much more likely and they won't get any support from the western world.

I couldn't disagree more.  

Russia won't be stupid enough to launch a massive attack on NATO.  But that's not how they work.  

Russia might try to snatch a small piece of a NATO country and test NATO's willingness to go to war over 20 square miles of Estonia.  

There's many examples of this tactics being used during my lifetime.  Most notably Russia's original invasion of Crimea.  

I have written about this before. NATO has a long-standing and well developed plan to beat a Russian invasion. 

1. Let them come forward

2. Only defend areas with massive defensive advantages 

3. Use special forces, helicopters and attack aircraft to destroy the Russian supply lines

4. Wait for the forward momentum to cease due to lack of supplies

Ukraine had some success doing this. But they seem to have failed in a few key areas.  They don't have the air power to shred the Russian supply lines.  But the biggest failing is that they try to defend towns which are of little value and lose thousands of troops in a futile defense.  This plays into Russia's hands by making it a war of attrition.  Russia likes wars of attrition.  Its easy to say "give up land" when it's not your land.  But Ukraine should have given up more land in order to retain more troops. 

Ukraine needs to drop the Crimea bridge in 3 or 4 places.  This requires a mass cruise missile attack.  I believe that the US would provide the missiles to do it.  But without the ability to safely launch those missiles in a large salvo, Russia can (more or less) keep the bridge safe.

It's now a war of attrition and something major needs to happen to prevent Russia inevitably gaining 20% of Ukraine in return for peace. 

3 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

No, they're not. They can't really be used offensively because the Russian air defences are too strong - they're mostly just a somewhat more capable replacement for the old Soviet jets the Ukrainians are using defensively to shoot down cruise missiles and patrol their own territory, because it's hard to get replacement parts for the old MiGs. It's about maintaining the capacities Ukraine already has more than giving them new ones.

Basically you won't see them winning many dogfights with the Russians because air-to-air missiles only have good range if you fly high, and if you fly high in a contested area then you're vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles.

That's not quite the full picture. 

Russia still has vast superiority in helicopters and attack helicopters.  These support ground troops very effectively.  The F16 will be deployed with air to air missiles that can take out these helicopters without venturing near Russian planes or air defences.  

This will force Russia to either withdraw their helicopters further back or move their air defences further forward. 

Things aren't going well for Ukraine at the moment.  Russia is moving slowly forward. Whenever this has happened on the last 2 years it has prompted NATO to hand over better weapons or remove restrictions on the use of donated weapons. 

The F16 will allow NATO to donate weapons that can be immediately deployed rather than retrofitting things to old MIG aircraft.  

Storm-shadow has been frighteningly effective.  My personal hope is that the US donate equivalent weapons and allow them to strike targets within Russia.  

I need my bed.

There's a very interesting rumour circulating from Russian sources regarding Gerasimov. 

Many are saying that he has defected or was caught whilst trying to defect to the Swiss Embassy in Turkey. 

It's very much a rumour but it would explain why neither side are commenting on his location.  

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Inter Villan FC, WorldNet 96, Nottingham, 9 June 1996. 

The home team beat Nottingham 96 to 9.

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

I imagine that strategy changed once so many of them got dead.

Amazingly it didn't.  

The British Army empowers its lower ranks to make decisions based upon what they see and encounter. 

The Russian Army still requires permission to be sought for any deviations from the generals plan.  

The example that summed it up for me was thus >  

The US fires a cruise missiles against a bridge. A video camera on board shows that it misses the target.   Another missile will be dispatched within 20 minutes involving 2 tiers of command. 

The same scenario for Russia takes 2 days. 

12 hours ago, bickster said:

If Gerasimov is a gonner, that was supposedly in a strike on Crimea about a month ago, he hasn’t been seen since

Russia places its top generals relativepy close to the front lines.  That was considered to be a reasonably safe option until storm-shadow arrived.  

He's either dead or cowering in a bunker well away from Crimea.  

Either scenario is embarrassing for Russia. 

I think he's cowering in a bunker.  His death "on the front lines" could be spun as a glorious sacrifice. 

Russia has now arrested 12 top scientists who developed their "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles. 

They are charged with treason by selling details of the missiles.  

But it's more likely that the weapon doesn't work and/or has seen large amount of its budget used to buy houses in Chelsea. 

5 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Amazing footage (if true) 

 

 

 

Ukraine is officially reporting that the ship was hit, capsized and sank. 

Great news. 

Amazing footage (if true) 

On 28/01/2024 at 18:33, maqroll said:

If Franco caved to Hitler's pressure and joined the Axis...

 

This is a very interesting topic.  

The UK and Portugal have one of the oldest military alliances.  But the UK agreed to refrain from activating that treaty in 1939.  That allowed Portugal to stay neutral.  It was also a way to pressure Spain into staying neutral.  Had Spain joined the Axis the Portuguese would probably have joined the British.  

This would have tied up the Spanish forces who were still recovering after their civil war.  

It's unlikely that the Spanish forces could have defeated Portugal, defended Morocco from a US landing and helped the German defense of France. 

It would also have led to the Canary Islands being quickly conquered by our vastly superior navy.   As opposed to being invaded by British tourists a few decades later. 

I think Franco is fairly unique in history.  He's probably the only fascist dictator that left his country in a very good position.  

8 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Nothing like that here. To get rid of a sofa you'd have to pay them to take it away on a flatbed truck. 

Handy Hints & Tips -   Get rid of an old sofa by smearing it with blood and making a 999 call to report screaming from your address.   The police remove it for free.  

You're welcome.

19 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Solid 3rd for me behind TNG and Voyager, but it's massively underrated really despite the flaws. Garak, Gul Dukat, Quark and Martok are particularly great characters.

The obsidian order notes your support

At the same time that the ancient Egyptians were building the pyramids they had archaeologists looking for more ancient buildings.  

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Are we sure about that?

The fog of war makes it difficult to be sure about anything,  

But I have found an instance with a named individual and very specific details.  

Quote

Already-swapped soldier is on Russian propagandist's list of alleged captives involved in Il-76 crash

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/24/7438688/

58 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Are we sure about that?

"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream?"

18 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Have you seen the state of our Navy? 

We've a tiny fleet compared to 20 years ago and half the fleet is out of commission, which is a good job as we only have only just have enough sailor to put to sea the small number of ships available.  At start of the Ukraine conflict we only had one single seaworthy destroyer. 

The UK also has woeful Ballistic Missile defence. 

I partially agree. 

But we are a tiny country with 2 aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, 4 nuclear armed submarines and military bases in the northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and on the equator.   

Our navy needs improvement but at the moment it's more than capable of defending the UK in our geographic location, with the allies we have and the limited ability of our enemies to reach our shorelines.  

Do we need carriers to defend the UK mainland?  No.  

Would any of our enemies get a significant military force within 100 miles of us?  No. 

There will be no conscription. 

Russia's military model is based upon a moderate sized army, large reserve forces and then conscription.  Its been shown to be ineffective. 

America's military model is based upon a massive army, large reserve and no conscription. Its been shown to be effective in warfare but ineffective in long term occupation.  

UK's military model is based upon a tiny army, small reserve and no conscription.  Its been shown to be effective in warfare because we've fought weak opponents, had the US with us and have the luxury of living on an island that is surrounded by well armed allies. 

Nothing has changed with Russia's present hostile stance.  The UK is incredibly well defended.  

But if the US pulled out of NATO the onus would be on all European countries to up their game and spend on their military.  

We (the UK) are in a very different position to Poland, Germany, Romania, Latvia, Estonia etc.  Our castle has a great moat and is patrolled by a disproportionately powerful navy.  They don't even have a moat. 

The present talk of conscription is a political tool to justify increased defence spending. 

Increased defence spending in the UK is a political tool to compel some of our European NATO colleagues to do the same. 

Increased spending in European NATO is a deterent to Russia and a political tool to hopefully ensure the USA remains in NATO.  

Worry about conscription when France falls. 

Until then - enjoy  the security of our castle, surrounded by allies and massive moat that is protected by the most powerful military alliance in history.