What if WW3.....

Rroff · 12 Apr 2017 at 11:57

adolf hamster said:
i doubt we'd be able to ramp up enough to fight off the russians, even in ww2 we were still leaning heavily on america for supplies and that was with the empire still being there to lean on. and that was with the russians on our side.

As much as anything it is our state of readiness that would lose us that one anyhow - for instance our land based ground to air defences have been pretty much left to rot and for the most part wholly inadequate for modern threats. Aside from Type 45s and 1-2 installations of slightly more advanced stuff the rest was outdated in the 70s never mind today.

Outcast said:
lol at Londoners thinking they will be a target !

The Chain of Command will be everywhere else.

When London can't feed itself then it will eat itself !

I'm 56 years old so I'll join the Home Guard... And help keep you inside the M25 !!

If it was the stereotypical scenarios like Russia V the west then London would be on the receiving end of around half a dozen megaton devices as a matter of course regardless.

stopper · 12 Apr 2017 at 12:29

Roar87 said:
but conventionally they wouldn't stand a chance against NATO, it's not even close, and they know it.

On the contrary, NATO wouldn't stand a chance at invading Russia. Or they (the Bush family) would have taken them out for their gas reserves a long time ago.

CaptainComedy · 12 Apr 2017 at 12:31

stopper said:
On the contrary, NATO wouldn't stand a chance at invading Russia. Or they (the Bush family) would have taken them out for their gas reserves a long time ago.

You mean liberated them surely.

Rroff · 12 Apr 2017 at 12:32

stopper said:
On the contrary, NATO wouldn't stand a chance at invading Russia. Or they (the Bush family) would have taken them out for their gas reserves a long time ago.

Well that is the thing - generally the defender has the advantage - I can't remember the numbers but the on paper estimate is that you normally need something like 3-5x the man power to invade a country compared to defend it.

RoboCod · 12 Apr 2017 at 13:13

Soooo many experts!

StriderX · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:01

tinder said:
Another one who hasn't read many history books.

Russia went to war in the Crimea over access to the sea, at least twice, once quite recently. They also went to war with Turkey over access to the sea. So much crap spouted by armchair theorists in this forum.

Access isnt the same as supreme domain, the Russians have much less need of the sea than the UK does and rightly so, because we're an island.

But our navy is pitiful, and bigging it up like its impressive is laughable.

ttaskmaster · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:14

Rroff said:
Yeah but this is war - if history has taught us nothing else leaving the UK enough time to get its act together is a strategically grave mistake.

By the time we get that far, the war will be over!!

[Russian accent]
"Hey, America... Look - Ve break your British poodle... now ve break you!!"

Rroff said:
Who is that aimed at?

Tom Cruise blokie up there who knows all the higher-ups in the military and gets his choice of duty.

Rroff said:
Aside from Type 45s and 1-2 installations of slightly more advanced stuff the rest was outdated in the 70s never mind today.

Wasn't it found in the '90s that the most advanced stealth aircraft, capable of defeating even the most advanced scanning systems, was actually still detectable by some of the earliest forms of radar that were still being used by one of the Middle Eastern countries?

Rroff said:
Well that is the thing - generally the defender has the advantage - I can't remember the numbers but the on paper estimate is that you normally need something like 3-5x the man power to invade a country compared to defend it.

And yet the Anglo-Saxons 'invaded' and occupied this entire country 3 longboats at a time, each with about 40 bods... Historians argue that wasn't overt military action, though, but I imagine it's how we'd be infiltrated and occupied today.

RoboCod said:
Soooo many experts!

Well yeah - Haven't you played Battlefield, CoD, MoH or anything?

Rroff · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:25

ttaskmaster said:
Wasn't it found in the '90s that the most advanced stealth aircraft, capable of defeating even the most advanced scanning systems, was actually still detectable by some of the earliest forms of radar that were still being used by one of the Middle Eastern countries?

Those considered outdated and antiquated air defence systems... had upto 10x the range of most of our modern systems and comparable intercept speeds of all but what the Type 45s are capable of out of our equipment.

ttaskmaster said:
And yet the Anglo-Saxons 'invaded' and occupied this entire country 3 longboats at a time, each with about 40 bods... Historians argue that wasn't overt military action, though, but I imagine it's how we'd be infiltrated and occupied today.

I was talking more warfare in modern history

[/quote][/QUOTE]

Roar87 · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:33

stopper said:
On the contrary, NATO wouldn't stand a chance at invading Russia. Or they (the Bush family) would have taken them out for their gas reserves a long time ago.

I don't think anyone suggested invading Russia as that would definitely result in strategic nuclear weapons being used.

On a side note, why is bashing America so popular these days? They're our closest ally and the world would look very different without them. If you think their intervention in the middle east is bad then I'd suggest it's a damn sight better than what would happen if Russia or China were the main super powers

Housey · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:35

Nelson, I am the new one, but less dead, so give me the Navy, I'd be ace. I've got books n stuff, it's easy to win at sea.

ttaskmaster · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:37

Rroff said:
Those considered outdated and antiquated air defence systems... had upto 10x the range of most of our modern systems and comparable intercept speeds of all but what the Type 45s are capable of out of our equipment.

And yet we'll still know when Russia are launching an attack, as it will be on Twitter first!

Rroff said:
I was talking more warfare in modern history

We'll still likely be 'immigrated' before we're invaded.

Roar87 said:
On a side note, why is bashing America so popular these days?

These days?
It's been in vogue since 1942...

V F · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:37

Strange/funny these same discussions I heard in college back in 2002 when the Iraq thing was about to kick off. You'll be conscripted!

francky · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:42

For me, if the UK was being invaded by a country like Russia then I would enlist to defend my family and country...BUT...if we went to WW3 over a power struggle for elites to benefit economically and Geo-politically over a Proxy War in Syria....then I would rather go to prison or be shot dead then fight for those idiots.

Rroff · 12 Apr 2017 at 14:55

V F said:
Strange/funny these same discussions I heard in college back in 2002 when the Iraq thing was about to kick off. You'll be conscripted!

Given Iraq's limited ability to fight back against what they faced that wasn't exactly very likely - versus what would happen if a real proper old fashioned war came to our doorstep.

francky said:
For me, if the UK was being invaded by a country like Russia then I would enlist to defend my family and country...BUT...if we went to WW3 over a power struggle for elites to benefit economically and Geo-politically over a Proxy War in Syria....then I would rather go to prison or be shot dead then fight for those idiots.

If it came to it that is likely what would happen - they'd progressively start making examples of people who tried to dodge the draft, etc. first prison possibly escalating to capital punishment - people who think this wouldn't happen or that people would have a say in the matter would likely be in for a bit of a shock.

And a lot of people who thought they'd not fight will end up deciding to join up rather than the alternatives when actually faced with the options.

adolf hamster · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:22

Rroff said:
And a lot of people who thought they'd not fight will end up deciding to join up rather than the alternatives when actually faced with the options.

you can always do what any forward thinking pacifist would do- join up and when it gets to actual combat just make a show of firing in the vague direction of the enemy while not trying to actually hit anything.

i recall a statistic from ww2 that the americans worked out it was something like 75000 rounds of ammunition expended per enemy casualty- that's the reality of a conscript army for you, people fighting poorly either intentionally or just because they aren't professional soldiers.

i'd probably try to go for some kind of behind the lines role, as i said earlier i'd be damn all use at fighting but i could keep the tanks rolling.

francky · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:24

Rroff said:
And a lot of people who thought they'd not fight will end up deciding to join up rather than the alternatives when actually faced with the options.

The options of fighting with literally 0 combat and military training against a well trained, aggressive, strong Russian conscripts, who's civilians actively train in hand to hand knife Spetznas style combat as a hobby, for a cause, that is just for a group of Elites to get their own way economically.....or going to Prison or Shot dead....I'd take the latter two.

I wonder if they would try to draft up women of the same fighting age....as we are all so equal these days.

Spook187 · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:41

MikeTheNative said:
I suppose the north won't get too many nukes... looks like a wasteland as it is.

Says the man from Wales.

Rroff · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:43

francky said:
The options of fighting with literally 0 combat and military training against a well trained, aggressive, strong Russian conscripts, who's civilians actively train in hand to hand knife Spetznas style combat as a hobby, for a cause, that is just for a group of Elites to get their own way economically.....or going to Prison or Shot dead....I'd take the latter two.

I wonder if they would try to draft up women of the same fighting age....as we are all so equal these days.

Still time yet to get that training in

Chris Wilson · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:45

francky said:
The options of fighting with literally 0 combat and military training against a well trained, aggressive, strong Russian conscripts, who's civilians actively train in hand to hand knife Spetznas style combat as a hobby, for a cause, that is just for a group of Elites to get their own way economically.....or going to Prison or Shot dead....I'd take the latter two.

I wonder if they would try to draft up women of the same fighting age....as we are all so equal these days.

Russians having "fun":

Amazing massive fight of Russian hooligans

Overclockers having "fun":

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/cross-dressing-does-anyone-dabble.18775531/

Cross-dressing! Does anyone dabble?

In times of potential trouble and strife that's worrying, very worrying ...

kiteloopy · 12 Apr 2017 at 15:46

I live in Reading. They make our nukes in Burghfield and Aldermaston; about 3 miles from Reading. Id just be smoke ~10seconds into ww3.