HMS Daring

Stolly · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:28

Old Turkey said:
Thats it. Keep trotting out the usual canned WW2 defense.

If you keep saying it enough I might actually believe it. Lol.

Next you'll tell me it was to stop the Holocaust.

The appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it eats him last.

Stolly · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:34

Old Turkey said:
I can't prove that Germany was not a threat, the same way you can't prove that Germany would have attacked us if we had not "intervened" either.
.

I can prove that.

The whole German Naval building programme existed and was geared towards war with Britain, specifically the RN in its position as the worlds largest navy, in the 1943 timeframe. Its a matter of historical record.

Going to war with Germany in 1939 upset that plan before it could be completed and as such we only had to contend with Bismark and Tirpitz, as well as some smaller units. Bismark and Tirpitz were laid down before the war, but not commissioned until after 1940.

Germany intended war with Britain.

The Z-Plan was designed to expand the Kriegsmarine to a size that would rival Britain's Royal Navy (see the table below).

Adolf Hitler ordered the Z-Plan to be begun in Jan 1939 but it was never even remotely completed due to the outbreak of war in Sep 1939.

Battleships 13
Battle cruisers 12
Aircraft carriers 4
Cruisers 65
Destroyers 70
Torpedo boats 78
Submarines 249

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2269

SCM · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:41

There is enough evidence to also show that Hitler never wanted to be at war with Britain and admired us, making several peace offers to Churchill to which Churchill basically replied get lost.

He turned East as Germany never had the capability of making a mass landing of troops on British soil along the lines of the D-Day invasions, they just couldn't do it. Plus the RAF blunted the luftwaffes air superiority in the Battle of Britain and without this no invasion towards Britian could hope to suceed.

We did the right thing in WW2 in standing up to Hitler as who knows what the world would be like now as a result of inaction.

SCM

Robert · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:44

Old Turkey said:
I can't prove that Germany was not a threat, the same way you can't prove that Germany would have attacked us if we had not "intervened" either.

Why did Hitler expand east instead of going for us first? It seems quite logical to me to capture one of the most industrialised Countries first, as a method of increasing ones capacity to make War further on in the future. Instead he attacked East, funnily enough inline with his rhetoric of Eastern expansion! Hmm. I wonder, if he was true to his word about Eastern expansion, was he possibly true to his word that he "admired" us too?

And all this talk of reprehensible actions to me is just guff. 6 million Ukrainian peasants died at the hands of Stalin. Where was our moral courage there? Ah I forgot. We were allied with the USSR to beat big bad Hitler. "Uncle Joe" is sooo cute.

I just see a great deal of it all as double standards and hypocrisy and where the ends justify the means. This doesn't mean I am some sort of anti-war pacifist .. quite to the contrary .. I just wish we put our Country first .. TRUST NO ONE.

I don't care about Iraq, or Bosnia, or Sierra Leone, or Zimbabwe, or Poland, or any other 3rd World dump you wish to mention. They're not our problems.

Yes, it is our problem when trouble spills over into valuable resource rich countries, or maybe if they decide to use nukes. Bravo to you sir for such little thought.

VeNT · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:54

I want one!!!!

who says we all put in £10 and see if we can get an OcUK destroyer?

timmy222 · 2 Feb 2006 at 18:58

No

Visage said:
Isnt this ship very susceptible to EMP?

The new radar and electrical fit is said to be immune to emp and ecm, against the current systems.
As to the people whom scream its a waste of money, look back into history you idiots, it has a habit of repeating itself.
If you don't like having state of the art protection, by brave people whom will give their lives up to protect you, I suggest you pack your bags and **** off somewhere else, you dont deserve it.
Long live the british navy, they have saved us time and time over again from our foes.

Ricochet J · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:06

Nice ship to our Royal Navy. I'm totally for it. What will happen with the Type 42 fleet? Will they be decommisioned?
Furthermore is the Type 45 nuclear powered?

Stolly · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:09

SCM said:
There is enough evidence to also show that Hitler never wanted to be at war with Britain and admired us, making several peace offers to Churchill to which Churchill basically replied get lost.

Other than an expectation that we would throw in the towel in 1940 should Halifax become PM i'm not aware of any time Hitler talked of peace with us.

As for admiring us, i'm not aware that he held Belguim, Holland, Greece and Luxemborg in any particular disregard, yet he didn't think twice about invading them.

Stolly · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:10

eXSBass said:
Nice ship to our Royal Navy. I'm totally for it. What will happen with the Type 42 fleet? Will they be decommisioned?
Furthermore is the Type 45 nuclear powered?

No, gas turbine iirc.

Ricochet J · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:13

Stolly said:
No, gas turbine iirc.

Why not nuclear? I remember the French showing off with thier Nuclear powered ships. Boasting it would travel thousands of nautical miles for years without ever needing to refuel.
I can see what the problem might be. All of the money budgeted by Chancellor Gorden Brown in the Defence would be unwise to be spent all on Type 45s. Does this new wave of a fleet mean more updates in the Navy, Air Force and Army?

233 · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:15

-Mic- said:
Thats kinda my point, huge fleets arnt necessary in todays world.
And im sure the fleet england has now cant be falling to bits can it?

england eh?

wonder who's building the bloody things

built on the clyde fitted out in the forth

why?

because the english shipyards cant

SCM · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:21

Been enough documentaries showing he did make peace overtures after France fell and Churchill told him where to go and also speaking of his high regard for Britain. Hess flew into Britain in 1940 to try to petition Britain to make peace with Germany. So there were attempts at peace but quite rightly these were rejected.

Found this webby http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWsealoin.htm explains a bit more about the peace attempts and Hitlers regard for Britain.

SCM

KennyBhoy · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:26

I work right next door to Yarrows Shipyard and watched the launch from there.....Very impresseive to see i have to say.....Weird looking shape mind you but i know its not totally fitted out yet......

The mini airshow the Royal Navy helicopters put on was a little more impressive though.......I prefer things in the air not sea

atpbx · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:26

fatiain said:
You sure?

Im on about war wise.
Not about pirate stuff, which is why i have not jumped in with two feet.

robmiller · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:35

It's awesome technology, but I can't help feeling it looks a bit... bland

I mean, stuff like the F-22, the B-2 and the SR-71 combine technology with awesomely cool looks, this is missing something

Werewolf · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:44

eXSBass said:
Why not nuclear? I remember the French showing off with thier Nuclear powered ships. Boasting it would travel thousands of nautical miles for years without ever needing to refuel.
I can see what the problem might be. All of the money budgeted by Chancellor Gorden Brown in the Defence would be unwise to be spent all on Type 45s. Does this new wave of a fleet mean more updates in the Navy, Air Force and Army?

I'm no expert, but I beleive the nuclear powered ships cost more to maintain, they may not need refueling as often, but I beleive they do need a lot more careful maintinace to keep them running safely (after all a glowing sailor makes a good target

).

I think it doesn't actually become a truly viable option until the ships reach a certain size, .

Ricochet J · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:51

Werewolf said:
I'm no expert, but I beleive the nuclear powered ships cost more to maintain, they may not need refueling as often, but I beleive they do need a lot more careful maintinace to keep them running safely (after all a glowing sailor makes a good target ).

I think it doesn't actually become a truly viable option until the ships reach a certain size, .

Okay! That actually does make sense. So something like a big mofo air craft carrier would benefit but something small wouldn't.
Thanks

malfunkshun · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:53

Eek, gas turbine, hope it works better at sea than it does in a tank :\ (though it shouldnt be an issue in the same way at sea

).

I for one dont mind my tax pounds being spent on our armed forces

Von Smallhausen · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:55

I think expense would be the main reason for non-nuclear. If I remember rightly, the only nuke boats we have are the Vanguard and Trafalgar class subs.

Werewolf · 2 Feb 2006 at 19:56

pretty much.

I beleive at one point they made a luxury cruise liner (or was it a huge cargo ship?) that had a nuclear engine, IIRC it was the only one ever built as the costs of running it were so much higher than a normal engine with enough power for the ship, even after the savings on fuel were taken into account it didn't prove to be economical.

[edit] it was the NS Savannah