We sank our own battleships...

[woody2]

12 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

You really need to spend some time learning English or you might not be allowed to stay post-Brexit. I think what you’re trying to say that your Woodyfacts link is superior to Richard’s. They’re both guff. Naval power isn’t only a measure of ships and firepower. Quality and reliability of weapons and tonnage, intelligence gathering capabilities, encryption skills, training, experience, alliances, re-fuelling capabilities, morale, weather-forecasting, knowledge of local tidal streams and the subsea terrain, etc, etc, also need to be considered. Rating by rating, officer by officer, vessel by vessel The Royal Navy is vastly superior, in its training, accumulated knowledge and in its global reach, to most navies in the world. Shame they seem to get procurement wrong so often. 

you haven't read the link i posted have you.....

[Freggyragh]

Your links are worthless. For example, let’s take a snapshot of US versus Japanese naval power the day after Pearl Harbour. The US was weaker in terms battleships, and battleships generally won previous naval battles. The snapshot doesn’t take into account Britain giving the US radar technology, nor the unforeseen role of aircraft carriers, nor American access to fuel and materials, industrial output and ability to produce ships or public morale - and therefore gives a totally misleading picture. Your links were both crap because they don’t take into account intangibles, particularly alliances, which could change faster that Trump’s train of thought. I’m guessing the Royal Navy is a well trained outfit and that the UK could increase capacity or supply fast and has good intelligence, so I’d guess your link is closer to the truth than Richard’s, but both are guff. 

[Neil Down]

On 24/03/2018 at 2:38 AM, Freggyragh said:

Your links are worthless. For example, let’s take a snapshot of US versus Japanese naval power the day after Pearl Harbour. The US was weaker in terms battleships, and battleships generally won previous naval battles. The snapshot doesn’t take into account Britain giving the US radar technology, nor the unforeseen role of aircraft carriers, nor American access to fuel and materials, industrial output and ability to produce ships or public morale - and therefore gives a totally misleading picture. Your links were both crap because they don’t take into account intangibles, particularly alliances, which could change faster that Trump’s train of thought. I’m guessing the Royal Navy is a well trained outfit and that the UK could increase capacity or supply fast and has good intelligence, so I’d guess your link is closer to the truth than Richard’s, but both are guff. 

You could have simplified it to:

”your links are crap because you continually post crap”