Gen Richards makes his views on Gordon Brown clear

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by oldcolt, Aug 28, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Linky Gen. Richards photographed immediately after being asked what he thought of Gordon Brown... allegedly :wink:
  2. 1. Irony?

    2. Are you fecking serious?

    3. Wahhhhhhhhhh!
  3. "...It is impossible to say whether having more equipment of a particular kind would lead to less casualties..."

    Quote: Gen Richards...

    Tactical Nukes?

    Wouldn't change the landscape that much?

    How about Neutron weapons?

    Might be a little more "subtle"...
  4. "...It is impossible to say whether having more equipment of a particular kind would lead to less casualties..."

    Not it isn't, just ask the Polish Cavlrymen who attacked Panzers on horseback...

  5. Which they never did. :roll:
  6. In which case good call as they would have taken casualties with the wrong equipment.

    I could have used the example of the Luftwaffe wishing they'd had a Squadron of Spitfires then. :roll:

    To imply better and more equipment does not make a difference in casualties is frankly ludicrous.

    To imply a lack of helicopters and suitably armoured vehicles is not resulting in uneccesary deaths is not only ludicrous but a betrayal.
  7. Didn't Galland mean that the Spit was more suited to the type of role he was given?
  8. Nice recovery there, TCM
  9. Yes, Galland did.

    As I recall, he was making the point that that Spitfire with its slightly better manoeuvrability would be more suitable for the job of close-in bomber escort than his 109's, which had a marginal advantage in speed and were more reliable in the swooping dive attack, but were slightly less agile when dogfighting.

    I guess that General Richards is trying to steer away from the idea that a single "silver bullet" equipment solution would mitigate casualties. In this, he is largely correct.

    But I'm not sure that is the argument either. The nub of the issue, both then and now is the lead time required to procure advanced military kit in time to assimilate it ahead of the opposition. Politicians of all favours never seem to grasp that when the need for a particular piece of equipment becomes obvious to them, it is usually about 4 years after procurement action to avert that particular crisis should have been taken.

    On this basis, the current administration would have sanctioned the procurement of Radar and Spitfires in July 1940!

    Sorry, starting to sound like current affairs!
  10. Balls were they quicker at any attitude or altitude. Their biggest advantages was their engines were Injection fed whilst that version of the Merlin wasn't meaning to dive the spits couldn't just nose down and go for it - hence the graceful loop up and over to ensure the engine didn't....whats the word...oh yeah 'stop'

    Anyway back on thread :D