The Empire Strikes Back - New bases in Asia & Caribbean

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Hence my belief having seen the argument of Niall Ferguson that the BEF should've staye
The Boer War damaged the myth of Imperial invincibility and we resorted to less-than-civilised methods to subdue the Boers. We simply could not compete with an emerging United States.
The US had only 25000 men under arms in 1914. It is a credit to them that they grew so fast before 1917. They did it with British help. 2 horses were taken from British Horse artillery gun teams in France to give to the US army, and much of their equipment was British, artillery guns in particular. However we were glad of the help.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The US had only 25000 men under arms in 1914. It is a credit to them that they grew so fast before 1917. They did it with British help. 2 horses were taken from British Horse artillery gun teams in France to give to the US army, and much of their equipment was British, artillery guns in particular. However we were glad of the help.
Just 2, or 2 from each team :wink:
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
The US had only 25000 men under arms in 1914. It is a credit to them that they grew so fast before 1917. They did it with British help. 2 horses were taken from British Horse artillery gun teams in France to give to the US army, and much of their equipment was British, artillery guns in particular. However we were glad of the help.
America's military power in World War One - History Learning Site


Not quite, the Army alone had about 190,000 right before our official entry. This is not including the manpower totals for the US Navy or USMC.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Note the plural in 'Gun Teams'
Yeah, spotted straight after I pressed "Post reply" but I shall leave it as a rare example of my numptiness, and the amusing image in my head of Dobbin being really fecking knackered
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Yes and it was still bigger than your claim.
25000 bodies ain’t much.
Come on then Columbo! Give me the graphic facts of US army figures for Aug 1914.
 
Last edited:

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Who the hell is Lionsy?
I've called him that for months and he never complains, he seems a decent fellow but lives too far across the pond to have the Welsh tribal name of Jones!
Nice to see you are back to watching all the posters on all threads, and back to thumping the Dumb button at the 'Rapid fire' rate!'
 
I've called him that for months and he never complains, he seems a decent fellow but lives too far across the pond to have the Welsh tribal name of Jones!
Nice to see you are back to watching all posters, and thumping the Dumb button at the 'sustained fire' rate!
Except I haven’t. You seem confused.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Lionsy, I'm off out tonight, but give me until tomorrow to look it up. I was talking about 'US Standing Army 1914' figures. If you are right I will do 'fifty chin to the Ground'
Lionsy, I have to hand it to you that you are right. The figures quoted by I think it was 'Beevor' was that the US 'Standing and Regular army' was 25,000 discounting all reserves militia types. I think I owe you fifty!
 
Russia condemns UK foreign army base plans, says ready to defend interests | Reuters
Back to those bases and it appears to have upset Russia, saying such bases "..in third countries are counter productive, destabilising and possibly of a provocational nature":
Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia’s foreign ministry, on Friday described Williamson’s comments as baffling and warned such plans could destabilise world affairs.

“Of course, Britain like any other country is independent when it comes to its military construction plans. But against the backdrop of overall rising military and political tensions in the world ... statements about the desire to build up its military presence in third countries are counter-productive, destabilising and possibly of a provocational nature,” she said.

“In the event of any measures that pose a threat to Russia’s security or that of its allies our country reserves the right to take appropriate retaliatory measures.”
Funnily enough, she mentions nothing about the Russian bases of Tartus and Khmeimim in Syria, or Cam Ranh in Vietnam. Plus there's also bases in Georgia (Abkhazia and S Ossetia), Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Armenia.
 
Russia condemns UK foreign army base plans, says ready to defend interests | Reuters
Back to those bases and it appears to have upset Russia, saying such bases "..in third countries are counter productive, destabilising and possibly of a provocational nature":


Funnily enough, she mentions nothing about the Russian bases of Tartus and Khmeimim in Syria, or Cam Ranh in Vietnam. Plus there's also bases in Georgia (Abkhazia and S Ossetia), Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Armenia.
I am sure it was an honest mistake and she will correct herself shortly!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top