Brexit or Britin

[Worthy4England]

I'm fairly sure that's still no. I just double checked.

Well check again. I know that you are in denial.

Just coz you turned into Arthur Scargill on the other thread...

[Montreal Wanderer]

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout. It was neither self-loading, automatic or recoilless (nearly broke my shoulder). It was accurate enough if the sight hadn't got bent. It was not a new development between the wars and I didn't consider it superior to the competition.

I thought the 105 mm howitzer was an American development after the war started.

I don't know which heavy machine gum you refer to. You did not mention the Bren Light machine gun, which had a magazine of 22 .303 rounds. It was very accurate but had heating problems - mine came with three interchangeable barrels but they still heated up too fast, and cooling then off in water warped them. I was told in WW2 the soldiers pissed on them to cool them down.

I grant you the swordfish was new and had its successes. However, it was of very limited use. The Spitfire was delivered after my cut off date.

Our battleships were generally from WW1 and of poor design. The new King George V class ships were not launched until the war.

So it seems to me defense was not a priority budget area before the UK woke up around 1937 and realized the danger presented by Germany. So the equipment was old if still serviceable. The swordfish, a slow biplane with limited application, did not tip the balance for me.

I did say that the Lee Enfield dated from the late 19th century. However it did meet your specified end date and over 17m were made. I have also fired that rifle and can confirm it packed a hell of a kick so you did have to hold it tight to the shoulder. In my experience it was accurate up to 600 yards easily and a really good marksman could hit the target up to 800 with an overall range of 2 miles or so before your round fell to earth.

The howitzer I was referring to was 4 1/2 inch bore and British, but sometimes referred to as 105mm. The older field guns such as the 18 pounder could be accurate and sustain a high rate of fire but they predated WW1.

The importance of battleships was overstated but I guess that Britain retained as many as possible such as the Lion class from WW1 because the empire was far flung and it was felt that there needed to be a presence in the far east. Plans to build more were dropped fairly quickly during the war because of their vulnerability, Vanguard being the last and that was built only because it would be more expensive to cancel.

Regarding the Spitfire and the Hurricane I think you are trying to move the goalposts - prototypes were flying and orders placed before 1937.

Don't get me wrong; the appeasement of Germany and the lack of preparedness together with low spending on defence was all part of the same problem caused by complacent politicians. History to some degree is being repeated today.

I actually won an award for marksmanship with the .303 and took a horrible toll on cardboard Germans. Yes, it was held tight to the shoulder but I also put my beret under the battledress to absorb the recoil when firing off ten rounds. I would say it was only accurate up to 200 yards for a target the size of a man's head - you could use the battle sight and the bullet did not drop. After that gravity took its toll and you had to use the leaf sight which would elevate the barrel - basically guess work. I was told it could kill up to three miles but I guess you'd be pointing up at 30-45 degrees!

The 4.5 inch job was misnamed if it was called the 105 because it was bigger. It had been around since WW1 and was just about obsolete in WW2, being replaced by the 25 pounder early on.

I did move the goalpost as Hoboh noted because the UK began to wake up in 1937 and put far more effort into upgrading weaponry after the reoccupation of the Rhinelands. In my view the Munich agreement (appeasement if you will) was as much playing for time as naivety on Chamberlain's part. At least we had the spitfires off the drawing board by 1939.

[bedwetter2]

I'm fairly sure that's still no. I just double checked.

Well check again. I know that you are in denial.

Just coz you turned into Arthur Scargill on the other thread...

I think not. However I'm all for fairness. Are you fair to your staff or are you a rapacious boss?

[Worthy4England]

I'm fairly sure that's still no. I just double checked.

Well check again. I know that you are in denial.

Just coz you turned into Arthur Scargill on the other thread...

I think not. However I'm all for fairness. Are you fair to your staff or are you a rapacious boss?

Might be a bit different. There aren't any that are anywhere near the "average" wage... I'm not an Exec Director either. We often work 80-100 hour weeks so the expectations are probably different.

[bedwetter2]

The Lee Enfield rifle was considered to be as accurate as any rifle produced pre-war (in use by the army from 1895 to 1957). The 105mm howitzer was an excellent field gun. Heavy machine guns were considered to be good although the lack of a good light automatic rifle didn't help. What about the outdated old string kite, the Swordfish? Slow and reliable enough to finish off the Bismarck. As Hoboh mentioned, the Spitfire was a development of the Schneider Trophy winning Supermarine which was designed and developed in the late '20s. The first flying prototype Spitfire was in fact built in 1934.
In terms of the Royal Navy, there were no outstanding battleships - but there again no navy had invulnerable capital ships. The aircraft carrier was coming into its own by 1940 and all ships were under threat from both aircraft and submarines.

I used a Lee Enfield .303 when I played soldiers. Mine had the date 1914 on it, and the essential design did not really alter. It held ten cartridges in the magazine plus one up the spout. It was neither self-loading, automatic or recoilless (nearly broke my shoulder). It was accurate enough if the sight hadn't got bent. It was not a new development between the wars and I didn't consider it superior to the competition.

I thought the 105 mm howitzer was an American development after the war started.

I don't know which heavy machine gum you refer to. You did not mention the Bren Light machine gun, which had a magazine of 22 .303 rounds. It was very accurate but had heating problems - mine came with three interchangeable barrels but they still heated up too fast, and cooling then off in water warped them. I was told in WW2 the soldiers pissed on them to cool them down.

I grant you the swordfish was new and had its successes. However, it was of very limited use. The Spitfire was delivered after my cut off date.

Our battleships were generally from WW1 and of poor design. The new King George V class ships were not launched until the war.

So it seems to me defense was not a priority budget area before the UK woke up around 1937 and realized the danger presented by Germany. So the equipment was old if still serviceable. The swordfish, a slow biplane with limited application, did not tip the balance for me.

I did say that the Lee Enfield dated from the late 19th century. However it did meet your specified end date and over 17m were made. I have also fired that rifle and can confirm it packed a hell of a kick so you did have to hold it tight to the shoulder. In my experience it was accurate up to 600 yards easily and a really good marksman could hit the target up to 800 with an overall range of 2 miles or so before your round fell to earth.

The howitzer I was referring to was 4 1/2 inch bore and British, but sometimes referred to as 105mm. The older field guns such as the 18 pounder could be accurate and sustain a high rate of fire but they predated WW1.

The importance of battleships was overstated but I guess that Britain retained as many as possible such as the Lion class from WW1 because the empire was far flung and it was felt that there needed to be a presence in the far east. Plans to build more were dropped fairly quickly during the war because of their vulnerability, Vanguard being the last and that was built only because it would be more expensive to cancel.

Regarding the Spitfire and the Hurricane I think you are trying to move the goalposts - prototypes were flying and orders placed before 1937.

Don't get me wrong; the appeasement of Germany and the lack of preparedness together with low spending on defence was all part of the same problem caused by complacent politicians. History to some degree is being repeated today.

I actually won an award for marksmanship with the .303 and took a horrible toll on cardboard Germans. Yes, it was held tight to the shoulder but I also put my beret under the battledress to absorb the recoil when firing off ten rounds. I would say it was only accurate up to 200 yards for a target the size of a man's head - you could use the battle sight and the bullet did not drop. After that gravity took its toll and you had to use the leaf sight which would elevate the barrel - basically guess work. I was told it could kill up to three miles but I guess you'd be pointing up at 30-45 degrees!

The 4.5 inch job was misnamed if it was called the 105 because it was bigger. It had been around since WW1 and was just about obsolete in WW2, being replaced by the 25 pounder early on.

I did move the goalpost as Hoboh noted because the UK began to wake up in 1937 and put far more effort into upgrading weaponry after the reoccupation of the Rhinelands. In my view the Munich agreement (appeasement if you will) was as much playing for time as naivety on Chamberlain's part. At least we had the spitfires off the drawing board by 1939.

I went for body shots at 600 yards. Accurate enough. I believe you are wrong about the howitzer. The 25 pounder was classified as heavy artillery and was not suitable for rapid deployment towed by smaller vehicles.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The 4.5 inch job was misnamed if it was called the 105 because it was bigger. It had been around since WW1 and was just about obsolete in WW2, being replaced by the 25 pounder early on.

I did move the goalpost as Hoboh noted because the UK began to wake up in 1937 and put far more effort into upgrading weaponry after the reoccupation of the Rhinelands. In my view the Munich agreement (appeasement if you will) was as much playing for time as naivety on Chamberlain's part. At least we had the spitfires off the drawing board by 1939.

I went for body shots at 600 yards. Accurate enough. I believe you are wrong about the howitzer. The 25 pounder was classified as heavy artillery and was not suitable for rapid deployment towed by smaller vehicles.

I'll have a look around.

The Ordnance QF 4.5-inch howitzer was the standard British Empire field (or ‘light’) howitzer of the First World War era. It replaced the BL 5-inch howitzer and equipped some 25% of the field artillery. It entered service in 1910 and remained in service through the interwar period and was last used in the field by British forces in early 1942. It was generally horse drawn until mechanisation in the 1930s.

The QF 4.5-inch howitzer was used by British and Commonwealth forces in most theatres, by Russia and by British troops in Russia in 1919. Its calibre (114 mm) and hence shell weight were greater than those of the equivalent German field howitzer (105 mm); France did not have an equivalent.

that's from wiki. See also http://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4.5 inches is indeed 114.3 mm so only the American and Germans had 105

The Ordnance QF 25-pounder, or more simply 25-pounder or 25-pdr, was the major British field gun and howitzer during World War II. It was introduced into service just before the war started, combining high-angle and direct-fire, relatively high rates of fire, and a reasonably lethal shell in a highly mobile piece. It remained the British Army's primary artillery field piece well into the 1960s, with smaller numbers serving in training units until the 1980s.

The design was the result of extended studies looking to replace the 18-pounder (3.3 inches (84 mm) bore) field gun and the 4.5-inch howitzer (114.3 mm bore), which had been the main field artillery equipments during the First World War. The basic idea was to build one weapon with the high velocity of the 18-pounder and the variable propelling charges of the howitzer, firing a shell about halfway between the two in size, around 3.5–4.0 inches (89–102 mm) of about 30 pounds (14 kg).

This would tend to support me but you may find other better sources.

[Lord Kangana]

Facts and figures for British inter-war weapons procurement from from 3 books:

The wages of destruction by Adam Tooze
The long shadow by David Reynolds
And
Blood, tears and folly by Len Deighton.

Interestingly, re the Spitfire point, the performance rating of early marks was near identical to the Bf109. However, handily, the Americans gave us 100-Octane fuel, whilst the Germans made do with 95 Octane. If you google this fact, the internet will reference this as a revelation from 2009. The book I got it from was published in 1993. Ergo, careful on the wiki-trigger.

[Worthy4England]

David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3 ... ws_central" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes you just have to laugh...

[boltonboris]

David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3 ... ws_central" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes you just have to laugh...

See, this makes my piss boil and you know my leaning on it

"People will be absolutely outraged if we came out of the EU and then carried on paying them £15bn a year, £20bn a year, whatever the figure is"

"Whatever the figure is", being the secretary overseeing this, that figure should me nailed down to the fvckin penny. Either it's murky as fvck, or it's not being taken very seriously at all.

I think they'll just keep riding this out for as long as possible and hope others jump ship

[Worthy4England]

David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3 ... ws_central" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes you just have to laugh...

See, this makes my piss boil and you know my leaning on it

"People will be absolutely outraged if we came out of the EU and then carried on paying them £15bn a year, £20bn a year, whatever the figure is"

"Whatever the figure is", being the secretary overseeing this, that figure should me nailed down to the fvckin penny. Either it's murky as fvck, or it's not being taken very seriously at all.

I think they'll just keep riding this out for as long as possible and hope others jump ship

I do know your take on it, I think. The problem was (as we kept saying from the Remain side) there was NO PLAN. No strategy, no science, no nothing. Vague promises which meant different things to different people.

Had they said "the plan is exit the EU and pay for access to the market", I might have actually voted for that. But they didn't.

They still have no plan for immigration. In the deal they've been talking about with India, the Indian side said they'd expect to have a more lenient standpoint on immigration (or at least no less preferential than now - can't remember which)....So we cut it down from Bulgaria and increase it from India?

It's just a sham and another clueless fck up.

[boltonboris]

We're not going to trade any more, or less with India than we already do in my opinion.

We probably won't keep the preference scheme alive post brexit, but that amounts to very little in the grand scheme of things

[Lord Kangana]

India is protectionist towards it's service sector and any overseas competition. So, yes, I doubt we could generate much extra in that direction, as one of our main exports is services.

[LeverEnd]

Lol.

[Hoboh]

All I want for Christmas is.........

[Hoboh]

Cracks starting to show?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/e ... ocid=edgsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like with most other things the EU does, I seriously doubt they ever will agree on Brexit.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Cracks starting to show?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/e ... ocid=edgsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like with most other things the EU does, I seriously doubt they ever will agree on Brexit.

Do you Brits agree on Brexit?

[Worthy4England]

Yes it was clearly the will of all the people.

[Worthy4England]

Oh and everyone knows exactly what it meant.

[Worthy4England]

No, honestly.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Most importantly we're going to make a success of it too.