Excalibur Squadron OOC 2: The Song Remains the Same

[The Tiger Kingdom]

So I'm watching Witness for the Prosecution now on Netflix - terrific movie - only now, I can't get Tyrone Power out of my head as my image for Talbot. It fits real well...

[Goram]

>Stated a while back that we're flying Mk.V Spitfires with two .303 machine guns and two 20mm cannons.

@Mon; I do find it funny how a bunch of Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm who went stateside to learn how to fly the F-4 Phantom ended up teaching the US Navy how to dogfight with it.

thats because we're at thje opposite end of the "embracing technology spectrum. You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics while us yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat.

...We do?

[Morrdh]

thats because we're at thje opposite end of the "embracing technology spectrum. You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics while us yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat.

...We do?

Yeah, probably more to do with never giving the military any real money to do anything.

The Victor and the Hunter both saw service until the early 1990s (the Hunter being used by the Fleet Air Arm to train Harrier pilots).

[Kouralia]

thats because we're at thje opposite end of the "embracing technology spectrum. You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics while us yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat.

...We do?

In some ways... yes. In others, very much no.

In the former camp can sit things like... close order formations in 1900, magazine fed squad automatic weapons trying to replace belt fed weapons in the '80s and emphasis on accuracy over weight of fire in AnyTimeSinceThe2ndBoerWar.
In the latter... Tanks, the concept of Light Infantry, the Rifled weapon, magazine fed squad automatic weapons used in conjunction with belt fed weapons in the '80s, air forces etc.

[The Two Jerseys]

So I'm watching Witness for the Prosecution now on Netflix - terrific movie - only now, I can't get Tyrone Power out of my head as my image for Talbot. It fits real well...

I wish you'd have said that sooner; I think it was just on Tuesday night, I'd have recorded it.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

So I'm watching Witness for the Prosecution now on Netflix - terrific movie - only now, I can't get Tyrone Power out of my head as my image for Talbot. It fits real well...

I wish you'd have said that sooner; I think it was just on Tuesday night, I'd have recorded it.

Also, we'll meet Ms. Dietrich at some point, of course.

[Goram]

...We do?

Yeah, probably more to do with never giving the military any real money to do anything.

The Victor and the Hunter both saw service until the early 1990s (the Hunter being used by the Fleet Air Arm to train Harrier pilots).

Nothing wrong with Victor in the tanker role - the US Navy absolutely loved them. The British military is no more technophobic or fearful of new methods than the US military or any other military in the world, for that matter. In every military force, throughout military history, you occasionally see officers of the old school oppose revisionist thinking. Exhibit A would be battleship admirals opposing the carrier in the inter war period (at this point, if anyone uses the name "Sir Douglas Haig" in a less that positive light, in regard to technology, I will find you, I will kill you). That line of thinking was prevalent in the Royal Navy, but that's not to say the USN or IJN did not have the same problems. I imagine we will start to see the same thing, in aviation, as unmanned fighters begin to appear. High ranking officers, ex fighter pilots, will fight them like hell and I can guarantee you that Generals of the USAF will be in the vanguard.

If you were going to use the logic of old kit still in service (i.e. Tornado now or the Bucc in 1991) you could easily argue the same for any modern military going. Look at the United States. Still rocking B-52's and legacy models of teen series fighters. Look at Russia. Still armed considerable numbers of SU-27's and MiG-29's. The French are only just or are about to retire the Mirage. Everyone, I repeat, everyone still uses Cold War technology to a certain degree (augmented by MLU's) but that absolutely doesn't mean the world's military forces are technophobic.

I do not see how UKP can make the argument that " You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics" or that the " yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat". I do not see it.

[The Two Jerseys]

I wish you'd have said that sooner; I think it was just on Tuesday night, I'd have recorded it.

Also, we'll meet Ms. Dietrich at some point, of course.

Social call, or strictly business?

Also, call me/Talbot when we get to meet...actually, that's a pretty long list.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Yeah, probably more to do with never giving the military any real money to do anything.

The Victor and the Hunter both saw service until the early 1990s (the Hunter being used by the Fleet Air Arm to train Harrier pilots).

Nothing wrong with Victor in the tanker role - the US Navy absolutely loved them. The British military is no more technophobic or fearful of new methods than the US military or any other military in the world, for that matter. In every military force, throughout military history, you occasionally see officers of the old school oppose revisionist thinking. Exhibit A would be battleship admirals opposing the carrier in the inter war period (at this point, if anyone uses the name "Sir Douglas Haig" in a less that positive light, in regard to technology, I will find you, I will kill you). That line of thinking was prevalent in the Royal Navy, but that's not to say the USN or IJN did not have the same problems. I imagine we will start to see the same thing, in aviation, as unmanned fighters begin to appear. High ranking officers, ex fighter pilots, will fight them like hell and I can guarantee you that Generals of the USAF will be in the vanguard.

If you were going to use the logic of old kit still in service (i.e. Tornado now or the Bucc in 1991) you could easily argue the same for any modern military going. Look at the United States. Still rocking B-52's and legacy models of teen series fighters. Look at Russia. Still armed considerable numbers of SU-27's and MiG-29's. The French are only just or are about to retire the Mirage. Everyone, I repeat, everyone still uses Cold War technology to a certain degree (augmented by MLU's) but that absolutely doesn't mean the world's military forces are technophobic.

I do not see how UKP can make the argument that " You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics" or that the " yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat". I do not see it.

If anything, Britain is even more enraptured with new tech than America is.

There's a solid historical reason for this: manpower levels. Countries like Russia and Germany have always been able to sustain huge armies in the field, so they didn't need to focus on high technology so much because they had the sheer manpower (the exception being the Wunderwaffe, originating out of Hitler's own obsession with superweapons as it became clear the initiative was swinging towards Russia and the Allies - and what good did all that Wunderwaffe do for Germany?). America can too, to a lesser extent - we have the legacy of the massive numerical superiority of Grant's Army of the Potomac and Sherman's "Rolling Front" going forward to crush the shit out of Lee and the South, the massive waves of reinforcements under Pershing turning the tide in 1918, and the legacy of the wide-front strategy (conducted while we were fighting a whole different war on the other side of the world ON top of Italy) under Eisenhower during WW2.

America can theoretically afford to put huge armies in the field with little to no technological advantage, and still win. The difference is that we as a people will not stand the casualties that would result due to those policies as the Russian or German populations can. Thus, we emphasize technological superiority in order to save lives - but the legacy remains of battles that were won not because of technology, but simply because we could grind the other fuckers down until they were bled white.

Britain has never had that option.

Britain has never had a ground-warfare force on the numerical level of the Americans, Germans, or Russians. Their land warfare legacy (when it comes to the successes, anyways) is one of hit-and-run, of carefully-chosen and structured engagements on their own terms, of Montgomery's "prepared battlefield" and the exquisite maneuvering and tactical wizardry of Wellington (backed up by the Prussians, too). This has always been coupled with not just an obsession, but a NEED for technological supremacy. You only need to look at all the faffing about the British did during the World Wars - they invented the tank specifically in order to beat the attrition stats and force a game-changing move in 1916. They invented radar interwar specifically to put their smaller fighter force EXACTLY where it needed to be to cancel out the German bomber numbers. Britain has always been at the absolute cutting edge of warfare innovation, because the alternative was...failure, basically.

They must be the most advanced, because that's the only way they can cancel out that eternal numerical inferiority. With America, it's something we do because of public demand - because thankfully, we're civilized enough to the point where we won't accept massive casualties if we can spend massive amounts of money on tech instead (which is absolutely correct), but theoretically, alternatives exist.

Also, we'll meet Ms. Dietrich at some point, of course.

Social call, or strictly business?

Also, call me/Talbot when we get to meet...actually, that's a pretty long list.

We'll be meeting somebody very, very famous in a few posts!
At least, Page and Kaya will.

[Morrdh]

Nothing wrong with Victor in the tanker role - the US Navy absolutely loved them. The British military is no more technophobic or fearful of new methods than the US military or any other military in the world, for that matter. In every military force, throughout military history, you occasionally see officers of the old school oppose revisionist thinking. Exhibit A would be battleship admirals opposing the carrier in the inter war period (at this point, if anyone uses the name "Sir Douglas Haig" in a less that positive light, in regard to technology, I will find you, I will kill you). That line of thinking was prevalent in the Royal Navy, but that's not to say the USN or IJN did not have the same problems. I imagine we will start to see the same thing, in aviation, as unmanned fighters begin to appear. High ranking officers, ex fighter pilots, will fight them like hell and I can guarantee you that Generals of the USAF will be in the vanguard.

If you were going to use the logic of old kit still in service (i.e. Tornado now or the Bucc in 1991) you could easily argue the same for any modern military going. Look at the United States. Still rocking B-52's and legacy models of teen series fighters. Look at Russia. Still armed considerable numbers of SU-27's and MiG-29's. The French are only just or are about to retire the Mirage. Everyone, I repeat, everyone still uses Cold War technology to a certain degree (augmented by MLU's) but that absolutely doesn't mean the world's military forces are technophobic.

I do not see how UKP can make the argument that " You brits tend to hold off on new tech/ tactics" or that the " yanks tend to fully embrace them to the point that we declare the old stuff obsolete before we even test it in combat". I do not see it.

If anything, Britain is even more enraptured with new tech than America is.

There's a solid historical reason for this: manpower levels. Countries like Russia and Germany have always been able to sustain huge armies in the field, so they didn't need to focus on high technology so much because they had the sheer manpower (the exception being the Wunderwaffe, originating out of Hitler's own obsession with superweapons as it became clear the initiative was swinging towards Russia and the Allies - and what good did all that Wunderwaffe do for Germany?). America can too, to a lesser extent - we have the legacy of the massive numerical superiority of Grant's Army of the Potomac and Sherman's "Rolling Front" going forward to crush the shit out of Lee and the South, the massive waves of reinforcements under Pershing turning the tide in 1918, and the legacy of the wide-front strategy (conducted while we were fighting a whole different war on the other side of the world ON top of Italy) under Eisenhower during WW2.

America can theoretically afford to put huge armies in the field with little to no technological advantage, and still win. The difference is that we as a people will not stand the casualties that would result due to those policies as the Russian or German populations can. Thus, we emphasize technological superiority in order to save lives - but the legacy remains of battles that were won not because of technology, but simply because we could grind the other fuckers down until they were bled white.

Britain has never had that option.

Britain has never had a ground-warfare force on the numerical level of the Americans, Germans, or Russians. Their land warfare legacy (when it comes to the successes, anyways) is one of hit-and-run, of carefully-chosen and structured engagements on their own terms, of Montgomery's "prepared battlefield" and the exquisite maneuvering and tactical wizardry of Wellington (backed up by the Prussians, too). This has always been coupled with not just an obsession, but a NEED for technological supremacy. You only need to look at all the faffing about the British did during the World Wars - they invented the tank specifically in order to beat the attrition stats and force a game-changing move in 1916. They invented radar interwar specifically to put their smaller fighter force EXACTLY where it needed to be to cancel out the German bomber numbers. Britain has always been at the absolute cutting edge of warfare innovation, because the alternative was...failure, basically.

They must be the most advanced, because that's the only way they can cancel out that eternal numerical inferiority. With America, it's something we do because of public demand - because thankfully, we're civilized enough to the point where we won't accept massive casualties if we can spend massive amounts of money on tech instead (which is absolutely correct), but theoretically, alternatives exist.

Admittedly after the 1950s us Brits fell behind on the tech front, mainly due to politics.

Funny you should say that Germany could field huge armies when the Blitzkrieg tactic was developed to take advantage of Germany's small army at the time, different story later on in the war when Germany was bolstered by allied troops (mainly referring to the likes of Spain and Hungary).

Also, call me/Talbot when we get to meet...actually, that's a pretty long list.

We'll be meeting somebody very, very famous in a few posts!
At least, Page and Kaya will.

Wait...WOT?!

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Funny you should say that Germany could field huge armies when the Blitzkrieg tactic was developed to take advantage of Germany's small army at the time, different story later on in the war when Germany was bolstered by allied troops (mainly referring to the likes of Spain and Hungary).

According to a lot of the in-depth stuff I've read...the general consensus is that "Blitzkrieg" really wasn't an actual thing, as much as it was a series of lucky coincidences, German propaganda at the time, and Allied theorists postwar trying desperately to explain why they fucked up in France so bad.
Germany could field huge armies relative to what Britain was willing to put up - conscription v. non-conscription will always favor one side numerically. "Blitzkrieg" (IE theoretically favoring fast maneuver strikes) was (at least according to Overy, who I'm quite devoted to) a compromise to the fact not that the German Army was too small, but that they couldn't modernize fast enough because they had started too late and the German economy couldn't keep pace. Therefore, they could only have a small number of "Blitz-capable" divisions, which meant they had to maneuver to survive.

[Morrdh]

Funny you should say that Germany could field huge armies when the Blitzkrieg tactic was developed to take advantage of Germany's small army at the time, different story later on in the war when Germany was bolstered by allied troops (mainly referring to the likes of Spain and Hungary).

According to a lot of the in-depth stuff I've read...the general consensus is that "Blitzkrieg" really wasn't an actual thing, as much as it was a series of lucky coincidences, German propaganda at the time, and Allied theorists postwar trying desperately to explain why they fucked up in Franco so bad.
Germany could field huge armies relative to what Britain was willing to put up - conscription v. non-conscription will always favor one side numerically. "Blitzkrieg" (IE theoretically favoring fast maneuver strikes) was (at least according to Overy, who I'm quite devoted to) a compromise to the fact not that the German Army was too small, but that they couldn't modernize fast enough because they had started too late and the German economy couldn't keep pace. Therefore, they could only have a small number of "Blitz-capable" divisions, which meant they had to maneuver to survive.

Thing is Britain had conscription from the first day of the war (though a limited form had been introduced in April 1939), had all the Territorial Army units and of course the Commonwealth to call upon. The problem was that the Allied top brass was still thinking of Flanders mud and had modernized according to that (quite a few BEF troops in 1940 were equipped with WW1 era equipment and uniforms), the other problem was the Maginot Line.

[Grenartia]

Kenneth Branagh as Smythe

I can see that. Smythe is actually massively cockney/east london/dirty-peasant-londoner-docker... It's just he nigh-on universally affects an RP accent in order to appear more upper class and attempt to better present himself as a dependable, superior British NCO.

EDIT: Can we plz name something the 'Mystery Machine'?

I know. I'll have Jimmy smoke some pot and eat some magic mushrooms sometime, then paint his machine all psychedelic-like, too. Hopefully after he gets a Do-335. For maximum WTFness.

So, is everyone looking forward to the Gulf War 3.0 (or 4.0, depending on your point of view)?

EDIT: I think we can now, without shadow of a doubt, say that Iraq 2003-11 was a glorious failure. Although I'm on the fence in regards to success in Afghanistan, I fear the same revival of insurgent activities when ISAF forces leave.

If it weren't for all the innocent people there, I'd honestly say "Fuck it" and argue for nuking the place.

It seems like everybody there (or at least most of them, and if not, the ones with all the guns and the biggest voices) hate us, no matter what we do. We intervene, we're fucked. We don't intervene, we're fucked. We nuke them, we're fucked. We can't win.

So, is everyone looking forward to the Gulf War 3.0 (or 4.0, depending on your point of view)?

U S A! FIND THE HEAD!

Somehow I don't think that 'looking forwards to' is quite the right phrase here.

Its on my radar, thats for sure.

Same here. And I'm beginning to wonder if it might go into full-blown WWIII. With three sides.

I don't mean to be rude, but you guys are also kinda holding my up as well.

I'm sure the squadron would love to see Melody back, wouldn't they?

Oh, don't worry, Mon, they posted.
All is back in order, now. Nobody will be banished to the Distant Town...
...not yet, anyways.

I will be to making posting soon after I am to be waking up.

Ah, Hull.

If there is only one thing to do in Hull, and that one thing is death, then yes, Hull is the Distant Town.

Sounds like Bogalusa, LA.

snippysnipsnip

Looks great. Moreno doesn't have a picture, though

And Singh doesn't have a description.

Depends on the payloads of the missles on the Truxtun and Phillipine Sea. Conventional, they can eliminate the military of any given two or three middle eastern nations. Nuclear, they can wipe the middle east off the map. A mixture (most likely scenario is two or three nuclear tipped missiles per), they can handle just about anything.

Neither Truxtun nor Philippine Sea are nuclear capable vessels. The only weapon they have that could be nuke tipped is the Tomahawk and the last of the nuclear capable Tomahawks were withdrawn from service by 2013, although most of them were gone by 1987. The only nuke ships the US Navy has are the SSBNs, with the Tridents. The real power of that group is H.W. Bush's air wing, which still probably couldn't wipe out a Mid-East nation. That said, Growlers along with "Wild Weasel" Super Bugs could blind them and render their military incapable of effective operation.

I may retcon in a pair of four-inchers.

Good stuff - I think It'd be good for her to have a little more fire power. Speaking of, if you could send us some UDF chaps (presumably, they will betray us) to mow down with our shiny new MG34, that would be great

Really though, the who really got screwed here (besides Iraq) isn't the US - it's the Iranians. The Daily Beast does a good job of explaining this: all the shit they did back when we were still in Iraq was meant to keep us pinned down in that area and supporting (narrow) Shia majority rule by sheer necessity (given that Saddam's people and al-Qaeda's affiliates in the area were all Sunni). So, they could give all the help they wanted to people like Muqtada al-Sadr and the Hezbollah affiliates in Iraq, to keep the US pinned down and to keep the Sunnis suppressed.

Now, the US is gone - and while there are more Shias than Sunnis in iraq, it's a narrow thing, and the Shias don't have the kind of majority they need to keep the Sunnis pinned down forever. So, instead of having the US right next door keeping a kind of lid on things and keeping the Shia in power, they have a failed state that could easily become a Sunni terrorist paradise, thanks to ISIS and the weakness of the predominantly Shia government.

We had the Iraq War, and that was bad enough - but now Iran has the prospect of having their equivalent of the Vietnam War right freaking next door for the foreseeable future. It'd be like if Vietnam happened in Canada for the US. All the Iranian effort over the last ten years has been towards keeping the Sunnis down and Iraq weak and all puppety, so that it couldn't ever challenge Iran again - and now, all that has come totally apart.

If there was a definition for "Clusterfuck", it would probably be the situation brewing in Iraq. It seems that the United States has rewritten the book on how to utterly fail at Counterinsurgency. As I think I said before, I fear Afghan will go the same way in a year or so.

Basically, it seems that the entire situation can be compared to a bullet wound to your hand, that's been infected with Staph. If you leave it alone, the infection spreads, taking a greater toll on you, possibly even killing you. If you treat it, you could end up with drug-resistant Staph, bringing you right back to square one. If you cut off your hand, you lose your fucking hand.

There's no way to win.

So in world news, the US has now admitted that they're contemplating direct talks with Iran over the current crisis in Iraq.
What this amounts to is that the collapse of the Iraqi government has essentially created the greatest chance of a general Iran-West rapprochement and thawing of relations in 35 years.
Which is interesting.

Quite interesting.

Why yes THE TIGER KINGDOM I do know what a MONG is. It is an adjective, commonly used to describe someone as a "spaz".

Not so much, necessarily.
It means "mongoloid". As in, a ridiculously archaic and racist term for somebody with Down Syndrome.
So you're essentially slinging a word around that has the same pointlessly derogatory impact as "retard", only way more specific and with a sugary coating of debunked turn-of-the-century racism.
Please do not use it on this thread again.

I just thought it was a misspelling of "mang".

Mong is probably one of the more common insults in the British Army (along with lizard and RAF Regt Gunner), from speaking to multiple soldiers and officers.

And the n-word was one of the more common insults among the KKK.
So...?

PEOPLE I REALLY HATE:

N*GGERS

P.S., its naggers.

At any rate, we're not debating this. You can accept what I'm saying as correct or not, but this isn't a democracy.

I believe someone once said it was, and I quote, a 'Tigertatorship'.

Just made me think of a potato painted with tiger stripes floating in a lake.

Come on, guys, it's summer. It's never going to be easier for you to post than it is right now.
Our average for posts-per-day should be way higher.

And I'm just sitting here watching Inglorious Basterds.

Hey Donny! We got us a German here who wants to die for country. Oblige him!

I work too!
BUT I BET SOME OF YOU OTHER PEOPLE DON'T!

Do you have any idea how tough it is to get a decent job nowadays?

Yeah! What Mon said!

Ignoring the fact that even not so decent jobs are tough to get. Also ignoring the fact that I spent from Friday until Monday at my dad's and his bosses' lakehouse (working vacation), and the last few days catching up elsewhere.

MY MOTHER WAS RIGHT ABOUT YOU

*slap*
JUST LIKE SHE WAS RIGHT ABOUT ALL THOSE LOTTERY TICKETS? HUH?

Ouch....


YOU FOOL! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!

Here's hoping you people never try to unionize!

Rolf's a jerk!
Ain't gonna work!

[Goram]

Sigh...

[Morrdh]

Sigh...

Well, that made my day after a rather shitty shift at work.

[Goram]

Sigh...

Well, that made my day after a rather shitty shift at work.

02:15 to 02:20. Now look here old boy, if there's a chap at short mid off and the bowler delivers one that gets up at you, one can't be rocking back to play that back foot drive, unless one can manage to avoid striking the ball on the up. It's simply not on, as one can clearly see. To put it frankly, it's simply not cricket. As if that wasn't enough, their technique on the pull shot, to be brutally honest with you, old sport, is awful.

#CricketLawyered.

But no. I am, as I may have mentioned, something of a cricket fan. Not especially partial to football, I'll watch it if it's on. However, when these international tournaments roll around, it's nice to see the nation get behind something, even if it's not the sort of thing I'd ideally like. Let's face it, we live on a funny little rock in the north Atlantic. In the modern world, we haven't an awful lot going for us. But we used to be great, as great as we like to think we are now, and sporting success reminds us that we can be that great again. I don't know if you remember, but everyone caught Ashes fever in 2005 and the country went semi-berserk when they finally won back the little urn. It would be nice if we could have something like that again - something to feel good about. And that, in short, is why I bother watching England football.

But now that's over and done with...to Leeds. And the cricket.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Looks great. Moreno doesn't have a picture, though

And Singh doesn't have a description.

Working on it. I acknowledged it was posted incomplete.

[Monfrox]

You wanted more one-shots? Too bad. Laptop took a shit.

[Grenartia]

And Singh doesn't have a description.

Working on it. I acknowledged it was posted incomplete.

Gotcha.

You wanted more one-shots? Too bad. Laptop took a shit.

I once had a shit that took a laptop.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

(Image)

Singh was best friends in India with a man named Abdul.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

(Image)

Singh was best friends in India with a man named Abdul.

There's also speculation that he may be one of Abdul's dozens of illegitimate children.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Singh was best friends in India with a man named Abdul.

There's also speculation that he may be one of Abdul's dozens of illegitimate children.

Mind, some have speculated that about everyone on Earth.

[Grenartia]

(Image)

Singh was best friends in India with a man named Abdul.

How do we know Singh isn't Abdul in disguise?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Singh was best friends in India with a man named Abdul.

How do we know Singh isn't Abdul in disguise?

Are you implying all Indians are the same?

Because it's true that we're all Abdul.I just thought that was a closely guarded secret.

[Monfrox]

You wanted more one-shots? Too bad. Laptop took a shit.

I once had a shit that took a laptop.

Please don't be that guy.

Of all all the three times I posted about my laptop being down, a joke was made.