Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I posted this in UK and I think it's relevant, but I'd also like to see the answer in the history forum:
I like to read a lot of WW2 home front news about England and US both. I've read a lot about how England fortified itself during war years, being an island nation against blockades that could have starved the nation out through a variety of measures. Times and circumstances are different of course, but all things being equal, in a similar situation, would England rise to the challenge again as it did during the war and succeed at that level. Those were lean and difficult times to be sure, but the nation put forth stringent standards and achieved a level of success through it. Would it be possible again?
Can the island grow enough food to hold out against a blockade is ultimately the question? What force can build up enough combat power to blockade the islands except the United States? I guess the enemy can come from within. In that case will the people give up civil liberties to a growing population, or to stop that growing movement, which wishes to enforce say God's law?
It would depend on supplies get thru like then if just a limited war and who enemy was. Falklands actually showed the loss in military strength against a weakly held island force. Any modern air force would have resulted in many losses than just one from missiles. Actually Britain turned to Africa after northern European raids where disaster in seeking some offensive action after long lull. The most under appreciated hero of the day was Air Marshall Hugh Dowding whose planning against a lot of opposition made possible the early response to German aircraft in battle of Britain and then Hitler deciding to stop attacking air bases. German plane design also where poor for such distance bombing; just as Allies lead to losses Germany couldn't have replace as US production did. Fueling a army was huge problem for both sides as war progressed just as it would be now especially for UK.
But England dedicated more surface warships to the Falklands conflict than exist in the entire Royal Navy right now. The RN fleet is less than half of what it was in 1982, and it does not have a single operational carrier--two were in the Falklands. The RN is a mere shadow of its former self.
You have to distinguish between quality and quantity. The Royal Navy today is far more capable than it was in 1982. The latest Type 45 destroyers:
"is equipped with the sophisticated Sea Viper (PAAMS) air-defence system utilizing the SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function radar and the S1850M long-range radar. The PAAMS system is able to track over 2,000 targets and simultaneously control and coordinate multiple missiles in the air at once, allowing a large number of tracks to be intercepted and destroyed at any given time."
In addition, British submarines are now armed with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which could strike enemy airbases and which the RN was unable to do in 1982.
As to carriers, two large carriers are in construction as we speak and will each have 36 F35s on-board. In 1982, the UK was only able to field about 28 Harriers.
The UK is also about to start building the Type 26 Global Combat Ship to replace its older Type 23 Frigates.
Those were lean and difficult times to be sure, but the nation put forth stringent standards and achieved a level of success through it. Would it be possible again?
From 1940-1945 Churchill was Prime Minister. Looking ahead to the Falklands Islands War of 1982, Margaret Thatcher was PM. In scanning the political leadership rosters of the UK, we see no person with the skills of Sir Winston or the Iron Lady able to step forward and be a wartime leader of that stature.
No, absolutely not. Nowhere in the western world for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brynach
I posted this in UK and I think it's relevant, but I'd also like to see the answer in the history forum:
I like to read a lot of WW2 home front news about England and US both. I've read a lot about how England fortified itself during war years, being an island nation against blockades that could have starved the nation out through a variety of measures. Times and circumstances are different of course, but all things being equal, in a similar situation, would England rise to the challenge again as it did during the war and succeed at that level. Those were lean and difficult times to be sure, but the nation put forth stringent standards and achieved a level of success through it. Would it be possible again?
You have to distinguish between quality and quantity. The Royal Navy today is far more capable than it was in 1982. The latest Type 45 destroyers:
The RN is the most technically advanced navy in the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.