On 09/06/2014 16:50, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
scribeth thus
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:58:29 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over the
last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and air
support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important service
is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.

Also not followed the Pacific war either, I'd guess. That would have
been a non-starter for the Yanks without a Navy.

Without the Navy, Adolf could have invaded quite easily, and his
surface ships and subs would have strangled our imports. We'd have lost
in pretty short order.


Quite;!....

One could also argue that he was not prepared to invade without total
air superiority, and the Battle of Britain put paid to any early
thoughts along those lines.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/