1. No. Total war is when a country is entirely committed to a war, with all its resources. A country may not have the means to annihilate its enemy, but still be engaged in a total war, e.g. Israel in 1948, or North Vietnam vs the USA. A war can be total on one side only, the other side fighting a limited war.

2. See above. The Israelis were undoubtedly fighting a total war in 1948, as were the Biafrans in 1967-70, the North Vietnamese, & Cambodia in 1978-9.

grits teeth…yes and no. The aim of total war is unconditional surrender and the removal of you opponents ability to resist, so in that sense its hard to entirely say any of those wars are truly “total”. These conflicts have total elements, many of them in some cases, but in its pure form Total war has only existed in the middle late years of ww2. Most of those nations you listed have no industry so were incapable of applying their industrial effort to war- they were reliant on imports so are already “limited”, most of them didn’t comitt whole populations to war work and conscription and their aims were not total. The Israelis were fighting a limited war for survival (or creation depends on your view), desperate yes and with much of the population comitted but they were not aiming at total destruction of their enemies. Similar with the other examples. These are all high intensity limited wars.

Nope, it was labour’s fault for sending us cap in hand to the IMF meaning no cash for anything.

Nah, I blame Heath, it was he of the three day week and he crawled to the EEC knowing the economy had gone t*ts up.

We still add armour to tanks, driving up costs, but that isn’t questioned because it increases protection, so why would cost suddenly become the primary driver in warships, especially since it was already an established technique in warship building. If you need to drive down costs you tend to limit the high end stuff in new warships and decide what new gear you don’t need, not remove things that you currently put in, UNLESS it has become ineffective.

+1 etc

absolutely, a single 1000lb dive bombed through the thinner armour on top would have sealed the deal. Belgrano was only an old cruiser, her deck armour was about 2″ thick and main belt was no more than 6″ at most. The Mak 8s that did for her had 805lb warheads.

BTW Belgrano only had 6″ guns, they have a max range of about 14 miles so less than exocet???

I’d say China/SE asia Vs Japan was also a total war

Japans invasion of manchuria was limited in aim and size and the invasions of 41-42 were definately fought for limited aims, while Japan did not gear up its economy to anything like a total war footing until the last year of the war. So I would say no. The Americans certainly didn’t fight a total war against japan, as Ron Spector said America fought Japan wth one arm tied behind its back while looking the other way.

The “Quango” as you described would not have any say in Military policy, how the countries armed forces are committed. That is the sole responsibility of the elected Government. What the “Quango” role is is to ensure that the Military is of sufficient size and has the right equipment to carry out the Governments policy.

But thats develoving some of the political (ie civilian) control of the military to interested parties. What happens in a national crisis when this quango disagrees with the government? surely they could argue they should take sole reponsibility because only they fully understand.

At the moment the opposite is true with the size and equipment level of the Military totally out of step with the policy the Government is pursuing.

Yes and no, one major problem we face is that social attutudes have changed, back in the 60s (ie borneo) troops would have been sent for much longer periods to a conflict zone, now we do short 6 months stints, 1960s generals would think todays army has gone soft. Its our determination to give the soldiers a hoiday that is putting a strain on the army. But you sound like an ogre for pointing that out so i’ll shut up.

The problem with have a mainly military illiterate public is that when the Government makes mistakes on military matters and casualties result, it is the military who get blamed.

But they generally are because of military issues, it was the army that decided to wear berrets in basra in 2003, not the the governments. Its easy to blame whitehall when things don’t appear to be going well, its never because occasionally certain parts of the military are not up to the job, “our boys” can do no wrong in the eyes of the sun but again you become and ogre for saying that….

War should only be a last resort but if it is the option chosen then it must be executed with the maximum commitment to achieve clear aims and goals. “Limited” wars are a political creation, easily shown by comparing GWI and GWII. In GWI it was total war with a solid set aims and goal and overwelming force was used to achieve this and allow a measured exit strategy. In GWII a high tech limited approach was taken with limited aims and goals which did not extend beyond invasion leading to the opperation dragging on for a further 6 years. Yes there were other factors, but the US and UK wanted the war done with minimal assets, minimal costs.

GWI was not a total war, that is not the definition of a total war, very far from it. GWI was a limited war fought for limited aims with limited forces. Limited war is not a political creation at all, they are an “official” type of war (one sudied at all officer colleges) and one that almost every war the UK has fought expect in the years 1916-18 and 1940-45 which were total wars (just and not 1914-15 and 1939 you notice) in fact the only true total war was fought by the USSR 1941-45.

The main problem is that current UK Governent especially has seen the Military and Military action as a PR tool showing the UK is still a major player in the world. It has committed our Men and Women to operations we have not been equipped for, nor have they provided sufficient funding. Because of the lack of understanding by the “Military Illiterate” public they have been able to put up numerous smoke screens of spin to cover the real facts.

I think thats very cynical if I may say so. I don’t think any government has sent troops to battle for something so low as PR. Britain still is a ‘major player, our opinion and influence is still asked for, no we are not the power we were but we are still very much one of the big boys, though I know it is very fashionable in the UK to have all this self doubt and angst about our world role. As for public military illiteracy, i think the media has more to answer on that front, but then why should the public understand the military, most people don’t understand education, health, law etc, I work in education and sometimes I would love it all to be run by a “council of the wise” but i know that would be a poor idea for democratic health and the road to dictatorship.

If you want to go to war you have to pay for it, if you don’t want to spend the money you don’t! If this governemnt had been in power in 1982 they would have sent the Task Force but with only one carrier and half the support and troops, one to keep costs down and two because the other half would not have existed.

Pure conjecture, you have no evidence to back that claim up. How do you know the current government would send “half a task force”?

Also (and another debate entirely) we would not need a task force as big as the poorly equipped (and goodness me that was very badly equipped) 1982 task force, that was three decades ago, times and equipment have moved on massively.

As for trident, although I believe in a strong military, trident is a dinosaur. No sane country would use nuclear weapons and we are protected by NATO’s/the US umbrella. Even unstable countries would not directly use them relying on third parties but without a clear target who would we retaliate against. The vast majority of world powers do not have nuclear weapons, given our situation, concentrating on conventional and unconventional capabilities seems the more appropriate policy to follow.

Oh i’m mostly with you there, I think the quote a couple of weeks ago that britain is like a man telling someone to give up smoking while having a fag hanging on his lip and buying a new packet. Its a much bigger debate, i’m at times torn but I do feel that at the very least trident is a bit OTT.

We through our elected representatives have a duty to the Military. If we expect them to go into harms way for our protection then then should be properly funded and equipped, anything less should be criminally negligent!

Yes and no again, it is a volunteer armed forces, we have no pressed men. We have a duty and military covenent to adhere to and much should be done to aid those who decide to “fight for their country” but they know what they are letting themselves in for, no one is putting a shilling in their beer. If you think the armed fores is a hard and dangerous life no one is forcing you to join. people who care for a dying relative 24 hours a day have a hard life no one gives them pay rises and medals and parades.

I would say that soldiers have always whinged about kit since the first days of organised armies, i’m sure Legionaire Brutus thought his gladius was poorly made and that his rations were naff. Soldiers get put in harms way, they get shot at, some die. The media has created the illusion (and many senior officers have bought the lie) that war can be made safe, that no one need die and those coffins in wotton basset are all the fault of those damn politicians.

The stern ramp and mission bay will survive, I expect the hanger to become one simple big box however. What this does point to is C1 and C2 being a single class with different start of life fitouts

Hi everybody, just got back from an enforced volcano stay in Gib, lovely!

It would perhaps make a good economical arguement to have C1 and C2 essentially being the same ship (i.e. T26) you can keep hull production going for a longer period in the same places and then you provide adabtability and economy in upgrades, C2s could be switched to C1s given a dire crisis where more of that type are needed, you could in effect have the C2s as an active, useful war reserve. The C2 becomes a a C1 fitted for but not with perhaps. would save money on traing and spares too.

Lots of talk about US systems being a block to buying type 26 but if the ship is made on a modular principle then each nation can tailor weapons etc to their own tastes and there would be no bar to building it in house much as Type 12 or Mekos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8589135.stm

This one slipped quietly under the radar. Good to see though, and nice to see all these contracts appearing. Lets hope they don’t get cut in 2 months time.

EDIT: Gah just noticed my misspelling of the title :S

Its a b***er when that happens. 😀

I heard a rumour a while back that the Barmy is deliberately keeping AH9A quiet in the hopes it can keep putting airframes into it…i.e this won’t be the last batch as they hope to field a full 3 sqn AH9A regiment (27a/c) and to make the Wildcat go further a batch to be used for training might appear all taken from the best of the AH7 airframes. We shall wait and see.