HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Kruska]

Weren't all humans from Africa originally? I suppose your idea that all of Europe (Britain included) being one race means that it all should come under the same rule. I believe Herr Hitler wished the same thing, only his attempts through force brought a lot of attention from non-Europeans.

Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn't share them.

No I don't think all the humans came from Africa, and the majorities of the Germanics in Britain are from Scandinavia and not Germany.

Germany is being kicked in the ass for its last 100 years on every possible occasion, most notably by the Brits. Germany and France have become friends – both sides have their fair share of dickh…ds, but I have never had a negative or WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter in France, but believe me 2 minutes in an English pup and of goes WW2.

The Americans derive from the same culture and countries as we do (besides Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali) and they learned to do it – so if these Cowboys managed to do it, then it can't be that difficult.

BTW, if we want to continue on this topic we might have to open a new thread, otherwise the carrier guy's are going to get mad at us.

Regards
Kruska (Still European)

 

[timshatz]

??? Huh?

The Queen Elizabeth {WWI Battleship} fought at Jutland, was flagship in the Gallipoli campaign 1915, in WWII in 1940 was damaged in the attack on Dakar, was flagship of the Mediterannean fleet 1941, mined by Italian frogmen repaired, then was flagship of the Eastern fleet in 1944 used her guns for shore bombardment in Indonesia Malaysia among others, finally the WWI warhorse was retired in 1946., :

My bad, confused my Queens. Meant the Queen Mary, that's the one that blew up. That's the problem with being an American, one queen is pretty much like any other.

 

[plan_D]

"Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn't share them."

What's wrong with pointing out that a unified European nation is the same idea as Herr Hitler? My comment should give you some idea of Great Britain's unwillingness to join in this farce called Europe, we more than most because unlike the rest of them we resisted and didn't falter.

"No I don't think all the humans came from Africa, and the majorities of the Germanics in Britain are from Scandinavia and not Germany."

Well, it's time you glanced across the internet because all humankind apparently came from Africa. I hope you are aware that native peoples of the British Isles shared the same culture, religion and politics as the Scandinavia long before the Viking invasions. The Norsemen and Germanics were only mixing with their own kind when they began to produce alongside native British; that being the norse side, of course. As I'm sure you're aware that the British Isles consisted of countless races of all varieties from the Britons to the Celts to the Picts. The norse did not add an extra race to the mix - they simply increased the norse race already present in the British Isles.

"Germany is being kicked in the ass for its last 100 years on every possible occasion, most notably by the Brits. Germany and France have become friends – both sides have their fair share of dickh…ds, but I have never had a negative or WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter in France, but believe me 2 minutes in an English pup and of goes WW2."

Of course, the Great British public will mention "the war" when in the presence of Germans; unlike France the British nation held firm. It's quite unfortunate because Britain was preparing for war against France, and on the side of Germany until '38.

What would you call a "WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter"; does the whole "Two World Wars and One World Cup" chant get to you? Your violent past with France goes back a lot further than 100 years; Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian wars ring a bell? You believe the world has moved on in the past 60 years from 1945? Maybe you don't receive negativity in France because they've got nothing to boast about !!!

I've been to Germany, I went to see Adler a couple of years ago, it's a great nation. And I got along great with everyone from there; although it may not count for little (and I care nought if it does or not) but I have defended Germany in many a discussion/argument on this site, and in day to day life. So, I have nothing against Germany... but what you don't realise is that there's still a big black mark against it's name. And if you can't handle national banter, then remain within your own borders.

"The Americans derive from the same culture and countries as we do (besides Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali) and they learned to do it – so if these Cowboys managed to do it, then it can't be that difficult."

That is true, but the Americans all joined hands because they had one common goal and that was to remove themselves from Europe. They were starting afresh and removing the European tag from their names; the U.S now has it's own culture that is all one and the same... they've had one civil war; compare that to the amount of "civil" conflicts that have been fought inside Europes borders.

 

[renrich]

Being a Texan and an American and an Anglophile, I hope that Britain maintains her distance from the EU. I like Queen Elisabeth and Prince of Wales.

 

[trackend]

I stand by what by I said about the EU, I am and never have been in favour of it as far as my nation is concerned what others want is a matter for themselves. But then thats the advantage of having democracy in europe, its just a shame it took millions of lives to maintain it that way, good job somebody had a few carriers (and some other naval hardware) and plenty of friends outside europe. Oh Ive gone full circle.


Anyway guys these here carriers.

I think the split command and control Islands are a pretty neat Idea, I'll be interested to have a look once they are commissioned. With new aircraft and new carriers designed with the JSF in mind it should hopefully produce two very effective vessels.

 

[Freebird]

My bad, confused my Queens. Meant the Queen Mary, that's the one that blew up. That's the problem with being an American, one Queen is pretty much like any other.

We understand, and symathise with your confusion.

 

[Freebird]

Anyway guys these here carriers.

I think the split command and control Islands are a pretty neat Idea, I'll be interested to have a look once they are commissioned. With new aircraft and new carriers designed with the JSF in mind it should hopefully produce two very effective vessels.

I wonder if the dual islands are for redundancy if damaged?

Trackend - do you know how many of the Invincible's are still being used? Could the F-35's be used on them as well?

 

[timshatz]

HMS Freddie Mercury! Jeez, now that would be a scary ship to be assinged.

Ship Moto: "If you drop the soap, just use the water"

 

[Kruska]

"Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn't share them."

What's wrong with pointing out that a unified European nation is the same idea as Herr Hitler? My comment should give you some idea of Great Britain's unwillingness to join in this farce called Europe, we more than most because unlike the rest of them we resisted and didn't falter.

"No I don't think all the humans came from Africa, and the majorities of the Germanics in Britain are from Scandinavia and not Germany."

Well, it's time you glanced across the internet because all humankind apparently came from Africa.

Who knows what they will find out in 20 years

I hope you are aware that native peoples of the British Isles shared the same culture, religion and politics as the Scandinavia long before the Viking invasions. The Norsemen and Germanics were only mixing with their own kind when they began to produce alongside native British; that being the norse side, of course. As I'm sure you're aware that the British Isles consisted of countless races of all varieties from the Britons to the Celts to the Picts. The norse did not add an extra race to the mix - they simply increased the norse race already present in the British Isles.

"Germany is being kicked in the ass for its last 100 years on every possible occasion, most notably by the Brits. Germany and France have become friends – both sides have their fair share of dickh…ds, but I have never had a negative or WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter in France, but believe me 2 minutes in an English pup and of goes WW2."

Of course, the Great British public will mention "the war" when in the presence of Germans; unlike France the British nation held firm. It's quite unfortunate because Britain was preparing for war against France, and on the side of Germany until '38.

What would you call a "WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter"; does the whole "Two World Wars and One World Cup" chant get to you? Your violent past with France goes back a lot further than 100 years; Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian wars ring a bell? You believe the world has moved on in the past 60 years from 1945? Maybe you don't receive negativity in France because they've got nothing to boast about !!!

I've been to Germany, I went to see Adler a couple of years ago, it's a great nation. And I got along great with everyone from there; although it may not count for little (and I care nought if it does or not) but I have defended Germany in many a discussion/argument on this site, and in day to day life. So, I have nothing against Germany... but what you don't realise is that there's still a big black mark against it's name. And if you can't handle national banter, then remain within your own borders.

"The Americans derive from the same culture and countries as we do (besides Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali) and they learned to do it – so if these Cowboys managed to do it, then it can't be that difficult."

That is true, but the Americans all joined hands because they had one common goal and that was to remove themselves from Europe. They were starting afresh and removing the European tag from their names; the U.S now has it's own culture that is all one and the same... they've had one civil war; compare that to the amount of "civil" conflicts that have been fought inside Europes borders.

Whatever you wrote is either simply wrong or doesn't make sense, sorry mate - maybe you just love to provoke with hardliner theories.

Regards
Kruska

 

[trackend]

The dual command centres I believe are for ship control in the foward island and air control in the rear the space in between will house two hoist platfoms.
I dont believe anything currently onboard Invincible will be employed on the new carriers. The ski jump launch system has not been finalised in the design but it is looking like they may have the ski jump and MALS with arrestor gear so both f35's and more conventional aircraft can be used from the same vessel. I always thought Doug Taylor the inventor of the ski jump should of got something for coming up with the idea but as usual being already serving in the Andrew the navy decided against it.

 

[Freebird]

I dont believe anything currently onboard Invincible will be employed on the new carriers. The ski jump launch system has not been finalised in the design but it is looking like they may have the ski jump and MALS with arrestor gear so both f35's and more conventional aircraft can be used from the same vessel.

What I meant was I was wondering if the Invincible's could be adapted to carry the F-35.

It might be just my opinion but Canada is badly in need of a support ship for operations overseas, in the past we had to beg for air support from the Dutch or the UK.

It would seem to be a much better idea to buy an old Invincible class and refurbish as a VTOL/helicopter support ship.

Or are the Invincibles too worn out?

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

unlike France the British nation held firm from behind the English Channel.

Fixed for you. I'm sure that had the Meuse and Somme Rivers been 25 km wide at their narrow point, France too could have held firm.

It's quite unfortunate because Britain was preparing for war against France, and on the side of Germany until '38.

Quite true. Britain was diplomatically much closer with Hitler's Germany than with France during a certain period. Quite disconcerting really, but this has been discussed on another thread. See here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ce-could-ve-prevented-their-loss-11164-2.html

As for the EU, I'm not sure how some people are mixing heritage/race with the political and economic issues. One of the visions of the EU was that a Europe that was economically viable and independent was a Europe that would not war with itself. Given the past history of European wars, this was obviously a solution that sounded good to a great many people in the aftermath of the 2nd World War. There have been a few big mistakes, IMO, as to how these ideas were implemented. For one, I think it evolved way too quickly. I can vaguely remember talk in the mid-late 1980s about how all of this would have a timetable. Instead, that was thrown out the window and EU membership grew at a fast pace, much too fast for many people.

I think it is hugely important that a level of transparency be maintained, and that referendums must be held in each country, and be respected. So far, this has worked- The first EU constitution was voted down by some countries and the results were respected by their respective governments. Had they not been respected, their would have been bloodshed.

The other big problem, is that the EU should have remained in Western Europe and should have never included the former Eastern bloc countries. The EU should have included only France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and perhaps a few of the Scandanavian countries if they wished it. The UK should not be a part of it, nor do I want them to turn to the Euro currency. UK membership should have been turned down from the onset.

Lastly, just before leaving office, President J. Chirac was in serious talks with various leading economists about the possibility of attaching the Euro to the Gold Standard as opposed to it's relationship with the US $. I'm not sure what has happened to this idea, but I like it a lot as it is much less inflationary that the US $ - and yes, I've invested heavily on the Euro over the past 6 years, and so I do hope this happens.

 

[Glider]

I always thought Doug Taylor the inventor of the ski jump should of got something for coming up with the idea but as usual being already serving in the Andrew the navy decided against it.

I think you will find that he was given a cheque but I cannot remember for how much.

 

[Kruska]

What I meant was I was wondering if the Invincible's could be adapted to carry the F-35.

It might be just my opinion but Canada is badly in need of a support ship for operations overseas, in the past we had to beg for air support from the Dutch or the UK.

Why "beg" after all we are NATO buddies

IIRC there was a plan to refit cargo ships or naval tenders in order to deploy the F-35 and helicopters. Holland was one of these proposers, what happened to this interim aircraft carrier idea? And wouldn't it serve the purpose just as well?

Unless one would be a USS America with all the defensive equipment and units around it, (which Canada or England could never afford) the carrier would have to be located positioned in a safe spot anyway.

Since Canada and England are so close with the US, why not just rent a US carrier – incorporated into a USN fleet and equipped with the F-35 and other existing winged or rotary aircrafts.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Kruska]

For one, I think it evolved way too quickly. I can vaguely remember talk in the mid-late 1980s about how all of this would have a timetable. Instead, that was thrown out the window and EU membership grew at a fast pace, much too fast for many people....

On the contra, after both leaders, René Coty, of France and Konrad Adenauer of Germany came to the IMO fantastic decision of further promoting a united Europe in 1957 and the positive step of the Benelux countries in 1958 in order to make the Europeans grow together, increase prosperity, counter balance to the Warsaw Pact and prevent further wars, thing actually slowed down very fast –mostly due to Charles de Gaulle who opposed England's membership application. After Giscard d'Estaing from France and Helmut Schmidt from Germany (both good friends) picked up the issue again in the 70's the EU vision started to pick up pace again.
After François Mitterrand from France and Helmut Kohl from Germany became involved, the EU in the middle 80's really started to take solid forms despite disagreements with Margaret Thatcher.

It is the national biased people in Europe that object this idea, but luckily in the European countries of importance these people are a minority when it comes to actual voting/election results.

Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden "diplomacy" in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said?

Therefore the majority of the EU countries are not in trust towards GB as they are still attached to their persistent policy of creating trouble, maybe good for GB, but bad for the EU. One will see if the old faction in GB will keep the upper hand or if a new EU minded GB will emerge.

The eastern extension of the EU only verifies the intensions of the EU as to support the economical growth and stability of all EU countries.

Interesting side note: Konrad Adenauer was fired from his position as Major of Cologne in 1945 by the British General Barraclough for being incompetent – the actual reason was that the British wanted to hinder his plan to set up a Rhine-Republic (Germany and France).

Regards
Kruska

 

[plan_D]

"Fixed for you. I'm sure that had the Meuse and Somme Rivers been 25 km wide at their narrow point, France too could have held firm."

You're right, France didn't have the English Channel for its defence. However, it did have the largest army in Western Europe, an oversized defensive line, and the rest of Western Europe helping it out. But this discussion has been had before... I think the last discussion went on for six weeks before one side folded.

As for the rest of your post, VG, I actually agree.

"Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden "diplomacy" in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said?"

This says it all, and certain European countries wonder why they get abuse from the British. There's no point in trying to hide your distaste toward Great Britain. For some reason, Kruska, you are the prime example of the typical European who believes that Britain was the source of all evil while forgetting all of Europes past - the Spanish Empire in South America, France's attempt European conquest (Germany's crushing defeat in 1806), Germany's two World War ventures. Great Britain's part in European history has been no more dubious than Germany, France, Spain or Netherlands.

Maybe it just upsets the continent because English is the ruling language.

And as for your last posting... if I was wrong, prove it so. And if I confused you, what part was confusing? I'll spell it out for you.

 

[Kruska]

This says it all, and certain European countries wonder why they get abuse from the British. There's no point in trying to hide your distaste toward Great Britain. For some reason, Kruska, you are the prime example of the typical European who believes that Britain was the source of all evil while forgetting all of Europes past - the Spanish Empire in South America, France's attempt European conquest (Germany's crushing defeat in 1806), Germany's two World War ventures. Great Britain's part in European history has been no more dubious than Germany, France, Spain or Netherlands.

Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries.

IMO a united Europe would never have allowed a Hitler to rise in Europe in the first place, and even if, Hitler would have been stopped latest in 1937 and no WW2 would have ever taken place.

Maybe it just upsets the continent because English is the ruling language.

Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces wrong assumptions onto you. English is a very easy and simple language - compared to French/Italian/Spanish/German or other European languages - it is the world language for business so why should one have a problem to make use of it? In our home and country we will still speak our native language.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Glider]

On the contra, after both leaders, René Coty, of France and Konrad Adenauer of Germany came to the IMO fantastic decision of further promoting a united Europe in 1957 and the positive step of the Benelux countries in 1958 in order to make the Europeans grow together, increase prosperity, counter balance to the Warsaw Pact

I always thought that the counter balance of the Warsaw Pact was NATO from a millitary position as for an economic position Europe was already doing well. European countries woldn't stand a chance against the WP without NATO. The withdrawl of France from NATO at a critical time also tends to undermine the view that security was a first priority

It is the national biased people in Europe that object this idea, but luckily in the European countries of importance these people are a minority when it comes to actual voting/election results.

Its interesting that when they get the chance to vote how many of those election results go against the political leader even France voted NO last time around and the upcoming Irish vote looks like it could also be a No vote. The political leaders do almost everything they can to stop people voting.

Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden "diplomacy" in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said?

This is the best of the lot. After the Napolenic wars how many wars in europe did the UK 'rally opposing sides into wars'. For instance what the GB do to start the Franco Prussian war of 1870?

Therefore the majority of the EU countries are not in trust towards GB as they are still attached to their persistent policy of creating trouble, maybe good for GB, but bad for the EU. One will see if the old faction in GB will keep the upper hand or if a new EU minded GB will emerge.

This is a matter of opinion but its worth noting that the UK has implemented more pieces of EU regulation and law than either France or Germany.

The eastern extension of the EU only verifies the intensions of the EU as to support the economical growth and stability of all EU countries.

Do you mean the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something the the UK is very keen on and Germany isn't? In other words the UK are keen to expand the EU and Germany isn't.

Interesting side note: Konrad Adenauer was fired from his position as Major of Cologne in 1945 by the British General Barraclough for being incompetent – the actual reason was that the British wanted to hinder his plan to set up a Rhine-Republic (Germany and France).

I admit that I don't know why he was removed but equally I have never heard of him being removed because of wanting to set up a new Rhine Republic with France. It is debatable how far this would have gone as the French would almost certainly have wanted to be in the driving seat as they in their view 'won the war', in France. That would have been unacceptable to everyone else apart from France

Regards
David

 

[plan_D]

"Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries."

A great example of contradiction there.

So, are you claiming now that Great Britain has dictated all wars fought in Europe over the past 400 years? Get real, Kruska. And outrageous claims like that only puts meat to the bone that is your obvious hatred for Britain. To you Britain has made Europe the bloodbath that it's been since day one.

"IMO a united Europe would never have allowed a Hitler to rise in Europe in the first place, and even if, Hitler would have been stopped latest in 1937 and no WW2 would have ever taken place."

If Germany was in the same position in 1937 then Europe isn't united, is it? You'd have every country in Europe bar Germany together, which aside from Italy and Spain was practically the deal in 1939. Unfortunately for your ideals nations will always seek what is best for their nation.

As for your languages comment; Spanish is the easiest language to learn in full. English is the easiest to speak, but the hardest to read and write - apparently. The reason the world runs on the English language is simple - the British Empire.

 

[Kruska]

"Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries."

A great example of contradiction there.

So, are you claiming now that Great Britain has dictated all wars fought in Europe over the past 400 years? Get real, Kruska. And outrageous claims like that only puts meat to the bone that is your obvious hatred for Britain. To you Britain has made Europe the bloodbath that it's been since day one.

Where did I say all wars? please don't start to act like a small boy

"IMO a united Europe would never have allowed a Hitler to rise in Europe in the first place, and even if, Hitler would have been stopped latest in 1937 and no WW2 would have ever taken place."

If Germany was in the same position in 1937 then Europe isn't united, is it?



You'd have every country in Europe bar Germany together, which aside from Italy and Spain was practically the deal in 1939. Unfortunately for your ideals nations will always seek what is best for their nation.

No they would have attacked Germany which had an inferior Army, such as the EU attacked Serbia

As for your languages comment; Spanish is the easiest language to learn in full. English is the easiest to speak, but the hardest to read and write - apparently.

And because you know how to read and write German or French you came to this conclusion? A German text translated into English reduces itsself to about70% of the content.

Englands einstmals maechtige Flotte beherrschte die gesammten Weltmeere
England's once mighty Fleet ruled the entire seas

English love to play soccer
Englaender lieben es Fussball zu spielen

stupid, stupider stupidest
dumm, duemmer, am duemmsten

the plane, the cat, the man, our cat, our dog
das Flugzeug, die Katze, der Mann, unsere Katze, unser Hund

Just so that you know what you are talking about

The reason the world runs on the English language is simple - the British Empire.

We didn't talk about the world, but Europe. And nobody would dispute that the world business language is English due to the British Empire, so?
Did I say that I have a problem with that? - after all it is a very easy language.

You seem to have a desperate need to emphasize on anything related to England/English

Regards
Kruska