Could the UK wipe Israel off the map? I'm talking invade

SAS can't even beat 25 degree weather kek

What's in yor head m8? Bloody hell, those kikes did nothing

>>32922185
That's not the UK OP
They aren't brown

>>32922187
They were reservists, carrying 80lbs, and speed marching across rough terrain. Youre trying to beat a stringent time and have your kit weighed to make sure you havent made it lighter. All this means youre less likely to stop to take on water. One of the latter stages of severe dehydration is convincing yourself you dont need water. Couple that with heatstroke, up a mountain, with medivac being very difficult. Id like to see you do better pal.

File: RN_Flotilla_45154692.jpg (2MB, 3000x1912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1912px

>>32922185
If the yanks don't come to the jews help, then yes, easily. If they do, then we'd be right buggered.
We've poured literally all of our military money into force projection anon. Even without the QE-class we'd shit all over them.

>>32922185
No, Israel's navy can currently compete with what the UK could send. Not to mention Kikes have more Nukes than Limes.

File: 1485622424269.jpg (336KB, 1600x980px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1600x980px

>>32922347
Soon.

Assuming no nukes, yes. While the IDF conscript force is lazy uncommitted shit, their professionals are on par with their bong counterparts. It would be bloody for both sides though. It would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass" kind of scenario, though perhaps not as widespread as heebs might like you to think.

>>32922354
>Could
And remember that will be two years without Harpoons or their replacements.

>>32922323
LOL
wrecked
that's just poor fundamentals.

>>32922453
Nope, its indicative of the type of drive and determination you need. They dont cancel the event because the SAS has to be able to go anywhere despite the conditions and still perform. If anything, the fact that they died shows that the average person would get BTFO in half the time.
If you think you can do better go ahead and apply, show us all how easy it is.

>>32922185
Just when you think every stupid discussion has already been done on this site, it keeps on surprising me

>>32922187
What is this a reference to

>>32922576
3 guys doing UKSF(R) selection over the Brecons died last year during the summer selection course.

>>32922339
This is giving me Suez crisis flashbacks

>>32922585
kek

>>32922585
I dont get it. SAS is bad because 3 guys trying to join couldn't meet the standard?

>>32922627
According to lardo up there, yeah. My bad though it was in 2013, and it was a 40 mile forced march over the Brecons in under 8 hours 48 minutes with 50+lbs of gear.

File: 1477942459984.png (3KB, 448x357px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 448x357px

>>32922354
>ramps

>>32922185
uk could beat isreal in a mintue but knowing how jews hold uk's politicans by the balls it would probably not even happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUW5RMbR-3M

but I think uk could take on usa don't forget if push comes to shove uk can call on her comonwelth countries for man power and weapons

so if uk goes to war it can bring canada india australia most of africa and asia into the war

>>32922659
Feel free to design a more cost effective solution and submit it to the RN and MoD.

>>32922585
I don't see how is that relevant and IIRC people die trying to get into SAS almost every year, no?

File: RFA_Wave_Ruler_(A-390)_refueling_USS_Donald_Cook_(DDG_75).jpg (507KB, 2100x1368px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 2100x1368px

>>32922653
>forced march
They literally volunteer for it, dumbass. At every step they have the oppurtunity to tap out, the only ones who caused their deaths were themselves.
>>32922682
I doubt we'd need to call up the commonwealth, but I assume we'd at least have them lend their supply ships and the like.

Yes we could. We just stop writing them cheques and let their friendly neighbours do the heavy lifting

>or tell the yanks there's oil and freedom there

>>32922691
Out of the 78 who were on that phase of Selection, 3 died and a further 13 were dropped due to severe heat exhaustion. And yes, with the SAS more people tend to die during training than in combat due to the extreme levels they get pushed to. And no, its not relevant, its just one of the many ways burgers try and outweigh their incompetence vs Daddy Britain.

>>32922701
Forced march does not literally mean marching with a gun to your head, dummy. It just means a very arduous march at speed over difficult terrain with heavy gear in a time limit, hence you are forced to your physical and mental limits.

File: Gearing_Up_for_Rapid_Trident_2011_(5970383663).jpg (4MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4288x2848px

>>32922726
Oh shit I'm a retard. It's such an oddly worded thing, though, in my defence.

[spoiler]MTP > Desert DPM > Baby Vomit > UCP > Forest DPM[/spoiler]

>>32922760
Tbh I thought the exact same thing when I heard it, no worries mate.

>>32922185
Could the U.K. Fix their imported sand people problem?

File: 1483283072260.jpg (2MB, 3510x2489px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3510x2489px

RAF vs IAF when???

>>32922187
>people die trying to get into our SF

In the US people ask for the position and they're given it, you even recruit civilians directly into SF haha

File: 15017572552_c977b0baf7_k.jpg (585KB, 1564x786px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 1564x786px

>>32922564
Shitposting is infinite, never underestimate it.
>>32922185
That's a rather odd question. In fact, it's so far off that an answer is impossible without extensive research that would address many subjects relevant to the matter that go beyond simple numbers-streanth calculation.
But, if forced to give an answer, I would go with "potentially yes".
> As far as simple numbers go, the UK has more of nearly everything.
> As far as publicly-known capabilities, Israel seems to hold an equivalent to most UK's one, or at least the ability to counter it. The few that the UK holds, are either non-strategic or not as influencing when deployed by their own.
> While an average Israeli soldier seems to be good enough to be comparable to the average British one in terms of equipment, training and personal quality, there's still little doubt in my mind that the UK still has an edge here.
> A disadvantage that the UK will face, is the need to transport it's army halfway across the world and establish an adequate logistics line, and that takes lots of resources. Additionally, unlike A-stan and other weaker countries, Israel has the capability to pose a threat to those and disrupt them.
> The disadvantage above is further amplified due to Israel's army basing itself as a deference force that utilizes the "home advantage" like few others. Designing the country's entire infrastructure around it's needs is a good example.
> For the sake of the argument, alliances and political aspects are deemed irrelevant or non-existing. Nukes are out of the game as well.

In total sum, I would say the UK is capable of launching a total war against Israel and winning, but only at a cost that would be deemed unacceptable by most.

File: 1457219640144.jpg (346KB, 2400x1522px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 2400x1522px

>>32924045
What about the base in Cyprus? That's right beside Israel and would allow for a spring board to invade Israel. And Egypt and Syria would easily allow the Brits to use their country to invade.

>>32922185
>Could the UK wipe Israel off the map? I'm talking invade and conquer.

We did it once, we can do it again.

better to nuke it and start again however.

File: 12805755_474154372779847_5179756111795945196_n.jpg (101KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x720px

>>32924107
Cyprus would indeed be the logical main staging area, and Syria probably would be happy to allow such war on Israel from it's territory- stunned that it's actually habbening, but happy.

However, few political aspects slip into the discussion here:

1. Cyprus is also on good terms with Israel, and has an extensive military&economic cooperation with it (not once this caused an Israeli-Turkish political quarrel)- so using the base(s) there for staging, without full and unquestionable support from Cyprus will make the task much harder.
A logistical train would still need to be established, and it still would be long, not very comfortable and under threat from Israeli navy, air force and special forces.
And just as Cyprus allows quick and easy access to Israel, we should remember that it's a 2 way street and that Israeli doctrine relies on taking the fight into enemy territory. Brits would have to be very careful not to turn this advantage into disadvantage by getting trapped on that island.

2. Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, and I wouldn't be so quick on betting that they will brake at first given chance. The large public in Egypt is still honestly believes that the Israeli Mossad sends trained Jewish sharks to it's shores to scare away tourists, but the government, especially the new one under Sisi, showed to be cooperative and supportive of the treaty due to it's economic, military and (ironically) political perks.

So yea, Syria is an interesting and creative idea, while Cyprus is the natural choice. Both, however, present their own challenge and are far less than ideal- but that's the only thing that's always certain in any military operation.

File: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (458KB, 1501x970px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1501x970px

>>32924045
>A disadvantage that the UK will face, is the need to transport it's army halfway across the world and establish an adequate logistics line, and that takes lots of resources. Additionally, unlike A-stan and other weaker countries, Israel has the capability to pose a threat to those and disrupt them.


1. learn to read a map, it's nowhere near half way round the world, not even a quarter.

2. if it was half way around the world then the Uk has already demonstrated ability to supply an invasion fleet with 6,000 mile supply lines (it also put that invasion fleet together in 48 hours)

3. Pic related

>>32923772
I never understood the latter point. You can literally apply for SEALs online, what about basic training, I always figured spec ops training would build on basic skills.

>>32923772
Thats...not true at all.

File: Royal_Navy_Submarine_HMS_Astute_Returns_to_HMNB_Clyde_MOD_45153733.jpg (2MB, 2712x1804px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2712x1804px

>>32924703
Cyprus can like Israel all it wants, but we have soldiers on it for a reason. If they decided they want to get pissy at us attacking the jews we can just lend a hand to the turks and let them have the island. Our tactics also focus on taking the fight to others, to the point that it's our whole strategy to fight in other places of the fucking world. We've not had a battle somewhere we can reach by land for the past what, 30 or so years? And Israel know how to fight third world countries with soviet AA, I doubt they'd fare very well against the cutting edge of shipbourne anti air.
As for Egypt, keeping them at bay would be a problem. Obviously keeping them from getting to Britain would be a breeze because of Gibraltar, but land is an issue. I think the most likely thing we would do would be staging a rebellion. I assume we've gotten rather good at sparking them after the last, what, ten times?

Additionally, you're overestimating Israel. They get good deals from everyone because of holocaust reparations, but they're not as well trained or supported as we are. You have to remember that we spend so much more on military that it's not funny. We have all three assault ships ready and waiting, the QE is undergoing trials and could be pressed into service if needs be, and we've recently bought new intel and cargo planes. Our supply, intelligence, and force projection is only exceeded by the Americans, and matched by no other.
All of this is without mentioning the submarine fleet, even if we take the vanguard class out of the equation on the basis that they would be kept for nuclear deterrence, we have the Trafalgar and Astute classes. While the Trafalgar is aging, the Astutes are still very much powerful boats. They can and will destroy the Israeli navy.

>>32924823
But there's like a few months long three-stage selection process.

File: 1407461484202.jpg (150KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 750x563px

>>32924804
"half way round the world" is a figure of speech. it's meant to indicate a somewhat long distance and a not always favoring terrain that has to be overcome. At no point I meant to suggest the UK is incapable of mounting such logistical operation, as it has proven more than once to have such capabilities. My claim was that such operation is costly, even if the UK can afford it, cumbersome, even if he BAF are competent enough to execute it, and is bound to be attacked and disrupted- even if the Brit army ultimately be successful in it's defense.
So, the point still stands, as it did for any invading force in the history of mankind: projecting logistics is a headache and "home advantage" is called advantage for a reason.

>>32922185
FUCKING HOW???? THE UK DOES'T EVEN HAVE ANY GUNS???

>>32922185
Yes. There's your power fantasy validation.

>>32922187
They were not allowed to drink their water.

With nukes.
Otherwise, no.

>>32922653
No water.

File: 1420851923423.jpg (105KB, 323x810px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 323x810px

>>32924885
> If they decided they want to get pissy at us attacking the jews we can just lend a hand to the turks and let them have the island.
The plot thickens. It's another thing that has to be dealt with. It's not something that the UK can't do, but it's one more thing that plies up on the chores list. And that's the point.

> our whole strategy to fight in other places of the fucking world
No arguing here. But war is not just a matter of what you do- it's a matter of you and your enemy attacking and countering each other in the same time, not in turns. Israel plans on counter-attacking into enemy territory, while the UK is prepared to do the opposite. Who will beat who in such collision of plans? Not even a general of either military can answer that with factual certainty until it actually happens.

> And Israel know how to fight third world countries with soviet AA
So is the UK for more than one generation now.
Considering how much more freely Iran and Russia allow themselves to supply people that fight Israel than ones that fight UK/NATO, a dry on paper statement can say that Israel is as experienced, at least, as the UK but against more challenging foes. Of course things are not as simple as that in real life, but no smoke is without a fire.

>>32924845
>SF without any combat experience

wew

File: 1428612996036.jpg (147KB, 759x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 759x960px

>>32924885
>>32925390
> As for Egypt, keeping them at bay would be a problem.
I don't think that it will get as far as having to deal with them. At most extreme they block the Suez for British usage throughput the time that the war will last. A more likely scenario is that they will insist on remaining neutral while attempting to boost their status by suggesting themselves as intermediary for peace negotiations.

> Additionally, you're overestimating Israel.
OK, lets hear it out.
> They get good deals from everyone because of holocaust reparations
And you lost me.

> not as well trained or supported as we are
Said exactly that in my original comment: British and Israeli soldiers are comparable and in similar leagues, but Brits ultimately have a good edge.

> Our supply, intelligence, and force projection is only exceeded by the Americans, and matched by no other.
And that's the reason why the UK has a chance of winning such war.

> three assault ships ready and waiting
> the QE is undergoing trials
> even if we take the vanguard class
> the Trafalgar and Astute classes
I mean no offense, but at this point it started turning into a fanboy talk. We're having a general discussion about war in very general terms. Unless one of them happens to be the Death Star itself, specific tools and number are irrelevant.

> nuclear deterrence
I stated above the nukes are not in the game. Otherwise, Israel also has nuke-loaded submarines.

> They can and will destroy the Israeli navy.
We both agree that the UK is likely to win such war, so this goes without saying.

>>32922185
Why though. Has Britain gone full shariah

>>32924045
>As far as simple numbers go, the UK has more of nearly everything.
Uh, is that actually true?

Personnel:
>Israel
Active personnel 176,500
Reserve personnel 445,000
>UK
Active personnel 205,000
Reserve personnel 81,850

Tanks:
>Israel
Merkava IV 660
Merkava III 780
Merkava II 580
>UK
Challenger II 227

Fighter aircraft:
>Israel
F-15 77
F-16 236
>UK
Typhoon 138

There are other categories you could line up, but in some of the most salient ones the Israelis outnumber the Brits (in tanks, the margin is especially considerable). It's questionable if they could beat them in a straight-up fight, leaving aside the issue of logistical concerns.

File: I monitoring this.jpg (274KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1600x1065px

>>32925497
Well fuge me, I was so sure of it I didn't even bothered looking it up. What's the deal UK? Step it up.
But really, this surprises quite a lot. It might not tilt the scale in Israel's decisive favor, but if it's true- than it gets the scales to a much more even state.

>>32925430

>I mean no offense, but at this point it started turning into a fanboy talk.

He is being pretty fanboyish with all the "our" and "we", but at least one portion of those is a game ender for at least one front. Astutes pretty much equal the end for Israel's navy on the spot.

>>32922185
With the current state of the RN it's questionable. With both QEs up and running with full compliments of aircraft then sure but otherwise the logistics just don't work out. Israel has the home advantage for armour and aircraft and that matters a lot.

>>32922187
I'd rather have a man who survived that next to me than a woman who got in through special treatment alone.

>>32922185
Both are too heavily reliant on the US. Mama America would step in and slap both kids with the wooden spoon of "no more military aid" if they got into a spat.

>>32922682
>but I think uk could take on usa don't forget if push comes to shove uk can call on her comonwelth countries for man power and weapons
Anon the USA could probably take on the combined navys of the rest of the world never mind just the Commonwealth.

File: force_warrior_can_see_the_future.jpg (90KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 476x476px

>>32925786
Both are "reliant", not entirely depended.

>>32924703
Cyprus isnt even one country and the military bases there are recognised as being sovereign-ie Cyprus has absolutely no say or do, such as it is-being split between greeks and turks anyway

>>32925805
No probably about it. The US Navy, on top of being the 2nd biggest air force in the world after the US Air Force, is almost three times bigger than the Russian and Chinese Navies combined. Probably about twice as big once you factor the yuropoor fleets in. Nobody but nobody can beat the US Navy in a full scale war.

>>32925810
No, you're right, they can both get tanks stuck in ditches entirely on their own.

>>32925530
We are not under threat or expecting to be under threat. They are.
We also put a lot of money in Navy, Israel does not.

>>32925835
>No probably about it. The US Navy, on top of being the 2nd biggest air force in the world after the US Air Force, is almost three times bigger than the Russian and Chinese Navies combined. Probably about twice as big once you factor the yuropoor fleets in. Nobody but nobody can beat the US Navy in a full scale war.
You've forgotten India, Australia and even countries Brazil in that anon. The USN will still have the numerical advantage in carriers but it's possible that it won't with smaller ships. Of course the fact that the USN is unified and everyone else would be speaking ~40 different languages helps.

I suppose the USN might be confined to waters close to home in the long term due to losing bases worldwide (logistics is a thing) + threat from ground aircraft but in a straight up naval battle they aren't going to lose.

Of course in reality the RN and RAN are going to side with the USN and the Italians and French will stay neutral at the very least. Even during the height of the Cold War the Russian Navy didn't stand a chance in hell.

File: Los Pepes.jpg (1MB, 2209x1884px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2209x1884px

>>32925830
>Commonwealth
The bases themselves- sure, but not the whole country. They can't prevent any UK actions, but they don't have to make it easy on them.
>>32925835
no u.
>>32925847
That's the beauty of war. Each military is a flower that grows and adapts to it's own environment, and this opposing world collide- art is created.

>>32925878
>You've forgotten India, Australia and even countries Brazil in that anon.
You mean the ones that don't matter?

>Of course in reality the RN and RAN are going to side with the USN and the Italians and French will stay neutral at the very least. Even during the height of the Cold War the Russian Navy didn't stand a chance in hell.
Well of course. The entire thought experiment is retarded to begin with.

>>32922323
Do you think they were the first fighting force to do a forced march uphill? Conventional units have done that shit plenty of times without catastrophic failure, and will do so many more times without failing as bad as they did.

>>32925917
>You mean the ones that don't matter?
If we're talking the unlikely situation of everyone else v the USN then any navy with a carrier is relevant. Australia and India both have navies that matter otherwise also.
>Well of course. The entire thought experiment is retarded to begin with.
Certainly.

>>32922185
Keep dreamin Achmed. The Brits will remove kebab from Londonistan before removing Israel.

>>32925786
>Mama America would step in and slap both kids with the wooden spoon of "no more military aid" if they got into a spat.
Whilst I'm not going to deny the UK would have to back down if the USA insisted it doesn't really get significant one-way military aid (outside of the nuclear deterrent, of course). Operations in the med are basically in the RN's backyard, they could do that alone also. Israel, on the other hand, is fucked without American funding.

>>32925910
Anon, the brits don't even need the rest of Cyprus. They can operate perfectly fine on the little slice of island they have.

File: 251886_3930895282571_1219786119_n.jpg (39KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x720px

>>32926009
Not if they're going to mount a full scale invasion of Israel through the Mediterranean.

>The UK is going to conquer and hold a country with a military with superior numbers and comparable tech

Sure the UK could wipe Israel's navy out, but Israel barely invests in it's navy anyways, and destroying it's navy isn't really going to do anything. They'd still have to somehow land enough troops at the same time to take it, which is pretty well impossible. It'd be miracle if they could land a hundred tanks and even 10-20,000 men in an amphibious landing action, and that's supposed to take on hundreds of thousands of men and over a thousand tanks, and then actually hold that land?

>>32925986
British nukes aren't US military aid, they're purchased as part of the Trident program.

>>32926055
Not that guy, but desu think about it.

In Cyprus (I've been posted there), we control the two largest military bases in Cyprus. We even control the unused Nicosia airport through the UN, which we use at our disposal.

The greek military presence is minimal as with the turks with both sides using soldiers which have just came out of training to man shitty outposts along the buffer zone. Which in all wouldn't be able to stand against the ongoing battalion of UK troops based there.

If if it were to happen i think the turks would turn a blind eye considering they're now a muslim majority and we're facing against the jews of all people.

File: 55231591.jpg (32KB, 627x406px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 627x406px

>>32926723
Either people don't get me, or it's my fault for not making it clear enough: nothing stops the UK from using Cyprus, really nothing. The thing that might not go it's way is possible Cyprus's political opposition- which is still nothing but a hindrance. Cyprus's good relations with Israel make effect mostly in sphere of Israel having a day-to-day access to the region and therefore familiar with it.

>>32922187
So you're saying that three guys tried to join and it was in fact so hard they died trying to do it? That's what you think makes them sound bad?

>>32926109

>and that's supposed to take on hundreds of thousands of men and over a thousand tanks, and then actually hold that land?

Yes. The UK armed forces are designed around expeditionary warfare and crippling defence infrastructure and materials before boots even hit the shore, whereas the Israeli ones are based around COIN, internal policing and repelling land based zerg rushes. In other words, the UK forces are just about tailor made for taking down the kind of military that Israel fields.

You can see this in their relative strengths and weaknesses. Israel has decent GBAD, but the UK has very good SEAD. They have almost no ability to defend against a Naval threat. Israel has an air force very well engineered to deal with the threat of its neighbours, supporting its ground forces and has a proven capability to engage in first strikes with enough warning- but is ill equipped to deal with being the target of first strikes or concerted air dominance campaigns from a world class opponent. They have a lot of tanks, a lot of artillery, and a lot of infantry needed to prosecute a ground war- but so did Saddam, and we all knew how quickly those advantages dried up after he lost the sky. Israel has limited ISTAR, intel gathering, and AEW capabilities. The UK is comparatively strong in these fields.

You don't need to kill every man and woman is a military to render it almost useless. Just gouge out its eyes and cut its tendons.

In the time it would take for a UK force to assemble, Israel could call out reservists, and reposition their submarines on the other side of the Suez, making them impossible to target by the Royal Navy.


It would be a grind, but attrition would favor the UK.

IAF would crush. Not even close.

I imagine they'll have like a dozen F35A by this time next year. Then it'd be absolute lunacy

>>32922653
>>32922627
>>32922585
>>32922576
>>32922187

I mean it says alot about them if they have such shitty control over their training ops.

>>32924845
Except it is.

>>32922551
lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stay on that damage control btfo bonglord

Kek who does the BBC side with?

Not nigel im afraid.

>>32923734
Impressive, the entire RAF in a single image!

Memes aside, the UK lacks the power projection for that kind of campaign scale.

>>32922185
Muslim nations cannot defeat Israel.

>>32922185
No, because Israel has nukes, and they're likely aimed at all European and Arab capitols.

Samson Option, my friend.

>>32922354
is this better than china or russia

>>32931443
China, no

Russia, barely

File: 1478525234350.jpg (73KB, 592x492px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 592x492px

>>32922185
The UK and US could wipe Israel off the map by not funding them anymore

File: lex.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>>32922339
>easily
Wake up to reality dickhead, you'd get your shit pushed in.

>>32932598
1.) UK doesn't give aid to Israel

2.) US aid to Israel constitutes 1% of Israel's GDP

File: 1476930170462.jpg (33KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 800x800px

>>32922323
>They were reservists
>SAS backup soldiers for a full conventional warfare cant handle 25ºC weather

>>32922347
>Not to mention Kikes have more Nukes than Limes.
er nope, we have 200+ they have under 80: Ours are attached to ICBMs, theirs can zap a few neighbouring capital or are SADM type under their embassies in Euro/american cities.

>>32925934
40 miles in 8 hours 48 in 25 degree (celcius) heat. Little water and at least 50lbs of gear. Sun Tzu said that if you do a forced march expect to lose 1/3rd of your force/fighting capability.
Out of 78, 16 didnt make it inc. the 3 who died. Thats far less than a 3rd. I would like to see any other military unit try and perform the same feat and not lose twice the amount of guys. Ive read many stories from burgeranons on here about their company going for an FTX in a flat field and coming down with 80 cases of heatstroke. Thats 2/3rds.

>>32922688
Even if he did, and it were indisputably superior in all aspects, it wouldn't make a whit of difference.

File: [Angry Crab Noises].png (26KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x250px

>>32930862

>>32931433
You can't aim at all European and A-rab capitols when you have like 8 nukes...

>>32927279
Can you control the weather? The whole point is that not every nancyboy who fancies a sandy beret gets one, its meant to be the toughest SF training in the world. That means they operate no matter the conditions, and thats how they train. Ergo, thats why theyve had people freeze to death on the Brecons, as well as die from heat exhaustion. You physically have to push past the limit whereby most mortal men would curl up and die, AND maintain a crippling speed across some of the harshest mountain terrain in the country.

>>32930125
Stay butthurt that at least they can get out of their chair without lube and a hoist

>>32932798
If its so easy, by all means, show us how its done. We'll see you back here in 8 hours.

File: 1485968425472.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>32922187
> reminder: Meal Team managed to lose 15+ guys to an afghan toddler with an RPG

Fucking kek

>>32932869
I am not supposed to be top of the top of specops soldiers, faggot.

>80 lbs

Give me 4 months of constant gym and excersise and i can give it a good try
>25ºC
Maybe geographical advantage but that's pretty much a fine weather to me. In mexico i know its fucking winter.

File: 1436491900337.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>32932812
> we have 200+ they have under 80
No one knows how many nukes Israel actually has. Estimations go from 0 and up to 300.
> Ours are attached to ICBMs, theirs can zap a few neighbouring capital or are SADM type
They have submarines and Jericho 3 ICBMs.

>>32932884
Up and down mountains, after having done the equivalent of a marathon every day before that for a week with heavy pack, again, up and down mountains. If you could manage that I would be impressed, but I doubt you could, otherwise youd be going for 18X.

>>32932812
Colin Powell said the Israeli's had over 200 during his time as secretary of state.

Israel expanded its nuclear arsenal heavily during the Obama years in response to the looming Iran deal

Currently the Israeli's have a triad of nuclear weapons delivery

>An unknown number of Jericho-III ICBM's. The number is probably below 10 but they are slowly putting more into service. Very little is known about this missile besides a series of test launches that Israel always maintains are for scientific but not military reasons. According to Colin Powell, the Jericho-III is as sophisticated as modern ICBM's and can carry 2-4 MIRV's

>~100 Jericho-II IRBM's. These missiles entered service in the 90s as a response to Saddam's Iraq. Many of these have been upgraded to Jericho-IIB, which have a range of nearly 5,000km. These missiles can be launched from Israeli territory and hit most of Iran. The Jericho-IIs are still the backbone of Israel's land-based nuclear force but beyond that little is known about the missiles, which for years were located in silos in the Negev desert. You used to be able to see them on Google Earth, but recently the launch pads disappeared. This suggests Israel has switched to mobile launchers. According to a UN nuclear arms proliferation report, Israel purchased MAZ-7916 TEL vehicles from Russia in 2009 with the intent to use to carry a ballistic missile.

>The Delilah Air-Launched Cruise Missile: Range ~300km. It can be launched from any Israeli combat aircraft

>The Popeye Turbo Cruise Missile. Essentially an Israeli Klub, it has a range of around 1,500km and are launched from submarines. This method of nuclear delivery have only recently entered service with the Israeli's. It is believed that 3 of Israel's Dolphin class submarines were modified to fire these missiles while the subsequent 3 ordered from Germany have 4 650mm tubes pre-installed to fire them.

Hoped this helped misconceptions regarding Israel's nuclear program

File: oDCku2OIub5lDuf7fCdTkg-wide.jpg (19KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x400px

>>32932905
ok, pal

>>32932912
> non argument isnt an argument

What a surprise, kek, at least you tried.

File: sdgfggg.jpg (9KB, 230x196px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 230x196px

>>32932909
I forgot to add pic related which is a recent development.

This is the "Black Sparrow", an Israeli air-launched ballistic missile. It is used by the Israeli Air Force to simulate scud missiles for testing their various missile defense technology.

However the 2015 IAEA report on nuclear arms proliferation stated that Israel had developed a new variant of the missile, dubbed "Red Sparrow", which carries a nuclear warhead and can be launched from Israeli F-15's. The latest Israeli variant of the tester missile, Silver Sparrow, has a range of 2,000km to give you an idea of the range of a nuclear version.

The veracity of this report is controversial however, as the IAEA tends to be obsessed with Israel due to the heavy makeup of Islamic states within the UN

File: 1466548226658.png (275KB, 454x403px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 454x403px

>>32932920
>expecting an argument

You are daring me to do a specops training because what they are expected to do they couldn't even survive doing it. You didn't even post an argument. You just said "i dare you to do what they did, i bet you cant" without knowing me, what i can do, or even if i did it. But ok pal, whatever you say.

>>32932942
Because you stated essentially that it was piss easy and you could do it given 4 months of training. To which i responded, you may be able to complete that one task, but not all the days that led up to it, and THEN be able to do that task. That is the essence of the training, which you could not do, because as I stated, the only way you would be anywhere close to being in that good a physical shape would be if you were an 18X candidate. But youre not, because youre shitposting about guys who give their lives to do something greater than themselves, on a thai paper folding forum.

That clear it up for you mate? Or do you need it in groups of 2 syllables or less

>>32925390
A neo-ottoman empire is not in our medium- longterm interest.
Best to covertly supply MANPADs to Hamas & Hezbollah. Also train their best people & supply force multipliers like NVGs, comms gear. Mayb round up all the jews in the UK and airdrop them over TelAviv without parachutes. Though the jews have SADM-type bombs in their embassies in the US/EU capitals. So it would a shame when londonistan gets blammed.

>>32932958
It doesn't really even fucking matters if *i* could do it. All that matters its that these guys that get to train for months in it, and voluntarily participate in this shit cant even do what, what? a hundred? 200? did before them.

>>32932909
>>32932936
Good read, anon. Thanks.

>>32932970
> moving the goalposts: the post
They dont get any previous training by the SAS, either you turn up fit enough or you dont. They dont care either way, they dont hold your hand. And no, a few thousand people have done it, but many people have died aswell. Hence the motto, train hard fight easy, and why they end up losing more guys in training than in combat.

If you're talking about the UK soloing it, then the answer is simply:

> No

The UK doesn't have the air or sea lift capacity and capabilities to transport its forces that far away and thereafter maintain a logistics chain.

Half our boats are dry docked because they're fucked, we've no proper rotary supply capability and our airforce is shit.

>>32932982
>They dont get any previous training by the SAS
Are you 100% sure about that? i aint but i am pretty sure they do. Even still, they aren't the rangers. They dont pick guys with no experience. And yes. People HAVE died in training. Back in the royal marine creations a shit ton of people died during training. However its the deal that these guys died in 25C weather when they are expected to do the same thing in 60 C that makes people laugh at them

>>32927226
The taskforce to attack the Falklands was arranged in 48 hours

File: 1463129566412.jpg (479KB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 2060x1236px

>>32930862
Don't forget about the fleet air arm!

>>32932995
They get no previous training. You either need to have served 3 years or be a Sergeant to apply from your unit. From there you turn up as a candidate, and as I said, youre either fit enough or you arent. Hill aptitude is stage 1, where most drop out, then jungle training is stage 2, then SERE. After all that youre the most basic recruit in the SAS.

>>32933016
Honestly, 48 hours its quite a lot of time to answer an invastion in your base.

By that time an effective blitzkrieg could have wiped the island (AKA: Not the argentineans) and left so that even if they wanted it back they couldn't attack without actually invading the country.

>>32933031
>You either need to have served 3 years or be a Sergeant to apply from your unit
Ive heard that however ive also heard that for you to be ACCEPTED you need to be a fucking inhumane super soldier captain tea chugger.

>>32933034
It's impressive for the UK, name another country that size that could mount an invasion force in 48hours and send it 8,000 miles.

>>32933039
Exactly. Because if you arent, you drop out quick or die up in the Brecons. The Brecons phase is literally just a gut check.

>>32933030
Go away fish head.

File: 1460675374233.jpg (435KB, 1400x945px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1400x945px

>>32933064
Rude

>>32933016

Back before the Conservative government under John Major initiated the Defence Review and cut back the British army massively - scrapping both men and resources.

>>32933058

I did my P Company training back in 2007, and we were out in the Brecons due to a change of course structure. We were the first course to go out there, and it was fuuuuuuuucking awful.

I remember getting to the top of the Black Mountains, hanging out my fucking arse, only to find a school group of 8yr old kids at the top, who were fucking loving the fact there were a bunch of squaddies there too.

Some poor bastard got a picture stood next to me, all proud and beaming, whilst I'm bent double, sweat pissing off my forehead, looking like I've been raped by a Highland Bull.

>>32933263
Sounds like a proper arseache mate, although when I was a wain up in Scotland I remember being at the top of Ben Nevis and Goatfell and thinking it was so cool that there was a bunch of squaddies there, without realising they were all on their chinstrap and cursing to high heaven at the bastard who put them up there. You still in the Paras?

>>32922185
Since the UK is primary reason israel exists i would hope theyd clean up their mess for once

>>32933263
There was a Brecons day for P Company that ran from 1970 or so to the very early 80s, maybe 81. Was it brought back just for your course or was it something that was trialed formally again?

>>32930211
this would be intresting

>>32932767
What does israel even make? Besides more terrorists

>>32933540
early cancer detection technology so that you can be spotted from afar.

>>32922354
HMS Victory ready to push some shit in

>>32933030
Her majesty turned into an aircraft

>>32931416
If you want to go with the argument of quantity > quality, Russia would curbstomp the USA in a war.

>>32922760

Holy shit that's one of my Corporals/Section Commanders from basic. He was an evil little prick.

File: 1453538416519.jpg (2MB, 2500x1764px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1764px

>>32934748
Russia has larger numbers in several categories, but not even in half of them.
And both Israel and the UK look pretty comparable in terms of equipment and it's quality. One has some advantages there, the other has advantages somewhere else, both have some stuff simply not in possession of the other...
BAF soldiers probably get better, or, at least, a more extensive training than IDF ones- so that's a big plus. But than again: that's more like the comparison between a "good soldier" vs a "very good soldier", and not a "bad soldier" vs a "very good soldier" like you'd expect when fighting an Afghan.

File: 1466729219728.jpg (3MB, 3000x2323px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2323px

>>32931416
These numbers, on the British side, are all fucking wrong.

>FV4034 Challenger 2
227 currently being used; 250 sitting in hangars

>CVRT:
654 currently being used, 2500 currently sitting in hangars or undergoing repairs\upgrades.

>FV 510 Warrior:
770 being used, 100~ sitting in hangars.

>FV430 Bulldog
900~ being used, unknown number being mothballed.

>Mastiff, Ridgback, Wolfhound:
730~ being used.

>Jackal\Coyote:
510~ being used/

>Foxhound:
400 being used.

>Husky:
317 being used.

>RWMIK Land Rover:
370 being used, 1000+ mothballed.

>Snatch Land Rover:
360~ being used, 1000+ mothballed.

>Panther:
400~ being used.

>L131 AS-90:
90 being used, 130~ mothballed.

>L118 light gun:
126 currently being used, 300~ mothballed.

>Rapier STAM:
24 being used, 550+ mothballed.

>Starstreak SP HVM:
62 used, 50+ mothballed.

>Starstreak LML:
50 being used.

>GMLRS
35 used.

Most of the rotary wing numbers are correct.

>Panavia Tornado GR4:
81 total, 50 used.

>Airbus A400M Atlas
14 being used.

>Boeing Chinook
66~ used.

Rest of the RAF numbers are correct.

>Submarines
4 Vanguards, 3 Astutes, 4 Trafalgars

>Surface fleet
3 Albion-class landing platform dock.
6 Type 45's.
13 Type 23's.
4 River Class.
8 Hunt class.
7 Sandown class.
18 Fast Patrol craft.

All the accurate numbers I could find.

Your shitpost list needs updating.

>>32922760
>It's such an oddly worded thing, though, in my defence.

It's always meant the same thing though. Literally any time someone has said "forced march" they've not meant that someone was forced to march.

File: Type_23_Frigate_HMS_Monmouth_Sails_for_the_Middle_East_MOD_45152712.jpg (2MB, 3000x1796px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1796px

I'm pretty sure Israel is self-sufficient at more or less nothing, blockading them would be easy, and they would be unable to buy their way out of the problem for once.

>>32934973

I'm glad you went to those lengths, I couldn't be bothered.

>>32922682
That's some delusory you got there.
Even if we had all the commonwealth and the support of the US marines, we'd not beat the USA in a war.
It's too fucking big, there's far too many of them and they can take on pretty much the rest of the world combined.
The only time it may have been possible would be in a twisted history in which WW2 didn't happen.

>>32935656
agreed.

We could however nuke the US and they wouldn't be able to do anything other than retaliate.

This thread is dumb. Because Israeli force structure is not geared towards defending against an overseas invasion because that is not a threat to them. If it became a threat Israel would dramatically alter thier force structure to face it which would make anything discussed in this thread irrelevant.