Military Review

In Britain, recognized the superiority of the Russian army

80
In the UK, they believe that the army of the United Kingdom is inferior in capabilities to the Russian. Relevant Information Reviewed by the Federal Agency News, contained in the document of the upper house of parliament (House of Lords) of Britain.


The report notes that many British politicians were concerned that Moscow has more advantages in the military sphere.

In Britain, recognized the superiority of the Russian army


Russia currently has a significant advantage over elements of the British power structure. Due to the fact that some of our military capabilities have been destroyed since 2003, we must find ways to "fight rationally," at the tactical level. Acknowledging that some opponents may be equipped weaponssuperior to our own
- says the report

In addition, the defense budget of London is much less than that of the world powers.

The defense budget of the United Kingdom was equivalent to 52,5 billion dollars (data for 2016 year - approx.). There are four countries with higher defense spending: US (604,5 billion dollars); China (145 billion dollars); Russia (58,9 billion dollars; and Saudi Arabia (56,9 billion dollars)
- The relevant data are given in the document.

In addition, British experts found that Russia's combat readiness is almost 10 times higher than that of NATO. For example, according to analysts, over the course of four days, the Russian Federation can raise up to 47 thousands of military elements, while over the same period, the forces of high readiness of NATO (Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, VJTF), which includes military from Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, will gather only up to 5 thousands of soldiers.

Earlier in the 2016 year, a report was published by the British military, which stated that in the event of a direct conflict with Russia, the UK would suffer a crushing defeat.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrall
    Thrall 24 November 2017 16: 05 New
    19
    Chef, it's all gone! smile
    1. Vladimir16
      Vladimir16 24 November 2017 16: 08 New
      +3
      Brita, you are in fact bedbugs. The only reason to compare your army with the Russian is to slap the dough off the taxpayers.
      1. CHEST OF DRAWERS
        CHEST OF DRAWERS 24 November 2017 16: 16 New
        +4
        We haven't taken London yet, so it's too early to praise the gentlemen!
        1. Thrall
          Thrall 24 November 2017 16: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: Chest
          We haven't taken London yet, so it's too early to praise the gentlemen!

          But what about 1814? smile
          1. dzvero
            dzvero 24 November 2017 16: 24 New
            +2
            Then there was Paris, wasn't it? smile
            1. Thrall
              Thrall 24 November 2017 16: 24 New
              +6
              Quote: dzvero
              Paris was there, wasn't it? smile

              Who cares? smile
              1. dzvero
                dzvero 24 November 2017 16: 42 New
                +3
                It would not be comme il faut to take the capital of the allied state at that time smile The capture of Paris still hiccups certain types of persons, not to mention Berlin ... And if it were, it would have turned out to be a "grand helmet" smile
        2. svp67
          svp67 24 November 2017 17: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: Chest
          We haven't taken London yet, so it's too early to praise the gentlemen!

          Well, how can I say ... if you compare the number of former citizens of the USSR who now live there, they have already taken it. And if we proceed from military necessity. then, but in general, who has such a task for our army in general set? Not only that, and their troops were not in Moscow, not in St. Petersburg, their flags were not installed ...
        3. shinobi
          shinobi 24 November 2017 17: 40 New
          +1
          Remember the anecdote about "Elusive Joe"?
        4. Pirogov
          Pirogov 24 November 2017 17: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: Chest
          We haven't taken London yet, so it's too early to praise the gentlemen!

          This is the whole problem and not only of Russia. The Naglo-Saxons have forgotten how to fight on their territory and get good zvizdyuly.
          1. Going
            Going 24 November 2017 17: 55 New
            +7
            Gone are the days when the island was saved and protected, so ...
          2. Sailor
            Sailor 24 November 2017 23: 38 New
            0
            Unfortunately, then we would not have taken London, the fleet was weaker, it was not for nothing that Peter's "partners" poisoned him, seeing that he was building a fleet more powerful than them, the Anglo-Saxons already understood that they could not take us head-on.
        5. Awaz
          Awaz 24 November 2017 18: 28 New
          0
          so, they always manage to squeeze in as an ally at the end of the war ... Lucky just from the kindness of the Russian
          however, the British received good lyuley from the Russians more than once ..
      2. DMB_95
        DMB_95 24 November 2017 16: 28 New
        +3
        Have they really begun to understand that they are no longer the Great British Empire, but an ordinary island state with inflated conceit and exorbitant ambitions not for "growth" ...
        1. Sofa General
          Sofa General 24 November 2017 17: 05 New
          +4
          WHAT?
          I beg you, do not say such things anymore - I will burst with laughter ...
          For example, look at the constitution: who is the Head of Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
          The Britons were and remain an empire, only the formation has slightly changed due to the "forgetfulness of the media ...
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 24 November 2017 18: 25 New
            0
            Quote: Sofa General
            For example, look at the constitution: who is the Head of Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

            You wanted to say the Queen. The head of state, like the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister.
          2. DMB_95
            DMB_95 26 November 2017 19: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Sofa General

            For example, look at the constitution: who is the Head of Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

            Are these states subject to the British Queen de facto? laughing Do not make me laugh .
            Quote: Sofa General

            The Britons were and remain an empire, only the formation has slightly changed due to the "forgetfulness of the media ...

            It is Russia that remains the Empire.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 24 November 2017 17: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: DMB_95
          Have they really begun to understand that they are no longer the Great British Empire,

          Not only the Britons, but most of the European nations ran out of morale after World War II.
          1. Going
            Going 24 November 2017 17: 57 New
            +9
            And this is the handiwork of the United States, when they took upon themselves all the issues of protection and turned them, well, I will not say who everyone will understand.
        3. solzh
          solzh 24 November 2017 17: 35 New
          0
          Quote: DMB_95
          Have they really begun to understand that they are no longer the Great British Empire, but an ordinary island state with inflated conceit and exorbitant ambitions not for "growth" ...

          And in my opinion, they began to understand this back in May-June 1940.
      3. Scoun
        Scoun 24 November 2017 20: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir16
        Brita, you are in fact bedbugs.

        But bugs are tenacious and cunning, they try to do everything they can with someone else's hands. Intriguers, snobs and people without honor. All their conversations about gentleness and honor take place only in their closed "club", it does not apply to other nations.
        PS.
        Which one of their prime ministers poked their dick into the mouth of a pig's head to become a member of the club? Miliband like.
    2. Anarchist
      Anarchist 24 November 2017 16: 09 New
      12
      No matter how disgusting it may sound, but - `` fucked '' an old woman? I mean - England! Though...
    3. svp67
      svp67 24 November 2017 16: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: Thrall
      Chef, it's all gone!
      Yes, yes ... And after everyone was SCORED, we urgently need to ask for more money for MO VelBrit.
      After all, even if we forget how much distance from the nearest point of Russia to the Islands and the fact that England is a NATO member, then even a comparison of military budgets shows that there is nothing especially for England to be afraid of. Since the budgets are almost equal, but the areas of countries are not commensurate.
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 24 November 2017 16: 32 New
        +2
        You are right about money for the Ministry of Defense, but about the distance ... from Kaliningrad to the Britons there is about one "Caliber" smile
        1. svp67
          svp67 24 November 2017 16: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: dzvero
          but about the distance ... from Kaliningrad to the Britons about one "Caliber"

          It is yes, but the "Caliber" alone will not win, but to transfer the required number of ground forces, we do not have so many means of transportation ...
          1. Andrey Panov
            Andrey Panov 24 November 2017 22: 54 New
            0
            Can't the tanks fit in the tunnel?
  2. Evil 55
    Evil 55 24 November 2017 16: 07 New
    0
    And, excuse me, now Britain is what?
    1. svp67
      svp67 24 November 2017 16: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Evil 55
      And, excuse me, now Britain is what?

      This is a constitutional Monarchy ... Sir.
      1. Evil 55
        Evil 55 24 November 2017 16: 15 New
        +2
        It looks more like Babkino's kingdom, a ge ... a strange state, and not like a Monarchy ..
      2. From Germany
        From Germany 24 November 2017 17: 17 New
        +4
        @ svp67
        As far as I know, there is no constitution in Great Britain, there is precedent law. In fact, a dying medieval monarchy, where the adoption of laws and the formal head (prime minister) of the state is approved by the queen. And the fact that she allegedly does not use this right ... First of all, it’s nonsense that some unelected person decides the fate of the state at the legislative level, which can no longer be a democracy by definition. Secondly, I am sure that before the law is put to a vote, it goes through an agreement with the queen or her advisers, so that she does not have to "go against the will of the chosen people." I quote: "After the elections, the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, and, not necessarily, the candidate of the winning party."

        Great Orbitania is a dense monarchism, where elections are just for show, in order to give the people the illusion that they are deciding something .. For example, not a single international observer was allowed to the elections on the secession of Scotland, with the justification that this is an internal matter of the kingdom. And lo and behold, somehow the Scots, who have dreamed of independence for centuries, decided to change their minds and "just a little was not enough," but lost.

        To make you feel the difference, not only all kinds of observers are allowed to the elections in Russia, but also surveillance cameras are installed so that every citizen of Russia or any other country can observe the honesty of elections, there is no such thing in Germany - we are backward here.
        1. Tusv
          Tusv 24 November 2017 18: 32 New
          0
          Quote: From Germany
          In fact, a dying medieval monarchy, where the adoption of laws and the formal head (prime minister) of the state is approved by the queen.

          I would try not to approve. This has happened many times. Lizaveta doesn't sign, Premieres cut royalties. In your Germany, it's the same with the president - the chancellor rules everything
    2. volodya
      volodya 24 November 2017 16: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Evil 55
      And, excuse me, now Britain is what?

      The same as it was! Praise in the eyes, but for the eyes ... that is, they shit!
    3. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 02: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Evil 55
      And, excuse me, now Britain is what?

      Unlike the Russian Federation, it is a developed state and is included in the Big 7
      1. EwgenyZ
        EwgenyZ 25 November 2017 08: 34 New
        0
        Quote: MOSKVITYANIN

        Unlike the Russian Federation, it is a developed state and is included in the Big 7

        Yes, even in the "tag", in fact, militarily, it is a pygmy. It's like comparing their Scorpion tank to our T-72.
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 14: 18 New
          0
          Quote: EwgenyZ
          It's like comparing their Scorpion tank and our T-72.

          It’s immediately obvious that you are not reading the periodicals indicated by you tank "Scorpion" is a light tank (It was successfully used at the Falklands in 1982), then try to compare the "Challenger-2" with the T-72, gee ....
          REFERENCE:
          The Scorpion is a British light reconnaissance tank of the 1970's, often also referred to as a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (BRM). According to the internal end-to-end notation system for British armored vehicles, it has the FV101 index. Created in 1964 — 1967 for the role of reconnaissance and aerial transport vehicle, as part of the development of a family of combat vehicles for various purposes CVR (T) on a single chassis. It was mass-produced at factories in Great Britain and Belgium from 1970 to 1996 a year, in total more than 1800 tanks were produced in the Scorpion and Simiter, FV107 versions, which differed in armament. It was one of the fastest tracked combat vehicles of its time. It is in service with the British Army, it was used in the Falkland War, the Gulf War and Afghanistan, as well as in a number of peacekeeping operations. It was exported to a number of other countries, as of 2008, in some of them it was withdrawn from service, but still remains in service with eighteen armies
          1. EwgenyZ
            EwgenyZ 27 November 2017 11: 49 New
            0
            Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
            It’s immediately obvious that you are not reading the periodicals indicated by you tank "Scorpion" is a light tank (It was successfully used at the Falklands in 1982), then try to compare the "Challenger-2" with the T-72, gee ....

            No, I don’t read, I just look at pictures. Since you are so smart, I brought you the Scorpion and the T-72 as a comparison. It's just as silly to compare them as it's silly to compare our army and the British.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. pvv113
    pvv113 24 November 2017 16: 08 New
    +4
    in the event of a direct conflict with Russia, Great Britain will suffer a crushing defeat

    Khrushchev warned them that if they twitch, they will live under water wink
    1. Anarchist
      Anarchist 24 November 2017 16: 16 New
      14
      Quote: pvv113
      will twitch - will live under water

      Ichthyander ...!
  5. CentDo
    CentDo 24 November 2017 16: 09 New
    +3
    When did Britain have a really strong army? The foundation of British power has always been the fleet. In terms of the army, Britain could never compete with Russia.
    True, in the second half of the 20-th century, they and the fleet managed to shave.
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 24 November 2017 16: 27 New
      0
      In the XNUMXth century. Although their fleet has always (or even since the XNUMXth century) was in first place by a wide margin.
      1. CentDo
        CentDo 27 November 2017 10: 12 New
        0
        In what years of the 19th century?
    2. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 02: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: CentDo
      True, in the second half of the 20-th century, they and the fleet managed to shave.

      I wonder how they were able to win the Falkland War for the 12 000 nautical miles during the pro .... fleet? Or can you name similar operations from military history?
      1. CentDo
        CentDo 27 November 2017 09: 46 New
        0
        Does the 20 century end with the Falkland War? I then naively believed that after it the 20 century lasted for almost 20 years. And do you really think that the British fleet brilliantly conducted this operation? Lost two frigates and two destroyers, some of the ships were damaged. Super success.
        The British fleet was the strongest in the world, what remains of it now?
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 27 November 2017 20: 12 New
          0
          Quote: CentDo
          Does the 20 century end with the Falkland War? I then naively believed that after it the 20 century lasted for almost 20 years. And do you really think that the British fleet brilliantly conducted this operation? Lost two frigates and two destroyers, some of the ships were damaged. Super success.

          Give a similar example of a similar operation? The Argentines had threefold superiority and they fought at home, the British for 12 thousand miles ....
          The British fleet was the strongest in the world, what remains of it now?

          Even what remains after the end of the XVI inspires respect, they are stronger than us in aircraft carrier, escort and amphibious assault forces ...
          1. CentDo
            CentDo 28 November 2017 10: 46 New
            0
            Where did they have superiority? Please list by points. Threefold advantage in surface ships? Or in aviation, which was based on the continent, the hell knows how many miles from the conflict zone? Or maybe the Argentines had full warehouses of anti-ship missiles?
  6. HEATHER
    HEATHER 24 November 2017 16: 24 New
    +1
    Sorry, England is what?
  7. Vincent
    Vincent 24 November 2017 16: 25 New
    +1
    All British military power is multiplied by zero with one ballistic missile, perhaps even a monobloc missile. How can an island be equal in military-strategic potential with 1/6 of the land? It reminded me of an anecdote about a warship and a lighthouse ...
  8. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 38 New
    +1
    The report notes that many British politicians were concerned that Moscow has more advantages in the military sphere. --- rightly worried, we must always be like that! tongue
  9. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 40 New
    0
    Quote: VERESK
    Sorry, England is what?

    And this is already getting hard, you can fuck your ass! laughing
  10. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 44 New
    0
    Quote: dzvero
    In the XNUMXth century. Although their fleet has always (or even since the XNUMXth century) was in first place by a wide margin.

    But, this is not the Middle Ages! Although Nelson studied with Ushakov, he studied his battles. fool
  11. Falcond
    Falcond 24 November 2017 16: 49 New
    +2
    I remember earlier in military schools considered as a likely "ally" of the army of Germany and the USA .. I don’t remember something about the UK ...
    Yes, and somehow such a comparison is not correct: no one has ever fought with us alone ... you can oppose NATO (minus Bulgaria) and the CSTO ... Even the US and Russian armies in absolute terms are stupid to compare! You can, of course, look for positive and negative points in comparing the Armed Forces of the two countries
  12. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 51 New
    0
    Quote: CentDo
    When did Britain have a really strong army? The foundation of British power has always been the fleet. In terms of the army, Britain could never compete with Russia.
    True, in the second half of the 20-th century, they and the fleet managed to shave.

    In the Middle Ages, England had a strong army. The War at Waterloo with Napoleon, however, fought with the allies, colonized India, etc.
  13. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 54 New
    0
    Quote: DMB_95
    Have they really begun to understand that they are no longer the Great British Empire, but an ordinary island state with inflated conceit and exorbitant ambitions not for "growth" ...

    Yes, with such an island aircraft carrier, we have the means to fight!
  14. Slovak
    Slovak 24 November 2017 16: 56 New
    0
    So maybe May better shut up her fountain and stop calling Russia an enemy? The soldier will not offend the child, and the poor in Russia have always been treated with sympathy, patience, understanding
  15. Simon
    Simon 24 November 2017 16: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Anarchist
    Quote: pvv113
    will twitch - will live under water

    Ichthyander ...!

    A fun way to surrender. laughing We will not take prisoner no
  16. Canister
    Canister shot 24 November 2017 17: 17 New
    +1
    No, I still understand when the Bolsheviks about the Russian army periodically have a faint temper tantrum - common borders, historical memory and all that. But what lyad the English are trying to raise hype on this topic is unclear. I think no one in their right mind thinks that Russia in general, in principle, can attack small-shaven people - there is absolutely no possibility and necessity. Why then all this chatter?
  17. shinobi
    shinobi 24 November 2017 17: 35 New
    0
    Damn! I bastard with the arrogance of the Angians! The times when their army was superior to the Russian have long passed, at least 100 years. Even in the wild 90s, our army could smear the British into a thin pancake without really straining. One by one, for our troops there are only two serious opponents. China and the USA. They are alarmed, you understand!
    1. faiver
      faiver 24 November 2017 19: 43 New
      +1
      hats then stocked up? laughing
      1. EwgenyZ
        EwgenyZ 25 November 2017 08: 41 New
        0
        There are no hats with the British, enough clappers.
  18. Town Hall
    Town Hall 24 November 2017 17: 49 New
    +3
    Khan of Britain ... the local elite again crushed with hats ... and the Britons do not know that they are defeated
    1. Going
      Going 24 November 2017 18: 01 New
      +6
      What did you mean? and who defeated whom and where? belay

      In addition, British experts found that the combat readiness of Russia is almost 10 times higher than that of NATO.


      They knock out money in this way and no more.
  19. drunkram
    drunkram 24 November 2017 18: 00 New
    0
    Probably worried about the rather empty wallet after BrExit. Seriously, it was necessary to worry after the Second World War, when the military machine of the USSR created an army with all its limits resembling a superpower even before the start of the cold war, even with that small part that remained from the USSR and a small treasure of modern Russia, Russia is too tough for small-shaven stretch. The empire fell and was forgotten, the ruler of the seas drowned in the Thames
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 02: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: drunkram
      The empire fell and was forgotten the mistress of the seas drowned in the Thames

      At the same time, taking second place in the world in terms of tonnage of the fleet?
      1. drunkram
        drunkram 25 November 2017 15: 23 New
        0
        you have a mistake in the word "seventh"
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 15: 52 New
          0
          Quote: drunkram
          you have a mistake in the word "seventh"

          Not at all. You read my comment incorrectly, I didn’t say a word about the military personnel of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, I wrote about tonnage.....
          1. drunkram
            drunkram 25 November 2017 16: 03 New
            0
            It was you who read my comment incorrectly and did not even look at the tablet.
            Tonnage Royal Navi ~ 260т.тн. By 2020, the Royal Navi will have to rise in tonnage from 7 to 6 places immediately after India, because 1 AB will be commissioned
            1. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 16: 10 New
              0
              Quote: drunkram
              It was you who read my comment incorrectly and did not even look at the tablet.
              Tonnage Royal Navi ~ 260т.тн. By 2020, the Royal Navi will have to rise in tonnage from 7 to 6 places immediately after India, because 1 AB will be commissioned

              I saw your plate in the internet among the pictures.
              2 place - Her Majesty's fleet.
              The British are the only ones who have experience in conducting modern naval warfare at a distance of 12 thousand km from their native shores. Her Majesty's sailors were the first (and so far the only ones) who managed to intercept the anti-ship missile in real combat conditions. supply. The modern British fleet is small but remote. In the next 6-10 years, the Royal Navy will have two large aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth, 13 thousand tons), 12 multi-purpose atomic submarines of the Estuit type and 5 frigates the size of a destroyer, created under the Global Warship program .

              https://topwar.ru/88323-reyting-silneyshih-flotov
              -mira.html
              I do not know the concept of the author of your tablet, in addition, the poor British somewhere disappeared SSBNs .... there is military use and there are no boats, TDK disappeared somewhere, etc.
              1. drunkram
                drunkram 25 November 2017 21: 44 New
                0
                I didn't want to write already, I thought, well, there is a person who is not in the subject, but then you started writing nonsense (for example, they did not have a TDK in my memory at all) and have already moved away from the initial statement about the 2nd place in tonnage, because now write about the fact that Royal Navi was second in force after US Navi, and you also give a link to the article "" "expert" "" by Oleg Kaptsov, known for his statements like: US Navy scrap metal and so on, which already speaks of its inadequacy.
                If you do not recognize this plate, this again suggests that you are poorly familiar with the sources of basic news about the Navy in different countries of the world and giving a link to an article with data from 2015, you are not even aware that the data in my table is more relevant.
                You claim that the Royal Navi in ​​terms of tonnage exceeds the Russian Navy, in which only SSBNs and SSBNs in total already give more tonnage than the entire Royal Navi, not counting the newest British aircraft carrier that has not yet been included in the fleet


                I counted 281450 tons of displacement in total for nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy, when the British have an entire fleet of 259000 tons, hmm, and after all, I counted only the boats from those that are in service, and if we count repair and reserve ones, there will be more than 400 thousand tons. We look at the Navy of Great Britain, we do not consider small vessels up to 2000 tons, and such ships and supply vessels at the Russian Navy will even skip more than 2000 tons for this, we look:
                Plarb: Vanguards - 60520t
                MPLATRK: Trafalgar 14220, 19500 studies
                destroyers: daring or type45 - 45000
                frigates: type 23 63700
                WUA or DVKD Ocean everywhere I call him differently but it is rather DVKD 21200
                DVKD (UDC) type Albion - about 30000 tons
                Total: ~ 254000 tons
                All data is in open sources and it's easy to calculate and it takes 5 minutes, don't write nonsense anymore
                1. MOSKVITYANIN
                  MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 21: 58 New
                  0
                  drunkram
                  I didn’t want to write already, I thought, well, sometimes a person is not in the subject, but then you started to write nonsense (for example TDK they did not have in my memory at all)

                  Hamite Madame. In vain. Specially from this site, gee ....
                  You say the British Navy has never had a tank landing ship?
                  Landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - on the way to the Falkland Islands received a direct hit 1000-fn. air bomb. Fortunately for the British, detonation did not happen - otherwise, the ship, loaded to the brim with marines and equipment, would have turned into a hellish brazier.
                  Landing ship "Sir Galahad", too, could die on the way - in the open ocean, "Sir Galahad" received a terrible blow 1000-fn. a bomb, which, once again, spared the British.
                  Third landing ship "Sir Tristram" during the landing of the Marines in Bluff Cove, he was subjected to violent attacks by Argentinean aircraft, as a result of which 500 fnl was stuck in his deck. bomb. The British sailors and marines in horror rushed into the icy water - away from the dangerous "attraction".

                  https://topwar.ru/25339-gibel-k...skoy-voyny.html
                  1. drunkram
                    drunkram 26 November 2017 12: 55 New
                    0
                    If anyone is rude here, it is you, dear. If you have nothing to answer, you better keep silent.
                    I am not interested in the opinion of what Muscovite with the brain of a schoolboy at a transitional age, if you are so touchy, about the TDK - still count the ships of the Second World War, it will be interesting to read later instead of a comedy series.
                    1. MOSKVITYANIN
                      MOSKVITYANIN 26 November 2017 14: 44 New
                      0
                      drunkram I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muscovite

                      Announce the entire list ....
                      TDK - ships of the second world

                      So it means that the NATO countries in the years of the twentieth (and some still have) TDCs in service with their Navy did not have ....?
                      Come ....
  20. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 24 November 2017 18: 27 New
    +6
    Who would doubt it? As the British lion fell low, especially in the case of the queen, she periodically dies with them, discussing the options for the funeral, the costs of what will be there later for dessert and no one will say live an aunt and say hello.
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 16: 13 New
      0
      Quote: ul_vitalii
      Who would doubt it? As the British lion fell low, especially in the case of the queen, she periodically dies with them, discussing the options for the funeral, the costs of what will be there later for dessert and no one will say live an aunt and say hello.

      Name at least one monarchy, whose monarch is the head of state of independent states according to their constitutions?
  21. hly
    hly 24 November 2017 18: 57 New
    +1
    Anglo-Saxons send money to beg .....
  22. shura7782
    shura7782 24 November 2017 19: 53 New
    0
    In the UK they believe .... The report notes ......... Moreover, British experts found out ........
    Empty ringing or empty ringing. More precisely, an article from our Soviet era. Then it would be like the truth.
  23. faterdom
    faterdom 24 November 2017 22: 06 New
    +1
    This is their only working destroyer broke. And they became depressed, suddenly suspected that they might not win the war with the Russians.
    The Americans over there have already broken three destroyers, frightening Kim - and then they have not lost anything, spirit and enthusiasm, if necessary - and the aircraft carrier will be broken ...
  24. Normal ok
    Normal ok 24 November 2017 23: 50 New
    0
    In Britain, recognized the superiority of the Russian army

    If enemies praise, this is not good.
  25. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 25 November 2017 02: 14 New
    +2
    up to xnumx thousand military elements

    as soon as they call the Russian soldier .....
  26. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 25 November 2017 10: 47 New
    0
    Again they ask for money for weapons, they scare the public ... Russia has as many as 58 billion. The budget and a bunch of soldiers)))
    And the fact that Britain is in NATO than the budget of almost 1 trillion. these analysts do not want to tell the public ?! Why are none of them thinking such expenses ?!
  27. Romanenko
    Romanenko 25 November 2017 13: 40 New
    0
    The first step on the path of recognition, but even better, in our times, to be afraid of frost on the skin ...
    And not make-believe for the budget, but in fact, to wet underpants.
    It looks like they don’t understand another language
    Alas....