What WILL you do in the war dad

9 Feb 2012

If we witness a third world war, one of epic proportions like the first and second, what will you do ? what will your factory make ? we know we will see Britain do what it does best, stand together with a "dunkirk spirit. but have you given a thought to what will be asked of you ? consciption for some but don't think your too old or too young to do your part (thanks mum for making shells at the former dye factory in Ulverston, thanks Uncle Tom for working in the Barrow shipyards to build more ships a bit of a change from your milkround at the time)
The Toyota factory in Derby for example, what are they going to make ? Tanks, artillery shells ? anti aircraft guns ?
The plans exist to use the factory and every other significant factory in the UK, within days the plans will be given to the factory to convert to a new role, other plans will be given to other companies to supply the equipment to the factory so that it can adapt to it's new role, we all know it happened before but this time the UK is prepared and has the plans to put it into action.
Every airfield large or small is allocated to a new role in the event of a large scale war, short runways for fighter command, large runways for Strategic bomber command.
Britain did learn it's lessons from the wars and is prepared better than it was then.
In fact plans exist for many scenarios, an earthquake in London, a Sunami hitting the lowlands of Lincolnshire, aliens landing and much more.
Most of us witnessed one such plan being put into action at the outbreak of the Falklands campaign, Mrs T said "send a task force to retake the islands", a fleet was needed, many cargo and troop ships required, immediately someone at the admiralty opened a drawer and took out the pre-set plans, we need a hospital ship and there were the plans, the SS Uganda, a cruise ship specialising in carrying schoolchildren with classrooms and the like, add it to the list and send the plans to Portsmouth and the companies needed to make the conversion, within days the schoolrooms became hospital wards, the Helicopter flight deck was built and fitted, the stores required for the job loaded and dispatched, the same happened with the QE2 and Canberra, previously designated as troop ships, helicopter decks ordered to the specification that had been pre-planned built and fitted within a week, Townsedn Thoresen car ferries added to the fleet and adapted accordingly.
Register a ship in the UK and plans are looked at to see if it would serve the Royal Navy, if so in what role and what adaptations would be needed, the adpatations are then planned and stored.
The same applies to many other private businesses.
Good forethought that we don't even think about but it is nice to know someone is.
Many years ago one MP complained about the hundreds of brand new Green Goddess fire engines that were being stored and cared for in an army base somewhere, what a waste of money he said, within six months every one was deployed to cover the UKs first ever strike by firemen.
(just a shame that we scrap red fire engines instead of training soldiers to use them because currently they are not allowed to use red fire engines because they are too complicated without training and have to rely on the very outdated green goddess)
Back in the early 80s there was a large rail strike, there have been many but this one lasted for a week, people were inconvenienced and more cars took to the roads etc etc, but what most of the civilian population did not see was the massive operation carried out by the armed forces to get its men and women home from overseas service, those coming on leave, posting or courses.
Someone at the MOD opened a drawer and pulled out the plans, Pirbright Barracks in Surrey was prepared to take civilians (forces wives and children, civilian admin staff etc), a list of coach and taxi companies was passed to the designated administrators, those arriving from Gatwick or Heathrow and travelling long distances such as Scotland or Northern Ireland were given internal flights to get home, those travelling to major cities were grouped and supplied with coaches, staff cars from local military bases were commandeered to take people to more rural locations. Thousands of returning forces personel were taken care of as fast as they arrived in the UK, all because someone thought to make some plans for the evactuation of a foreign territory, in this case it worked to get our people home from postings in Germany, Hong Kong, Cyprus etc.
We knock our Country a lot, it's a good Country at heart often spoilt by politicians or the will of the EU but once in a while we do something really good. well done the planners.
Food for thought is very filling lol

9 Feb 2012

If we witness a third world war, one of epic proportions like the first and second, what will you do ?

Get the first flight out to Barbados........ (call me when it's over) lol

10 Feb 2012

We would re-attest immediately. Never mind fighting mortgages, crappy bosses and boring life, let's fight something you can actually make explode!

10 Feb 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
We would re-attest immediately. Never mind fighting mortgages, crappy bosses and boring life, let's fight something you can actually make explode!

There are few problems in life that a pound of semtex won't cure lol

10 Feb 2012

Jed,
I think you assume too much competance on the part of the Gov. If plans existed for every eventuality, how come last years snow brought the airports and a lot of the Country to a standstill ? And abroad, remember Katrina wrecking New Orleans, which everyone knew was below water level?
John

10 Feb 2012

If there is a third world war then it won't last long enough for any of these contingencies to be put into place.

10 Feb 2012

Hi, what a great and thought provoking thread! Makes you kind of proud to be British to know that we could respond to a crisis. Suppose we have to put our faith in 'those wot know!' Going back to WW2 my mother when called up joined the RAF and was posted from Ware in Herts to RAF St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan where she worked on battery maintenance for Lancasters.
My father was a civilian at St Athan and ended up in charge of maintenance and overhaul of Rolls Royce Merlin engines and others as fitted to Spitfires and Lancasters. They met and as they say the rest is history.
In the event of the 'next one', at 56 I think I'm unlikely to be called up if conscription was reintroduced not to mention medical grounds. However I would hope to play a part with my agricultural engineering experience. Probably like the last one food supply and that means agriculture will be of major importance.
Well done for highlighting the arrangements that are 'known' subject.
Smooth1

10 Feb 2012

Birth control would be the way forward....instead of dropping bombs on our foes we could deliver copious amounts of condoms and assorted contraceptives on our foes.....then at least if the war lasted too long there would be less of the bastids to fight with.

10 Feb 2012

I'd say a large part of any future major conflict will be fought in cyber space so I know what I'd be doing!n (and it's not logging on here biggrin

)

10 Feb 2012

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Jed,
I think you assume too much competance on the part of the Gov. If plans existed for every eventuality, how come last years snow brought the airports and a lot of the Country to a standstill ? And abroad, remember Katrina wrecking New Orleans, which everyone knew was below water level?
John

As a person who is more a governement hater than a supporter please don't misundertand me, I think they get more wrong than they get right but, credit where credit is due, there are some things they do put some thought into and for that I am thankfull, I think they are a bit behind with flooding dangers (though the Thames Barrier isn't a bad idea in motion) but we haven't really put them to the test in other areas that would be shock flooding or even in the lowlands of lincolnshire but I do hope the do have some plans, I do know the Green Goddess fire engines that I mentioned for fire strikes or fire storms are part of a plan for that (fire engines can pump water out as well as in).
As for New Orleans, I think that perhaps showed our Government is more forward thinking than the Mighty United States, in the 2 major but unexpected events we are aware of (New Orleans and 9/11 they failed quite miserably, the chaos and lack of assistance to one state from such a nation was appalling in the case of the floods, 9/11 was thought about, there was an organisation set up for dealing with a disaster in New York, staff were trained in how to get the needed resources and the information stored as to where to get it (lighting, heavy lifting equipment, mobile medical resources, emergency personnel and everything else) a lot of it was compiled and instigated after the twin towers were attacked by terrorists with a van bomb some years earlier, unfortunately the powers that be decided to locate the headquarters for that organisation on the 5th floor of the first tower !
As for the airports, operations were put into action, RAF airfields WERE cleared and made usable for emergency landings and emergency evacutations but for civilian airports is a commercial business and they were expected to have thier own contingency plans in place as befits a multi billion pound organisation
Did you (as in anyone) know that the ration packs consumed by military personnel today was packed 25 years ago, ration packs put together today will not be consumed for another 25 years, because the forces carry a 25 year supply based on everyday use and have an appropriate 25 year rotational system ?

10 Feb 2012

Quote by HimandHer
If there is a third world war then it won't last long enough for any of these contingencies to be put into place.

Maybe and maybe not, the cold war was brought about because the Russian feared the west wanted to take it's oilfields and vast agricultural facilities, the west feared the east wanted the same from them, the nuclear weapons were prepared and aimed, HALF of the Russian weapons were aimed at Russia, HALF of the US weapons arsenal was aimed at America, everyone knew that if the Russian came and were winning the US would press buttons and destroy the Oil fields and grain producing areas the very resources that the enemy hoped to gain and vice versa with what the US would want from the Russians, the idology being what is the point going to war if when you win there is nothing to gain, and it worked, it stopped the Korean war developing into a nuclear and world war, it prevented the Cuban missile crises escalating or the vietnam war turning into a east v west, west v communism all out war.
A madman could start the war by "hitting the buttons" but most wont because this would take out the very resources the madman wants to gain, the losers will always hit the button to prevent the enemy getting what they want (Saddam tried to destroy the oilfields of Kuwait when he lost the war and knew he would not gain from them as he had hoped).
So for the most part wars will always be conventional to start with, if you could guarantee wiping out the enemies ability to destroy your and thier resources you might consider a massive "first strike" but as long as submarines can roam undetected with thier missile arsenal, the first strike stratedgy wont work, The Nuclear Deterrent works more because the enemy knows you can deny them thier gains more than what you can do to them.
Saddam Hussain did not use his chemical weapons because (according to his own Generals) he feared what the americans held and could use in return against him if they looked like losing.

11 Feb 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
If there is a third world war then it won't last long enough for any of these contingencies to be put into place.

Maybe and maybe not, the cold war was brought about because the Russian feared the west wanted to take it's oilfields and vast agricultural facilities, the west feared the east wanted the same from them, the nuclear weapons were prepared and aimed, HALF of the Russian weapons were aimed at Russia, HALF of the US weapons arsenal was aimed at America, everyone knew that if the Russian came and were winning the US would press buttons and destroy the Oil fields and grain producing areas the very resources that the enemy hoped to gain and vice versa with what the US would want from the Russians, the idology being what is the point going to war if when you win there is nothing to gain, and it worked, it stopped the Korean war developing into a nuclear and world war, it prevented the Cuban missile crises escalating or the vietnam war turning into a east v west, west v communism all out war.
A madman could start the war by "hitting the buttons" but most wont because this would take out the very resources the madman wants to gain, the losers will always hit the button to prevent the enemy getting what they want (Saddam tried to destroy the oilfields of Kuwait when he lost the war and knew he would not gain from them as he had hoped).
So for the most part wars will always be conventional to start with, if you could guarantee wiping out the enemies ability to destroy your and thier resources you might consider a massive "first strike" but as long as submarines can roam undetected with thier missile arsenal, the first strike stratedgy wont work, The Nuclear Deterrent works more because the enemy knows you can deny them thier gains more than what you can do to them.
Saddam Hussain did not use his chemical weapons because (according to his own Generals) he feared what the americans held and could use in return against him if they looked like losing.
I'm not sure that your wisdom extends to Israel. Israel will not stand by and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. There is a Presedential Election looming in the US and neither canditate can afford to upset the Jewish electorate. Frightening scenario!

11 Feb 2012

Ffs this is a swinging site not a soapbox site.

11 Feb 2012

Quote by paddy
Ffs this is a swinging site not a soapbox site.

Please do not swear at me, I find it offensive and abbreviating swearwords does not make them mean anything different than they do in full print.
This is a swingers site, it has many aspects, you can shop online here for erotic lingerie or sex toys, you can use the chatrooms which cover a variety of subjects, many of which are non-swinging related, you have the right to open your own chatroom to discuss football if that is your wish.
Another aspect is the Forum, the use of which you obviously something you do not understand, for your benefit, here is the Wikipedia definition of a forum backed up the Collins English Dictionary :
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
The site, have decided to have different forums for different subjects, for club meets, private meets, commercial meets, chatting about swinging related topics, and this one, which is described by the site as:
The Cafe
General discussion and chit-chat. Post anything here that is NOT a Meet Up or about Dogging.
If you believe I have breached the rules of the site by opening this thread and the subject it deals with then you have the right to report me to Admin who will investigate and deal with it accordingly.
You also have the right to ignore this thread and find threads about topics you believe should be discussed on the site, or to complain to admin about removing this particular forum from the sites menu. You do not have the right to offend other members by swearing at them or in other acts.

11 Feb 2012

I shall sign up to join our aircraft carrier, oh hang on

11 Feb 2012

I'm going to join the RAF and be the guy who stands at the end of the runway and holds the Squadron Leaders dog as the Squadron Leader flys off to fight (as shown in the film Dambusters), then back to the canteen for breakfast or supper !
John

11 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
I shall sign up to join our aircraft carrier, oh hang on

Please wait until BAE have finished building it...2020 would be a good date for your diary

11 Feb 2012

Should that not be "Tiffin" old chum!

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
I'm going to join the RAF and be the guy who stands at the end of the runway and holds the Squadron Leaders dog as the Squadron Leader flys off to fight (as shown in the film Dambusters), then back to the canteen for breakfast or supper !
John

11 Feb 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
If there is a third world war then it won't last long enough for any of these contingencies to be put into place.

Maybe and maybe not, the cold war was brought about because the Russian feared the west wanted to take it's oilfields and vast agricultural facilities, the west feared the east wanted the same from them,.
No it wasn't - that's not even remotely true.
The Cold War was brought about because the United States did not offer the Soviets any influence in Japan once they had bombed it in 1945, and the Soviets fundamentally disagreed with the re-drawing of international borders in post-war Europe. It had nothing to do with their argicultural facilities.

Quote by MidsCouple24
the nuclear weapons were prepared and aimed, HALF of the Russian weapons were aimed at Russia, HALF of the US weapons arsenal was aimed at America, everyone knew that if the Russian came and were winning the US would press buttons and destroy the Oil fields and grain producing areas the very resources that the enemy hoped to gain and vice versa with what the US would want from the Russians, the idology being what is the point going to war if when you win there is nothing to gain, and it worked, it stopped the Korean war developing into a nuclear and world war, it prevented the Cuban missile crises escalating or the vietnam war turning into a east v west, west v communism all out war.

Neither the Americans nor the Russians could aim there ICBMs at their own countries - firstly any launch of an ICBM would prompt a counter-attack, so in other words if the US fired a missile at itself, then the Russians would assume the lauch was at them and fire a counter attack - meaning in effect that the US would have destroyed itself twice over, and more importantly the ICBMs of the era were filled with solid rocket motors - they were built for a fixed range (i.e. at Russia) and they could not have been altered to fire at such a comparatively short range - in any event there are much cheaper and effective ways of denying crops than dropping a nuclear bomb on them - so not sure where you got that rubbish from.
The reason that neither side would start a war is down to mutually assured destruction, counter force attacks and second strike capabilities - the oil fields, and grain producing areas are not areas of tactical consideration and played no part in that strategy.

Quote by MidsCouple24
A madman could start the war by "hitting the buttons" but most wont because this would take out the very resources the madman wants to gain, the losers will always hit the button to prevent the enemy getting what they want (Saddam tried to destroy the oilfields of Kuwait when he lost the war and knew he would not gain from them as he had hoped).

There is no such thing as a loser in a Nuclear Strike scenario, there is no winner either. A launch will prompt a counter-launch, which will prompt a second strike which will lead to an nuclear exchange - there are no winners. In the 1960s it was the case that Counterforce Commanders (i.e. Nuclear Submarine Commanders in effect) could have "gone mad" and initiated a strike - but that was then and not now. The only real danger is from fantatics - who will initiate a strike because it is within their ideology to force their views on yours - irrespective of whether they have anything to gain or not.

Quote by MidsCouple24
So for the most part wars will always be conventional to start with, if you could guarantee wiping out the enemies ability to destroy your and thier resources you might consider a massive "first strike" but as long as submarines can roam undetected with thier missile arsenal, the first strike stratedgy wont work, The Nuclear Deterrent works more because the enemy knows you can deny them thier gains more than what you can do to them.
Saddam Hussain did not use his chemical weapons because (according to his own Generals) he feared what the americans held and could use in return against him if they looked like losing.

Saddam did use Chemical Weapons though - he didn't use them on the coalition forces because Air Superiority had been gained prior to the ground invasion and limited tactical strike capability had been eliminated by the coalitoin Close Air Support strikes in the first days of the war.

11 Feb 2012

Quote by Max777
I'm not sure that your wisdom extends to Israel. Israel will not stand by and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. . . . . Frightening scenario!

A frightening scenario indeed, and one likely to be the kick off to a little minor local difficulty in the area leading to a wider conflict. I'm massively conflicted on this. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and have an absolute right to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, but the evidence seems to point absolutely to an attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon. Some would say that's understandable seeing as none-signatory Israel has them in spades, and it's a simple attempt to maintain influence in the general balance of power locally. They can't be allowed to acquire them though.
I'm pretty sure no matter how many sanctions you put in place, no matter how many nuclear scientists Mossad kill, they're likely to have a bomb at some point if left to their own devices. Plucky little Israel is in no way gonna allow that to happen and will just steam in, as per most of their engagements with threats ((( perceived or actual ))) to them in the region. That's gonna spark God knows how wide a conflagration. I fear it.

11 Feb 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
I shall sign up to join our aircraft carrier, oh hang on

Please wait until BAE have finished building it...2020 would be a good date for your diary
Oh bugger, I shall be way too old to join up by then lol

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
I'm going to join the RAF and be the guy who stands at the end of the runway and holds the Squadron Leaders dog as the Squadron Leader flys off to fight (as shown in the film Dambusters), then back to the canteen for breakfast or supper !
John

Dont mention the dogs name round here :twisted:

11 Feb 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
I'm not sure that your wisdom extends to Israel. Israel will not stand by and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. . . . . Frightening scenario!

A frightening scenario indeed, and one likely to be the kick off to a little minor local difficulty in the area leading to a wider conflict. I'm massively conflicted on this. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and have an absolute right to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, but the evidence seems to point absolutely to an attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon. Some would say that's understandable seeing as none-signatory Israel has them in spades, and it's a simple attempt to maintain influence in the general balance of power locally. They can't be allowed to acquire them though.
I'm pretty sure no matter how many sanctions you put in place, no matter how many nuclear scientists Mossad kill, they're likely to have a bomb at some point if left to their own devices. Plucky little Israel is in no way gonna allow that to happen and will just steam in, as per most of their engagements with threats ((( perceived or actual ))) to them in the region. That's gonna spark God knows how wide a conflagration. I fear it.
Might be sooner rather than later!

12 Feb 2012

Quote by Max777
I'm not sure that your wisdom extends to Israel. Israel will not stand by and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. . . . . Frightening scenario!

A frightening scenario indeed, and one likely to be the kick off to a little minor local difficulty in the area leading to a wider conflict. I'm massively conflicted on this. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and have an absolute right to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, but the evidence seems to point absolutely to an attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon. Some would say that's understandable seeing as none-signatory Israel has them in spades, and it's a simple attempt to maintain influence in the general balance of power locally. They can't be allowed to acquire them though.
I'm pretty sure no matter how many sanctions you put in place, no matter how many nuclear scientists Mossad kill, they're likely to have a bomb at some point if left to their own devices. Plucky little Israel is in no way gonna allow that to happen and will just steam in, as per most of their engagements with threats ((( perceived or actual ))) to them in the region. That's gonna spark God knows how wide a conflagration. I fear it.
Might be sooner rather than later!

Oh dear

12 Feb 2012

I work for Rolls-Royce (aero engines not cars). I'm already preparing (in a round about way) for the next war - they have been since before WW2 finished.
My thoughts are also on what I would be doing after WW3. Assuming I survive and am not crippled by nuclear/vhemical/biological damage already, I guess I will be part of a rebuilding process or, at worst, moving to a defensible island with its own water supply and enough space to grow our own food.
Anyone is welcome - all skills (apart from doing Sudoku I guess?) will come in useful.

12 Feb 2012

Of coarse WW are a useful tool for Governments during times of depression

15 Feb 2012

Just a few points for clarification....

Quote by MidsCouple24
Every airfield large or small is allocated to a new role in the event of a large scale war, short runways for fighter command, large runways for Strategic bomber command.

Fighter Command ceased to exist in 1968, it's successor Strike Command ceased to exist in 2007. There has never been a 'strategic bomber command' operated by the UK armed forces.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Many years ago one MP complained about the hundreds of brand new Green Goddess fire engines that were being stored and cared for in an army base somewhere, what a waste of money he said, within six months every one was deployed to cover the UKs first ever strike by firemen.

Please remember that the fire vehicles you are speaking of were owned and maintained by Rupert Murdoch and his global empire, not the UK Government and certainly not by the Armed Forces. Admittedly they were stored alongside a military base, with an access openable from the military side that would allow them to access a military operated port facility. Although crewed in the late seventies and from 1994 until 2003 by servicemen in the event of national need, they were loaned to the government for this purpose by Mr Murdoch.

Quote by MidsCouple24
(just a shame that we scrap red fire engines instead of training soldiers to use them because currently they are not allowed to use red fire engines because they are too complicated without training and have to rely on the very outdated green goddess)

This is not true and is an often misunderstood situation. Prior to 2005 the UK fire authorities owned and maintained there own fire vehicle fleet, and were not required by law to provide them to anyone else, no matter what the emergency. However the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which came into force in 2005 gave central government the power to take ownership of any and all emergency vehicles in the interest of public safety.

15 Feb 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Just a few points for clarification....
Every airfield large or small is allocated to a new role in the event of a large scale war, short runways for fighter command, large runways for Strategic bomber command.

Fighter Command ceased to exist in 1968, it's successor Strike Command ceased to exist in 2007. There has never been a 'strategic bomber command' operated by the UK armed forces.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Many years ago one MP complained about the hundreds of brand new Green Goddess fire engines that were being stored and cared for in an army base somewhere, what a waste of money he said, within six months every one was deployed to cover the UKs first ever strike by firemen.

Please remember that the fire vehicles you are speaking of were owned and maintained by Rupert Murdoch and his global empire, not the UK Government and certainly not by the Armed Forces. Admittedly they were stored alongside a military base, with an access openable from the military side that would allow them to access a military operated port facility. Although crewed in the late seventies and from 1994 until 2003 by servicemen in the event of national need, they were loaned to the government for this purpose by Mr Murdoch.

Quote by MidsCouple24
(just a shame that we scrap red fire engines instead of training soldiers to use them because currently they are not allowed to use red fire engines because they are too complicated without training and have to rely on the very outdated green goddess)

This is not true and is an often misunderstood situation. Prior to 2005 the UK fire authorities owned and maintained there own fire vehicle fleet, and were not required by law to provide them to anyone else, no matter what the emergency. However the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which came into force in 2005 gave central government the power to take ownership of any and all emergency vehicles in the interest of public safety.

Well that is something I did not know, as they were Military style vehicles with military number plates I assumed they belonged to the military, if I had known Murdoch owned them I might have crashed mine, lol.
As for the red fire engines, you are probably right, and the Government could give them to the military, but most would be useless to them as the red engines are a lot more complicated to use than basic Green Goddesses and for thier own safety and the safety of others military personnel should be trained on them, instead of scrapping them send them to army units and have the fire brigade train them. It would be a good part of military training, perhaps helping some soldiers with an "after the army" career opportunity, make an interesting diversion once a month to the normal routine for both firemen and soldiers alike, give us a back up force, make us less reliant on Media moguls, utilise what would be scrap metal and look prettier than when we use Green Goddess's

17 Feb 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Well that is something I did not know, as they were Military style vehicles with military number plates I assumed they belonged to the military

This is often assumed because they are coloured green and have been crewed by members of the military. We have the media to thank for this misconception! Here's a quick lesson...
The Green Goddess fire engine, or self-propelled emergency pump, to give it its proper name, was introduced in the 1950s to replace the wartime pumps then available to the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS).
It was not until 1938 that the provision of fire-fighting services became a compulsory function of local authorities in Great Britain. In anticipation of war, the AFS was originally established in the same year to supplement the local authority fire brigades and it was the combined strength of these forces that battled the raging fires of the Blitz. In 1941 the fire service was nationalised with the 39 fire areas of the National Fire Service across England, Scotland and Wales replacing the 1,668 brigades which were then in existence. The AFS was absorbed into the national body.
The fire service was returned to local authority control on 1st April 1948 and the AFS, as part of the National Fire Service, disappeared. As part of the Government’s response to the threat of nuclear war, the Civil Defence and Auxiliary Fire Service were promptly reconstituted under the Home Office with the idea that both would be made up of civilian volunteers. The postwar AFS initially relied on wartime fire engines but a large fleet of purpose-built appliances was established in the mid-1950s, with the intention that some would be deployed in mobile fire columns of 144 vehicles to reinforce hard-pressed local services anywhere in the country. These vehicles were painted green to distinguish them from local authority fire brigade appliances, and not because they were under military control. Incidentally the GG's that served in Northern Ireland were painted yellow to distinguish them from military vehicles and they were fitted with mesh protection to the windows and lights. They looked like an eight ton custard cream.
So to dispel the myth perpetuated by the Media, Green Goddesses were never Army fire engines.

Quote by MidsCouple24
As for the red fire engines, you are probably right, and the Government could give them to the military, but most would be useless to them as the red engines are a lot more complicated to use than basic Green Goddesses and for thier own safety and the safety of others military personnel should be trained on them.

This isn't quite correct. The basic principles of pump operations are exactly the same, however the technology to achieve the aim has significantly changed. A typical modern fire vehicle can have its water tank opened, pump engaged and standard revs to produce 4 bar pressure in a hoseline by pressing one button in the cab on arrival at an incident. So much simpler to use than a GG, which would need many actions to be carried out in the cab and at the rear of the vehicle and could take at least one minute to achieve, far more by a less than well trained crewman. The half-truth publicised by the media that red trucks are more technical actually stems from the role of the vehicle, not it's operation. A GG is and always has been a pump on wheels designed to pump water in and out. A modern fire vehicle has a far greater range of capabilities enabling a response to a multitude of emergencies, not just firefighting.
At present the Royal Air Force has its own fire service with around 600 full time military firefighters, These guys have formed the central core of all strike action in the past.

Quote by MidsCouple24
instead of scrapping them send them to army units and have the fire brigade train them.

Paid for out of the MOD's budget or your council tax?

Quote by MidsCouple24
It would be a good part of military training,

The Regulatory Reform Order 2004 places a legal duty on all employers employing more than five persons to provide fire safety training. In the military this is taken one stage further with personnell trained to activelly fight fires using basic equipment, to prevent undue losses from accidental fires or fires resulting from enemy action.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Give us a back up force, make us less reliant on Media moguls, utilise what would be scrap metal and look prettier than when we use Green Goddess's

Since the country's commitment to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military has said it is no longer able to provide personnel to cover in the event of another firefighters' strike. Responsibility now rests with each individual fire authority to make its own contingency plans. During the strikes in London last year a contract agency provided the neccesary cover.