We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Aircraft - British
Airco D.H.7 Fighter
Airco D.H.8 C.O.W. Gun Fighter
Airco (Westland) D.H.9A
Airco D.H.10 Amiens
Airco D.H.11 Oxford
Airco D.H.12 Day Bomber
Airco D.H.13 Not Used
Airco D.H.14 Okapi
Airco D.H.15 Gazelle
Albatross, de Havilland D.H.91
Angler, HMS (1897)
Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 38 Whitley
Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 41 Albemarle
Auster, British Taylorcraft
A. V. Roe and Company (Avro)
Avro Anson - squadron list
Boulton Paul Defiant
Boulton & Paul P.3 Bobolink
Boulton & Paul P.7 Bourges
Boulton & Paul P.10
Boulton & Paul P.11/ Type XXI
Boulton & Paul P.12 Bodmin
Boulton & Paul P.15 Bolton
Boulton & Paul P.25 Bugle
Boulton & Paul P.27
Boulton & Paul P.29 Sidestrand
Boulton & Paul P.31 Bittern
Boulton & Paul P.32
Boulton & Paul P.33 Partridge
Boulton & Paul P.34
Boulton & Paul P.35
Boulton & Paul P.37 Streamline
Boulton & Paul P.58
Boulton & Paul P.63 Streamline
Boulton & Paul P.66
Boulton & Paul P.67
Boulton & Paul P.69
Boulton & Paul P.70
Boulton Paul P.74
Boulton Paul P.75 Overstrand
Boulton Paul P.79
Boulton Paul P.80 Superstrand
Boulton Paul P.85
Boulton Paul P.88
Boulton Paul P.89
Boulton Paul P.90
Boulton Paul P.91
Boulton Paul P.92
Boulton Paul P.94
Boulton Paul P.95
Boulton Paul P.96
Boulton Paul P.97
Boulton Paul P.98
Boulton Paul P.99
Boulton Paul P.100
Boulton Paul P.101
Boulton Paul P.102
Boulton Paul P.103
Boulton Paul P.104
Boulton Paul P.105
Boulton Paul P.106
Boulton Paul P.107
Boulton Paul P.108 Balliol
Boulton Paul P.109
Boulton Paul P.111
Boulton Paul P.112
Boulton Paul P.115
Boulton Paul P.116
Boulton Paul P.119
Boulton Paul P.120
Boulton Paul P.121
Boulton Paul P.122
Boulton Paul P.123
Boulton Paul P.124
Boulton Paul P.125
Boulton Paul P.131
Bristol Beaufighter - History
Bristol Beaufighter - Squadrons
Bristol Beaufighter - Variants and Stats
Bristol Class light cruisers
Bristol F-2 Fighter
Bristol (Fairchild) Bolingbroke
British Taylorcraft Auster
Defiant, Boulton Paul
de Havilland D.H.91 Albatross
de Havilland Mosquito
F-2 Fighter, Bristol
Felixstowe F.4 'Fury'
Felixstowe/ Porte Baby
Frazer-Nash (Parnall) FN5 Bomber Gun Turret
Frazer-Nash (Parnall) FN25 Bomber Gun Turret
Gloster Gauntlet (SS.19)
Handley Page O/400
Handley Page Halifax
Handley Page Hampden
Handley Page Harrow
Handley Page Hereford
Handley Page Heyford
Havoc, Douglas (RAF Night Fighter)
Hawker Sea Fury
Hawker Sea Hawk
Hawker Sea Hurricane
London, Saro A.27
Mosquito, De Havilland
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.1
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2a
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2b
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2d
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2e
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2f
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2g
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2/ B.E.12 Squadrons
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.3
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.4
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.5
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.6
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.7
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.8
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.8a
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.9
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.10
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.12
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.12a
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.12b
Royal Aircraft Factory H.R.E.2
Royal Aircraft Factory H.R.E.6
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.1
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.3
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.4
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.5
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.7
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8
Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.9
Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5a
Saro A.27 London
SE.5a, Royal Aircraft Factory
Sherman I/ Medium Tank M4
Sopwith Aviation Company
Sopwith 1 ½ Strutter
Sopwith 9700 Type 1 ½ Strutter
Sopwith Ship Strutter
Supermarine Nanok (Polar Bear)/ Solant
Supermarine S4 to S6
Supermarine Sea King
Supermarine Sea Lion
Supermarine Sea Otter
Supermarine Type 545
Thompson Sub Machine Gun (1918-1944)
TSR-2: The Plane That Barely Flew (Longer articles)
Vickers Type 253 general purpose biplane
Vickers Valiant, Type 131 biplane
Vultee Vengeance (RAF)
Whitley, Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 38
Aircraft - Foreign in British Service
Brewster Buffalo in British Service
Curtiss H-1 'America'
Curtiss H-4 'Small America'
Curtiss H-12 ‘Large America’
Curtiss H-16 'Large America'
Curtiss Mohawk I
Curtiss Mohawk II
Curtiss Mohawk III
Curtiss Mohawk IV
Curtiss P-40/ Hawk 81/ Hawk 87/ Tomahawk/ Kittyhawk/ Warhawk
Douglas Dakota I
Douglas Dakota II
Douglas Dakota III
Douglas Dakota IV
Douglas DB-7/ A-20 Havoc/ Boston
F4F Wildcat and Martlet, Grumman
Flying Fortress in RAF Service
Grumman Avenger in UK Service
Grumman F4F Wildcat and Martlet
Havoc, Douglas (RAF Night Fighter)
Hudson/ A-28/ A-29, Lockheed
Lockheed Hudson/ A-28/ A-29
Martlet, Grumman (F4F)
Morane-Saulnier Type V
Mustang, North American P-51
North American P-51 Mustang
P-40/ Hawk 81/ Hawk 87/ Tomahawk/ Kittyhawk/ Warhawk, Curtiss
P-51 Mustang, North American
A Class Destroyers (1912)
Abercrombie class monitors
Acorn Class Destroyers/ H Class Destroyers
Active class scout cruisers
Adventure class scout cruisers
Aircraft Carriers, British, First World War
Apollo class second class cruisers
Arethusa class light cruisers
Arrogant class second class cruisers
Astraea class light cruisers
B Class Destroyers (1912)
Battleship Classes, British, First World War
Beagle Class Destroyers/ G Class Destroyer (1909)
Bellerophon class battleships
Birkenhead class light cruisers
Birmingham class light cruisers
Blonde class scout cruisers
Boadicea class scout cruisers
C Class Destroyers (1912)
Calliope class light cruisers
Cambrian class light cruisers
Canopus class battleships
Caroline class light cruisers
Centaur class light cruisers
Challenger class second class cruisers
Chatham class light cruisers
Colossus class battleships
'County' Class Destroyer
Cressy Class first class armoured cruisers
Cruiser Classes, British, First World War
D Class Destroyers (1912)
Devonshire Class first class armoured cruisers
Diadem Class first class protected cruisers
Drake Class first class armoured cruisers
Duke of Edinburgh class first class cruisers
Duncan class of battleships
E Class Destroyers (1912)/ River Class Destroyers
Eclipse class second class cruisers
Edgar Class first class protected cruisers
Formidable class pre-dreadnought battleships
Forward class scout cruisers
G Class Destroyer (1909)/ Beagle Class Destroyers
'G' Class Fleet Destroyer
Gem class third class cruisers
Gorgon class monitors
Gunboat, Napoleonic, Royal Navy
H Class Destroyers/ Acorn Class Destroyers
Highflyer class second class cruisers
Horizon Common New Generation Frigate
Horizon: The Common New Generation Frigate (Longer article)
Humber class monitors
Indefatigable class battlecruisers
Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier
Invincible class battlecruisers
Iron Duke class battleships
King Edward VII class battleships
King George V class battleships
Leander class frigate (Type 12M)
Lion class battlecruisers
London class pre-dreadnought battleships
Lord Clive class monitors
Lord Nelson class battleships
Majestic class pre-dreadnought battleships
Marshal Soult class monitors
Minotaur Class first class armoured cruisers
Monitor Classes, British, First World War
Monmouth Class first class armoured cruisers
Orion class battleships
Pathfinder class scout cruisers
Pelorus class third class cruisers
Powerful Class first class protected cruisers
Queen Elizabeth class battleships
River Class Destroyers/ E Class Destroyers (1912)
Roon class heavy cruisers
Ruler class escort carriers (UK)
St. Vincent class battleships
Sentinel class scout cruisers
Swiftsure class battleships
Tribal Class Destroyer (1905)
Type 12M ('Leander' class) Frigate
Type 21 (Amazon Class) Frigate (UK)
Type 22 (Broadsword Class) Frigate (UK)
Type 23 (Duke Class) Frigate (UK)
Type 42 Destroyer (UK)
Type 45 Destroyer (UK)
Type 81 (Tribal Class) Frigate (UK)
Type 82 Destroyer
Warrior Class first class armoured cruisers
Weymouth Class light cruisers
25-pdr Field Gun 1939 - 1972: Part One
25-pdr Field Gun 1939 - 1972: Part Two
Brown Bess Musket
EM-2 (Rifle No. 9, Mk 1)
Enfield P14 and M1917 Rifles
Ordnance, 7.2in Howitzer Mk I-V
Ordnance, 7.2in Howitzer Mk 6
Ordnance, BL 2.75in mountain gun
Ordnance, BL 5-in field howitzer
Ordnance, BLC 15-pounder field gun
Ordnance, jointed BL 10-pounder mountain gun
Ordnance, QF 2.95in mountain gun (pack howitzer)
Ordnance, QF 3.7in mountain or pack howitzer
Ordnance, QF 4.5in field howitzer
Ordnance, QF 15-pounder Ehrhardt (QF 15-pounder Mark I)
Ordnance QF 18-pounder field gun Mk I
Ordnance QF 18-pounder field gun Mk IV
SA80 (Small Arms for the 1980s)
Sten machine carbine
Tanks and Armoured Vehicles
Alecto self-propelled gun
Alvis Vehicles FV432 Armoured Personnel Carrier (UK)
Archer Mk I Tank Destroyer (Vickers)
Baron Mine-Clearing Vehicle
Bishop, Carrier, Valentine, 25pdr gun
Black Prince Infantry Tank (A43)
Centurion Main Battle Tank (UK)
Challenger Main Battle Tank (UK)
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (UK)
Chieftain Main Battle Tank (UK)
Churchill IV NA75
Churchill Mk X
Churchill Mk XI
Churchill Infantry Tank Mk IV (A22)
Churchill Ark (Assault Ramp Carrier)
Churchill AVRE (Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers)
Churchill AVRE with 'Goat' Explosive Device
Churchill 'Jumbo' Bridging Tank
Churchill with 'Carrot' Explosive Device
Churchill with 'Onion' Explosive Device
Cruiser Tank A14
Cruiser Tank A16
Cruiser Tank A23
Cruiser Tank A26
Cruiser Tank A28
Cruiser Tank A29
Cruiser Tank A31
Cruiser Tank A32
Cruiser Tank A35
Cruiser Tank Challenger (A30)
Cruiser Tank Mk I (A9)
Cruiser Tank Mk II (A10)
Cruiser Tank Mk III (A13)
Cruiser Tank Mk IV (A13 Mk II)
Cruiser Tank Mk V, Covenanter (A13 Mk III)
Cruiser Tank Mk VI, Crusader (A15)
Cruiser Tank Mk VII, Cavalier (A24)
Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, Centaur (A27L)
Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, Cromwell (A27M)
Cruiser Tank Sherman VC (Firefly)
Firefly, Cruiser Tank Sherman VC
FV432, Alvis Vehicles Carrier (UK)
Grant/ Lee/ Medium Tank M3
Gun Carrier, 3in, Mk I, Churchill
Heavy Assault Tank, A33, Excelsior
Heavy Assault Tank, A39, Tortoise
Heavy Tank Mark VIII (Liberty Tank)
Heavy Tank, TOG
Heavy Tank, TOG II
Infantry Tank, Black Prince (A43)
Infantry Tank, Valiant, A38
Lee/ Grant/ Medium Tank M3
Light Tank AA Mark I
Light Tank AA Mark II
Light Tank Mk I, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk IA, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk II, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk IIA, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk IIB, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk III, A4 (UK)
Light Tank Mk IV, A4 (UK)
Light Tank MK V, A5 (UK)
Light Tank MK VI (UK)
Light Tank Mk VII 'Tetrarch' (A17)
Light Tank Mk VIII 'Harry Hopkins' (A25)
M7 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage 'Priest'
M22 Light Tank/ Locust
Matilda MK I / Mk II
Matilda II Infantry Tank Mk II (A12)
Matilda Mk I, Infantry Tank Mk II
Matilda Mk II, Infantry Tank Mk IIA
Matilda Mk III, Infantry Tank Mk IIA*
Matilda Mk IV, Infantry Tank Mk IIA**
Matilda Mk V, Infantry Tank Mk IIA**
Matilda Scorpion I
Matilda with AMRA Mk Ia
Matilda with Carrot
Medium Tank A6
Medium Tank A7
Medium Tank A8
Medium Tank Mk III
Mk I Tank (UK)
Mk IV Tank (UK)
Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems (MLRS)
Scorpion Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Tracked) (UK)
Self-Propelled Gun, Avenger A30
Shelled Area Infantry Tank A20
Sherman tank (1941)
Sherman VC, Cruiser Tank (Firefly)
Stuart Light Tank
TOG Heavy Tank
TOG II Heavy Tank
Tortoise Heavy Assault Tank, A39
Valentine Infantry Tank Mk III
Valentine I, Infantry Tank Mk III
Valentine II, Infantry Tank Mk III*
Valentine VI, Infantry Tank Mk III***
Valentine VII, Infantry Tank Mk III***
Valentine Scorpion III
Vickers Archer Mk I Tank Destroyer
Vickers Medium Tank Mk I
Vickers Medium Tank Mk II
Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (UK)
Troop Types, Units and Organizations
Fairbairn-Sykes (Commando) knife
New Model Army (England)
Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (QARANC)
RAF Squadrons: Second World War
Research your family history using the General Register Office
You can order birth, adoption, marriage, civil partnership and death certificates from the General Register Office (GRO ) to help you research your family history and family tree.
It also has some other records, starting at a later date, for example for civil partnerships and adopted children. You can check which records are held by the GRO .
There’s a different process for getting certificates in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
Royal Armouries, also called National Museum of Arms and Armour, in the United Kingdom, a collection of weapons and armour that was originally situated in the White Tower at the Tower of London.
The Royal Armouries has been an integral part of the Tower of London since William I the Conqueror in the 11th century ordered it to be built. Paying visitors were allowed access to the site from the late 16th century. Its development as a museum, however, largely dates to the reign of Charles II (1660–85), when the public was admitted on payment of a fee. At that time visitors could view specially prepared displays such as the "Spanish Armoury," comprising weapons and instruments of torture reputed to have come from the defeated Spanish Armada in 1588. Another exhibit was the "Line of Kings," which showed some of the armour of successive sovereigns, mounted on wooden dummies and horses that had been carved by such well-known artists as Grinling Gibbons and John van Nost. Re-creations of these exhibits can be seen today.
The Royal Armouries’ entire collection has become a key source for comparative study of the world’s arms and armour. Much of the collection is now displayed at the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds (opened 1996), and the Royal Armouries Museum of Artillery at Fort Nelson, Fareham, near Portsmouth (opened 1988). The displays in the White Tower, renewed from 1997, tell the story of the Tower as a fortress and trace the development of the Royal Armouries and other government institutions that have operated there. In addition to the armour of the kings of England, some of the finest examples of arms and armour made over the past millennium can be seen.
Although the United Kingdom is one of Europe’s leading fishing countries, the industry has been in long-term decline. Fishing limits were extended to 200 nautical miles (370 km) offshore in the mid-1970s, and, because a significant part of the area fished by EU members lies within British waters, catches were regulated on a community-wide basis while the United Kingdom was a member of the EU. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom lost opportunities to fish in some more-distant waters (e.g., those off Iceland), and this reduced its total catch more than that of other countries of the EU. The United Kingdom’s fishing industry now supplies only half the country’s total demand. The most important fish landed are cod, haddock, mackerel, whiting, and plaice, as well as shellfish, including Nephrops (Norway lobsters), lobsters, crabs, and oysters. Estuarine fish farming—mainly of trout and salmon—has expanded considerably.
The United Kingdom has relatively limited supplies of economically valuable mineral resources. The once-important extraction of iron ore has dwindled to almost nothing. Other important metals that are mined include tin, which supplies about half the domestic demand, and zinc. There are adequate supplies of nonmetallic minerals, including sand and gravel, limestone, dolomite, chalk, slate, barite, talc, clay and clay shale, kaolin (china clay), ball clay, fuller’s earth, celestine, and gypsum. Sand, gravel, limestone, and other crushed rocks are quarried for use in construction.
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawn From the United Kingdom
The United States has withdrawn nuclear weapons from the RAF Lakenheath air base 70 miles northeast of London, marking the end to more than 50 years of U.S. nuclear weapons deployment to the United Kingdom since the first nuclear bombs first arrived in September 1954.
The withdrawal, which has not been officially announced but confirmed by several sources, follows the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Ramstein Air Base in Germany in 2005 and Greece in 2001. The removal of nuclear weapons from three bases in two NATO countries in less than a decade undercuts the argument for continuing deployment in other European countries.
US Nuclear Weapons in Europe 2008
Withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from three European bases since 2001 means that two-thirds of the arsenal is now on the southern flank.
Status of European Deployment
I have previously described that President Bill Clinton in November 2000 authorized the Pentagon to deploy 110 nuclear bombs at Lakenheath, part of a total of 480 nuclear bombs authorized for Europe at the time.
President George Bush updated the authorization in May 2004, which apparently ordered the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The withdrawal from Lakenheath might also have been authorized by the Bush directive, or by an update issued within the past three years. This reduction and consolidation in Europe was hinted by General James Jones, the NATO Supreme Commander at Europe at the time, when he stated in a testimony to a Belgian Senate committee: “The reduction will be significant. Good news is on the way.”
Last week I reported that security deficiencies found by the U.S. Air Force Blue Ribbon Review at “most” sites were likely to lead to further consolidation of the weapons, and that “significant changes” were rumored at Lakenheath.
US Nuclear Weapons in Europe 2008
Derived from more extensive table. Click table or here to download the full table.
The withdrawal from Lakenheath means that the U.S. nuclear weapons deployment overseas is down to only two U.S. Air Force bases (Aviano AB in Italy and Incirlik in Turkey) plus four other national European bases in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy, for a total of six bases in Europe. It is estimated that there are 150-240 B61 nuclear bombs left in Europe, two-thirds of which are based on NATO’s southern flank (see Table 1).
Why NATO and the United States have decided to keep these major withdrawals secret is a big puzzle. The explanation might simply be that “nuclear” always means secret, that it was done to prevent a public debate about the future of the rest of the weapons, or that the Bush administration just doesn’t like arms control. Whatever the reason, it is troubling because the reductions have occurred around the same time that Russian officials repeatedly have pointed to the U.S. weapons in Europe as a justification to reject limitations on Russia’s own tactical nuclear weapons.
In fact, at the very same time that preparations for the withdrawal from Ramstein and Lakenheath were underway, a U.S. State Department delegation visiting Moscow clashed with Russian officials about who had done enough to reduce its non-strategic nuclear weapons. General Jones’ “good news” could not be shared.
History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe 1954-2008
By keeping the withdrawals secret, NATO and the United States have missed huge opportunities to engage Russia directly and positively about reductions to their non-strategic nuclear weapons, and to improve their own nuclear image in the world in general.
Production Gun Industry
ChartThe annual number of firearms exported from the United Kingdom is reported by manufacturers to be
2018: 40,274 106
2014: 87,652 107
ChartThe annual value of small arms and ammunition exports from the United Kingdom is reported by Customs to be US$
2016: 101,000,000 108
2015: 159,670,011 109
2012: 174,266,049 109 110 111
2011: 112,052,237 112
2010: 79,000,000 113
2001: 61,000,000 110
The annual number of firearms imported to the United Kingdom is reported to be
ChartThe annual value of small arms and ammunition imports to the United Kingdom is reported by Customs to be US$
2016: 120,000,000 119
2015: 224,924,468 109
2012: 227,816,473 109 120 121 122 123
2011: 121,643,569 112 124 125
2010: 180,000,000 126
2001: 71,000,000 120 127
ChartIn its annual Small Arms Trade Transparency Barometer, the Small Arms Survey compares public reporting among major arms exporting nations on a scale from strong to weak (25 to zero). In recent years, the United Kingdom scored
2019: 18.25 135
2018: 20.00 136
2017: 19.25 137
2016: 19.75 138
2014: 19.50 139
2013: 19.25 140
2012: 19.75 141
2011: 20.00 142
2010: 18.75 143
2009: 19.00 144
2008: 19.25 145
2007: 16.00 146
2006: 13.75 147
2005: 16.50 148
2004: 15.00 149
Walpole’s religious policy was also designed to foster social and political quiescence. Traditionally the Whig party had supported wider concessions to the Protestant dissenters (Protestants who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity but who refused to join in the worship of the state church, the Church of England). They had been given freedom of worship under the Toleration Act of 1689 but were barred from full civil rights and access to university education in England. In 1719 the Whigs had repealed two pieces of Tory legislation aimed against dissent, the Schism and the Occasional Conformity acts. These concessions ensured that Protestant dissenters would be able to establish their own educational academies and hold public office in the localities, if not in the state.
There was always a danger, however, that too many concessions to Protestant dissent would alienate the Church of England, which enjoyed wide support in England and Wales. There were 5,000 parishes in these two countries, each containing at least one church served by a vicar (minister) or a curate (his deputy). For much of the 18th century these Anglican churches provided the only large, covered meeting places available outside of towns. They served as sources of spiritual comfort and also as centres for village social life. At religious services vicars would not only preach the word of God but also explain to congregations important national developments: wars, victories, and royal deaths and births. Thus churches often supplied the poor, the illiterate, and particularly women with the only political information available to them. Weakening the Church of England therefore struck Walpole as unwise, for at least two reasons. Its ministers provided a vital service to the state by communicating political instruction to the people. The church, moreover, commanded massive popular loyalty, and assaults on its position would arouse nationwide discontent. Walpole therefore determined to reach an accommodation with the church, and in 1723 he came to an agreement with Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London. Gibson was to ensure that only clergymen sympathetic to the Whig administration were appointed to influential positions in the Church of England. In return, Walpole undertook that no further extensive concessions would be made to Protestant dissenters. This arrangement continued until 1736.
Collaboration with the Manhattan Project
As the United States organized preliminary research and administration, British scientific work remained far ahead. When President Roosevelt wrote to Churchill in August 1941 suggesting collaboration, Churchill responded unenthusiastically, preferring to keep the more advanced Tube Alloys project separate. British leaders were also concerned with security. While Britain already had secrecy restrictions in place due to World War II, the British thought that the United States, not yet involved in the war, could be a liability. The irony of the situation, however, was that by this time the British project was already infiltrated by several Soviet spies including Klaus Fuchs, Donald Maclean, and Guy Burgess.
Nevertheless, by 1942 the two countries had completely switched positions regarding scientific progress. A scientific mission to the U.S. led by Wallace Akers, the director of Tube Alloys, visited the S-1 committee as well universities where preliminary research had begun. They were greatly impressed by the organizational abilities and scientific resources the Americans had built up. During another visit, Michael Perrin, the secretary-general of Tube Alloys, noted that the U.S. would “completely outstrip us in ideas, research and application of nuclear energy and that then, quite rightly, they will see no reason for our butting in” (Paul 28).
As the British realized the slow progress of their project, Halban’s Cambridge team was transferred to Canada in the summer of 1942. At Chalk River, this group would develop one of the first heavy water reactors in the world. Around the same time, Churchill agreed that the British and American projects should be merged and a diffusion plant built in the United States.
Churchill proposed a five point agenda for collaboration:
- a free exchange of information should occur between the two nations
- an agreement to not use the bomb against each other
- an agreement to not use the bomb against other nations without consent of both
- an agreement not to share information with other parties without the consent of both
- the United States could have full use of British commercial and industrial capacities.
Despite resistance from United States advisors such as Vannevar Bush and James Conant, Churchill had a profound influence on President Roosevelt and the two eventually agreed to collaborate. In Quebec City on August 19, 1943, the two sides signed the Quebec Agreement, adopting most of Churchill’s five point plan. To ensure “full and effective collaboration,” the agreement established a Combined Policy Committee (CPC) with representatives from the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. It also gave the Manhattan Project the resources of British uranium, established a research center in Montreal, and ensured the participation of British scientists.
Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information.
In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
British Camouflage Patterns
- A panel from a hand-painted sniper's suit employed by the British Army during WW1 is seen below, consisting of paint-spatters and smudges on a khaki-green fabric background. Additionally, two more photos of individual, hand-painted suits employed by British and/or Canadian forces during the war are also illustrated.
- One of the earliest mass-produced British camouflage items was an oversized smock designed to provide the wearer some protection during a gas attack. Introduced around 1930 and known officially as the "Cape, Anti-Gas, No.1, Camouflaged," the knee length smock was printed with large brown blotches on a khaki or olive green background. The original fabric is lightweight cotton, but this was treated with linseed oil to make it water-repellent and as a result the treated capes have a fairly dark coloration. Many surviving examples have lost this original dark coloring resulting from boiling out the linseed oil, thus producing a "new" coloration of pinkish blotches on a sandy background. A common misconception about the surviving examples is that they were worn as desert camouflage by the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) and Special Air Service (SAS) in North Africa. This is a commonly encountered rumor that appears to have started with one or more militaria dealers looking to cash in on the appeal of items associated with these elite units.
- A version of the standard issue British Army Mk VIII Groundsheet (Raincape), which came into service in 1930 as well, was also produced with a camouflage pattern applied to it. The two-tone camouflage pattern of dark olive green on a khaki background is very similar to that of the earlier issued gas cape.
- The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was an organization charged with conducting irregular warfare, sabotage and espionage behind enemy lines during the Second World War. Operatives would frequently parachute into enemy-held territory and link up with local resistance movements, providing additional direction, instruction, equipment and materials for conducting clandestine warfare. A specialized camouflaged coverall, known as the SOE Jumpsuit was designed specifically for issue to these personnel, painted with large blotches of green & reddish-brown on a khaki base. As the fabric was hand-painted using different dye batches, considerable variation existed as to colors and style of printing. These suits were worn until the end of the war, although few survived as most were destroyed or discarded after the initial parachute drop.
- The Denison camouflage parachutist smock (or, as it is most commonly known, the "Denison smock)" was developed by the British Army in late 1941 to provide airborne troops with a camouflaged jacket that would aid their deployments behind enemy lines. The origin of the name "Denison" is shrouded in mystery. Although many publications attribute the name to a Major Denison (reputedly attached to a military camouflage unit under the command of stage designer Olive Messel), there appears to be no concrete documentation establishing this fact from wartime sources, nor made available to academic researchers like the British Airborne Assault Museum. ΐ] The original smocks were primarily made of medium weight windproof khaki-coloured cotton drill cloth and painted with non-colourfast dyes in broad green and brown coloured stripes or "brushstrokes." The camouflage design on these original smocks was widely believed to have been hand-painted using large, mop-like brushes, thus accounting for broad variation among early smocks. Yet despite lack of pattern repetition commonly found on roller-applied, mass-produced camouflage fabrics, the sophistication of the wartime brushstroke design suggests a higher degree of complexity was utilized during the application of the camouflage design, much more than could be achieved by simple manual labor. Α] Initially worn by members of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), the "Smock, Denison" became standard issue to all European Allied airborne and airlanding personnel, and was also worn by some Commandos, Royal Marines and Special Air Service operatives as well. Early model Denison smocks generally incorporated pea green and dark brown stripes, whilst the later pattern smocks varied from a sand to a light yellowish-olive combination, with overlapping brushstrokes of reddish brown and dark olive green.
- Introduced in 1942, the British "Windproof" pattern is in fact a variation of the brushstroke design printed on the early Denison smocks. Designed primarily for use in Northern Europe and produced using roller-printing machines, the pattern generally featured broad brushstrokes of dark brown & olive green on a pinkish-tan base. This design was issued as a lightweight two-piece Infantry oversuit and issued primarily to Infantry scouts & snipers during the Second World War. Later, a heavier weight one-piece uniform designed for armored crews was produced, although there is some debate over whether these were actually utilized during the war. The lightweight uniform became popular with British Special Forces (particularly the SAS Regiment) after the war and continued in service with them into the 1970s. Surplus stocks were also given to the French government, which issued the suits to units fighting in the First Indochina War. The examples below illustrate the wide variability of color encountered with the pattern.
- All-white winter camouflage was introduced during the Second World War for issue in snowy conditions. These uniforms were not insulated but made from lightweight fabric and designed to be worn over the normal woolen combat clothing. Use of overwhites for mountain and arctic warfare has continued well into the present era.
- From 1946 until the mid-1950s, Britain continued to produce the Denison smock for use by both Airborne Forces and elements of the Royal Marines. Although early postwar smocks are essentially indistinguishable from the war era versions (excepting the nomenclature on their labels), the brushstroke camouflage design on some later models of this period exhibit a higher degree of intricacy to the pattern itself, enough to often be easily distinguished from wartime models. Β] Most of the smocks from this period are of similar construction to the wartime versions.
- Beginning in 1959 the parachutist smock was redesigned and re designated the "Smock Camouflage '59 Pattern." The brushstroke patterns utilized on these smocks were much more widely varied than observed in previous models. Γ] The 1959 pattern smock camouflage (and those produced thereafter) have a distinctively different look to them than the patterns found on earlier Denisons, yet can also be distinguished from one another by characteristics such as density of application, dye color, base fabric color, and even the details of the "brush trails" which range from very fine, to thick and spotty. Many of the camouflage examples from this period exhibit a lighter and more prominent background, incorporating only two additional colours (usually brown and green) to create the basic brushstroke overprint. These smocks were produced into the 1970s, and despite the standardization in manufacturing and printing technique, they still show much variation in colour and hue depending on when they were produced. The 1959 pattern Denison smock was worn primarily by members of the Parachute Regiment in theatres such as the Suez and Ulster (Northern Ireland), although there is evidence to suggest it was also issued in limited quantities to the Royal Marines (RM).
- By the mid to late-1960s, the Denison smock would see its final incarnation as a distinctive item of camouflage clothing. Re-designated now the "Smock Camouflage 840599973," of particular note with regards to the camouflage pattern, these smocks show the first signs of pattern repetition, indicating a significant change in the printing process. Additionally, the brushstrokes on these late pattern smocks are applied much more sparingly than those encountered earlier, with a consistent yellow-khaki base color. Production of this smock would continue until the mid-1970s, with official dates of withdrawal beginning in 1977. By 1980, the Denison smock would be replaced with a DPM version of the parachutist smock. Δ]
- In 1966 the British Ministry of Defense issued the Pattern 1960 DPM (P60), the first in a long line of Disruptive Pattern Material uniforms to be issued by the British Armed Forces. The cut of the standard uniform was based on the Pattern 60 olive green combat uniform, but made in the DPM material. Additional versions were produced in the style of the M1942 Windproof uniform, and worn by British Special Forces. It is difficult to classify British DPM designs because so many different versions have been produced, yet only the type of uniform has ever received an official classification. Adding to the confusion, uniform classifications (P60, P68, P84) quite often conflict with the year in which the uniform was first issued. Subsequent uniform types may have initially been produced using the same printing of fabric of the previous model (P68, P84), while in most cases several production variants were also fielded in a single uniform classification. Illustrated below are two variations of the earliest known productions of DPM fabric, which would have appeared on the P60 Combat Uniform. Both designs also appeared on the 1968 Pattern Combat Uniform.
- Replacing the Pattern 1960 Combat Uniform was the Pattern 1968 (P68). The uniform had a number of modifications based on the experience with the Pattern 60 as well as additional items such as a detachable hood, peaked field cap and lined cold weather cap. The P68 uniform was worn by British troops during the Falklands War (1982). Early versions of the DPM Parachutist's Smock (1977 or 78) were also manufactured in this time period, using the same camouflage print. Several color variations of DPM have been documented on this uniform, including the two patterns illustrated above. Those illustrated below are the more common variants.
- Circa 1985, a newer version of the standard Combat Uniform began to replace the P68. Called the Pattern 1984 (P84), the new uniform reflected lessons learned during the Falklands War. The P84 uniform would remain standard issue to British military personnel for the next ten years. Illustrated below is the most commonly encountered pattern variant, as well as a rare version with the grass green replaced by a more olive color.
- The Pattern 1994 Combat Uniform was introduced in 1994 and remained in service for less than two years. Only smock and trousers were produced, and the colorations of these uniforms generally remain distinct from the previous or later versions.
- First introduced in the 1970s and continuing to be issued as a distinctive type of combat uniform was the Tropical DPM uniform. Known officially as "No. 9 Dress," the tropical uniform was the MOD's attempt to address the needs of the British soldier operating in very warm tropical climates such as Belize, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Both shirt and trousers were differently designed from the standard combat uniform and made of lighter weight fabric. Additionally, in most instances the DPM pattern printed on the fabric was of a different coloration to that of the standard temperate combat uniform of that time period. Over the twenty-five years that the Tropical uniform was issued, several variations of DPM were printed for this uniform. As with other DPM variations, they are almost impossible to classify unless the uniform itself can be dated by such features as the buttons, style of tag, and type of fabric used. Illustrated below are several different styles of tropical DPM worn over the years (from earliest to latest).
- Originally issued in the 1970s, the Windproof uniform (consisting of smock and trousers) were initially designed for issue to British Special Forces. The ultimately became popular with other services and conventional soldiers as well, and could be found scattered throughout various units during the 1980s and 1990s. Although the DPM pattern itself did not vary much from that found printed on the standard cotton modal fabric of the period, the windproof fabric was lighter weight and more comfortable when damp.
- In 1992 a new type of Tropical Combat uniform was produced using breathable "Aertex" type fabric (nicknamed "teabag"). Although the styling of the uniform remained consistent to previous tropical issue clothing, the old style buttons were replaced by those used on the temperate clothing. The uniforms reputedly did not wear well, and were replaced by the Soldier 95 series clothing.
- The Soldier 95 Uniform was introduced in 1995 and marked a complete revisitation of the combat uniform concept. Casting aside the old concept of having a Temperate and a Tropical combat uniform, the British government decided to issue a single uniform ensemble to all services, capable of functioning in any environment. The basic ensemble consists of a ventile smock, combat shirt (like the old Tropical shirt) and lightweight combat trousers. Additional articles of clothing for layering in cold climates and field equipment were also produced in the DPM camouflage for the Soldier 95 system.
- The OPFOR (Opposing Forces) unit of the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) wear a variation of DPM with a blue/purple colorway to distinguish them from regular forces.
- Lessons learned by British troops in Afghanistan led to the Multi Terrain Pattern - being introduced in the British Army from 2010. The pattern is a hybrid of the CryeMulticam and the traditional DPM. The pattern has been copyrighted by the British MoD.
- In early summer 2020, the Ministry of Defense announced that the Royal Marines would adopt a new uniform for combat deployments. Adopted as part of the Future Commando Program, the uniform is made by Crye Precision and uses the patented Multicam camouflage design.
7 Answers 7
Because no one in their right minds would think Britain should use a weapon of mass destruction on Argentina over the Falklands, what with its 1600 population. Even then the well documented concept of a nuclear taboo was in effect. No one regarded nuclear bombs as normal bombs, and therefore no one wanted to use it so casually. The Falkland Islands were not, after all, in any way an existential crisis for Britain.
The Argentinians specifically were undeterred because they didn't really think the United Kingdom would actually respond (that is, aside from diplomatic noises). Their hope was that a quick, clean takeover would present a fait accompli that London would then have to live with. In this they were inspired by the Indian takeover of Goa which was similarly greeted only with indignant but quickly-forgotten words.
Several specific events reinforced this belief in the Junta's minds:
- Sir John Nott's 1981 defence review was interpreted by the Argentinians as a lack of desire to militarily defend the Falklands, and encouraged them to think Britain would soon not be able to do so either. The 1981 nationality law would have downgraded the Falkland Islanders from full British citizens into British Overseas Territories Citizens. This was interpreted as a sign that Britain was creating a distance with the Falklands. As the talks in New York stalled, Argentinian press began talking of using force. Although this was said to have alarmed the British Government, little was done in response. British silence was seen as further affirmation of the belief that London will simply accept an Argentinian invasion. A preliminary operation by the Argentinian military, which would lead to the invasion of South Georgia, was noticed by the British military in March. While plans were made to evict them with Royal Marines, ultimately Britain did little beyond vain attempts at diplomacy. This confirmed to the Argentinians that Britain would not react to Argentina invading. A week later the decision was made.
There was a good deal of bellicose comment in the Argentine press in late February and early March . It would have been absurd to dispatch the fleet every time there was bellicose talk in Buenos Aires.
-- Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons, 3 April 1982
Doesn't the quote in the question answer it? Argentina, as a non-nuclear state, was not threatening "nuclear blackmail". The UK's rapid recapture of the Falklands by conventional means demonstrates (with the benefit of hindsight) that Argentina's invasion was not an "[act] of aggression against our vital interests that [could not] be countered by other means."
The signatory states of the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) with nuclear weapons (and the UK is one of these) have made it clear that they will not use nuclear weapons against signatory states without nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.
So unless the UK wanted to throw the NPT into the dustbin and risk nuclear proliferation, they could not use nuclear weapons against Argentina.
The Argentians were not deterred by the fact that Britain possessed nuclear weapons, because they believed that the British would not plausibly use nuclear weapons against them.
The Argentians apparently believed their invasion could succeed, because the British lacked both the willpower and the capability to evict them, so they would just get away with it.
This highlights the fundamental issue with nuclear weapons. Not very useful in anything except a total/suicide/M.A.D. war, or as a terrorist device.
Basically, anyone with nukes has to stop and think, "how will history judge us?" if they were to use those nukes for anything less than stopping a major threat to their very existence. I can't believe your question is serious -- there is no way that Britain would think of using nukes to maintain their claim to some remote islands. They had sufficient conventional power (armed forces) to do the job.
The US has never quite shaken accusations that we were too eager to make a nuclear attack on Imperial Japan in the closing months of WWII, and that has helped stay our hand when hotheads were arguing for the use of nukes against the USSR, in Korea, in Vietnam, and probably elsewhere. You can argue all you want that (in hindsight) Japan was about to collapse anyway, from our submarine blockade and round-the-clock bombing, but to our leaders at the time, it genuinely looked like invading them to wrap up the war would be terribly costly.
I could see making a preemptive nuclear attack on someone nuclear-armed like Pakistan, if they were to continue sliding into a radical Islamist culture. They would just be too dangerous to have around with such weapons (including handing them over to the Taliban). Likewise, radical nutjob North Korea, if it builds up a large enough nuclear arsenal to genuinely threaten South Korea or Japan, would have to be taken out preemptively. Of course, their own use of even a single nuke against us or our friends should result in their obliteration. Let's hope these scenarios don't come to pass, but they might.
The only nation which has ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy was the US, and it used them against Japan to end the war in a way that Japan would not forget. ever. Argentina's aggression did not rise to even a remote resemblance to that of Japan's against the US.
All of which leads to an intriguing answer and thought : Britain didn't use nuclear weapons against Argentina because Argentina was being silly and all it needed was a taste of old school Royal Marine stuff. In any event, Who in today's world would use nuclear arms against an enemy? Answer: Only in symmetrical warfare or terrorism.
All of which leads to a thought that crosses my mind from time to time which I immediately reject because I cannot point to or express any connecting impression or idea which supports it. In fact, it is easily ridiculed as silly tin hattery. But from time to time, the thought crops up and winks a wink at me over my whisky and water..wa
The thought: True terrorism which was seeking relevance for its cause would use a nuclear weapon. So why doesn't it.
Nuclear weapons are easy to build or easily obtained from a nuclear state. That history might denounce this true terrorist surely will not stop one whose belief system is that destroying a non-believing enemy even if it means destruction to oneself is preferable to allowing the non-believing enemy to exist. So why hasn't one been used by the Oceania ubiquitous terrorism we are informed of 24/7/365 by almost every media outlet in the world? Yes, thousands die each year at the hands of insane people who blow themselves up. and that is the reason for my thought. Insane people are the ones doing it. and there is no want of insane people in this world . but that is a far cry from a world wide terrorism. even if we can attach it to the Muslim faith because there are those Muslims de minimus in number, but made large by media exposure, who vociferously believe the insanity of killing innocents as a means to an end.
That no nuclear weapon has been used by those who profess to engage in terrorism as a means to their end--And what exactly is the end of the terrorism we see reported?-- suggests that there is a probability that the terrorists are kept in play by those who are desirous of ensuring anti-terrorist authoritarian control mechanisms which work exceedingly well against civilian populations and which could not be maintained outside an atmosphere of fear of terrorism. And this leads to the thought that terrorism is sponsored by those who desire to maintain authoritarian control over populations, but cannot do so without some excuse. And the best excuse, bar none, is fight against a potentially nuclear armed existing world wide terrorist threat.
Corporations which control governments are the only group of people who seem to benefit from terrorist control measures. Corporate sponsored private or military anti-terrorist forces in nations whose resources they are exploiting work remarkably well at keeping the local population in line when it complains about the exploitation. Think of those nations which own the World Bank and the IMF and the other banking interests and their corporate clients and corrupt governments. With information instant in today's world, there must be a boogy man out there necessitating all that anti-terrorist armed force out there.