Matthew Warwick

16.8K posts

Matthew Warwick banner
Matthew Warwick

Matthew Warwick

@mpwarwick

Graduate in International Politics & Strategic Studies. Dabble in naval history. Frequently distracted by cricket.

England Katılım Temmuz 2009
482 Takip Edilen4.5K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
The King George V class were the most modern British battleships of the Second World War. They are perhaps best known for their actions against Bismarck in 1941 and Scharnhorst in 1943, as well as the sinking of Prince of Wales in December 1941. (1/x)
Matthew Warwick tweet media
English
14
27
279
0
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review cut the Royal Navy's frigate and destroyer force from 35 to 32 ships. Today, 28 years later, the force sits at 11 ships with ambitions to reach 19. What commitments have been cut, and what tasks has the navy advised gov it can no longer do?
English
4
6
56
1.6K
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@BasPortie39604 As I said, plenty of blame to go to both parties, but the idea that the current problems are purely caused by the tories since 2010 is completely laughable.
English
0
0
2
38
Portie Bas
Portie Bas@BasPortie39604·
@mpwarwick And how many of the warships you mentioned being withdrawn were ordered by the Tories. Labour aren’t blameless but current problems are purely caused by Tories since 2010.
English
2
0
0
47
Portie Bas
Portie Bas@BasPortie39604·
@mpwarwick Yet the media and the Tories say it’s all Labours fault. Tories have form for this as they are the ones who cut defence spending in the 1930s as well and then tell the public they are the patriotic party.
English
1
0
1
174
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@niko13160 That’s not true and lessons of Ukraine-Russia, two land powers fighting an attritional war, in the Black Sea, a small sheltered body of water comparable in size to the North Sea, must by applied very carefully to naval conflict between major navies on an oceanic scale.
English
1
0
14
286
Srdjan Nikolic
Srdjan Nikolic@niko13160·
@mpwarwick Not so much, with satellite tech, unmanned tech and AI only subs can survive in the open sea. Look what Ukraine did to Russia without a real navy.
English
2
0
0
331
Gabriele Molinelli
Gabriele Molinelli@Gabriel64869839·
Meanwhile, predictably, the DiP's true picture becomes worse by the day as more of it becomes "clearer". Yesterday Written Answers reaffirm no new F-35 deliveries before the 2030s and even refuse to confirm Tranche 2's expected 27 jets number, which means the 15 Bs are at risk.
English
5
5
64
5K
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@bombermurray11 @HiddenHistoryYT Canberra was also a ‘County’, but of the Kent class rather than the London class. The differences between the two are very minor and these days usually grouped together as the County class.
English
1
0
1
15
Hidden History
Hidden History@HiddenHistoryYT·
The County class (London sub group) heavy cruiser HMS Sussex at Scapa Flow on October 12th 1942. At the time Sussex was part of the 1st Cruiser Squadron that was deployed in NW Approaches for interception of any break-out into the Atlantic by commerce raiders.
Hidden History tweet media
English
2
14
131
2.8K
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
(Yes, it was a different 2-pdr gun). The KGV also had 6,400 rounds for the 5.25-inch guns (80 lbs) and 1,000 rounds of 14-inch (1,590 lbs). The KGV could go at about 52 km/h, the Matilda II at 25 km/h. The KGV an operational range of 11,000 km, the Matilda II about 80 km.
English
2
1
13
507
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
Why warships are awesome. Just a different scale. See also a British KGV class battleship vs a Matilda II tank. The Matilda had a 2-pdr main gun with 93 rounds. The KGV also carried 2-pdr guns. It carried 86,400 rounds for them and could fire them all in about 20 minutes.
Historia Naval 2GM@SgmNaval

Torreta del acorazado Yamato vs Tanque Tiger vs un proyectil del navío. Una comparación que sirve para denotar el gran tamaño de las torretas del acorazado nipon.

English
2
11
105
7.5K
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
London in the sunshine - it's not all bad!
Matthew Warwick tweet mediaMatthew Warwick tweet mediaMatthew Warwick tweet mediaMatthew Warwick tweet media
English
0
0
8
360
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@Tstradesfx Augmenting the destroyer with LUSVs carrying additional missiles isn't the problem. The problem is cutting the 'destroyer' element and pretending it'll be a cheaper solution.
English
1
0
5
69
t
t@Tstradesfx·
@mpwarwick Given the new threat of drone swarms it just isn’t feasible for a destroyer to carry enough missiles. The type 83 was going to have 72-128 cells but what if the CCV itself has 60 and 2 missile barges with 48 each
English
1
0
0
85
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
Getting gaslit by our own government, again. It's absurd. The most cost effective way of delivering air defence capability is via conventional destroyers. It consolidates weapons, sensors and decision making on the same platform, with a crew for resilience and flexibility.
UK Defence Journal@UKDefJournal

The MOD says crewed and uncrewed ships together bring more missiles and mass, while the exquisite Type 83 would have meant too few ships for the Navy's tasks. Click image for more. ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-outlines-th…

English
9
22
144
13.1K
Paul
Paul@AutomatedAgile·
@mpwarwick They take too long to build. We have two to four years to be ready for war. Now is the time to panic build what you can, get all your subs in base for a retrofit before they go dark, mothball what won’t work in time.
English
4
0
0
147
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@thinkdefence @BO3673 50:50 at the moment, mostly because of the Dutch angle. Otherwise I'd probably put a small amount of money on just 3 being built, and sold to the public as replacing the 3 remaining Bays like for like (the Albions, Argus and old Ocean being ancient history by the 2030s!)
English
0
0
1
41
Phil
Phil@BO3673·
The big picture for DIP is that there wasn’t enough to expand the force. Instead expansion is being attempted through uncrewed mass. Maybe necessity will be the mother of invention but there won’t be any increases in battalions, squadrons or large vessels (except randomly 4 ATS).
Edward Stringer@edwardstrngr65

The DiP is final proof that the old ‘church’ of @DefenceHQ and its liturgies has failed. (The spin around announcements doesn’t last a day now.👇) Yet the old clerisy still trots out the same, lame scriptures. So what level of strategic shock *will* force the badly needed reset? (Sadly, one has to admit now that Healey’s Defence Reform, which could have been the catalyst for the reset, largely stalled at the rebadging stage. I wish Rupert Pearce well in building the NAD into what it needs to be but he is now battling the clerisy.)

English
3
2
15
3.2K
Think Defence
Think Defence@thinkdefence·
@BO3673 4 ATS are replacing 2 LPD, 4 LSD(A) and Argus 😀
English
4
1
13
1.8K
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
You only gain resilience and mass by increasing the numbers of CCVs, sensors and missiles. And that's not going to be cheaper..! Type 91/94 have a lot of merit if used to augment the conventional destroyer. But the current plan is daft.
English
1
1
26
522
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
Splitting this capability over multiple hulls doesn't save money, it just adds complications and risk. You're still reliant on 6 CCVs as 'nodes' while paying for more sensors and propulsion units. Individual platforms will still need a self-defence capability.
English
2
1
24
578
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
@LandSharkUK My issue is that doing it properly isn't going to be cheaper than a conventional destroyer. Taking weapons, radar and crew and putting them on different ships isn't magically going to save money. But it's being done for cost reasons...
English
3
0
19
464
Matthew Warwick
Matthew Warwick@mpwarwick·
A classic of the genre online - everything prior to December 1941 is one big mosh pit. The USSR has been invaded, lend-lease is in effect by this point, so presumably that’s how the war has been since whenever it broke out. Alas, the actual chronology doesn’t support this.
7% NaCl (Salty)@TwoRulesOfWar

65% of the Luftwaffe was deployed in the eastern front. If you seriously think that the RAF, as brave and as hard as they fought in the battle of Brittan could’ve held out against nearly the entire Luftwaffe, you’re nuts. Russia would’ve collapsed, and an occupation Army left in place. The Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht would’ve transferred the vast majority of those millions of soldiers to the west, now full of fuel from the captured Caucuses and hardened by going at it with the Red Army and established absolute air dominance over the channel and starved and bombed Britain into a negotiated surrender. Sure, the parliament and royal family would’ve relocated to Canada. The crown jewels will be hidden, the fleet would move overseas; the war would have continued from the Dominions – but Britain itself would almost certainly have been forced to negotiate if the Russians left the war. Without the convoys, Russia falls. If the Russians fall, it is only a matter of time until England falls between theU-Boats and the bombing. This is not detract from the courage of the RN or the RAF or the English people. It is pure math- and it’s born out by what happened to Japan. And don’t take my word for it. Stalin repeatedly used the implied threat of collapse and or negotiated surrender to manipulate the allies into doing what you wanted specifically increase lend-lease supplies, as well as the opening of second front take German pressure off of the Russian homeland. You can pretend you didn’t need US assistance all you want, but it was an Allied effort that defeated the Axis- and the early and most important contribution of the U.S. was food, fuel, ammunition and raw materials to an island nation under seige to allow them to survive until we could get our armies into the fight to help.

English
0
4
31
2.9K