Added: 4 years ago
From: funnyflyingdutchgirl
Views: 53,901
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (75)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • is it me or does Mr Tapling sound like a Seagull?

  • Horatio is finding out the horrible cost of Foster's ego. Even if he'd have been there he wouldn't have cared that someone like Finch died. He would have been eating well unlike Pellew who joins the men in their suffering. An excellent lesson for Horatio. He didn't owe anyone his life like he owed Finch. His character was defined in many ways by these men who taught him life's lessons. Some things you just can't get from a book.

  • And not surprisingly, the Americans are chest pounding about their own military might, I see humility is not one of their qualities. Give it a rest, you sound disgustingly arrogant. Nice to see Hornblower cares about the men, good man.

  • 7-56, Is that where the name for the breeches-buoy came from?

  • The guy at 6:25...the "Ten shillings for the lot" fellow...where have I seen him before?

  • @ThatsMrMoronToYou Of course...he was in The Pianist.

  • How did i guess Ian McNeice would be playing the diplomat. He really is a legend :)

  • Anyways, this show had a major blunder. Around 7:40 Captain Pellew mentions Iran. Funny, considering the name Iran was given after 1914 to the new republic by Britain. As of 1800 "Iran" was Persia, a part of the Ottoman Empire.

  • @karma212 Actually, he's saying "Oran" which is a city in present-day Algeria, on the Mediterranean coast.

  • @Mare416 thanks for the fact check

  • @karma212 He mentions Oran, not Iran. in any case iran or persia was ever a part of ottoman Empire! Iran(persia) exists since 3000 years

  • @samythekid2003 yeah i only realized the mistake ( i typed too fast and thought too fast) after it was posted. but thanks for clarifying. Oran makes sense.

  • Comment removed

  • That guy from the diplomatic service is FUNNNYYY!

  • history has shown the brits still know there sht**

  • I'm no expert but this scene strikes me as total bollocks! What use would a fireship be against a free sailing ship in open sea? They were used to break up anchored fleets and to cause panic and disarray but in this situation the supply ship could have just sailed away from it. A good example of their use was against the Spanish Armada. The Spanish fleet was forced to break formation and scatter to avoid the fireships but not one was damaged by them, they just became easier targets.

  • @StandTogetherForver

    British Marines better than UCMC? Please, The British pay off the Taliban not to attack them in Afghanistan while USMC is currently clearing British area of operations there. Research before you say thing.

  • @akaokami Hah! I'd love to see your 'research' of that...

  • @akaokami Why don't you learn to read before YOU say anything. He's comparing the differences between the Royal Marines and the USMC, eg: 32 weeks basic training for the RM versus 12 weeks for the USMC. That has nothing to do with what you think is happening in Afghanistan. That's a whole other debate but you might want to consider the British Army\Navy has 100s of years of experience in overseas fighting. The US are amateurs who use tactics which can never work.

  • @akaokami where do you get your info?

  • @akaokami

    In that case then check yiours. In the 1990's NATO forces where restuctured and as part of it almost the entire British Army infantry (including the Royal Marines) became 1st echelon troops, leaving almost no support infantry in the British army. This means that in the British sector of Afghanistan (Helmand) there is not enough troops/equipment to domuinate the land and so peace is maintained by a series of operations or sweeps, leaving other countries, primarily the US, to garrison.

  • hornblower=nice:)

  • wuts a fireship?

  • Its a ship, usually a captured enemy or old model that is loaded and set on fire. It is then steered into a harbor or standing fleet of enemy catching as many other ships as possible. Sometime set the power magazine off if possible at the right time.

  • cool =D thanks for answering me

  • In the time of Elizabeth I, Drake used fire ships to burn the fleet anchored at Cadiz.

    This became known as singeing the King of Spain's beard.

  • thanks for uploading these funnyflyingdutchgirl :)

  • did the seamen get paid more than soldiers in those days?

  • no i dont think so

  • in terms of wages, no. But then again, the seamen on the Indy do get prize money, even though their portion would be extreamly minute. It would about add up to be a bit more than the army. Especially because the army pay, alot of it was taken out of it for 'essentials' and the actual wage was the left over.

  • Need to remember that at that time many were pressed into service, basically forced.

  • @umakeiwatch definantly. Also the Navy didn't have the same system of commissions that Army officers had. The Navy was vital for Britian and as such was a well paid and highly professional force. The officers all had to have experience as the ships were very expensive to produce and maintain. Would make sense also that seamen were paided more than soldiers because of the skills that their jobs required.

  • You know what, I FUCKING LOVE Hornblower!

  • what did he do, but ah SHarpe is awsume, they both are, so is Jack Aubrey

  • give that man some antibiotics!!

  • My apologies 'theWall0719'...I did not note that you were Canadian rather than British.

    As a Canadian, I would hope that you have noted that the 'heretical' (nominally Protestant) 'democratic' nations of the west are commited to battle against the Saracen of the east? Which historic enemy of both the US and Great Britain (and the Commonwealth besides) benefits?

    Hint: The answer lies in the solely Papal colors of your 'new' flag.

  • Why didn't the Spanish never lauch an assault on Gibraltar by land? they could have taken the most important naval base in the Meditherenean

  • think about it, if the spanish launched an invasion into gibraltar, sooner or later the british would have launched an invasion into spain.

  • it was never viable to attempt a direct attack on gibralter, it was always too well protected by its regiment and the significant number of British warships in port at any one time in addition to the nature of the rock itself, an almost perfect natural fortress.

  • "\The Great Siege of Gibraltar was an unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France to capture Gibraltar from the British during the American War of Independence. This was the largest action fought during the war in terms of numbers particularly the Grand Assault of the 18 September 1782. It was the longest siege endured by the British Armed Forces, as well as being one of the longest continuous sieges in history."

  • You cant compare the US marines and the Royal marines, the US is more about discipline the whole point is just basic training and be able to work at a unit. Royal marines are more specialist highly trained, meant to work individually relying more on intelligence than discipline

  • When it comes to Royal marines vs United states marines, they aren't comparable, they only share the word "marine" other than that the Royal marines are far superiour in training experience and ability (they are a special forces and number around 3000), while the USMC are more like a standard army (120.000'ish) and just have large numbers and alot of resources, ye but they are both cool.

  • US Marines have elite groups within such as Recon /Force Recon/Anglico/Snipers

  • Yes "within", my point was US marines are more like an army upon themselves as Royal marines as a whole are a commando unit.

  • yep and remember that it's US Marine corps, so it's an army division, and not stands for a single unit

  • USMC Gunnery Sergeants train the US Naval Officer Corps, as well as the Aviation Officer Corps. The Marines provide security on shore and ship (MarDet). The Marines are the core of the US amphibious assault forces and are NOT 'an army division'. Their commitment to Constitution and their esprit de corps is palpable. Their numbers are commensurate with their wider responsibilities. The historical record alone bears out their quality, in stark contrast to others 'watered- down' 'marines'.

  • Dsepite how highly trained they may be they are not a special forces type unit, which is what the British marines are.

    As for your historical record argument, it's skewed b/c no nation has fought as many wars as the US in the modern era.

  • One must discern the dividing line between the RM and the RM Commando. They are two distinct forces.

    The commando may of course rely on the RM for applicants and logistics...just as the SAS rely on largely army applicants and supply...just as the SEALS rely on the USN, etc.

    As for specious arguments, you seem to neglect that the US has not even existed for as long as the aggregate of the terms of only several of your wars.

  • *cough* though other countries have won more wars in the modern era... Hard to think of a single decisive US victory in a war since WW2

  • Lol. Maybe b/c there hasn't been one.

  • See my reply to neverfear...

  • Ask the people of Kuwait if our victory was decisive there...or if there is a survivor of the "Highway of Death" if our military might wasn't all powerful.

  • @StandTogetherForever royal marines are one of 2 special main forces, the other being para's, royal marines focus among harassment and skirmish while also engineering and covert-ops missions, within they're numbers are the highest acceptance rate for the SAS the worlds best, the others mostly para's

  • @TheKhergit No, the SBS accept the most royal marine commandos, since they are both naval branches, and 1 Para SFSG are most frequently accepted into the SAS since they are both airbourne infantry. I should know, I'm in 3 Para. 1 of my mates is doing SAS selection.

  • @StandTogetherForever

    you dont call a Marine Corps an army

    the US Marines are highly deployable elite infantry that are capable of any mission and leveling entire cities in a matter of weeks. They stemmed the tide of the German spring offensive of 1918 when the rest of th British force retreated for three days.

    The Royal Marines are a special force incapable of being counted on serving as regular infantry

    IEDs, mortars and taliban sniper fire dont care how much training you have

  • @USMCM249gunner Army was the wrong word, I merely meant that the USMC is such a huge force and that the Royal Marines are more like a Specialist force, I know the USMC has units like the Royal Marines within their ranks, my original comment was addressed to someone (I have forgotten now it was over 2 years ago ) that just because the USMC and the RM have the word "Marines" in their title doesn't make them the same kind of force, I apologise if my comment caused you any offence.

  • @USMCM249gunner I also see you were/are in the USMC and would just like to say that I am glad such a proffesional and effective force such as yours is allies with my nation and I am glad you and you're nations military and my own (UK) are watching out for one another in Afghanistan and have been through many conflicts to date, all the best.

  • @StandTogetherForever

    I cant understand why an island nation like UK would neglect its Maritime attack force, rather than exploit them to their advatange.

    our rise as a superpower was spearheaded by a very small force of Marines back in the early 1900s, to this day we can deploy 2 battalions on a very short notice to anyone's shores

    At the same time we dont have the grenadier tradition like the European armies did up even into WW2, our army stayed the same quality with little distinction

  • @USMCM249gunner Semper Fi , bro...but Jane's classifies us AS a special forces unit...all of the Corps !

  • @NamVetBuck

    The SF debate is just a modern boyish obsession with the camo faced ricky recon with a KBAR between his teeth...

    In my mind we were always elite infantry that could outshoot everyone else. I mean you dont hear of naval infantry being entrusted with holding the line in 1918 from anyone else.

    In Iraq, basic Marine grunts were usually supported by US Army SF or Iraqi SF because only their professionalism matched ours and was expected we'd cooperate better.

  • @StandTogetherForever I got news for ya bub , the USMC is considered "special forces" as a whole , look it up in Jane's. As for training, I had a Capt. that trained with the Brit Marines, and he trained us the same way. We go to Cold Weather Survival, Desert Warfare, Mountain Warfare, Sea Duty, and jungle training, as well as other schools during our tours of duty. As for Brit vs. USMC...guess the Marines on USS Constitution showed the Brit grunts what Marine sharpshooters can do.

  • @NamVetBuck

    btw, the fighting tops on the Frigate Alliance back in 1781 was a good time too haha

    Semper Fi

  • @StandTogetherForever Nice username, and comment.

  • im sure they did fish in times like this but this is purely for story telling "LET 'EM STARVE ! " for the sake of entertainment!

  • i have a question: if they are SO hungry, why don't they fish??

  • yeah good answer

  • with what?

  • A good point. No lines, no real bait, certainly no fishing-nets...How would they do it?

  • yeah british marines are the best

  • Semper Fidelis: Long live the US Marines!

    ...But I like english ones too...

  • I want to learn more about those Marines. Do have any source for the British, French, and Spanish Marine of the age?

  • i just googled it. Type "the british empire naval ranks"

  • Merci

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more