"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #1 
I was recently sent a chart by a sister which apparently is from the Daily Mail, which was intended to show how far Britain is behind Russia in the development of forces. How they dwarf us.jpg 

It is an interesting chart. It wouldn’t seem to me to demonstrate whether or not Britain is dwarfed by Russia, as suggested by the author. Rather it demonstrates the thinking behind the formation of these forces. Britain’s intent is to have a force which can defend Britain. While it may not look like it according to that chart, it has easily achieved that goal.

 

It has not developed a navy which can project force. They have no Air Craft Carriers, and no Battle Cruisers by which they can attack or defend a distant land. They do have two mid size Air Craft Carriers under construction, one due to be launched 2016, the other 2018, and both hopelessly behind the original schedules. But the new carriers will be defensive weapons, like the rest of Britain’s forces. They are 3/4s the size of the American Carriers, and can’t launch fixed wing aircraft. They are not nuclear, so they must constantly be refueled, which is not a problem around the British Isles. It is a real problem in the Middle East.

Why this is relevant to prophetic discussion is in regards to God’s ordination of the modern Tarshish to defend Israel. If you have only built enough vessels to defend your own country, what do you use to go and defend another? Bro. Thomas pointed out that Tarshish doesn’t defend Israel out of love for Israel, but out of its own desire for "self aggrandizement." So the nation that defends Israel must do so with its own interests well protected. Britain cannot do this.

Look at the Gulf War for an example of what it takes to project force into the Middle East. This is the size of the coalition Blue Water fleet that was sent over the course of time to fight only Iraq.

8 Air Craft Carriers (7 USA, 1 France)
2 Battleships (All USA) (Both vessels now decommissioned)
17 Battle Cruisers (All USA)
19 Destroyers ( 12 USA, 4 UK, 1 Italy, 2 Canada)
20 Frigates (12 USA, 5 UK, 3 Italy)

Is it not clear that Britain could not have amassed the forces needed to fight just one nation in the Middle East, let alone all of Europe when Europe advances onto the mountains of Israel? And Britain was only able to participate in the Gulf War, because there was no threat to Britain itself, which allowed the British shores to be patrolled by NATO. Otherwise it never would have sent 4 of its 6 destroyers, and 5 of its 13 Frigates to the Middle East. Project this to Armageddon, when all of Europe will be Britain’s enemy. Will they be able to spare vessels to go and fight in the Middle East?

But can the USA amass a force necessary to defend Israel? This is the current size of the US Blue Water Navy. (Blue Water is a designation given to vessels whose purpose is to fight on the open sea, as opposed to Brown Water Navy, which are vessels intended to transport land forces, and fight in the shore areas.)

US Vessels: Active

10 Air Craft Carriers
22 Cruisers
63 Destroyers
13 Frigates
4 Litoral Combat Ships
55 Nuclear Attack Subs

Regardless of what the chart says, the following is the actual Blue Water strength of Britain and Russia. The chart that fellow assembled seems to have Britain correct, but over states Russia.

Russia

1 Air Craft Carrier (Some analysts consider this a Cruiser, as it is small for a Carrier and can’t launch fixed wing aircraft.)
7 Cruisers
14 Destroyers
6 Frigates
16 Nuclear Attack Subs

Britain

6 Destroyers
13 Frigates
6 Nuclear Attack Subs

The USA currently has 167 major Blue Water fighting vessels.
Russia has 42 major Blue Water fighting vessels.
The UK has 25 major Blue Water fighting vessels.

The USA Blue Water Navy is four times the size of Russia in numbers. If I were to produce the figures for the Brown Water Navies, it would show the USA Brown Water Navy to be three times larger than Russia. If we were to compare the military capability of the forces, we would see that the USA is ten times more powerful, than Russia. A military book called "Janes All the World’s Fighting Ships" rates each US Carrier, more powerful than any European Air Force, save Russia. And both the UK and USA ships are much more modern than the Russian forces. That is what The Ships of Tarshish is Scripturally supposed to look like at the time of the end, according to bro. Thomas.

Brethren over the years have been uneasy with bro. Thomas’ idea of how powerful the Ships of Tarshish must be at the start of Armageddon. They reason if the Ships of Tarshish are this powerful, how will Russia defeat them, as prophesied in Ezek. 38? It is not Russia that defeats them, but God. The pride and power of the Tarshish fleet will be destroyed by the "East Wind" (Psa. 48:7), not by Russia. That is the teaching of bro. Thomas. The "East Wind" (probably some combinations of Volcanos, Tsunamis, and Hurricane force winds--not unlike the original destruction of the Minoan society, by Thera) cripples the Tarshish fleet, and creates a vacuum in the Middle East that Russia will rush into, who then conquers Jerusalem, and will hold it till the Rainbowed Angel stands on the Mount of Olives in that Great Day of Ail Shaddai.


JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #2 
Just a note.  In looking at the Russian Navy in more detail, the 34 ship figure is very much an exaggeration.  Many of the ships included, are not functional at all, and are in permanent storage.  Russia says a few of them are being retrofitted, but the reality is that they are old hulls, which probably cannot see the sea again.  The true figure of actually floating ships for Russia is 1 mid size carrier, 1 large battle cruiser, 3 light battle cruisers, 13 Destroyers, and 4 Frigates.  That would be 22 Blue Water warships, not 34 as shown in the chart.

That would compare to the UK's 19 Frigates and Destroyers, or 20, if we include their one remaining Carrier, (An Invincible Class Amphibious Assault Ship) which is smaller, but has a similar capability to the Russian Carrier.  The two navies are essentially the same in size, with the UK Navy being far more modern.
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #3 
Steve sent out another article which claims to measure the strength of the Russian Army, this time.  It showed the Russian army as vastly superior to the US Armor.  The notion, to anyone who follows this at all, is ridiculous.  The article says:
Quote:
In the relatively low-tech, high fire-power weapons that have defined the Ukraine conflict, it remains unsurpassed, with more tanks, self propelled artillery, and multiple rocket launch systems than any other country on the planet.


They show the US with just under 9000 tanks, and Russia with over 15,000 tanks.  So what is the true story.
The US does have approximately 9000 tanks, all Abrams 1 or newer versions.  The Russians have just rolled off a tank which may be somewhat the equivalent of the Abrams, but they have no numbers of these to speak of, at all, just a plan to build them.  They are still in the testing phase, and Russia has no money.

What they have is

930 T-90 Battle Tanks.
188 T-80 Battle Tanks
2,275 T-72 Battle Tanks

That is their entire force.  To get the 15,000 figure, they are measuring the reserved tank fleet, which are tanks that essentially have to be rebuilt before use.  They have about 8000 T-72 tanks in reserve, and they have 4,500 T-80s in reserve.

The T-72 is the tank that the Southern forces fought against in Gulf War I.  The Abrams was outnumbered 20 to 1 in that contest, but had no problem dispensing the T-72.  The T-80 was supposed to be an improved version, but it performed more poorly than the T-72.  The T-80 will be completely out of service by the end of this year.  The T-80 performed so poorly, that the T-72s from the reserved fleet will be used to replace the retiring T-80s.  The T-90 is a revamped T-80, and has performed better, but would still be no match for the Abrams.

The new tank is the only real battle tank.  And they are just starting to produce them.

The Russians, like all statists, have designed their military "inward."  That is, the military fears their greatest threat is from the local population, not opposing nations.  These tanks will be impressive against a native population, but would not for even a second, stand up against NATO forces.

That brings me to bro. Steve's letter from bro. Lister.  Bro. Lister called it a "Tarshish Fleet" that was in the Baltic Sea playing war games against the Russians.  That was a Nato force.  NATO is not Tarshish.  Never will be.  Both the US and Britain must depart their roles in NATO.  Then the battle lines will be drawn.

When that happens, these antiquated battle tanks will have real meaning to the helpless and foolish Continental Europeans.  Russia will roll her tanks across Europe, forming the great King of the North that comes down upon the mountains of Israel.  But it will not be Russia who conquers the King of the South.  The King of the South is, and will continue to be much too powerful for the northern alliance.  It will be the East Wind (the natural powers of the earth unleashed by God) which blows upon the Ships of Tarshish, destroying them, just as the volcanic explosion of Mt. Thera destroyed the sons of Tarshish of old.  It is into the void created by God, to which Russia will descend.

Jim
broDLEE

Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #4 
There is a comical side to what bro Jim is saying about the Russian tanks.  It was reported in the news today that the new tank of which Jim speaks, the T-14 Armata, so called "super-tank", stalled in a rehearsal for a May 9 Victory parade.  The tank eventually got rolling again, but it would appear there may be some kinks to be ironed out.  The details can be read here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32628236


Dale


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: