ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Rodney2q

Showing your age now eh?

Actually I applied to RMAS while in the sixth form in the late '80s & attended RMAS when I was 18 so not quite HSF material when they were around. I would rejoin if the HSF was an option now, though.

The 2 factions, would these be:

1. Units deployable at the drop of a hat, as long as there will be someone to give them a lift?

2. Units deployable after the fighting has stopped (between some other nations, one of which we were supposed to be helping) and the ink on the surrender document has dried?

Given the recent MoD promotion of the TA integrating with the regulars more all I can see happening amongst the regular units is them maintaining equipment and units intended to be twice their size with a fraction of the men actually required to do so/ It won't end well, especially given the training/skills gap that will become obvious between the two.

This bit from the Indie article is interesting:

"The days of 13-year commitments – which the Afghan mission will come to by the time it ends – are over, it is felt. "Not only would something like that be logistically impossible in the future, but would show a failure of strategy," said one senior officer."

I think the policy makers are living in a dream land if they think the days of long term military committments are over just because someone wants or says this will be the case in the future. Op Banner, Op Telic, Operations in the former Yugoslavia and Op Herrick all point to military force being used for prolonged periods. Governments don't get to pick and choose to that degree which conflicts they can bail out of once they have started military operations. Strategy evolves and sometimes intial stratgey fails; there are multiple confounding factors which may make long term deployments the only option, however unattractive this may be. As ever with strategy statements in support of cut backs to the military they look good on paper but the reality is once your troops are on the ground and have to stay there because there's no viable alternative to force the gaps made by these cuts, in equipment, in time between tours and in logistical back-up will become all too apparent.

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Actually I applied to RMAS while in the sixth form in the late '80s & attended RMAS when I was 18 so not quite HSF material when they were around. I would rejoin if the HSF was an option now, though.

You young whipper-snapper! Youngsters today...etc etc...

Mind you, I would probably do the same.



Rodney2q

Originally Posted by LeoRoverman

All intelligence led, with less troops! Now where have I heard that before. I'll leave with this thought. 1914 just over a hundred years ago.......

Please tell me you're not in charge of the numbers!!!

Originally Posted by Jacques_Bustard

This bit from the Indie article is interesting:

"The days of 13-year commitments – which the Afghan mission will come to by the time it ends – are over, it is felt. "Not only would something like that be logistically impossible in the future, but would show a failure of strategy," said one senior officer."

I think the policy makers are living in a dream land if they think the days of long term military committments are over just because someone wants or says this will be the case in the future. Op Banner, Op Telic, Operations in the former Yugoslavia and Op Herrick all point to military force being used for prolonged periods. Governments don't get to pick and choose to that degree which conflicts they can bail out of once they have started military operations. Strategy evolves and sometimes intial stratgey fails; there are multiple confounding factors which may make long term deployments the only option, however unattractive this may be. As ever with strategy statements in support of cut backs to the military they look good on paper but the reality is once your troops are on the ground and have to stay there because there's no viable alternative to force the gaps made by these cuts, in equipment, in time between tours and in logistical back-up will become all too apparent.

Politicians know the future off by heart, it's a fact.

Remember how after WWI there was never going to be another big war? I don't remember another one...

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Charlie, I think you may have hit on a major bit of defence savings. No more ammunition, just cold steel.

I've posted this before but the 1907 Cavalry Training Manual had it right:



If we just recruited Gentlemen and stout Yeomen we wouldn't even need procurement as they could reasonably be expected to own a horse & sabre. Now where's my OBE for this cracking plan?

An OBN surely?

Must be shome mistake

Originally Posted by Mattb

Politicians know the future off by heart, it's a fact.

Remember how after WWI there was never going to be another big war? I don't remember another one...

I think there may have been one or two wars since 1945 but thankfully they were all over by Christmas.