Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
Interesting read in the ST today that shows earlier fears about the Cummings influence maybe just true. The CCF sized operation we will now have looks concerning (not sure what rank Johnson held in the CCF).

Defence chiefs have drawn up plans to slash the army by a quarter and reduce the Royal Marines to a bit part as part of Boris Johnson’s defence and security review.​
The drastic cuts, which would also close airfields and take helicopters out of service, were drawn up in response to Treasury demands that Whitehall departments map out cuts of 5% or more as part of the government’s comprehensive spending review.​
In the worst-case scenario:​
• Army manpower would fall from 74,000 to 55,000​
• The Royal Marines commando brigade would be disbanded, losing its artillery, engineers and landing craft. Royal Navy minesweepers would also face the axe​
• The RAF would shut several airbases and shed its fleet of Hercules transport planes and small Puma helicopters.​

If these cuts keep going, they may just as well do away with the military lock. stock and barrel and have done with it.

If this is implemented, there will be further cuts until there is nothing.

FWIW, we are almost at that stage already.
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
Save money on buying rifles by using wooden silhouettes, we will sign a contract with a manufacturer in China to make 100,000 service rifles at a moments notice.

Instead of using bullets in live firing exersizes, send out a training course in mastering the art of making the noise 'Pew, pew!

Instead of flying a hercules to drop the paras, just spread the paras out in the countryside on a windy day, spin around 5 times and pull the chord and jump as high as you can.
Hercules's will all be gone. We're down to south of 20 already.
 
And strong armed into giving them back, not, by the threat of Heavy Armoured Brigades, but by ships full of rough men with ‘taches and planes arriving off said rocks with ill intent.

exhibit A M’Lud..... the first time British Sovereign territory had been assailed by Jonathan Foreigner Esq since 1940, and the then much larger Army was not the answer.
“The Army was not the answer” is a ridiculous statement. For obvious reasons, it was a combined operation. “Joint” would probably be the phrase these days. You can’t transport thousands of troops thousands of miles with just the Army’s intrinsic assets.

You can’t occupy land without infantry, let alone take it by force. The Royal Navy has some and so does the RAF, but neither could do it on their own even then. It required the Army.

This might not suit your agenda, but perhaps the only country that could do that kind of operation today with one service would be the USA. The USMC today has pretty much all that was required then, assuming we call the LHA/D fleet and their associated escorts, submarines and auxiliaries USMC assets.

But that’s assuming that they jack all their other commitments to deploy a large enough force. In reality, it would be a joint operation, just like Corporate was. It wasn’t a Navy show, it wasn’t an RAF show, it wasn’t an Army show. As a similar op would be today.
 
As unfashionable as it is to support the RAF on these august pages, if I may:


One small part of the problem in my time was a disconnect between the meaning of strategic and tactical whereby the demand was for a strategic move when what was available was tactical. Later a strategic asset would be pressed into service to achieve a tactical aim. This happened because of a lack of serviceable airframes, but a surplus of capacity in the moment meant instead of a VC10 distance move we were given (take it or leave it) a C130 move. Which down the line resulted in a lack of tactical assets. Because they were replacing strategic needs.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that despite our complaints of cost etc against the Crabs, they did quite well with what the politicians let them have. They should have had more of everything, but we all wanted more...
 
Its been pointed out repeatedly that this would achieve nothing - If the Public duties requirement goes so does associated funding - so you've saved a few grand to chop from defence and spend on lesbian dwarf diversity outreach officers or similar bollox
really?
in a question, the Army couldn't actually even put a cost on its equine fleet.
even more worryingly, the General didn’t even know how many horses ceremonial the Army Possessed, he had to be appraised of the startling high number by a rather surprised MP.
if you think disposing of 505 horses will only save the Army ‘a few grand’ , there’s the problem right there. Horses cost a few grand, per horse, per month, to run.

top tip: that’s the reason the Army disposed of its horses at the end of WWI as a lessons learned. Half the arnys logistics effort was being devolved to feeding and caring for horses. They’re not like a lorry, you can’t just park them and leave them.

the US Army manages to perform its ceremonial with just 50 odd dual purpose horses acd an MPGS style ceremonial guard. The French have in their Army a similar number of horses, but when not clip clipping clopping down the Champs Elysee, they work as Police Horses. Only the British Army seems to feel the need fur a huge fleet of purely decorative horses.

’we can’t change! Public duties old chap’! - dressing up in old uniforms? Hire in the Sealed Knot Society.
 
top tip: that’s the reason the Army disposed of its horses at the end of WWI as a lessons learned. Half the arnys logistics effort was being devolved to feeding and caring for horses. They’re not like a lorry, you can’t just park them and leave them.
You and your top tip:/s!

During WWII British troops in the Mediterranean theater of war continued the use of horses for transport and other support purposes. The horses used were from local as well as imported sources. As an example the Sherwood Foresters infantry regiment, relocated to Palestine in 1939, brought with them a thousand English horses. Two mounted cavalry regiments were already present in this region. Lack of vehicles delayed planned motorization of these troops well into 1941. In 1942 the British still employed 6,500 horses, 10,000 mules and 1,700 camels, and used local mules in Sicily and mainland Italy.


Now hush child and speak not of what you know very little about.
 
Q: Where is it now, in that case?
A: Much of it in The People's Republic Of China.​

Q: Is The People's Republic Of China one of our allies?
A: You're 'avin' a giraffe, ain'tcha? O' course they fvckin' ain't. Ferzackerly the opposite as it 'appens.​
An' they've got us beat already, an' never a shot fired.​
I may have observed upon this unsatisfactory state of affairs, a little earlier in this thread.
Who is the enemy, what is our armed forces for and whom do they're serve ? the british people, Nato or the wider international community(IC). The strategic thinking is overcommitment and that led to the brains of the 70s accepting a reduced IC role, in favour of nato, with the political/economics handled by the common market.

Today; the threat is all economic and as we've seen from history, economic wars are not an end in itself, but have tended to eventually lead into a shooting war. So the threat level has increased, after leaving the EU and the rationale for blanket support for nato is in my opinion a legacy, like our colonial commitments of the 60s.

I think the AR concept was interesting, but is now arguably risky if you reduce the army and its ever deployed overseas. We would need cohesive units, not individuals to protect the national territory and maybe its time to go back to a national guard/territorial army.
 
really?
in a question, the Army couldn't actually even put a cost on its equine fleet.
even more worryingly, the General didn’t even know how many horses ceremonial the Army Possessed, he had
Individual doesnt have answer at finger tips shocker, Personally id rather the general had rather more pertinant facts to hand and was involved in more relevant issues - than the usual hobby horse of a few individuals usually of a republican bent finding new ways to claim the royals are unemployed parasites etc

Incidently theres a number of animals such as horses which are mascots - so even if the general knew exactly the number of dobbins in the HCMR - it wouldnt be the true figure and so you would still berate him foronly knowing the answer to the specific question but not the true figure.

if you think disposing of 505 horses will only save the Army ‘a few grand’ , there’s the problem right there. Horses cost a few grand, per horse, per month, to run.
Ah is this a slighly hyperboled figure of speech confuses Photex or Photex removes context tand sense to create a strawman he can effortlessly defeat.

top tip: that’s the reason the Army disposed of its horses at the end of WWI as a lessons learned. Half the arnys logistics effort was being devolved to feeding and caring for horses. They’re not like a lorry, you can’t just park them and leave them.
Tell you what If and When the army attempts to deploy massed cavalry / horse and carts in place of mechanised units - I will agree thats a valid point - until then its a bollox argument since a few tons of hay into London isnt tying up a 3rd of the armies and Navies logistical assets -

Notwithstanding horses / mules are still used in limited numbers on operations by many nations

the US Army manages to perform its ceremonial with just 50 odd dual purpose horses acd an MPGS style ceremonial guard. The French have in their Army a similar number of horses, but when not clip clipping clopping down the Champs Elysee, they work as Police Horses.
The French Republican Guard also has over 500 horses** as for being used for crowd control
That is because they are a Gendarmie unit and thus para military and so get used for crowd control.

The British do not have an equivelant to gendarmes nor do they want them as such it isnt possible to dual role the HCMR with police duties. In fact troops on the streets of Britain armed or otherwise is something of a no no in the UK ( events in a certain small province not withstanding)


But again the main point flies past photex head - Because he deliberatly ignores it as it doesnt support the officer fick donkey - if not all about looking good on horses we would have a billion challengers narrative

Change or remove public duties and the money goes with it

It will achieve nothing - it will simply move that piece of the budget elsewhere - it will not buy a single ship sailor boot or bullet - it will be removed from defence.

So again how does ditching ceremonial help defence when cutting the tasking cuts the associated funding, nevermind that the decision to do so lies elsewhere.

** Whats that you say The French also have more Horses than tanks why for then is photex masturbating over their functionality and not incenced by the fact.
 
Is this article advocating for a more militaristic Germany with a taste for foreign adventures?
Seriously?
I haven’t read the article. But in essence, they’re going to have to as part of a proposed EUroforce. There is absolutely no sense in engaging a force that has no will, but it has to be cautioned by WHY you need a military force. The answer here rests with NATO. This country had an element of carping when Germany sent no force to Iraq, when we had imposed the rule. I wish any one well returning to a militaristic Germany, but find the concept rather dubious. It simply can’t happen.
 
Who is the enemy, what is our armed forces for and whom do they're serve ? the british people, Nato or the wider international community(IC). The strategic thinking is overcommitment and that led to the brains of the 70s accepting a reduced IC role, in favour of nato, with the political/economics handled by the common market.

Today; the threat is all economic and as we've seen from history, economic wars are not an end in itself, but have tended to eventually lead into a shooting war. So the threat level has increased, after leaving the EU and the rationale for blanket support for nato is in my opinion a legacy, like our colonial commitments of the 60s.

I think the AR concept was interesting, but is now arguably risky if you reduce the army and its ever deployed overseas. We would need cohesive units, not individuals to protect the national territory and maybe its time to go back to a national guard/territorial army.
the threat is to our seaborne lines of communication.
90% of the UKs trade comes by in ship, not road, not rail, ship.
the Chinese are busy little chaps building up influence in the Indian Ocean - see their ‘String of Pearls’ that directly impacts our major trade routes.

if the Army can find a means to secure the UKs overseas trade routes and interests, it’s got a shout for moar money. But despite the claims of some here, fantasy wars with the Russians over Estonia are not gonna figure high in the Governments strategic vision for funding the armed forces.
 
Individual doesnt have answer at finger tips shocker, Personally id rather the general had rather more pertinant facts to hand and was involved in more relevant issues - than the usual hobby horse of a few individuals usually of a republican bent finding new ways to claim the royals are unemployed parasites etc

Incidently theres a number of animals such as horses which are mascots - so even if the general knew exactly the number of dobbins in the HCMR - it wouldnt be the true figure and so you would still berate him foronly knowing the answer to the specific question but not the true figure.



Ah is this a slighly hyperboled figure of speech confuses Photex or Photex removes context tand sense to create a strawman he can effortlessly defeat.



Tell you what If and When the army attempts to deploy massed cavalry / horse and carts in place of mechanised units - I will agree thats a valid point - until then its a bollox argument since a few tons of hay into London isnt tying up a 3rd of the armies and Navies logistical assets -

Notwithstanding horses / mules are still used in limited numbers on operations by many nations



The French Republican Guard also has over 500 horses** as for being used for crowd control
That is because they are a Gendarmie unit and thus para military and so get used for crowd control.

The British do not have an equivelant to gendarmes nor do they want them as such it isnt possible to dual role the HCMR with police duties. In fact troops on the streets of Britain armed or otherwise is something of a no no in the UK ( events in a certain small province not withstanding)


But again the main point flies past photex head - Because he deliberatly ignores it as it doesnt support the officer fick donkey - if not all about looking good on horses we would have a billion challengers narrative

Change or remove public duties and the money goes with it

It will achieve nothing - it will simply move that piece of the budget elsewhere - it will not buy a single ship sailor boot or bullet - it will be removed from defence.

So again how does ditching ceremonial help defence when cutting the tasking cuts the associated funding, nevermind that the decision to do so lies elsewhere.

** Whats that you say The French also have more Horses than tanks why for then is photex masturbating over their functionality and not incenced by the fact.
I’m finding your petulant tantrum highly amusing.
Worlds changed, ‘Tradition! Cuts no ice no more, get over it.
 
the threat is to our seaborne lines of communication.
90% of the UKs trade comes by in ship, not road, not rail, ship.
the Chinese are busy little chaps building up influence in the Indian Ocean - see their ‘String of Pearls’ that directly impacts our major trade routes.
Not a person has argued against that

if the Army can find a means to secure the UKs overseas trade routes and interests, it’s got a shout for moar money.
Pretty sure nobody has called for that either

. But despite the claims of some here, fantasy wars with the Russians over Estonia are not gonna figure high in the Governments strategic vision for funding the armed forces.
Nope thats entirely your masturbatory fantasy - Its you who is wedded to mentioning this unwinnable war and claiming it as justification for no more tanks etc

Others have disagreed with you - but that doesnt make it their fantasy war. it just means theyve attempted to counter yet more of your the army is fick wrong war hidebound donkey dullardry
 
Concerning French military horses:

1 REC, The French Foreign Legion‘s cavalry (light armoured) regiment is very proud of its mounted origins - it was set up in 1920 after a huge influx of exiled White Russian cavalry and served in that role in Morocco and Syria prior to WW2.

I understand that it still maintains a subsidised, well-attended all-ranks riding club and probably would be able to provide a mounted squadron at relatively short notice, should it become operationally required.

ETA: Sorry for the thread drift, but I thought that an interesting aside might provide some light relief. :)
 
Last edited:
Anyone bothered to read the UK National Risk Assessment at all?
 
Concerning French military horses:

1 REC, The French Foreign Legion‘s cavalry (light armoured) regiment is very proud of its mounted origins - it was set up in 1920 after a huge influx of exiled White Russian cavalry and served in that role in Morocco and Syria prior to WW2.

I understand that it still maintains a well-attended all-ranks riding club and probably would be able to provide a mounted squadron at relatively short notice, should it become operationally required.
mounted Cossacks sweeping majestically across the Steppe chasing off Vlad armoured hordes?
- en avant Mes amies!
 
mounted Cossacks sweeping majestically across the Steppe chasing off Vlad armoured hordes?
- en avant Mes amies!
Where’s the “groan” button when you need it?
 
I’m finding your petulant tantrum highly amusing.
Worlds changed, ‘Tradition! Cuts no ice no more, get over it.
No petulant tantrum here - some exasperation becasue I do appear to have made the mistake of engaging you as if you were an adult - in hindsight i should have known better after all

Personally id be happy for ceremonial to become just that and not a military task - as ever though much like the not at all missed Jeneral 28 who applies much the same logic as yourself - you equate disagreeing with your justification for ditching something as unequivocal support for it.
In otherwords agree with photex or face the strawman of doom the bolded being a case in point you are destroying a position ive never presented.

All services shit if anything the bought isnt of US manufacture

Tanks shit Replace with AH64, Army thick for keeping tanks -
Army thick for not investing in tanks,
Army thick for investing in tanks
Army thick still doing ceremonial - ( A task its given) Nope still thick for doing given task


Navy shit buying crap engine ( wasnt their choice) nope still shit as crap engine
Navy shit buying European PAAMS
Navy shit no gun on Rivers - adding a gun = top tier credible warship
Navy shit T31 has little more than a gun = no use glorified OPV


Airforce Shit -repeat myths ad nauseum until @Archimedes and MM despair and give up presenting you with referenced facts.
Typhoon Crap etc
A400M crap uses composites C130J* far superior = Airforce shit.

Landrover crap -
New defender crap
New defender van laughable no market - point out direct competitor - new defender van laughable saturated market
New defender crap has pointless off road cameras. Value explained to you - youre response stick head out of window - flaw pointed out in that plan - response landrover crap and post picture of crv on a gravel track.


In every case you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and
A) cling to an untenable position or change user IDs
B) Do a complete 180 and adopt one thats become more fashionable (ie tanks although in fairness thats now a either a 360 or 540)
c) In an effort to prove admirals generals crap you will (as per T31 OPV) argue 2 opposite positions for the same piece of equipment -

I think its time that i did as many others have and placed you in the treat as Spider box


* The thing here is whilst MM has raised some valid issues regarding the A400M which Photex parrots a lot of his claims - such as the shit composite structure A400M vs good metal C130J are actually the same arguments I heard 20 years ago when the composite** C130J entered service particularly regarding Paradrops and SF use.


**Yes thats right theres composites on the C130J
 

Latest Threads

Top