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

Bob65

War Hero
MOD the other day were talking about removing the laddish attitude from the services to make them more attractive to diversity.
It's ironic in a way that calling for more diversity is now the safest, most orthodox position. The entire point of diversity in organisations is (or at least was, before it became a goal in its own right) is to avoid getting stuck in the same thought processes and so sacrifice commercial or other advantage. Of course that is demonstrably not how the real world works, and never was, it was pure management consultant fantasy. The MoD has one very practical and very pressing need to either do diversity wholesale, or return to its traditional ways: a desperate shortage of, errm, personpower...

Computers make people dumb, the gen X and boomers had to think more for themselves.
I think it is more that if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
 
In which case, they shall reap what they sow.
Smaller government, less money extracted by force of taxation from people's pockets and local councils sticking to their statutory requirements only. Less red tape, a bonfire of the quangos etc etc

What's not to like?
 
In which case, they shall reap what they sow.
you mean that bright but dim young things that cover their desks in fluffy toys and have a cute doggie picture as a screen saver are not the future?
 

Cyberhacker

Old-Salt
1. Blair and Brown - massive investment spending but the vast majority of it went on pay rises and employment of women in lower-level roles on a largely part-time time basis e.g. the profusion of teaching assistants in schools. No real structural reform and no real efficiency savings.
FFF etc

Lots of cash spent, but with feck all to show for it.
 
Not a dig, but how many Ex-Regulars actually go over to the reserves?

Maybe more at the SNCO level but alot of juniors are completely dissatisfied they don't even look at the AR. The loss of the £10k bonus for Ex-Regulars is also likely to affect it.

To be fair I enjoy the Army, but I don't think I would join the AR if I was to get out. The Cons seem to outweigh the benefits.
This. I was part of the last 2011 cut to the army. For some reason the military thought most of us would go to the reserve (not sure why they thought that) but I don't know a single person that did. Quite a few of us were 25-30 with multiple tours each and they just threw it all away. I will never understand the thinking behind it but its a crime nobody has answered for.

Myself and 4 others I knew went off to the Middle East instead and did the private security thing. The 10k reserve join up scheme over 3 years wasn't a million miles off a months wage for us out there. Absolutely zero attraction to join the reserve in the slightest.
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
I've always liked the US marine idea, that everyone is a rifleman and its teeth to tail ratio, is thus immaterial. Its quite pertinant, in a time of defence cuts and as our services have shrunk, its arguable that a more warrior ethos should pervade all three services, but our MOD the other day were talking about removing the laddish attitude from the services to make them more attractive to diversity.

Outcomes matter more than words and the MOD quite clearly do not care about having services which are lean, hungry and nasty in battle.
You want to give more sail
I've always liked the US marine idea, that everyone is a rifleman and its teeth to tail ratio, is thus immaterial. Its quite pertinant, in a time of defence cuts and as our services have shrunk, its arguable that a more warrior ethos should pervade all three services, but our MOD the other day were talking about removing the laddish attitude from the services to make them more attractive to diversity.

Outcomes matter more than words and the MOD quite clearly do not care about having services which are lean, hungry and nasty in battle.
I think it would be against the laws of armed conflict to unleash the pent up rage of the lower deck naval ninja collective.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
The 10k reserve join up scheme over 3 years wasn't a million miles off a months wage for us out there. Absolutely zero attraction to join the reserve in the slightest.
I'm pretty sure that's now gone. I can't see the appeal of leaving the regulars, and trying to settle into your new life while still having to meet the requirements of it.

And with it being at a weekend most (?) jobs will pay more overtime than you would get from the AR.
 
It's ironic in a way that calling for more diversity is now the safest, most orthodox position. The entire point of diversity in organisations is (or at least was, before it became a goal in its own right) is to avoid getting stuck in the same thought processes and so sacrifice commercial or other advantage. Of course that is demonstrably not how the real world works, and never was, it was pure management consultant fantasy. The MoD has one very practical and very pressing need to either do diversity wholesale, or return to its traditional ways: a desperate shortage of, errm, personpower...



I think it is more that if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Agreed about management consultancies and said a few times, forget the emotion and study the outcomes of decisions and you can then gauge what really motivated a person in the first place.... If you look at defence, the strong conclusion, is the defence chiefs and senior officers care far less about defending the country, than pleasing the political masters, keeping costs in check to finance future projects and facilitating there own careers post-military.

We are terrified of hurting civilians and internally turning the services into a reflection not of the country, but the faux projection that has been created by the progressive left and how many bayonets(old term) for those who can close with an enemy and butcher them is a smaller and smaller number.
 
Agreed about management consultancies and said a few times, forget the emotion and study the outcomes of decisions and you can then gauge what really motivated a person in the first place.... If you look at defence, the strong conclusion, is the defence chiefs and senior officers care far less about defending the country, than pleasing the political masters, keeping costs in check to finance future projects and facilitating there own careers post-military.

We are terrified of hurting civilians and internally turning the services into a reflection not of the country, but the faux projection that has been created by the progressive left and how many bayonets(old term) for those who can close with an enemy and butcher them is a smaller and smaller number.
shades of everyone in the room choking on their coffee when a USMC Lt asked to define his mission said ‘my mission is to kill people and break things’
 
I'm pretty sure that's now gone. I can't see the appeal of leaving the regulars, and trying to settle into your new life while still having to meet the requirements of it.

And with it being at a weekend most (?) jobs will pay more overtime than you would get from the AR.

I think the only way the reserve would interest me in the slightest is if there were kinetic tours happening and a good chance I could deploy. Speaking to guys still in my old regiment they have bugger all to do themselves and no budget for anything fun so surely the AR must be even worse.
 
Last edited:
shades of everyone in the room choking on their coffee when a USMC Lt asked to define his mission said ‘my mission is to kill people and break things’
Take the simplest of things i.e. counter-IED. The lessons learned of history were:-
1. Night Snipers after curfew.
2. Counter battery radar with a willingness to return fire in an instant.

Both options, junked on the altar of political correctness, for fear of hurting civilians. So we have to come up with ever more expensive alternatives to reduce the fisk of collateral damage and that turns the mission into force protection been more important than the mission.

Conclusions:-
Just a personal view, but a military that is overly focused on everything else, but its primary purpose of winning the battle and killing our enemies is a military that has systemic problems.
 
Both options, junked on the altar of political correctness, for fear of hurting civilians. So we have to come up with ever more expensive alternatives to reduce the fisk of collateral damage and that turns the mission into force protection been more important than the mission.
It’s not purely ‘political correctness’ to avoid hurting civilians.
The Army & other services have attempted to do that for decades if not hundreds of years.

Conclusions:-
Just a personal view, but a military that is overly focused on everything else, but its primary purpose of winning the battle and killing our enemies is a military that has systemic problems.
In less than recent history the Army went into Northern Ireland to protect civilians - and were at first welcomed, attempting to keep the factions apart

Operations for many years have had the common purpose to protect the ‘norm
shades of everyone in the room choking on their coffee when a USMC Lt asked to define his mission said ‘my mission is to kill people and break things’
In the MoD and the Army the mission/purpose hasn’t been purely to ‘defeat the queens enemy’
It’s to do many things as directed in the interests of the Queen, her government and the UK.
This could include ‘standard’ warfare - and would result in blowing up lots of stuff, civilians mostly having left the area but potential collateral damage.
But the majority of operations are standing in the middle of different factions, defending ordinary people from the bad guys, (both of which have the confusion of whether the bad guys are disguised as ordinary people / they are the bad guys), humanitarian efforts etc
All of which have different rules of engagement - it makes sense to minimise the risk of injuring or killing civilians, and also to minimise blowing up the school that you built last week

The USMC Lt may see his mission as killing people, it’s core to their training, but it’s not their only mission. In Guantanamo their mission is not to kill the prisoners they hold, in Japan it’s not to kill the locals, in Afghanistan it’s not to kill the locals, in embassy’s it’s not to kill funny looking people who turn up at the gate.

The British Army trains soldiers to kill and be aggressive, but also to control that aggression.
Before deployment it gives the rules and they may vary over time and in specific areas.
 
It’s not purely ‘political correctness’ to avoid hurting civilians.
The Army & other services have attempted to do that for decades if not hundreds of years.



In less than recent history the Army went into Northern Ireland to protect civilians - and were at first welcomed, attempting to keep the factions apart

Operations for many years have had the common purpose to protect the ‘norm

In the MoD and the Army the mission/purpose hasn’t been purely to ‘defeat the queens enemy’
It’s to do many things as directed in the interests of the Queen, her government and the UK.
This could include ‘standard’ warfare - and would result in blowing up lots of stuff, civilians mostly having left the area but potential collateral damage.
But the majority of operations are standing in the middle of different factions, defending ordinary people from the bad guys, (both of which have the confusion of whether the bad guys are disguised as ordinary people / they are the bad guys), humanitarian efforts etc
All of which have different rules of engagement - it makes sense to minimise the risk of injuring or killing civilians, and also to minimise blowing up the school that you built last week

The USMC Lt may see his mission as killing people, it’s core to their training, but it’s not their only mission. In Guantanamo their mission is not to kill the prisoners they hold, in Japan it’s not to kill the locals, in Afghanistan it’s not to kill the locals, in embassy’s it’s not to kill funny looking people who turn up at the gate.

The British Army trains soldiers to kill and be aggressive, but also to control that aggression.
Before deployment it gives the rules and they may vary over time and in specific areas.
KISS - War was complicated enough prior to rules been introduced. The aim prior to 1945 was to simply kill enough of your enemy to get him to flee and any civilian who supports the enemy, is the enemy and better get out of the way. When Sherman marched to atlanta, he did not consider the rules and 20th century area bombing acknowledged that dark truth, when the chips are down, you go low as well.

The modern Military struggle to achieve any strategic goals and a sucession of minor tactical victories is all rather pointless in strategic terms. Given the fall in the service strength, we can't afford attritional conflicts anymore and playing by the rules in Iraq/Afghan, forces you into an attritional position that your then forced to sacrifice victory for force protection and a pointless stalemate.
 
The aim prior to 1945 was to simply kill enough of your enemy to get him to flee and any civilian who supports the enemy, is the enemy and better get out of the way.
Can you let Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know that please.
 

Chimp

ADC
you mean that bright but dim young things that cover their desks in fluffy toys and have a cute doggie picture as a screen saver are not the future?
How very dare you!
1594643441076.png
 
Smaller government, less money extracted by force of taxation from people's pockets and local councils sticking to their statutory requirements only. Less red tape, a bonfire of the quangos etc etc

What's not to like?
It hits you most at times like this, when you find your customs service needs massive investment in order to be able to do its job, your roads don't get fixed and so on.
 
KISS - War was complicated enough prior to rules been introduced. The aim prior to 1945 was to simply kill enough of your enemy to get him to flee and any civilian who supports the enemy, is the enemy and better get out of the way. When Sherman marched to atlanta, he did not consider the rules and 20th century area bombing acknowledged that dark truth, when the chips are down, you go low as well.

The modern Military struggle to achieve any strategic goals and a sucession of minor tactical victories is all rather pointless in strategic terms. Given the fall in the service strength, we can't afford attritional conflicts anymore and playing by the rules in Iraq/Afghan, forces you into an attritional position that your then forced to sacrifice victory for force protection and a pointless stalemate.
Ever read any COIN doctrine?
 
KISS - War was complicated enough prior to rules been introduced. The aim prior to 1945 was to simply kill enough of your enemy to get him to flee and any civilian who supports the enemy, is the enemy and better get out of the way.
St Thomas of Aquinas is surprised by your repudiation of the Just War theory.
 

Latest Threads

Top