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

That also assumes that wars of the future will look much like wars of the past.

Future conflicts against peer opponents are unlikely to be heavyweight square-ups given the potential to escalate, and current force capabilities have shown that they are more than adequate for pointless and ineffectual adventures in hot places. The real threats are going to come from social subversion, cyber, bacteriological and Sudetenland-style agitation combined with a version of bite and hold using SF/proxy forces, as per the Ukraine. And there's no evidence that the implications of that have been thought through, let alone mitigated.

Western economies and their supporting media and political structures are breathtakingly easy to subvert if you have deep pockets - and China knows how to spend its cash. COVID may have been accidental but it won't have escaped notice that it's effectively been a major strategic defeat for the West. Something of limited lethality but which can cripple an economy would be well worth being able to replicate, not to mention representing a new way of thinking about bacteriological warfare.

A few traditional battalions more or less will make little practical difference.
Thoughtful and I hadn't considered covid as a strategic defeat, but that is certainly true. Without the US, we can't even fight the old wars of the past and future wars we seem to believe that virtue and doing the right thing is more important.
 
That also assumes that wars of the future will look much like wars of the past.

Future conflicts against peer opponents are unlikely to be heavyweight square-ups given the potential to escalate, and current force capabilities have shown that they are more than adequate for pointless and ineffectual adventures in hot places. The real threats are going to come from social subversion, cyber, bacteriological and Sudetenland-style agitation combined with a version of bite and hold using SF/proxy forces, as per the Ukraine. And there's no evidence that the implications of that have been thought through, let alone mitigated.

Western economies and their supporting media and political structures are breathtakingly easy to subvert if you have deep pockets - and China knows how to spend its cash. COVID may have been accidental but it won't have escaped notice that it's effectively been a major strategic defeat for the West. Something of limited lethality but which can cripple an economy would be well worth being able to replicate, not to mention representing a new way of thinking about bacteriological warfare.

A few traditional battalions more or less will make little practical difference.
Agreed to a degree, but do not write off large scale, heavy metal warfighting just yet.
 
That also assumes that wars of the future will look much like wars of the past.

Future conflicts against peer opponents are unlikely to be heavyweight square-ups given the potential to escalate, and current force capabilities have shown that they are more than adequate for pointless and ineffectual adventures in hot places. The real threats are going to come from social subversion, cyber, bacteriological and Sudetenland-style agitation combined with a version of bite and hold using SF/proxy forces, as per the Ukraine. And there's no evidence that the implications of that have been thought through, let alone mitigated.

Western economies and their supporting media and political structures are breathtakingly easy to subvert if you have deep pockets - and China knows how to spend its cash. COVID may have been accidental but it won't have escaped notice that it's effectively been a major strategic defeat for the West. Something of limited lethality but which can cripple an economy would be well worth being able to replicate, not to mention representing a new way of thinking about bacteriological warfare.

A few traditional battalions more or less will make little practical difference.
Fully agree until your last sentence

it shows support and reinforces local security’s ability to protect democracy, protect vital infrastructure, allow peaceful protects etc
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Agreed to a degree, but do not write off large scale, heavy metal warfighting just yet.
It's not a question of writing it off, it's more about recognising its limited utility, particularly against a peer opponent. We're about to enter a new cold war and we would do well to remember that we won the last one by maintaining a credible threat sufficient to keep the war cold while we gained victory by overheating the Soviet economy and fracturing the eastern bloc.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Fully agree until your last sentence

it shows support and reinforces local security’s ability to protect democracy, protect vital infrastructure, allow peaceful protects etc
But how much local security do you want and do we require a large number of very high capability battalions to deliver it (not to mention whether they're best suited to that type of role)? That's more an argument for a cheaper gendarmerie/expanded AR.
 
But how much local security do you want and do we require a large number of very high capability battalions to deliver it (not to mention whether they're best suited to that type of role)? That's more an argument for a cheaper gendarmerie/expanded AR.
I suppose it frees up indigenous forces to do that stuff while allowing friendly Invited foreign forces to protect your borders and reducing the risk of unfriendly foreign forces Attempting to intervene
 
It's not a question of writing it off, it's more about recognising its limited utility, particularly against a peer opponent. We're about to enter a new cold war and we would do well to remember that we won the last one by maintaining a credible threat sufficient to keep the war cold while we gained victory by overheating the Soviet economy and fracturing the eastern bloc.

The new Cold War will be primarily an asymmetric trade war. If we can get the West to disengage, the Chinese economy will crash.
military forces are not needed to preemptively fight China, they are needed to prevent China lashing out at allies as it’s goes down.
 
It's not a question of writing it off, it's more about recognising its limited utility, particularly against a peer opponent. We're about to enter a new cold war and we would do well to remember that we won the last one by maintaining a credible threat sufficient to keep the war cold while we gained victory by overheating the Soviet economy and fracturing the eastern bloc.
It doesn't help that whenever we deploy troops anywhere, they're are quickly parcelled out to cover large territories out of necessity and erodes the very ideas of economy of force rules. The problem, is our enemies seem to have a better grasp of clausewitz and/or sun tzu these days and the politics has become far too involved in tactical and/or strategic thinking.
 
Not necessarily. The point of eFP is to significantly raise the political cost of an invasion. It definitely achieves that - the question is whether that's enough to provide a deterrent effect.

There's an awful lot of people on here claiming to be absolutely sure about things that most sensible commentators would regard as uncertain. We never know whether deterrence has worked; only when it's failed.
Much like Patrick and Michael only had to get lucky once and that's all that stays in the mind of some people. No account of the hundreds/thousands of times good int and police work stopped murders.
 
Possibly from the same school. But this one often sounds quite (dangerously) plausible and rational. If it wasn't for some of his (her?) more outrageous posts, I might even guess at a "devil's advocate"/"agent provocateur" type.
There's more than a touch of our pet gardener about him too...
 
So the Four Battalions of the eFP. Are they're better concentrated in one country, or dispersed over four ?
Pitching up is enough to tell your hero that we've got skin in the game. Then it's "anything can happen in the next five minutes" and as long as that **** Trump isn't involved Vlad will pay attention.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I suppose it frees up indigenous forces to do that stuff while allowing friendly Invited foreign forces to protect your borders and reducing the risk of unfriendly foreign forces Attempting to intervene
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't need armoured infantry battalions trained for heavy metal manoeuvre warfare in order to show support, reinforce local security’s ability to protect democracy, protect vital infrastructure or allow peaceful protects etc - among other things, it would be a criminal mis-use of them.

Preventing unfriendly forces from intervening on our island largely sits with the RN and the RAF with, the last time such an event was a practical reality, relatively poorly-equipped TA battalions allocated to Home Defence as a last resort.
 
1. Vantage we had weeks to deploy a full Brigade and Aircraft Carrier.
Qasim announced that Kuwait was an integral part of Iraq on 25 June 1961. Reports of armour massing around Basra starting coming in on 27 June. The Emir was persuaded by the British political agent that he might wish to ask for military assistance as per the agreement between Kuwait and the UK on 30 June. Preliminary movement orders were issued, but we had very little in place apart from 42 Cdo from Bulwark which had been diverted from its intended journey to a SEATO exercise.

We had about a brigade minus plus Hunters flown in from RAF Khormaksar on 1 July; Victorious didn't get to the Gulf until 8 July and was on station off Kuwait the following day. On 3 July, Macmillan informed the cabinet that we now had enough troops in Kuwait to be a match for an Iraqi attack, but had Qasim invaded between 30 June - 2 July, he would have been in with a good chance of taking the country.

We were concerned that this would look like being unable to let go and there were considerable - and frustrating - efforts to get the Arab League to put a force in, which they'd done by October, although British units had started to be withdrawn before then.

Nonetheless, we had five days to start getting forces in place, not weeks. The announcement that British forces were on their way and their arrival, even in small numbers, appeared to have dissuaded Qasim. There has been a debate about whether he was blustering and then had a 'Oh ****!' moment when he realised we'd taken him seriously, or whether he had planned to attack, or whether he wanted to see if we were serious. There was one scholar who wrote a book based on the premise that it was all a fake operation to allow Britain to return, and that Iraq had never been a threat to Kuwait and all talk of Iraq having designs on Kuwait was a British falsehood.

His book came out about a week before we launched Op Granby...
 
Or the G2 wallahs who believe they are the natural owners of the cyber defence space.
That all depends; cyber security is one thing (and very much in the x2X role), but the actual conduct of defensive cyber operations, not so much!
 
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't need armoured infantry battalions trained for heavy metal manoeuvre warfare in order to show support, reinforce local security’s ability to protect democracy, protect vital infrastructure or allow peaceful protects etc - among other things, it would be a criminal mis-use of them.

Preventing unfriendly forces from intervening on our island largely sits with the RN and the RAF with, the last time such an event was a practical reality, relatively poorly-equipped TA battalions allocated to Home Defence as a last resort.
I’m not talking about the U.K. I’m talking about in NATO allied countries.

eg a Ukraine type situation developing in a Baltic State

eFP (Especially if reinforced) means that the indigenous forces could Concentrate on internal security while eFP watches the border
 
Pitching up is enough to tell your hero that we've got skin in the game. Then it's "anything can happen in the next five minutes" and as long as that **** Trump isn't involved Vlad will pay attention.
The economy of force rule is pretty clear and spreading out 4 Battalion Groups, from Estonia to Poland is simply a breach of that rule. Estonia is indefensible and tactically either Latvia, or Poland would be the better play as Latvia is the central position and Poland we have a clear LoC with a threat to counter with an attack on Kaliningrad.

I do enjoy your mixture of chippy, smug, abusive and condescending tone. But complacency is no subsitute if things did go pear shaped, for the blokes deployed over their for your 'skin in the game'.
 
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't need armoured infantry battalions trained for heavy metal manoeuvre warfare in order to show support, reinforce local security’s ability to protect democracy, protect vital infrastructure or allow peaceful protects etc - among other things, it would be a criminal mis-use of them.

Preventing unfriendly forces from intervening on our island largely sits with the RN and the RAF with, the last time such an event was a practical reality, relatively poorly-equipped TA battalions allocated to Home Defence as a last resort.
The Bayonet is only better than the Howitzer in a policing role, if you have the force density to do a decent job. The problem with a lot of recent operations, is we have not had the force density and a limited ROE which forces soldiers to patrol and without sufficient helicopters, your on foot or vehicles, on predictable routes and I think irlsgt is referring to the neccessary armouring up.

On Home Defence; this was a point I was trying to make earlier with scalie. An overseas RN deployment will need a balanced fleet and that is essentially most of it. So were down to the RAF, who only work weekdays and the AR and Regular Training unit...s. As a stopgap, I think we need a system not dissimilar to the German and establish some form of alarmheiten, where all service personnel have a greater training regime in the old 80s 'brave defender' mode, to form march group for immediate deployment in Home Defence.
 
... tactically either Latvia, or Poland would be the better play as Latvia is the central position and Poland we have a clear LoC ...
You might want to go into Google maps and search for 'Suwalki Gap'.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top