How do they expect the armed forces to be prepaired when they are cutting the very funding that can prepare us? Why are we cutting down on defence spending when defence against terrorism, extreemists, and other threats is still high. I think its rediculous. They should cut the welfare systems funding instead, there are too many ignorant, lazy and down right selfish people abusing that particular system.
Sounds like alot of bullshit to me, I'd imagine we are constantly learning from operational feedback the same way our kit gets improved, and it really isn't that exclusive for the Daily Telegraph to have obtained, I found it simply by googling "Agile Warrior 11", its an official press release simply for future recommendations of development for 10 years down the line
Now be fair, it is a really good geography field trip location and the White Lion does a mean home-made pasty. I had a gobble off an Australian bird there in a four poster bed. So I would be sorry to see it turned into Stalingrad lite...
Army not ready for combat ops in urban areas? So the lessons of Basra have already been forgotten? That didn't take long.
The Torygraf (or its headline writer) seems to be talking about danger to low flying choppers (a risk that is ever present, as the US found in Somalia, but which does not invalidate use of helicopters)and lack of precision weapons (which could mean anything). As for tanks not being suited to urban operations - 'twas ever thus.
Urban operations are about small unit infantry tactics and junior battle leaders who can operate independently of higher command and take the initiative. In that sense, I would guess that the British Army is, despite recent setbacks, still one of the best in the world.
IMHO, those in the media who write about the army are far too fixated on technology, not fixated nearly enough on the human element - beyond weepy "Another soldier KIA in Afghan" stories.
From the artilce: "Defence and the Army have no institutional mechanism for understanding our potential future adversaries, the document says. Officers planning, training, and deploying Army units need a thorough understanding of potential adversaries before the crisis hits.
Isn't that what DCDC helps us do, predict future trends and model strategic assumptions onto them, hence developing doctrine to fight in a variety of future scenarios - and from that doctrine and Defence Strategic Guidance[or whatever its new name is] we develop capabilirty [kit] programmes?
Plus, as King-Walt points out, I suspect we may have learned the odd lesson in the last 20-30 years and all these have been added to CONOPS/SOPs. Who knows we may even have the same capability post HERRICK as we do now...
Not many Countries could deal with proper FIBUA these days as none can afford the sheer amount of lives and casualties it eats up. Ask The Russians how they got on in Berlin. With modern weapon systems and a generation that favours the IED to Queensbury rules we wouldn't stand a chance of clearing anything more than a TA Drill Hall.