Changing the army - how?

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
With a total Army of circa 70k - What conventional war do you envisage fighting with a total Army of 70k ?

Something in coalition with others. It's explicit in our doctrine that this is how we expect to fight. There's also the possibility, albeit a pretty unlikely one, of fighting a smaller country.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
I'll refer the honourable gentleman to a previous post

Ok, but you asked who we're going to fight a conventional war with if we only have 70k and I answered. Your view of whether or not we should be able to do more doesn't change the answer - we are now explicitly expecting to fight as part of a coalition.
 
Ok, but you asked who we're going to fight a conventional war with if we only have 70k and I answered. Your view of whether or not we should be able to do more doesn't change the answer - we are now explicitly expecting to fight as part of a coalition.
Plus 30,000 reservists.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Hard to envisage any kind of invasion that doesn't look like a conventional battlefield. The Ukrainian army may not last very long, but it'll be a conventional fight between them and the Russians so long as it does.




I'd be amazed if there's any physical UN/NATO response at all, at least in the short term; it'll all be economic. There's simply too much Russian kit there and the US doesn't have the political will to initiate a war with Russia over Ukraine.

There were reports yesterday that the US would throw support behind a Ukrainian anti-Russian Insurgency/Partisan in the event of an invasion. so excepect to see arms flooding in and training camps in the western parts of Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe increased. We would also see huge economic sanctions, whether or not theses are sufficient to properly bleed the bear is another thing entirely
 
we are now explicitly expecting to fight as part of a coalition.
And have been since the mid-1990s with the creation of the ARRC - whose commander (after much post-Cold-War politicking within NATO) is commanded by a Brit.

Given the latest restructuring of British land forces, I wonder if the politicking around the nationality holding that appointment might resume. Germans were hankering after it for a good few years after the decision was made, that much I do know.
 
Plus 30,000 reservists.
1642265356007.gif
 
There were reports yesterday that the US would throw support behind a Ukrainian anti-Russian Insurgency/Partisan in the event of an invasion. so excepect to see arms flooding in and training camps in the western parts of Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe increased. We would also see huge economic sanctions, whether or not theses are sufficient to properly bleed the bear is another thing entirely
Ukranian Insurgent Army.

It didn't work out too well the last time they tried that.
 
Whether as a matter of policy, through negligence or ignorance, our ground forces are no longer in a position to take on a heavy metal opponent. In the hugely unlikely event that V.V. Putin decides to roll the dice, it's going to be up to the Poles to harass him while he gradually runs out of benz, beans and bullets on his way across Poland. Our NATO role is going to be naval and air almost exclusively, although our door kickers might get a look in; two Challenger 2 regiments aren't going to make much difference, even if we could actually scrape up an armoured brigade, getting it to the front before everything peters out might be a challenge as well.
So UK is essentially reverting back to its historical funding posture. The money goes to the navy (and now the RAF), with a small-ish Army. At some point, someone will reclassify the TA/Army Reserve as the Militia and the wheel will have come full circle.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
It's all about the narrative and the audience. Riiiight....
That was a lot of high explosive narrative they used on the Syrian audience.
 

Latest Threads

Top