Changing the army - how?

The army at Minden had been training and fighting for almost as long as WW2, and the army at Waterloo was about 10% veterans...which approximately equals all JNCOs and SNCOs given the formations at the time, plus some for luck.
Five years campaigning give you that, Amazing what happens when orders are ignored mislaid and interpreted to suit a narrative

the rapid scramble for men when Boney escaped Elba ensured that there were a lot of men veterans by the end of the day
Luck well there’s always luck, it cheers everybody up when you see someone else unlucky


Last time I checked my tartan torpedo confirmed my gender.
As for combat experience well that’s down to, luck is it not

be it hickory stick/gpmg or lmg
Or even a humble numbered notebook and pen


Most schemes are either at combined coy/battlegroup level depending on money.

Take the British/Indian armies garrisons in Malaya and China station, good units bad units depending on training and access to resources.
Senseless slaughter prevailed until white flags were displayed.



So how is that different from todays Army?
it’s not really, the pension trap means those striving to retire intact are still serving.
 
Five years campaigning give you that, Amazing what happens when orders are ignored mislaid and interpreted to suit a narrative

the rapid scramble for men when Boney escaped Elba ensured that there were a lot of men veterans by the end of the day
Luck well there’s always luck, it cheers everybody up when you see someone else unlucky


Last time I checked my tartan torpedo confirmed my gender.
As for combat experience well that’s down to, luck is it not

be it hickory stick/gpmg or lmg
Or even a humble numbered notebook and pen


Most schemes are either at combined coy/battlegroup level depending on money.

Take the British/Indian armies garrisons in Malaya and China station, good units bad units depending on training and access to resources.
Senseless slaughter prevailed until white flags were displayed.




it’s not really, the pension trap means those striving to retire intact are still serving.
What do you mean by the pension trap?
I left after 12.5 years (tricked out by my scum family) but still got a decent pension at 60 plus 3* untaxed which paid off my mortgage.
This is why I don't have a cost of living crisis. Things could all double in price and I will be fine.
 
What do you mean by the pension trap?
I left after 12.5 years (tricked out by my scum family) but still got a decent pension at 60 plus 3* untaxed which paid off my mortgage.
This is why I don't have a cost of living crisis. Things could all double in price and I will be fine.




Sometimes it’s about being feart to leave, other times it’s I’ve made it so far another year or four won’t kill me
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
So how is that different from todays Army?
At present it isn't, but continuing the trend of never deploying and becoming an Army that trains other armies will pretty quickly mean we lose even that. The political imperative to never take risk will end up with an Army that doesn't know how to fight.
 
In Napoleons defence it had rained the night before, his horsemen failed to break squares and he had the Prussians at his erse.
In Wellingtons defence he ensured the French hated the Prussians for three wars to come


Todays army has that mix, early 90s almost time served, war on terror trapped by pension and of course those in post Herrick/Telic

Good mix as bull n bumf almost but not quite sidelined. Equipment worn but not completely U/S plus the ability to train others willing to learn. National survival is a great incentive, knowing you are getting replenished? Also helps.
Don't forget the possibility his doctor who gave him opium for his stomach ache the night before might have been a bit heavy handed.
 
At present it isn't, but continuing the trend of never deploying and becoming an Army that trains other armies will pretty quickly mean we lose even that. The political imperative to never take risk will end up with an Army that doesn't know how to fight.
That makes no sense.
We have fought 3 stupid wars in the last 25 years. All were disasters.
How can we deploy if there are no wars to fight?
 
At present it isn't, but continuing the trend of never deploying and becoming an Army that trains other armies will pretty quickly mean we lose even that. The political imperative to never take risk will end up with an Army that doesn't know how to fight.
Here’s the in-house propaganda

there’s also this which is ahem safe



Theres also the small elephant in the corner, value for money.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
That makes no sense.
We have fought 3 stupid wars in the last 25 years. All were disasters.
How can we deploy if there are no wars to fight?
There are quite literally always wars to fight, and so far it's not looking like there is going to be any great absence of them in the next few decades.

That doesn't mean we should get involved in every one just because, but the past seven years have shown a distinct trend of the government joining wars (IS, various bits of Africa and the Sahel, Ukraine) without wanting to take any risk deploying British soldiers in combat. That will eventually hollow out the British Army.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Here’s the in-house propaganda

there’s also this which is ahem safe


Theres also the small elephant in the corner, value for money.

Another way of looking at that is that the Army which spectacularly failed in Iraq and Afghanistan was one that had just spent over a decade on precisely those kind of peacekeeping operations. But all of these are mildly fatuous correlation=causation arguments.

The basic observation, which every lauded military thinker has said since before standing armies existed, is that war is a practical business, and without practice you tend to lose. Training is meant to be a substitute for that. But we have a staggeringly poor recent record of turning our training and preparation programs into operational success. So I'd settle for vastly improved training, education and selection/promotion, but absent that actual operations are the best method.

Funny how this was absolutely accepted 10 years ago, but increasingly now the party line seems to be that operational experience isn't necessary.
 
It's a good story but Napoleon seems to have been fully in control on 18 June.
What if the delay to ordering the attack until midday wasn't because he wanted the ground to dry, but because he'd sipped a bit too much dragon?
 
Another way of looking at that is that the Army which spectacularly failed in Iraq and Afghanistan was one that had just spent over a decade on precisely those kind of peacekeeping operations. But all of these are mildly fatuous correlation=causation arguments.

The basic observation, which every lauded military thinker has said since before standing armies existed, is that war is a practical business, and without practice you tend to lose. Training is meant to be a substitute for that. But we have a staggeringly poor recent record of turning our training and preparation programs into operational success. So I'd settle for vastly improved training, education and selection/promotion, but absent that actual operations are the best method.

Funny how this was absolutely accepted 10 years ago, but increasingly now the party line seems to be that operational experience isn't necessary.

Do you really believe that the army failed?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
So we were the best Army in the world; then we were the best reference Army in the world; now we're...the best training Army in the world? I presume Guardsmen would also say we are already the best drill Army in the world, so I think the only remaining step to unspire to is the Best Toy Army In The World.
I'm not saying that the statement is necessarily a good thing, but in itself, it certainly isn't a bad thing. The British Army has always been good at training others, however training itself and then performing at the highest level has always been a bit patchy.

I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making and I probably didn't explain myself clearly enough. There's a lot of very useful self-examination and rightful criticism to be had on this site on this subject but in the rush to beat ourselves up, we often overlook any successes we may have. Of course, we would be wrong to assume that those successes are enough to compensate for the failure of the Army at every level to define its role and then train and equip itself properly to carry it out.

It isn't going to be fixed soon, but I sense that the war in Ukraine will focus minds, potentially to the Army's advantage when future funding rounds are under discussion. Whether the Army is to be trusted to make the most of any settlement is another question entirely.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Be honest, Russia had to sort out the collapse of the Soviet Union, keep its friends and allies happy, keep its foes distant, and reorganise its armed forces, all while trying to keep the populace fed and happy too. No mean feat.

They now have a small army, in comparison to Soviet times, mostly volunteers and better quality, better treated, better led and better equipped with a variety of wheeled and tracked platforms capable of operating from arctic to desert.

What do we have?
Is the Russian army of better quality, better treated, better led and better equipped than before?

We don’t have a military that is barbaric in nature and has to resort to intimidation tactics and massed artillery to take cities.

We also have a military who doesn’t have to take cities by force because they don’t go around invading neighbouring countries because we realise its not the 19th century.

When we have had to take cities, such as basrA, we never resorted to the whole scale flattening if the city.

I wouldn’t try to compare the U.K. with Russia. It’s like comparing renaissance Venice to Genghis Khan.
 
So we were the best Army in the world; then we were the best reference Army in the world; now we're...the best training Army in the world? I presume Guardsmen would also say we are already the best drill Army in the world, so I think the only remaining step to unspire to is the Best Toy Army In The World.

Reference for whom? Has anyone else adopted our bizarre organisational structure or peculiar force balance? Is this like the NHS being the envy of the world, yet no-one else in the world has tried to emulate it, and regards us with a mix of bewilderment and pity?
 
So we were the best Army in the world; then we were the best reference Army in the world; now we're...the best training Army in the world? I presume Guardsmen would also say we are already the best drill Army in the world, so I think the only remaining step to unspire to is the Best Toy Army In The World.
My god. You sound like a Guardian reader.

Brand U.K. is strong outside the U.K.

If you want to get into a top trumps armies, always try and remember that the U.K. has historically always done a great job.

1) getting other nations to do the actual fighting.
2) funding, equipping, training and advising other armies.

There hasn’t been, isn’t now, and never will be a desire to have a large standing army.

If anything this has taught the U.K., it’s to make sure it increases domestic production of some of the more ‘low tech, low profit’ weapon systems like artillery, small arms and ammunition, and keep a large stockpile to be given away to friendlies when needed.

Personally I don’t think we need a big army. Anybody who’s likely to want to invade us has to go through other countries first and then they still have to cross large bodies of water.

I do however think we need to see some massive investment in the Navy and the Airforce. And that again may be into cheaper, less high end platforms that we could afford to ‘give away’ to fireflies when needed.
 
Top