Doctrine etc

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by yorkie79, Dec 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Now Im not old and bold although ive been out 3 years things have changed rapidly with equipment and training however what does the future hold?
    Everything is centred on Herrick at the moment with training and equipment being specific to the war there.
    PECOC and the UOR is all being done in desert cam or desert spec or at least seems to be and all training again seems to be geared towards operating on Herrick however whats going to happen when everbody is home and looking at conventional war fighting or will we end up with an army fit for one purpose and not able to operate as a conventional war fighting force?
  2. we had more troops in NI for far longer and still managed to have conventional forces.
  3. WGF are not much of a threat at the mo.
  4. Still the services where a bit bigger then.
  5. Well, thats going to be decided by the Treasury and endorsed by the next SDR. Doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to guess we'll find extra money for lumbering mine-protected vehicles for the next 5 years in Afg before we leave and they're scrapped, and cuts which slash our manning, equipment & training budgets for anything other than a single heavy Bde-scale fight... and our doctrine will have to follow from that.

    We managed NI and a host of other small wars while still retaining the capability to fight larger ones. We haven't been able to since we chose to commit to two large COIN campaigns and certainly won't by this time next year. We're on course to becoming an Army of similar capability to our mates in the EU, unfortunately much faster than they're on course to rise to our capability.

    No point any of us being outraged about it. We're simply broke. But we were in the position for much of the 20s and 30s, and managed to ( just ) rearm and retrain to eventually prevail in WW2 with American help. So, chin up and all that, eh?

  6. But the army was bigger than, due to the end of Banner alone, the army lost 6 battalions!
  7. Irlsgt,

    I think in the end we only 'lost' 3. The Banner attribution led to a nominal reduction of 6 battalions, however new roles were created, such as SFSG, which brought it down to 3 (1xJock, 1xKings and 1xPoW (I think)).

  8. Yorkie,

    It's a fair question to ask. One of the areas where the Services have diverged over the last couple of years is over this question. The Army (under CGS' direction) has taken the view that the type of stuff we are engaged in now is very like what we will see for the foreseeable future while the other Services are arguing that this type of fighting that we are up to in Afghanistan is an aberration and that we will return to the conventional stuff before much longer. That is why they are pushing for JSF, CVF etc (slightly simplistic argument before any Crabs or Matelots get enraged by the Service characterisation.)

    What the doctrine is trying to lay out is how the conventional stuff will look when we next get round to it again. What seems pretty clear is that no-one is going to be dumb enough to park their military forces in a 'sterile' desert away from population centres and let us crack on at it with our own conventional kit - and particulary with USAF. Saddam did that twice and most people that we might scrap with in the future have learned from Saddam's lessons.

    Anyway, to answer your question I think it is a fair concern and only time will tell whether we can get some doctrine which allows us to satisfy the different demands of both current stuff and future stuff.

  9. As was put to the defence procurement minister on the today programme yesterday - doctrine will follow budget, as opposed to budget following doctrine. He disagreed but given the state of our public finances, and also given that certain sacred cows have been dogmatically ring fenced (health, policing, educashun etc.) I think that is probably the way we'll have to go.
  10. Hmm "doctrine following budget".

    So, should one of the commanders considerations (or indeed an addition to the 7Q process) be; "Can we afford to go left flanking, or would a frontal assault suffice to meet the TLB holders intent?"

    Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me.

  11. They were some f*cking big Battalions.
  12. thanks for the comments, perhaps the move to oz may be better ha ha