Fiction or future - Could Britain win in AFG on its own?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mr Happy, Nov 3, 2006.

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. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Based on the thread a while back about could we win in the Falklands again now here's another question for debate:

    If All allied foreign forces were withdrawn from AFG tomorrow and the UK was not involved in Iraq. Could HM Forces keep the peace and win the war in AFG on our own.

    I imagine that we have enough ground support aircraft lying around but do we have enough spares to keep everything flying.

    Would the senior service be useless or could we use the tomahawks for SF strikes?

    Would we have to lay minefields in the passes?

    Would we need to deploy some Challi2's in Kabul?

    Have we enough soldiers to train the AFG army and civpol?

    Is the RAF able to use the airbases as a supply route. Would our C130's alone deliver enough supplies for the guys on the ground?

    Do we have the right senior staff with experience to manage a country wide gorilla war?

    Is there enough bullets in blighty?

    Would our green fleet last in the environment?

    Would, if we were on our own, have a different policy towards poppy growing villagers (think concentration camps of the Boer War)...
  2. Basically no, however if a massive expansion of the Army was implemented say to 500K troops, LOADS of helicopters, a 200+ A10/Harrier CAS wing under direct control of the Army with unlimited money to be spent on local development (with DFID not being involved at all), including buying the whole poppy crop at above market rates. Then we could easily hold the North, East and most of the West. Our advance South would be gradual as in generational, as the benifits of the parts of Afghanistan under Her Majesty's protection were noticed by the barbarians.

    Also the Senior Service could be deployed later once the 'Kabul Ship Canal & Lake to be seen from Space' was built as part of our 'Jobs For All for twenty years plus' scheme.

    This would also provide a canal border between Iran and Pakistan which given their relations they will be pretty happy with
  3. We could but wether the political will(budget) is there a diffrent matter .
    Guess it would spe.ed things up if their is only one command making descions.Air transport would be a problem.And also britain as an old imperial
    power would be propganda goldmine for enemy/critics.
  4. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I like the minefield idea, sticking lots of big minefields in Southern AFG at the entrance to the passes so that we could limit incoming forces.

    Patrol the SW AFG with gun ships on a Free Fire Zone (aka Vietnam)

    Movement sensors covered by arty...

    I'm in a big area denial mood at the moment.
  5. Then start with Neutron weapons to make sure there is a level playing field.
  6. considering how minefield prone that country is, it would be good to be able to produce a mine that switches itself off after 2 years and self destruct.

    too many mines are hanging around long after the conflict is over
  7. Could we feck. We just simply dont have the logistical support it would require.
  8. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Mines are not a problem if they are in a marked minefield. Not sure if the septics have a different version of the geneva convention to the one I was taught but minefields are marked as such and are used to disrupt and channel en forces into zones of fire. Individual Mines should also be marked by type on a cmdrs map to ensure that they can be found.

    What you are complaining about is third world armies dropping them off wherever they feel like it.

    Not an issue if 5 years later the minefield is still there, marked, with a map for engineer c/s to clear up.

    Or have I got this uber wrong?
  9. Personally. I'm increasingly of the belief that the army is no longer capable of being deployed as a single, self supporting body. That, in fact the army logistically incapable of deploying for prolonged periods without massive support from Civilian contractors to do the jobs that were once done by the army itself. I can’t see any mobile Laundry units, Mobile bakeries, or butchers. Nor do I see the massive logistical tail that a 1930’s Brigade Commander on the NW frontier would have expected to follow him to keep him fed, clothed and armed. From the little I’ve seem the AFG deployment is hamstrung by its dependence on hired Civilian truckers to shift the bulk of stores. If the Taliban really wanted to cripple us in AFG then all it needs to do permanently block the roads through the province. ITN briefly mentioned this point but failed to follow up on the obvious. That the British army is no longer capable of true expeditionary deployment.
  10. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I'll take issue with that.

    In the current deployment with the number of trioops they can't operate with out civ-force backing up but in greater numbers you could have a secure MSR (or at least a robust MSR) and have troops in larger bases, thus removing the amount of heli-resup of pl houses etc that is required.
  11. What,Mr Happy are you going too do with all the millions of PoW´s,give them British Passports?

    If we just poisoned the land for a couple of hundred years in the best of Punic style,then we wouldn´t need any troops there at all.

    Why are we mollycoddling people who grow crops to kill others?

    And no the British Army and all the rest of what´s left of British forces could not wage a war in AFG alone..............................but don´t tell Tony that,he might offer `Bubba`the option,just as Goering said to Hitler `Dunkirk? No probs leave it to me and my glorious Luftwaffe!` :twisted:
  12. Not wrong, but sometimes maps of minefields can be incorrect over time. Along the Bosnia/Croatia border there were minefields marked along the banks of the River Sava. Over time the river has burst it's banks and flooded the minefields. As the water receeded it caused the mines to shift and has made the place bloody dangerous. Several refugees trying to cross the river Sava in Bosnia have been killed by these shifted mines.

    Not really pertinent to the thread, but just an interesting aside.
  13. Anyone who thinks Britain could do anything by itself is living in a dream world. The army is simply too small and too underfunded to carryout anything more than small skirmishes, take for example Iraq and Aghanistan. We're only playing a small part in both and we're currently overstretched. Even if funding was increased on a scale that would allow huge numbers to be recruited it would take years to get the soldiers up to the standard where they were actually fully operationally effective, that's not even taking into account the years of experience needed to be a good Sergeant, then comes the problem of logistical support. Our tour length in Iraq has been extended by a month so that the troops in Afghanistan can be replaced. That means we don't even have adequate logistical support from the RAF as it is. In answer to the question: "Could Britain win in AFG on its own?" I would have to say "No".

  14. I'll partly agree with that. Greater numbers of troops on the ground would a degree. However we are deployed in AFG at Brigade level. If we can not support a Brigade without massive Civilian contractor presence we are not capable of Expeditionary Force Deployment. The ablity of the British army to self sustain in the field has slowly eroded over the years to the point that we can not work for prolonged periods without Civilian support, KBR for one.