FIghting without the US - SoS Defence


If this is remotely true, I hope it heralds a massive investment in J4 - because that's what the US has down pat. I fear it's going to be a Infantry preservation exercise.

Either way, shots fired for SDSR 20.
 
J4? I think it should be a massive investment across the board. Actually fighting an actual war without the Americans... could we even do it?
 

If this is remotely true, I hope it heralds a massive investment in J4 - because that's what the US has down pat. I fear it's going to be a Infantry preservation exercise.

Either way, shots fired for SDSR 20.
Are you saying 'infantry preservation exercise' is a bad thing?
 
Are you saying 'infantry preservation exercise' is a bad thing?
Over logistics? yes
The Logistician

Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals.

Generals are a happy blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map, point their fingers decisively up train corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands. In war, they must stride more slowly because each general has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that, at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: "No, you can't do that." Generals fear logisticians in war and, in peace, generals try to forget logisticians.

Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know about logisticians until they grow up to be generals--which they usually do.

Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates; he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and, on his back, is a logistician whom he fears. This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia.

Unknown Author



Forgive them father, they quote Tom Clancy at the end

E2A: of course, it could be reality biting about maintaining a "deployable" division.

There was a post on a thread a while back that highlighted how disparate the distribution/type of UK inf units were compared to European armies, the piint being made that most European armies hadn't had to maintain a large Light infantry commitment to something like BANNER
 
Last edited:
J4? I think it should be a massive investment across the board. Actually fighting an actual war without the Americans... could we even do it?


What this "We" White man, aren't you a yank now?
 
Last edited:
What this "We" White man, aren't you a yank now?
Taking US citizenship doesn't mean a loss of British citizenship. I have dual nationality and I'm also paying income tax in the UK as well as to Uncle Sam.

I've been in the US for over three decades now, I'm British born and raised and I still consider myself British. For me taking US citizenship was a means to an ends. I couldn't do the job I wanted to do without becoming a US citizen.
 
Last edited:

If this is remotely true, I hope it heralds a massive investment in J4 - because that's what the US has down pat. I fear it's going to be a Infantry preservation exercise.

Either way, shots fired for SDSR 20.
The real payoff may be that we no longer get dragged into US-led conflicts as a matter of course.

The downside is that Defence will inevitably return to its traditional Cinderella role in the Chancellor's annual Budget.
 
Over logistics? yes
The Logistician

Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals.

Generals are a happy blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map, point their fingers decisively up train corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands. In war, they must stride more slowly because each general has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that, at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: "No, you can't do that." Generals fear logisticians in war and, in peace, generals try to forget logisticians.

Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know about logisticians until they grow up to be generals--which they usually do.

Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates; he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and, on his back, is a logistician whom he fears. This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia.

Unknown Author



Forgive them father, they quote Tom Clancy at the end

E2A: of course, it could be reality biting about maintaining a "deployable" division.

There was a post on a thread a while back that highlighted how disparate the distribution/type of UK inf units were compared to European armies, the piint being made that most European armies hadn't had to maintain a large Light infantry commitment to something like BANNER
The Navy can't do N4 on any grand scale. Its a bloody joke these days.
 
The Navy can't do N4 on any grand scale. Its a bloody joke these days.
But, but, but... you have recent publicity of RAS between aircraft carriers & other ships, F-35s taking off etc etc

Are you saying this was all just SDSR positioning, a PR sham enhanced to try and sell more capability than can be manned?

 
Op Corporate ?
Only because back then we had "that rifle" and even then, to quote Major-General John Jeremy Moore, “It was a very close-run thing.”
 
One thing that CDS identified in his pre Christmas speech at RUSI was the 'double jeopardy' (my term) of mobilising reserves from critical defence industries . Many of them are in the J4 space and when they are mobilised and deployed, who backfills their equally vital civilian role?

I see that in my current civilian job; there's quite a few of the younger staff who are reservists (and bloody good guys) supporting defence programmes and their mobilisation would cause some issues in trying to plug the gaps with SQEP who also have the clearances.

But the wider question is who would we fight against, alone? Obviously Argentina springs to mind but they can't even send a fleet to sea, let alone keep their ships afloat in harbour. Apart from colonial transitional conflicts, I'm struggling to think of a situation where we fought (alone) an external aggressor at a general war level of intensity and commitment.

Perhaps the greatest concern is a near-peer conflict with Russia and its proxies, with NATO minus the US. That would require leadership from the UK (or France). No one else in NATO(-) could.
 
Only because back then we had "that rifle" and even then, to quote Major-General John Jeremy Moore, “It was a very close-run thing.”
I had no idea General Moore was a Duke of Wellington walt.
 
It's all good us fighting without them...

But if anyone has forgotten, Op Herrick and Op Telic... which country kicked it off...

So what happens when they ask us to be an ally in another ongoing conflict in the next few months?

I'd be inclined to be polite and tell Mr. Trump "sorry but... (insert reason here)"

Can anyone think of any potential dialogue we would send to PM Johnson of any excuse to fob off a commitment to Trump and the US in any other ongoing conflict or another "war or terror"
 
One thing that CDS identified in his pre Christmas speech at RUSI was the 'double jeopardy' (my term) of mobilising reserves from critical defence industries . Many of them are in the J4 space and when they are mobilised and deployed, who backfills their equally vital civilian role?

I see that in my current civilian job; there's quite a few of the younger staff who are reservists (and bloody good guys) supporting defence programmes and their mobilisation would cause some issues in trying to plug the gaps with SQEP who also have the clearances.

But the wider question is who would we fight against, alone? Obviously Argentina springs to mind but they can't even send a fleet to sea, let alone keep their ships afloat in harbour. Apart from colonial transitional conflicts, I'm struggling to think of a situation where we fought (alone) an external aggressor at a general war level of intensity and commitment.

Perhaps the greatest concern is a near-peer conflict with Russia and its proxies, with NATO minus the US. That would require leadership from the UK (or France). No one else in NATO(-) could.
Back to small groupings involved in limited proxy/sub-threshold conflict in Africa and Near/South East Asia, over influence and natural resources against Russia & China.
If you're going to make the world electric, your minerals have to come from somewhere
 
We could also opt to be like Ireland in the foreseeable future...

Neutrality

Less war means less tax payers funds wasted, less blood spilled, doesn't further antagonise p*ssed off countries with UK foreign policies they don't already like and it will also please the gen-pop whom are scratching their heads about Trumps erratic daily decision making.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
There was a post on a thread a while back that highlighted how disparate the distribution/type of UK inf units were compared to European armies, the piint being made that most European armies hadn't had to maintain a large Light infantry commitment to something like BANNER
Banner was only part of the reason, the way the British Army was set up to fight in armoured battle groups meant that you needed Infantry to work with the tanks, the ratio was almost 1 apc’s per Tank and the arms plot meant rotating bns regularly so everyone got a chance to experience armoured warfare!
Banner was a huge drain upon manpower which without short tours from BAOR etc wouldn’t have been manageable

One could argue that withdrawal from East of Suez meant that we were fighting many wars with no US help!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top