Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Future Force 2020 is a chocolate teapot, says HCDC

So, tell me, what was the point?

I think he's missed it and neglected to read beyond your first five words ("For the blokes - cock all.")!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Please correct me if I'm wrong as my experience of littoral ops is somewhat limited (but nowhere near as limited as my experience of mech ops), but in my view the idea that "we should perhaps consider if any of our light role infantry battalions can also receive some training for littoral operations" or that with a little training a light role inf bn could adequately do "a 'lite version' of what the RM do" is as dangerously flawed as the idea that a similar light role inf bn / bde could easily re-role to mech just by teaching the dismounts how to get out of a Warrior instead of getting off a truck or walking.

Getting in and out of the "delivery system", whether it be ships, boats, APCs, trucks, helicopters or planes, is the easy part - how, where and when those delivery systems are used and what tactics are dictated as a result of the limitations of those systems on the troops they carried and their supplies and weapons systems is the hard part and what takes the training and experience that RM/RN have in littoral ops and the Army simply doesn't (and doesn't seem to want to acknowledge not having).

I think the Army (and certainly some posting here) seem to think that just because RM can re-role quickly and relatively easily to do a lt inf job that automatically means that the reverse is also true: that a lt inf bn could re-role quickly and easily to do a RM job - or at least a watered-down version of it (sorry, pun intended). I don't believe for a minute that that's true and I think it would be just as dangerous as a lt inf bn doing some limited familiarisation training with Warrior then being deployed on conventional armoured ops complete with their commanders who are totally unfamilar with armoured warfare. It would be a disaster waiting to happen.

The one option this does throw up is for whatever incremental manpower is likely to be required for littoral ops (one bn ... two bns ...even a bde) to take that role as their main priority under the auspices of RM while still remaining roled for the far easier to train for role of air assault / para / lt inf if those roles were required.

Its simply maximising resources and minimising waste - hardly rocket science.
 
Last edited:
I think he's missed it and neglected to read beyond your first five words ("For the blokes - cock all.")!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Please correct me if I'm wrong as my experience of littoral ops is somewhat limited (but nowhere near as limited as my experience of mech ops), but in my view the idea that "we should perhaps consider if any of our light role infantry battalions can also receive some training for littoral operations" or that with a little training a light role inf bn could adequately do "a 'lite version' of what the RM do" is as dangerously flawed as the idea that a similar light role inf bn / bde could easily re-role to mech just by teaching the dismounts how to get out of a Warrior instead of getting off a truck or walking.

Getting in and out of the "delivery system", whether it be ships, boats, APCs, trucks, helicopters or planes, is the easy part - how, where and when those delivery systems are used and what tactics are dictated as a result of the limitations of those systems on the troops they carried and their supplies and weapons systems is the hard part and what takes the training and experience that RM/RN have in littoral ops and the Army simply doesn't (and doesn't seem to want to acknowledge not having).

I think the Army (and certainly some posting here) seem to think that just because RM can re-role quickly and relatively easily to do a lt inf job that automatically means that the reverse is also true: that a lt inf bn could re-role quickly and easily to do a RM job - or at least a watered-down version of it (sorry, pun intended). I don't believe for a minute that that's true and I think it would be just as dangerous as a lt inf bn doing some limited familiarisation training with Warrior then being deployed on conventional armoured ops complete with their commanders who are totally unfamilar with armoured warfare. It would be a disaster waiting to happen.

The one option this does throw up is for whatever incremental manpower is likely to be required for littoral ops (one bn ... two bns ...even a bde) to take that role as their main priority under the auspices of RM while still remaining roled for the far easier to train for role of air assault / para / lt inf if those roles were required.

Its simply maximising resources and minimising waste - hardly rocket science.

The problem is that you are guessing with no little arrogance. The Army doesn't think that it can easily do the job of the RM with a little training. There is no suggestion of that. You are building a straw man to beat the army with, based on your own arrogance which simply isn't true.
 
I didn't say "nobody realised that law and order was the priority" (my bold).

What I said was that it wasn't "Realised and actioned" and then suggested that maybe " ... it was the priority but some rather senior people ignored that and decided that entire bns would be better employed doing something else".

A number of people both on the ground and who were consulted realised that law and order was the only priority and I know full well they voiced that opinion very strongly indeed; unfortunately their opinion wasn't heeded and it wasn't actioned.

You don't know anything full well. You read stuff on the inter web.

You are talking shit. Again.

I realise it's my fault. Nobody else replied to any of your earlier fishing posts. Probably realising that you are a bullshitter, liar, hugely arrogant and generally cancer for a thread once it comes under your beady eye. I made the mistake of engaging with you. It's not a mistake I will make again.
 
The problem is that you are guessing with no little arrogance. The Army doesn't think that it can easily do the job of the RM with a little training. There is no suggestion of that. You are building a straw man to beat the army with, based on your own arrogance which simply isn't true.
What I have said is very clearly what "I think ... the Army seem to think"; its simply an opinion - a "guess", if you will.

It is only more than a guess when it applies to those posting their unambiguous views here.

I don't claim to know what "The Army doesn't think" or what it (or at least its upper echelon) thinks, any more than I would claim to know what was said at every briefing, 'O' group, etc in Afghanistan; I leave that to you.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
I can't help but feel we need to find the funds, because we're going to need rather more capability than at present & in the not too distant future.
An extra couple of billion isn't going to remedy the current parlous state of our armed forces.

Extra funds would mean pay rises - the MOD is like a 3rd world African country that asks for aid - just how many people do they employ again?

The Ministry of Defence is looking to appoint what could be the country's best-paid civil servant on a salary of up to £500,000, a move that unions have blasted as "utterly outrageous".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-unions-label-utterly-outrageous-9804283.html

Mr Clegg is quite correct to say we have one civilian for every two uniformed staff at the MoD. The latest numbers show that on 1 March 2010 the trained strength of the armed forces was 176,920, around 3,000 stronger than 1 April 2009. There was also another 19,620 untrained staff.

At the start of April 2009 (the latest statistics that are available), there were 86,600 civilian staff employed by the MOD, roughly half the number of personnel in the armed forces

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/mod-employs-one-civilian-for-every-two-soldiers/2090

The MOD and the military do not offer value for money to the UK taxpayer. It is one giant trough that exists to extract the maximum it can against a non existant (up till now) threat.

If it were cut back to the level of say Denmark it would have zero effect on the actual stability and safety of the UK.
 
The problem is that you are guessing with no little arrogance. The Army doesn't think that it can easily do the job of the RM with a little training. There is no suggestion of that. You are building a straw man to beat the army with, based on your own arrogance which simply isn't true.
How dare you question the veracity of Paedo G, SO1 (P8)!!!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Still haven't told me what point I'm missing Widow11.....
 
Extra funds would mean pay rises - the MOD is like a 3rd world African country that asks for aid - just how many people do they employ again?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-unions-label-utterly-outrageous-9804283.html



http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/mod-employs-one-civilian-for-every-two-soldiers/2090

The MOD and the military do not offer value for money to the UK taxpayer. It is one giant trough that exists to extract the maximum it can against a non existant (up till now) threat.
The funny thing with the "new" head of procurement at the MoD was that after briefly shifting the "old" one sideways because he hadn't improved what the FT described as "a mess" he was taken on again to do the same job but at the higher salary and is still doing it four years later (and according to the FT its an even bigger "mess"!).
 
Leaves me wondering to what extent that espoused goal was reflected in the actions that followed on from those orders.

That is not a veiled accusation that the Army talked about law'n'order while acting like crooks, it's simply that I'm a long way from being convinced that (irrespective of issues of under-resourcing) the Army was sufficiently tuned-in to the local cultural / tribal/ social/ political complexities of its last two dusty deployments to have even the slightest hope of facilitating the establishing of widespread Order and respect for The Law.

I'm left with a strong sense that a succession of One-Stars were happy to talk Law'n'Order while doing War - because the latter looks better on the OJAR . . . . . many of our recent VSOs have shown themselves to be more than ready willing and able to say one thing, yet do another - the vexed issue of personal integrity springs immediately to mind.

Bill Rollo In British Generals in Blair's Wars puts it very well and admits that "We " often pay lip service to what we say.
Verbatiom Quote:
If you accept that providing security to a population is essential to gaining and securing their support then you are accepting both a requirement for numbers and the time to train them, on the assumption that no Western Army or coalition can or should alone employ the numbers required to provide security to a population in a high threat area in anything other than a very small country for a short period of time. You are also accepting the requirement to mentor and monitor, with the force requirements and force protection issues which go with this. If you accept that security is about law as much as order then you need to consider police, judges, gaols and legal process as much as soldiers. i am not sure we have taken this aspect of stabilisation seriously enough (my emphasis). Soldiers provide the framework within which policemen enforce the law. What then is the right mix of soldiers and policemen? who trains them with what objectives? And within the police what arethe responsibilities of the officers and the rank and file? What can they be in a society where literacy levels are very low? Are policemen best local? Or best from elsewhere in the country to lessen the risk of being at the point of corruption? Whatever the answer it will be different in each country and it will not be a straight Western model based on the office of constable

That seems pretty emphatic from a man at the top - it isn't simple, it can commit us to more than we are prepared in manpower and intellectual horse power to do; i'm not sure we got it right
 
Last edited:
Not sure I'd agree with "unwittingly".

I think he and his fellow corrupt "generals for hire" knew exactly what they were doing!

slightly unfair - certainly corrupt needs quantifying, presumably you mean morally corrupt rather than corrupt for financial gain?

Jobsworth, tunnel visioned and career focused?

Elliot, BGIBW, HCDC commentary on Levene reforms all acknowledge siloing and compartmentalisation. I'm sure many in people in large organisation have known something isn't quite right in another department and have chosen for a variety of reasons to not address it (having some gossip/insider wisdom to share is surprisingly common)
 
As Colin Powell said, LBP, "if you break it, you own it, you fix it".

We broke the systems they had in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking away law and order systems that, while they may have been flawed by our standards, were at least better than none at all. That made it our responsibility to replace them with something better; if we weren't prepared to invest the time, blood and money to do that why did we go there at all?
 
Last edited:
slightly unfair - certainly corrupt needs quantifying, presumably you mean morally corrupt rather than corrupt for financial gain?
Well, they were offered "financial gain" in return for services to be rendered which they shouldn't have agreed to morally and, arguably, legally. I don't think "misguided" would be appropriate given their ethical and moral responsibilities and their supposed level of intelligence - if they didn't realise the significance of what they were doing none should have held the positions of authority amd responsibility they had.
 
Have they decided what we're going to be yet ?
World policeman, local EU bobby, or plain home guard ?
Any one of those requires more investment as has been pointed out. "Money" and "mouth" spring to mind.

These days we're more of a weedy, pale, speccy PCSO who says "Yeah!" in support of it's big mate the US.
 

Zhopa

War Hero
I only have very limited experience of the man, so this is not a balanced assessment. But on those occasions I did interact with him (if you don't count getting a fine Argentinian haircut) he seemed happily and willingly to be allowing himself to be dazzled and bamboozled by pure-grade academic folderol and flapdoodle. We were deeply unimpressed with his apparent unwillingness or inability to call horseshit. So on that limited basis I wouldn't challenge your critique.

But maybe that's really unfair because he did it all in private.
 
The one thing that can be said in Kiszely's defence is that of the eight senior officers approached in the Sunday Times "Generals For Hire" sting only two (unnamed) turned the approach down while six (including Lord Dannatt and Sir Mike Jackson) went for it.

That seems to indicate a distinct lack of either integrity or intelligence, neither of which is a good thing in a CGS who is responsible for the defence of the country.
 

Latest Threads

Top