Generals look for a new role for the Army

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by msr, Jun 10, 2011.

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. msr

    msr LE

  2. Would be nice for the Army to reconsolidate for a change, while the adults in charge work out what to do
  3. SSHHHH! Don't give the game away!

    If the politicos cotton on that the Generals just lord (and lard) it up on a mixture of tax payers money and British Aerospace bungs and only when pressed for input, do a quick flurry of google cut and paste, they'll begin to wonder what use generals are.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I rather think that before beginning a widepread and total alteration in doctrine and training, the Army should probably look at why it can only realistically deploy 10% of its manpower at any given time and then still be over-streched. God knows how it would be without 3CDO Bgde.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. The Army looks for new roles for Generals...
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Did 3 Cdo Bde not wonder, how they were they were goin to retake the Falkands.
    Afterall 2 + 3 Para beefed sorry reinforced them.
  7. Check your figures before throwing in random percentages. Afghanistan isn't the only place troops are deployed and don't forget to include other non-operational commitments.
  8. Hear, hear. He obviously wasn't watching Trooping The Colour earlier today.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Horridlittleman

    Hasn't the Army line for some years now been that Afghanistan is the only area of operations for UK defence plannig?
  10. Errrrrrrrrr no. I think you'll find that AFG has been the highest priority but by no means the only consideration.
  11. Righto, checked facts.

    15%, can only deploy 15%. Look i'm not throwing insults i'm making a point and the entrenched throwbacks my comment immediately generated just shows how difficult it seems to be for the Services to self-critisise.

    Cyprus isn't exactly taxing, as are the Gib, Bosnia or NI garrisons - according to the people who have recently served there i hasten to add. Afghanistan is however, but the Army should be able to deploy far more of its manpower, that is just a fact.

    Loathe as I am to use my Service as a comparison, as it seems rather "look how much better we are" - we aren't, just different - but the RN still manages over 9 operational commitments and are being called upon to do more by the govt - we can't simply because we don't have the physical hulls to do it - but with about 40% deployed with the capacity to get more out there if the need arises you've got to ask how we can do it?

    However, let's not get started on the RAF eh? ;)
  12. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    just increase the navy but add to the basic training a little to cover urban warfare etc... and double the ships compliment, change the working dress to mpc, mount challengers on the side of the ships which can be taken off when required, stick the planes on (now I'm going out on a limb here as I dont know if it will work) flat topped ships.

    send the whole lot overseas for 4-6 months at a time constantly so the wags get used to it.
  13. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong in an Armed Force 'looking' for a task?
    • Like Like x 3
  14. How about fighting a war at sea and going after the pirates? That way the navy and the crabs can do the fighting and the army can stay at home and have a rest for a change.

    Just a thought...


    • Like Like x 1