Generals look for a new role for the Army

#3
Would be nice for the Army to reconsolidate for a change, while the adults in charge work out what to do
 
#4
Haven't they just rehashed the piece from the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.
British Army 'not ready for urban warfare' - Telegraph
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.
 
#5
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.
 
#7
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.
Did 3 Cdo Bde not wonder, how they were they were goin to retake the Falkands.
Afterall 2 + 3 Para beefed sorry reinforced them.
 
#8
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.
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.
 
#9
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.
Hear, hear. He obviously wasn't watching Trooping The Colour earlier today.
 
#10
Horridlittleman

Hasn't the Army line for some years now been that Afghanistan is the only area of operations for UK defence plannig?
 
#11
Horridlittleman

Hasn't the Army line for some years now been that Afghanistan is the only area of operations for UK defence plannig?
Errrrrrrrrr no. I think you'll find that AFG has been the highest priority but by no means the only consideration.
 
#12
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? ;)
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
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.
 
#14
Isn't there something fundamentally wrong in an Armed Force 'looking' for a task?
 
#15
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...

:)

Rodney2q
 
#16
Comparing the percentage of the RN at sea with the Army on operations is fundamentally flawed. The RN will clearly do much of it's training at sea and most of what the navy do at sea would not be classed as operational from a soldier's perspective. I suspect that if you compared the total percentages of troops on operations or training, directly preparing for ops or training with the percentage of sailors at sea in one capacity or another or directly preparing to go to sea, they would be very similar. The percentage of UK based single service enablers is about the same for both and in any case much of this capacity is now either purple or contractorised.

The news article in question appears to be re-reporting and just a trying to create a new story where none exists. Agile Warrior is not an inter service pissing match, it is just attempting to identify what the Army should look like to be able to operate effectively in the future.
 
#17
... but the RN still manages over 9 operational commitments and are being called upon to do more by the govt ...
Sorry to be a bore and introduce some other facts but the Army are currently involved in 22 Ops to varying degrees. Again, that doesn't mean we are better or worse than the RN (other than at rugby, of course) but it is simply wrong to say only 15%of the Army is committed to Ops.

And I am not sure that all 9 of the RN Ops are strenuous as you seem to imply when you mention some of the Ops which you deem to be unstressful (you are right). I'm in Middle East and your sailors in Bahrain don't look stressed when I see them, to highlight but 1.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
The fact that someone somewhere feels the need for our forces to be involved somewhere is quite disturbing, ffs we are now only big enough to act as a defence force (thanks to politicians) and having the troops home getting some decent training which doesnt inviolve them being killed in foreign shitholes to keep politicians happy would be nice for once.
Why do generals (if it is them) feel the need to maintain operational experience at such a level, its the current operational experience that is causing such dramas and if these august pages are to be believed the experience gets ignored anyway!
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
probably so the junior officers dont organise a coup! but mainly I reckon its because overall it was felt that the chance of going on a risky tour and the experience gained (NI) keeps us sharp and steely eyed.

a bigger form of use it or lose it I guess - if they cant find something to do with the troops then treasury will try to cut them.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#20
You are of course assuming that being in a war prevents cuts! That has really worked hasnt it?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top