"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

What, by George, you think, Russia needs in Baltic? Peat? Sprats? Amber? There are nothing worth (by iself) to occupy Baltic. Occupation of Baltic have means only in case of the war. War between NATO (first of all - USA) and Russia. First goal in this war (for Russia) is to cut off Atlantic searouts. So, it means devastation of the North Atlantic Barrier (Norway-Britain-Ireland-Iceland-Greenland) in the very first hours of war. Sorry, guys, nothing personal, but geography is the fate.
So, Her Majesty should provide a mobilisation, and send her forces and her heirs in Europe, Australia and Canada before war shall begin.
Hallo YarS. Why did you change your handle? Fed up with the old account being blocked and on Perma RoPs?
 
but one with such large geographical holes as to render it a military joke. I like the idea in principal, I just don't think most states would pay regardless. So I'd rather keep them in paying something and integrated into the structure in the hope that later they see sense and start contributing more.
Tbh, until Germany starts doing it, the others won’t. They project 1.5% by 2025, so below the 2% and after the 2024 agreement: Germany aims to spend 1.5 pct of GDP on defence by 2025 - minister
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
What, by George, you think, Russia needs in Baltic? Peat? Sprats? Amber? There are nothing worth (by iself) to occupy Baltic. Occupation of Baltic have means only in case of the war. War between NATO (first of all - USA) and Russia. First goal in this war (for Russia) is to cut off Atlantic searouts. So, it means devastation of the North Atlantic Barrier (Norway-Britain-Ireland-Iceland-Greenland) in the very first hours of war. Sorry, guys, nothing personal, but geography is the fate.
So, Her Majesty should provide a mobilisation, and send her forces and her heirs in Europe, Australia and Canada before war shall begin.
8 posts, all in Russia threads; incomprehensible colloquialisms; misunderstanding of how to use the definite article...

Seems gen.
 
8 posts, all in Russia threads; incomprehensible colloquialisms; misunderstanding of how to use the definite article...

Seems gen.
I am afraid that Gay Frock's is another one of our Russian stalkers.
We must be annoying them to have so many of them tearing themselves away from the football.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Well when you find a way to coordinate and schedule a kickoff with the Ivan’s 12-18 months prior please let us all know. You keep referring to these long term mobilization timelines, that are not feasible
in today’s societies. If the Russians took the Baltic’s and NATO needed 18 months To build up for a counteroffensive to occur, you can bet the public will not let it happen.


You keep going back to COIN as if it is the only type of operations your military forces could be engaged in. The trend these days is to prepare for mechanized operations against a neer peer competitor in Europe. This is a rehash of what the Cold Warriors faced.


So yes an Armored Battlegroup as you call it, will spend quite a bit of time in their tracks in order to be profiecent. You can only do so much in the simulators.
If your reserves don’t have armor now, what makes you think it is a capability they can handle in the future?
The long-term mobilization timelines are a lot more feasible than indefinitely maintaining a large enough force to fight a real mechanized war. There's also little to no evidence that "the public will not let it happen". Most major actions or campaigns that have happened over the past 20 years have had at least a 6-12 month run-up time, and they have still happened. The campaigns that have happened for the UK: Kosovo, SL, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq 2, Syria (eventually). The campaigns that have been prevented for the UK...Syria the first time around. Personally I think Parliament voting against Syria was misguided. But pretending that "the public" or political pressure have stopped lots of actions from happening is just not true. Where "the public" pressure has worked is in making long campaigns shorter, and constraining the kind of indefinite time periods that Afghanistan and Iraq started out with.

By the way, I haven't mentioned COIN once. You have, twice. If you want to map all your preconceptions about what Brits think onto us, just do it, rather than ******* around with making up quotes that provably don't exist.

Finally, you are either deliberately missing the point or just aren't smart enough to get it. You're talking about Britain cutting armour like we have some great toy set hanging around that's on the verge of getting junked. That isn't what is happening. It's already been cut. It happened at least 5 years ago, and in reality had been on hiatus for a good 10 years before that. The experience, [modern] kit and capability is already gone. None of the bluff that comes from British generals about Armoured Divisions etc is planning to change that, it is all about trying to make a pig look like a wolf. To make an actual wolf would require a lot more money which isn't going to be forthcoming. Even were we to get the money, it's unlikely that we could sustain the increase in numbers required to actually man it all (or it would require a whole lot more money to increase the recruitment and retention offer). That money could be far, far better spent elsewhere, because the rest of our Defence establishment is a bit rickety too.

What I, and a couple of other people on here, are saying, is that it is better to admit reality and properly mothball our 'armour' capability, and focus on other things which we are - frankly - better at, and will contribute more to any allied effort. That is the route that has been taken by a number of more realistic militaries in NATO. Quite aside from that, have you actually thought *why* you are so keen on the British having lots of tanks? We happen to be one of the smallest major NATO members for manpower (actual citizens), are on an island, we have a massively diminished manufacturing base, and have a terrible habit of gold-plating our military procurement to make it unaffordable. A smart person looking to reshape NATO contributions, if they reasonably wanted a lot of armour, would look at countries with a lot more people, closer to the actual threat, and with much a larger and more efficient manufacturing base. Luckily enough there are several candidates (Germany, Poland, etc) who fit that perfectly!

The difference between what we are both saying is that I'm working from the position we are actually in, today, and you seem to be working from near total ignorance and are playing Fantasy Armies. It's almost as if you haven't actually thought about any of this and are just parroting the opinions being fed from the DoD and MoD to the newspapers.

We are not the US: we are not going to be the US: pretending that we can be the US (like you and unfortunately many British generals do) is not going to turn out well.
 
Oh good, another military structure requiring a bureaucracy! Either that, or old news recycled. Pity we already had one of these going in 2016.

'The Combined UK and French Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF) has moved from concept to reality with more than 5,000 personnel from the two countries coming together for Exercise Griffin Strike.

'The exercise, which involves a joint French/UK headquarters planning and executing military activity for the first time, will see the CJEF demonstrate ‘full validation of concept’. That means it will be available for bilateral, NATO, EU, UN or coalition operations.'

Defence Secretary welcomes deployable UK-France joint force

UK and France commit to new defence cooperation
 
The long-term mobilization timelines are a lot more feasible than indefinitely maintaining a large enough force to fight a real mechanized war. There's also little to no evidence that "the public will not let it happen". Most major actions or campaigns that have happened over the past 20 years have had at least a 6-12 month run-up time, and they have still happened. The campaigns that have happened for the UK: Kosovo, SL, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq 2, Syria (eventually). The campaigns that have been prevented for the UK...Syria the first time around. Personally I think Parliament voting against Syria was misguided. But pretending that "the public" or political pressure have stopped lots of actions from happening is just not true. Where "the public" pressure has worked is in making long campaigns shorter, and constraining the kind of indefinite time periods that Afghanistan and Iraq started out with.

By the way, I haven't mentioned COIN once. You have, twice. If you want to map all your preconceptions about what Brits think onto us, just do it, rather than ******* around with making up quotes that provably don't exist.

Finally, you are either deliberately missing the point or just aren't smart enough to get it. You're talking about Britain cutting armour like we have some great toy set hanging around that's on the verge of getting junked. That isn't what is happening. It's already been cut. It happened at least 5 years ago, and in reality had been on hiatus for a good 10 years before that. The experience, [modern] kit and capability is already gone. None of the bluff that comes from British generals about Armoured Divisions etc is planning to change that, it is all about trying to make a pig look like a wolf. To make an actual wolf would require a lot more money which isn't going to be forthcoming. Even were we to get the money, it's unlikely that we could sustain the increase in numbers required to actually man it all (or it would require a whole lot more money to increase the recruitment and retention offer). That money could be far, far better spent elsewhere, because the rest of our Defence establishment is a bit rickety too.

What I, and a couple of other people on here, are saying, is that it is better to admit reality and properly mothball our 'armour' capability, and focus on other things which we are - frankly - better at, and will contribute more to any allied effort. That is the route that has been taken by a number of more realistic militaries in NATO. Quite aside from that, have you actually thought *why* you are so keen on the British having lots of tanks? We happen to be one of the smallest major NATO members for manpower (actual citizens), are on an island, we have a massively diminished manufacturing base, and have a terrible habit of gold-plating our military procurement to make it unaffordable. A smart person looking to reshape NATO contributions, if they reasonably wanted a lot of armour, would look at countries with a lot more people, closer to the actual threat, and with much a larger and more efficient manufacturing base. Luckily enough there are several candidates (Germany, Poland, etc) who fit that perfectly!

The difference between what we are both saying is that I'm working from the position we are actually in, today, and you seem to be working from near total ignorance and are playing Fantasy Armies. It's almost as if you haven't actually thought about any of this and are just parroting the opinions being fed from the DoD and MoD to the newspapers.

We are not the US: we are not going to be the US: pretending that we can be the US (like you and unfortunately many British generals do) is not going to turn out well.
Why am I keen on you folks maintaining your Armor?
Because if you don’t, then most of Western Europe will follow your lead. In theory you have 4 tank battalions in your Army. Binning them means somebody else has to replace that capability, which won’t be very easy.

Yes I do think like an American, which also means I expect you folks to be able to hold your own and pony up the forces that could fight ,survive and win against the Russian Army. If every NATO member gets to pick what they contribute to the organization, then NATO is done. Light infantry is not going to be needed, and would be more of handicap. Your strike brigade concept seems like a mobile abortion.

So excuse me for being a dumb $hit. However the best thing to kill a tank is going to naturally be another tank. By not having any armor in your formations, your forces will only be a speed bump. I would not expect CAS to make up for the difference, and unless you are going to invest in upgrading your long range fires the Russians will outgun you as well.
 
Last edited:
Why am I keen on you folks maintaining your Armor?
Because if you don’t, then most of Western Europe will follow your lead. In theory you have 4 tank battalions in your Army. Binning them means somebody else has to replace that capability, which won’t be very easy.

Yes I do think like an American, which also means I expect you folks to be able to hold your own and pony up the forces that could fight ,survive and win against the Russian Army. If every NATO member gets to pick what they contribute to the organization, then NATO is done. Light infantry is not going to be needed, and would be more of handicap. Your strike brigade concept seems like a mobile abortion.

So excuse me for being a dumb $hit. However the best thing to kill a tank is going to naturally be another tank. By not having any armor in your formations, your forces will only be a speed bump. I would not expect CAS to make up for the difference, and unless you are going to invest in upgrading your long range fires the Russians will outgun you as well.
Sure. If Europeans will be weak and surrender instantly - they will have a chance to be occupied and to survive, but USA, surely will lost the war. If they will be strong and brave - they will be burnt out by the Russian nukes, but USA will have some chances to stop the Russian invasion. What will they prefer?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
That's another thread ruined and ignored along with some posters
 
Sure. If Europeans will be weak and surrender instantly - they will have a chance to be occupied and to survive, but USA, surely will lost the war. If they will be strong and brave - they will be burnt out by the Russian nukes, but USA will have some chances to stop the Russian invasion. What will they prefer?
I would prefer you to suck start a 12 gauge/bore.
 
Why am I keen on you folks maintaining your Armor?
Because if you don’t, then most of Western Europe will follow your lead. In theory you have 4 tank battalions in your Army. Binning them means somebody else has to replace that capability, which won’t be very easy.

Yes I do think like an American, which also means I expect you folks to be able to hold your own and pony up the forces that could fight ,survive and win against the Russian Army. If every NATO member gets to pick what they contribute to the organization, then NATO is done. Light infantry is not going to be needed, and would be more of handicap. Your strike brigade concept seems like a mobile abortion.

So excuse me for being a dumb $hit. However the best thing to kill a tank is going to naturally be another tank. By not having any armor in your formations, your forces will only be a speed bump. I would not expect CAS to make up for the difference, and unless you are going to invest in upgrading your long range fires the Russians will outgun you as well.
1) We don't have an empire any more.
2) We aren't the big kid on the international block any more.
3) We're pretty much skint.
4) Please forward sensible and affordable suggestions c/o MoD, London (and as you're of a septic persuasion), England.
5) The best thing to kill a tank is a couple of bags of sugar in the fuel tank. Apparently.
 
Why am I keen on you folks maintaining your Armor?
Because if you don’t, then most of Western Europe will follow your lead. In theory you have 4 tank battalions in your Army. Binning them means somebody else has to replace that capability, which won’t be very easy.

Yes I do think like an American, which also means I expect you folks to be able to hold your own and pony up the forces that could fight ,survive and win against the Russian Army. If every NATO member gets to pick what they contribute to the organization, then NATO is done. Light infantry is not going to be needed, and would be more of handicap. Your strike brigade concept seems like a mobile abortion.

So excuse me for being a dumb $hit. However the best thing to kill a tank is going to naturally be another tank. By not having any armor in your formations, your forces will only be a speed bump. I would not expect CAS to make up for the difference, and unless you are going to invest in upgrading your long range fires the Russians will outgun you as well.
Germany can haz more tank love

Germany Still Loves Its Leopard Tanks


Strike Brigade, Stryker Brigade.... Where does the UK get these mobile abortion like ideas from?

Since 2CR has been doing annual road trips from Vilseck through eastern Europe for the last 3 years, one might be forgiven for thinking that there is almost a deterrent effect being exercised
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Effendi Economics 20
4 The Intelligence Cell 18
dogmonkey The Intelligence Cell 9

Similar threads

New Posts

Top