Modern verse the old soldier?

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by MadPickleFarmer, Sep 28, 2007.

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. A fews years back i wondered if the modern day army could deploy to the Falklands, as in '82.
    But with the amount of Op's the young lads are now on and seeing
    what soldiering is all about maybe the new breed are better prepared?
     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Soldiers are soldiers, each generation thinking they are harder than the next and each, I think generally wrong. :) I think today's generation could certainly carry out the fight.

    Whether or not we had the numbers or resource to get them there is a question well discussed on here in the past.
     
  3. I reckon that they could no worries (as long as they had the kit & welfare, etc).

    As was said on TV the other day, these young lads are being exposed to some of the toughest fighting since Korea, which is a damn sight more than what we underwent in our time. If anyone ever truly wanted to be an Infanteer, now's the time to do it.

    Hopefully, some of them will go on to become tomorrow's politicians and like those politicians who were in all of the parties before these recent clowns we have in power and opposition, they will have had bitter experience of war and know that you don't commit to war unless you truly have to.

    I see the recruits at Vimy on a nigh on daily basis. Some of them are but kids but in ever such a short time, they'll have experiences many would not wish to have.
     
  4. I agree with seats. They only reason we made it to FI was by recalling vessels sold to India and then by taking up many vessels from trade.

    As to the ability of the army to do the job when they get there, of that I have no doubt whatsoever, a view supported by the many acts of gallantry in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  5. The modern soldier doesn't even come close to matching the old ones.

    Think about what they used put up with on a campaign.

    Just read a few of the descriptions of Wellingtons army or the Indian campaigns, the modern soldier wouldn't stand a chance.

    Just my opinion of course :)
     
  6. Yes, but would Wellington's Army have hacked it at Agincourt? Just how far do we want to go back here?
     
  7. I would disagree. Yes, the modern soldier is used to having all sorts of mod cons, but I also think that the modern British soldier is one of the most adaptable in the world.

    Yes, they would drip about the lack of facilities, but even with modern 'campaigns' they do the same. However, they also adapt and get on with the job in an extremely professional manner.
     
  8. I agree with the majority.
    The modern soldier has seen some of the toughest fighting in decades.
    Fair enough, they also have the modern battlefield support,
    but the Toms on the ground have seen way more action than
    those who were in 10-20 years ago.
     
  9. I think the modern army could deploy. The soldiers of a few years ago i think would struggle, as they were never tested properly, apart from on a base line in NI.
     
  10. I don't disagree that the guys today are adaptable etc etc but they are not physically as "adapted" to a rural/live off the land/hand to mouth existence
    as your general peasant of 200-300 years ago.

    How long do you think a modern soldier could keep going with no fresh water resupply for instance? A couple of days until he came down with something nasty probably.

    And I wonder what the attrition rate would be if you tried to walk a modern army 500 miles to the battlefield?
     
  11. There is no real difference.
    Do they stand and fight? YES
    Do they run away? NO
    Do they put their Piorities as beer and skank? YES
    Can they keep a sense of humour? YES

    Generals through history have wondered every time they see the schoolboy faces off to war.
    :) :)
     
  12. What a bollocks question. Soldiers of every generation are exactly the same raw material. They just do what they are told. Could they reenact Op Corporate....Yes if they could get there. Could the infantry of thirty years ago hack Iraq and Afghanistan?.......Probably better as there were more of them and if the news is to be believed, possibly of a higher calibre than the recruits of to-day.
     
  13. What a balls answer.

    So which is it then? The same raw material or of a higher calibre?

    Get off the fence :lol:
     
  14. The modern lads would waltz through corporate with dry feet as opposed to the bloody awful cairngorms or whatever form of DMS sponge they were that we had to deal with.
    I expect it would be pretty much as the first one IF they could get there which is unlikely
    at least they wouldnt have to nick boots off blokes who didnt need them anymore.
     
  15. Ok then I'll put it in little words and short phrases:

    My opinion is that squaddies are the same year in year out, apart for during periods of mass conscription which distorts things.

    There is however a general belief propogated by the media that the forces, especially the Army and specifically the Infantry is having to reduce standards all round as it has reached the bottom of the recruiting barrel.

    So my opinion? To-days could do the Falklands and yesterdays would equally do Iraq and Afghanistan.