New model army

This reads quite well - to me.
But then, I am a very old fart and have been away for a long long time. So, what about the 1,000 yard starers commenting?
I'm struggling to catch up on everything that came in during my last 2 weeks holiday - so humble apologies if this has already been aired.
I think it could cause a little upset to those of a crab persuasion :D
What a load of old bllox. "What we need is..." Yes, Robert Fox=weapons grade knobjockey with a high opinion of himself inversely proportional to his actual knowledge and ability.
Anyone want to bet on how long it takes, after we cut Artic/Jungle training, for a couple of wars to break out in exactly those regions? :roll:

"It is better to keep an Army for a hundred years, even if you need it for only a single day."
-The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
A very interesting article that really says nothing. It assumes that junior officers and JNCOs are better qualified to do the forward planning that experienced senior ones with no actual evidence to back the statement. It also assumes that the future is a known fact , who 20 years ago would have foreseen the situation that exists today. It's always easy to know the answers when you set the question but a little more difficult when events set the question. The major strength of the British forces is there ability to adapt to a given situation. As for the glib comment on regiments he obviously has no inkling of the cement that binds the Brith army together, the regimental system is a tried and tested system that has stood the test of time .
Private_Pike said:
I think it could cause a little upset to those of a crab persuasion :D
Are you referring to this bit ?
The RAF should be held at 40,000 personnel, and should stick to its core business of deep strike, surveillance, transport and emergency rescue.
I'm not sure that the RAF had any plans for "branching out" into others areas. Or where he identified that list as "core business". No more close air support then? Or Air Defence of the UK, or expeditionary air superiority?

However ...
Extravagant equipment programmes need to be cut or cancelled. The Typhoon aircraft (£24bn), ........ and the new Joint Combat Aircraft (£20bn-plus) all need reviewing.
I would think that some new/replacement aircraft are needed.
FFS, we've only just retired Jaguar, having had it in service since 1974.
And we've been operating Harriers since 1970.

I think the Army should be re-issued with .303 rifles, on that basis :wink:
I particularily liked this bit:

The structure of the forces needs to be less fragmented and complex. There are too many HQs. The Army, in particular, is over-officered

Not having an anti officer bash but our tiny little army has a considerable number of chiefs. I doubt the Army really justifies Four Star command these days. Potential to reach General rank must be higher now than it has ever been due to the shrinkage at the bottom of the rank structure.

Oh hanng on what was that?........ Just formed 11 Light Bde, oh good.
Whilst much of what he says has the appearance of a pacifisr rant, I do think he has an arguement on some of the structural things. I think we are too top heavy both in uniformed and non uniformed staff, and that many working in administrative roles add little value to the task and there is good justification for reducing staff numbers by removing the jobs that we don't need doing
When you start depending on foriegners to fight your wars, you are on the path to ruin. Just read some later Roman history, and ask why the Saxons live in southern England, not the Romans.
Don't tell the Ghurkas, Fijians, Irish, Zimbabwians, South Africans, Kenyans, Aussies, Kiwis and all those guys from the West Indies that then.
Allowing our friends in, and forming a foreign legion, are different, I think.
angular said:
Allowing our friends in, and forming a foreign legion, are different, I think.
Why? My friend is a Polish Plumber.
. . . . . . . . . . . and a cut in army personnel :?

The Army should be restructured as a mobile force of about 90,000

Note to Bad CO - Please, please, please sort out the bb code buttons
So what is the ARRSE suggestion for a suitable size of army?

I would say we needed a 10 divison force; 2 divisions on ops, 2 just come back, 2 about to go and 4 training. We need to expect 2 divisions on the ops we're engaged in at the moment, because the chance of our European neighbours doing their part is somewhere between nowhere and not much. I'd like to see full integration of TA and regular, like the US National Guard, with real levels of support for reserve soldiers (full job protection, for a start).

I'd like to see a navy that can protect our trade and fisheries, and can project force to suport the troops on ops. I suppose we need an air force too.

And while I'm dreaming, can I have that nice Ferrari I saw in the shop last week?
the army itself doesnt need changing if it isnt broke only two things in my opinion need fixing
1, recruitment drive a proper one targeting young people from commonwealth and at home and good benefits of being in service someone could elaborate more but the way school/college kids see it is "fcuk going to iraq etc getting my legs blown off and living on the streets for the rest of my life"
2, a bigger budget - we are the most highly trained,professional army in the world full of hard bastards and we are fighting 2 wars on a peacetime budget with total shite kit.

angular said:
Allowing our friends in, and forming a foreign legion, are different, I think.
Maybe he means something liek the old King's African Rifles or King's German Legion.

Africa especially could provide many recruits after passing a rigourous Gurhka type selection test.

Similar threads

Latest Threads