Ranger Brigade(s)

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
No doubt the old and bold will already have auctions set up to move on the less emotionally charged items.
Dear Lord where is this wee fellow going to end up, another for the Castle?
20160126-1SCOTS-Silver-1-633x1024.jpg
There are plans for it but I found out tonight that this has still to be returned. It is a striking piece and the photo does not do it justice.
 
Quite why it was a (pre Estonia, Lit and Lat) NATO ambition to control the eastern Baltic elides me. For sure as a nuclear NATO member with politicians an VSO who are addicted to "punching above our weight" we're now committed to defend the indefensible . . .
I took the Queen's Shilling in 1968, as a direct consequence of the suppression of the Prague Spring. (I was commissioned in 1971).

If the Russians/Soviets were prepared to treat their "allies" like that, I was prepared to add my insignificant weight to maintaining NATO's effort of deterrence ;) .

In all those 50+ years, I don't recall any mention of The WEST having an ambition of "controlling" the eastern Baltic.

The implosion of the Warsaw Pact, and withdrawal of Soviet forces to their own borders, was NATO's victory. We won !!

The subsequent collapse of the USSR, was an unexpected bonus and surprise to many.

After 70 years of indisputable, unquestionable, proven NATO success, I really don't understand the contemporary, lack of commitment, confidence, and resolve :( .

The three Baltic States may be small, but in showing our determination to defend them, NATO demonstrates it's continuing resolve and determination to protect the territorial integrity and interests of all it's members.

To "snipe" from the sidelines, to quibble about budgets and sow the seeds of despair, is NOT adding an element of "reality" . . . it is unnecessarily providing encouragement to Russia :( .
 
Last edited:
Pretty much done as I Br xxx approx 55,000 strong.
Not sure I follow that. As I said, BAOR wasn't a standalone Army but took trained personnel from the UK base and was supported by a large UK-based system of administration and logistics in addition to what it had in-theatre. Therefore your personnel bill for having a BAOR is not 55K but 55,000+x.

PS - I don't disagree with your thesis that through BAOR we could field larger teeth arms, to use an old term, than now for a comparable number of troops. I'm just pointing out that the equation might not be as dramatic as you suggest, because the BAOR figure doesn't include its share of the UK tail, whereas the current Army figure obviously does.
 
Last edited:
I took the Queen's Shilling in 1968, as a direct consequence of the suppression of the Prague Spring. (I was commissioned in 1971).

If the Russians/Soviets were prepared to treat their "allies" like that, I was prepared to add my insignificant weight to maintaining NATO's effort ;) .

In all those 50+ years, I don't recall any mention of The WEST having an ambition of "controlling" the eastern Baltic.

The implosion of the Warsaw Pact, and withdrawal of Soviet forces to their own borders, was NATO's victory. We won !!

The subsequent collapse of the USSR, was an unexpected bonus and surprise to many.

After 70 years of indisputable, unquestionable, proven NATO success, I really don't understand the contemporary, lack of commitment, confidence, and resolve :( .

The three Baltic States may be small, but in showing our determination to defend them, NATO demonstrates it's continuing resolve and determination to protect the territorial integrity and interests of all it's members.

To "snipe" from the sidelines, to quibble about budgets and sow the seeds of despair, is NOT adding an element of "reality" . . . it is unnecessarily providing encouragement to Russia :( .
Promising, by treaty, to defend somewhere that your army can't reach, is, as the saying goes, asking for a kicking.
If you have neither the will nor ability to pay for garrisoning your troops in that ally country, you're bluffing.
 

QRK2

LE
Promising, by treaty, to defend somewhere that your army can't reach, is, as the saying goes, asking for a kicking.
If you have neither the will nor ability to pay for garrisoning your troops in that ally country, you're bluffing.
Oh I don't know, Poland eventually got liberated in the 1990s
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Don't get me started..... please!

I note that FAA / RAF managed to miss the aircraft carrier the other day. £100M splash...
Nope. Power failure on take off, ac fell off the ramp as the pilot banged out. F-35 has the gliding characteristics of a brick, except underwater where it can glide at least a mile and a half to the bottom.....arrse first probably.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Not sure I follow that. As I said, BAOR wasn't a standalone Army but took trained personnel from the UK base and was supported by a large UK-based system of administration and logistics in addition to what it had in-theatre. Therefore your personnel bill for having a BAOR is not 55K but 55,000+x.

PS - I don't disagree with your thesis that through BAOR we could field larger teeth arms, to use an old term, than now for a comparable number of troops. I'm just pointing out that the equation might not be as dramatic as you suggest, because the BAOR figure doesn't include its share of the UK tail, whereas the current Army figure obviously does.
Current (proposed) army is 20,000 or so bigger, which leaves a fair bit of room for training, schools, support and admin. In the late 1980s Army was 155,000 or so. Which fielded 3 x Armd div, 1 x Inf div, 2 x inf bdes in NI. All of which were pukka formations actually doing stuff.
Latest proposed Army is a handful of Bdes, some of which are a tad odd.
 
Promising, by treaty, to defend somewhere that your army can't reach, is, as the saying goes, asking for a kicking.
If you have neither the will nor ability to pay for garrisoning your troops in that ally country, you're bluffing.
There are at least troops from three different countries, in each of the three different Baltic States.

Most would accept that such willingness, and ability to "pay for garrissoning . . . troops" in the Baltics, demonstrates and confirms that NATO is not bluffing.
 
Last edited:
The France that was only able to do SERVAL because Britain supported the air bridge or another France?
While France found the support most useful and was grateful for it; as far as I understand it, it was not dependent on it to carry out the operation.

Calling @fantassin for more detailed clarification (but I think he is currently unavailable as he's been off this site for a while).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The France that was only able to do SERVAL because Britain supported the air bridge or another France?
While France found the support most useful and was grateful for it; as far as I understand it, it was not dependent on it to carry out the operation.

Calling @fantassin for more detailed clarification (but I think he is currently unavailable as he's been off this site for a while).
Gents,

We're all generally pulling in the same direction(s) countering the same threats.

The conceit of the Ranger 'thing' (conceit in the sense of it being used as a reason to ignore some fundamental issues with the army) is that we, the UK, bring some specialist skills to the table.

And that we do, so at least some of the conceit has legs, as it were.

Similarly, if we can provide air support to an ally I don't see the point in finger-pointing over it.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
The Ranger thing is essentially the USSF FID concept, minus the 'creation of partisan and/or guerilla forces in the enemy's rear areas' - which is the formal justification for A Teams being parachute-qualified, in order to open up extra covert insertion options.

Assuming there's appetite for the Ranger service and assuming that appetite is in parts of the world where we see advantage in servicing it and, further, assuming we can generate a cadre of folk who can deliver services against that appetite which satisfy (I won't say 'delight') the needs and aspirations of the customer, then it might well, possibly, deliver some value.

The best of luck, honestly, to those poor sods donning their saucy steel-grey berets for the first time and I hope it works out for them for as long as it takes for the new CDS to shoot this in the head.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
How the hell is the Army going to retrain RSMs to cope with the mental trauma of coping with a unit wearing trainers, tiny shorts & scruffy beards ?
It's what the new £8bn of cash is for.
 

Latest Threads

Top