Richard North, Dannatt et al debate Forces Merger

#1
Spectator Debate - The army, navy and air force are so 20th Century. Scrap them and have a massive British Marine Corps | The Spectator

For the motion: Con Coughlin, executive foreign editor at the Telegraph; Allan Mallinson, commentator, former army officer and author of The Making of the British Army; and Dr. Richard North - with whom I believe most of you are familiar.

Against: Dannatt; Robert Fox, Defence correspondent with the Evening Standard; and Tory MP Adam Holloway.

Debate was on the 15th; anyone have access to The Spectator?
 
#2
And when The Massive british Marine Corps surrenders the Falklands to the Argies again where will the Airborne troops be to recover them? ;-)
 
#5
On a serious note this would probably be a bad idea as the Canadians have done something like this and allegedly regretted it ever since.
 
#7
The Canadian argument is constantly trotted out but the USMC have been doing it longer and dont seem to find any real trouble with it.
 
#8
The USMC have been successfully operating for many years, true, always as the fourth service out of four, not an example of how a country's armed forcers can be done in a one-er. The come under the department of the Navy.

Quoting them as an arguement for merger when they are one of four is flawed at best and fecking stupid at worst.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
The Canadian argument is constantly trotted out but the USMC have been doing it longer and dont seem to find any real trouble with it.
Me quoting me from another thread but this will go a ways to answering your point:

I can see where you're [Biped] driving, but your post is somewhat disegenuous, Marine Surface Vessels are USN, as is the majority of their logistics train, with reagrds to pilots and fixed wing all are trained at USN flight schools along with the Coast Guard, so you have a centralised training core covering three services (efficiency savings), moreover their fixed wing assets are very much Navy derived, especially the Hornet which is only flown off land based fields or the Navy big carriers, not the amphib assault vessels, add to that the point that Strike/CAS is the main driver of Marine FW Aviation rather than ADV/AEW etc. which although they do perform superbly and effrectively relies heavily on the USN capacities in this role.

Arguably the USMC's "efficiency" as it were is the effective integration of its command structures coupled with the fact that they doctrinely do not consider one aspect of their role to be more important than the other - all play a part, Rifleman/Tankie/JetJockey none is seen as more important than the other so there is a lack of willy waving going on within it as compared to the way ours behave, Air, Sea, Land are all considered complimentary.

Moving on from that the USMC benefits hugely from the investment made in miltary technologies made by the other 3 services, Army, Navy, Air Force, which are the main drivers of tech investment and acquisition, couple that with economy of scale, then the USMC gets a cheeky amount of bang for its buck, without the expensive outlays that the other services endure (osprey is definately an exception).

Without the benefits derived from the other three services, as I have described in part (there are more), it could be quite easily said that the USMC would find themselves in the same boat as us financially, a very different kettle of fish indeed or to be more pertinent a very different batch of barrels of whales.

Last point(ish) the USMC is 203,000 strong not including reserves (40,000)

All that notwithstanding, I do feel there is a hellya lot we can learn from the Corps for example their new Cultural Knowledge & Professional Development and Education Programs, considered investmnet in the intellectual capacity and ability of all their personnel, the willingness to continualy invest time and effort in the basic skills of soldiering such as marksmanship (where's Stonker when I need him eh?) and a whole slew of other things. There is much to learn from them, but the argument of why can't we do what they do as cheaply is something of a strawman when you look at it a little more closely.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
The USMC have been successfully operating for many years, true, always as the fourth service out of four, not an example of how a country's armed forcers can be done in a one-er. The come under the department of the Navy.

Quoting them as an arguement for merger when they are one of four is flawed at best and fecking stupid at worst.
Then we're almost certain to try it.
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
If they are using an "expert" like Dr. North then their proposition is as flawed and crumbly as Lancashire cheese. I have never seen a coherent argument with an ounce of credibility emerge from his pen.
 
#20
If I took the view that Ignorant Layman is an apt and apposite description of Dr North, would I be far from the truth. I bet it's you Richard. But that would mean you self-publicise on a site that you claim not to post on... :)
 

Latest Threads

Top