Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

which turned out to be a pretty nugatory debate... as the implications of barbed wire, modern artillery and barbed wire had yet to be fully appreciated and the arrival of the tank and fighter aircraft were only just over the horizon.
Not disputing what you wrote, however the fight with the Boers did surprise those Indian career officers who didn’t expect, farmers high wire fences prevent recce by lancers up close. The range of the accurate Mauser in boer hands also deterred close target recce.
The use of maxims n Pom poms did hint at the need for section fire manoeuvre as lines of eighty strong companies fell
Lastly Krups & Le cresout cannons did wonders for creative dugouts and redoubts


One thing that did get forgotten, was the steam engine supply train that went where the railway did not
The Boer war ensured the army was overhauled sufficiently to stop the WW1 Hun dead.
 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
Well, as the Senior service you/they all work for us anyway, so your accomplishments are ours. And if you want to be cool and not just try and look cool you should have joined the Navy. The Pussers bus is the bus for us! No! Not that bus!
Stolen valour to claim someone else's battle honours.
 
Are the 4.6mm rounds fired by the MP 7 effective enough for such work?
Depends. As one of the (probably) very few people here who have fired one I can say it is a great weapon. However, it is not an assault weapon and realistically has a very short effective range. On the other hand it is easy to use, you can carry more rounds for the weight and the rounds also penetrate standard Kevelar CBA. I have one assigned as a personal defence weapon in the unlikely event that I have to go somewhere hostile.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
. Are you seriously arguing that for over 15 years no one thought about warfighting in the real sense?
No. I'm saying the money wasn't there to fund those capabilities (accounting for some cash being wasted through poor procurement).

If you think the money was there, where did it go? We're talking tens of billions to keep those programmes alive, so what was mis-spent on HERRICK to account for that kind of sum?

You can't just claim 'the programmes should have been maintained' as if there's unlimited money. We have a budget; it was spent elsewhere.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Perhaps the bigger question is why did the Army fail on both fronts - why didn't it commit to ENTIRETY fully, and why didn't it commit to "old war" fully.
Because you can't really. You have to use some the same blokes to do both, so you can't commit fully to either without deleting the other one from your list of possible tasks. No government in their right mind would say that we should recalibrate the entire army towards COIN ops to the point where we can't fight a near-peer war.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
No. I'm saying the money wasn't there to fund those capabilities (accounting for some cash being wasted through poor procurement).

If you think the money was there, where did it go? We're talking tens of billions to keep those programmes alive, so what was mis-spent on HERRICK to account for that kind of sum?

You can't just claim 'the programmes should have been maintained' as if there's unlimited money. We have a budget; it was spent elsewhere.
I agree, I've worked in CAP. The EP is hard if not difficult enough to balance without a major Op like Telic or Herrick. The focus does shift and whilst there were specific UOR desks others saw their funding or programmes diverted. The Ops became the real focus and whilst the longer term work continued, there wasn't the same focus or certainty especially in the Land domain.
 

In_Twists

Clanker
From my humble experience the army does public order very well, it also performs Macp tasks at short notice and importantly conducts operations ably assisted by both the RN and RAF. If anything it can do some stuff really well while struggles from close scrutiny. Others can explain the weaknesses better, btw your back on ignore
Seems to be, yeah. The 3 services are there but only the Army ever gets scrutinised in detail, leaving the other 2 to grow stronger, shout louder and demand more. Poor old Army has to jump through hoops, bend, accept and be the services whipping boy. :confused:
 
Seems to be, yeah. The 3 services are there but only the Army ever gets scrutinised in detail, leaving the other 2 to grow stronger, shout louder and demand more. Poor old Army has to jump through hoops, bend, accept and be the services whipping boy. :confused:
In what way has the army ever been the services whipping boy in the last 20 years? The RN and RAF have been scrutinized massively and made pretty drastic cuts in numbers of kit and manpower.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
Because you can't really. You have to use some the same blokes to do both, so you can't commit fully to either without deleting the other one from your list of possible tasks. No government in their right mind would say that we should recalibrate the entire army towards COIN ops to the point where we can't fight a near-peer war.
It was said (though it might be bollocks) that HMG was keen to ensure that 1 (Br) Corps was largely untouched by the force generation for the Falklands Conflict, likewise there was sensitivity about the number of W Germany based units on emergency tours in NI.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
It was said (though it might be bollocks) that HMG was keen to ensure that 1 (Br) Corps was largely untouched by the force generation for the Falklands Conflict, likewise there was sensitivity about the number of W Germany based units on emergency tours in NI.
The NATO commitment was sacrosanct under Maggie
 
Seems to be, yeah. The 3 services are there but only the Army ever gets scrutinised in detail, leaving the other 2 to grow stronger, shout louder and demand more. Poor old Army has to jump through hoops, bend, accept and be the services whipping boy. :confused:
The Army has not met its manpower target since forever.
However, no one cut a percentage off its budget allowance to match its reduced manning.
So, and this is the point where Generals go a bit quiet and look at their shuffling feet...

’what happened to the annual £5 Billion windfall the Army’s been receiving for a decade General?

unlike the other two Services, the Army's always had plenty of, a surplus even, of money.
But what it hasn’t had is a coherent vision what it wants to be - and a plan of how to get there.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It was said (though it might be bollocks) that HMG was keen to ensure that 1 (Br) Corps was largely untouched by the force generation for the Falklands Conflict, likewise there was sensitivity about the number of W Germany based units on emergency tours in NI.
Yes, Spearhead units.

ETA: Although it must be said that having a few infantry battalions and supporting units as a contingent for brushfire wars is/was rather different in scale to the all-arms commitment needed in GW1 and 2.

There was a ridiculous headline on The Sun back in the early days of GW1: 'The Paras go in' - except that they weren't, and Aldershot's finest (as they then were) would have done a very short re-enactment of Arnhem against the Republican Guard.

It was simply an orders-of-magnitude different conflict to the Falklands, and no offence is meant to those of 1944 and 1982 in the paragraph above.

We couldn't have done GW1 without affecting BAOR because GW1 needed a BAOR-type commitment... which meant 'goodnight BAOR' for a time at least.

The fact now that we can't sustain an Afghanistan, and even then not without prevailing upon the TA - sorry, Army Reserve - to routinely fill the gaps shows just how thin we are now spread.

Only one thing is going to solve that, and that's money*.




*One could make the point that poor planning has got us to where we are, and that would be a fair point. However, to put things right from where we are, even with very good planning, still requires lots of money.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Mainly drawn from U.K. based units with no specific NATO role ie starting the plot to another posting
Yes, but there was also a 'strategic reserve' element to Spearhead. It was recognised that we might need a 'go anywhere' capability. That was it.

(Sorry - I've added copy to my post whilst you were posting this.)
 
Yes, but there was also a 'strategic reserve' element to Spearhead. It was recognised that we might need a 'go anywhere' capability. That was it.

(Sorry - I've added copy to my post whilst you were posting this.)
Off thread, the Spearhead packing list was something else including the requirement to shove some gash civvy clothes that you were never going wear again in your kit bag (jacket and tie for orficers) which then festered in the coy spearhead stores for x months. My CQMS told a story of a Spearhead test deployment and exercise where the return journey had to be flown in spearhead civvies - cue the company embarking on some aircraft looking like showaddywaddy rejects in flares, platform shoes and humongously patterned shirts. On thread.
 
The RN and RAF took some hard decisions in the 2010 SDSR which are now coming to fruition. The Army ...........
The Army got stiffed with political constraints such as no more than 1 battalion from each regiment and no matter how undermanned only 1 Scottish one rather than inflame the "England disnae care aboot us" Party.

Perhaps If given a free hand it may 2 have made a few better choices - No AF and fewer infantry battalions being the obvious one (which has been mentioned on here before as the preferred option)
 
It was said (though it might be bollocks) that HMG was keen to ensure that 1 (Br) Corps was largely untouched by the force generation for the Falklands Conflict, likewise there was sensitivity about the number of W Germany based units on emergency tours in NI.
At the time, IIRC, 1 Para were in Redford Barracks in Edinburgh, with a Spearhead role. So they didn't get to go to the Falklands, and were Most Disappointed.
 

Latest Threads

Top