OK, for another exemple of a tri-service cock-up take a look at Operation Eagle Claw, the failed attempt to free the Iranian hostages back in 1980. I know it was a Septic op but it was a spectaucular failure where all three services wanted the headlines, as well as the CIA
I think that in may respects we are working towards a unified armed forces anyway. An increasingly large number of organisations are joint and much admin is done by civil servants, also on a joint basis.
If we were to start recruiting people into a unified armed forces, it does not have to make much difference. The problem is that unification is generally proposed as a method of saving money, which it does not do, unless lots of extremely useful things are cut.
The advantage is that it is easier to switch resources, including moving people, if service boundaries do not get in the way. For example we are expanding the RAF Regiment, because airfield defence has become more important, that would be a lot simpler if it was called The Airfield Defence Regiment and was part of the infantry.
The disadvantage is that people get too carried away with standardisation, ignoring the reasons why things are done differently now. That can be observed within the army with the regulars imposing their methods on the TA, ignoring the different circumstances which caused the TA to work that way.
Worth investigating if we actually need a separate airforce. Now that we are a lot smaller, perhaps Navy taking on fixed wing/strategic airlift and ISTAR, and Army taking on rotary wing, CAS and some ISTAR might be a better way of re-organising whilst still retained a couple of independant, but mutually supporting services. Already been done to death in a few forums here, so could be easy research for you?
âThe operational role of each service does differ greatly, especially at the tactical level, and Hellyerâs unification largely disregarded this fact for the sake of efficiency and cost savings.â (Paul Hellyer who initiated this change in 1968 was Minister of National Defence)
It would be interesting to hear the views of those who have served since 1968 as, a couple of years ago, a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces (Army) told me unification had been a disaster
Canada tried it did'nt work.
Apache helicopters cas army support
stopping bears maritime recon other aircraft duties RAF not army centric.
RAF regiment rebadged as infantry how long before somebody finds them something more important to do than airfield defence .
watching a naval officer and a platoon commander trying to explain what they did to each other was interesting to say the least.
now imagine that at staff officer level
The Chinese tried a similar approach. Found out their navy chief couldn't swim, and their chief airman couldn't fly. Result: the Army took over everything!
Like it or lump it, if you cannot HOLD THE GROUND you cannot win! (Total nuclear destruction excepted of course).
Additionally, if I may, to hold the ground it is convenient to command the air above the ground. Similarly, the sea-routes must be commanded or starvation becomes a possibility. (see: Hitler's submarine war 1940-44).
The answer then is:
TOTALLY TRI-SERVICE - PURPLE IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
That said, when the air battle is won and sea is controlled, then the 'PBI' (Her Majesty's real 'forces') take over and our Sovereign's enemies are defeated again - as they have been for almost a thousand years.
Do you have an armyney account? Unlikely if you're not army. The Army has an online academic search engine called ALIS; on that you can input your topic/essay title and it will spew out books and papers for you to order by post. For free.
Failing that, phone the Prince Consort Library in Aldershot and ask one of the librarians to help you out. They probably have dozens of essays and service papers on file on the general topic.
OK, for another exemple of a tri-service c***-up take a look at Operation Eagle Claw, the failed attempt to free the Iranian hostages back in 1980. I know it was a Septic op but it was a spectaucular failure where all three services wanted the headlines, as well as the CIA
Well, as for all the comments that Canada "tried it, and it didn't work", I regret to burst your bubble on that one. Canada tried it and it's still working, albeit not without a few hiccups, but working, nonetheless.
What they found to be a dismal failure was putting everyone in the same uniform regardless of what element you served in. Everybody got a green uniform with a green beret. Obviously the hull-plugs and pigeons didn't like that.
Morale sunk as a result, and it took until the '80's before someone in Ottawa pulled their head out and re-created the three distinct uniforms. Now, there are certain trades that can work in all three environments, and they tend to pop around a bit. It's not unusual to see an Army cook serving on an HMCS, or an Air Force clerk with an Infantry Battalion. I personally knew a fellow that had 17 years in HM service, had the rank of Master Seaman (equivalent to Master Corporal - roughly equivalent to the UK Corporal), and had never seen a warship, save on TV or the movies.
So unification wasn't so much a disaster. It was the generic uniforms that ignored and trampled on dearly held traditions (often carried on from you guys!) that was the disaster.