What are these people on?

#2
Where did we suddenly get a strength of 200,000 troops in the Army? I was led to believe that after Gordons last Defence Cut, the strength of the regulars was down to 95,000.
 
#5
Do you think he may be including the RAF, Navy, Royal Marines and the Sea Scouts?
 
#8
They are probably refering to the strength of all three armed services combined (more or less). Still disengenious for the 'Ministry of Defence spokesman' to claim that because only 14,000 of these are employed in Iraq or Afghanistan at any one time, that the forces are not overstretched - conveinently forgetting to mention the army bears the brunt of these two operations, as well as contributing troops to tours of all the other places we know and love so well. Also seems to have slipped his mind that you can treble the 14,000 at a stroke with troops just returned from theatre and troops preparing to go six-months down the line. Oh, and the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts.

I refuse to believe that an MOD spokesman would not be fully aware of the above and so, once again, can only conclude that we are run by liars or idiots or both.
 
#10
wedge35 said:
They are probably refering to the strength of all three armed services combined (more or less). Still disengenious for the 'Ministry of Defence spokesman' to claim that because only 14,000 of these are employed in Iraq or Afghanistan at any one time, that the forces are not overstretched - conveinently forgetting to mention the army bears the brunt of these two operations, as well as contributing troops to tours of all the other places we know and love so well. Also seems to have slipped his mind that you can treble the 14,000 at a stroke with troops just returned from theatre and troops preparing to go six-months down the line. Oh, and the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts.

I refuse to believe that an MOD spokesman would not be fully aware of the above and so, once again, can only conclude that we are run by liars or idiots or both.
That is the whole point.... the spokesman is deliberatly fudging the figures to make things look a lot better than they actually are. There can be no other reason for it.

Also don't forget you can add to "the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts" all the troops that are under phase 1 and phase 2 training, those that are on the long term sick, those marking time ready for discharge and plenty of others tah are on non-essential but non-deployable posts and you can see that the number of civil servants that 'control budgets' out number and cost more than the troops that are deployable.
 
#11
Plus if the spokesman is referring to the strength of all three services he ought to refer to the numbers committed for all three, not just the army.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
 
#12
This use of this kind of mis-information is despicable. Unfortunately, the whole P Info organisation in MOD Centre is now run by the kind of political place-men that would see nothing wrong in distorting the facts in this way.

Before going off on one, though, I'd like to check that the BBC have actually got the quote right. We remain blessed with a media that would not know the difference between an Army of 2,000 or one of 200,000. Anyone know how to contact the Beeb to check up on this?
 
#14
''Itching to go'' sounds like a quote from 1914 or 1939. What a load of horse sheet. For anyone who thinks that individuals who are in essential, non-deployable posts, think again. They do get deployed, as long as a penalty/impact statement is submitted. But as we all know, that means fek all.

I would like to see the ratio of deployable strength to that of deployed strength.
 
#16
What constitutes a defence force or Army? Are we not an Army because we partake in expeditionary warfare/peacekeeping/peacemaking?

The TA could be called a militia however, according to a definition i found on the internet it a militia is..

"a group of civilians trained as soldiers who serve full time only in emergencies".
 
#17
The truth went out the window when Bliar stepped into Number 10. His regime always fudges figures to their own way of thinking, and mostly within 24 hours they are proven to be wholly wrong. Take for example the announcement that since 24hour drinking was allowed crime rates had fallen by 11%.

Millions of pounds were spend on additional policing between end of November and the whole month of December
Comparisons would normally be period on period - so a fair comparison would be between end of November 04 to End of December 04 compared with the same period this year. No Tony and his cohorts compared november 05 and October 05. So the announcement was a complete lie.

There are lies and damned lies, and then theres statistics.
 
#18
This is the kind of thing the BBC should have been able to spot.

Life would be a lot nicer for everyone (regular, reservist and TA) if that was the correct strength!!

Notice he doesn't say that the army is at that strength... just that we have that many troops.

If you don't like the question, answer one you would like to have been asked, a politicians motto.
 
#19
You have not yet counted all those troops not yet kitted out with uniforms and weapons etc, i think they are called civilians.
The government have counted them though.
 
#20
wedge35 said:
They are probably refering to the strength of all three armed services combined (more or less). Still disengenious for the 'Ministry of Defence spokesman' to claim that because only 14,000 of these are employed in Iraq or Afghanistan at any one time, that the forces are not overstretched - conveinently forgetting to mention the army bears the brunt of these two operations, as well as contributing troops to tours of all the other places we know and love so well. Also seems to have slipped his mind that you can treble the 14,000 at a stroke with troops just returned from theatre and troops preparing to go six-months down the line. Oh, and the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts.

I refuse to believe that an MOD spokesman would not be fully aware of the above and so, once again, can only conclude that we are run by liars or idiots or both.
So basically what your saying is

14,000 troops deployed means 14,000 have just returned and should not deploy on operations within 24 months. Another 14,000 are in build up training for their next operational deployment. Tours are about 6 months long so

14,000 who should not deploy within 30 months (Just going out)
14,000 who should not deploy within 24 months (just coming back)
14,000 who should not deploy within 18 months.
14,000 who should not deploy within 12 months and
14,000 gearing up to go

80,000 tied down then.

15,000 left to play with (if all are Army)

Is this right?
 

Latest Threads

Top