British logistics do a great job, and have decent kit in the form of DROPS and the new 4 tonners etc. However some of the kit such as the old bedfords are still in service; although needing to be replaced, the things will go for ever mind.

I don't doubt the ability of the current Logisitics Corps. This is more a question of scale rather than kit. How does the cost of increasing distance of reach, force size or duration of operations compare with loss of multipliers in other areas? If we had the stores, equipment and infrastructure to field a force half as large as the entire combined armed forces to the opposite side of the world for a year, would that justify halving the rest of the defence budget to be able to do it? This is the case in extremis, but the question is more like, 'Is the limit on logistics currently too great to maximise UK armed resources?'

According to the following gov pub about the war it might be true that Logs was a problem. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/030460.pdf It seems in summery that the size of the 2003 deployment force was similar to the 1991 force. 2003 -------1991 32K personel [34K] 15,000 vehicle[14,700] 6800 containers [7200] 10 weeks deploy [22] 17K tons Army Ammo [48K] 78 transport ships [105] So it seems that the deployment took less ships and time but some shortfalls occure maybe as a direct result of the reduced deployment [1/3 as much ammo as 1991] . It also seems aircraft/helos were available only about 1/2 the time ...[shortage of spares?].

Hi, Sorry I can feel a long post coming on! On all major deployments that I've known about, Falklands GW1 etc entire Army fleets had to be stripped to field the force. So no other units with the same kit as the units deployed were fully operational and likely their manpower had also been looted. We have to think about manpower/equipment/ammo looting: as it has repurcussions on readiness of reinformements/reserves, take up of other committments and preparedness, basically it crippples the rest of the army for some time. As far as ammo was concerned, it was well known that even in Cold War BAOR the stocks at hand would only have been sufficient for days, rather than weeks and that was not including losses to enemy action. That was in the day when there was an indigenous armanent manufacturing industry in the UK. (just in time ordering what a farce that is) So what if ammo is approaching it's end of life, give it to the units for live fire training. Whilst much good can be said about the British deployment to Iraq and the operational success of the Brigade+. The UK must realise that it is not in the game when it comes to deploying anything like a substantial force. What would have happened 1. if it was not possible to downscale the troop committment as happened. 2. What would have happened if another emergency occured. One of these days Nth Korea or a hostile china or the Balkans, or or...... 3. Good forbid the enemy fought back! Lets face it, either Blair has to stop making committments or spend some money on the forces. Or as has been stated in the parliamentry inquiry by Mr Hoon in relation to perosnal and vehicle NBC eqpt etc "the risks were acceptable to the battle field commanders" ie The army commanders knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, and/or Saddam did n;t have a credible force and so could n;t really threaten his neighbours etc etc etc. After reading the Parliamentary reports on the operation, I would like to know: Why there was n't enough 5.56mm ammo issued to all troops and why numbers of NBC kits were inadequate for a war fighting in an NBC environment. As far as grenades go thank out lucky stars that the Brits got Basra and the regime tumbled without much of the urban battle that so many predicted. As usually everything on a wing and prayer! One day the poor guys doing the job and their families will pay for it dearly...... -------------------------------------------- My version of Whitehalls Lessons learnt by the politicians, MoD and the treasury: 1. Scrap MLRS it has n't been used 2. Scrap AD has n;t been used in 20 odd years 3. No need for all troops to have guns and ammo 4. Army commanders are prepared to take the blame for not having NBC gear. the army do n;t use it when we give it to them .....hence No need to spend on NBC systems in AFV's etc they are n't used anyway. 5. Grenades did n;t need them last time....(I ask you?) 6. 16 Air Mobile were n;t used bin them. DavoJ the thing that has got to me is that Tony Blair still thinks he has 40 battalions of infantry and he does n;t seem to understand that most units are only at 60% establishment....some of which are still green. 6. The army can only advance 150km...... 7. The army only need 1 brigade. 5. We can lie and make the Army Commanders responsible.

Although, I do not like to admit it, I beleive you do have a valid point. The British government in all their wisdom has given the great RLC the vehicles to carry out their task. I agree with Yimmy the DROPS and DAFs are a good piece of kit however, all the great kit will not complete the mission. Look at the yanks, all the gear but no idea!. If the funding is not available to put the stores in the right place at the right time then the plan is set to fail from the start. You will also note that there are other problems with operating a long way from the the air/sea ports. Long MSRs (Main Supply Routes) present a great, soft target for el gurilla fighter. The yanks have found this out to their peril. We have learnt this through previous experience. Without having access to the initial planning, maybe this is the reason for not trying to reach out too far.

Charia:- Although the UK army is largely used to consolidate coastal expeditions, sometimes you have to reach inland. We may as well plan (and prepare) for it. DavoJ:- It always used to be that politicians could slack off on munitions supply between hot wars as the manufacturing base would soon catch up when the balloon went up. This attitude has been allowed to continue long after it ceased to be true. The manufacturing base has eroded and the munitions are more complicated to manufacture/buy/source now. Will it reach the stage where we can take on any opposing force, but get rolled over like drunks, after a month, when we run out of fuel/food/ammo?

At least our logistical transport is being upgraded: http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/pn2004/oct04/truck.htm These 5000 new trucks (lorries) will start arriving in 2007 at a total cost of £1.1 billion. They are ready to take add-on armour (a lesson learned from GW2?). An option to buy 'thousands more' is under concideration (ie never going to happen). This still leaves us without a convincing plan to resupply forces in a sustained hot war. We simpley can't generate the stock quick enough.

Generally, the problems of supply do not directly originate from the small means used to deliver them i.e. the individual waggons. Supply problems historicaly originate from the grand schemes used to deliver them, such as stock control and ordering systems. The British military could do with making a detailed study of a major supermarket chain and identifying their current weaknesses. If you look in detail at the army the G4 or QMs side is very similar to a supermarket, in that it supplies essentials to the customers for them to live(and fight) effectivly. I hope the DPA are listening to this!!

I believe that British forces did not go as far inland as the Americans mostly because of logistics. Not because they didn't have enough "beans and bullets" but because they didn't have enough ships and trucks to get the stuff to the troops. The British stocks of war supplies are lower than what they should be but probably no worse than most countries. In Desert Storm the British had to gut the rest of their forces' of logistics units to get all the "beans and bullets" to their forces in Kuwait - they had lots of stuff it was just hard to get the stuff to the troops. British logistic units (given the limited budgets that they and every one else struggle with) are as well equipped and orginized as anybody and better than most. They are just not set up to go to Baghdad. The real question is whether Baghdad is some place the British military should be. If the answer is no then they have a very good logistic origization. If the answer is yes then they need to forfeit some of their tank/arty/airforce/etc money to get the ships and trucks they need.

Will the order of thousands of new trucks be enough to make up that shortfall or will the Bedfords be phased out now?