Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Reform in the British army, have your say
JTR~~    3/21/2010 8:36:29 AM
What would you do, or have done in order to repair the damage done to the British armed forces by the current incompetent government, think about the air force, the navy, the army, their weapons, their equipment, please try to keep this as realistic as possible, , as otherwise it would make this pointless. What would you buy? How would you improve and expand the current forces? Or perhaps you would instigate your own cut backs, it’s up to you. So I’m asking my fellow Brits and anyone else who has an idea what you would do. I have my own ideas but I would like to hear yours first. Now’s your chance to have your say. Thanks JTR~~
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
WarNerd       3/26/2010 2:29:19 AM
Your problem, as you noted, is with the British government and the British public.  So the problem is based in troop morale from politically motivated plans rather than facts on the ground, and a series of ridiculous ROE's.  No amount of new equipment and training can overcome the problem of troops that feel they are being abandoned and screwed by their own people.
All that I can suggest is that what you really need to do is come up with a system that allows you to draft the people leading and financing the anti-military factions, then put them in charge with orders to solve the terrorism problem with a limited amount of time to complete it and a public veto of their actions, and their lives, wealth, and families on the line if they fail.  Maybe then they will get some perspective.
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/30/2010 5:06:51 AM
Well, its probably true that Brit soldiers like many other people in Britain are fed up with the current govt.  But in the end that particular issue comes down to money, or lack thereof, for defence.  Given that UK spends a larger proportion of national treasure on defence that any other major European country (Greece is not a good model), then the grounds for complaint aren't excessively good.
All the indicators are that most of the Brit people do support their armed forces, that said the army has a tradition of getting on with the job and not going out of its way be be highly visible.  This has changed somewhat over the last couple of years.
UK ROE are just fine, they are far too smart to present the enemy with PR opportunities due to over enthusiastic use of force when it's not justified. 
The pace of operations over the last 15+ years has undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on equipment life.  However, on balance it seems to be managed reasonably well.  One of the under-recognised realities is that equipment life can now be a lot longer than it was a few decades ago because its built to be a lot more reliable.
The training system is working better than ever to produce units ready for operations, due in no small part to the very effective training advisory organisation that is capturing the lessons learned very fast. 
Quote    Reply

Ricky       6/4/2010 1:39:53 PM
Firstly Britain would need to introduce a greater respect for it's soldiers like America do on the whole, this would lead to the public being much more willing for the MOD to spend money on equipment for the military. As far as new equipment is concerned... New body armour would be needed as the Osprey body armour, while effective, is very heavy and cumbersome and has lead to troops that require high mobility and unrestrictive movement throwing away the bulky plates. For me this would mean the adoption of Dragon Skin as this provides unparalled protection and manoverability. Helicopters - a must for fighting a war where IED's and roadside bombs are prevelant day to day. This would for me mean the introduction of the Osprey helicopter as it provides good speed, low chance of detection, good load/weight capacity and exceptional range. The Challenger Tank has and incredible service record and I would maybe try and give it a few modern upgrades but this would be a low priority task. As far as the RAF go I really don't know enough to be able to comment. Although as an interesting though do we need them anyway as the Navy have jets and my experience with them is that they are much more willing than the RAF pilots. It's also often hard getting the RAF over seas as they take up space on navy ships. A replacement for the SA80 as well methinks. Another bullpup but one that is fully ambidextrous, easily cleanable, and fires the 6.5 grendle round. This can be easily achieved by having a gas piston system better reliability than other systems, a super V mechanism to reduce the added recoil of the 6.5 round, in-line design also helps with reduction of recoil, you could stop the cartidge-ejection-into-lefty's- face problem by either having the casings eject downwards or add a deflector so they eject more at 45 degrees rather than 160 degrees and lastly to improve reliability chrome line parts that are prone to carbon fouling and nitride line others that come under high wear.
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/4/2010 6:37:47 PM
Don't under any circumstances try to rearrange the forces around the expectation that the next enemy we face will also fail to bring a Navy, Airforce and a regular Army to the fight would be my first assumption. I'm being driven mad by various commentators harping on about preparing for the last war and how we should "rebalance" our forces by sinking our Navy, and throwing away much of our heavy armour.

I wouldn't go spending money on replacing the SA80-A2 - we just got it working and are in the middle of updating the sights - the weapon works, has a gas piston operation so no need to change that..and as for straight line recoil, the SA80 is about as straight line to the shoulder as it comes.

No ambidex mode, I grant you that,


Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral2       6/29/2010 11:48:24 PM
I'd cut back the Army. What units remain should be in the Royal Marines. We should be aiming for the 'strategic raiding' model of forces. Since WW2, we have divested ourselves of large land holdings overseas and the force mix should reflect that. A larger RM force that adds the Paras and Gurkhas, maybe the Guards and Rifles too, would be plenty. The rest can go Territorial. We may as well warehouse the tanks and armoured vehicles that the RM can't use.
I'd increase the Royal Navy. A third aircraft carrier and at least three front line squadrons of carrier capable aircraft. All long range, carrier capable and close support aircraft join the FAA. Escorts for trade and supply (usually Maritime Patrol Aircraft) need to reflect the requirements of a hot war, but not other assets. Hulls and airframes take time to build and this should be reflected in both peacetime force levels and build capability, but escorting trade and supply is the first priority of the armed forces and will not wait for a build up.
The RAF stays at home. We retain in flight refuelling capability, but not to extend the range of land based aircraft. The BoB was their finest hour. Air defence and interception. The Eurofighter Typhoon and AWACS do this well. I'd look into in flight rearming and switching pilots too.
Quote    Reply