UK army should get bigger of fight less?

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: UK army should get bigger of fight less?
Hewlett 3/8/2007 12:45:47 PM

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=5056969&d=20070308&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252 What do you people think should happen to the army? If it gets bigger alot more funding is going to be needed and where would that come from with the NHS in problems which will cause a large arguement over which is needed more. Any thoughts? Thanks

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

AdamB 3/10/2007 7:14:13 AM

"The Italians (a similar sized country) for instance spend only one-third on defence that we do - does anyone think that they are being threatened?"

With the amount of military operations that the British military is involved in many military experts and politicians in Britain thinks that we should spend MORE on defence than we are doing.

Despite spending more than any other European country on defence Britain still needs to spend more if we want to continue sending thousands of troops abroad.

Quote Reply

french stratege 3/10/2007 1:12:00 PM

Title

To be honest, although I agree that we are over-stretched, I don't think the numbers look that bad. We have 13,000 odd troops abroad, while in the army alone we have around 103,000(?).

Going by the theory of threes, I don't see why we can't have 10,000 on operations, 10,000 training for operations, and 10,000 relaxing having just returned from operations. Add in 10,000 in basic training as replacements, and those on other training courses, and we have an army of 40,000 only, with 10,000 on operations at any one time

You are right Yimmy , competely right.

The problem is like in France.It is always first line units which deploy abroad while a huge logistic and bureaucratic tail which is partly useless in peace time, never deploy abroad.

The best would be to have more first line troops and less tail in peace time and rely more on a standing well trained reserve which could fill the gap in support units in hours , in case of high intensity operation like in 1992 or 2003.

For exemple RAF has 54 000 men for less than 300 first line fighters.Israelis have 40 000 men for 400 fighters.

A lot of potential savings.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur To Yimmy 3/10/2007 3:41:34 PM

Yimmy

You could always credit the reference to InterestedAmateur on Strategy Page! In the unlikely event that your tutor is not satisfied with this, then try these two:

1) ww.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/147C7A19-8554-4DAE-9F88-6FBAD2D973F9/0/cm6269_future_capabilities.pdf

This is the army white paper of Dec 2004 "Delivering security in a changing world". Check out page 14 (Annex) last paragraph.

2) ww.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0129.html

Force Operations and Readiness Mechanism (FORM)

Under the Future Army Structure there is a strategy to deliver both training and commitments known as the Force Operations and Readiness Mechanism (FORM); a replacement for the Formation Readiness Cycle. All Army units, including Infantry battalions, will programme their training and operational commitment activities according to the principles of FORM. This system enables the Army to meet its outputs (force elements ready for both programmed operations and contingent operations/emergency deployments) from within the force structure.

The sequence of activity for any one force element, such as an Infantry battalion, is in five separate six month phases:

Phase 1 - Recuperation
Phase 2 - Unit and battlegroup training
Phase 3 - Formation training
Phase 4 - High readiness
Phase 5 - An operational deployment

Quote Reply

Yimmy 3/10/2007 5:10:20 PM

Thanks for that.

Now I beg the question why did I go out pubbing before trying to write my essay.... *hick*

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral 3/10/2007 6:10:17 PM

I would expect 8 battalions to be operationally deployed on a continuous basis before overstretch would begin. This works on the assumption that there are 40 battalions operational a fifth of the time. Do we have the wrong sort of battalions? Are some languishing on base while others are overstretched?

Quote Reply

Yimmy 3/10/2007 6:29:11 PM

Is that figure of 40 Battalions including the RM's and RAF Regiment?

Quote Reply

Armchair Private 3/11/2007 10:01:52 AM

Yimmy, the army works on a series of 5's not 3's (or at least that's the theory!). Each unit should undergo: 6 months rest, 6 months small unit training, 6 months major unit training, 6 months standby, 6 months active service. The idea is to give units a 24 month break between operations. Part of the idea of FAS was to work towards this - hence the 5 mech/armd brigades. You've no need to tell me that the reality is somewhat different.

To answer the original post, we urgently need a defence review to look at the role of our armed forces in order to decide their equipment, structure, level of spending etc. Tony Blair suggested that we need a debate and it is widely rumoured that Mr Brown will conduct this review.

I know you guys won't agree with me, but I could easily put forward a case for halving the size of the army - we wouldn't be taking part on all of these overseas missions, but the UK as a country would still be safe. The Italians (a similar sized country) for instance spend only one-third on defence that we do - does anyone think that they are being threatened?

Agree with the need for a defense review, have a horrible suspicion that anything done now though would be frighteningly short sighted, Nations have militaries to defend themselves and their interests. Peace keeping and nation building which is largely what we are committed to at the moment may be very fine and noble activities and ones I would support in most cases, but at the end of the day these are optional extras that crucially we *choose* to take part in or not. Existential threats from foreign powers are most usually not events that you choose to take part in (why would you?) we should not be rebuilding the army for a peace keeping roll, surely any military should be designed to defend your nation and it's interests, anything else is suicidal.

Arguments that the world is less dangerous now are very easily put down with two minutes googling of history.... large scale wars were predicted as being impossible by leading thinkers, and public opinion only a couple of years before the spanish armada, Napoleon, ww1 ww2, and the falklands. There is no assurance what so ever that we're not just two years away from another big-un.... Google news russia. Did you all see Putin speech last month? Do you know who will be president of russia next? no, neither do I.

I should add I'm not saying I think major war is likely in the near future, only that thinking it's now impossible is naive.

Italy is a poor comparison to the uk's strategic situation.... We have the 5th largest economy by GDP, (GNP is more useful) they do not, their economy is still manufacturing based, ours is based on the service sector (meaning international trade) and increasingly the City of London. We need to keep the world open as far as we are able to function. Our military and Trident buys us a seat on the security council, don't underestimate that. Only The US, UK and France have any real power projection.

As for money, quangos have proliferated underthis government an the last. Ever heard of LSCs RDAs RAs English Partnerships, LSPs SSPs... I could go on. Only if you work on their agenda I'm sure, I can provide links if anyone is interested but I could give you £2bn a year in a quango cull tomorrow and you won't notice any difference.

Quote Reply

Armchair Private Money 3/11/2007 10:12:38 AM

To expand a bit more on this theme, it annoys me when people talk about government funding as if it's a choice between kidney dialysis and T45s. It's not.

Look at the DTI, do you thin Industry would rather have a government department trying to help them out, or do you think they'd rather have the £15bn that the dti spends back as a tax cut? which do you think is best for the UK economy?

Better yet, spend that £15bn on a space programme, the high technology spin offs will pay for themselves three times over just like they have for the americans, it'll create real jobs and attract some of the finest brains in the world to work here.

Why do we have no ambition for the UK, as though its politically incorrect?

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 3/11/2007 2:51:50 PM

Myu replies to A-P in italics

"Surely any military should be designed to defend your nation and it's interests, anything else is suicidal."

Yes, but how big does this need to be? Do we realistically need armed forces larger than say 10 fighter sqns, 8 SSNs and 2 armd brigades? Belgium gets away with 2 motor brigades, 5 fighter sqns and 2 frigates! By your reasoning they are ripe for a takeover (as is Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic and many others)!

"Arguments that the world is less dangerous now are very easily put down...."

Agreed, but we live in a quiet corner of the planet. Potential threats are an awful long way away, even assuming they exist.

"Google news russia..."

The Russian armed forces are an absolute mess. I doubt that the army in western Russia is bigger than 120,000 men max. Not to mention that they are underfunded, have equipment dating from the 1980's, lack logistic backup, and use conscripts!

"Italy is a poor comparison to the uk's strategic situation...."

Yes and no. They have a similar sized population, a large economy (number 7 or 8 off the top of my head), and need stable sea and land routes. I would argue that they live in a far more disordered area of the world with Former Yugoslavia to the west and North Africa to the south, and yet they spend only one-third on defence that we do.

"Our military and Trident buys us a seat on the security council, don't underestimate that..."

This makes us influential in world politics but I doubt that it helps with our security - or are you suggesitng that Germany, the Netherlands or Norway are more likely to be invaded?

"As for money, quangos have proliferated under this government and the last."

I do know something about quango's and although they are bureaucratic and politically correct what you're saying is slightly unfair. Many areas have been improved by RDA's for example - Sheffield is a good example of this.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 3/11/2007 3:01:40 PM

"I would expect 8 battalions to be operationally deployed on a continuous basis before overstretch would begin. This works on the assumption that there are 40 battalions operational a fifth of the time. Do we have the wrong sort of battalions? Are some languishing on base while others are overstretched?"

If you include the RAF Regt and RM, then we do indeed have around 40 Btns. You could probably also add the 5 Armd regt's on top of this. Part of the problem is that units are still committed to Northern Ireland plus other jobs such as Cyprus, Brunei, trooping the colour etc. If you look at btn deployments in 2006, you had something like:

Bosnia - 1 btn (counted as an "operational" deployment.)
Iraq - 3 or 4 btns
Afghanistan - 1 or 2 btns.

Plus the fact that many individual company groups from other units were sent to strengthen these units / guard rear areas. For instance 16 Bde in Afghanistan had 1 btn (3 Para) but also around 3 separate company groups.

You can see that we're already not that far off 8 btns overseas at any one time.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT