|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 5, 2023 0:25:18 GMT
The British Army is no longer considered to be a top-level fighting force following years of cuts, a senior US general has reportedly warned. Concerns about the strength of the Army have also been expressed by those in UK defence circles – with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the budget should be increased by at least £3 billion a year. It’s alleged the Armed Forces would run out of ammunition ‘in a few days’ if pushed into battle. The UK couldn’t defend its skies against the brutal number of strikes that Ukraine is currently facing, it’s also claimed. Add to this, the nation’s fleet of armoured vehicles were built ‘between 30 and 60 years ago’ – with the timeline to update them ‘too slow’ and devised before the Ukraine war. Rishi Sunak has apparently been told to take urgent action – including stopping a plan to shrink the size of the Army and easing peacetime rules that halt the country from purchasing weapons quickly. But the prime minister ‘wants the problem to go away’, one insider has claimed. The army is roughly 76,000 strong, less than half the size it was 30 years ago. metro.co.uk/2023/01/30/us-general-british-army-is-not-top-level-force-and-cant-protect-uk-18186918/Last year the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Alexander Popham Carleton-Smith, ordered troops to pause training and spend the day 'reflecting on inclusivity'. He said this will make the army a more effective fighting force. He sounded a bit muffled when he said this because he had his head up his arse. We have left wing politicians who's only interest in the armed forces is to continually cut manpower and budgets, and we have VSO's who for some inexplicable reason constantly push a woke agenda. I wouldn't be proud of being in todays army, and I wouldn't be confident about todays army going up against a moderately competent adversary, never thought I'd say that. And that's the governments fault. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 5, 2023 0:58:07 GMT
Well this is hardly new is it
I’m sure you remember the Robin Day / John Nott interview
I saw it live. I was watching the programme when he walked out
But i am certain Day was right. Because i distinctly remember reading an editorial in a broadsheet about a year or maybe even two before the falklands kicked off. In it the editor discussed the works of a naval man whose name now escapes me. Quizzed as to the capability of the Navy to deal with the problems it might have to, the chap said we had the means to stare down a nuclear power (for all the good it would do) but if half a dozen nutters with shotguns and a rowing boat kicked off in some backwater we had nothing ‘proportionate’ to sort them out.
And almost prophetically as my days in academia drew to a close six nutters with a flag and a rowing boat did exactly what this chap predicted.
I don’t know what the hell the answer is.
Not least because some arsehole lawyer would say the only things i can think of that might get us out of a nasty hole are banned by some phoney treaty or other.
Like war is a nine to five operation with rules ffs
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 5, 2023 2:44:25 GMT
The problem is since the fall of communism the government have regarded the armed forces as a burden rather than an asset. Politicians always think technology means fewar troops are needed, and they always cite drones. I would of thought given Gulf 1, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan they might have cottoned on that boots on the ground will never go out of fashion and if you haven't got enough boots to dominate the ground you might as well not bother.
That US general is right, we are a tier 2 army. 76,000 regular troops and I'm told some of them can actually pass a basic fitness test, as long as they're not shouted at. It used to be the case that less than 100,000 troops was a defence force not an army. It started going tits up in the 1990's, the government saw European armies were made up of a small number of regular troops backed up by hundreds of thousands of reservists, because it's cheap.
The armed forces is like insurance, no one likes paying pay for it but most people understand the level of cover you get depends how much you pay. And at the moment we havent even got third party cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 5, 2023 6:12:41 GMT
With the expansion of NATO and the use of multinational forces as has been seen lately, the British army doesn't need to be so large any longer, with decline of Empire and weaponry becoming more sophisticated the role of the British army doesn't exist in its old form. Then there is a global economy which can control whole countries and even whole continents. Then there is the rise of the EU which sees itself as the next global power and the next step in taking full control over military and economic means. A few reasons, why it is seen as less of an asset and more of a drain on resources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 6:54:50 GMT
It could be a blessing. America is now looking for another general dogsbody. I believe they're focused on Germany, with Biden wanting the broom lady from EU to rule NATO (I know, crazy), and the fact that Germany are spending billions upon billions of US dollars on American military hardware. I'm sure these two relate to each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 5, 2023 7:52:13 GMT
With the expansion of NATO and the use of multinational forces as has been seen lately, the British army doesn't need to be so large any longer, with decline of Empire and weaponry becoming more sophisticated the role of the British army doesn't exist in its old form. Then there is a global economy which can control whole countries and even whole continents. Then there is the rise of the EU which sees itself as the next global power and the next step in taking full control over military and economic means. A few reasons, why it is seen as less of an asset and more of a drain on resources. Well that's a nice theory. Until you need some Leopard tanks in a damn hurry.
Yes, I get that the days of Britain ruling the waves are gone. Destroyers cost a damn sight more than they used to. There is a street in Newport that used to be our equivalent of Limehouse Wharf NOT for the urchins and prostitutes but for the fact it ran along our main wharves and maritime trading area. Today yes it is known more for the drugs and sex trade, but the pavements are lined with not gold, but steel. Every 100 yards or so a metal bar set in the pavement is etched / embossed with something the town or the environment is known for. One marks the opening of the first Severn Crossing, another the bombing of the town by a Zeppelin in the first world war in an attempt to disrupt the coal trade. Others the first mixed swimming baths (the local moslems hate that one) but two key achievements of the town set in steel (and remember, Llanwern down the road was the largest steelworks in Wales) are the raising of £35,000 by public subscription to buy a spitfire, and the subsequent donation of £300,000 to buy a destroyer
These days thanks to Tony Blair all our defence industry is done by the likes of Rishi's wife's shit company and you can no longer buy a stair on the gangplank for that
But if we needed to in a hurry i could follow in my grandfather's and father's footsteps and weaponise those drones properly to engage in proper, total war in a very short time indeed
All we would need to do is shoot some lawyers first
Because in grandad's day we knew our enemies might do that to us and tried our hardest to be ready to do it to them first. These days some twat in a suit is going to cite some "international law" invented by the yanks to make it "illegal" to do to them what they did to the Japanese and as a result i won't be able to stop this country going the same way
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 5, 2023 12:12:33 GMT
With the expansion of NATO and the use of multinational forces as has been seen lately, the British army doesn't need to be so large any longer, with decline of Empire and weaponry becoming more sophisticated the role of the British army doesn't exist in its old form. Then there is a global economy which can control whole countries and even whole continents. Then there is the rise of the EU which sees itself as the next global power and the next step in taking full control over military and economic means. A few reasons, why it is seen as less of an asset and more of a drain on resources. Sheepy, that is politically correct bullshit, it's exactly what politicians and civil servants have been saying for more than 20 years. In fact as soon as communism collapsed the government saw an opportunity to slash the defence budget citing 'peace in Europe' ha. We then had Gulf 1, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining between 20,000 and 30,000 troops in Northern Ireland. Due to manpower shortages back to back tours became the norm and moral node dived, and recruitment and retention became a huge problem. Sophisticated kit and equipment does not mean less troops are needed, it's a mistake politicians constantly make in an effort to cut costs. 76,000 troops is not nearly enough, and don't forget of that 76,000 only about 20% are infantry and at least 10% will not be fit for duty at any one time. If Northern Ireland kicked off again the manpower required would be such a drain it would render what's left of the 'modern' British army pretty useless as a fighting force. The eternal problem is armed forces are expensive. The government should fund the armed forces adequately which is at least 3% of GDP and increase the regular army to an absolute minimum of 100,000, or be honest and rename the armed forces as 'The UK Defence Force' and withdraw from global commitments. The US general who said British Armed forces are no longer regarded as a top level fighting force is correct, anyone with any sense can see that. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 5, 2023 12:38:19 GMT
What do you see the realistic threats as to which we must defend against.
If you want to massively increase defence spending, do you intend to fund this by spending cuts (on what), tax increases (on what) or more borrowing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jul 5, 2023 13:27:50 GMT
What do you see the realistic threats as to which we must defend against. If you want to massively increase defence spending, do you intend to fund this by spending cuts (on what), tax increases (on what) or more borrowing? What do you think, Dappy? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 5, 2023 13:48:01 GMT
With the expansion of NATO and the use of multinational forces as has been seen lately, the British army doesn't need to be so large any longer, with decline of Empire and weaponry becoming more sophisticated the role of the British army doesn't exist in its old form. Then there is a global economy which can control whole countries and even whole continents. Then there is the rise of the EU which sees itself as the next global power and the next step in taking full control over military and economic means. A few reasons, why it is seen as less of an asset and more of a drain on resources. Sheepy, that is politically correct bullshit, it's exactly what politicians and civil servants have been saying for more than 20 years. In fact as soon as communism collapsed the government saw an opportunity to slash the defence budget citing 'peace in Europe' ha. We then had Gulf 1, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining between 20,000 and 30,000 troops in Northern Ireland. Due to manpower shortages back to back tours became the norm and moral node dived, and recruitment and retention became a huge problem. Sophisticated kit and equipment does not mean less troops are needed, it's a mistake politicians constantly make in an effort to cut costs. 76,000 troops is not nearly enough, and don't forget of that 76,000 only about 20% are infantry and at least 10% will not be fit for duty at any one time. If Northern Ireland kicked off again the manpower required would be such a drain it would render what's left of the 'modern' British army pretty useless as a fighting force. The eternal problem is armed forces are expensive. The government should fund the armed forces adequately which is at least 3% of GDP and increase the regular army to an absolute minimum of 100,000, or be honest and rename the armed forces as 'The UK Defence Force' and withdraw from global commitments. The US general who said British Armed forces are no longer regarded as a top level fighting force is correct, anyone with any sense can see that. Interesting that you complain about cost cutting, but your political ideology is based on cost cutting. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 5, 2023 13:51:19 GMT
Sheepy, that is politically correct bullshit, it's exactly what politicians and civil servants have been saying for more than 20 years. In fact as soon as communism collapsed the government saw an opportunity to slash the defence budget citing 'peace in Europe' ha. We then had Gulf 1, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining between 20,000 and 30,000 troops in Northern Ireland. Due to manpower shortages back to back tours became the norm and moral node dived, and recruitment and retention became a huge problem. Sophisticated kit and equipment does not mean less troops are needed, it's a mistake politicians constantly make in an effort to cut costs. 76,000 troops is not nearly enough, and don't forget of that 76,000 only about 20% are infantry and at least 10% will not be fit for duty at any one time. If Northern Ireland kicked off again the manpower required would be such a drain it would render what's left of the 'modern' British army pretty useless as a fighting force. The eternal problem is armed forces are expensive. The government should fund the armed forces adequately which is at least 3% of GDP and increase the regular army to an absolute minimum of 100,000, or be honest and rename the armed forces as 'The UK Defence Force' and withdraw from global commitments. The US general who said British Armed forces are no longer regarded as a top level fighting force is correct, anyone with any sense can see that. Interesting that you complain about cost cutting, but your political ideology is based on cost cutting. Somethings are not a luxury hash and have to be PAID FOR....I know that will be a strange concept to the loony left. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 5, 2023 15:01:10 GMT
I think that you have it the wrong way round! 😂
Some things have to be paid for is a strange concept for the RIGHT!
🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jul 5, 2023 16:47:46 GMT
Stop funding the NHS, cut tax by 5%, boost our military and let them police our borders properly.
Anyone invading us on small boats can be ‘escorted’ back to the northern coast of France or sent to Davey Jones’ locker……
Basically solves most our nations issues…..and because we’ll have the 2nd biggest navy in the world with all that extra juicy NHS funding, there won’t be a thing anyone can do about it.
(No I’m not serious).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jul 5, 2023 16:55:07 GMT
More seriously,
What we need to always remember that the freedom we all enjoy was never free and it has come at significant cost.
We can see that it only takes one nation like Russia, which has a very small economy but a good sized military to threaten world stability and the freedoms of tens of millions of people.
Russia didn’t choose us as a target, but we don’t know that we won’t be next on Putin’s list, or that in twenty years, another nation won’t replace Russia as world Tyrant and set their eyes on our shores.
Nobody expected a 2nd world war so soon after ww1, we should never forget the lessons of the past, lest we doom ourselves to repeat them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 5, 2023 17:08:54 GMT
I think that you have it the wrong way round! 😂 Some things have to be paid for is a strange concept for the RIGHT! 🤣 We pay our way in life hash unlike the left who think its down to the taxpayers to support them.. |
|
