Memo: don't rely on the Brits during a battle

[Lyneham Lad]

In an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article5454713.ece) in today's Times newspaper:-

...Perhaps most important of all, the military alliance between Britain and America - which has cemented the political alliance since the First World War - is beginning to crack. I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence concludes that there are now serious doubts in Washington about the effectiveness of the British Armed Forces. Senior military figures are said to have been surprised, and shocked, by feedback that arrived in Whitehall last month. Described as “highly sensitive”, it raised questions about the worth of the UK contribution to US-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It showed that the Americans don't value us much,” one source told me. “Britain's military ability is no longer rated as highly as we thought it was.”

This is not a last gasp by the outgoing Bush administration. Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, who has been asked to remain in his job by Mr Obama, is one of those said to have reservations about the British military contribution.

The message has filtered across to the Foreign Office, too. At a diplomatic as well as a military level, concerns have been raised about the quality of British troops and equipment. Too often, the Americans complain, they have had to ride to the rescue of the Brits, rather than being able to rely on them as equal partners. There are question marks in Washington about Britain's political commitment to military engagement: Mr Brown will not be forgiven if he fails to send substantial numbers of troops to support an Obama surge in Afghanistan.

“The US generals think the Brits need to be taken down a peg or two - that we have not performed well in Basra and Helmand province - and that has trickled up to the Pentagon,” says a Foreign Office insider. “It's not terminal but it's an important warning to us that if we are going to trade on our military partnership we are going to have to raise our game.”

So, ten years of contempt and underfunding by the Chancellor/Prime Minister results in the UK Military's good name being dragged in the mud (not forgetting for one moment the sad losses incurred, due to that same underfunding).

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[airborne_artist]

My very quick opinion:

British Army - still superb, badly let down by key technologies (eg radio), and lack of battlefield mobility helos, amongst other things. 8/10

RAF - again, some superb skills, but far too much kit/money spent in some areas, and far too little in others. 6/10

RN - totally underfunded, and almost too small to protect itself, let alone project real force against a well-armed enemy. 3/10

[dakkg651]

"The US generals think the Brits need to be taken down a peg or two"

What does that supposed to mean?

Sounds very much like a threat to me.

Oh that Brown and his cronies have brought us to this.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

What airborne_artist said plus the fact that they simply don’t understand/agree with our ways of counter insurgency. Had they been around our Malaya/Indonesia operations, I think we may have heard the same complaint.

[parabellum]

“The US generals think the Brits need to be taken down a peg or two - that we have not performed well in Basra and Helmand province


Maybe some of these armchair generals should have a chat with the lads of the Parachute Regiment. When they weren't dodging friendly fire the Paras gave a pretty good account of themselves, within the limitations of their kit.

[BEagle]

I know that it's nothing like the risk faced by our troops in the desert $hitholes of today, but the last time I was in Incirlik the Americans were frankly appalled at the abysmal lack of kit we had for our aircrew.

Their assessment of our survival kit was that they it was the equivalent of the equipment they went to war in Vietnam with nearly 40 years previously.

Best trained, worst equipped. British forces throughout history. And it simply isn't good enough; Greedy Gordon 'Incapability' Brown needs to put his money where his quivering mouth is.

[diginagain]

"Dear Pres(E) Obama,

So sorry to learn that some of your people feel that some of our people haven't been pulling their weight recently. You may wish to take this up with those at the top of our supply chain next time you're in London.

Thanks for the MREs, and best wishes for the future - remember not to stand still for too long.

T. Atkins."

[Wader2]

Had they been around our Malaya/Indonesia operations, I think we may have heard the same complaint.

To a point you may be right however in the Basra case we had insufficient resources to execute the Malaya system.

In the Indonesian case, which ended as the Vietnam campaign ramped up, I think there was the same thoughts that we would have done it differently.

I have said it before but, IMHO, since the civil war the US has placed a far greater store on preservation of its men through technical superiority. As patton said, 'make the other dumb bitch die for his country.'

[mick2088]

Notice though that Gates is quite happy with British forces when he calls for more "NATO" troops in Afghanistan and starts looking to the UK to send thousands of more troops as tumbleweed rolls down the corridors in the French or German defence ministries.

[Airborne Aircrew]

The unfortunate thing is that the impression of the British military being less than capable comes out of the same problem that left the American military skulking out of Vietnam to be spat upon by their countrymen... The damned politicians.

The abject failure of elected leaders to chose a course of action and then let the experts get on with it is the root of the problem. Most elected leaders today have no military experience and have no stomach for loss which leads to their misguided attempts to micromanage something they have no business in. Generals shouldn't have to go to politicians to ask for additional troops for a "surge". If it's deemed militarily appropriate and is in accordance with the mission as laid down by the politicians in the first place then the Generals should order the troops into battle and send the bill to the politicians. If equipment is needed to fulfill the mission and keep troops safe it should be acquired and the bill be sent to the politicians... It's up to them to justify the expenditure to the electorate just as it's up to them to justify their decision to send troops into harms way in the first place. As it is they make decisions and then try to manage the situation in a fashion that limits their accountability morally, ethically and fiscally which will always result in bad policy, flawed strategy and, as is the case here, the impression that the military are incapable.

Rant over... My apologies...

[Blacksheep]

“It's not terminal but it's an important warning to us that if we are going to trade on our military partnership we are going to have to raise our game.” Warning? WTF? :mad:

They only ever wanted other nations troops so they could call it a coalition, so lets just f*ck off and let them get on with creating the unified middle-eastern Shiite enclave by themselves then... :rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

AA, as well as the lack of stomach to declare total war in the countries we find ourselves in; I dont remember it taking the yanks long to sort out downtown falluja with white phos and AC-130s gunning up downtown.

Different mindset to us completely. But one that does, in the long term, win wars. The politicos would have us wrap our bullets in cotton wool if they could. :mad:

[minigundiplomat]

Quite happy for them to crack on then. Bring our boys home, it would seem they are no longer welcome 'shoulder to shoulder' with Cleetus, Duane et al.

With their superior grasp of hearts and minds, customs and etiquette, and geo-political manouvering they should have it wrapped up in no time. Either that or they will resort to typ and bomb the locals back to the stone age before declaring a success and withdrawing to f@ck up some other part of the world.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Different mindset to us completely. But one that does, in the long term, win wars. The politicos would have us wrap our bullets in cotton wool if they could.

I disagree. In the short term it wins battles but in the long term brassing up locals creates hatred and further problems.

Whilst Bush Jr may have famously come out and declared GW2 over as history shows it was far from over and sadly I believe it still has a very long way to go, whether that be in Iraq or elsewhere.

No one is saying force shouldn't be used when required but by comparing Malaya/Indonesia and Vietnam you can quite clearly see that swinging a lump hammer at the problem isn't always the best method at winning a war.

[brickhistory]

a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence

Before having a go at the US, perhaps you'll take more careful note of the authorship of the report.

Why would such a report be generated never mind, apparently, leaked?


As made famous by Watergate, "follow the money."

[Chicken Leg]

AA, as well as the lack of stomach to declare total war in the countries we find ourselves in; I dont remember it taking the yanks long to sort out downtown falluja with white phos and AC-130s gunning up downtown.

Different mindset to us completely. But one that does, in the long term, win wars. The politicos would have us wrap our bullets in cotton wool if they could

Hmmmm. Have you forgotten the would be female suicide bomber from the Jordan hotel bombings a couple of years ago? When interogated after her bomb failed to explode, she stated that previously she had no religous or idealist views and certainly no malice towards the West.................until the Americans levelled Falluja, killing her brothers and destroying her home.

How many other terrorists were 'born' as a direct result of campaigns such as Falluja?

In answer to the orginal post; as a nation, we should be ashamed of our handling of Basra, but in no way is it he fault of our Armed Forces. We effectively pulled out of the city, allowing the Mahdi (sp?) Army to run riot, raping, pillaging and terrorising whilst we bunkered down at the Airbase. It took the Yanks and dare I say it the Iraqi Army to come down and sort out our mess. This Government should be ashamed. How many or our good people died as they sat there month after month as sitting ducks while they were bombed, mortared and rocketed from inside the city?

Appalling. And unfortunately, our good name as capable soldiers, sailors and airmen has suffered as a direct result.

Shame on you Brown, Browne and the rest of you cretins.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Whilst Bush Jr may have famously come out and declared GW2 over as history shows it was far from over and sadly I believe it still has a very long way to go, whether that be in Iraq or elsewhere.p

Technically he was correct. The conventional forces of Saddam Hussein had been defeated and either captured or had "withdrawn" from battle. There was no cohesive military force remaining in Iraq at a national or even provincial level. The error, if any, in declaring "victory" was the appalling decision to remove all Ba'athists from their positions which served only to put a lot of people with questionable loyalty to "the New Iraq" out of work and thus poor while leaving them with too much time on their hands. It also was an act that succeeded in doing what all the precision bombing that preceded it had, rightfully, failed to do... It destroyed the infrastructure which, in turn, made those with an optimistic view of "The New Iraq" less than happy with their "Liberators".

It's trendy to point the finger at Bush but you have to remember he doesn't come up with all this in a vacuum... Much of what actually takes place begins in the minds of his gaggle of advisors and he makes his decisions on the basis of their "expert" opinion and analysis. The "incredible disappearing WMD's" are a prime example. Bush didn't sit there poring over aerial photos and volumes of intreps... Other people did that and then brought their conclusions to him, (and to his predecessor who believed the reports too and commented publicly on several occasions). His "guilt", if any, lies in his choice of advisors... But then, in the USA, you also need to blame Congress because, over here, many advisory positions undergo a confirmation process by Congress - fail to get the approval of Congress means no appointment.

[West Coast]

If you aint got the Gucci, you aint got the Gucci.


My take is along the lines of a speech from General Powell (I think) a number of years ago. To roughly paraphrase, he said while the individuals that comprised the Brit mil were top notch, a qualitative and quantitative review of the kit you have is in dire need.

Put your little wankers away, no slight to your troops. Other than to perhaps those in the top echelons.

[TrakBall]

I agree with WC. The issue is not the bravery, training or commitment of the UK military. What is at issue is the gross lack of kit provided to your armed forces.

As pointed out on this forum by members of the UK services, this lack of equipment and capability has put your brave men and women at risk of their lives. Is it any wonder that the U.S. military sees the same issues that you do?

Again, this is not a knock on the brave men and women of the UK services. It is a recognition that you have been badly served by your political masters that have failed to provide you with the kit you need to carry out the job they have asked you to do.

TB

[force_ale]

"Put your little wankers away"

What, the Red Arrows? ;)

[knocker88]

well next time GB jnr and his little mates want to fight other countries - go with the French!!! Failing that the Germans?

[LeCrazyFrog]

VinRouge,
Although I agree that there is a totally different mindset than the yanks, I disagree on the "winning wars" technique... What wars have they won post WWII? Vietnam: defeat, Korea:neither, nor
Last war, i.e. in which there was an enemy able to defeat you, was, in my opinion, the Falklands war. The rest have consisted in military ops, in which there was no oposition strong enough to defeat the US militarily. And even then, it is a complete clusterf***!

[off centre]

Frog,

Even without agreeing with your comparisons, the list of U.S. victories you gave is still one more than yours.

[Tilt and Gain]

It's no great surprise that the US military aren't impressed by our military's kit. The US defence budget accounts for roughly a third (*) of the world's total defence spending.

I'm afraid that the average UK taxpayer isn't prepared to be quite as warlike as our American cousins.

* Source: CIA World Factbook

[fallmonk]

Wot a shame our brave men and woman have been let down by political inept leadership ,lack of finacial comitment and poor procurment policys ,

Instead of bailing out fat cat bankers who have been writing blank checks to people who cant pay the bills ,Give cash to the MOD, lets stop the rot before(if it isnt already) to late , we have the best people in our forces but as pointed out not the best gear and thats not accecpitable when you put men and woman in a war zone !

[West Coast]

I'm afraid that the average UK taxpayer isn't prepared to be quite as warlike as our American cousins.


From the same fact book...

The difference between the peace loving Brits and the war mongering Americans is about the 1.5% more of comparitive GDP the US spends than the UK on defense.

[Evalu8ter]

West Coast,
Exactly the point. Our GDP will never permit us to have a military the size and spectrum of the USA. However, if our % of GDP spent on defence was back at something like cold war levels (4-5%) then we would have the funding to significantly enhance our capabilities.

The problem is that extra money would not change the mindsets of the individual services. Yet again the low tech / unglamourous kit that we need in Afg (AH, SH, AT, Protected Vehicles, etc) would be marginalised as the Military - Industrial complex gorged itself on more Typhoons, Carriers, DD/FFs and heavy armour.

Why don't we spend our way out of recession getting AW to build more AH and a load of Chinooks, BAES to build some Hawk 200s for CAS and for whoever builds tanks (vickers/GKN??) to build some protected mobility? Oh, and reverse the recent manpower cuts in the military and improve pay/conditions to stop people leaving. That should do it....

[ChristopherRobin]

I can tell you - we (JHF(A)) bailed the US on OEF out a significant number of times during my tour there around this time last year - far more than they did for us.

On a number of occasions they could not get their aviation chain of command turned around and briefed in enough time to effect some of the emergencies their OEF troops got themselves into and, being OEF, no one else would help (step forward the italians and spanish).

And the extraction of the Theatre Task Force after a particularly crunchy op couldn't have been done without the brits as no one else would fly in the poor weather we had.

So: tactically great,the brits, but let down massively by whitehall. Compare the size of southern Afghanistan and N Ireland and compare the number of available task lines to what we had in both countries (NI over 25 task lines vs 8 or so in Afghanistan).

Compare the numbers of troops in NI and Afghanistan. That tells you all you need to know about this govt's commitment to the job. This govt would spend £100 million on **** tips for gypsies to live in (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087942/Fury-100million-plan-hundreds-gipsy-sites-country.html) - and billions on bankers - before it would pump money into afghanistan or, indeed, the troops that work there in obsolete snatch vehicles.

And then gordon has the gall to lecture to the israelis? What a chod he is.

[LeCrazyFrog]

Off,

I believe you might have misread my post... I didn't mention any U.S. victory at all...

Sincerely yours,

[off centre]

Frog,

Exactly.

[minigundiplomat]

I can tell you - we (JHF(A)) bailed the US on OEF out a significant number of times during my tour there around this time last year - far more than they did for us.


Very true Christopher Robin. The Yank Chinooks and Blackhawks have grass growing out of the eng exhausts, they move so little.

[CirrusF]

Instead of bailing out fat cat bankers who have been writing blank checks to people


It wasn't to bail out the fat cat bankers who caused the problem, it was to justifiably bail out all the sensible, prudent people who put aside some money in the banks to guard against a downturn, and who would have lost their lifetime savings without a bank rescue.

The real culprits are the irresponsible spenders, and the bankers who lend them endless credit, and who both think HMG should bail them out.


Why don't we spend our way out of recession getting AW to build more AH and a load of Chinooks, BAES to build some Hawk 200s for CAS and for whoever builds tanks (vickers/GKN??) to build some protected mobility? Oh, and reverse the recent manpower cuts in the military and improve pay/conditions to stop people leaving. That should do it....


If only the military/public partnership were flexible enough to allow that to be done. We've made big strides since the end of the cold war in integrating the interface between regular/reserve/public - but we're still nowhere near the level of reactivity and flexibility of say Israel, Switzerland or even US.

[West Coast]

Exactly the point. Our GDP will never permit us to have a military the size and spectrum of the USA.

I'm pushing a narrow point. The line the original poster implies between being "warlike" and otherwise lies in some gray area of 4.06% and 2.4%
I say not quite.


US/UK % of GDP in 2005


Instead of bailing out fat cat bankers who have been writing blank checks to people who cant pay the bills

A red herring, albeit an understandable one. If the current economic crisis hadn't occured, I'd suggest that Downing Street's attention to the needs of the Brit mil wouldn't be any different.

[Trojan1981]

How about spending that GDP at home on healthcare, new infrastructure and 'home defence' measures. Leave the Yankee created clusterf**k that is the MEAO to the yanks.
Better still, why join them in said coalition in the first place? A quick history lesson is enough to show anyone that, in the long term, a ground war in the area cannot be won by an invading western military force.
The lessons of Vietnam and other conflicts have been forgotten. It's a shame because a lot of good people (on both sides) would still be alive today had they been heeded.
AC-130s don't kill as many enemy combatants as they create.

That said, the way the British government expects the military to do more with less is disgraceful. The C-130 esf debarcle is a good example. If funding is not going to increase, operations and capabilities need to be quantified and prioritised.

[PingDit]

I've always found it very embarrassing. In theatre, we're commonly referrred to by their forces as 'The Borrowers'.
Understandable, but Whitehalls fault.

[Motleycallsign]

The Americans haven't won a war since their Civil War without being part of a coalition. Maybe General Galtieri (retired) would like to pass a comment on the worth of our forces?

[thunderbird7]

..and the sourcing of AIM9L Sidewinders, Shrikes and a tanker load of fuel etc etc.

But seriously, without increasing our defence spending significantly, there's no way we can change the perception with the yanks. That said, are we comfortable with our own achievements. Politicians are all the same - they shout loud when its easy but are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are when the chaps really need backup. The problem with this war is they don't have one single credible objective to spout about to the public. We all know its a worthy task but they can't spout about ridding countries of tyrants and then say we need warlords or some other non-democracy to run the country - think what the voters might say :eek:

So they just let it fizzle on without being too outspoken and hope the budget balances with 'childcare issues in hackney' until it goes away. And as usual, the serviceman is left to pick up the pieces.

[kaikohe76]

I don't suppose any menbers of the British Military starting with the CDS first are going to speak up on behalf of their service men & women. No, thought not, but not at all suprised, must keep our possible knighthood or seat in the Lords well & truly on track, pathetic of course, but true I think.
Secondly, how many US service personnel have been killed by British friendly fire in the last fifteen years or so?

[Blacksheep]

I'm afraid that the average UK taxpayer isn't prepared to be quite as warlike as our American cousins.A significant proportion of our population believe that the primary purpose of the armed forces is the defence of Great Britain. Just the borders. We gave up our imperial aspirations decades ago.

Meanwhile we are governed by "new-age" socialists who consider that even a minimilist defence of our borders is not a worthwhile use of taxpayers money. Think of all the asylum seekers, one-legged lesbian single mothers and under-privileged drug dealers that could make much better use of the cash. :ugh:

[Data-Lynx]

Motley. That General succumbed to the ultimate friendly fire almost exactly five years ago.

[kaikohe76]

Blacksheep,
I agree with you entitely, it's so very unfortunate & sad , but nevertheless all you say is of course exactly correct.

So why are our very senior Military Chiefs not standing up & making noises, very loud & long. As I understand, the CDS in certain circumstances can have a direct link to HM the Q on military matters that are of a critical & sensitive nature. Well boy, grab your hat & pants & beat a quick route to the palace, I am postitive the very gracious Lady would be very interested in what you might have to say, unlike Gordon & his cronies!

[BEagle]

"Don't forget your stick, Lieutenant"

"Ah no, Sir. Wouldn't want to face a machine gun without this!"
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

The real point is that the US is prepared to pay the price to equip its forces properly, whilst the UK clearly is not. And I suspect that is the point being made by the US generals, although perhaps they are too polite to say so in as many words.

I recall the shock which registered at MoD some years ago when the US, quite reasonably, told them that they couldn't keep begging Military Airlift Command to bail them out for their Air Transport needs....

The foreign policy actions of the US are a separate issue. As is the nature of their in-theatre military action.

I recall seeing a news clip of reservists being called up in the US and being outfitted at some clothing store. All received the full scale of brand new equipment. Contrast that with the lack of boots in the Malvinas conflict, the lack of desert combat kit in Gulf War 1, the lack of body armour in GW2, the use of 'snatch' landrovers clearly unfit for purpose in hostile areas, the woeful lack of SH, lack of reliable AT.......... And the wholescale destruction of the UK's Defence Medical Service.

As for force sizes, as commented by a USN F4 exchange officer at Wattisham to one of his colleagues "Air Force? Shoot - I've seen flying clubs with more goddam airplanes!"

[moosemaster]

Let's face it, it was bound to happen sooner or later that the US would "officially" notice that the UK have been underfunding and hog-tie-ing the military to such an extent that they are in-effective. (I'm not saying the guys don't do the best they can with what they've got, it's just that with more, they could do more, or do less, better!)

"Just remember that the kit you take to war was provided by the lowest bidder!"

[Airborne Aircrew]

It's sort of funny... Until you've seen the power of the US military all lined up you really don't realize how puny, (in terms of equipment), the British military really is. On my first tour to Belize in 1985 we had the CAS on the VC-10 and we were dropping him at McDill AFB near Tampa, Florida. After landing we taxied past rows of F-16's four deep... They seemed to go on forever... There were literally hundreds of them... I'm willing to bet that there were more F-16's there on McDill than the RAF had aircraft at the time. Someone said they belonged to an Air National Guard Unit, whether or not that's true is debatable but to be honest it wouldn't surprise me.

So there's no surprises really when the US look at British forces at current levels and are shocked at the small size and inadequate equipment.

[busdriver02]

This is a political game and that's it. You Brits should not confuse this as an attack on the dedication and skill of the members of your military. I've actually worked with the Brits in Helmand a couple years ago. I never thought they were incompetent or worthy of derision, on the contrary they were always professional.

[airborne_artist]

It's not always the case that the US forces have superior kit, though. In the 70s and 80s 21/23 had a regular summer time exchange trip with with US forces. I went to FL in 1985 as part of a composite squadron to work with a Texas NG Ranger regt.

Not only were they hopelessly unfit and devoid of any forward recce skills, they had useless radio kit/skills too. They were totally unable to use the HF kit they had, which was only any use up to 50 km. At the time we were very successfully (when deployed in role) working from the IGB back to S England (1000 km) using what was then quite new HF burst kit.

The only thing of theirs we wanted was the M203 - the M16 with the underslung grenade launcher. They thought our AR15s were a bit old, though.

[Airborne Aircrew]

The only thing of theirs we wanted was the M203 - the M16 with the underslung grenade launcher.

That was a nice bit of kit wasn't it. "They" had them by 86/87 in Belize because that's where they let me play with one for a while... Great for suppression... :ok:

[BEagle]

When training new crews on the Vickers FunBus, we would land at many different US bases. It seemed that, no matter where you went, the number of aircraft lined up would be more than the entire RAF...

Little Rock Arkansas - I think I stopped counting at 80 when trying to count the number of C-130s on the ramp. Same at Dover for C-5s and as for Oceana NAS and its naval fast jets....:ooh: And it was as though they were getting hold of our itinerary, then sending fleets of F-16s to any USAF fighter base at which we landed! I felt a bit like Victor Bolenko (the MiG 25 defector) did when he went to the US; he thought that the shopping malls he was shown were being specially stocked up to fool him into thinking that everywhere in the US was that wealthy. So eventually his handlers had to say "OK, we'll go for a drive. You tell us where. When you say 'Stop - I want to go into that shop', we'll do just that." So they did - and only then did he realise how the folk in the Soviet Union had been lied to.

A few years ago, every time I landed at Frankfurt I used to count the C-17s sitting on the ground and divide by the number leased (the RAF couldn't afford to buy them) for 99 Sqn. I think my record was around 6 or 7. Just one aircraft type sitting on the ground at one overseas deployed air base......

Go to Randloph and count the number of USAF trainer aircraft. T-1 Jayhawks, T-6 Texan IIs, T-38s and T-43s. Probably still some T-37 Tweets as well. Then compare that with the utter clusterf*ck of the ridiculous UK MFTS nonsense.

Years and years of underspend and cutback must soon come home to roost. But the guilty will have retired with their stars and knighthoods by then....:ugh:

[Dr Jekyll]

Even allowing for the fact that the US has about 5 times our population and are prepared to spend relatively twice what we do, their forces seem much better equipped than ours. Perhaps ours are so small we are running into diseconomies of scale.

[c130jbloke]

Another true story:

Friday March 21st 2003. First VC10 into Kuwait sitting on the pan for the first of too many aeromed pax to RTB back home. USAF C-17 parks behind us and naturally we go over for a looksy - 5 hrs on the ramp waiting so you have to do something.

Turns out the crew were from a National Guard unit. The had been activated on the Tuesday, deployed from the US on the Wednesday, had final prep on Thursday and went forward from Gremany on the Friday. These guys went from basic Guard kit to EVERYTHING in 2 days and were fully mission capable in 4 days. I appreciate this is not the full story and preparations counts for a lot, but my point is these guys had it all at the right place and time. Meanwhile, we had to wait 2 weeks for NAPS and combo pens and even trying to steal the kit off those who were being RTB was too difficult. How we laughed when we asked whoever if they had spare stuff - how many times were we told " you should not be here if you don't have the right kit":}:}

Made the decision to leave pretty easy.

Regarding our people, as the Boche said in WW1, " lions led by donkeys". Personally I think that's a little harsh on the donkey:(

[Truckkie]

Finally the penny has dropped....

The only thing keeping the British Armed Forces together is the can-do, nerver-say-die attitude and comradeship of the enlisted men, JNCOs, SNCOs and JOs.

Our kit is f**ked, our procurement is a joke and our military leadership is too worried about the next honours list or that job as a CEO with BAE.

This government talks about a covenant between the British public and the military. What about the convenant between our politicians and servicemen?

What about my basic human right to survival? Why is my equipment so woefully inadequate? The PM and MOD should be dragged over the coals for the shocking state of our once proud armed forces.

[Thelma Viaduct]

The US defence budget is greater than the next 40+ ranked defence budgets combined.

Like most on here, maybe they've not got many friends???

[Compressorstall]

It's true that this boils down to a lot of penny packet procurement and always trying to go for the cheapest possible and then ending up paying through the nose for a capability which is too late and not all of the items procured have the full capability so we can't train as we fight.

Don't get me started on the politicization of the higher ranks...

[BEagle]

The US defence budget is greater than the next 40+ ranked defence budgets combined.

Is that in absolute, or in per capita terms?

[brickhistory]

Politics in and regarding the military?!

I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Remind us how regimental and naval officers used to acquire their commissions?

How many years have there been a 'capability holiday' or 'gap period' throughout the 20th century?

It's nothing new. It'll never change.

By the way, for the oh so clever US-bashers, again, I suggest you see who the author of the report was. Hint, it wasn't the US.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Is that in absolute, or in per capita terms?Absolute.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

[adminblunty]

I worked in Washington DC and it was very evident when I met a number of US 3* and 2* and discussed the issue with my 1* that the USA has a completely different mindset and approach to fighting wars than we do. Their appraoch to ROE seemed very different as well. ie our show of force low level pass bolleaux to scare the Taleban/AQ/insurgents away! Just zap the Fxxkers.

[phil gollin]

First - Basra; please do not buy into the "The UK forces failed" PR. What happened was that after the Iraqi elections a pro-Sadr (sp ?) local governor and administration was elected. The Uk forces tried to keep enforcing the patrols etc... (REMEMBER the "raid" on the police station by Challenger tanks which knocked down the walls ????). The confrontation was stopped by the Coalition (i.e. Americans) and Central Iraqi Government telling the British to stop taking on the corrupt Police, etc..... and withdraw from the city. This was "politics".


Second, again Basra, this time last year. Again forget the PR and remember what actually happened. It was NOT a glorious Iraqi army victory whilst the British forces did nothing. What happened was that The Iraqi Army attacked, but were repulsed. There were then "negotiations" and strangely enough nearly all the mahty (sp ?) army disappeared. THEN the Iraqi Army "attacked" and won a "glorious victory". Again "politics"


Third, Iraq in general. Why are British forces still there ? After the withdrawal to the Airport there was no real reason for British forces to be in Iraq (remember all those "British forces will leave Iraq by ....." dates ? Certainly there were strong rumours for "early 2008", "Summer 2008", "Christmas 2008" (especially strong due to finishing of UN Mandate), "Easter 2009" and now (????) "mid 2009". There is no reason for the British forces to be there other than to keep up the illusion of a "coalition". All it does is waste resources better used elsewhere. Again "politics"


Fourth, Afghanistan, Originally the British only supplied specialised services (Special Forces, Air Refuelling, etc...) to support the invasion. The major commitment was sent in ONLY as part of the NATO commitment which was MEANT to be "Nation Rebuilding" and specifically NOT to be the major fight against the Taliban which was specifically reserved by the US (rumoured to be partly "pride" and mostly because they did not want to have NATO input to ROEs). It was only the failure of the US to be able to combat the Taliban that has led to a renegotiation of NATO's role. Again "politics".


Just going by political or incompetent media rhetoric gives rise to lots of misconceptions.

.

[MightyGem]

Remind us how regimental and naval officers
As you need reminding, I shall. True, you could purchase a commision in the Army at one time, but a Royal Navy officer had to join as a Midshipman and work his way up.

[AR1]

For too long now the UK Government(s) have been playing at being a top 3 world power on a top 30 budget. Additionally constrained by equipping our forces with kit that was produced by our own money, too late costing too much and not using 'the best kit for the job' as criteria. Time to wake up.
Either;
1. Stop playing at it, do it properly and fund it.
2. Accept that we are f****ed as a global power (and we are by the way) and cut the forces to the level required to give a token defence of our country. Including the removal of the preposterous UK 'Nuclear Detterent'

[skua]

AR1

re both your points, the main perpetrator in recent times is one Tonee Bliar, obviusly assisted by Incapability Broon. Am I alone in wondering why, in his new sinecure of Middle East Peace envoy, or some such, he is nowhere to be seen during the current Gaza conflagration? He seems to have passed on his skills to his successor (of not wanting to be accountable for his own actions).

Skua

[Schiller]

...a Royal Navy officer had to join as a Midshipman and work his way up.

Only partly true. First, you had to find someone who'd be prepared to take you to sea as a Midshipman in the first place. Then, once you'd passed your exam for lieutenant you had to persuade the Admiralty or the local C-in-C to appoint you to a ship as a lieutenant. Finally, you had to have considerable 'interest' to gain the all-important step to command of a post ship.

At all these stages the intervention of influential relatives was all important. And it didn't help if your patron wasn't of the right political party, either.

[brickhistory]

Actually, mighty gem, said midshipmen were found places aboard HM ships by political and/or family connections.

A quiet word from Squire X to Captain Y or Admiral Z regarding the unfortunate second son needing gainful employment and the like.

There was no insult intended. Just a historical reminder, along with others, that politics and the military are different pages in the same book.

[MightyGem]

Actually, mighty gem, said midshipmen were found places aboard HM ships by political and/or family connections.

Well, yes, but they still had to learn the tools of their trade and pass their exams, and patronage helped. As I'm sure it still does today. For the Army, you could just turn up with the cash and buy a commission in a regiment, with no formal qualifications.
There was no insult intended
None taken.

[harrogate]

Is this whole gossip fuss not just an attempt to undermine the UK's reputation, as punishment for 'cooling' our previously out-and-out devotion to every significant American military campaign of recent years?

We stop cooperating on their every whim or don't vocally support their policies on certain international issues - they slag us off and undermine our reputation.

I wonder if the next step in an alleged progressive under-mining campaign would be to slag off our equipment. Would make sense. They're still hurting over the Typhoon deal with the Saudis, so they'll no doubt question the effectiveness of the Tiffie in the strike role once it/if if enters theatre in Afghanistan. Just you wait. I can see the headlines now 'Euroflopper' or 'Whyphoon?'.

[brickhistory]

harrogate, who wrote, possibly leaked, the report?

The MoD.

Why would they do that?

Perhaps to identify some glaring shortfalls in the UK's military capabilites and seeking a way to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.

from the article:
I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence concludes that there are now serious doubts in Washington about the effectiveness of the British Armed Forces. Senior military figures are said to have been surprised, and shocked, by feedback that arrived in Whitehall last month.

As for your 'equipment' and the slagging thereof, have you been reading the rest of this thread? Or the many, many, many others? Read any of the threads regarding the Typhoon and the comments made for and against by British ppruners? How about the corruption thread regarding a Saudi deal?

Or maybe you're right. It's a vast right wing conspiracy to control more fully the foreign policy and military assets, such as they are, of the United Kingdom.

Or perhaps not.

[harrogate]

No, I haven't read most of those other threads. I'd perhaps like to, but alas I haven't. Don't know what to say about that, but I bow to your superior knowledge of speculation and rumour threads on this rumour website.

But you missed my point anyway. I was merely suggesting it could be seen as nudging a commercial advantage as well as sticking one in the eye of Gordy for not felating the US like Tony did.

But it was a thought I floated, that's all. Another rumour on the rumour site, to sit alongside your own speculation.

Maybe your expertise is wasted on here.

[harrogate]

Having now properly read the article and thread, I'm not so sure it's worth any of our time.

Again, please pay attention. The British Ministry of Defence wrote the report. It is their report.

I'm told I'm the one who needs to pay attention?

I am told that a report circulating at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence

So what report is this she's on about, exactly? Is there even a report? Can we see it please.

How can you arrive at your superior conclusion when you don't even know for certain the full details, the correct context or even if there are details and a context at all?

Truth is, the speculation of a hack has got people's knickers in a twist. You could easily be the victim of manipulation. The tabloids are the masters of farce, but the broadsheets manipulate through the 'authoritative' approach.

And what if someone's spinning her a yarn to push their own agenda? That only happens, like, every day of the week in the media after all. I can tell you that for a nailed-on fact (I've had the free lunches, thank you very much).

So why's your speculation more valid than someone else's? You don't know sh*t - same as the rest of us. You can't pass off your speculation as being more valid than someone else's. Rumour discussion - fine - but your tone is purely authoritative.

This is probably all just gossip on a slow news day. The article is low quality, and littered with "a source told me" and "I'm told that a report". Conveniently, all these mystery sources and quotes fit nicely with the crux of this pre-conceived, commissioned article.

Facts please.

One nil to the meeja.

[Jackonicko]

First - Basra; please do not buy into the "The UK forces failed" PR. What happened was that after the Iraqi elections a pro-Sadr (sp ?) local governor and administration was elected. The Uk forces tried to keep enforcing the patrols etc... (REMEMBER the "raid" on the police station by Challenger tanks which knocked down the walls ????). The confrontation was stopped by the Coalition (i.e. Americans) and Central Iraqi Government telling the British to stop taking on the corrupt Police, etc..... and withdraw from the city. This was "politics".


Second, again Basra, this time last year. Again forget the PR and remember what actually happened. It was NOT a glorious Iraqi army victory whilst the British forces did nothing. What happened was that The Iraqi Army attacked, but were repulsed. There were then "negotiations" and strangely enough nearly all the mahty (sp ?) army disappeared. THEN the Iraqi Army "attacked" and won a "glorious victory". Again "politics"


Third, Iraq in general. Why are British forces still there ? After the withdrawal to the Airport there was no real reason for British forces to be in Iraq (remember all those "British forces will leave Iraq by ....." dates ? Certainly there were strong rumours for "early 2008", "Summer 2008", "Christmas 2008" (especially strong due to finishing of UN Mandate), "Easter 2009" and now (????) "mid 2009". There is no reason for the British forces to be there other than to keep up the illusion of a "coalition". All it does is waste resources better used elsewhere. Again "politics"


Fourth, Afghanistan, Originally the British only supplied specialised services (Special Forces, Air Refuelling, etc...) to support the invasion. The major commitment was sent in ONLY as part of the NATO commitment which was MEANT to be "Nation Rebuilding" and specifically NOT to be the major fight against the Taliban which was specifically reserved by the US (rumoured to be partly "pride" and mostly because they did not want to have NATO input to ROEs). It was only the failure of the US to be able to combat the Taliban that has led to a renegotiation of NATO's role. Again "politics".


Just going by political or incompetent media rhetoric gives rise to lots of misconceptions.


Masterful analysis, and presented with clarity.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I can only add that the quote posted on page 1 of this thread is extremely selective - and that it, and the headline and intro (probably written by a sub rather than by Ms Sylvester) also stresses the UK military contribution to the reducing 'special relationship' in a way that distorts the overall sense of what the journo wrote.
.

[Thelma Viaduct]

For too long now the UK Government(s) have been playing at being a top 3 world power on a top 30 budget.

We've got a 'top 3' budget, it's how wisely you spend it.

10 years ago my basic training accommodation consisted of a portakabin, beds held together with bungees, no hot water and shared lockers. None of us minded, but maybe it's indicative of where they're going wrong. (as well as sending people out to fight illegal wars based on lies, something I didn't sign up for)

[taxydual]

In one respect, are not the Armed Forces of the UK their own worst enemy?

We (oops, I'm now ex). They just get on and do it. And (OK, I know grammar) do it 'bloody well'. Because they do it 'bloody well', the 'powers that be' depend on that 'bloody well' attitude and allow things to carry on as they are.

Put a few black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah's in the front line and I bet the kit will be brought up to date ASAP.




May be a bit OTT there. My abject apologies to any black, one legged, lesbian, single mother, immigrant, dole wallah who are at the front line.




Edited to add this

BBC NEWS | UK | Prince's apology for racist term (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm)


Oh, shock horror!!

[High_lander]

Folks-

Michael Yon has written about this on his fantastic online magazine/journal/blog (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/).


“Please have a look at the attached from the UK Times. Regarding the Rachel Sylvester piece, we have not been able to find any such document/memo although it is possible that an e-mail exists somewhere that refers to such a matter – more likely to be a warning not to dick about regarding what extra troops the UK might be able to find for AFG and raise unrealistic US expectations.”


Taken from the email he was sent by a "well placed British officer".

[taxydual]

Thank you High Lander. Good post.

Enough said.

[gone_fishing]

So, assuming the rumour that this was leaked by the MoD is true, then what's the big deal? Everyone there has suddenly realised the awful mess up they've been making since the late '70s? This is nothing new, there's been a decline in force procurement for about 30 years. Is it now that they only realise what the consequences of this are? No. They've known how we've been declining for years - and they don't really care.

I'd love (seriously) to see our Armed Forces once again a magnificent fighting force, and they are with what they've been given. I have no doubt that our training is the best in the World. However, the MoD think that they can get away with this factor alone and to hell with the equipment. Sadly, I believe that it would take a conflict slightly closer to home for them to realise that and to get them to pump more money into the Armed Forces.

With respect to the general public's opinions. We may not be so war prone as we once were (in the days of the Empire), but I still believe that they take pride in our Armed Forces and still expect them to defend us and our interests, wherever and whatever they may be. Nevertheless, as the Armed Forces do not directly affect the general public in daily life (or atleast, not that they can see), they leave the descision making on military expenditure up to the Government - believing they will be making the right choices on what to do. Should the public be given more in-depth information about what the military needs to do achieve certain things, I think their would be more of a public outcry - and increase in the budget. Regardless of whether the public believe in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - they still want protection at home, something I think is now seriously questionable - certainly against a major force.

[ORAC]

Times: British were complacent in Afghanistan, says Sir Jock Stirrup (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5614652.ece)

Britain’s top military commander has admitted for the first time that America was right to criticise the way in which British troops carried out counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban in southern Afghanistan when they first deployed to Helmand province in 2006. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff and a former head of the RAF, blamed commanders for being “smug and complacent” about the challenges they faced in Helmand.

His words echoed accusations made by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, and several senior American military officers who claimed that their British counterparts spent too much time boasting about their experiences in Northern Ireland. John Reid, who was Defence Secretary when the 3,500-strong 16 Air Assault Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Ed Butler, was deployed to Helmand in 2006, said at the time: "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot because our mission is the reconstruction."

For six months, the paratroopers faced daily attacks by the Taleban and suffered substantial casualties. The Ministry of Defence was forced to double the number of troops and today there are more than 8,000 servicemen and women in southern Afghanistan, still facing attacks and still suffering a high rate of casualties.

In an interview with The Economist Sir Jock acknowledged that there had been criticisms from some Americans over the performance of the British. He warned that such differences must not be allowed to “fracture and disintegrate” the cohesion of the alliance fighting the Taleban.

“I think that we were a bit too complacent about our experiences in Northern Ireland and, certainly, on occasion, we were a bit too smug about those experiences,” he said. “You are only as good as your next success, not your last one. You can never rest on your laurels and I think we may have done that. If you go around and ask enough Americans you will find some who are critical to a degree. . . of the way that the British do things and the approach that the British take.” He added, however: “We have to understand that our military structures are different, our social structures within our countries are different, and therefore there are inevitable differences in the way we approach some of our tasks.”

He revealed that as a result of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, a “fundamental reappraisal” of Britain’s counter-insurgency training and structures would be completed shortly.

One of the earliest critics of the British approach in Basra was General Jack Keane, a retired American military chief with close links to the administration of President Bush and one of the architects of the US surge of 30,000 troops to Iraq. He made public his concerns about the high level of violence in Basra and predicted an increase in extremist activity if the British went ahead with withdrawing from the city. General Keane subsequently revised his view of British achievements in Iraq.

President Obama is expected to ask Britain to contribute more troops for Afghanistan but Sir Jock said: “Even without the contribution in Iraq, what we are doing in Afghanistan is already quite close to the maximum sustainable effort over the long term.”

[busdriver02]

I just read Mr Yon's article. Just thought I'd correct something, the medevac that "swooped in" to save the Danish soldier at Moosa Qala was not an Army Medevac bird, it was a USAF Pavehawk crew performing an ILO tasking. The crew also included an Aussie medic. I'm not trying to claim glory, just pointing that those of us on the front line didn't give a crap about what nationality anybody was, we did what we had to do with our brothers in arms.