Army chief calls for more troops and fewer ships to fight wars against insurgents - Telegraph
[QUOTE]
The head of the Army has said that more troops and fewer ships are needed as the changing face of warfare requires the most radical changes to military tactics for more than 80 years.[/QUOTE]
General Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff, said that the rules of war had been rewritten by the challenges of fighting insurgents and the armed forces were now facing a new “horse versus tank moment” – when cavalry was phased out in favour of tanks in the First World War.
With a defence review set to follow a spring general election, Sir David said that it was time to rethink conventional “old-war fighting” involving heavy armour and ships.
Sir David suggested that more troops, unmanned spy planes and high-tech cyber-defences would have to be paid for by slashing the budget for ships and fighter jets.
"Soldiers give you the most choice and the most utility in today's sort of conflict”.
He continued: "People say I'm only talking about war with non-state actors [such as the Taliban]. I'm not. I'm saying this is how even war between states is more likely to be fought in the future."
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir David said: "In our heart of hearts, we thought that was an aberration and we'd go back to jolly old war-fighting like in the western desert or a hot version [with battle lines drawn] of the cold war."
But the general said the examples of Basra and Helmand have proved "unsophisticated opponents with very cheap weaponry" can pose severe threats – and said that future opponents were likely to use similar tactics.
"Why would you not learn a lesson from that and think, 'Actually, that's how I would bring down great nations and great alliances, much more subtly, cleverly and at much less risk'?" he said.
Sir David, who is due to speak today at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said he lived in "the real world" and envisaged significant spending cuts in the defence review.
He insisted that Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them.
Last month the Government announced that a £900 million package of 22 new helicopters, body armour and other support for troops in Afghanistan would be funded by closing a Royal Air Force base and scrapping a squadron of Harrier jets. In addition, two Navy ships will be retired early.
The move led to former military chiefs questioning whether the focus on Afghanistan risked leaving Britain exposed to other threats.
Sir David, however, compared critics to the cavalry officers who insisted, long after the introduction of the tank in the first world war, that it would never replace horses.
He also said that Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks.
So then, UBL has had SATCOM and broadband installed in Tora Bora and is going to nobble our electricity and gas supplies and air traffic systems is he? Well fair play to him if he has. But this does beg the question .... why Sir David, do we need thousands of more troops to defeat a cyber warfare savvy opponent? With all due respect to the incredibly dogged and brave troops slogging it out on a daily basis, if that is the threat we are facing in the future, thousands of regular infantry are exactly what we
don't need.
If the way ahead is hi-tech cyber war, then I'm afraid the days of the regular infantry are limited and we are looking at hi-tech agencies, SF and intelligence led wars.
Care to re-think or have you really just shown the flaws in your Afghan army-centric thinking that most sane operators can see?