British Army - Delusional About Air Power

[Just This Once...]

General Carter on the BBC:

Some people argue that the modern, Western way of war is at arm's-length - exemplified by armed drones and stand-off weapons fired at great distances from their intended targets.

By such readings the traditional army - leaving aside maybe the special forces - seems strangely out of step with the apparent new reality.

But General Carter disagrees.

"I don't subscribe to the view that we find ourselves in a new era of warfare where you can do it all with stand-off; you can do it all with bombing; you can do it all with special forces and you can do it all with proxies," he tells me emphatically.

"Those are all simply fallacies. The bottom line in all of this is that, in the final analysis, people live on land and it is ultimately the land component that has to 'mix it' where people live. History proves that that is a requirement.

"Our policy makers absolutely understand that you have an army because, in the final analysis, armies are the business when it comes to a decision, and ultimately it's about a decision."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40534771

Leaving aside his missed opportunity to explain why we need a regular army beyond the "armies are the business" explanation I do sense that the British Army has a rather closed view of modern warfare.

Gen Carter points to history as a reason why we need a regular army but appears to overlook modern history where air power has been either the lead or sole power used. In equal regards he failed to explain what the 2 recent regular army 'boots on the ground' campaigns have achieved. We are rapidly approaching 16 years of conflict in AFG and 14 years in Iraq.

Worryingly this attitude is reflected at lower levels in the British Army. Indeed, at a recent symposium I endured a brief by a Colonel and his team expressing the weakness of air power by using Kosovo as an example. He seemed to take great pride in the fact that the campaign took many more weeks than expected. Yep, he used the term 'weeks' without a hint of irony.

Of more concern was the boundless optimism in the ability of the British Army to operate under an air threat or against modern stand-off weapons launched from the air/land/sea environment.

The British Army finds itself at a crossroads, admittedly not of its own making. Recent history has not definitively shown the value of 'boots on the ground' and perhaps more specifically, not shown the value of relativity low numbers of 'boots'. Turning to General Carter's history books it is impossible to find a land-centric campaign that achieved enduring success with a force as small as that currently fielded by the British Army. If you need 'boots on the ground' you need lots of them and this is simply beyond the gift of the current force structure.

Right now General Carter has only one regular army operational deployment located on the eastern fringe of Europe. Beyond operating as political trip-wire, should Russia flex its muscles again, I am not sure what military effect these 'boots' would offer. General Carter needs to use his time more effectively to explain why a regular army is needed and what numbers and capabilities are required to keep them relevant.

[Bob Viking]

We need all three. Navy, Army and Air Force. They all do a great job in their own arena.

Budgetary restraints aside, I can't believe we still engage in discussions about which is better than the other.

BV

[ORAC]

I think it is more a comment on the delusion that the UK still has an "army" as opposed to a large Home Guard with insufficient numbers to deploy to attempt more than a police action - and as proved in both Basra and Helmand province.

The truism that "quantity has a quality all of its own" applies in much greater force to the PBI than airframes.

[Lima Juliet]

Maybe Sir Nick needs to go to the cinema this month and watch this:

n2GG2_-J9Fs

It always amazes me whenever it starts going wrong for LAND that they start exclaiming "Where's bloody Air Force". Dunkirk is a classic example of this. The RAF were taking the Germans on well inside the German lines to try and stop the Luftwaffe from getting to our lines. Just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up. Indeed, some of those unfortunate to get shot down and survive were excluded by the Navy and Army from being allowed from getting on a boat back to Blighty. It's reported that fighter ace Al Deere, a RAF Boxing Champ, had to chin the boarding officer to get on a boat as they were not letting the RAF board (w-anchors). Deere became a fighter ace in ONE day at Dunkirk and went on to command during the Battle of Britain. As an indicator of the quality of his character he was one RAF Halton's most popular commandants, inspiring young men who went on to serve in the 50s, 60s and 70s. If it wasn't for the RAF then the rescue of so many at Dunkirk just would not have been possible - maybe Sir Nick and his subordinates should remember that...

LJ

[pax britanica]

As a committed civilian , albeit one borne int he 1950s when we really did have armed forces on a large scale (but then so did everyone else) it does seem to me that we could get rid of the tri service approach and just have a defence forces approach. That might get rid of some of the sqaubbles?? and would get rid of the 3 admirals per ship allegations wouldnt it? It wouldn't affect front line folks but logistical and admin functions could be streamlined. After all they all report to a defence ministry even if they a have been the aggressor more often than not lately and might have to invade Spain over Gibraltar if the Daily Mail is correct .

[thunderbird7]

Suggesting you can win a war with just air power is a basically flawed idea. You can bomb all you like but you will never 'connect' with the people you seek to subdue in anything other than a kinetic way. Yes, you may make short term gains but you won't achieve the long term objective. for that, you need boots on the ground and he is correct.

The problem with Afghanistan is that nobody knew/could define or more importantly agree on what the final objective is/was.

[Easy Street]

BV: you cannot dismiss 'budgetary restraints' so easily. Committing to an Army of 82,000 in his 2015 election campaign probably seemed like an easy decision for David Cameron when it was put to him, but with the Forces' overall manpower not similarly defined it effectively hobbled the Navy and Air Force and prevented them manning capabilities that were and are in much greater demand. The RAF leadership's policy in recent years has been to make their representations privately, but that didn't build any public or media pressure on the Government to announce an Air Force manpower floor in 2015. Part of the distasteful Whitehall game this all may be, but that doesn't mean it is unimportant or inconsequential and it's unreasonable to expect us not to take a view.

On the actual question, the General needs to explain what British troops are specifically needed to do. Land warfare is a messy business: close, personal, often among the people. Soldiers are killed. Deploying them is the greatest sign of commitment a leader can make, in contrast to air power, which by comparison can almost be turned on and off like a tap. We saw our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan encumbered with ridiculous armour, using TTPs designed for own-force protection ahead of mission success, being outmanoeuvred by enemies who were prepared to bide their time and sometimes to die in great number because it was their battle, their territory, their people being fought for. We are unlikely to face battles of our own sufficiently visceral to free British regular troops from the political bubble-wrap in which they inevitably operate. In Afghanistan pre-2005, Libya 2011 (which was a military if not political success) and Iraq 2015-date we used handfuls of soldiers with significant air and naval power to propel indigenous ground forces to success - and the achievement of our military objectives - at practically no political cost. That is the model which has found favour and against which the General appears to be mounting a defence, dismissing its success with the politically-charged word "proxies". I'm sure the Iraqi Security Forces don't see themselves that way...

[Lima Juliet]

TB7

Suggesting you can win a war with just air power is a basically flawed idea. You can bomb all you like but you will never 'connect' with the people you seek to subdue in anything other than a kinetic way. Yes, you may make short term gains but you won't achieve the long term objective. for that, you need boots on the ground and he is correct.

I beg to differ old stick. You can win wars immediately with air power, or latterly sea power, alone. You just need the resolve to make the consequences of continuing seem so bleak that your enemy is forced to make unconditional surrender...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/767A/production/_84703303_gettyimages-906253.jpg

...a lesson we seem to have forgotten having fought Bliar's little skirmishes in the past 20 years. Maybe if our backs go to the wall again in a total war and big strategic weapons are used again then those with memories of the little land-based skirmishes will be re-educated.

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Pax Britannia, Mountbatten set that process in motion when he had the MOD created from the individual ministries, then it was stalled. Seconding RAF aircrew to the RN as the FAA ran down and more recently creation of Joint Commands was in vogue. Creation of a single staff college is another step. The problem is that everyone comes from a single service background with a better ethos than the other services.

You need real leadership to surmount single service prejudices. Ultimately a single initial training centre subsuming Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Sleaford Tech would be needed.

Then remember, the Canadians went the whole hog and now back again.

[Lima Juliet]

PN

I suspect we are very nearly there and in a similar way to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) we will see the UK's Joint Forces Command (JFC) and PJHQ take a more leading role over the single services - just like the ADF or the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). There are other similar models outside of the Commonwealth.

However, I am deeply opposed to 'single gateways' as they really are flawed on so many levels. Each Service has an ethos it needs to develop and nuture - those differences makes us who we are and more effective in our lead environments. Also, the idiotic notions of training officers, NCOs and Other Ranks on the same establsihments have been proven to be a bad idea many times over. As ever, we ignore the lessons of others at our peril.

LJ

[Two's in]

You know you're getting old when this perennial pops up for the umpteenth time.

[Lima Juliet]

Two's In. I agree, it's frustrating isn't it...:ugh:

[Brian W May]

Two's In. I agree, it's frustrating isn't it...:ugh:

I'll third that.

Remember well the resistance to CAF and its eventual demise back into three discreet services - each with its particular strengths and weaknesses.

At a time of ever-increasing threat both localised and globally, I just CANNOT understand the reduction in both military and civil security forces.

Beancounters rule the world. There'll be tears before bed time.

[trim it out]

The RAF seem to get upset when they aren't the centre of attention.

The reality is that the teeth arms only come across air power when it is in support of them, cementing their perception that everyone is there to enable them to close with and kill the enemy. There are still twitches amongst non aviation aware people when AH request kill boxes and type 3 controls to mop up armour on exercises.

[ORAC]

The reality is that the teeth arms only come across air power when it is in support of them That is true, but irrelevant. Obviously they only come across it when they are deployed in the same theatre, that does not mean that air power is not deployed, just that they are not present.

I have a paper I used in my last Uni paper on warfare which has a map which shows the 20+ drone sites the US (not USAF) has deployed throughout Africa supported by civil company recce business jets (surprising resembling those used by the UK and others) and conducting armed operations in support of their host nations. I would imagine the same is true in Asia.

[Pontius Navigator]

LB, i quite ageee, I was responding to PB, a committed civilian.

The problem with Joint is that the lead command often thinks Green and not Purple. Two shades of blue seems to work apart from the regular argument over ownership of fixed wing air.

Didn't Green think the Harrier was a Brigade level asset?

[racedo]

Suggesting you can win a war with just air power is a basically flawed idea. You can bomb all you like but you will never 'connect' with the people you seek to subdue in anything other than a kinetic way. Yes, you may make short term gains but you won't achieve the long term objective. for that, you need boots on the ground and he is correct.

The problem with Afghanistan is that nobody knew/could define or more importantly agree on what the final objective is/was.

Nobody seems to be asking WHY successive Prime Ministers are committing UK resources to invade, bomb and attack countrys with what is a trite and standard response of protecting us at home.

7/7 and attacks since show that doesn't seems to be working that well.

The hiding of the report done by Home Office on funders of UK Terrorism tell us what we need to know.
If it was Iran funding it then it would be headline news with demand for sanctions and bombing raids.

Instead UK is acting as someone's bitch so we can sell billions in arms to them while committing men to do their bidding overseas so the wealthy of said country can come and buy more lush property in central London.

In 2001 I kept asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.

What does the willingness of successive Prime Ministers to carry on perpetual war on people amount to.

Sadly politicians have been bought and paid for.

[biscuit74]

Racedo,

Your comments are, to my mind, right to the heart of the current problem. In recent years and recent conflicts the most senior members of the armed services have not, to my thinking, done their jobs well.

Ultimately, their task is to ask 'Why?' and also 'What do we do after defeating the opposition- what is the follow on plan for the peace?'

ONLY when they have satisfactory answers to those questions should they agree to deploy troops.
Neither of those questions were satisfactorily answered or even asked, evidently, in either Afghanistan or the Iraq case. My view is that as a result those senior servicemen were acquiescing to what were in effect illegal orders.

Politicians are always being bought and paid for, that it seems the Chiefs of Staff effectively have been as well - or are too worried about job security to stand up and be counted - is very disheartening. They above all must never be 'yes men' - or women. At one time they would have stood up to idiotic political follies.

As for the rest of the discussion - dear lord - the folly that 'wars can be won by air power alone' has been disproved many times by now. Without air power, winning is going to be 'challenging', to say the least. All three services are typically necessary, but ultimately only 'boots on the ground' can take and HOLD ground. That is why the Army - or the Marines - are always necessary in the end.

On another note - what do the Canadians think/say went wrong with the single service concept?

[ShyTorque]

asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.


Which time do you mean?

[parabellum]

In 2001 I kept asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.


If nothing else racedo, an entire generation of Afghanis have achieved a full education without too much interference of the Taliban.

[typerated]

I think the general is right for a (small) sub set of conflicts.
It probably seems more of a truism (to him) because of the conflicts we have been fighting since 9/11.

But I think he would be wanting all the standoff he could get if say Russia took a excursion into the Baltic for example.

I can see the Army moving more and more towards UAV's for CAS - just a another support arm like artillery - who will control them? It will continue to muddy the waters on Tactical Airpower. If it flies it should be airforce obviously makes the most sense but politics gets in the way.

what chance the RAF would go along this road? http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/595951-what-might-meet-rather-loose-oa-x-requirements.html

And if not why not?

[Pontius Navigator]

In 2001 I kept asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.

Technically it was not an invasion, we were invited it and it was not expected we would fire a shot.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pedant alert!

IIRC the people who did the inviting were rebel war lords trying to overthrow the recognised (but awful) Govt at the time

[ORAC]

IIRC the people who did the inviting were rebel war lords trying to overthrow the recognised (but awful) Govt at the time Incorrect, the truth being the other way round.

TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME (http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html)

Q: Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?

A; Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.

[Easy Street]

HH: you have to be correct to be a pedant, otherwise you're just a spoiler:

... [UN Security] Council ... resolution 1267 (1999) ... demanded that the Taliban faction - never recognized as Afghanistan's legitimate government - turn [bin Laden] over to the appropriate authorities...

UN History of Afghanistan (http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml)

[Edit: ORAC beat me to it!]

Leaping now to the defence of senior military officers on strategic decision making, it has to be said that they have surprisingly little influence on policy. There is almost an allergic reaction to the idea of the military having a say in Government decision-making with the result that the Foreign Office and its alumni in advisory posts, usually adopting a contradictory position of promoting Western ideals while resolutely supporting the Sunni Arab states, get to call the shots. As CDS during Libya, General Richards tried to point out the likely pitfalls of ousting Gadaffi, only to be told he was a 'purist' and promptly ignored. Since Trump's election I had wondered if military realism would finally get to, er, trump fashionable civilian idealism, but judging by the recent push against Assad I'm not so sure...

The exception I will make to the above (and perhaps the reason for those allergic reactions) is Iraq 2003, where a careful reading of Chilcot makes clear that there was a concerted effort by senior elements in the Army to get an armoured division involved as part of the usual "use it or risk losing it" schtick, and that proceedings were skewed by offers of forces that had been made without political authorisation. Look at the executive summary of the section below, plus paras 230 to 251 (especially 240) and 965 to 980. Barely-disguised self-interest at play. Bad, very bad; fortunately a new generation of young officers has grown up with the consequences and is determined not to make the same mistakes, which is why pronouncements like CGS's are not especially helpful.

Chilcot Section 6.1 (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/247923/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_section-61.pdf)

[Heathrow Harry]

The Taliban ran Afghansistan and the " representatives of the government overthrown" didn't dare show their faces

To suggest they were the Legitimate Govt is like the farcial proposition that the KMT on Taiwan ran China from 1948 - 1972 or that Mr Lincoln's writ ran in the Confederacy..................

[Heathrow Harry]

Very interesting Easy - I'd missed that

[ORAC]

HH, you claimed they were the recognised government, which they were not.

Stop trying to use weasel words to shift your position - it just makes you look eve worse. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[trim it out]

If it flies it should be airforce obviously makes the most sense but politics gets in the way

Even down to the tactical/small/mini UAS level?

[msbbarratt]

In 2001 I kept asking a simple question................... What was purpose of invading Afghanistan................... 16 years on and thousands of death later there is still no response.

Harumph. Anyone remember airliners flying into the twin towers in New York?

It was inevitable that the Americans would respond with the utmost vigour to such a provocation. If Bin Laden ever thought otherwise he was seriously deluded. That was the day that at least some countries also decided that one of the most repugnant regimes ever to stain the soil of Afghanistan had to be got rid of, if not for the long term benefit of the people who live there, but for their own too. To have not done anything, to let them get away with it, to leave the source of such attacks undamaged would have been an invitation to carry out more of the same.

Interestingly Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait have decided to take action on Qatar for the same reason. However Qatar is vulnerable to economic sanctions, Afghanistan was not. If Qatar hangs on for a few months, we'll be looking at a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf just in time to cut off our gas supply by Christmas. Sure, the USN or possibly even the RN could swipe the little corvettes used by SA, UAE aside, but somehow I don't think they will.

[MSOCS]

Frankly, CGS is taking aim at the symptom not the disease here. Air power has unequivocally reduced the toll on ground forces and this has become ever-more prevalent since Vietnam. Armies are vital - they take and hold territory; close with the enemy, and have almost exclusively delivered the terms of victory by hand. However, as GWI clearly showed, after a significant air campaign waged against strategic and tactical targets alike, the ground war was over in less than 100hours. This is an over-simplification but let's not forget that Saddam possessed the 5th largest armed force in the world at the time.

CGS seems to erroneously infer of an "air power is THE solution" mindset, whereas the reality iis, air power is often the safest and most expedient political instrument to use in the first instance. Just because it deploys early doesn't mean it's the only solution - indeed, it's own weaknesses are made up by having other force domains from Land and Maritime to meet the campaign aims and objectives.

In this instance I disagree with the General, mainly because he's pointing the finger to preserve cap badges. The politicos need to be convinced by positive messaging for a standing Army of XX,000, not through asserting half a story to denigrate the very forces that are proven to reduce his very soldiers' battlefield casualties and greatly amplify its efficacy.

[Rotate too late]

Indeed, but even with blatantly obvious examples from the very near past, here we are having the same arguments.....like putting a brigade minus into an area the size of wales perhaps? Then screaming for help from air/aviation.....plenty of examples of boots on the ground, sadly the owners were back in the UK wondering where their limbs are......how quickly we forget.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Rotate too late,

Exactly. My son was a grunt in Helmand during the "surge", lost his best mate to a .50 while next to him, came back a changed man. Air had no assets to support during an 18 hour (yes, 18 hour) engagement. I feel as though I've lost someone who was my pride and joy as well as being proud of himself.

In my day Northern Ireland and the Falklands just didn't feel as shabby.

NEO

[Rotate too late]

NEO,
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.

RTL

[racedo]

Incorrect, the truth being the other way round.

TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME (http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html)

Q: Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?

A; Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal.

In 1979 after Viertnam overthrew Pol Pot who had slaughtered 25% of the population guess who held onto Camnodia's seat on the United Nations.

The History Place - Points of View: Cambodia's Twisted Path to Justice by Ben Kiernan (http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/kiernan.htm)

Guess who insisted they keep it.

[racedo]

Harumph. Anyone remember airliners flying into the twin towers in New York?

It was inevitable that the Americans would respond with the utmost vigour to such a provocation. If Bin Laden ever thought otherwise he was seriously deluded. That was the day that at least some countries also decided that one of the most repugnant regimes ever to stain the soil of Afghanistan had to be got rid of, if not for the long term benefit of the people who live there, but for their own too. To have not done anything, to let them get away with it, to leave the source of such attacks undamaged would have been an invitation to carry out more of the same.


Oh I remember because I lost a friend in New York that day.

I also remember the nationality of the country where they were from............ oh wait it is those peace loving Saudi's who fully recognised and supported the Taliban Govt.




Interestingly Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait have decided to take action on Qatar for the same reason. However Qatar is vulnerable to economic sanctions, Afghanistan was not. If Qatar hangs on for a few months, we'll be looking at a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf just in time to cut off our gas supply by Christmas. Sure, the USN or possibly even the RN could swipe the little corvettes used by SA, UAE aside, but somehow I don't think they will.Is this the Qatar that supplys UK LNG, who owns major shareholdings in UK, buy lots of arms from US and UK. €12 Billion from US at the moment.
Why are US/UK supplying major Terrorism sponsors.

Isn't it great those peace loving Saudi's....................... what again are they doing in Yemen ? What are their troops doing in Syria ? Libya ? and other countrys are telling everybody about Terrorism.
How much again have they spent in funding their Wahabbi extremism around the world in the last decade ?

Keep drinking the Koolaid if you think Qatar is alone in doing it.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

NEO,
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As an ex AH driver, I saw first hand the shocking futility of that campaign. I'd would very much recommend charities like combat stress to your boy. It's a sign of the times that he needs to rely on charity but they do bloody good work. He's not alone, trust me.

RTL

Thanks very much. He was supported by Combat Stress for about 3 years then they said he'd had all the help they could give him. Now he just muddles on (still sleeps on the floor, can't abide being touched) and barely gets through each day.

He won't speak to me about what went on out there, despite being born in a military hospital while I was away in NI for the umpteenth time. No empathy; he says I wouldn't understand.

Breaks my heart.

NEO

[ORAC]

also remember the nationality of the country where they were from............ oh wait it is those peace loving Saudi's who fully recognised and supported the Taliban Govt. And almost all the terrorist acts committed in Europe and the UK areeither from European or British citizens or nations such as Tunisia etc. But we don't blame those nations, we blame and seek out to destroy those individuals and organisations who's ideology they follow.

If British ISIL jihadists were to commit a major atrocity in the USA would you wish them to bomb the UK in response, or ISIL?

[Just This Once...]

Very interesting Easy - I'd missed that

Chilcot's Inquiry is full of absolute gems. Having been involved in the planning stage for the capabilities requested/required (Air, Maritime & SF) and how taut they were, I was astonished that the Land component could offer an argument that they had to have a major role - not because of a requirement but just to keep the British Army happy. Worryingly this dangerous folly gained traction and support at the highest levels:

Army morale. “If the Army does not participate in the biggest combat operation for over a decade, and particularly if it is subsequently committed to a potentially enduring aftermath task, this may foster a perception that the Army is no longer regarded as a war‐fighting force (particularly if they are deployed on Op FRESCO duties) and may have knock‐on effects on recruitment and retention. It will clearly present a leadership challenge. This should not be a critical factor in reaching decisions ... but it is an issue which the Secretary of State will wish to have in mind.”

[Page 294]

[Martin the Martian]

I'm sure that Army morale was suitably bolstered. WTF?

[Pontius Navigator]

Having been involved in the planning stage for the capabilities requested/required (Air, Maritime & SF) and how taught they were


[Page 294]
Who did you teach?

Or did you mean the three Services were taut?

[Just This Once...]

I blame Apple's spiel chucker.

[gijoe]

Most of the time it is the RAF Flying Club that is delusional about Air Power...

[Pontius Navigator]

Most of the time it is the RAF Flying Club that is delusional about Air Power...

At least the RAF and Navy get to play with their toys every day, not just clean and polish them :}

[ericferret]

From post 4

"It always amazes me whenever it starts going wrong for LAND that they start exclaiming "Where's bloody Air Force". Dunkirk is a classic example of this. The RAF were taking the Germans on well inside the German lines to try and stop the Luftwaffe from getting to our lines. Just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up. Indeed, some of those unfortunate to get shot down and survive were excluded by the Navy and Army from being allowed from getting on a boat back to Blighty. It's reported that fighter ace Al Deere, a RAF Boxing Champ, had to chin the boarding officer to get on a boat as they were not letting the RAF board (w-anchors). Deere became a fighter ace in ONE day at Dunkirk and went on to command during the Battle of Britain. As an indicator of the quality of his character he was one RAF Halton's most popular commandants, inspiring young men who went on to serve in the 50s, 60s and 70s. If it wasn't for the RAF then the rescue of so many at Dunkirk just would not have been possible - maybe Sir Nick and his subordinates should remember that..."

Looks like you saw the documentary on TV last week. What struck me was the comment that we were there, but at 20000+ feet so the troops on the ground couldn't see us. Strikes me that if you have Stukas (which were sitting ducks as prooved during the Battle of Britain) dropping bombs down your throat you might expect some attempt to stop them. I suspect that from a fighter pilots perspective going down to tackle the Stuka at low would leave them very vulnerable too the 109'S.

I find the statement "just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up" deeply offensive. "Tiny minds" god almighty what an an appalling thing to say. The troops on the ground reported what they saw or in this case what they didn't see.

[Blacksheep]

What they saw was what got through the RAF cordon. The RAF's main task was to protect the ships from the bombers (still based in Germany at the time) not to prevent strafing of the beaches. That is a job for ground based anti-aircraft weapons. If the other 240 aircraft had got through most of the ships would have been sunk and Britain may have had to capitulate.

During the nine days from May 26 through June 3, the RAF lost 177 aircraft destroyed or damaged; the Germans lost 240.{63} For much of the Luftwaffe, Dunkirk came as a nasty shock. Fliegerkorps II reported in its war diary that it lost more aircraft on the 27th attacking the evacuation than it had lost in the previous ten days of the campaign.{63}

{63}"Einsatz des II.Fliegerkorps bei Dankirchen am 27.5.40.: Schwerer Tag des II.Fliegerkorps," AFSHRC: K 113 .306-3, v.3.

[JimmAttrill]

[QUOTE=ericferret;9827308]From post 4

"It always amazes me whenever it starts going wrong for LAND that they start exclaiming "Where's bloody Air Force". Dunkirk is a classic example of this. The RAF were taking the Germans on well inside the German lines to try and stop the Luftwaffe from getting to our lines. Just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up. Indeed, some of those unfortunate to get shot down and survive were excluded by the Navy and Army from being allowed from getting on a boat back to Blighty. It's reported that fighter ace Al Deere, a RAF Boxing Champ, had to chin the boarding officer to get on a boat as they were not letting the RAF board (w-anchors). Deere became a fighter ace in ONE day at Dunkirk and went on to command during the Battle of Britain. As an indicator of the quality of his character he was one RAF Halton's most popular commandants, inspiring young men who went on to serve in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Al Deere was commandant when I arrived at Halton in 1966 (206th entry). Unfortunately for Al he was a very big guy and we had the poison dwarf for our passing out parade so they got rid of him and found a short Air Commode called Connoly. Nothing against him but he was the right height. Al Deere was commandant when the 203rd entry 'borrowed' the cannons from Sandhurst as a famous entry stunt. He did apologise to the Army after a fashion. The entry were fined I believe but the money went to the RAFBF :D

[Lima Juliet]

Ericferret

I'm sad to say that there were many reports of poor treatment of light blue by the dark blue and brown jobs at Dunkirk. Here is one from Pilot Officer Tony Bartley of 92 Sqn:

"A fighter pilot I knew was shot down at Dunkirk and went into the sea. He swam out to a boat and he got on board and the Navy chap said; 'Get back! We're not picking you up, you bastards! We're only picking up the soldiers!'."

As said before, Al Deere and also Hugh Dundas, both with 3 kills on the first day of Op DYNAMO and several more to make them aces at Dunkirk, both had experienced first hand poor treatment by personnel on the RAF's perceived lack of performance at Dunkirk. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth and even Churchill saw fit to mention them later in June 1940 to try and quash the myths coming back from the BEF personnel arriving back to Britain.

So no, small mindedness is not insulting, but in this case shows how sometimes the narrow-minded perceptions of those not aware of the bigger picture and the sacrifices given by others that have gone on to help. Sacrifices by a few (~80) to save the lives of literally hundreds of thousands.

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Eric, I think you have been properly informed. To amplify what Blacksheep said, Air Defence is a complex operation. It is necessary to separate fighter aircraft from gun defences. The guns would have had 'guns-free' over the beaches with every Tom, Dick and Harry free to fire rifles and LMG as well. For RAF aircraft to venture into the beach area would have put them at risk from friendly fire or negated the anti-aircraft batteries.

[Blacksheep]

Exactly..................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ .............................

[KenV]

I beg to differ old stick. You can win wars immediately with air power, or latterly sea power, alone. You just need the resolve to make the consequences of continuing seem so bleak that your enemy is forced to make unconditional surrender...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/767A/production/_84703303_gettyimages-906253.jpg



We have not lived in the era of total warfare for the better part of a century. If Korea did not prove that, Vietnam certainly did, and two Gulf Wars have confirmed that. And ISIL/ISIS has unequivocally shown that asymmetric threats are very real threats to modern nations and societies. So the bottom line is that modern warfare is limited. Limited war means you must put boots on the ground. Even in the case of Japan which "surrendered unconditionally" under a relentless and devastating air campaign, it took boots on the ground to secure that victory and occupy the nation. There are still US boots on the ground there. Indeed, nearly three quarters of a century after the last (and arguably only) total war ended, there are still US boots on the ground in Germany, Italy, and Japan. The need for boots on the ground has only increased since Japan's unconditional surrender nearly three quarters of a century ago.

[Danny42C]

This is a complex matter. It seems quite understandable that the troops on the Dunkirk beaches would expect their RAF to be overhead swatting the Stukas which were molesting them. In the six months of the "Phoney War", there had been little air combat in daylight over Britain. In early May 1940, Hitler unleashed his mechanised "blitzkrieg", rapidly outflanking the French Maginot Line and charging rapidly through Belgium and Holland towards the Channel Coast. In less than a fortnight he had reached it, cutting off the British army from its French ally in the west.

The air component of the British "expeditionary force" in France fought desperately to slow the advance by destroying the Dutch canal and river bridges, but our Fairey 'Battles' were hopelessly outclassed and the few Hurricane squadrons outnumbered by the 109s. France surrendered in June. It looked as if the entire British, Belgian and Dutch forces would be overrun and swept into captivity in a few more days.

Then a strange thing happened. Hitler ordered his tank commanders, Guderian and Rommel to halt for 48 hours. Why he did so is a matter of dispute to this day, but I (and many others) think that it was deliberate, to allow time for the Dunkirk evacuation to be mounted. Britain was beaten to the wall, he must have reasoned, it must soon sue for an armistice. Why should he bother to feed and house 300,000 prisoners ? They had only small arms with them - all their armour, artillery and transport was lost. Let Britain look after them !

So things stood as the Army waited on the Dunkirk sands for rescue. The Stukas did not seem to make much of an effort to destroy the "Operation Dynamo" fleet (why would they, it was in Hitler's interest that they should get away), but vented their spleen on the ones on the beach. Of course the available RAF fighters were heavily engaged with the Luftwaffe nearer their airfields miles south of the coast. As Blacksheep points out in #46, but for the RAF (which lost 177), the troops on the beach would've had 240 more Stukas and Messerschmitts to bomb and strafe them.

From memory, heavily backed up by Wikipedia and EyeWitness to History.com

(Will be interesting to see how the forthcoming film depicts it).

Danny.

[Lima Juliet]

KenV

There are still US boots on the ground there. Indeed, nearly three quarters of a century after the last (and arguably only) total war ended

The Japanese were allowed their own sovereignty just 5 years later in 1951. The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region - nothing to do with Japanese threats. They found the bases in Japan very useful for their wars in Korea and Vietnam. As for US troops in Italy and Getmany, again, they are there as regional forces as part of NATO. Nothing to do with subduing German or Italian agression - they are all allies and so-called "boots on the ground" against a common foe!!! :ugh:

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Ken's point may be that boots on the ground were initially necessary but then provide a stabilising influence in contrast to post-WW1.

[KenV]

KenV.
The Japanese were allowed their own sovereignty just 5 years later in 1951. The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region - nothing to do with Japanese threats. They found the bases in Japan very useful for their wars in Korea and Vietnam. As for US troops in Italy and Getmany, again, they are there as regional forces as part of NATO. Nothing to do with subduing German or Italian agression - they are all allies and so-called "boots on the ground" against a common foe!!! :ugh:LJYou completely missed my point. The last (and arguably only) total war was WW2, and even the victory over Japan obtained by air and naval power alone had to be secured by boots on the ground. Those boots have remained in Japan, Germany, Italy, (and in the UK, Korea, Kuwait and elsewhere) because boots on the ground are required in any limited war. And all wars after WW2 have been limited wars and will remain so for the foreseeable future. One (of many) of Obama's big failures was in not understanding the importance of boots on the ground when he decided to withdraw from Iraq even with the advent of high tech armed drones.

[West Coast]

nothing else racedo, an entire generation of Afghanis have achieved a full education without too much interference of the Taliban.

Para makes a good point, freedoms/rights that have come to be expected lay a strong foundation for a future. Can anyone reasonably see the Chinese population going back to the Mao days as compared to what they have now simply because the party takes a new direction?

A few months or years of progress might be able to be wiped out, decades long, especially with a youthful population, not so easy.

[Herod]

I'm Soooo glad that the American "boots on the ground" are a stabilising influence here in the UK. I guess we would be a bunch of rabid war-mongers without them.

[Lima Juliet]

Herod, exactly :D

KenV

Those boots have remained in Japan, Germany, Italy, (and in the UK, Korea, Kuwait and elsewhere)

No, you completely miss the point. The boots in Japan, Germany and Italy do not remain because of World War 2. They remain because of new threats from Russian (earlier Soviet), Chinese and N Korean threats after World War 2.

Also, hypothetically, there were no boots on the ground required in Japan after World War 2 because if the population and its leadership did not behave then a third, fourth, fifth, etc... bucket of sunshine could have been dropped - they had no defence against it. If boots had been committed to try and take all of the Japanese islands then it would have been utter carnage for both sides. Strategic airpower finished it and could have continued to finish it without the need for so called boots.

As for total war, don't be so sure. It doesn't take much for things to deteriorate into such carnage between allied states and/or religions. 72 years is a relatively short time in human history and our past history does not indicate to me that we should complacent that limited skirmishes are all we will ever face in the future.

LJ

[FOG]

Leon,

A few minor points. Boots on the ground were required on Japanese land prior to the instant sunshine; Iwo Jima, Okinawa most definitely and a majority would include Guam, Saipan, and Tinian.

Get a copy of Kogun by Saburo Hayashi on the perspective that U.S. boots were (not) required in the home islands.

S/F, FOG

[West Coast]

The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region -

SOFA isn't the same as security agreements. SOFA lays out the protocols, in this case of US personnel living in Japan. Considerations such as what happens if a service member has an automobile accident or something a little a little darker in nature.

[Chugalug2]

Danny 42C:-

Britain was beaten to the wall, he must have reasoned, it must soon sue for an armistice. Why should he bother to feed and house 300,000 prisoners ?

Then we must owe the survival not only of our Army, but of our Nation, to the insightfulness of the Fuhrer! It was certainly not the only time that he acted in our best interests, to the extent that Opration Foxley, the SOE plan to assassinate Hitler, was shelved with the realisation that Allied victory on our terms was more certain with him alive than dead.

This period, from the beginning of the phoney war until after Hess's arrest in Scotland, contains more known unknowns, or perhaps even unknown unknowns, than any other in WWII. I suspect that we were peddling much misinformation, as much to our influential existing and prospective traitors as to our enemies. One day the full story will be told and will be fascinating to say the least.

[Blacksheep]

I have my suspicions that the 48 hour pause was meant for setting up terms under which Britain would cease hostilities. Fighting resumed when Churchill rejected any possibility of such a thing.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Is there any acceptable alternative to the expression "boots on the ground"? Because boots on the ground seem to crop up with nauseating regularity. Politicians love talking about boots on the ground, and people on forums love writing about boots on the ground, and if I had a dollar for every time I've heard about boots on the ground lately, I could probably afford some boots on the ground myself.

Rant over, carry on.

[Rotate too late]

Flip flops on the laminate flooring?

[Herod]

Brothel-creepers on the bundu?

[Pontius Navigator]

Boots-boots-boots-boots moving' up and down again

[ORAC]

Is there any acceptable alternative to the expression "boots on the ground"?

PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) - as in the sense of ill treated - not derogatory.

Origins in the "Wipers Times" during WWI.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PBI

[Lima Juliet]

Boots on the ground were required on Japanese land prior to the instant sunshine; Iwo Jima, Okinawa most definitely and a majority would include Guam, Saipan, and Tinian.

I disagree. I don't believe that the unconditional surrender was due to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki plus a bunch of islands that were captured was it? If the bombs had been ready before the battles you mention then it is highly likely that there would have been no need to fight them. The only island needed to be taken was where Enola Gay flew from, Tinian. Get and maintain air superiority over the rest and let the grunts on the ground fester. The atomic bombs did mean abandoning ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on the war-weary Allies that they might relax their demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace. The 2x bombs changed all thinking on this and the fact that the politicians along with the Emporer decided that surrender was the only way meant that the Japanese military could withdraw and lay down arms with honour.

LJ

[FOG]

I disagree. I don't believe that the unconditional surrender was due to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki plus a bunch of islands that were captured was it? If the bombs had been ready before the battles you mention then it is highly likely that there would have been no need to fight them. The only island needed to be taken was where Enola Gay flew from, Tinian. Get and maintain air superiority over the rest and let the grunts on the ground fester. The atomic bombs did mean abandoning ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on the war-weary Allies that they might relax their demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace. The 2x bombs changed all thinking on this and the fact that the politicians along with the Emporer decided that surrender was the only way meant that the Japanese military could withdraw and lay down arms with honour.

LJ

LJ,

How do take Tinian without taking Saipan? Tinian is in pack howitzer range of Saipan. Tie down the majority of the Pacific fleet suppressing Saipan and Guam?

A little island between Guam, Saipan, and Tinian and the Japanese mainland with quite a few fighters that took a significant toll on the bombers is called Iwo Jima. The calculations, from both USAAF and USMC, was that the casualties in taking Iwo were less than the losses to the bombers would have been.

Maybe keep the B-29s in china move the atomic bombs plus all logistical support and then risk their loss over Japanese held mainland Asia?

Even with both atomic bombs there was not agreement in the Imperial Japanese military to surrender.

S/F, FOG

[Pontius Navigator]

FOG, as the man said, it was the Emperor who surrendered.

[FOG]

FOG, as the man said, it was the Emperor who surrendered.

PN,

Never said the Emperor had not decided to surrender. What is also not in dispute is the fact both the military and politicians were split on whether to surrender. The facts that remain unclear are what really happened at the Imperial Palace; Coup, attempted house arrest, etc.

The undisputed fact is the Emperor accepted the conditional (Emperor remains) unconditional surrender demand.

As the title states “Professional Military Aviation”. Basic professionalism in geography, capabilities of acft, and other known facts is taken as a given.

S/F, FOG

[KenV]

KenV
No, you completely miss the point. The boots in Japan, Germany and Italy do not remain because of World War 2. They remain because of new threats from Russian (earlier Soviet), Chinese and N Korean threats after World War 2.What part of the following was hard to understand?

Those boots have remained in Japan, Germany, Italy, (and in the UK, Korea, Kuwait and elsewhere) because boots on the ground are required in any limited war. And all wars after WW2 have been limited wars and will remain so for the foreseeable future. (emphasis added)

Please read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

[ExGrunt]

The only island needed to be taken was where Enola Gay flew from, Tinian.

As another little historical aside, 'BOCKSCAR' the B29 that dropped 'Fat Man' on Nagasaki had to divert and land on Okinawa after the raid.

Sometimes you just need those pesky grunts to secure more land for big long slabs of concrete before you can successfully play Biggles.

;o)

EG

[KenV]

Also, hypothetically, there were no boots on the ground required in Japan after World War 2 because if the population and its leadership did not behave then a third, fourth, fifth, etc... bucket of sunshine could have been dropped - they had no defence against it.Oh my. One cannot occupy/control a nation and its populace by droping nukes on them. That requires boots on the ground.

And FYI, the Japanese had no defense against conventional bombers after Sept 2 and far more destruction was wrought and people killed by conventional bombs than the two nukes. Further, NO ONE, including the Soviets had a defense against nukes immediately after WW2. Yet it took LOTS of boots on the ground to secure Europe post WW2. And neither Korea, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq nor any of the other targets of various limited wars had a defense against nukes and thus they required boots on the ground. You fail to understand that nukes are terror weapons that terrorize their owners as much as their enemies. Perhaps more. That's why none have been used in anger after August 1945 and EVERY war thereafter (and for the foreseeable future) has had to rely on boots on the ground.

[KenV]

I disagree...The only island needed to be taken was where Enola Gay flew from, Tinian. Oh my. The Doolittle Raid was pointless, Midway was not necessary, Guadalcanal and every island invasion thereafter (except Tinian of course) were a waste. Yah shur.

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, you asked about a new name, why not adopt a new persona and start again with a new name

[Lima Juliet]

Oh my. The Doolittle Raid was pointless, Midway was not necessary, Guadalcanal and every island invasion thereafter (except Tinian of course) were a waste. Yah shur.

KenV

The Doolittle Raid was air power projection from carriers and Midway was a naval battle with heavy use of air power launched from carriers. Where and how are your so-called boots on the ground necessary for these??

Also, for the other points above, the 2x bombs brought the Japanese to the negotiating table and ended the war. Nothing else up to that point had put the Japanese in a mindset to do so. I would offer that all strategic weapons would fall into the 'terror weapon' bracket in that they strategically influence thinking far more. Indeed your Doolittle Raid was a strategic piece meaning that the US showed the ability to be able to strike the Japanese mainland; tactically it achieved little but strategically it proved so much more.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

LJ, you asked about a new name, why not adopt a new persona and start again with a new name

PN - Ta, I've said all I need to say on that other thread. It would seem that my opinions aren't alone with my thinking though! I am thinking about resigning the name shortly...

[KenV]

KenV The Doolittle Raid was air power projection from carriers and Midway was a naval battle with heavy use of air power launched from carriers. Where and how are your so-called boots on the ground necessary for these??Interesting point. My reply was in rebutal to the claim that Tinian was the only island that needed to be taken to win the Pacific war. That's absurd. Taking Tinian was dependent on all the sea, air, and land battles that preceded it.

Also, for the other points above, the 2x bombs brought the Japanese to the negotiating table and ended the war.Oh my, not even approximately correct. While I agree that the two nukes were a critical tipping point for Japan, they accounted for a tiny fraction of the total destruction brought upon Japan and its people. And it's beyond absurd to call the table where the instrument of surrender was signed on the USS Missouri a "negotiating table." The first sentence of the second paragraph of that instruments states: "We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated." (emphasis added) There were zero negotiations.

[Heathrow Harry]

Plus of course the Russians had piled in and were intent on taking over as much of N China & Japan as they could..................

[melmothtw]

I am thinking about resigning the name shortly...

I wouldn't if I were you, Leon. I am sure that the two or three calling for you to do so will get over their faux outrage just as soon as the next bus comes along...

[Brat]

Plus of course the Russians had piled in and were intent on taking over as much of N China & Japan as they could..................

...which required... boots on ground, lots of.

[MAINJAFAD]

...which required... boots on ground, lots of.

And in the case of Japan, amphibious sea lift, which they didn't have that much of to start with and lost a quarter of it in the few amphibious operations they did do in northern Korea and the smaller Jap held islands.

[zsolmanz]

General Carter:

"I don't subscribe to the view that we find ourselves in a new era of warfare where you can do it all with stand-off; you can do it all with bombing; you can do it all with special forces and you can do it all with proxies,"

I do sense that the British Army has a rather closed view of modern warfare.

Gen Carter points to history as a reason why we need a regular army but appears to overlook modern history where air power has been either the lead or sole power used.

You seem to think that the General is stating that the Army is *always* necessary in *every* conflict.
But by my reading, all he has stated is that the army is *not irrelevant*.

I'm inclined to agree with him.

There are many examples where bombing someone to smithereens - or even the threat of doing so via a carrier group parked a few miles off the coast - is sufficient to achieve your aims.
But not all aims can be achieved that way.

If you wish to 'win hearts and minds', you do it by putting your neck on the line to support the locals and help them build, redevelop, educate and govern themselves.
I don't think you'd have much luck effecting that from 20,000ft.

Obviously you consider Afghanistan to be a 'failure'. But from what I've read, it was a war without a clear purpose in the first place. So how would you measure success?

Lastly, Dunkirk...
It's a useful example of a failure to teach a strategic mindset; meaning those on the front lines don't understand the roles of other forces.
But it's not necessarily a very useful indication of the army's current opinion on the RAF, given that anybody who was there is... unlikely to be serving any more.

All in all, I'd like to think everyone here is sensible enough to understand that we maintain 3 branches because we fight in 3 environments...
I mean the existence of the RAF Regiment should be sufficient indication that air power is not a one-stop solution.

[SASless]

Sometimes you just need those pesky grunts to secure more land for big long slabs of concrete before you can successfully play Biggles.

The Marines were still fighting the Japanese Infantry when B-29's began to make emergency landings on Iwo Jima.

Quite inconsiderate of the Army Air Corps (read Air Force) to drop in without proper invitations!

"Dinah Mite" landed on March 24, 1945 while the battle for the Island was still going on.

[ExGrunt]

SASless,


The Marines were still fighting the Japanese Infantry when B-29's began to make emergency landings on Iwo Jima.


I have nothing but admiration for the achievements of the USMC on Iwo Jima. it is sobering to reflect that the invasion came after nine months of air raids and naval bombardment.

[SASless]

Iwo was the first occasion the Marines took more casualties than did the Japanese.

I tried to find the Airline Pilot's account of flying a Charter Flight filled with Marines that passed overhead Iwo Jima on a very clear day....when he made a couple of orbits around the island so all the Marines could get a good look at the place.

He recounted that as the aircraft was finishing its second Orbit....the Marine First Sgt had all the Troops standing and singing their Hymn....in true Marine fashion!

That battle was a defining event in their history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2oTSewq5WE

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess which is why the text books say an attacker needs a 3:1 majority. You can achieve it with tactical surprise, or squander it as Mark Clarke did at Anzio or the British at Gallipoli using Australian troops.

In the case IWO, no chance of any surprise.

[Basil]

Haven't read the whole thread but, IMVHO (Haven't done Staff College ;)) we need all three+ arms. PBI, RE, artillery, armour, REME, RLC (Largest corps in the Army), Para, Transport Support, bombers, ground attack, RAF Regiment, surface vessels, FAA, submarines, Marines & support vessels etc etc.

The problem is that, no matter your contingency plans, you never know what's going to happen next.

One plus of a large military is the trade training which can translate directly to civvy street. In Basil's case there was little demand for 25Pdr gunfitters - thank Heaven. :)

[Trim Stab]

This is a really boring staff-college Rupert's thread to justify their pensions.

History shows that you never know what's coming round the corner next so either you have a US mega-budget covering every conceivable opportunity, or you take the British plan of bumbling along with "what won last time" and have plenty of ingenuity and adaptability in reserve to improvise at the last moment.

I worry that MOD has lost flexibility by aiming to be a very small fraction of the US model (surrogate USMC carriers and F35 spring to mind..)

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

I worry that MOD has lost flexibility by aiming to be a very small fraction of the US model (surrogate USMC carriers and F35 spring to mind..)

The rot began with Options For Change in the late '80s. That was the first of what are now regularly occuring SDSRs. They are always portrayed as making the Forces more efficient but everyone knows they are just cost cutting ventures. :(

NEO

[parabellum]

Basil - You missed the most important corps, THE Royal Engineers! :) Don't forget who jumps first to clear the DZ etc. or builds all the bridges to allow forward movement.

[Basil]

Basil - You missed the most important corps, THE Royal Engineers! :) Don't forget who jumps first to clear the DZ etc. or builds all the bridges to allow forward movement.
Fixed! :ok:

[parabellum]

Ithankyousir! ;)

[Red Line Entry]

...or the British at Gallipoli using Australian troops.



Slightly OT, but can we avoid repeating the canard that Gallipoli was all about the ANZACs? Without denigrating their efforts in the slightest or disputing that Gallipoli remains a key part of their military history and identity, the fact is that they were a minority element of the Allied forces.


Did you know that more Frenchmen died at Gallipoli than Australians?

[SASless]

The population of France as compared to Australia at the time was.....?

Along the lines of 8:1....so how does that compare to the losses?


https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/gallipoli-casualties-country

[topgas]

SASless makes a good point. If you compare the casualties to the population at the time it works out per 100k of population at:


GB..................KIA 45..............Total casualties 157
Australia..........KIA 193............Total casualties 625
NZ..................KIA 252............Total casualties 726
France.............KIA 25.............Total casualties 67
Newfoundland..KIA 24..............Total casualties 71

so proportionally, the ANZAC KIA/wounded were over 4 times the UK losses

[SASless]

Interesting map showing WWI Casualty Rate per pre-War population.

World War 1 Casualties As A Percentage of Pre-War Population - Brilliant Maps (http://brilliantmaps.com/ww1-casualties/)

[teeteringhead]

And I believe that NZ topped that unenviable list again in WW2.

[A_Van]

And I believe that NZ topped that unenviable list again in WW2.



It was Belarus. Even conservative estimates show that more than a quarter of population was killed:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties (see 2nd table)


Some RU and old SU sources, as I recall, were mentioning about 30%.


Sorry for continuining this off-topic...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

While I agree that the two nukes were a critical tipping point for Japan, they accounted for a tiny fraction of the total destruction brought upon Japan and its people.


But all the rest of the destruction and death didn't make the Japanese give up (much like the Blitz didn't make us give up and us bombing Germany didn't make the Germans give up). The two bombs dropped over four days changed everything, instantly. The enormous effort expended on the conventional raids on Japan affected their material ability to fight but not the mindset, so I would argue that the atomic bombs solely brought about an early end to the war.