Memo: don't rely on the Brits during a battle
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!
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!
"Don't forget your stick, Lieutenant"
"Ah no, Sir. Wouldn't want to face a machine gun without this!"
"Ah no, Sir. Wouldn't want to face a machine gun without this!"
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!"
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!"
"Just remember that the kit you take to war was provided by the lowest bidder!"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing of theirs we wanted was the M203 - the M16 with the underslung grenade launcher.
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....
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....
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....
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....
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Don't get me started on the politicization of the higher ranks...
The US defence budget is greater than the next 40+ ranked defence budgets combined.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Remind us how regimental and naval officers
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'
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'