US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?
Thread Starter
US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?
US general warns British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, sources say | Daily Mail Online
The linked article caught my eye, not literally but you get the picture I'm sure.
FB
The linked article caught my eye, not literally but you get the picture I'm sure.
FB
Top Answer
30th Jan 2023, 08:25
All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Basia Arma
No disrespect to anybody serving but I don’t doubt there’s some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. I’m about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but I’d prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.
Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.
Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.
The following 12 users liked this post by Ninthace:
Originally Posted by sir
No disrespect to anybody serving but I don’t doubt there’s some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. I’m about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but I’d prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.
Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.
Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.
The argument that the equipment can do XYZ better than in 1945 and on is no excuse when you have say 5 ships and the need to operate in 7 areas. Or stockpiles of enough Ammunition to last a couple of days assuming the enemy decides to play by our rule book and go Nuclear, suddenly that all falls by the wayside when you see the war in Ukraine..
As the Army reserve website states, become a reserve for a commitment of as little as 19 days a year. A reserve is just that, a Government scheme to bolster the military manpower figures on the cheap, yes they are ex service personnel on the whole and yes no doubting their abilities and dedication, but 19 days a year a full time professional soldier it does not make. Skill sets are perishable and if not maintained they begin to slip.
,,
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Jan 2023 at 16:15.
Originally Posted by Ninthace
All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Last edited by chevvron; 30th Jan 2023 at 11:40.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by melmothtw
A lot of that spending goes on the nuclear deterrent though. Not saying we shouldn't have it, but it does rather skew the numbers when comparing against other nations' spending.
UK has a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget
Throw in two carriers with insufficient aircraft to fully man them, nor sufficient ships to protect them.
It is all well and good needing fellow NATO countries to provide aircraft and ships to support them, but by the stupid decision not to make them angled deck and cat capable, you instantly crippled them to the types that can operate and limit future aircraft acquisition to operate from them.
Top that off with if you ever have another Falklands type Scenario we would be on our own re support ships or aircraft.
I understand the logistics of projecting airpower, but one good torpedo and the ship is gone, along with a damned good percentage of our F35 fleet.
As for the Nuclear sub fleet, it is the one thing that would hopefully prevent Russia ever making good on its threats of nuking us, as they would be assured of a reply in kind targeting their Cities. Something their propogandists appear to skip over in all their bluster.
..
It is all well and good needing fellow NATO countries to provide aircraft and ships to support them, but by the stupid decision not to make them angled deck and cat capable, you instantly crippled them to the types that can operate and limit future aircraft acquisition to operate from them.
Top that off with if you ever have another Falklands type Scenario we would be on our own re support ships or aircraft.
I understand the logistics of projecting airpower, but one good torpedo and the ship is gone, along with a damned good percentage of our F35 fleet.
As for the Nuclear sub fleet, it is the one thing that would hopefully prevent Russia ever making good on its threats of nuking us, as they would be assured of a reply in kind targeting their Cities. Something their propogandists appear to skip over in all their bluster.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Jan 2023 at 16:24.
Of course the Army's problems aren't helped by spending around £14 Billion on armoured vehicle programmes, none of which have produced serviceable vehicles. Which makes anything the other two services have spent on equipment this century look like value for money.
The following 4 users liked this post by Bing:
Agree we are spreading it too thin. Something to be said for the Swiss approach now we are no longer a world power whether we think so or not.
Time to start closing motorways now and again I think.............. !!
Time to start closing motorways now and again I think.............. !!
The following 3 users liked this post by Sleeve Wing:
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
There is a difference between spending and actual forces, you can spend a fortune on extra kit that is late, over budget or cancelled, while at the same time reducing manpower and flogging off the crown jewels. The two do not necessarily balance each other out.
Poland has just ramped up their spending to 4% GDP
https://tvpworld.com/65942560/poland...ing-in-2023-pm
Poland has just ramped up their spending to 4% GDP
https://tvpworld.com/65942560/poland...ing-in-2023-pm
The following 2 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
The lack of depth in our warstocks is something that SoS has publically noted and committed to fixing - trouble is you can't just turn the ammo delivery switch on just like that. Similarly if you've been paying attention, he's also noted that the Army in particular has lost its edge in certain areas (indirect fires, organic AD) - often by hanging on to cap badge regiments rather than prioritising capability.
The real issue the Army faces is answering the question "what is it for?". If the answer to that question is to provide an armoured division in Eastern Europe, one has to ask why that is so, given that between the Russian border and ourselves lie 1500km and half a dozen countries. Including the Germans whose regular army has a strength of 63000 - significantly less than the UK. If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
For a maritime power, global reach is merely common sense. Crazy is trying to recreate something from the 1970s for a completely different world.
Stop selling off bases for housing and industrial estates.US military leaders have warned that Russia's Severodvinsk-class subs are operating near US coasts.Severodvinsk-class subs have a mix of stealth and striking power that worries US and NATO navies.Why is all our lifting capability concentrated at one base? A few well aimed missiles and our conventional capability would be severed in one go.The 'peace dividend' and ' options for change' sailed a decade ago
If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?
Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?
Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.
Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.
In some things size, numbers, and capability become the difference between victory and defeat.
Quality absent the rest cannot achieve victory.
What ever you must not do is believe your own propaganda....look to history for proof of that....to include recent history as Russia runs up on the rocks of reality in its War in Ukraine.
Originally Posted by chevvron
Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?
Originally Posted by SASless
Thinking like an American are you?
Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?
Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.
Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.
Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?
Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.
Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.
Less of the y'all when you try to ascribe reactions to me. For the record, one of Trumps good points was that he was prepared to say some contentious things - although Europeans relying on the US to defend them and not pulling their weight goes back to Ronnie, Maggie and beyond.
Last edited by T28B; 1st Feb 2023 at 10:53. Reason: removed the JB fodder
Evidently it is thought by many the British Military needs lots of all sorts which was the topic of the thread.
So is the British Military up to the task of defending the Home Isles and possessions and properly fulfill its role in NATO.....or not?
So is the British Military up to the task of defending the Home Isles and possessions and properly fulfill its role in NATO.....or not?
