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...

...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.

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,"

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.

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.

SASless,



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.

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

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.

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. :)

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..)

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

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:

Ithankyousir! ;)

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?

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/inte...alties-country

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

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

World War 1 Casualties As A Percentage of Pre-War Population - Brilliant Maps

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...