Army Cutbacks.
Discussion
Whats all this about then?
At a time when were under such a "great threat" and we have massive troop commitments all round the world, up to our necks in crap in Iraq and looking for fights with Iran, Syria et al, and planning to spend billions back home on stupid stunts like Identity cards (canned now?).
We decide the one thing we realy need, especialy just before an election there hoping to win more on fear than policies, is a less able armed force?
At a time when were under such a "great threat" and we have massive troop commitments all round the world, up to our necks in crap in Iraq and looking for fights with Iran, Syria et al, and planning to spend billions back home on stupid stunts like Identity cards (canned now?).
We decide the one thing we realy need, especialy just before an election there hoping to win more on fear than policies, is a less able armed force?
Nu Labia, these damned socio-fascists, do not want a well-trained force who well might turn on them a string them all up, so they just rationalise them away.... A strong nation means strong efficient armed forces... all labour have ever done is run down the forces (especially before large conflicts) and the Tories and others have been left to pull it all back onto the tracks.....
Tax and spend bLIARs!!!
Tax and spend bLIARs!!!
billb said:
But do we really need to keep thousands of infantrymen?
if we keep starting wars then yes to "keep the peace " and clear up the mess afterwards
You have to have some bloke on the ground at some point. No amount of technology can get around that. Mind ewe, if the Air force can order planes costing £38bn...........
C C said:
But do we really need to keep thousands of infantrymen?
Uhhh yes we do, most definetly. The UK has a tradition of producing world class soldiery.
Fruck the tradition part, what is important is the the UK continues to produce world class soldiery so that when they are needed they are there.
Look at Iraq. The US dont appear to have a clue. The UK troops generally have good relations.
Look at Somalia for the US compared to Sierra Leone for the UK. Similar situations different outcomes.
Why, because the British squaddy is a whole magnitude more a professional soldier than the US GI.
Lose this now and we lose it forever.
By 1500 its suggested.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4098917.stm
Not a lot , but the army is stretched already. Has a presence in 80 countries.
Technology and equipment is all well and good (tho were under equiped and not exactly exceling at technology are we?) - but you still need troops on the ground for things like Iraq, Bosnia et al.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4098917.stm
Not a lot , but the army is stretched already. Has a presence in 80 countries.
Technology and equipment is all well and good (tho were under equiped and not exactly exceling at technology are we?) - but you still need troops on the ground for things like Iraq, Bosnia et al.
Only around 1500 redundancies will occur through the future restructuring, mainly voluntary, primarily the dead wood that is lacking in progression.
The restructure will allow the Army to be more flexible and reduce the frequency of 'peacekeeping' tours. Currently only one third of the Infantry is deployable, the remaining two thirds are either re-roling or moving location (again). Under the new structure soldiers and their families will have more stability and better facilities.
The downside is that some Infantry Regiments will be amalgamated (details due to be released today) the old and bold will see this as a sad event but amalgamations have been an element of Army life for hundreds of years. As a serving soldier it doesn't really bother me that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment or the Royal Gloucester, Berkshire, Wiltshire Regiment will be no more, if it brings stability and a better quality of life then it has to be a good thing.
The restructure will allow the Army to be more flexible and reduce the frequency of 'peacekeeping' tours. Currently only one third of the Infantry is deployable, the remaining two thirds are either re-roling or moving location (again). Under the new structure soldiers and their families will have more stability and better facilities.
The downside is that some Infantry Regiments will be amalgamated (details due to be released today) the old and bold will see this as a sad event but amalgamations have been an element of Army life for hundreds of years. As a serving soldier it doesn't really bother me that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment or the Royal Gloucester, Berkshire, Wiltshire Regiment will be no more, if it brings stability and a better quality of life then it has to be a good thing.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff