British Army poor performance
Discussion
I read an article in the paper this morning that says that after the British Army's recent performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and UN military heads see them at best adequate, and at worst, ineffectual. The fact The Army are falling behind in talent, resources and technology compared to other forces, especially the US is putting them at a distinct disadvantage, which is beign exposed on the battlefield against so-called, lesser enemies.
The article (FT) went on to say that France was considered the lead military force in Europe.
Now if this is true, this is an awful state of affairs. The Army was brought into Basra with the fanfare that they knew how to "do" urban engagement after Northern Ireland, and I've always thought our forces the best, bravest/trained/disciplined out there.
I don't know the real story but is the above a true assessment of our national army? Is the same being repeated with Navy and Airforce?
And what's going to happen when France decide to settle a few old scores with us?!
The article (FT) went on to say that France was considered the lead military force in Europe.
Now if this is true, this is an awful state of affairs. The Army was brought into Basra with the fanfare that they knew how to "do" urban engagement after Northern Ireland, and I've always thought our forces the best, bravest/trained/disciplined out there.
I don't know the real story but is the above a true assessment of our national army? Is the same being repeated with Navy and Airforce?
And what's going to happen when France decide to settle a few old scores with us?!
Edited by prand on Wednesday 27th May 12:38
So it's all down to money?
We muller Gordon Brown for wasting our cash on bank bailouts, I suppose a standing army and relate defence costs are also a big lump of the tax we pay.
I suppose I ought to keep quiet then, unsless someone can come up with a good reason that mismanagement of funding has brought the armed forces to its needs with useless management layers brought in like with the NHS.
We muller Gordon Brown for wasting our cash on bank bailouts, I suppose a standing army and relate defence costs are also a big lump of the tax we pay.
I suppose I ought to keep quiet then, unsless someone can come up with a good reason that mismanagement of funding has brought the armed forces to its needs with useless management layers brought in like with the NHS.
Whilst it is true that years of underinvestment have dented our ability to field a truly globaly effective force, particularly in two major theatres concurrently, I still belive that man for man the UK's armed forces are among the best in the world.
The biggest gap appears above regimental level, not in terms of talent but resources. If the US can throw 5 or 6 times as much funding at any particular issue then they will usually produce a more effective and crucially, less manpower intensive solution.
Dispite the "old enemy" stuff, the French military have been of impressive quality since the 60's. I would not have thought they were on par with Germany though, at least not on an armoured basis.
The biggest gap appears above regimental level, not in terms of talent but resources. If the US can throw 5 or 6 times as much funding at any particular issue then they will usually produce a more effective and crucially, less manpower intensive solution.
Dispite the "old enemy" stuff, the French military have been of impressive quality since the 60's. I would not have thought they were on par with Germany though, at least not on an armoured basis.
The British Armed forces have been far less effective in Blue on Blue engagements than our American friends.
This is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
This is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
Tony*T3 said:
The British Armed forces have been far less effective in Blue on Blue engagements than our American friends.
This is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
I think it's unrealistic to think the UK army can compete with the US, their budget is so much larger (more than the US taxpayer can afford).This is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
Tony*T3 said:
The British Armed forces have been far less effective in Blue on Blue engagements than our American friends.
This is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
Its a bit of a strange argument to use that when we fThis is BECAUSE of the Americans use of technology, not despite their use of it.
When your too far away from a target to clearly identify it, then you clearly dont know who you are aiming at.
k up, we kill less of our allies, and that makes our troops better. I would think it also has more to do with the American over use of firepower, and the lower quality of the average US GI.
Probably less to do with the Army as much as politicians. In Basra, they decided that we would be extracting ourselves as soon as feastibly possible. To that end, the Army's role was reduced and limited since of course Basra was supposed to be compliant and we were simply on overwatch while training the Iraqi forces (which we did and are continually to do in spite of the withdrawal). Meanwhile, the militias in Basra took over in our absence and Basra became more violent. Our politicians refused to allow the Army to go back in (because that would be admitting we weren't ready to leave) so the Iraqi government eventually sent in their own forces (with American and latterly British support) to resolve the situation.
Similar story with Afganistan - failure to adequately resource operations (not just equipment but also the number opf troops). One of the big differences is that American troops generally do 12 months or more whereas ours still do 6 months. So by the time someone builds up a decent knowledge of the area and rapport with the locals they're tour is almost over. This has major implications in senior roles where commanders have different ideas about what the strategy should be and hence there is a lack of stability.
So it's not the fault of the lads on the ground or even their equipment, which has improved considerably over the past few years (the procuement process is generally good at getting kit that is urgently needed). The problem lies with politicians being unwilling to accept the current situation, decide what our objectives are supposed and resource them properly.
As for the RN and RAF: they have similar tales of neglect. E.G. The Strategic Defence Review in 98 identified that 12 Type 45 destroyers were required to replace 12 Type 42. As a cost cutting measure, the government then withdrew 4 Type 42s and changed the requirement to 8 Type 45s for 8 Type 42s. At the moment it looks like we'll only get 6. There are arguments that this sort of procurement is fighting the last war and the focus ought to be counter insurgency Land operations as that is where we're likely to be fighting in the near future - forgetting of course that the next war may not be a War on Terrorism type affair.
Similar story with Afganistan - failure to adequately resource operations (not just equipment but also the number opf troops). One of the big differences is that American troops generally do 12 months or more whereas ours still do 6 months. So by the time someone builds up a decent knowledge of the area and rapport with the locals they're tour is almost over. This has major implications in senior roles where commanders have different ideas about what the strategy should be and hence there is a lack of stability.
So it's not the fault of the lads on the ground or even their equipment, which has improved considerably over the past few years (the procuement process is generally good at getting kit that is urgently needed). The problem lies with politicians being unwilling to accept the current situation, decide what our objectives are supposed and resource them properly.
As for the RN and RAF: they have similar tales of neglect. E.G. The Strategic Defence Review in 98 identified that 12 Type 45 destroyers were required to replace 12 Type 42. As a cost cutting measure, the government then withdrew 4 Type 42s and changed the requirement to 8 Type 45s for 8 Type 42s. At the moment it looks like we'll only get 6. There are arguments that this sort of procurement is fighting the last war and the focus ought to be counter insurgency Land operations as that is where we're likely to be fighting in the near future - forgetting of course that the next war may not be a War on Terrorism type affair.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff