Army troop numbers to be cut to Boer War levels

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14181145

What do the OCUK armchair generals (and real soldiers /respect) think about this? The idea is that the TA will get extra funding so be better trained and more able to be deployed on operations. My gut feeling is that this will make the army less capable than it is now, which I think would be a good thing if I could be sure that we'll be fighting fewer wars in 2020 and beyond when these changes are due to be completed. Sadly I don't think that'll be the case.
 
As someone with experience, if they want to downsize the military then the government will also have to downsize its appetite for pretending to be a big player on the world stage. We can only punch above our weight so much. We can begin by not starting pointless wars that have no direct bearing on UK national security, for example. However, there is a risk of being blindsided by a national security emergency and being unable to respond.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good thing, military spending should be appropriate for a country of our size and at the moment it isn't.
 
Personally I would need to see far more detail on allocations and what they intend to do with the reservists before I make any kind of judgement.

We are actually out of sync with most modern armed forces in respect of the balance between the use of regulars and reservists in front-line operations anyway. However, like I said, I reserve judgement until more details are forthcoming, but it is not necessarily a bad thing although I am sure the media will portray it as such.
 
Last edited:
Am i only one that can smell the BS reeking from this?

The MPs want to cut numbers of soldiers to replace with weekender's, so that they have to pay less wages, the whole bs of more spending on training the reserves has been going around the mill for so long that its a trade mark of the MOD.
All this is down sizing numbers of men and amount of training, which will lead to more deaths in the operational theater.
Can anyone really see the standard company allowing its employees to swan of on jollies for 6 months at a time? i truthfully can see business putting clauses in their contracts to prevent people joining the TA.

Why cant the MPs cut the over bloated MOD and how they overspend on every possible thing, i can see this as one more step towards a EU armed forces
 
scorza said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14181145

What do the OCUK armchair generals (and real soldiers /respect) think about this? The idea is that the TA will get extra funding so be better trained and more able to be deployed on operations. My gut feeling is that this will make the army less capable than it is now, which I think would be a good thing if I could be sure that we'll be fighting fewer wars in 2020 and beyond when these changes are due to be completed. Sadly I don't think that'll be the case.
Click to expand...

Britain had around 450,000 troops in South Africa alone at the height of the Boer War.

It wasn't until the interim between 1902 and WWI broke out that troop numbers reduced.
 
Im in two minds about this. Im ex ta and sure we worked damned hard to make sure we did as good if not better job, i would still rather see full time soldiers on the front lines.

I can see it being hard switching between military and civvy life, you need to be of a certain mindset to handle it.
 
Don't have too much of a problem with it, as long as our troops get good equipment/training/etc.....we shouldn't cut the amount of manpower AND the quality of their tools. Give me a streamlined but lethal army (backed up by good reserves) any day.
 
DampCat said:
The rest of the world (excl. US) has appropriately sized military with related funding. Why can't we?
Click to expand...

The US government spends around a third of its budget on the military. Do you really think that's appropriate?

I'm not a fan of downsizing the military, the UK military is already stretched horrifically thin after ten years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq - we should at least repair it before thinking about downsizing.
 
Frightning when you think we will be left with 1 aircraft carrier 50 tanks and a 1/3 of the armed force left. And we are stuck in 2 wars we shouldnt even be in.

Makes you think why germany and russia are expanding there forces at an alarming rate ? .
 
DampCat said:
The rest of the world (excl. US) has appropriately sized military with related funding. Why can't we?
Click to expand...

That's just BS
These all spend more GDP % than us
And a fair few of them, spend far more % wise than USA


Russia
Saudis ariabia
India
South Korea
United Arab emirates
Israel
Greece
Columbia
Singapore
Chile
Algeria
Pakistan
Iraq
Kuwait
Oman
Angola
Ukraine
Morocco
Syria
Sudan
Lebanon
Azebijan
Jordan
Sri Lanka
Yemen
Bahrain
Eritia
Georgia
Armenia
Botswana
Nambia
Brunei
Chad
Turkmeinstan
Kyrgztan
Burundi
Djibouti
Guinea Bissau

France is only 0.2% GDP lower than us.
 
Last edited:
Given the number of wars we found ourselves embroiled in that we didn't expect, i.e. Libya, Sierra Leone, The Falklands etc. then this is just plain idiocy. Every defence review's been the same, a hollow pretext retrospectively justifying decisions that have already been made to take the axe to our armed forces.

Pathetic.
 
We quite often get TA soldiers attached to my unit on op's and they do a good job but they're individuals and the regular soldiers around them covered their deficiencies or brought them up to speed. We once had a TA Company (100 men or so) attached to us, we could use them for guard duties anything else would have quickly gone pear shaped and a TA soldier getting killed is much worse (PR wise) than a regular soldier.

It's warfighting on the cheap. I don't think any of us would go into surgery under the knife of a surgeon who dabbled with medicine 20 days a year, why should we go to war with people so poorly trained.

I commend the TA for there support of the country and I value their contribution, they have a role to play. They are not the same as a regular soldier, I once had to provide a regular Private soldier to replace a TA Sergeant, the TA soldier (a good bloke, really) was just so far behind in skills and experience. It must have been fairly demoralising for the TA guy to be replaced by a soldier on the bottom rung of army ranks, but we needed the job doing.
 
Cutting the Army in any shape or form is bad idea considering we are heading into some big problems with energy.

I wonder if the same people in this thread will be moaning when we dont have the numbers in the army to go and fight for the last bits of energy left in the world.
 
bhindi said:
Frightning when you think we will be left with 1 aircraft carrier 50 tanks and a 1/3 of the armed force left. And we are stuck in 2 wars we shouldnt even be in.

Makes you think why germany and russia are expanding there forces at an alarming rate ? .
Click to expand...

1 aircraft carrier and 200 challangers, none of which are used in Afgan
 
This decision is the worst one of the lot yet. This government is a bunch of ****holes with no clue whatsoever.

I actually used to be conservative, but I shall never, ever, ever vote for them again.

The utter LUNACY of this decision is mindbending.

We are effectively occupying THREE countries in the middle east, yet we are cutting the troops, and the aircraft, and the carriers to the BONE.

Imagine being a serving soldier in Afganistan, putting your life on the line everyday, you get back to be told your job is going to go, but will be replaced by some part timer from the TA.

Its literally outrageous, considering the amount of money we ***** around on "aid".

Urrrghhhh, this government actually makes me feel physically sick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom