Army brass to be slashed.

[Xordium]

All we know is what did happen

What did happen was communist expansion all in every direction of the compass bar the West.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything other than the two things I did professionally. One of which is highly relevant to this thread. I am sorry if I have offended you somewhere on these forums but I genuinely don't know who you are.

 

[Xordium]

Until the Wall fell and then they found that the effective numbers were well below the fighting strength due to poor maintenance and 'paper strength' as opposed to actual strength.

Well we will have to differ on this one unless you emphatic proof because the IISS has always stated contrary to your view.

These are minor differences when looking at all the other forces around the world. The UK still has a military top echelon geared for another era while the lower ranks have started to move towards our real position in the world.

Sorry, but this kind of viewpoint is just plain wrong. There are major differences depending on the logistical needs, the arms focus, the actual doctrines, etc. If you think the structures and management are comparible then you need to have a think about that. Militaries by their nature and the actions they are involved by far and large are logistical challenges the proximity to home will drastically alter the actual structures and needs of the corresponding force.

 

[Rroff]

Mate we are in NATO, we are in Europe, we love America long time and let them deep into our back passages/have their airbases. And anyway once Russia's done smashing up Eastern Europe and Germany, hopefully we'll have got ready. That or what good is a conventional army for the real threat of extremism and ISIS type terrorism which will be defeated by intelligent use of concentrated power, not tonnes of soldiers.

Thats great... aslong as the status quo continues and human nature and history both strongly suggest we can't depend on that.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

You know, a lot of the colonels are doctors who receive their rank to reflect their professional skills, there'll be more in army legal holding the rank the same way. Combat units don't generally have many high ranking officers, there will be one Lt Col in an infantry battalion, a handful of majors and 10 or so captains (half of which started out as private soldiers).

But, there are indeed a large number in staff jobs running projects, making policy, implementing doctrine - could you get rid of these? Yes, but it means whoever is left must pickup the slack.

If all these staff jobs disappear it will break the officer career structure, effectively it would mean that the faster you promote(the better you are) the faster you'd find yourself unemployed.

 

[Nutella33]

You cut off my point that a larger army represents the opportunity cost of having a better health, education and welfare system. That or higher taxes to pay for the army and big bits of metal, which mainly serves to give hard ons to those that way inclined.

That's because its not true. Nato's requirement is 2% of gdp on spending (which we do) and that includes many advanced health/education/welfare countries, including denmark, the netherlands, norway etc. You used america as a extreme example but that is much more of a social issue as to why they dont have universal healthcare than a financial one.

Again, we are entirely average in terms of force size and gdp spending for most of europe and on a scale of similar nations to us. Including ones with much better healthcare and education/social systems.

Mate we are in NATO, we are in Europe, we love America long time

Nato requires 2% GDP spending to maintain an efficient military and thats what we do. Yes we are in europe... its kinda known for its wars. and we are allied to america yes, funnily enough they are concentrating on the pacific now (thus the recent pull out) so its time we stepped up to defend ourselves.
Why would you mock our connection with the US whilst suggesting because they are around we dont need to invest in a military....thus increasing our dependence.

And anyway once Russia's done smashing up Eastern Europe and Germany, hopefully we'll have got ready.

You are utterly clueless as to how long it takes to develop both the equipment and skill sets required in a modern military. we are talking decades. It's not a case of "heres a AK, supply your own boots and point you in the right direction". And why on earth would you wait until they take out the main players in a european war and *then* get involved.

extremism and ISIS type terrorism which will be defeated by intelligent use of concentrated power

Thats the entire point of a military. Intelligent use of concentrated power. Funnily enough the UK's main problem in recent times is not having the concentrated power due to the manpower cuts.

 

[RoboCod]

If there are another set of redundancies then the top should also be reduced accordingly. Common sense really.

After reading this thread I am curious as to how many people with such sweeping opinions have actually been in the Armed forces? Some have raised valid points but many really should just stick to playing Call of Duty!

I can identify probably 10 or more posters currently serving or had served. What about you, are you an expert?

 

[Nutella33]

Yes, but it means whoever is left must pickup the slack

Right, the job still needs doing. if its not a military bod it will be a public servant at a equal or higher pay scale. No doubt there is some waste to be shed but we are getting close to minimum capacity.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Never claimed to be an expert in anyway and to answer your question yes I have served.

 

[RoboCod]

Right, the job still needs doing. if its not a military bod it will be a public servant at a equal or higher pay scale. No doubt there is some waste to be shed but we are getting close to minimum capacity.

Shifting workload to the public servant sector might be frugal from purely a military budget viewpoint. After all, the military budget is pre-defined and cutting some areas can mean reinvestment in others, like maritime as mentioned earlier. I'd also like to see much better welfare support for current and veterans. Compared to other nations, our infrastructure and support is poor.

 

[Xordium]

I'd also like to see much better welfare support for current and veterans.

I do think we are getting better. The work done at the QE has benefitted both the military and the local civilian population. But I totally agree with what you say and this was something that I really saw a shift in during my time. An acceptance of the non-physical consequences along with the physical consequences of service. In my opinion though this is not an area we do that well with in the civilian population too. I have been unfortunate to be involved in a few major civilian incidents and the support is non-existant there. I think this is something that we as a society need to address. I used to feel quite sad when I worked in London chatting to the homeless people down by Waterloo and realising how many were ex-forces and therefore people effectively failed by a system they had pledged an allegiance to defend. One of the reasons to leave London in the end a soulless and uncaring place.

 

[RoboCod]

I know it's probably not fair to compare with the US given their huge defence budget and the patriotism of pretty much the nation but now I've visited 4 American bases the differences to our own are astounding. The amount of infrastructure provided and the level of facilities are great. The education that is provided, number of jobs and support for families is second to none, they really look after their own. Further to this, their bases are swamped with civilians and elderly veterans in particular, that is because all the servicemen perks remain in place for them. This just doesn't happen in the UK.

 

[StriderX]

I know it's probably not fair to compare with the US given their huge defence budget and the patriotism of pretty much the nation but now I've visited 4 American bases the differences to our own are astounding. The amount of infrastructure provided and the level of facilities are great. The education that is provided, number of jobs and support for families is second to none, they really look after their own. Further to this, their bases are swamped with civilians and elderly veterans in particular, that is because all the servicemen perks remain in place for them. This just doesn't happen in the UK.

Do we really want to emulate the soldier society the Americans have...really?

They also don't give a **** about veterans btw.

 

[RoboCod]

Do we really want to emulate the soldier society the Americans have...really?

They also don't give a **** about veterans btw.

Soldier society does not mean showing respect and appreciating the people that serve in their military. On the contrary, in the UK, you present yourself as a real target for wearing a uniform in public. Verbal abuse is just the least of the threat too.

I disagree about what you say about their veterans. Anyway we're going off topic.