British Army Will Have To Rely On Civilian Drivers, Reserves And Foreign Armies -- The TelegraphThe British Army will have to rely on civilian drivers, reserves and foreign armies to fight wars in the future as the MoD plans a swathe of cuts to support solders, it can be disclosed.
In the most significant reforms the Army in half-a-century The Daily Telegraph has learnt that as few as five infantry battalions totalling 2,500 soldiers will be cut but a further 17,500 jobs will go mainly from logistics troops, engineers and artillery.
Military commanders have condemned the move as creating an “unbalanced Army” that will be reliant on a “Tesco’s just in time” supply tactic for campaigns.
The reforms have been forced on the Army after it was forced to reduce from 102,000 to 82,000 under defence cuts.
Read more ....
My Comment: The British Army will have no choice .... they have become just a shell of its former self.
6 comments:
The British Army won't really exist any more, except as a paper organization.
The Oregon National Guard could probably walk through them.
The USMC could take the UK starting on Friday after work and be home in time for Sunday dinner without working up much of a sweat.
Numbers are meaningless when you have no support, no supply, no transport, no air power, and no navy.
Orion
Orion your comment is naive at best and completely foolish and ignorant at worst.
If you think a highly experienced army of 50,000 + could not defend a country of this size you truly are foolish.
In addition if you think these cuts will destroy the logistic arm of the forces then I really do not know what to say...
@Investor,
I'm sorry you feel that way. However, let's look at the issue:
Even BEFORE the next round of cuts, the British Army is experiencing a lot of logistical shortfalls including ammunition, helmets, armor, weapons support and repair, communications equipment, and food - all based upon complaints we've seen from Afghanistan and from training as per reports in the British press.
Even BEFORE the next round of cuts, the Royal Navy lacks any real surface force beyond the equivalent of about a single USN Surface Action Group and most of their submarines are undergoing retrofit to allow female crew members. I won't go into the lack of replenishment and sea-lift as we're talking about defending the home-islands from an American invasion (as silly as that is. ;-) )
Even BEFORE the next round of cuts, the Royal Air Force lacked the logistics and pilots to support a multi-national action in Libya and in fact ran out of war stocks within a very short period of time. They would fare little better defending the British Isles.
Even BEFORE the next round of cuts, the British Army is suffering from a severe shortage of helicopters and the logistical support needed to maintain them.
The next round of cuts will further impact these areas as well as taking away further Infantry and Armor regiments including some of the most experienced.
A highly experienced (and very top-heavy) army of 50,000 with few bullets, food shortages, lack of transport, communications, etc. will definitely give it the old college try but stands little chance. I have nothing but compliments and respect for British service members and have served alongside them in Iraq. This is about having what you need to fight, not fighting spirit.
Exactly how do you think the British Army would defend their island? Use their L85's as clubs?
Orion
Orion,
the comparison with the US is stupid. The US is not going to attack an ally as far as we know.
The Royal Navy faces no substantial threat and is allied with the vast majority of the world's naval power. Makes no sense to grow it, at least not for actual defence.
Quite the same situation applies to the RAF. Who's going to challenge it? The Russians with their non-modernised air force that has only prototype-level quantities of modern aircraft and won't have the T-50 PAK/FA in substantial numbers until after at least five more years? Again, it pays off to be allied - the defence needs become shared. No single service needs to be able to face a real threat alone - much less an imaginary threat.
The Army is no traditional British strength - they're really into the model of a small professional high-end army. Their procurement woes are average and small in comparison to the entire periphery of the EU.
Their numbers are small, but again they are part of NATO and NATO can field in excess of 100 brigades in a conflict (last time I checked I found about 200 brigade equivalents including reserves in NATO countries).
Who's opposing them? The Russians which look towards Central Asian border policing more than towards Continental Europe - and they surely have no invasion plans for the UK any more.
So basically it's stupid to ask how the British could defend their island. Nobody's gonna attack it.
@S O:
Definitely silly - but perhaps a useful exercise.
If "Nobody's gonna attack it." Why should they bother with a military at all? Get rid of the whole thing and be done with the pretense.
I'm not sure that'll work out terribly well for them, but it seems to be the logical outcome what you're saying.
Orion
At the end of the Great War in 1918, who would have thought that an even greater war would follow 31 years later.
I remember sitting with my father in the early 1980s talking about how he wanted his/our descendents to spread his ashes across Russia when the Communists were finally out of power. Ten years later we both watched the hammer and sickle flag be brought down in the Kremlin .... followed by anarchy and unrest in much of the former Soviet union.
Who would have thought on the early morning of 9/11 that we would become embroiled in a global war that has cost thousands in lives and is still ongoing.
You keep a military not only for the wars and conflicts that you can predict .... but also for the wars and conflicts that you cannot. Britain's demilitarization .... if history is anything to go by .... will have consequences. What those consequences will be .... I can only hope that I am not around when it happens.
Post a Comment