British Army: No Longer What It Was?

[Andy_S]

This came up in the GWOT thread, but I wonder if it does not need a threat of its own. Two main issues:
(1) Overstretch - implying the Army's apparent inability to carry out sustained combat operations in anything other than brigade-group strenght; and
(2) Recent lack of operational successes


(1) Overstretch
There is much talk currently of overstretch in the British Army. Why so? By my count we have 37 regular infantry battalions, plus three marine commandoes - over three divisions of bayonets. When it comes to active service, we have three (four?) foot battalions in action in Afghanistan - one brigade. The rest of the Army - in Germany, Basra Airbase, the Balkans, the Falklands - is in little danger. Why, then, is there so much talk of overstretch? We have three divisions + of infantry, but can only maintain one brigade in action (in Afghan) at a time?

This speaks poorly of either:
(1) Our support troops' abilities to sustain even a relatively small combat force on operations (lack of helos, armoured vehicles, etc);
(2) Our infantry's staying power (While Helmand is probably the most dangerous province in Afghanistan, our men do 6-month tours in-country; Americans do a year); or
(3) The MOD's organisation of above.
...or a combination of all of this. (Or other?)

I recenlty read in the British press that combat in Afghnanistan is "the deadliest that British forces have engaged in since WWII." A Daily Mail reporter noted that 2 Para, a battalion, lost 17 men killed in its six-month tour. I am not downplaying this tragedy - that is a lot of good men - but 12 Platoon, D Co, Gloster Regt, lost 29 men in ONE NIGHT on the Imjin. More? 29th Brigade lost 1091 casualties (144 killed) in three days of fighting on the Imjin...the 1st Battalion Royal Ulster Rifles lost 157 men in one night in the retreat from "Happy Valley" (Koyang, north of Seoul) in Jan 1951. While these were particularly intense actions, I am not convinced that the infantry casualty rates are nearly as desperate as media claim. Presumably the stats are stacked, as in Korea and other theaters, we had a higher proportion of support troops to combat troops.

Then there are our vaunted special forces. The SAS are committed to Iraq (a squadron?) while the SBS are fully committed to Afghanistan (a squadron?). Are there no other squadrons available for active deployment? If so, why on earth are we sending TA SAS into Afghanistan (in N Ireland landrovers)?


(2) Lack of Recent Operational Success
After a good start, Basra spiralled out of control, with British troops becoming targets in a shooting gallery. The city was handed over to local control -where it took the Iraqi forces to put a lid on the thing. A friend of mine who serves in a TA special forces unit did a tour in central Basra and while he said it was some of the most fun he has ever had, though it was also the most disorganized enterprise he had ever been part of. Troops were basically forbidden to shoot back for fear of causing collateral damage. Even local Iraqis advised them to be more aggresive. A (British) colleague who reported on the situation there was astonished that British troops did not do anything to prevent militias beating up female student at the university - his comment was the Americans would never have stood by and watched that. He was also very surprised at the attitude of SAS troops he was introduced to by diplomatic sources: Their primary interest seemed to be in how much money they could make in the private sector, for books, etc. Now, British troops have pulled out of the city, and are sitting at Basra Airbase in the middle of the desert doing I am not sure what.

Likewise, Afghan. Another colleague spent time in Sangin (he drove from Kabul to Helmand in a taxi) BEFORE the UK battlegroup was deployed, and found it perfectly peaceful. Now it is a warzone, and there seems to be no let up on the combat. It appears to me that Helmand is the most dangerous place in Afghanistan, but even so: Has there been any progress beyond tactical wins in firefights? Press reports indicate that the troops can't move far beyond their bases without a contact, indicating that the Taliban control the countryside.

It has recently been the habit of the British public to praise their army as the world's finest in terms of training, morale and recent experience. While, in terms of training, this may still be true, morale seems highly problematic: We are shedding senior officers at an alarming rate (a recent brigadier commidngin the Helmand battelgroup, a 3 Para CO, and the CO of 22 SAS have all resigned). The US Army is now at least as experienced, much better equipped, and seems generally more motivated in the GWOT.

I should add that I am watching all this from S Korea, not the UK, so I am sure I am missing a great deal. Comments welcomed.

[copenhagen]

This goverment has effectively wanted to fight a large two theatre war (Tony Blairs dream of being the big man)while cutting the budget to fund their socialist welfare wet dream. Its defence planning from the minds of clowns and morons. Its a testament to the skill and endurance of the British armed forces that they have once again done very well under such circumstances. I'd like to see some other militaries do it. Thats not really the point though. Our armed forces shouldnt be asked to do such things on a shoestring and people die because of poor investment. In the business world it would be called corporate manslaughter.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

This goverment has effectively wanted to fight a large two theatre war (Tony Blairs dream of being the big man)while cutting the budget to fund their socialist welfare wet dream. Its defence planning from the minds of clowns and morons. Its a testament to the skill and endurance of the British armed forces that they have once again done very well under such circumstances. I'd like to see some other militaries do it. Thats not really the point though. Our armed forces shouldnt be asked to do such things on a shoestring and people die because of poor investment. In the business world it would be called corporate manslaughter.

I agree with most of what yousay the exception is the referance to Tony Blair and his 'Socialist welfare wet dream' as you so picturesquely put it. I see you carry the Union jack so surely you must realise that he had no interest in Britains welfare schemes? Or what they were originally intended to do! He was a wolf in sheeps clothing, a Conservative masquerading as a Labour man. And I am sorry to say the main cause of the present state the U.K. is in both at home and overseas!!

[Andy_S]

It's all very well saying poor investment, but there is also a numbers game here...in a three division army, why are we only able to field one brigade on operations? Are you seriously saying that the entire defense budget - i.e. if we stripped the troops at home and in Germany for the essential kit - is unable to support ONE BRIGADE in Afghanistan?

Frankly, I don't believe it is that simple.

[copenhagen]

Originally Posted by lcm1

I agree with most of what yousay the exception is the referance to Tony Blair and his 'Socialist welfare wet dream' as you so picturesquely put it. I see you carry the Union jack so surely you must realise that he had no interest in Britains welfare schemes? Or what they were originally intended to do! He was a wolf in sheeps clothing, a Conservative masquerading as a Labour man. And I am sorry to say the main cause of the present state the U.K. is in both at home and overseas!!

Well yes of sorts but under his navigation the country's public spending and borrowing went through the roof. This is hardly a core Tory ideal but something Wilson and Callaghan would appreciate and yes I agree one of the main causes for our present circumstances.

[Andy_S]

The question was about the army, not the politics, but have away at it if you must...

[Fighting Mick]

It May Not be What Is Was ?????????.......but It IS .....What It Has Been Been For Many years ,................Man For Man...... The Best Army In The World .................BY MILES !!!!!!!

think im wrong think again !

QS

[Fighting Mick]

By The Way It Wasnt The Commanding Officer Of 22 Sas ,which As We All Know Are The Real Boys , It Was Some Part Time Charlie From 21 Or 23

[copenhagen]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

The question was about the army, not the politics, but have away at it if you must...

Well you cant really have one without the other can you? The politicians ultimately via the MOD make the rules.

[Silent Hunter]

Much of the press is pro-Tory and quite willing to ignore the facts for a bashing of the government.

A fair number of the battalions have recently been in theatre (2 Para for example) or are training to deploy- I don't know how many.

In terms of money, according to CSIS, we're the second highest defence spender in the world, exceeding France.

Much of the current situation is gross inefficiency on the part of the MoD (consultants etc.), some of it is Labour's historical inclination against high defence spending, some of it is cost-overruns.

It needs fixing, definitely.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Well yes of sorts but under his navigation the country's public spending and borrowing went through the roof. This is hardly a core Tory ideal but something Wilson and Callaghan would appreciate and yes I agree one of the main causes for our present circumstances.

And all that boils down to one fact, He was a useless Git!!

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

The question was about the army, not the politics, but have away at it if you must...

And I bought Politics in to it solely because Tony Blair was remarked about in the first place and you cannot talk about politicians without talking politics!!!

[Andy_S]

Mick:

According to press, CO of 22 SAS resigned last year. The recent resignation of the STAB SAS major is a separate issue but in sum, these two incidents suggest that all is not well even in our most highly trained force.

So...on what grounds is the British Army the greatest in the world? Nice to hear that compliment coming from an Irishman, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Andy_S

Mick:

According to press, CO of 22 SAS resigned last year. The recent resignation of the STAB SAS major is a separate issue but in sum, these two incidents suggest that all is not well even in our most highly trained force.

So...on what grounds is the British Army the greatest in the world? Nice to hear that compliment coming from an Irishman, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

Held together by the Marines perhaps? (That should get some chests thumping!!!)

[Silent Hunter]

We have the Gurkhas. We have the SAS. We have the Paras. We have the Royal Marines.

Any of those are forces to be reckoned with.