Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Beating the Argentinians wasn't hard. Getting the forces there to do it was rather difficult.

I don't see why. The UK has a good number of boats and even aircraft carriers (though small). They have the ability to project force well beyond what the argentines could handle on the faulkland islands. It just took a little while to get there.

Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.

Where to start?

Get rid of the unfunded purchases currently on the table. If we don't have the money, we dont buy it.

Sorry but the nuclear deterrent is a political weapon not a military one. Central Government should bear the cost not the MoD.

RN Aircraftcarriers. We don't need two new ones. Get rid of one.

Army. Give the lads on the groud what they need to do the job.

RAF. I think were tied into Typhoon? so we have to continue. But scrapping any of the planes, Tornado or Harrier is stupid until our commitment to fight in Afghan is over.

Bottom line there is that the MoD will never be self sufficient unless they're allowed to bring the contents of the banks back from the countries they invade.

Civil Service. Too many chiefs not enough indians. Who makes the choice as to redundancies? Guess who gets made redundant? Have an external body review what is necessary, that way it at least seems fair. And stop bashing the Civil Servants, they do a hard job at times, for below average wages, which are made up for by the 'perks' of the job, ie leave & pension. The only time wages are above average are when you get to the Senior Civil Service. Oh and scrap PPI's they cost way more than they ever saved.

Cheers
Andrew

Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.

Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.

The falklands was easy eh shuma?

You can tell you have never fought in a war.

It's all just statistics and cold internet logic to you mate, I mean, look at ganners and Iraq, I'm sure that the politicians are well happy with the coalition casualties after 8 years of war, its been a better casualty rate than 3 to 1, but would you say its been easy?

I envy my grandad, ww2 was a line firmly drawn in the sand, the current war is a clusterfeth, you have to smile and shake hands with the guy who might be trying to gut you an hour later!

Vietnam, 66,000 dead Americans, 2 million dead Vietnamese.

Nice ratio as well right? That make it easy?

From the perspective of policy planners it does make it easy.

The people in charge are not interested in individual lives.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Just read up about the campaign. It was not easy.

Yes it was, the island was lost quickly and it was difficult to successfully muster forces but considering the MoD was attacking a defended island immediately beside argentina while fully within range of the entire argentine airforce it still managed a nearly a 3-1 kill to casualty rate. I would consider that "easy" personally.

As someone who has recently studied the entire campaign from a military perspective, using the extensive resources of a large University library, I can now infer from this that you have little to no idea as to what actually went on in the Falklands War. However, from previous knowledge gained from debating with you, I also know I could write you a 3000 word essay on the entire campaign, step by step from the air war, to San Carlos, to Goose Green and beyond, and you'd still ignore all facts pointing to the contradiction of your statements. Therefore I won't bother, and I advise no-one else to either, it's a waste of time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So the public sector is bloated (yet needs more money) while the nuclear sub sector is is not? The hell are you talking about?

The hell do you know about it?

Have you any idea how much the UK spends on the NHS? An obscene amount, and it's potential for eating up the public finances are pretty much infinite. Our public sector would have needed pretty large efficiency cuts even if there WASN'T a financial crisis. Also, I said that if we were to scrap the new subs, the money should be used to service our debt - although I personally wouldn't scrap them. I wouldn't scrap anything without a massive review/audit of all government departments followed by streamlining and restructuring in the form of efficiency savings - basically 'right, what's YOUR job? What do you actually DO?'. Only after that would I start actually scrapping things lock stock and barrel.

If I were Prime Minister.

The argentine military was a joke and it still is. It couldn't hold a candle to what Sadaam had and his army fell in three days. Englands military can not, and will not stand up to largescale modern militaries such as chinas or the US and no one else will ever go to war with you for the simple fact that it's impossible due to a lack of national force projection in virtually all other states (argentina being a special case since you own an island thats basically touching them and is stupidly far away from you). Don't bring up argentina like it was some sort of brilliant triumph, you beat up a whiny child of a country with a fraction of your military power after it surprised one of your colonial island territories and didn't think you would respond in full force.

I wasn't bringing it up like it was a brilliant triumph (although I think it showed the skill and professionalism of British forces), I was bringing it up as an example of a time that the UK fought a conventional military force.
And man, you lot across the Atlantic are scared of the Chinese, aren't you?

Most experts believe that more bodies on the ground with a stronger emphasis on reconstruction and civilian protection is the way to win in afghanistan.

Most American experts, perhaps. You can tell by the focus on 'MORE BODIES!'. The second part is closer to what British commanders wanted to do at the outset of war in Afghanistan, similar to what Britain did in the Malaya Emergency. They were ignored by the Americans. Seriously, read up on it. I recommend 'A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan' by James Fergusson. An interesting book.

Incidentally Shuma, what were you actually tring to DO with that post? It wasn't addressed to you...

One thing I want to know is why we as a nation are building/have built 9 astute class subs, those are subs solely for naval operations i.e attacking ships and other subs. I mean come on, Ever heard of overkill?

They also carry Tomahawk missiles for anti-land operations and can deploy SBS teams underwater.

mattyrm wrote:The falklands was easy eh shuma?

You can tell you have never fought in a war.

It's all just statistics and cold internet logic to you mate, I mean, look at ganners and Iraq, I'm sure that the politicians are well happy with the coalition casualties after 8 years of war, its been a better casualty rate than 3 to 1, but would you say its been easy?

I envy my grandad, ww2 was a line firmly drawn in the sand, the current war is a clusterfeth, you have to smile and shake hands with the guy who might be trying to gut you an hour later!

Vietnam, 66,000 dead Americans, 2 million dead Vietnamese.

Nice ratio as well right? That make it easy?

Had we succeeded with those numbers, yes. Casualty rates aren't indicative of success in COIN warfare unlike territory warfare. The same holds true for vietnam which was counter revolutionary as well as a proxy war. Vietnam also lasted 20 times as long as the falklands war and resulted in 240 times the casualties (for us) and we didn't win. I think one of the pre requisites for a war to be easy is that you actually have to succeed (and quickly). I mean, what made the falklands war hard exactly? You had to plan a bit? Gee, yeah, it's real difficult to plan things. Clearly it wasn't the engagements or travel aspects since those all wen't swimmingly. Do you just hate having to put on your thinking caps?

I wasn't bringing it up like it was a brilliant triumph (although I think it showed the skill and professionalism of British forces), I was bringing it up as an example of a time that the UK fought a conventional military force.
And man, you lot across the Atlantic are scared of the Chinese, aren't you?

God yes, theres like sixty billion of them and they don't care about copyright law.

Most American experts, perhaps. You can tell by the focus on 'MORE BODIES!'. The second part is closer to what British commanders wanted to do at the outset of war in Afghanistan, similar to what Britain did in the Malaya Emergency. They were ignored by the Americans. Seriously, read up on it. I recommend 'A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan' by James Fergusson. An interesting book.

More bodies are required for the civilian reconstruction and protection efforts. Any way you slice it the western presence in the country is well under strength and always has been.

Incidentally Shuma, what were you actually tring to DO with that post? It wasn't addressed to you...

I was commenting.

As someone who has recently studied the entire campaign from a military perspective, using the extensive resources of a large University library, I can now infer from this that you have little to no idea as to what actually went on in the Falklands War. However, from previous knowledge gained from debating with you, I also know I could write you a 3000 word essay on the entire campaign, step by step from the air war, to San Carlos, to Goose Green and beyond, and you'd still ignore all facts pointing to the contradiction of your statements. Therefore I won't bother, and I advise no-one else to either, it's a waste of time.

I know it's like your only military victory since world war two, but don't pretend it's something it's not. You took a small island back from argentina. Despite them having every advantage you did it in a matter of months and with a very favorable ratio of trade against them. Thats not "a difficult war". Thats just "A war", and a short one at that.

Please read the RAF website account of the Falklands campaign which sums up in its first few paragraphs the difficulties involved.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb1.html

By the way, the UK won a COIN, anti-revolutionary campaign in the Malayan Emergency, though you could argue this was an alliance campaign as it involved Commonwealth troops.

That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.

Please read the RAF website account of the Falklands campaign which sums up in its first few paragraphs the difficulties involved.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb1.html

I said in my first post that your primary difficulty was that you were prosecuting a war quite far away from any centers of military power. Thats about the extent of the difficulties cited in that account. Midair refueling is difficult, but this account didn't make it sound like a difficult war. Maybe I just have a jaded view of what makes a war hard, I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either.

That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.

What is also true?

ShumaGorath wrote:................................. I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either....

For someone that claims to be so well read and educated you do say some blooming silly things.

If you have read the participants accounts then imagination should be all you need, statistics merly detail the butchers bill.

You should not dismiss the efforts of those who fought (on both sides) so easily.

notprop wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:................................. I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either....

For someone that claims to be so well read and educated you do say some blooming silly things.

If you have read the participants accounts then imagination should be all you need, statistics merly detail the butchers bill.

You should not dismiss the efforts of those who fought (on both sides) so easily.

So by this logic every war ever fought is a difficult hard fought war because people fought in it valiantly. Should I use a different word when stating that the russian invasion of georgia was easier then the russian invasion of germany? Or were they both equally hard fought. If they weren't then where exactly am I allowed to draw the line? Should I just not be discussing this with people from the UK? It's clear that theres a strong emotional attachment to the conflict that functions beyond logic, and which places the shortly lived low casualty conflict up with the communist revolution in china or Vietnam in "level of hardness (lol)".

How much of the requirement for a nuclear capability is part of the desire to remain as a permanent member on the UN Security Council?

The defence reviews in the past seem to have made serious errors in the past to try to save money........

Would it not be better to try and claw back some money for the people who caused the whole recent ressession - the banks - especially those heads of the banks who resigned with golden parachutes - or maybe just forcibly enlist them for service in the war zones - make them bullet shields maybe?

Mr Morden wrote:How much of the requirement for a nuclear capability is part of the desire to remain as a permanent member on the UN Security Council?

The defence reviews in the past seem to have made serious errors in the past to try to save money........

Would it not be better to try and claw back some money for the people who caused the whole recent ressession - the banks - especially those heads of the banks who resigned with golden parachutes - or maybe just forcibly enlist them for service in the war zones - make them bullet shields maybe?

It'll never happen

But I like your thinking

Not at all, I am merly suggesting that you shouid prehaps discuss the at hand without the denegrating specific topic being discussed.

Why shouldn't all war fighting be difficult anyway? Whether you were chucking spears or dropping 1000 pounders from the heavens all of these endevours have complexities of their own.

Deploying armed forces to another hemisphere in 1982 had many difficulties as previously alluded to, made only more complex by the state of the nation at that point (gripped by strikes, scant years from near bankrupcy as we were). Britons rightly see it as a triumph over adversery.

Back On topic.

We will always have nukes as long as the French have them.................and the Indians....................and the Pakistanis..................and maybe the Israilies.

They all have far too many axes to grind with us not to be cautious.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Please read the RAF website account of the Falklands campaign which sums up in its first few paragraphs the difficulties involved.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb1.html

I said in my first post that your primary difficulty was that you were prosecuting a war quite far away from any centers of military power. Thats about the extent of the difficulties cited in that account. Midair refueling is difficult, but this account didn't make it sound like a difficult war. Maybe I just have a jaded view of what makes a war hard, I've never been in one so the best I go by is casualty rates, costs, and time spent. I'm sure every war is "hard fought", but I'm still not sure what made the falklands war a hard one by comparison to others. Certainly it was significantly harder than grenada or the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think anyone would call those difficult either.

That is also true of all the wars the USA has engaged in since 1945 except for some tidying up after WW2, and the occupations of the Dominican Republic and Grenada.

What is also true?

The wars concerned were fought as part of alliances.

Korean War -- UN forces
Vietnam War -- Korean, Australian and Vietnamese forces
Gulf War 1 -- UK, Saudi Arabia, and others
Gulf War 2 -- UK, Spain and others

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:OK, this is my first 'serious' political thread...
What's your guys views on the proposed MoD cuts? Do we need trident? or 9 astute class submarines?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960440 for reference

The reasoning behind 9 (btw only 7 have been confirmed) is that typically at any one time 1/3 will be undergoing maintenance 1/3 will be preparing for deployment and 1/3 will be on deployment. Its the same for the other ships in the navy, salt water is a very corrosive environment for lumps of metal to bob around in.

Submarines dont just go around sinking Merchant ships like WW2 anymore. British subs have cruse missiles now, and its also there job to protect the surface ships from enemy subs, gather intelligence and deploy special forces. There has been a huge increase in Submarine sales around the world in recent years, just like every one and there dog building Aircraft carriers these days.

Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.

You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.

You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force

I saw a documentry on BBC2 about a month ago (I want to say it was called Gigantic or Massive Machines?) about the construction of these subs and they we absolutely fething amazing. Well worth digging out on iPlayer if you interested in them.

Yeah, I saw that too, it was pretty good. Another good one in that series was jet engine construction in Derby...

notprop wrote:

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Also without the Astutes the British Submarine industry will die as it very nearly did when there construction was delayed for years, that will put 1000s of people in Barrow out of work and trash the local economy.

You don't need to tell me that, my cousin was brought in to manage part of the Barrow site and is now involved in tidying/redundancies up if the cuts come into force

I saw a documentry on BBC2 about a month ago (I want to say it was called Gigantic or Massive Machines?) about the construction of these subs and they we absolutely fething amazing. Well worth digging out on iPlayer if you interested in them.

Yeah, I saw this. It was great. Funnily enough, I also know someone who worked on the breathing systems for SF submarine insertion on some of the newer subs. Someone mentioned that earlier, IIRC.

The cuts look like they will be MoD based rather than to regiments and naval units. Some items might be left off the procurement list but I dont think the forces will be reduced much below what we have. Blair sent us to war while cutting the military, furthermore he simultaneuosly boosted the military bureaucracy partly to insert his own yes men. The civil service was supposed to be impartial, however impariality died since 1997. Those who were not Labout 'didnt fit in with their jobs', those who spouted the dogmas got promotion.
This is not just an MoD problem its accross the board, its why select primary school head teachers get 250K a year, a mind boggling sum, they were there to dogmatise the education departments. I have little doubt the MoD is little different, just better protected from press scrutiny.

Now the new government needs to deal with this, not only does the nation need the gross overspending to be curtailed, but the government itself has good motivcation to do the right thing. Too many people in the civil services are now politcally partisan, often well paid to be politcally partisan and are laible to pull the rug from under the feet of the government for party politcal motives. This sort of politcs was not a feature of British bureaucracy until recently, sure the bureaucracy was unthinking and monolithic, but largely impartial regarding mainstream left-right politics.

There is a huge gravy train out there of public sector jobs set up bby the previous government on the principle of spout our dogmas and you will get extra beucoup salary. The MoD is not immune to this, I wont repeat the stories of dogmatisation in the MoD, I will only add that it took Blair eight years to replace the civil service with yes men, it might take about as long to set the balance right. However the gross overspend has to stop, and much of that goes on inflated salaries of key personnel, often suspiciously paid a significant amount more than people in similar jobs in a similar department.

AndrewC wrote:Sorry but the nuclear deterrent is a political weapon not a military one. Central Government should bear the cost not the MoD.

That's just shifting numbers around. The cost is the same whether you put the budget line under MoD or elsewhere.

RN Aircraftcarriers. We don't need two new ones. Get rid of one.

The aircraft carriers were actually part of the post Cold War budget review, the Royal Navy realised it's specialised role in the US/UK alliance as an anti-submarine/minesweeping operation was no redundant, and now they wanted to gain greater force projection capabilities. That means aircraft carriers. It's all good and well to have troops on the ground, but it's having planes over their heads that really matters.

Army. Give the lads on the groud what they need to do the job.

Sure, and right now the absolute priority is gear for regular troops to fight insurgents.

Problem with military budgets is that the nature of the next war is an unpredictable thing, and so there is always a danger of over-specialising to fight the last war, and leaving yourself incapable of fighting the next.

But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today. Specialising to fight the known conflicts of today, and maintaining flexibility to fight the unknown conflicts of tomorrow is not an easy thing.

So keep the aircraft carriers. If nothing else, they're really cool.

But, of course, the defence force can't have everything it might hypothetically ever need (well the US almost can but the rest of us have sane defence budgets) and so we need to be aware that every resource we commit to a possible future event is a dollar we cannot spend on a real problem today.

It's fun having as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined and having most of them be twice the size as the standard for the rest of the globe.

You know that YOU personally don't own them, right?

You ARE aware of that, aren't you?

Albatross wrote:You know that YOU personally don't own them, right?

You ARE aware of that, aren't you?

Then hell I don't, In two weeks they're gonna be on your lawn.

It's landlocked where I live - my lawn is a pretty big distance from a body of water deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier in.

TACTICAL VICTORYYYY!!!