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.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
For instance, lets take a hypothetical Falklands War 2. Say Argentina actually managed to overwhelm the garrison already in place and landed a substantial number of troops on the Island. Bombing and precision strikes will only do some much.

Exterminatus?

dæl wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
For instance, lets take a hypothetical Falklands War 2. Say Argentina actually managed to overwhelm the garrison already in place and landed a substantial number of troops on the Island. Bombing and precision strikes will only do some much.

Exterminatus?

Well the islands are currently populated by our populace so best not to...

dæl wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
For instance, lets take a hypothetical Falklands War 2. Say Argentina actually managed to overwhelm the garrison already in place and landed a substantial number of troops on the Island. Bombing and precision strikes will only do some much.

Exterminatus?

And lose the precious wool from the Falklands?!

Sure, you could carpet bomb the islands if you felt like killing 3000 British Subjects. Then the Argentinians simply move back onto the islands with more troops

Why would we get rid of the Army? We would be better getting rid of the Navy

In all seriousness I can certainly see the significance of navies decrease with time due to the ever increasing power of aircraft and ground based weaponry. All the Navy really does now is ferry troops and stores around. carriers are the main exception but I can see these being made obsolete as well, they are hugely expensive after all.

Ketara wrote:The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

Meh. I dunno about UAVs being overpriced in terms of what they offer in cost benefit. The aren't the answer to every question that involves flying but they do more than carry cameras too. Depending on what you want it to do, in the world of aviation based intelligence; the UAV is Queen.

Canada merged their armed forces about 25 years ago? Not sure on exact dates. If you join the military in Canada, you join The Canadian Armed Forces. From there you chose the sea arm, air arm, or ground arm. As they are a small service, this works for them. the Generals and Admirals grew up in the system. Before, it was a mess with inter-service rivalry causing issues left and right.

To try the same for the UK? Not workable. There is too much tradition in all of the services for any of the cooperation that is necessary for such a move. Would the Army stand for the official song being Heart of Oak? Would the RAF willingly submit (again) to the control of Calvary officers? Would the Royal Navy march off to war to the sounds of the pipes and drums? I can see consolidating some aspects of the services, most notably in logistics. Perhaps the Earl of Wessex Royal Logisticians, as his career as a Royal Marine Commando never got off the ground...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I firmly believe that the last fighter pilot has already been born. Replacing living pilots with remote control will happen before 2060.

Rimmy wrote:its a viable option, the problem that would kill it is the "tradition" of it

Pretty much this. People like tradition for its own sake much of the time, even if the tradition is inefficient or even harmful.

treadhead1944 wrote:Canada merged their armed forces about 25 years ago?

There's a running joke about Canada's military power, namely that the United States is their military power. Canada can afford to have no significant armed force for numerous reasons, one of them being that the greatest military power in the world is right next door, and the other being... well. Who wanted to invade Canada? Maple isn't that precious a resource

Canada can afford to fold the services because they're military is so small (They've got what? 70,000 active personnel?). The US can't create an effective administrative body with the size of its current force. The Army alone has over 1,000,000 personnel. That's more than all branches combined in most countries. That's a lot of people for a singe administrative structure to keep track of.

I think there are always cost savings and increases in effectiveness to be found in greater integration and co-operation between various factions of the armed forces. But increased integration and co-operation doesn't necessarily mean complete integration, and that's an option with significant costs to it.

It's interesting to note how many multinational companies are now floating small divisions that are completely independant of the main office. They do this because they want new ideas and new approaches free from central management. In the highly structured, authoritative world of military service there's very little scope for a free exchange of ideas, so independant military branches are likely the best way to achieve this.

In the US, the various branches have often gone their own way on a variety of technologies. At times this has created a lot of redundancy, but it's also meant a diversity of ideas that has likely led to a better, stronger armed forces in the long run. Consider the US Army's utter fixation on the M-14 as the next standard rifle, which was opposed first by the Air Force and then by the Pentagon, who argued for the smaller cartridge of the M-16.

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all. We're an island nation, all we need is an airforce and navy, with reserves. Even with our relatively small population/economy we could have one of, if not the largest navy on earth, simply by virtue of being an island nation and not having to fund an army at all.

If one presumes the only requirement of your armed forces is to prevent an invasion by another nation. Which simply isn't true. In fact, the primary requirement of your armed forces is to engage in the protection of your economic interests overseas, and that means putting troops on the ground around the world.

treadhead1944 wrote:
To try the same for the UK? Not workable. There is too much tradition in all of the services for any of the cooperation that is necessary for such a move. Would the Army stand for the official song being Heart of Oak? Would the RAF willingly submit (again) to the control of Calvary officers? Would the Royal Navy march off to war to the sounds of the pipes and drums? I can see consolidating some aspects of the services, most notably in logistics. Perhaps the Earl of Wessex Royal Logisticians, as his career as a Royal Marine Commando never got off the ground.

It is workable though and it could happen. All the tradition in the world counts for very, very little if there is sufficent political will. Afterall the creation of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was extremely unpopular both within the army and in the civilian population yet it still went ahead anway. With the drastic defense budget cuts of the last few years and the small size of the UK armed forces (the army is too small to actually be classed as an army, its a defense force apparently) I can definately see a combined service happening within my lifetime.

To be honest it wouldn't actually bother me all that much, I am already used to serving with the RN and RAF, in fact when I deploy next my immediate boss with be RN.

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all.

Ridiculous.

I mean, I'm all for a smaller more efficient one, but nothing at all?!

Have you ever seen a sailor or an airman with a gun!? Id rather let me nanna do the shooting!

Palindrome wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:
To try the same for the UK? Not workable. There is too much tradition in all of the services for any of the cooperation that is necessary for such a move. Would the Army stand for the official song being Heart of Oak? Would the RAF willingly submit (again) to the control of Calvary officers? Would the Royal Navy march off to war to the sounds of the pipes and drums? I can see consolidating some aspects of the services, most notably in logistics. Perhaps the Earl of Wessex Royal Logisticians, as his career as a Royal Marine Commando never got off the ground.

It is workable though and it could happen. All the tradition in the world counts for very, very little if there is sufficent political will. Afterall the creation of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was extremely unpopular both within the army and in the civilian population yet it still went ahead anway. With the drastic defense budget cuts of the last few years and the small size of the UK armed forces (the army is too small to actually be classed as an army, its a defense force apparently) I can definately see a combined service happening within my lifetime.

To be honest it wouldn't actually bother me all that much, I am already used to serving with the RN and RAF, in fact when I deploy next my immediate boss with be RN.

Be safe. Fear God and dread nought on your deployment Palindrome (since your boss will be RN I thought a Jacky Fisher quote would serve.)

it can't be worse than last time, he was RAF

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all.

Ridiculous.

I mean, I'm all for a smaller more efficient one, but nothing at all?!

Have you ever seen a sailor or an airman with a gun!? Id rather let me nanna do the shooting!

25 metre range and gate guarding once a year or so is about it for them...

I know people in the Amry who haven't been near a range in years, I think 5 years is the longest that i have heard about. They were nurses though so it probably won't be an issue, probably

Albatross wrote:I freely admit to not even coming close to being an expert in these matters. Music yes, military technology no.

The most interesting thing in this thread. There is someone on the internet who isn't an expert! I never thought that could really happen, the way everyone seems to be an expert now days.

On to the topic. Loosk good on paper, but probably rough to implement.

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all.

Ridiculous.

I mean, I'm all for a smaller more efficient one, but nothing at all?!

Have you ever seen a sailor or an airman with a gun!? Id rather let me nanna do the shooting!

This is Britain:


Notice that lovely blue sea that surrounds us. A strong navy/airforce would leave us impenetrable and able to project force pretty much anywhere on earth.
It's what British policy was pretty much up to the second world war, and it works damn well. Would be even more effective with modern air technology, an enemy nation couldn't get a ship in the ocean a thousand miles from our shores without us noticing and intercepting it.
We'd still need a reserve obviously, in case worse came to worse. But I'm of the opinion that every able bodied man should be in the reserves anyway.

Joey wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all.

Ridiculous.

I mean, I'm all for a smaller more efficient one, but nothing at all?!

Have you ever seen a sailor or an airman with a gun!? Id rather let me nanna do the shooting!

This is Britain:


Notice that lovely blue sea that surrounds us. A strong navy/airforce would leave us impenetrable and able to project force pretty much anywhere on earth.
It's what British policy was pretty much up to the second world war, and it works damn well. Would be even more effective with modern air technology, an enemy nation couldn't get a ship in the ocean a thousand miles from our shores without us noticing and intercepting it.
We'd still need a reserve obviously, in case worse came to worse. But I'm of the opinion that every able bodied man should be in the reserves anyway.

Jesus.. I am well aware we are a bloody Island Joey.

I am also well aware that we need a strong Navy and Airforce for a conflict, but ultimately, you cant just bomb with planes and boats, you have to be able to put some boots on the ground. Even if there was never a need for an enemy to fear an invasion from troops and your great plan for winning was simply "defend forever" Your grand plan above is one of the most ridiculously short sighted things ive ever seen because it all relies on the seemingly bizarre presumption that the enemy wont have any planes or boats?

What happens if your airforce gets pwned and your Navy gets raped (as per U-boats in WW2) what deterrent have you got then?

How the hell do you think we won the Falklands?! It wasnt planes and boats, it was blokes Yomping across the islands on their MK1 feet, and kicking the gak out of the Argies. The gakky Mirages mashed our Navy, who looks after the sailors that make it to shore after they all sink if we don't have any soldiers?

Anyway, I'm not interested in carrying on this conversation with you because these fictional battle scenario things always turn into "Oh yeah? Well what if INSERT ANOTHER LUDICROUS WAR STATEMENT HERE" so lets just say that neither of us is right, and when all the rest of the world scraps their armies because having them is stupid cos you only need planes and boats that your correct and I will happily come onto dakka and say "Your a genius you Joey, you were years ahead of your time and out thought the worlds premier military minds"

Oh wait a minute..

They dont do that, every major military power has a large army.. so.. Im right by default until then.

Joey wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:Britain doesn't need an army at all.

Ridiculous.

I mean, I'm all for a smaller more efficient one, but nothing at all?!

Have you ever seen a sailor or an airman with a gun!? Id rather let me nanna do the shooting!

This is Britain:


Notice that lovely blue sea that surrounds us. A strong navy/airforce would leave us impenetrable and able to project force pretty much anywhere on earth.
It's what British policy was pretty much up to the second world war, and it works damn well. Would be even more effective with modern air technology, an enemy nation couldn't get a ship in the ocean a thousand miles from our shores without us noticing and intercepting it.
We'd still need a reserve obviously, in case worse came to worse. But I'm of the opinion that every able bodied man should be in the reserves anyway.

Just... No. That's not how it works. For a start people have been saying air power is the end of all other forms of warfare since it was invented, and it obviously isn't. Anti-air and anti-anti-air roughly maintain parity, as do pretty much all military technologies. We've been an island for a very long time and have maintained land forces in one form or another for all that time for a reason.
Reserves are generally not as professional etc. Plus to win a war you can't just sit there and let them come out you, you have to be active in your defence. You may notice that the UK has fought all its wars abroad for a reason, even when we had no intention of keeping whatever we were attacking. You can't just sit there and let the enemy keep building up their forces...

Anyway, you'll notice how well isolationism has worked out before.

Lux_Lucis wrote:You can't just sit there and let the enemy keep building up their forces...

As I said, Joey's grand strategy seems to be "defend forever"

I'm glad he isn't a football manager.

It's hard to win a a war with just a Navy and an Airforce.
You can do some significant things but it's easier to win a war if you have an army as well...

mattyrm wrote:
Jesus.. I am well aware we are a bloody Island Joey.

I am also well aware that we need a strong Navy and Airforce for a conflict, but ultimately, you cant just bomb with planes and boats, you have to be able to put some boots on the ground. Even if there was never a need for an enemy to fear an invasion from troops and your great plan for winning was simply "defend forever" Your grand plan above is one of the most ridiculously short sighted things ive ever seen because it all relies on the seemingly bizarre presumption that the enemy wont have any planes or boats?

What happens if your airforce gets pwned and your Navy gets raped (as per U-boats in WW2) what deterrent have you got then?

How the hell do you think we won the Falklands?! It wasnt planes and boats, it was blokes Yomping across the islands on their MK1 feet, and kicking the gak out of the Argies. The gakky Mirages mashed our Navy, who looks after the sailors that make it to shore after they all sink if we don't have any soldiers?

Anyway, I'm not interested in carrying on this conversation with you because these fictional battle scenario things always turn into "Oh yeah? Well what if INSERT ANOTHER LUDICROUS WAR STATEMENT HERE" so lets just say that neither of us is right, and when all the rest of the world scraps their armies because having them is stupid cos you only need planes and boats that your correct and I will happily come onto dakka and say "Your a genius you Joey, you were years ahead of your time and out thought the worlds premier military minds"

Oh wait a minute..

They dont do that, every major military power has a large army.. so.. Im right by default until then.

During the war we pretty much ignored our land forces and focussed on strategic bombing and the navy. The Yanks and the Ruskies did all the real fighting. Maybe no army whatsoever is extreme but limitted to say, 10,000 would be enough. And we only lost the Falklands because of insufficient air/sea defences anyway.
I'll put it this way - in a (hypothetical) time of global uncertainty, I'd rather Britain had a gak load of air carriers and fighter jets, and little to no vehicles, than the current set-up. The ability to project force across the Atlantic is, in my opinion, much more important than the ability to fight a guerilla war in a land-locked Asian country, or the ability to go toe-to-toe with a much larger country (probably Russia, let's be honest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:It's hard to win a a war with just a Navy and an Airforce.
You can do some significant things but it's easier to win a war if you have an army as well...

Depends what war you want to win. We won the First World War by starving out the Germans, with the current world's reliance on global trade we could do the same again. How long do you think China would last with a blockade off their eastern coast?
An extreme example maybe, but don't under-estimate control of waterways.

Joey wrote:

purplefood wrote:It's hard to win a a war with just a Navy and an Airforce.
You can do some significant things but it's easier to win a war if you have an army as well...

Depends what war you want to win. We won the First World War by starving out the Germans, with the current world's reliance on global trade we could do the same again. How long do you think China would last with a blockade off their eastern coast?
An extreme example maybe, but don't under-estimate control of waterways.

True but it's getting less and less acceptable to starve an entire country simply to win a war...
Maybe if the situation were extreme enough it'd be acceptable but i doubt it would garner much support from other countries...

Joey wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Jesus.. I am well aware we are a bloody Island Joey.

I am also well aware that we need a strong Navy and Airforce for a conflict, but ultimately, you cant just bomb with planes and boats, you have to be able to put some boots on the ground. Even if there was never a need for an enemy to fear an invasion from troops and your great plan for winning was simply "defend forever" Your grand plan above is one of the most ridiculously short sighted things ive ever seen because it all relies on the seemingly bizarre presumption that the enemy wont have any planes or boats?

What happens if your airforce gets pwned and your Navy gets raped (as per U-boats in WW2) what deterrent have you got then?

How the hell do you think we won the Falklands?! It wasnt planes and boats, it was blokes Yomping across the islands on their MK1 feet, and kicking the gak out of the Argies. The gakky Mirages mashed our Navy, who looks after the sailors that make it to shore after they all sink if we don't have any soldiers?

Anyway, I'm not interested in carrying on this conversation with you because these fictional battle scenario things always turn into "Oh yeah? Well what if INSERT ANOTHER LUDICROUS WAR STATEMENT HERE" so lets just say that neither of us is right, and when all the rest of the world scraps their armies because having them is stupid cos you only need planes and boats that your correct and I will happily come onto dakka and say "Your a genius you Joey, you were years ahead of your time and out thought the worlds premier military minds"

Oh wait a minute..

They dont do that, every major military power has a large army.. so.. Im right by default until then.

During the war we pretty much ignored our land forces and focussed on strategic bombing and the navy. The Yanks and the Ruskies did all the real fighting. Maybe no army whatsoever is extreme but limitted to say, 10,000 would be enough. And we only lost the Falklands because of insufficient air/sea defences anyway.
I'll put it this way - in a (hypothetical) time of global uncertainty, I'd rather Britain had a gak load of air carriers and fighter jets, and little to no vehicles, than the current set-up. The ability to project force across the Atlantic is, in my opinion, much more important than the ability to fight a guerilla war in a land-locked Asian country, or the ability to go toe-to-toe with a much larger country (probably Russia, let's be honest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:It's hard to win a a war with just a Navy and an Airforce.
You can do some significant things but it's easier to win a war if you have an army as well...

Depends what war you want to win. We won the First World War by starving out the Germans, with the current world's reliance on global trade we could do the same again. How long do you think China would last with a blockade off their eastern coast?
An extreme example maybe, but don't under-estimate control of waterways.

Two of the five beaches on D-Day were British, one Canadian. The entire northern push into Germany was effectively Britain and the imperial forces. Africa! Quite a few British troops in the Pacific. Etc.

So what happens if we only have air and sea stuff, but the enemy uses EMP? We'd be stuffed without electronics if we didn't have an actual army to fall back on.

dæl wrote:So what happens if we only have air and sea stuff, but the enemy uses EMP? We'd be stuffed without electronics if we didn't have an actual army to fall back on.

Well to do that in a large enough area to actually be useful in a large war you're talking about using a nuke. Which is a whole other ball game.
Also there are various ways to protect against EMP.

Joey wrote:During the war we pretty much ignored our land forces and focussed on strategic bombing and the navy.

Your ignoring why. Your land forces were trapped in the UK because there was no feasible means of effectively invading Germany until US industrial power provided enough boats and material. A few thousand more dudes helped too.

Imagine in a hypothetical anything goes scenario, that the US had decided testing German U-boats wasn't worth the trouble. Britain would have starved to death before Germany.

I'll put it this way - in a (hypothetical) time of global uncertainty, I'd rather Britain had a gak load of air carriers and fighter jets, and little to no vehicles, than the current set-up. The ability to project force across the Atlantic is, in my opinion, much more important than the ability to fight a guerilla war in a land-locked Asian country, or the ability to go toe-to-toe with a much larger country (probably Russia, let's be honest).

Force projection is a pointless endeavor when gunboat diplomacy is the only recourse available. You can't defeat an enemy by loading up your navy and saying "I have more boats than you." If that were true we'd have never needed the USSR to pumble Germany into submission or the Marine Corp and the Army to island hope across the pacific.

Depends what war you want to win. We won the First World War by starving out the Germans, with the current world's reliance on global trade we could do the same again.

In World War 1 the Germans lost because they have no where near the resources to win a long term war. It's more complicated than starving them. They also ran out of young men to send to the front line.

How long do you think China would last with a blockade off their eastern coast?

Is that a serious question? They've got the world's largest population, near endless natural resources, and you want to argue we can outlast them? Oh sure they'll hurt, but not as much as the rest of us. War of attrition is a very simple thing. Whoever has more wins, and in China vs just about anyone else, China wins that battle.

An extreme example maybe, but don't under-estimate control of waterways.

Its best not to over-estimate control of the waterways too.

Joey wrote:During the war we pretty much ignored our land forces and focussed on strategic bombing and the navy.

If this were true, Montgomery wouldn't have had much to do. I recommend picking up his biography.

The Yanks and the Ruskies did all the real fighting.

Depends on what you consider to be 'real fighting'. I recommend examining the casualty lists before proclaiming the Americans did more of the fighting/dying than the British.

Maybe no army whatsoever is extreme but limitted to say, 10,000 would be enough.

I recommend examining the reasoning behind the formation of the BEF, which comprised of what you're stating, but requried 100,000 men minimum. That was a hundred years ago as well.

And we only lost the Falklands because of insufficient air/sea defences anyway.

I recommend looking at precisely what defences we had on the island when it was invaded before attributing it to sea or air defences specifically.
(none effectively)

Depends what war you want to win. We won the First World War by starving out the Germans,

I recommend reading about a section of the war known as 'The Western Front'. It had a fair bit more to do with it than the blockade.

with the current world's reliance on global trade we could do the same again.

I recommend examining the size of Britain's Navy compared to then, and the budget allocated then by us and all the rest of the world then compared to now.

How long do you think China would last with a blockade off their eastern coast?

I recommend a course in economics, in order to understand the ramifications of trying to blockade a country that big with that much commerce with the rest of the world.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

dæl wrote:So what happens if we only have air and sea stuff, but the enemy uses EMP? We'd be stuffed without electronics if we didn't have an actual army to fall back on.

Well to do that in a large enough area to actually be useful in a large war you're talking about using a nuke. Which is a whole other ball game.
Also there are various ways to protect against EMP.

A nuke in the upper atmosphere, but surely that wouldn't be lethal to the populous. You could shield against it, but are all our electronics shielded?