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.

 dusara217 wrote:
While numbers aren't everything, a military that small will be hard-pressed to defend the UK should anything like open war with a similarly wealthy nation occur.

Glad to hear that a situation that is even more unlikely to occur than a third party getting into the office of US president means we need to cripple the finances of the country on equipment and soldiers so that we can show we have the biggest national sausage.

Invasion by another nation is extremely unlikely, and generally comes with years of increasing tension and military spending (you know, where you build up conventional forces that do nothing to protect you when you are not actively fighting a war).

Quantity is not quality either.

Here is the world's ranking of National GDP in 2013, not showing nations with double or half the UK GDP. In other words this shows the nations that are about as wealthy as the UK within those limits:

Japan
Germany
UK
France
Brazil
Italy
India
Russia
Canada
Australia
South Korea
Spain

Most of them are allies, or friendly and/or a long way away. Relations with Russia are the worst, but not seriously bad, and they are far away, buffered by NATO, so I don't think there is much chance of a conventional war with Russia.

Given this situation it doesn't make sense to spend a fortune on the army, because it's unlikely we'll ever need a large army. A small but capable army that has mobility and can work well with the RN and RAF is what we need.

IMO the army is now smaller and less capable than it should be, thanks to TORY CUTS, but there are also problems with the RAF and RN due to bad procurement decisions made by the Labour and Coalition governments.

However the services certainly are not incapable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the army is now smaller and less capable than it should be

Too small and incapable to do what though?

To defend the country against a mythical full scale invasion? Yep, and it would be even if it were 10 times the size it is now.

To commit forces to international peacekeeping? We are doing OK at the moment, despite getting far too involved in "conflicts" and not enough actual peacekeeping.

Though I agree that short sighted spending choices have seriously screwed things over (in far more than just the armed forces, but that is a different matter )

 Kilkrazy wrote:


IMO the army is now smaller and less capable than it should be,

It's only funny as etc etc

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the army is now smaller and less capable than it should be

Too small and incapable to do what though?

To defend the country against a mythical full scale invasion? Yep, and it would be even if it were 10 times the size it is now.

To commit forces to international peacekeeping? We are doing OK at the moment, despite getting far too involved in "conflicts" and not enough actual peacekeeping.

Though I agree that short sighted spending choices have seriously screwed things over (in far more than just the armed forces, but that is a different matter )

I've already said that the UK doesn't need a large army for home defence. However, we do IMO need an army and armed forces that would enable us to make a serious contribution to a large-scale attack on ISIL, or if we had to defend or retake the Falklands, that kind of thing.

I don't see many scenarios in which the UK would have to act completely in isolation, but the Falklands though unlikely is not an impossibility.

Can I just clear something up for the American dakka members.

Our marines are not like your marines. Royal Marines are similar to your US Army Rangers i.e the type of troop that occupies the level between conventional troops and special forces.

That's not to say the US Marines aren't a highly trained, hard hitting force. Give me 100,000 US Marines and I'll solve most of the world's problems

But it's silly to compare Royal Marines to US Marines

And did I say our Marines are Royal?

Our as one Marine was reported to of said when asked by a US Marine, "what does the R stand for in RM?" The reply was "Real" That's taken from a Royal Marine Commando book that came out in the late 80's Apparently when over in the US doing exercises a fun thing to do was to turn evening conversations towards the benefits of Communism. I find that hard to believe of our boys

Don't our lot often say the Yanks run on clockwork?

 SilverMK2 wrote:


Too small and incapable to do what though?

Well, firstly to meet our own territorial commitments, in case Falklands Mark 2 springs up in a decade. Secondly, to keep up with our diplomatic commitments (I believe we still have something of an understanding with Belize if Guatemala should get too arsy, for example). Thirdly, to maintain our edge in the face of unexpected world and foreign events.

Having said that, whilst we're not capable of what we really should be, we're not incapable either. Certainly, many flaws of the more bureaucratic nature could be rectified quickly in an emergency, and most procurement decisions could be undertaken over the span of a Parliament to fix things. Indeed, I expect that in the 2020-2025 Parliament, whoever is in power (assuming it sin't Corbyn), most procurement issues will have been solved. Cameron and co. have essentially delayed necessary decisions where possible for budgetary reasons, but emphasis is on the word 'delayed' rather than 'cancelled'.

 Ketara wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:


Too small and incapable to do what though?

Well, firstly to meet our own territorial commitments, in case Falklands Mark 2 springs up in a decade. Secondly, to keep up with our diplomatic commitments (I believe we still have something of an understanding with Belize if Guatemala should get too arsy, for example). Thirdly, to maintain our edge in the face of unexpected world and foreign events.

Having said that, whilst we're not capable of what we really should be, we're not incapable either. Certainly, many flaws of the more bureaucratic nature could be rectified quickly in an emergency, and most procurement decisions could be undertaken over the span of a Parliament to fix things. Indeed, I expect that in the 2020-2025 Parliament, whoever is in power (assuming it sin't Corbyn), most procurement issues will have been solved. Cameron and co. have essentially delayed necessary decisions where possible for budgetary reasons, but emphasis is on the word 'delayed' rather than 'cancelled'.

Yes, please god no not Corbyn

 dusara217 wrote:
Good to see that the UK will be worthless should Russia ever attack any of its allies. At least us Muricans have an effective conventional military. Bloated defense budgets, ftw! I pray to god that what I read on this thread is only half-true...

EDIT: After some brief research, I found that the Royal Navy is tiny (in comparison to the US, which is a continental power), though the RAF, at least, still maintains a sizable amount of aircraft (though it's still miniscule compared to US airpower), while the Army and Marine Corps is just sad (in comparison to both the French and the Muricans). Seriously, I would have thought that the UK would've at least had half the numbers of the French. While numbers aren't everything, a military that small will be hard-pressed to defend the UK should anything like open war with a similarly wealthy nation occur.

Everyone has a tiny defence budget compared to the US, sitting at almost 600 billion dollars a year in expenditure. We only spend a tenth of that (about sixty billion), but that's enough to put us as the fifth highest spenders on a list of defence expenditure out of over a hundred countries.

So yes, whilst the RN is tiny compared to the USN, it's reasonably capable. We currently have a rather vexing gap in our aircraft carrier department, but beyond that, we're reasonably well kitted out for the operations we need (namely, moving armies about abroad). We have some of the most advanced submarines and destroyers currently in existence, and a reasonable handful of frigates for guard duty.

In terms of transport capacity, we have:-

HMS Ocean- Amphibious Assault Ship - Carries a thousand Marines/pilots, 40 vehicles and 18 helicopters.
HMS Albion and Bulwark - Landing Platform Docks- Combined they carry 1,000 troops and either 144 vehicles or 12 Challenger II's & 60 APC's.
Six Point Sealift Ships - Collectively capable of carrying about 780 armoured vehicles and 360 trucks.
Three Bay class landing ships - Can collectively carry either 72 Challenger II tanks or 450 trucks and about 2,000 troops in overload condition.

That may not look like much, but we have several other dedicated ships for supplies and suchlike. You might think, 'Aha, but what about the troops!?', but as with the Falklands, we can requisition cruise ships more or less at need from the Merchant Navy. Cunard's three ships alone at the moment could carry over eight thousand at a push if we needed them to do so, and there are far more cruise ships, ferries and haulers operating from the UK than just those.

In other words, we can already move around a small army. I daresay we could embark an army of thirty thousand men with supplies, vehicles and equipment within three to four weeks notice if we needed to. That's not vast but suits our needs, as we don't have to worry about land invasion, and any conflict/country too large for that level of force to be appropriate wouldn't usually pick a fight with us for fear of invoking NATO.

I am gravely concerned at how likely it is in the future we will be invaded by a similarly wealthy nation.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I am gravely concerned at how likely it is in the future we will be invaded by a similarly wealthy nation.

The logical question is:- How?

The Channel stops any European powers from wandering in, and I'd be surprised if there weren't several points along the Channel Tunnel rigged with explosives. Any invading power would have to carry an army by sea. And nobody bar us, America, and France at an extreme pinch physically have the naval capability to move any substantial troop numbers and equipment around, let alone to guard those ships and the supply ships necessary for an invasion.

I think we're safe on that front, and several hundred years of us meddling in Europe with nobody invading since good ol' Will would appear to support me.

My God. I never realised we were an island country.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Traditionally, the UK has resisted invasion by making continental allies against whichever nation is the most powerful and dangerous in Europe, in order to maintain a balance of power.

In the modern world, the UK can best defend itself by various means, not in order of importance:

Use diplomacy and 'soft power' to maintain strong relationships with allies and to try and defuse conflict before it starts.
The Royal Navy and Air Force are the two essential defences for an island nation. The RN also has the capability to "show the flag".
The Army although secondary in home defence has a role of overseas force projection in co-operation with the other armed services, and training and supporting allies.

It is unlikely the Army would ever need to or be able to send powerful conventional forces like armoured divisions overseas. There are few potential enemies against whom this kind of force would be useful, and the ones that might crop up would be too powerful for the UK to attack by itself.

The UK, in addition to its WWII haggis defenses, also has fusion bombs.

Yeah if things get out of hand we'lol just nuke Russia and say America did it. Then they will forget about us.

I think our armed forces are a little small, the sooner we have our new aircraft carriers the better.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
My God. I never realised we were an island country.

What you're doing. Now I see it.

On a point brought up earlier... don't look to the US as an example of how military spending should be done. Our soldiers are paid crap, their benefits are good on paper, but for those in serious need it becomes difficult-to-impossible to get needed care, and while we spend trillions on our military, the infrastructure of the country is literally falling down around our ears.

 Psienesis wrote:
On a point brought up earlier... don't look to the US as an example of how military spending should be done. Our soldiers are paid crap, their benefits are good on paper, but for those in serious need it becomes difficult-to-impossible to get needed care, and while we spend trillions on our military, the infrastructure of the country is literally falling down around our ears.

Where does the US' military spending go? You already have a modernised military so you don't need to be rebuilding tanks or planes and your troops are apparently paid very little. Where does the money go?

 the Signless wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
On a point brought up earlier... don't look to the US as an example of how military spending should be done. Our soldiers are paid crap, their benefits are good on paper, but for those in serious need it becomes difficult-to-impossible to get needed care, and while we spend trillions on our military, the infrastructure of the country is literally falling down around our ears.

Where does the US' military spending go? You already have a modernised military so you don't need to be rebuilding tanks or planes and your troops are apparently paid very little. Where does the money go?

Good question;



Also a funny joke about how a a$400 Ash Tray isn't as insane as it might actually seem

The actual reason the Army (and the government in general) pays so much for stuff is because of the "Government Contract Tax". That is to say, anyone who wins a bid to build something for the government has to deal with a mountain of requirements, stipulations and red tape. They apply the "stupid tax" to the final price to make it worth their while.

Also matters that the government is overcharged to a disturbing margin in the first place.

That is the "stupid tax" I am referring to. Governments are notoriously difficult to work with, so they are overcharged to make their BS tolerable.