2nd Batallion the Yorkshire Regiment to go!

[harvey19]

The sad part of reducing the size of the army is that it gave many people an home, comradeship and opportunity to learn a trade.

It taught self discipline and everyone was tret the same and given the same opportunities.

It broadened horizons.

[Jim Graham]

You could equally ask why we have to send our lads into conflicts in the first place. What are the real motives.

 

If Blair had been stopped from throwing away other people's lives to further his own career we would only need a defence force.

 

This country is an economic basket case. No power in the world is ever going to want to come and invade here. There is nothing worth nicking. The Romans and the Normans came for the taxes and the raw materials. Nobody is going to invade so they can help pay off our national debt for us. We have very few raw materials left. That's the best defence strategy we have ........................ being poor. It's utterly absurd to suggest we need a full time armed force at all other than to fulfill our international obligations.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I guess the military have to take their share of cuts as much as everyone else.

 

I doubt that people in the Forces would argue with that, but we do have an 'all volunteer' force. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are people too. They too have families and it's hardly unreasonable for them to expect to see those families from time to time.

 

Ordinarily, servicemen can expect to be away from their families for not more than 140 days out of each year. That limit has been breached on a number of occasions during the past (quite a) few years. - There will necessarily be exceptions to the 140 day limit, but those exceptions are supposed to be just that - not routine. If the government makes life in the forces extremely unpleasant, if they choose to ignore the Armed Forces Covenant, then presumably it is possible that the supply of volunteers might dwindle.

 

Be that as it may, but the nett result will be that more reliance will be placed on TA soldiers being on the front line in places like Afghanistan (they already are actually), and I don't agree with sending part timers to war.

 

I know that 'allegedly' they are trained to the same rigorous standards as full time soldiers, but I really don't see how that is possible. Part time, is part time. Full time is full time!

 

If they are indeed reserve forces, then should they not be held in reserve?

 

Employers may be reluctant to employ people who are likely to be absent from their place of work for extended periods on a regular basis. The draw-down plan assumes that there will be more reserves, but if the reserves are not used, then the regulars will spend extremely log periods away;if they are used then the employers will have to do without their services for perhaps extended periods.

 

Parliament could pass a law making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or a potential employee on the grounds of reserve service (Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes,) but such a law would transfer the burden of 'defending the realm' from Parliament to private companies.

 

Is that really desirable?

 

A large company would - even though it may be fighting hard to help itself (and the country) out of the present problems - have to accept an additional burden. Large companies could probably do that.

 

What about a small company? What about a company which will simply go bust if it loses key personnel?

 

What about sole traders? If you were a sole trader and you were called up to serve for - say - 6 months, then you would be paid for your 6 months work by the Army, but if you had worked for 3 or 4 years to build up your business and when the Army released you all your customers had gone elsewhere, who would re-build your business for you?

 

If there are to be fewer regular troops, then either the regulars will spend more time away or the reserves will be called upon routinely.

 

The commanders in the idf keep stating during basic training that 24 hours into any conflict, a conscript or reserve is of exactly the same value as a regular.

I believe that is true.

 

Surely that depends on what you want your reserve to do and the level of sophistication/training of the opposition? if the reserve is learning as he goes along and is up against an enemy armed with (and competent to used) sophisticated equipment, your reserve may not last 24 hours in combat.

 

How much time do you intend to allocate to training your reserve forces before you send them into combat?

 

In a country so rich and developed as Britain there's really no excuse for relying on reservists other than greed and bean counting.

 

On the other hand, is there a need for such a big standing army when it seems most of them are only used as an occupation force that parade around to assert a presence

As long as we have the navy,airforce,marines, paratroopers and armoured divisions, do we really need much of a full time army

 

Valid questions. I've no doubt that the senior Army Navy and Air Force officers have thought about that. Do the current crop of politicians have the knowledge, ability and experience to consider those questions? We've heard the comments from the politicians - but we haven't heard any explanation of the reasoning behind the plan (and that's hardly atypical of politicians.)

 

1st and 2nd world wars...conscripts with little but important training achieved all the things you feel important over a short period...and won, and achieved great camaraderie, and still do right up until this day.

 

How would you rate the technology levels and sophistication of the materiel used in the first and second World wars in comparison to that in common use today?

 

We'll have to wait and see whether the government has got it right - or screwed it royally.

[Defunct]

The government are considering setting up a latter day "Dads Army".

They will be recruited from persons over 55 years of age who have not made sufficient pensions provision for themselves. They are to take the place of the regular army.

They will be parachuted into Iraq ready for combat in an attempt to reduce the surplus elderly population in the UK.

[Teddybare]

Surely that depends on what you want your reserve to do and the level of sophistication/training of the opposition? if the reserve is learning as he goes along and is up against an enemy armed with (and competent to used) sophisticated equipment, your reserve may not last 24 hours in combat.

 

Never having been in that position I wouldn't know. I presumed the thinking was that after 24hrs of exhaustion and soiling yourself the training and whether you'd been a reserve/conscript or a regular wouldn't make any difference.

The standing army of Israel (mainly conscripts 18-21) is designed to hold out in a war for 24-48 hrs until all the reserves can be mobilised. Huge reserve forces and a small regular force makes sense of you are trying to save money.

[tinfoilhat]

Wouldn't surprise me, as that's what happened in an early 90's defence review, which resulted in the closure of RAF bases, most of which we're in Labour dominated areas.. Finningley being just one.

 

Yeah but the Yorkshire regt isn't actually based in Yorkshire though ? They all live in Wiltshire I think. And like alot of other regiments they'll be knee deep in Fijians, south Africans etc etc.

 

I think the Americans manage on a similar ratio as us, but they have far bigger numbers to work with. More concerned with the potentially murky use of contracters though.

[Harleyman]

Unlike the US the British military doesn't deploy it's reservists to overseas trouble spots therefore there has to be a considerable lack of training in that corps even of they are working with the latest up to date equipment. Training on Salisbuiry Plain or in house to house fighting in fake streets with fake houses is only half the game. It takes exposure in real situations to achieve what coul be described as a fully trained combat soldier