It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britains Armed Forces too small?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
The M-16 had its fair share of problems early on but they were dealt with long ago. I'm continueing to here from Brits about their SA-80's jamming and its overall poor performance. I guess thats why the SAS use the M-16.

SAS use it for a number of reasons; Easy to aqquire, good reliability, cheap, effective, untraceable and realitively universal in terms of ammo.

The SA-80 does and can jam but heh so does every rifle, I've used it and found it was ok. New cocking handles a bit weird but its ok.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
the challenger is a good tanks, but sorry the m1a1 is the worldest best tank.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Its battle tested, i know the challenger has been in gulf 1 and 2, but not nearly in the nu,bers as the m1a1. Britian also has only about 500 challenger tanks so it wouldnt even be a fair fight



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Look, the Challenger 2 is a superior tank to the M1A1, and against the M1A2 SEP I would put each tanks chance at knocking the other out at 50/50, both have very capable crews, both are battle tested, and the system are fairly equal. So can we not get into the whole UK/US thing because its off topic and because its highly unrealistic.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Just a reminder


All Posters Read This!
Please could members refrain from starting threads that are based around:
what is your favourite gun
who would win if the ??? and ??? went to war with each other
who has the best army/navy/airforce/secret service........
etc etc ...
This forum is for information about Military weapons technology past, present, and future.


Talk of ''my country could beat up your country'' isn't on topic, so please stay on topic



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
The M-16 had its fair share of problems early on but they were dealt with long ago. I'm continueing to here from Brits about their SA-80's jamming and its overall poor performance. I guess thats why the SAS use the M-16.


The SA-80 was designed and optimised for the then percieved threat, war with Russia in the european theatre. It has since coming into service been used in hot dusty environments where it has struggled (the A2 version is a major improvement). The fight you are talking about here, is in the environment for which it was designed and has unmatched reliability (MRBF = 31,500).

You can forget about the reliability issues.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Another thread I just love.

As a sometime ex forces chap - 35 years in one uniform or another, and with a tiny drop or two of blood shed for this Godforsaken country, I always take exception to anybody who dares to slag off the Brit armed forces.

Small, in this case, is better. A long, long way better. Nowadays, there is something called the Future Armed Services or FAS. It goes something like this:

1. Household Cavalry & Royal Armoured Corps (RAC)
2. Infantry
3. Army Air Corps
4. Royal Regiment of Artillery
5. Corps of Royal Engineers
6. Royal Corps of Signals
7. Intelligence Corps
8. Royal Army Chaplains’ Department
9. Royal Logistic Corps
10. Royal Army Medical Corps
11. Royal Army Dental Corps
12. Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
13. Adjutant General’s Corps
14. Royal Army Veterinary Corps
15. Small Arms School Corps
16. Army Physical Training Corps
17. Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps
18. Corps of Army Music

Indeed, quite small. But every man jack of them, a true professional.

Read my next two or three posts, to see what's what in the FAS.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
1. Household Cavalry & Royal Armoured Corps (RAC)

i. The Life Guards
ii. The Blues & Royals
iii. The Queen’s Dragoon Guards
iv. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
v. The Royal Dragoon Guards
vi. The Queen’s Royal Hussars
vii. 9th/12th Royal Lancers
viii. King’s Royal Hussars
ix. The Light Dragoons
x. The Queen’s Royal Lancers
xi. The 1st Royal Tank Regiment
xii. The 2nd Royal Tank Regiment



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
1. The Infantry

i. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
ii. The Highland Regiment (Black Watch)
iii. 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment
iv. The Coldstream Guards
v. The Devonshire & Dorset Light Infantry
vi. The Duke of Wellington's Regiment
vii. The Green Howards
viii. The Grenadier Guards
ix. The Highlanders
x. The Irish Guards
xi. The King’s Own Royal Border Regiment
xii. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers
xiii. The Highlanders
xiv. The Irish Guards
xv. The King's Own Royal Border Regiment
xvi. The King's Own Scottish Borderers
xvii. The King's Regiment
xviii. The Light Infantry
xix. The Mercian Regiment
xx. The Parachute Regiment
xxi. The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire
xxii. The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment
xxiii. The Queen's Lancashire Regiment
xxiv. The Rifles
xxv. The Royal Anglian Regiment
xxvi. The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry
xxvii. The Royal Gurkha Rifles
xxviii. The Royal Green Jackets
xxix. The Royal Highland Fusiliers
xxx. The Royal Irish Regiment
xxxi. The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
xxxii. The Royal Welsh
xxxiii. The Royal Scots
xxxiv. The Royal Welch Fusiliers
xxxv. The Scots Guards
xxxvi. The Staffordshire Regiment
xxxvii. The Welsh Guards
xxxviii. The Worcestershire & Sherwood Foresters Regiment (29th/45th Foot)
xxxix. The Yorkshire Regiment
xl. The Royal Regiment of Scotland

Where you see xxiv The Rifles, this is the new regiment being formed by the disbanding of the RGBW, currently called the RGBW-LI.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
3. The Royal Artillery

i. King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery
ii. 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery
iii. 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery 'The Liverpool and Manchester Gunners'
iv. 4th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The North East Gunners'
v. 5th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The North, East & West Yorkshire Gunners'
vi. 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (7 PARA) 'The Airborne Gunners'
vii. 12th Regiment Royal Artillery
viii. 14th Regiment Royal Artillery
ix. 16th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The London and Kent Gunners'
x. 19th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The Highland Gunners'
xi. 26th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The West Midland Gunners'
xii. 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery 'The Commando Gunners'
xiii. 32nd Regiment Royal Artillery Acquisition – UAVs
xiv. 39th Regiment Royal Artillery - MLRS
xv. 40th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The Lowland Gunners'
xvi. 47th Regiment Royal Artillery 'The Hampshire and Sussex Gunners'
xvii. Royal School of Artillery

There are other units included in FAS such as the Special Forces Regiments but no official ORBATS exist for them - at present.

I hope that the 3 posts are of some use to you. There is detailled info on or about these units, on their various sites.

Remember, size is not everything. A smaller, professional armed forces backed up by the will of the people, is a tremendous force and one to be reckoned with.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
A few more articles covering the subject to peruse.


The Ministry of Defence has also "relied extensively on cannibalising equipment", taking parts from ships, tanks and aircraft so others can function properly. During the invasion of Iraq, the army "cannibalised 44 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, some 22% of the non-deployed fleet", says the committee. The RAF could deploy 44 Tornado aircraft only after "robbing" 1,622 parts from other planes.

full article here politics.guardian.co.uk...


A famous story from last year below.


The crisis has emerged at a time when the Army is operating at full-stretch with up to 9,000 troops deployed in Iraq and 4,000 training for a possible deployment to Afghanistan next spring.

The astonishing admission that soldiers do not have enough blank ammunition comes after disclosures of other crucial equipment shortages earlier this year - including insufficient training rounds for grenade launchers and cleaning kits for machine-guns

full article here www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/07/17/nbang17.xml


I think that ,as i mentioned earlier , the basics must be got right , I would include in this, Body armour, ammunition, Radios (remember the problems with bowman
) , section and squad support weapons availiability, parts for vehicles , neccesary training eqiupment, correct boots and personal kit and so on.

We must realise whether we like it or not we are at war and those who fight the war ( whether you agree or not) must be given all means to defeat our enemies, im not saying we need 2 new armoured brigades another 6 new typhoon squadrons , a dozen more frigates and 6 carriers , im saying the British armed forces , need a rise in the quality of distribution of essential kit , and a reduction in the anual cuts we see .

I don't have the answers to where the funds would come from but i strongly suspect there already there , swilling about in the black hole of beurocracy , being spent on £ 20,000 paintings for failing NHS hospitals and the like
cut the red tape get projects on time and on budget !!!



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
nice lists Fritz
as i say im not looking for a huge increase in numbers myself , just no more cuts and better project management.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Quality of quantity. The British has been sticking that to their military for centuries. We have seen what they did against Napoleon's armies that was vast, and we also seen the weaknesses of having a large military force that Napoleon must maintain as a ready fighting force like for example feeding and equipping it. The British has shown that they can defeat a superior force with their own small number but effective soldiers who are extremely brave and pride about serving and to never fail their own units that they serve with. And since then they can still do miracles in fighting their enemies without the need for a large military force. And these days as other members of ATS has pointed out that Britain does not need a large force to protect is former colonies that they lost. Its for defense of its country.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
One thing that worries me is the reduction of the TA.

The TA stood 100K strong and was a primarily infantry-based force distributed throughout the country we now have only 35,000 man TA which is primarily a support organisation for the regulars.

This is fine for a hi-tech expeditionary warfare environment but provides very little for home defence / police support / disaster relief.

Very short-sighted IMO - I don't see why we couldn't have retained a strong TA / Militia force to cover home defence and other unforeseen needs.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Small, in this case, is better. A long, long way better. Nowadays, there is something called the Future Armed Services or FAS.


One slight correction mate, it's Future Army Structure, not Future Armed Services.

Apart from that, good break down of the Mob fella



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
One thing that worries me is the reduction of the TA.

The TA stood 100K strong and was a primarily infantry-based force distributed throughout the country we now have only 35,000 man TA which is primarily a support organisation for the regulars.

This is fine for a hi-tech expeditionary warfare environment but provides very little for home defence / police support / disaster relief.

Very short-sighted IMO - I don't see why we couldn't have retained a strong TA / Militia force to cover home defence and other unforeseen needs.


Good point on the TA , no one mentioned it so far , any one remember the pressure on the army a few years ago when the fire fighters went on strike? it only takes a large scale deployment to say for example the same size a sthe initial deployment to Iraq , a break down in Afghanistan , and a large scale strike in Britain and the Army would be stretched very thin indeed.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
If you'd looked at my Infantry post, you'd see I mentioned The Rifles. I work for the TA side of this proposed unit and I can tell you that they are very, very unhappy - indeed some would say
off, with losing their (and my) Back Badge.

I had not forgotten the Territorial Army but so much rubbish has been talked about them, I did not really want to mention them.

However, having said that, now that you mention them, I will. The unit I work for, recently returned from Iraq. The unit I was in, also recently returned from Iraq, during October of last year.

Now, both units are part of yet another deployment - but this time they're going to back up the Yanks in Afghanistan whilst their SOC and Marines and National Guards chase non-existant nukes up and down the Afghani-Pakistani border.

It was true that Operation Fresco (Fire fighter's strike) stretched the MOD. The main reason for this, was the MOD's lack of foresight and their reluctance to mobilise TA units for training, relying instead on regular units whose training was at best, a rushed afair and almost too late.

Here in Gloucester where I am, we had a battery from 7 RHA (Para). A thoroughly professional bunch of guys. They were backed up by 4 Royal Navy BA crew fire fighters.

Unfortunately, even today, when TA personnel are deployed alongside regular forces be it in Bosnia, Kenya, Kosovo, Irag or Afghanistan, they are still regarded as STABS and given tasks that trained monkeys could do.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
offical figures here for the UK armed forces:-

around 190,000 (not including reserves 'Terrtorial Army') - which is at 35,000

= (GRAND TOTAL) around 225,000 of serving personnel in the british armed forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

---------------

i think thats plently for what we need, but as said what we need to do is stop sending our troops everywhere the world and we'll be ok!!

it also tells you in the link about britain's 'current strength'

in most cases it says "2nd only to the united states" (most sites say this also) - so its not like anyones going to be invade us it??


the only country that could possibly do that is america itself.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i think thats plently for what we need, but as said what we need to do is stop sending our troops everywhere the world and we'll be ok!!

What we "need" , what in your opinion is "what we need"?



so its not like anyones going to be invade us it??

There are many countries with the capability and the more we let our tech and numbers slip the more their grows.
Soon we wont be able to defend the falklands, gibraltar or any far off allies except with token forces.
Soon we will be restricted to US airbases and fighter ranges.



the only country that could possibly do that is america itself.
[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Wrong, there are many countries with the capability to take us down or atleast give us a bloody nose...given a few years.
I'd not like to see how sea harrier does against a mig with only stingers.
I'd not like to see how our marines do in another country having air support only from lynxs and merlin helicopters...



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

What we "need" , what in your opinion is "what we need"?


don't put other countrys interests before our own!!

why should 'we' (british government) recruit more troops?

1) 'pay there wages 2) send them away from their familys 3) put there lifes at risk

and for what?, peacekeeping in dutys in countrys like bosnia


we don't need more troops, 235,000 is far enough to defend our (60 million population) island.


Originally posted by devilwasp
There are many countries with the capability and the more we let our tech and numbers slip the more their grows.
Soon we wont be able to defend the falklands, gibraltar or any far off allies except with token forces.
Soon we will be restricted to US airbases and fighter ranges.


you press the panic button too much mate!!

if you read that link i gave you, you will see 'britain are the 2nd highest funders into military research and development'.

now take a look around these forums these past few months, which country (apart from the united states) have better projects in the making than britain?

type45s, f-35, ucavs, uavs, new subs, new carriers, talk of a new nuclear weapons system (£10 billion - $20 billion), 'son of star wars' defence system over here, (thats from the top of my head).

theres more, browse around



Originally posted by devilwasp

Wrong, there are many countries with the capability to take us down or atleast give us a bloody nose...given a few years.
I'd not like to see how sea harrier does against a mig with only stingers.
I'd not like to see how our marines do in another country having air support only from lynxs and merlin helicopters...


again your talking about the future!!

*see above reply*


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join