"How bad are British armed forces??" Topic

First of all I respect our British allies. They have been an excellent friend in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not doubting the capabilities of the avergae fighting soldier in the field. I had heard recently that the British Navy if the Falkland Island War would happen now would be unable to defend their territory ( it would take months to assemble the fleet). That cost cutting of the military could make the British navy nothing more than a coastal defense force?? I believe it was former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (future Presidential canidate?? and sometimes actor) filling in for Paul Harvey on his radio program who expressed these ideas. Also does anyone know where you find the information to rank an army or navy??

I believe the British while shrinking the number of vessels in commission in a fairly substantial fashion still maintain a fleet sufficient to deal with any likely scenario (44-45 combat vessels with at least a couple of big deck CV's planned). This does reflect being the closest US ally which means that against most threats, they can count on a navy larger and more capapable than all the rest of the planets navies combined. As to the Falklands, I believe the UK maintains a much more robust defense establishment on the islands while at the same time, Argentina has had better uses for their resources than ramping up to take on a first rank Western power.

I believe British land forces remain as always, fairly small in actual numbers, superbly trained and well if not always lavishly equipped.

All that said, the cost of maintaining an up to date 4 boat Trident SSBM force is a chore on the defense budget but as a matter of national policy, I can't see the UK willing to give up an independent intercontinental nuclear capability.

A recent White Paper from the British Defense Minister said that they were falling dangerously behind the U.S. forces. In fact, they lacked the "off the shelf" communications equipment to integrate into the U.S. command structure during the first few months in Afghanistan. Other NATO allies are even in worse shape than the British. The submarine force and the combat units of the fleet are still some of the best, but the size of the fleet raises doubts about Britain being able to keep all of its overseas committments. Although the British forces are for the most part professional and well trained(the recent poor showing by the Royal Marines in the Iran incident notwithstanding), there is a serious lack of money to give them the equipment they need and the taining that goes along with it. The U.S. is quickly moving into the role of Rome in the 21st century as they are the only ones who can afford many of the new technologies coming out.

Although the British forces are for the most part professional and well trained(the recent poor showing by the Royal Marines in the Iran incident notwithstanding)

Thats a bit of a leading statement, poor show in terms of?

I take it we dont take into account the USA amazing ability for friendly fire (just to even the baiting up a bit)

"The U.S. is quickly moving into the role of Rome in the 21st century" ahh you mean totalitarian state hell bent on conquering the world?

Why what did the RM do in Ian that was so bad???
How many of those guys were actually marines and how many were RN technicians?

err That should be Iran. I don't want to know what anybody did in Ian.

Professional, well trained and not totally reliant on computers and technical whizzbangs to do the job well. You may also note we are the first port of call when the US want some help. Nothing wrong with our armed forces, apart from a lack of government funding.

Oh don't worry guys … no matter how good or bad the US or Brits are the Canadians will be there to clean up the mess.

As to rankings of a military's abilities, I think it would be a "best guess" type of thing. It's hard to "rank" something until the shooting stops. Things like spreading yourself too thin and lack of equipment certainly plays a roll in what you're capable of, but I wouldn't discount the British armed forces based on those things alone. The "Iran thing" and friendly fire incidents and even your tech level won't determine how you compare with others. It's what you do with what you can bring to battle that will make or break you.

Ken

i think it is amazing that a lieutenant or captain is educated and qualified enough in his country's diplomatic requirements that he can decide if he should resist attack.
Nelson must be proud.

"ahh you mean totalitarian state hell bent on conquering the world?"

No, I meant that the cost to develop, implement, and integrate new technologies such as the F-22 or the DDX is a massive undertaking and the U.S. is the only country that can afford it. These weapons systems, however, are creating a massive gap between the U.S. and other country's armed forces which continues to increase day by day. Many European countries are cutting their defense purchases figuring that the U.S. will just protect them and are holding off on badly needed upgrades.

As far as my comments regarding the recent incident in the Persian Gulf area, there are still many unanswered questions, but it does reflect poorly on the British armed forces. Iran specifically targeted them for certain reasons and you didn't see them try to kidnap any U.S. SEALS who are operating in the same area.

We just lack decent funding and back up. However once in the field, as the last year in Afg has shown, superb. The Iran incident showed our chaps adhering to our rules of engagement in the situation and requirment not to recieve heedless casualties.

Must say, especially by their performance in Afg, and my experience with them in Bosnia, the Canadians are also a damn good bunch,

Tally Ho!

Due to the high prices and other problems with international mini ordering I have begun to think that global domination may not be a bad thing. Now if only we could figure out a gentlemanly way of settling the winner without impacting figure production.

Actually, instead of a "government" getting to take over, I say we allow UPS (the shipping company) to control the fate of humanity. They already have uniformed men and women stationed in many counties and a fairly decent logistics system already in place.

The British forces are well equipped, and very well trained. They are also willing to fight, which isn't as common as you might think. A lot of western forces tend to deploy in 'peacekeeper' mode, and will generally withdraw to avoid trouble, if possible.

The Royal Navy is in some trouble, largely because operating expenses of their deployed forces (helping us, mostly) are draining the RN operating/procurement budget. Britain isn't made of money after all, and the war(s) aren't terribly popular – I doubt the electorate would approve of an increase in the military budget to support them.

I expect in the medium term, this will just be a bad patch for the RN, and they'll get their new CVs. Ten or fifteen years from now, they'll probably be better than ever.

As for the recent incident with Iran, everybody got home safe – I expect that that's what everybody (excepting bloody-minded crackpots like myself) wanted most. What's wrong with that?
-Kle.

The Royal Marines are a stand up bunch of guys. I've worked with them in the past and if they thought they didn't have a chance then they didn't. I wouldn't have let them block me in with 6 more speed boats coming to back up the other two but I wasn't the on seen commander so if he made the call I hope his govt backs him up.

"The U.S. is quickly moving into the role of Rome in the 21st century" ahh you mean totalitarian state hell bent on conquering the world?

Last time I checked we were still in the Republican phase. Unless Bush refuses to step down after the 2008 election and declares himself President-For-Life, I don't see us taking the "Empire" step anytime soon.

Actually, instead of a "government" getting to take over, I say we allow UPS (the shipping company) to control the fate of humanity. They already have uniformed men and women stationed in many counties and a fairly decent logistics system already in place.

Uh, no. Brown Shirts in charge = Bad Idea.

Although to be fair, they'd probably focus on purging FedEx rather than ethnic and religious minorities, which would be better than the lot in WW2.

Rich

"The British forces are well equipped" unless i'm mistaken didnt the British Government have all the mobile phones of all British service personel in the Iraq blocked after several months: not because they were calling their families and revealing sensitive military information, but because they were asking them to go to army surplus stores to get them webbing and boots because they hadnt been issued the former and because the standard issue boots were melting in the heat?

Gromash, there is certainly no doubting that the British forces are under equipped or poorly equipped with poor clothing and weapons etc, not to mention body armour, vehicles etc

Seventh cav, just a friendly and constructive piece of advice- you really should have thought about the post title before posting it. You could have asked what you are asking in a far more diplomatic manner. It comes across as "You suck, but how bad do you suck?" and I don't think that was your intent at all. Your underlying question is quite valid, but the way in which you asked it didn't come out well at all.

If you read the UK military magazines, this very debate is hotly raging through the UK military establishment, but since our brothers (and I choose that word very purposefully, since I feel we truly are brother) across the pond are already sensitive about how they are often taken for granted and sometimes not treated respectfully by us, we should go out of our way at the moment to make sure we keep the level of conversation constructive.

Now to say that the Royal Marines had a poor showing is ridiculous. Everyone seems to have wanted this inspection party to just start blasting like it was the ok corral. They were accosted while making their way back to their small boats by several boats full of politically charged gunmen. Had anyone opened fire, I have no doubt all of the sailors and marines would have died.

Everyone got home safe, the UK government made no concessions whatsoever to make it happen, and we all got a wake up call that we need to watch out for the Iranians more closely. I'd call that a pretty good outcome. Would you rather have 15 bullet riddled bodies just to retain a bit of foolish pride?

I would hope that Americans and Britons both would both come to their senses soon and realize that we are both stronger nations if we continue to be friends. I've seen a disturbingly more hostile attitude by many Britons in the last five years towards American slights, real or imagined. We Americans have to do much more to make the Brits feel more appreciated in this relationship, but overall, both parties need to realize just how bad things would be if we were no longer the partners we are now. I for one respect England and the British people quite a bit and wish we could return be being allied peoples as well as governments.

Very well Said TGerritson, I applaud your level headedness, lets close the debate before it turns into a flame war :0)

Not being any kind of expert on anything, I'd think today's Falkland hypothetical would involve US forces as either active participants or keepers of some form of neutrality but leaning to the UK. I'm hearing more and more about the "1,000 ship navy" that the USN is pushing and I'm pretty sure if the UK needed heavy hitters, ala CVNs, the US go in some form or fashion. Regardless of the US government in charge at the time of this hypo, some form of aid would probably get by, even if it was just US intel.

nice sentiments Striker but no-one here in the UK believes it. when the US needs Britain we deliver. when the UK needs uncle Sam theres suddenly excuses.

As I recall it, although the UK got some under the counter help from the US during the Falklands, the official US position was that the UK should negotiate.

If the invasion had happened slightly later then we couldn't have prosecuted it.

We were selling the aircraft carriers.

We were getting rid of the Vulcan bombers.

A few months later we would have been screwed due to the Thatcher defence cuts.

If another Falklands happened right now, the RN would be in deep trouble (air defence, or lack thereof) – subs with cruise missiles would be our only serious hope, as we'd need some very serious airbase denial before sending the fleet in. When the Daring class and the new CVs arrive, all bets are off (especially if we get real fighters for 'em; JSF doesn't fill me with confidence) but until then the RN isn't much more than a frigate navy, albeit an unusually capable one with some decent SSNs as well.

Dom.

The telling point I would say in the recent situation in Iraq is that the first thing the boarding party noticed was the Helicopter taking off back to the ship. In my eyes they and the ship were under orders not to engage.

"when the UK needs uncle Sam theres suddenly excuses."

Examples?

"If another Falklands happened right now, the RN would be in deep trouble (air defence, or lack thereof)"

I thought the RAF was maintaining a permanent fighter and ground based air defense establishment in the Falklands since retaking the islands? In addition, I don't think the Argentine armed forces are nearly as capable relative to the UK amred forces as they were during the original conflict.

They do, they have 4 Tornadoes or did when I was there, a Resident Frigate and a Rarier Squadron AAM.

On the ground about a Battalions worth of troops if including Marines, Engineers and support personnel

Interesting thread!

"How bad are British armed forces?"

Depends who you ask. The Royal Navy will say that the Army are bloody awful. The Army will say that the Navy are sodding hopeless. They *both* agree that the RAF are effete bryl-creemed narcissi. Everybody dislikes the Marines, who are just common.

And a thread where I agree with Irish Marine! Damn I must be getting old. Also, Mr Klebert puts across a splendidly non-US-centric point of view. Kudos to you, sir.

Perhaps a better thread title would have been "How competent are British armed forces??", rather less value-laden.

British armed forces = Rabid Weasel, is my analogy.

Mind you, in todays culture Bad means good, so they are very bad!!!

Tally Ho!

"I thought the RAF was maintaining a permanent fighter and ground based air defense establishment in the Falklands since retaking the islands?"

Yep – 4 Tornado F3s and a VC-10 tanker; I think the Rapier squadron's gone. The Falklands-based destroyer would be an issue though. 4 fighters is a small enough number that there are options to take 'em out; eg. a commando raid, although at least Argentina doesn't have any real capability to take them on in the air. (Swamping them would probably work, but for an air force with 50-odd front line aircraft the losses would be crippling.) Interestingly the Falklands flight appears to have been bumped up the list for replacement with Eurofighter; now due this year.

"In addition, I don't think the Argentine armed forces are nearly as capable relative to the UK amred forces as they were during the original conflict."

Largely true, but not less so in the air; their Skyhawk fleet was replaced with 36 A4-AR Fighting Hawks in the 90s, and crucially got AIM-9M Sidewinders; the huge edge that we had in AAMs back in '82 is non-existent now. They also have radar (the same as in F16s), rwr, jammers, chaff and flares; all kit they lacked back then. Chuck in the RN's lack of Sea Harriers (we just have GR7s and 9s, with Sidewinder and no radar) and a UK carrier group might have an unpleasant time. The other major issue is that if the 4 Tornadoes can be taken out of the equation, RAF Mount Pleasant looks a fine place to base a squadron or two of the FAA, removing the fuel limitations from last time out. (This is where a couple of SSNs with Tomahawk would be a great equaliser.) On the flip-side there are only 20 Mirages and 34 Skyhawks to worry about; not much of an attrition reserve, especially given the unpleasantness that Sea Wolf can inflict on aircraft delivering conventional bombs; a lot would depend on the success or otherwise of stand-off attacks from the Argentine Navy's eight remaining Super Etendards.

From a political and economic point of view, there's no obvious cause for concern (Argentina has far more important things to do) but militarily it might be close-run again.

Dom.

The forces are very proffessional, well trained and dedicated. Which makes them the total opposite to their political leaders!

If that brown beggar comes in, you can expect arrows and sharp sticks to become the only issue items! Supply your furs yourself…

Oh, and don't forget the very recent incident where a group of British soldiers charged a group of insurgents in Iraq with just bayonets. That's confidence and a sign of great training.

I'd go into battle with Brits any day, underfunded or not. (And honestly, who isn't spread thin these days? No matter who's side you're on.)

link

Lowtardog wrote:
<<<Gromash, there is certainly no doubting that the British forces are under equipped or poorly equipped with poor clothing and weapons etc, not to mention body armour, vehicles etc>>>

Poorly or underequipped compared to who?
They certainly don't have as much stuff (or as fancy) as we do here in the States, but they only have a sixth of our population or so (IIRC). They're as well equipped as France or Germany – a much closer comparison.
That probably puts them easily in the top 5% in the world, equippage-wise.
-Kle.

Hurcheon wrote:
<<<As I recall it, although the UK got some under the counter help from the US during the Falklands, the official US position was that the UK should negotiate.>>>

I recall Ronnie offering PM Thatcher a couple CVBGs, but being told that she thought it was something the UK needed to do on it's own… Sort of an admirable sentiment, in it's way.
-Kle.

potatoe wrote:
<<<nice sentiments Striker but no-one here in the UK believes it. when the US needs Britain we deliver. when the UK needs uncle Sam theres suddenly excuses.>>>

When did we screw you guys over?
Last time I can think of is Suez…
-Kle.

"Poorly or underequipped compared to who?"

Its more a case of the quality and quantity of the equipment they "should " be given e.g. there has been huge kerfuffel over body armour where troops either didnt get any or it is passed around through a lack of kit. Poor quality problems with uniform, vehicles e.g. Landrovers has also been a problem.

I left the services in 1995 and being a Bryl cream boy was still wearing puttees and DMS boots in 1990-1991 with 1960s style combat shirts. We had to buy Norwegian zip up tops and Northern Ireland gloves unless you went on a tour of the Falklands (luckily I did)

ok my two cents how about friendly fire when no us pilot is ever brought to trial or give evidence etc in the uk for causing the deaths of british servicemen or women ,if it was the other way around we got to hand them over the usa doesnt ?? .. its two way street in allies not one …

From a personal point of view (currently serving RN Senior Rate)I wold say we are in a state of transition just now – perhaps more appropriately a changing of the guard: the 'old-school' senior officers and NCOs who were trained traditionally and experienced Armagh, Goose Green, and countless Cold War Patrols are fading away. Instead the 'new' breed in the British Military are less obviously 'tough', but instead perhaps are better educated, streetwise, technically and media -savvy. For instance the Iran Patrol Boat affair 20 years ago may well have ended bloodily as old -school Marines and Matelots would have instinctively fought their way out. Interesting that the response this time was to act with discretion so as to avoid escalation of regional politics (It may not make for an epic naval wargame but which course of action had the best overall result?). Having said all that, I would guess Im not alone in hoping that one day we could have some chance of legitimate pay back on the Iranian Republican Guard..

I think that you will find every sattalite in the U.S. service was redirected to the Falklands during the conflict. That is actually some Very Expensive Help.

Just wanted to say THANKS to TGerritsen for your comments. I can only concur with everything you have said.

Cheers
Mark

After reading all the posts I came to the conclusion that the British need to give their armed forces more money NOW.

Lowtardog wrote:
<<<"Poorly or underequipped compared to who?"

Its more a case of the quality and quantity of the equipment they "should " be given e.g. there has been huge kerfuffel over body armour where troops either didnt get any or it is passed around through a lack of kit. Poor quality problems with uniform, vehicles e.g. Landrovers has also been a problem.>>>

To me that's sort of a case of it always being possible to equip the troops better, no matter how they're equipped. I could give you a whole list of US kit the the folks in the field don't like… US troops deploy with all sorts of improved gear they bought themselves, and send home for more once they get there. In a perfect world, I'd like to see them get the best of everything, but it isn't that sort of world, and the best for one isn't always the best for all.

My point about well-equipped was more in the sense of major equipment – tanks, MICVs, helos, etc.
-Kle.

Thomastmcc Wrote:
<<<ok my two cents how about friendly fire when no us pilot is ever brought to trial or give evidence etc in the uk for causing the deaths of british servicemen or women>>>

Why should someone be tried in this sort of instance? It's a war, and it's a hazardous business… Unless you think it was intentional, and not accidental?

Certainly, more friendly fire incidents involve US forces on the firing side than anyone else, but that's because we're bringing a lot of firepower to bear, especially in the realm of airpower. It's not as though we don't hit our own troops sometimes, too.

Friendly fire incidents are much less common nowadays than ever before, and I expect that the air support that causes the majority of them saves more friendly lives than it takes by a huge margin.

Why put a serviceman on trial for a mistake or accident that will probably give them nightmares for the rest of their life?

<<< ,if it was the other way around we got to hand them over the usa doesnt ?? .. its two way street in allies not one …>>>

When have we demanded custody of allied servicemen to stand before US courts? We certainly *shouldn't* do such a thing…

-Kle.

"if it was the other way around we got to hand them over the usa doesnt ??"

Nope. We quite understand that stuff happens. I believe you can find friendly fire incidents with US troops on the receiving end of blue on blue fire from WW2 through the current conflicts and the idea of 'handing over' an allies troops has never been broached.

"Although the British forces are for the most part professional and well trained(the recent poor showing by the Royal Marines in the Iran incident notwithstanding)"

CG47 – Do you think provoking a larger international incident with all involved taking a high ratio of WIA and KIAs would have been a better result?

I don't believe the CO of the ship those boats originated from would could have had ROE authorizing him to allow the troops to retaliate, not even the US senior leadership wants to deal with that kink of stuff right now.

I know the reports that are in clearly state they were out gunned and outnumbered with everyone on RIBs. Small boats don't make good platforms to fight from.

And they all got nice parting gifts from the Iranians. "Don' forget your gift bags, boys, thanks for coming to our party!"

Klebert said

"My point about well-equipped was more in the sense of major equipment – tanks, MICVs, helos, etc. "

Ooh we are short of those too, look at the shortage in Helicopters in Afghanistan recenly

or the whole Landrover/APC debate

OldGamer,
From what I understand of the incident, the helo saw the Iranian ships coming from quite some distance. The Marines should have stayed on board the larger vessel(which would have been tough to take out) instead of getting back into their smaller boats. Any kind of defense would have deterred the Iranians, who were just looking to score some political points. The U.S. commander in the area said that if that were the U.S. Marines on board that they would have not surrendered and that any forces in the area would have assisted. The point is that the Iranians had a plan, they knew who to go after, and they knew the response that would come from Britain and her troops. The conduct of the troops while in captivity and after has been disgraceful. I have several friends here in the States from England who are ashamed of the entire incident.

aegiscg47, although I have been defensive in these threads I must admit I was a bit astounded at how they gave in and allowed themselves to be used for propaganda so easily, then again it opens the whole women in the front line debate and are the troops more likely to have capitulated to save their female comrade.

for comparison see the saga with the female US captives

link and
link

no less controversial, but we will have to wait and see if the Brit Naval Rating will go nude!!!