"Should the UK retain its Gurkha units?" Topic

Should the British army retain its various Gurkha units (known collectively as the 'Brigade of Gurkhas')? Their numbers have dwindled because of budget cuts from 13,000 in 1994 to just over 3,000 in 2016. Feel free to answer this in terms of military effectiveness, budget priorities, historical legacies, etc.

I don't know much about the current British army. Are you having issues with recruiting for current UK units? If so, then the Gurkhas are a good man power source.

Why should we not retain some of the best fighters in the world?

Perhaps.

They could possibly form a couple more as well, but that probably wouldn't be PC.

Highly effective troops. And you may not realise it, but it is very difficult for the army to get recruits these days.
link

No.

This is a legacy of our colonial past that should be ceased. People from Nepal should be allowed to join should they meet the usual requirements for commonwealth citizens, i.e. 5 years residence in the UK.

Has anyone inquired about how the Nepalese feel about it? Brits might see it as a legacy of their colonial past, but the Nepalese that join may see it as a way to escape 3rd world poverty…

Damon.

but the Nepalese that join may see it as a way to escape 3rd world poverty…

I think a lot of them do.

I live in Woolwich, and we have the largest Nepalese community in the UK. They are intensely proud of their service in the British Army, and I suspect that the second generation will join the army if they are able to.

As they are not Commonwealth citizens, the recruits from Nepal would never qualify to join the British Army; they could only be recruited as they are now, directly from Nepal.

It is worth remembering that Nepalese soldiers still serve in the Indian Army.

I support the Gurkha Welfare trust, Soldiering in the UK Army is considered a way to improve the lot of themselves, and their families, who often live in extreme poverty. Competition to qualify to join the British Army is fierce.
This is NOT exploitation of a Colony.
We in Britain (for the most part) honour our brave and loyal Gurkha soldiers.

One of the reasons the Argentines surrendered during the Falklands war when they did was that the Gurkhas were the next battalion to attack the following night.

Jaya Mahakali, Ayo Gorkhali

The Gurkhas are part of the British Army because it is beneficial to both Nepal and the UK. They are highly valued, should probably be recruited in greater numbers, and losing them would be a loss to the peoples of both nations.

I served with the Gurkhas in Bandit country of south Armagh they are the bravest of the brave and the most loyal of the loyal. I agree wholeheartedly with herkybird it is a great honour for the young men of Nepal to serve in Her Majestys armed forces. Long may they serve. Ayo Gorkhali.

Yes great fighters, and great people.

Gurkhas have never been deployed on Op BANNER. I'd be interested to hear your story firebase2012

No Gurkhas in NI, it would have been a political nightmare! Nor were they on strength in iny BAOR Divs.

In the 80s we had a Bn in the UK, with 5 Airborne or whatever it was, 3 Bns in Hong Kong and a Bn in Brunei,

Tally Ho!

I would hate for yet another piece of British military tradition to be ripped away. It's bad enough what's happened to so many old infantry regiments. Much of the rationale for merging the Scottish battalions was based on recruiting problems -- but I didn't know this was becoming a problem for Gurkhas as well, I always read that the Gurkha units had more applicants then there were slots for and that the competition to be accepted was fierce. What's changed?

The homogenization of the military, especially among the old line regiments, and loss of unit esprit de corps may be a contributing factor in declining enlistment. The traditionalists always warned this could happen if the old regiments were turned from "tribal" units taking pride in themselves as a surrogate family into blandly technocratic soldier-bots. If the spirit and elan are missing, what's to keep recruits? Surely not the pay or working conditions.

Curious. I'd also read that it was policy not to deploy Gurkhas in No. Ireland due to "racial" considerations, altho these were never spelled out or detailed exactly.

I think that the Brigade of Gurkhas has benefited the UK and Nepal both very much – one of my former mentors was an officer in the 6th (Queen Elizabeth's Own) Gurkha Rifles and holds this as one of the proudest times of his life – he said his troops were among the finest men he had ever known

I thought them to be very good soldiers. A good asset to a cosmopolitan army. Good chaps!

Still rather have the Green Howards or Black Watch than the Gurkha Rifles. They're mercenaries that aren't that cheap anymore. I remember when I went to do the new mortar simulator course at Aldershot, and also when we went from MFDC to FCA, Gurkhas and technology aren't a good mix. Unfortunately for them, even basic infantry soldiering kit is getting a bit too complex. The problem is that they have a very good PR machine and Joanna Lumley on their side.

I am a big admirer of the solid reputation of these soldiers as well, but I think some of you fail to note that Nepal is NOT a member of the Commonwealth, and these guys are being exploited because of that. Read on … "Further, controversy surrounding their treatment from the UK arose when Gurkha soldiers were discovered to be receiving pensions of £37.00 GBP a month, while British soldiers were receiving £800.00 GBP a month. Because Nepal is not a member of the Commonwealth, the Gurkhas are not considered British subjects, and as such, are subject to this disparity."

link

If Britain doesn't want them any more, could the US make an offer? Good light infantry and generations of regimental tradition are not assets to be lightly discarded.

Piper, I ran into some discussion on the US side. Our National Guard units are the ones in which an American can expect to serve with people from their own region, and where members of their family have also served. In WW2, several local units were simply wiped out. After the war, the Guard Bureau found it was easier to re-establish units in those towns than to raise units in communities without the tradition. As you say, pay and working conditions are seldom a sufficient incentive.

I think Foxweasel has a point: gurkhas might be brave and hardy soldiers, but in an increasingly technologized battlefield, coming from a mainly peasant society, they will have problems to adapt.

Working with the Gurkhas on the Sino Hong Kong border 88-90 there was an obvious shift in the chaps joining. Gone was the old farmer's lad who had to walk for 3 weeks to get to the recruiting station, although there were undoubtedly some most were far more aware of the advances in modern technology and could catch a bus to join up!

Yes they were still taught how to put socks on, but nowadays they are not as out of their depth with modern technology as many would believe,

Tally Ho!

Nick, 88-90 is a different world to now, I played enemy for them in Belize in 90 and they weren't the jungle experts I was expecting. The kit we use now is unrecognizable even from 10 years ago and far more complex, for example there's no gurkha JTACs the English officers have to do it for them, the days of a 349 and map have long gone. Johnny Gurkha was great in the days of retreat from empire, Malaya, Borneo etc. But they only had a minor role in the Falklands, no roles in GW 1 and 2 or NI. You won't find many serving soldiers with much good to say about them, but the public loves them.

Obviously.
Do you have so many hard as nails, fit, volunteers to fill your infantry roles?
My guess is no.
And so what, they cannot be jtac, so do many of your locals either.
Dis they ever make a mess, stab people, attack with machetes in streets, are they known to be not adapting nicely to the old uK ways?

From a morale and loyalty POV I cannot see why you wouldn't want to keep them.

If the British Army gives up their Gurkhas, I'm quite sure the Indian Army will be happy to take them. "Ayo Gurkhali!" is still a cry feared in Afghanistan (and welcomed by anyone not an Afghan/tribesman).

Yes, the modern infantry kit is getting complex. This may be a sign that you need to simplify the user interface for the advanced stuff! If Gurkhas can read a map, make the call for fire system a digitally-displayed touchscreen map. I am here [point to spot on map], I want mortar/arty/air fire on this spot [point to other spot on map].

My experience of teaching second generation Nepalese in the UK is that they are as tech savvy as their contemporaries … but if they are born in the UK it is my understanding that they cannot serve in a Gurkha unit.

I suppose that it would be possible to form a Gurkha regiment from this cohort of potential recruits, but as the idea of forming a British Sikh regiment was firmly knocked on the head some time ago (for being socially, ethnically, and religiously divisive), it won't happen.

Tell me what you think is so good about them. Are they any more loyal to the crown than any other regiment? no. Are they any better in modern infantry warfare than any other regiment? no. Do they have as much utility as a British Rifles battalion? no. Lion in the stars, you're suggesting we dumb down our kit in order to carry on employing foreign mercenaries?

Yes. Keep them.

Yes, I'd say keep them if for nothing else, they have a good legacy, good performance record in many wars, etc.

However, the only time I ever worked with them and that was only briefly. They are part of the US/UN Honor Guard Company in Seoul, IIRC. They came to the DMZ in a ceremony to give the remains/bones of Chinese soldiers. Back to the PRC reps at Panmunjom. We found the bones, etc., along the Imjin River, probably have been there since '53.

As it still was[is ?] a UN mission. So along with the Gurkhas, there were GIs and ROKs in the detail.

But since Fox has served with them often. He probably knows better than most …

Haven't served with them that often mate, but when I did I was less than impressed. My major gripe is losing British regiments like Green Howards, Black Watch, Green Jackets etc while retaining foreign mercenaries. The money we spend on them and the subsequent benefits now they can stay here after their service, would be better spent on retaining the British troops that leave after a few years. And as I said, no one is giving any convincing arguments to keep them.

I was working on the Willsworthy Estate on Dartmoor in about 2001 when some Gurhkas were training there. I was told they weren't great drivers. The car park outside the barracks was full of trashed Land Rovers.

Well India has 100,000 of them, so no recruitment problems. I think tough as nails would describe the Gurkhas with a selection rate of 1.4% of all applicants, its not surprising that you get the best.

2012 the Daily Telegraph published the following after making a FOI request:

'Figures obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests show that there are now are 8,505 soldiers from 38 different overseas nations in the Army. This is more than three times the 2,659 recorded a decade ago and just 601 in 1995.

There is also a 3,680-strong brigade of Gurkhas, recruited in Nepal.
It means there are more than 12,000 soldiers from overseas in the Army, 12 per cent of the total.

This includes 2,200 from Fiji, the strength of a small brigade. Among the recruits from the South Pacific island is Lance Bombardier Lynette Pearce, who gave birth to a baby boy while serving with 12 Regiment Royal Artillery at Afghanistan's Camp Bastion.

The Army also contains 870 South Africans and 800 Ghanaians, enough for a battalion apiece, and even 550 troops from the tiny Caribbean island chain of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Numbers from Gambia, Malawi and Kenya are also on the rise although there are fewer soldiers hailing from Jamaica and Zimbabwe than five years ago.

One of the most recent recipients of the Victoria Cross, Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, is from the Caribbean island of Grenada.'

I suspect that the situation might not have changed a great deal since then.

Yes.

Yes.

One, but not the main reason:

Keeps them from working for Cruise ships as security. This Gurkha, ex British Army, and great guy (we talked for hours), prevented me from sneaking this blonde Ukrainian cocktail waitress off the ship in Lauderdale (she was gonna marry me, and she was HOT). This guy was all over us! No way she could jump ship. Little guy, but something told me that trying to physically subdue him while she leapt onto the gangway was a bad idea. Dude looked like he could fight.

Ruined my chances at marital bliss!

I dont usually agree to marry a girl after 5 minutes, but when I do, it's because she is smokin' hot!

Foxweasel, convincing arguments for keeping them: how about promises made in the aftermath of colonial wars where we got stuffed? And decades of subsequent promises? And the fact we can't recruit enough of our own worthless drug taking layabouts? And the fact they stood by us in 2 world wars when they didn't have to?
Not many people fighting to be on our side at the moment.
Lets welcome those who want to be with us.

So no convincing arguments about capability, adaptability. Just the usual tales about being the toughest fighters, conveniently ignoring the reputation of British soldiers. I don't know how many times I have to say this, they are mercenaries, they have loyalty to whoever is paying them. If we stopped employing them, they'd just go and work for someone else. Gwydion, thanks for describing British soldiers as "worthless drug taking layabouts" I appreciate that. Perhaps you should go and see a Gurkha units disciplinary issues.

Bob, there has been a major change to Commonwealth recruiting, we don't need that many of them anymore. It's retention that's the major issue in the British forces, in the 30 years since I joined up, the job is still killing the Queens enemies, but the TACOS have changed massively. E.g pension reductions, food charges, lack of overseas postings etc etc We spend a fortune training them then they leave after 3 or 4 years. The money we spend on recruiting foreigners would be better spent on retaining British soldiers, that's proper loyalty. What's Joanna Lumleys username on here?😁

I had a friend who was responsible for army recruitment in the NW England (he resigned his commission). Said it was real hard work, he failed to meet his targets and was given little cash to work with. They could not even afford to attend university job fairs.
We are failing to meet targets for recruitment of British soldiers and failing to retain the ones we have.
So thats why we need to recruit from abroad.

Haven't served with them that often mate, but when I did I was less than impressed.

Well you spent more time with them than I. But I understand what you are saying.

My major gripe is losing British regiments like Green Howards, Black Watch, Green Jackets etc while retaining foreign mercenaries.

I can understand that. Some of the units I served in were deactivated since I left the ARMY.

YES!

I don't recall US Special Forces in VN turning up their noses at Hmong tribesmen whose idea of high technology was a crossbow. They thought enough of them to evacuate a large number of Hmong Mike Force soldiers and their families to the USA when things went pear-shaped in VN. It seems to me that a tough recruit will make a tough soldier.

B

Much of the SF unit ops in SE Asia was training and leading the local tribesmen. Who lived in the jungle/bush. The Hmong/Dega-Montagnard were some of locals the US SF worked with, generally. It was the locals' jungle, they knew how to live and operate in it. And the US SF knew this and used it to their advantage, etc. To interdict, ambush, etc., to destroy the VC and NVA.

Some believe the SF Ops with the local tribesmen in bush. Were some of the most combat effective operations. And in keeping with the SF mission. To train, lead and operate with the local tribes. E.g. a 12 man SF A-Team would usually lead a large native unit of 100-600, in some cases. These units became combat multipliers to the US/SEATO Forces in the mission to defeat the Communist VC and NVA.

Basically the larger units were US lead "Irregular" Infantry Bns. That took the fight to the enemy. In the element they operated in, the jungles, highlands, swamps, etc. On a more even "playing field"…

What you say is true, L4. But I would also point out that French had great success with colonial troops, even when operating in unfamiliar climes – Moroccans in northern France and VN, for example. That having been said, considering what appears to be an interminable conflict going on in Afghanistan, I could also visualize plenty of "business opportunities" for Gurkhas to operate in terrain fairly familiar to them.

The technology levels of modern warfare have certainly accelerated dramatically in the past twenty years, but it seems to me that the principal function of the infantryman remains to march and fight well – things in which the Gurkhas have demonstrated high proficiency over their many years of service to GB.

Just sayin'.

B

Yes, the French did use Colonial troops in many theaters and conflicts. Their quality varied but they were there and many performed quite well.

but it seems to me that the principal function of the infantryman remains to march and fight well –

Being a former Grunt I can say that is generally true in almost all cases.

But I also have an understanding of Fox's opinion too. And he is a Grunt as well !

So everyone knows that the colonial era is over, correct?

Wait, the Black Watch was disbanded?

I'm American, and I am outraged and saddened!

@Smokey

The Black Watch lives on.

link

However they are now planning to close Fort George.

Foxweasel -
How do you feel about RoI citizens in the British Army then?

PS – my intent was to say that British youth was full of drug taking layabouts who weren't suitable for the army, as I suspect you well knew.

For context … in the USA all those of "military/draft age", about 70+% are not able to pass mental/psych or physical requirements.

Good thing there is not a draft[those are a bad idea IMO, anyway] but with the USA's passed downsizing of it's military[which may stop ?], there are less slots available. And it seems … less available to fill those slots. At least it appears that way …

To paraphrase Gwydion : " "US" youth is full of drug taking layabouts who aren't suitable for the military … "