"Never Ready Britain Armed Forces 1967-1989" Topic

interesting book review

link

(…)if war had broken out, the expectation of nuclear release by day 8 would have been found wildly optimistic.
For someone interested in that period of military history this is a very sobering read and one that, in effect, rubbishes the popular fiction of the period (Team Yankee, The Third World War, Red Storm Rising), and harks more to the cynicism and bleakness of Chieftains. No matter what public pronouncements were made by the British government, this book argues well that the eruption of conflict in Central Europe in the 1980's would have been a bloody and relatively short-lived affair.

presentation from the Editor

Was Britain's implementation of NATO strategy credible? After the adoption of Flexible Response in 1967 NATO relied on conventional forces to defend the West. Britain had a central role in NATO's plans, but was British defence planning adequate for the task? How did the Government plan for the use of the conventional Armed Forces for the range of operations it was committed to? How were the Armed Forces to be Mobilised, and what was the detail of the planning for mobilisation?

In 1967 MC14/3 was adopted as the overall strategic concept by NATO. It relied on an escalatory deterrence, from conventional through tactical nuclear strikes to strategic nuclear attack. This is commonly known as Flexible Response and replaced NATO's trip-wire response. The declared principal of the strategic concept was to reduce the chance of mistakenly starting a nuclear war, meeting force with like force, and raising the nuclear threshold in the event of actual war.

By using newly available documents from British and other archives, this volume will show that far from being a flexible strategy, in the event of a war it was doomed to failure. The concept was compromised by the failure of the Alliance members to provide one of the main legs of the conventional deterrent – sustainability.

This book analyses the paradox between the public face of defence policy and the practice. The book assesses whether the planning would have worked, and what would have happened in Europe if war had broken out. To answer this question the research looks at the conflicts in the Falklands and the Gulf to assess the feasibility of the plans in place.

Elements upon which British defence depended were still being built more than twenty years after the new strategy was adopted. Defence policy in Britain was concerned less with the threats the country faced than with just how little could be spent on defence.

Never Ready is extensively illustrated with contemporary photographs, many in colour, and specially commissioned diagrams, colour artworks and maps.

Well yes I'm sure it's all true but the Soviet bear wasn't what the propaganda said either.

Tactical nukes and chem bio from day 1 (probably minute 1) was the sobering reality

That is a pretty provocative book title.

Not sure on the tactics there, David, since I really wonder if any territory "won" that is highly irradiated, and/or contaminated with chemicals and bio-weapons is worth fighting for.

I have no doubt the weapons were in place for use, if deemed necessary, but not sure anyone other than the cockroaches and ants would be able to live on such territory.

If Britain's contribution to the NATO protection of West Germany back then seems unlikely, then it is worth considering how much worse was that of France, the Netherlands, Italy etc. As for Unified Germany now……but that is another issue.

Of the four books mentioned, the little known Chieftains was my favourite.

We owe Reagan and Gorbachev a great debt for de-escalating any future (or imminent) conflict to a non nuclear face off (and if I am wrong, the no-one will be reading this anyway)

We tend to be very critical of ourselves, but we forget there is also an enemy with its own problems and weaknesses. We don't have to be the best, just better than the enemy.

And, as pointed out by dragon6, the Soviets weren't as good as their propaganda. Admittedly the comparison isn't perfect, but in real wars, countries using Soviet equipment and doctrine didn't fair too well in the air or on the ground.

A lot of training and troop quality of countries using their equipment was sub-par too, and some/most of the equipment sold to them wasn't top notch either.

I suspect the Soviets would have done a lot better than their proxies have.

Up until the early to mid-1980s, I imagine the war would have been lost by the West, if it had kicked off in earnest.

Thankfully, a lot of new weapons programs became available in the 1980s, tipping the balance, finally, in NATO's favor.

Prior to that, things would have been quite grim for the NATO countries if the Cold War had gone hot.

A war betwen east and west in germany was very well trained and prepared from both sides, all the troops had been ready to fight. The red armies had been ready for an instant attack, the ammunition was very close at hand.
Any important highway bridge and any railway line in western germany had been mined with explosives at that time. Bunkers and fortificated military and civil installations anywhere in the country.
Even smaler roads had been prepared for steel beam road blocks. Anywhere in the country.