[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

However, it will also toughen him up.

I came back from Afghanistan in October 2009. My experience of the first Gulf War, two tours of Bosnia and my tour of Iraq didn’t even come close. I won’t go into all the details right now but last year my Mrs. binge drunk and said she did it as she felt lonely. Last Easter we split up for a while. November she had counselling. December we separated. I’m now seeing someone else and next is divorce. I’d say Afghanistan was the single biggest factor to how last year was for me and for her perhaps. Prior to Afghanistan it was me away in Iraq. It was a few years before but saying to your Mrs ‘what’s a matter it’s only every few years’ isn’t easy for someone facing six months on their own and worried about every news bulletin or knock on the door.

I still wouldn’t change anything but last year was tough for me and how she was with me came after my tour and I couldn’t cope with her so I wasn’t at my best. I’d still go back but I really felt like I would need a proper break before doing it again. Once I’d had a decent break it’s fine. Immediately after I was an emotional mess. Now I feel I’m pretty much back to how I was before apart from a few things.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Another question: on average, what percentage of an army overseas is on dangerous front line duties (patrols, bomb disposal etc)? I'm only guessing but imagine the majority of an army deployed overseas is on support duties (maintenance, admin, supply, senior staff, catering etc)?

Catering tends to be handled by forces personnel working on camp and KBR (civilian). Supply I’m not sure if you can class it as safe. Fobs can be supplied by air from helicopters. We only have so many helicopters and besides if we rely on them too much they will be targeted more instead. They are vulnerable to HMGs when they fly in to land. The loss of one is huge. Being in one can be stressful as what happens is out of your control.

List of aircraft lost so far to the coalition:

List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or you can use road convoys driving down routes which are seeded by IEDs. Someone I knew died when his vehicle rolled over into a ditch and he drowned. Perhaps his driver fell asleep at the wheel. I don’t know as he died also. I’m not sure senior staff are safe. A Major died in 2009 from an IED.

Having said that the location I was involved in in the autumn of 2009 has now been handed over to the ANA/ANP. At the time it was dangerous. Now it’s Afghan responsibility. When we first went there it was under fire. When we left it was a place you could sunbathe at. On the ground you do see the change. The newspapers though tend not to report it.

When was the last time you heard anything good about Afghanistan?

The only reports I ever see is the running tally of deaths. If that’s the only thing you see you think that’s what it’s all about. Or you might see a fire fight as that’s exciting. A village getting fresh water or a new school doesn’t make the news as it’s not exciting. You don’t see it so you don’t know it’s going on. With no positive news being reported there’s no balance.

Even if nothing happens it’s still the constant low level stress that something might happen. Sitting in a vehicle wondering if today’s the day can still be enough. Someone I knew died from what should have been safe routine patrol over and area constantly traversed by us. He died the day I left and his loss is still hard now.

Admin is probably safe. Maintenance sometimes isn’t. I’ve known REME have to go out and recover vehicles or also be based at or near fobs. Once a vehicle breaks down an attempt is made to recover it. Thanks to mobile phones its location is reported to others. Getting the vehicle back is a major operation. If it gets to big then it might end up being blown up and another asset lost.

[Alan CD]

Thanks Sonic. Good post and an eye-opener.

Respect.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Thanks Sonic. Good post and an eye-opener.

Respect.

'appen.

Sonic, do you mind if I ask a question? It might be a little OT, but I think it has implications for what we're discussing.

I see a few families of soldiers killed in Iraq saying how disgusting it is, and the government should never have started an illegal war, TB is a war criminal, etc.

I've often wondered how you lot feel? Do you feel any differently in Iraq & Afghanistan to Bosnia? Do our soldiers feel they shouldn't be there, and the politicians put on trial? Or do they feel that it's a war, and that's what we do, and we don't get involved in the politics?

Steve W

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Pecker

'
I see a few families of soldiers killed in Iraq saying how disgusting it is, and the government should never have started an illegal war, TB is a war criminal, etc.

I've often wondered how you lot feel?

At the time I was aware that the war was unpopular with some. Sometimes I’ve been in uniform and stopped at places for a coffee somewhere. Usually service stations etc. People tend to look at you different in uniform. Some ignore you, some with respect, some awe, some might have given you a mouthful if it was around the time of Iraq. Attitude from some was that the war was wrong and you should leave. And then do what? I still have bills to pay.

Watch a Vietnam film if you want to see the stereotypes. Hard time abroad, lack of support at home.

Iraq I can accept was unpopular and perhaps we should have stayed at a low level involvement with it. The US would have been happy with us just supplying air tankers or something. Anyway we did it and I got a medal and an experience out of it.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Do you feel any differently in Iraq & Afghanistan to Bosnia?

Afghanistan I think is fully legitimate and fully backed by the UN and Nato. Iraq I think was more dubious and a lot of attitudes changed as a result of that. People tend to lump in Afghanistan with Iraq as the time is similar though the two are very different. Iraq I suppose was about WMDs that didn’t exist, regime change that was dodgy anyway, and probably oil or something.

Afghanistan definitely no WMDs, not so much about changing the regime but trying to keep the one in Kabul in power over the country. No oil either but making the country stable as it might stop drug production and has stopped terrorist training camps. So I don’t understand how people have a problem with Afghanistan from the point of view of legitimacy.

Iraq you can say was an invasion. Other countries forces went into Iraq. In Afghanistan the largest component of ISAF is made up of Afghan people. Afghan people can’t invade their own country so you can’t stick the two conflicts together.

Bosnia was different again. During the first Gulf War I was getting sackfuls of mail and food parcels from people I never knew. If I’d have seen every girl who wrote to me I’d probably be still working through them now.

Bosnia no one was interested. Apart from the TV drama Warriors I don’t think it got a mention. Afghan I think gets in the news thanks to Sky and the death toll regularly featuring. At least people appreciate it’s dangerous. Bosnia is like a forgotten war.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Do our soldiers feel they shouldn't be there, and the politicians put on trial?

We are a democracy and if someone has done something illegal they should be on trial for it. If I shot a civvy I’d be investigated to see if I’d done anything wrong. If someone might be responsible for the death of thousands then why not investigate that. Also after ANY conflict I like to see a full investigation to see if any lessons can be learned for next time. From why it started to what kit worked, everything. I was happy to be there. I don’t know if it was legal or not. Perhaps the inquiry will answer that. No one should be above international law. Should the politicians be put on trial? What for? Is there enough to make anything stick? If yes then fine.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Or do they feel that it's a war, and that's what we do, and we don't get involved in the politics?

Steve W

Wish it was a war. Things are easier. Shoot someone in a war and unless they were surrendering you are fine. Shoot someone in anything else and you are investigated to see why you did it and whether you have broken the law. Whatever the forces are sent to do has to have the support of the people. I think Afghanistan is legitimate and worthwhile. If the majority of the UK population of the country still disagreed with that, I’d think that was more important. For the population to make that decision I’d prefer it if more balanced reporting was done. Back during the Balkans there used to be daily Nato briefs for the press. It’s a pity these aren’t done. The ISAF site covers things that are happening in the country as a result of ISAF but I don’t think people read it.

I think JamesL is in the Navy and he didn’t know Afghanistan is UN/Nato lead. If he doesn’t know do others or do they see it as ‘another US/UK invasion of a country similar to Iraq.’

I think MPs tend to be unpopular with the forces at the best of times. Fair play to those who do the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS). At least they are getting an idea. The above are all my own views.

[dBrowne]

First off, sorry to hear about the lead-up to your impending divorce.

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Having said that the location I was involved in in the autumn of 2009 has now been handed over to the ANA/ANP. At the time it was dangerous. Now it’s Afghan responsibility. When we first went there it was under fire. When we left it was a place you could sunbathe at. On the ground you do see the change. The newspapers though tend not to report it.

When was the last time you heard anything good about Afghanistan?

The only reports I ever see is the running tally of deaths. If that’s the only thing you see you think that’s what it’s all about. Or you might see a fire fight as that’s exciting. A village getting fresh water or a new school doesn’t make the news as it’s not exciting. You don’t see it so you don’t know it’s going on. With no positive news being reported there’s no balance.

It is hard to get balance in this era of targeted and embedded journalists, and that must be because all sides realise that half the battle these days is about who controls the narrative. How do we know that the Afghans don't see this, in spite of the good that appears to be done, as just the latest wave of outsiders who one day will be gone; a certainty that the Taliban are sure to keep reminding them of? And aren't the Taliban going to be forever safe next door biding their time in a Pakistan that itself hedges its bets trying to support the coalition and the Taliban a the same time. The Afghan government from all accounts is seen as corrupt and ineffectual, and the strategy of training up the (likely infiltrated)) locals to pick up the slack after in 2015-2017 (or whenever the next pushed-back date happens to be) is not held as believable except by those needing to come up with a face-saving exit strategy that doesn't look like defeat.

So I'd like to believe that all this sacrifice and expenditure will buy a better tomorrow for the Afghan people, but from the news and documentaries that get filtered my way, I just can't. You, having been there up-close, have a first-hand perspective I can never have and I'm sure the difference you make is all for the good, but how can you be so certain that within a few years of handing over to the locals the tide won't just wash it all away again back to the way it was before? How long is too long? And at what point is one just throwing good money after bad?

[Pecker]

Sonic, I can only think of what some of my pupils might say.

'respec'

Now I'm not completely sure what that means, but there you go.

Next time you're up north pop in for a pint.

With a head on it.

And an argument about Tony Blair.



Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

So people should do a tour more often? Do you often work away from your family for six months at a time?

Frequently. And not always with two weeks R&R in the middle as well. On one occasion in the Forces I spent well over a year away. So I do see it as perfectly manageable for people to go on tour more often - or at least in a more compressed time scale thus requiring less of a training tail. This is a major workstream in MOD at the moment.

The time that you are not spent on tour is for various things. Prior to going you are training for the specific theatre. So you spend time doing team medic cadres, shooting various specific weapons, learning to drive or command various theatre specific vehicles, learning to handle helicopters, spending time with family etc.

I don't doubt it at all Sonic - but the RAF and RN both manage a significantly higher recovery/deployment rate and often in far more technical professions than the Army. I would also point out the Royal Marines also maintain a significant higher tempo than the Army.

On tour it's long days, little time off, dangerous work etc. After the tour it's returning to some kind of normality, spending time with family and training as to where you go next. You may next be going to the Falklands or needing to prepare for conventional warfare again. Also you need to do courses to further your own career and get promotion.

Nobody disputes this. What is disputed is the fact the moment you step off that plane you do not need forget all your training and experience and thus do not have to go through the whole regeneration phase again. Given the current pull out date, the current cap on Army numbers (8,500) and assuming no further Army redunancies following PR11 - there are currently 10,000 people in the Army that will never need to go/return to Afghanistan during the warfighting phase of HERRICK.

Also less time away from a tour means less development. Afghanistan doesn't go on forever. We might have to fight a war elsewhere. Having everyone tied up in one task isn't always a good idea.

You can't have it both ways Sonic - one second "we don't need Forces because we have never been safer", the next we need to maintain tens of thousands of troops because "we might have to fight a war elsewhere". One second we don't need intervention abroad "because we can get everything from Europe", the next we need a huge standaing Army "just in case". Your argument seems to be as confused as you policies towards the EU!

One of the biggest reasons for losing troops or for PTSD or for divorce tends to be the constant tours. Increase it and you lose more. You can still recruit at the bottom but it doesn't help if NCOs are leaving (more likely to be married with children and trying to keep their family together) and you are recruiting young privates (more likely to be single and less affected by constant tours initially).

Not being funny but seperation is part of the Service life. If you don't like it leave - it is exactly what I did - despite having a job that I had desired to do since being about 5 years old. It was a heart wrenching decision but ultimately the right one. But there are still plenty of people who will be retained by (for Public sector standards) the generous pension, pay and allowances. Furthermore the MOD has become quite slick at FRI payments to shortage branches - and with Army recruitment at an all time high and 2015 as a firm cut off date for the campaig, long term 'burnout' of individuals isn't really going to be a problem.

Asked you this before but where should we abandon? Our UN deployment in Cyprus? Our troops in the Falkands? (Also tours and also tying up troops for six months at a time.) Where exactly?

It is you who is saying that we have never been safer so surely by your own standards just about everywhere - other than Helmand - is unnecessary? Personally though I would start with the 20,000 troops on the Rhine! You know I was attached to the RAF in Germany in the 90s when that Service released that Forces on the Rhine were totally unnecessary and started pulling out accordingly. Two decades later the Army is still there - and still building new accomodation. With regards Cyprus and the Falklands Im would say both postings retain benefit to the UK and should be kept - but 'tour' lengths need to be revised. There is no reason why such 'tours' could not be extended to 12-18 months and made 'proper' postings whereby families can economically be relocated to SFA. Indeed this nicely synchronises with the 'two year double deployment cycle' I quoted above.

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I think JamesL is in the Navy and he didn’t know Afghanistan is UN/Nato lead. If he doesn’t know do others or do they see it as ‘another US/UK invasion of a country similar to Iraq.’

Actually what he said was...

Originally Posted by JamesL

I don't see any evidence to say Raszcak doesn't believe in that; quite the opposite in fact as the UN and NATO missions are both based on a self defence concept.

His point was right - and indeed mentioned to you that it was a UN and NATO mission.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Another question: on average, what percentage of an army overseas is on dangerous front line duties (patrols, bomb disposal etc)? I'm only guessing but imagine the majority of an army deployed overseas is on support duties (maintenance, admin, supply, senior staff, catering etc)?

The split between 'Front line' and 'Support' isn't as clear as you might think. The infantry, who conduct the vehicular and foot patrols from the FOBs/PBs, are inevitably in the firing line. Sonic has already mentioned the REME - but the engineering elements extend significantly beyond that - for example the TROJAN and Engineering Field Squadrons have ably supported a number of US operations in Kandahar acting as the vanguard.

As to other 'support' staff, all junior personnel who work in FOBs/PBs (or even just stay there overnight) are required to do Sanger duties. This includes attached support staff (e.g. chefs - when military staff are used anyway). Furthermore the helicopter resupply probably falls under your definition of support - and they frequently attract more alot more fire than the FOBs themselves. The CSLR convoys - RLC support troopers - are also worth of note and, on some routes, come under heavy fire everytime they deploy. This said there are also huge swathes of military personnel who don't leave the MOBs and are just about as safe as you can get - BASTION must be one of the safest places you can go - not least now it is dwarfed by LEATHERNECK.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Frequently. And not always with two weeks R&R in the middle as well. On one occasion in the Forces I spent well over a year away. So I do see it as perfectly manageable for people to go on tour more often - or at least in a more compressed time scale thus requiring less of a training tail. This is a major workstream in MOD at the moment.

It depends on the tour. I’d love a year in Cyprus with no R&R. When was the last time anyone died there? Afghanistan in comparison? It's not the time away. It's the fact it's a combat zone and the most intense I've ever been in. Yes there's two weeks R&R. Two days are lost travelling. During the time before I was away a lot on training. I went out on advance party as well. Perhaps you should tell my wife how manageable it is. I might bring it up at the divorce and tell her she shouldn't have been so stupid. After all a guy on the net was away for a year.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I don't doubt it at all Sonic - but the RAF and RN both manage a significantly higher recovery/deployment rate and often in far more technical professions than the Army. I would also point out the Royal Marines also maintain a significant higher tempo than the Army.

RAF and RN aren’t in such a front line role. The RM are special forces.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Nobody disputes this. What is disputed is the fact the moment you step off that plane you do not need forget all your training and experience and thus do not have to go through the whole regeneration phase again.

A few things. This isn’t fixing a helicopter on an airstrip which is no different in Afghanistan to the UK. It’s operating in a front line environment with people trying to kill you. Make a mistake and you or others are likely to die. Hence there’s a high priority to pre-deployment training. I know you love to do cost cutting so we could have some more cold war kit but it’s people’s lives you are playing with. Also the predeployment training achieves a lot of things. You do forget skills or you need to do the old ones faster and better. It blows out the cobwebs and adds to the professionalism. Doing something a second quicker or being slightly better can make a big difference. Also who you deploy with may have changed. Since the last tour there will be some new guys and some who have left. The idea is to work together so everyone knows their role as at some point you might be under fire when you do it again. Does a footballer not have to do any pre-season training as they won’t have forgotten how to kick a ball since last season? Or is it the case that the preseason training is to sharpen up skills and work better with the rest of the team? Sorry but drills like this is something you can never do enough off. Also the kit is constantly changing. Over the last few years a long list of new kit has been bought. ASM being the latest thing.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You can't have it both ways Sonic - one second "we don't need Forces because we have never been safer", the next we need to maintain tens of thousands of troops because "we might have to fight a war elsewhere". One second we don't need intervention abroad "because we can get everything from Europe", the next we need a huge standaing Army "just in case". Your argument seems to be as confused as you policies towards the EU!

Our standing army has been in constant use and if anything could achieve more if it was larger. We are abroad as the UN and Nato sent us there and we are members of them.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Not being funny but seperation is part of the Service life. If you don't like it leave - it is exactly what I did - despite having a job that I had desired to do since being about 5 years old.

And the result? A loss of experienced personnel many of whom may even leave and then join private security firms where they can come and go much easier. As above those coming in are young inexperienced privates who are happy to be deployed. Those who you will lose are experienced blokes with families who will start putting their family first. High turnover of people isn’t a good thing. Not being funny but your ideas are obviously based on your lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Personally though I would start with the 20,000 troops on the Rhine!

What are you on about? Those on the Rhine are posted there. From there they do tours. I was based at Osnabruck when I went to fight in the first Gulf War. I was at Nienburg when I went to Bosnia. They aren’t permanently there, they do tours from there.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

There is no reason why such 'tours' could not be extended to 12-18 months and made 'proper' postings whereby families can economically be relocated to SFA. Indeed this nicely synchronises with the 'two year double deployment cycle' I quoted above.

And which you yourself wouldn’t do. Still people have a wonderful spirit of adventure and being away from your wife and kids for 12-18 months is fine if you have a pension. Who cares if you miss your babies first steps. You can buy them a teddy with your wonderful pay. That’s assuming you don’t come home to find your wife has left you. The Americans have done 12 month tours. They have record amounts of PTSD. You suggested it before and it was just as stupid then. Not being funny but if you think it’s a good idea perhaps we could get you in the infantry and doing this. I’m sure we could sort out pay and a pension for you. Still always easy to have all the answers when you don't have to do it.

I notice it's always the way that those who want to see a return to national service are those too old to do it as well.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

His point was right - and indeed mentioned to you that it was a UN and NATO mission.

Or it could be taken that he thought that the UN and Nato were only employed on self defence and this was not the case. He also didn’t say this was a UN/Nato mission. It looks a bit of a generic statement to me. Either way this is a UN/NATO mission and we are members of the UN and Nato hence I think we should honour the commitment and see it through to the end until the UN/Nato believes the mission to be concluded. You don’t.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

It depends on the tour. I’d love a year in Cyprus with no R&R. When was the last time anyone died there? Afghanistan in comparison? It's not the time away. It's the fact it's a combat zone and the most intense I've ever been in. Yes there's two weeks R&R. Two days are lost travelling. During the time before I was away a lot on training. I went out on advance party as well. Perhaps you should tell my wife how manageable it is. I might bring it up at the divorce and tell her she shouldn't have been so stupid. After all a guy on the net was away for a year.

FYI the days lost travelling has been corrected now - but it's a little moot anyway - the aim is for two weeks away from the combat zone rather than at home (hence the title R&R rather than leave). And I am glad you agree with my observations - I fully concurr it is wise to keep R&R for Afghanistan and combat operations but should be binned for non-operational tours such as the Falklands.

RAF and RN aren’t in such a front line role. The RM are special forces

The Royal Marines are not special forces - it takes a certain character and personality to be a RM, but they are marines. Only the SBS element based in Poole are special forces. As to the RAF and RN not being in a frontline role I think this overlooks so many issues. Firstly the Royal Marines (Navy) and the RAF Regiment (RAF) are both in a frontline role. Secondly both RAF and RN are providing the UK's helicopter lift in the form of Chinook, Merline and Sea King lift - all of which are frequently finding themselves as the prime target for insurgents. Thirdly C-IED, medical teams and prisoner handling are all being done by all three Services - all of which can be equally frontline.

A few things. This isn’t fixing a helicopter on an airstrip which is no different in Afghanistan to the UK. It’s operating in a front line environment with people trying to kill you. Make a mistake and you or others are likely to die. Hence there’s a high priority to pre-deployment training.

Of course - but I say again the RAF and RN turn around people much faster including for Service in Afghanistan. All three Services have personnel turnover, all have to teach their guys how to use new kit etc etc. Yet none of this justifies why a returning trooper stepping off the Tri-Star at Brize Norton suddenly becomes the lowest possible readiness upon his return from Theatre. It is an utter waste of experience and effort.

Our standing army has been in constant use and if anything could achieve more if it was larger. We are abroad as the UN and Nato sent us there and we are members of them.

The same can be said for just about everything in the Armed Forces though. Nimrod was in constant use without 90% of it being laid up consuming money and was doing something worthwhile for the country. The Navy's Frigates have been in constant use in the Inidian Ocean. The RAF's Typhoons have been in constant use protecting UK airspace. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in maintaining a standard Army that firstly is only experienced in losing (e.g. Basra and Sangin) and secondly would struggle to deploy now as it would lack supporting Forces. The days of Iraq - where RAF and RN heavily supported the Ground campaign are long gone - so the ability to deploy on that scale has also gone. So why maintain the Land component when such a mission is beyond us? Why maintain expertise that has been less than successful?

And the result? A loss of experienced personnel many of whom may even leave and then join private security firms where they can come and go much easier.

And again this applies to all three Forces. People will always come and go - but overall the pay and benefits package is quite generous in the Forces which retains the personnel needed.

Not being funny but your ideas are obviously based on your lack of knowledge.

Sonic - i have bene in the Forces, seen the retention issues, worked in MOD, seen how they are dealt with and thus claiming a lack of knowledge on my part is very niave.

What are you on about? Those on the Rhine are posted there. From there they do tours. I was based at Osnabruck when I went to fight in the first Gulf War. I was at Nienburg when I went to Bosnia. They aren’t permanently there, they do tours from there.

I am well aware of that - but their families stay there pumping the UK taxpayer income into the German economy getting (up until very recently) huge sums in LOA as 'compensation' for living in Germany. I fail to see how every private having a BMW was in the national interest of the UK.

And which you yourself wouldn’t do. Still people have a wonderful spirit of adventure and being away from your wife and kids for 12-18 months is fine if you have a pension. Who cares if you miss your babies first steps. You can buy them a teddy with your wonderful pay. That’s assuming you don’t come home to find your wife has left you.

I did do it myself - I just knew when to stop. And it is hard on the wife when you turn round and say I love my job and staying - but that's life. My wife accepted it, so do others.

The Americans have done 12 month tours. They have record amounts of PTSD.

There are, of course, record numbers of Americans in Theatre. One might also add they have in Iraq and now Afghanistan had to come in and clear up the mess we have made of things (e.g. Basra and Sangin). Witha success focused strategy it is perhaps not surprising that they take the casualties (physical and mental) as a result. Still I do agree that keeping over 10,000 troops in the British Army that will never need to return to Afghanistan is a sure fire way to stop them getting PTSD - but it is also a waste of money!

Either way this is a UN/NATO mission and we are members of the UN and Nato hence I think we should honour the commitment and see it through to the end until the UN/Nato believes the mission to be concluded. You don’t.

We4ll we are honouring the commitment - but there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we need to leave as soon as possible.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

FYI the days lost travelling has been corrected now - but it's a little moot anyway - the aim is for two weeks away from the combat zone rather than at home (hence the title R&R rather than leave).

You get the travelling days at the end of the tour now as part of POTL. At the time you still lose the days travelling.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Firstly the Royal Marines (Navy) and the RAF Regiment (RAF) are both in a frontline role. Secondly both RAF and RN are providing the UK's helicopter lift in the form of Chinook, Merline and Sea King lift - all of which are frequently finding themselves as the prime target for insurgents. Thirdly C-IED, medical teams and prisoner handling are all being done by all three Services - all of which can be equally frontline.

I said ‘RAF and RN aren’t in such a front line role.’ You then got three things wrong. 1. You then picked out a few specific units. I was talking in general terms. Did you miss that? Previously you disputed me referring to the other services them as doing a pseudo infantry role now you are trying to emphasise they all are by then picking out some of them. Which is it? 2. In comparison to the Infantry they aren’t in the frontline. The RAF Regiment for instance are patrolling around Bastion which you have previously said is comparatively safe due to Leatherneck. Those on helicopters are flying into areas are either made comparatively safe by ground units already who have chosen the LZ and approach or if they are not safe enough have been shot up the area is shot up by an escorting Apache first. 3. I referred to people fixing helicopters.

Did you bother reading it or chose to not understand the difference?

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Of course - but I say again the RAF and RN turn around people much faster including for Service in Afghanistan.

And given their work is comparatively safer I’m not surprised. If you want a comparison it has to be like for like. When they have similar casualties figures or do the same job then perhaps you might have a point.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

All three Services have personnel turnover, all have to teach their guys how to use new kit etc etc. Yet none of this justifies why a returning trooper stepping off the Tri-Star at Brize Norton suddenly becomes the lowest possible readiness upon his return from Theatre. It is an utter waste of experience and effort.

Spoken like someone who hasn’t been there, or done it. Easy to have all the answers when you don’t have to do it.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

The same can be said for just about everything in the Armed Forces though. Nimrod was in constant use without 90% of it being laid up consuming money and was doing something worthwhile for the country. The Navy's Frigates have been in constant use in the Inidian Ocean. The RAF's Typhoons have been in constant use protecting UK airspace.

What are the casualty figures?

Actually I’ll ask that again. What are the casualty figures?

As for those flying Typhoons and Nimrods I imagine they are home every night as well or at least on a regular basis. Those on the Frigates probably get a few beers as well when they are off duty. Could you at least try and get it?

Originally Posted by Rasczak

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in maintaining a standard Army that firstly is only experienced in losing (e.g. Basra and Sangin)

Sorry to point this out for you again: Well thanks to the MPs we were pulled out of Basra to save money, see your own link. and Sangin you were told before how you’d got that wrong. We quit as most of our force was in Central Helmand and Sangin was a separate area. Shame you don’t get involved in logistics. This seems to be a common idea with you though. Perhaps you should listen more to those who know and take some of it on board.

Someone else for you.

British Army - When Can We Expect Value For Money?

Originally Posted by Prasius

The Army did NOT fail in Basrah or Sangin. Or time in Basrah came to an end because Politicians wanted the UK military effort in Iraq to end. Or time in Sangin finished because there has been a massive change in force dispositions in Southern Afghanistan. Sangin was effectively a British enclave in an area otherwise controlled by the US Marines. It made no military sense. The suggestion actually really angers me as someone who has been in and around most of the district centres at various times over the last four years; there has been huge improvement in those areas since 2006. It is far too easy for the UK public to see the news of "another soldier killed in Sangin" and see that as a sign of failure, when the improvements in the DC's and the evident loss of Taliban influence in areas is hardly ever mentioned.

Maybe you might listen to those who've done it but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

and secondly would struggle to deploy now as it would lack supporting Forces.

Given that for the last few decades we have tended to deploy as part of a coalition so what? Most of the air support in Afghan for the UK is US.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

And again this applies to all three Forces. People will always come and go - but overall the pay and benefits package is quite generous in the Forces which retains the personnel needed.

Because it doesn’t. If I was sat in a Nimrod all day I'd be happy doing that for life. The reason why there had to be promises to not do tours to often was because so many were leaving to join private security firms that were offering better pay and conditions. As the Government wanted to prevent this they had to improve things themselves. The situation you’d have had would be the Government trains up soldiers who then leave to make money from others. Any more bright ideas? If it comes to it I saw it happen myself after Iraq, where someone I knew left. It was also something I discussed with my Mrs at the time.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Sonic - i have bene in the Forces, seen the retention issues, worked in MOD, seen how they are dealt with and thus claiming a lack of knowledge on my part is very niave.

You weren’t in the army, or in the front line of Afghanistan recently, or done any tour recently, have no idea about Basra or Sangin, or retention, or also thought the TA could stand in out of a wonderful sense of adventure and don’t realise the effect of longer tours in the present situation. I’d say massively naive.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I am well aware of that - but their families stay there pumping the UK taxpayer income into the German economy getting (up until very recently) huge sums in LOA as 'compensation' for living in Germany. I fail to see how every private having a BMW was in the national interest of the UK.

Perhaps you should lobby to bring them all back to the UK then.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I did do it myself - I just knew when to stop. And it is hard on the wife when you turn round and say I love my job and staying - but that's life. My wife accepted it, so do others.

Yes you also had an easier time. I’m sure that leaving right now would be a good idea. The country is booming right now. Sorry but some of this is too silly for words. You have come up with a bizarre plan that would have a disastrous effect on everything from troops mental health, retention, divorce rates, and casualties just because you want to save money. The press would have a field day with it long before it got anywhere near policy.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

There are, of course, record numbers of Americans in Theatre.

Which means we should have more not less. Seems like you’re arguing against yourself now.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

One might also add they have in Iraq and now Afghanistan had to come in and clear up the mess we have made of things (e.g. Basra and Sangin).

And your lack of knowledge again. Do you get it all from the Telegraph or what? This seems to be another one of the chips on your shoulder like the army, Liberals or Nimrods going.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Witha success focused strategy it is perhaps not surprising that they take the casualties (physical and mental) as a result.

As already covered for you, shame you can’t take it on board.

Originally Posted by Prasius

12 month tours are a stupid idea (aimed at the US, not at you for using them as an example - I understand pointing at them and saying "they do it?"). As sonic has said, PTSD is far higher in the US forces than ours (which I think is partially due to tour lengths), and it would do huge damage to retention. I personally believe shorter, more regular deployments are far better for the individual, in health and social terms, and in terms of operational effectiveness. Working at tempo UK forces do on ops would result in burn-out by the 7th or 8th month, which means you would need to have more people in theatre to lower the requirements on the individual (most UK troops have far wider range of responsibilities than their US counterparts) which makes the whole point of longer tour lengths pointless.

Out of interest how are you an expert. You haven’t done an Afghan tour, aren’t involved in retention do you work in mental health or anything? You seem like just another armchair general. Being in a different branch of the forces years ago or working as a civil servant doesn’t qualify. If anything it seems to be clouding your judgement. You seem to be relating your experience from years ago onto something you don't know about now.

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I think JamesL is in the Navy and he didn’t know Afghanistan is UN/Nato lead. If he doesn’t know do others or do they see it as ‘another US/UK invasion of a country similar to Iraq.’

I take the strongest exception to the above remarks. I could well comment that the response you gave perhaps illuminates your own lack of reading on the topic discussed; you seemed to think that others thought the Afghan war illegal like the Iraq one is popularily held to be. yet nobody I can see has claimed this and i even stated in my one line response that it was a NATO/UN mission. I can't help but feel you aren't aware under what articles and central concept both use.

I afraid i don't have the time of either Sonic or Raszcak to engage significant in this debate; but i would like to point to some examples. A close friend flying a Sea King in Afghanistan was leaving a FOB when attacked by an RPG. It entered his helo one side and exited the other; he was very lucky it didn't explode becuase his aircraft would have been destroyed. Hardly comparatively safe as descibed by Sonic.
Off the top of my head i could come up with maybe a few dozen other examples; but i don't think there would be much point. You obviously have much more time than me so will just shout me down or misrepresent my posts; perhaps that is the best indication of whether there is spare capacity in the Army???

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by JamesL

I take the strongest exception to the above remarks. I could well comment that the response you gave perhaps illuminates your own lack of reading on the topic discussed; you seemed to think that others thought the Afghan war illegal like the Iraq one is popularily held to be.

I’ve had numerous people outside of the forums describe Afghan as being ‘an invasion’ or lump it in with Iraq as being more of the same. A few have done it on this forum though not in this thread. All the same it is a UN/Nato commitment whether Rasczak likes it or not.

Originally Posted by JamesL

A close friend flying a Sea King in Afghanistan was leaving a FOB when attacked by an RPG. It entered his helo one side and exited the other; he was very lucky it didn't explode becuase his aircraft would have been destroyed. Hardly comparatively safe as descibed by Sonic.

In the last few years I’ve known three people I know die, plus two shot, one seriously. In comparison a near miss is still safer. I had a fair bit of excitement myself.

Originally Posted by JamesL

Off the top of my head i could come up with maybe a few dozen other examples; but i don't think there would be much point.

So could I.

Originally Posted by JamesL

You obviously have much more time than me so will just shout me down or misrepresent my posts; perhaps that is the best indication of whether there is spare capacity in the Army???

I don’t sleep well.

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I’ve had numerous people outside of the forums describe Afghan as being ‘an invasion’ or lump it in with Iraq as being more of the same. A few have done it on this forum though not in this thread. All the same it is a UN/Nato commitment whether Rasczak likes it or not.

In the last few years I’ve known three people I know die, plus two shot, one seriously. In comparison a near miss is still safer. I had a fair bit of excitement myself.

So could I.
I don’t sleep well.

From what i can see it is just you who keeps on insisting that Afghan is a UN/NATO commitment to an audience who 100% entirely agrees. we know that; but does it make it worthwhile? Neither do your comments almost gloating in the death and injury you have seen do justice to those you serve with. I would suggest that most in the forces have seen such incidents from time to time; i certainly have but it would discredit those who were injured to trade such tales to please an internet forum. On a deadly serious note, if you are having trouble sleeping you should see your Troop Commander/Divisional officer and discuss things through with him/her.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

You get the travelling days at the end of the tour now as part of POTL. At the time you still lose the days travelling.

But it is all time away from the Front line even if you are stuck in Muscat, Cyprus (etc) on your way home.You can equally 'dip in' on your way back into Theatre. One guy I knew took a week to get back after departing Brize!

I said ‘RAF and RN aren’t in such a front line role.’ You then got three things wrong. 1. You then picked out a few specific units. I was talking in general terms. Did you miss that?

In 'general terms' the huge number of Army support personnel who spend their entire time in BASTION aren't "in such a front line role". Bottomline is you have RAF, RN and Army personnel all on the Frontline.

Previously you disputed me referring to the other services them as doing a pseudo infantry role now you are trying to emphasise they all are by then picking out some of them.

You are still missing the difference aren't you? Infantry isn't the only frontline unit. The helicopters frequently running a guantlet of fire, the CSLR units getting the supplies through, the tactical air diving through fire to land, the medics extracting the injured when it all goes wrong as it so often does.

Spoken like someone who hasn’t been there, or done it. Easy to have all the answers when you don’t have to do it.

I don't knbow how many times I have to say I have been there - I have been there.

What are the casualty figures?

Actually I’ll ask that again. What are the casualty figures?

Wars are not won by those who die for their country.

Sorry to point this out for you again: Well thanks to the MPs we were pulled out of Basra to save money, see your own link.

I don't dispute it Sonic - but a political defeat is still a defeat. The Army was unable to achieve what was needed in the allocated time - it was defeated.

[Alan CD]

Speaking as an outsider: a political defeat is not the same as a military defeat. Also, a political success is not the same as a military defeat. Even though the military act under the whim of the government of the day, the two are separable.

An example is the Suez crisis in 1956, the military were totally successful in attaining their objectives but the whole thing became a huge political defeat.

Another example is the evacuation of the defeated army at Dunkirk during WW2. That was a huge military defeat and a political success.

The military withdrawal at Basra was not a military defeat in the true sense. Control was handed back to the Iraqis which had to take place soon or later. The British troops were foreigners occupying another country's province and the longer they stayed the worse the political and diplomatic effect became internationally.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Speaking as an outsider: a political defeat is not the same as a military defeat. Also, a political success is not the same as a military defeat. Even though the military act under the whim of the government of the day, the two are separable.

The military situation in Iraq - namely the casualties and calls for more and more equipment - defined and influenced the politcal will to stay there. The military defeat was failing to defeat the insurgency in a time frame where this political still existed. Difficult to judge but something that has destinguished effective Commanders during warfare in the 20th Century. It may have been impossible given the resources and alloted time - but bad decisions were undoubtably made. Not least instead of an orderly transition to the US, we attempted to 'pay off' the local insurgency groups whilst we withdrew ackowledging the military failure in the area. Therefore, at least in my view, you can't seperate the two in this instance.

The military withdrawal at Basra was not a military defeat in the true sense. Control was handed back to the Iraqis which had to take place soon or later. The British troops were foreigners occupying another country's province and the longer they stayed the worse the political and diplomatic effect became internationally.

I don't think this is true. When we left, the US filled the void and continued what we had started. We lost alot of international credibility and most involved agree that this wasn't our finest hour. When they finally withdrew they had acheived what we had failed to do.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by JamesL

From what i can see it is just you who keeps on insisting that Afghan is a UN/NATO commitment to an audience who 100% entirely agrees. we know that; but does it make it worthwhile?

Other nations do. If we pulled out it would have a huge knock on effect on others in the coalition, our standing worldwide and UN/Nato credibility. This isn’t just about ‘we have had a few casualties so lets go home.’

Originally Posted by JamesL

Neither do your comments almost gloating in the death and injury you have seen do justice to those you serve with.

No gloating at all. I was making a point. See below.

Originally Posted by JamesL

I would suggest that most in the forces have seen such incidents from time to time; i certainly have but it would discredit those who were injured to trade such tales to please an internet forum.

I’d say everyone who does a six month tour will at some point in that tour have at least one incident happen to them or to a friend of a friend. If we are comparing who has a dangerous job to who is comparative safety then it becomes relevant as to how many incidents we were talking about. Someone in the infantry and on the ground in Helmand has a more dangerous task than someone who is just in theatre and knows something happen to a friend in a six month tour.

Hence why it was brought up. If we are comparing someone who is fixing helicopters in a hanger in Bastion to someone who is under fire every day in a fob then there is a big issue as to how often tours come round. So you can’t use a one size fits all approach and say well the RAF do it so the army should. It’s probably the case that if all you do is sit in Bastion doing pay it doesn’t matter how often tours come round. If you are in a role that is considered dangerous it does.

Originally Posted by JamesL

On a deadly serious note, if you are having trouble sleeping you should see your Troop Commander/Divisional officer and discuss things through with him/her.

Could be related to a lot of things. Separation being one.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

The military situation in Iraq - namely the casualties and calls for more and more equipment - defined and influenced the politcal will to stay there. The military defeat was failing to defeat the insurgency in a time frame where this political still existed.

In Iraq at least early on the British Army had poor equipment. Vehicles like Snatch Land Rovers and the British were called by the Americans ‘the borrowers’. The situation steadily changed over time but you can’t compare like with like from back then.

Aside from that with anything there needs to be the political will. The British Army didn’t surrender. I don’t think anyone who was there wanted to leave. However, if your MPs are either not giving you the kit in the first place, lacking support and are trying to do the job on the cheap, or then pulling you out then you have no choice but to do it.

Give us the tools and we’ll do the work.

Sangin was on its own and so more expensive and harder to supply and administer compared with the rest of the UK forces. Cost cutting from above again.

Also bear in mind things like ROE also come from above. In the past our ROE was more restrictive than that of the US (changed now). Again out of the control of those on the ground. Not following your ROE is something that will get you in prison.

[damo_in_sale]

Firstly, tremendous respect goes out to Sonic. A hero in my opinion.

Regarding the carriers and the harriers being decommissioned, which I know has been much discussed recently:

Both, in my opinion, are a liability in any medium to high intensity warfare scenario. The harriers are incapable of defending their carrier platforms from airborne attack by anything other than a half arsed adversary. I suspect that the airborne fleet defence is, relative to our likely adversaries, much poorer than it was in the early eighties.

My understanding is that the previous Labour government decommissioned the Sea Harriers which had a modest air to air capability, at best, and replaced this capability with RAF Harriers whose primary role was ground attack and which have an even poorer air superiority capability (no proper air to air radar, no downward looking radar etc. for example). Regardless, the Harrier at it's best is a very poor air superiority platform by modern standards, and it's success against the Argentines in 1982 can largely be attributed to our tremendously skilled pilots and the use of the then new Sidewinder missile provided quietly by the Americans.

A reasonably modern air force would wipe floor with our recently decommissioned carrier capability and would cost the lives of many hundreds of our armed forces lads and lasses in anything approaching a Falklands like operation.

Without air superiority, a carrier is a sitting duck and a liability.

It is with this in mind that I believe the coalition government have made their decision. And I believe that it is a sensible one, given the poor starting position the previous government left them with.

However, I am more than open to the points of view of others, and I do not lay claim to any expertise on this subject, and it is tremendously refreshing to read the views of our armed forces heroes.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

Regarding the carriers and the harriers being decommissioned, which I know has been much discussed recently:

Both, in my opinion, are a liability in any medium to high intensity warfare scenario. The harriers are incapable of defending their carrier platforms from airborne attack by anything other than a half arsed adversary. I suspect that the airborne fleet defence is, relative to our likely adversaries, much poorer than it was in the early eighties.

My understanding is that the previous Labour government decommissioned the Sea Harriers which had a modest air to air capability, at best, and replaced this capability with RAF Harriers whose primary role was ground attack and which have an even poorer air superiority capability (no proper air to air radar, no downward looking radar etc. for example). Regardless, the Harrier at it's best is a very poor air superiority platform by modern standards, and it's success against the Argentines in 1982 can largely be attributed to our tremendously skilled pilots and the use of the then new Sidewinder missile provided quietly by the Americans.

A reasonably modern air force would wipe floor with our recently decommissioned carrier capability and would cost the lives of many hundreds of our armed forces lads and lasses in anything approaching a Falklands like operation.

Without air superiority, a carrier is a sitting duck and a liability.

It is with this in mind that I believe the coalition government have made their decision. And I believe that it is a sensible one, given the poor starting position the previous government left them with.

However, I am more than open to the points of view of others, and I do not lay claim to any expertise on this subject, and it is tremendously refreshing to read the views of our armed forces heroes.

You are absolutely right that the Harrier was/is fairly limited in an air superiority role - it could deliver anti-air missile ordance and do some pretty nifty moves - but ultimately was no match for any modern fighter. This led to the fairly rational decision to decommission Sea Harrier - the 'fighter' - and focus solely on the Ground Attack element.

It is in the Ground Attack capability that Harrier remains incredibly capable. By contrast Typhoon is still finding it's feet (it cannot yet operate in dusty environments) and Tornado, although much hyped in it's Ground Attack role, is built around delivering ordance on target at high speeds. Even with precision guided weaponry you would be surprised how accurate the pilots have to be. And this is why you get absurd situations like requiring 10 Tornado sorties to deny 1 static target.

With regards operating in any "medium to high intensity warfare scenario" - this is simply beyond the capabilities of our forces full stop at present - the argument being we would get years worth of notice before being required to do so. Indeed the only UK platforms that could perform in such an environment would be the SSNs (Attack Submarines)/SSBNs (Trident), Typhoon (if the climate was right) and Type 45 Destroyers. And, standfast the potent SSBNs, we do not have the quantities of any of those to make a significant contribution. I don't think this should stop us focusing on low intensity warfare though - which is where we are likely to be in most conflicts in the near future.

With this in mind the Invincible Class carrier capability so recently withdrawn is a significant loss. Not so much for the core capability (i.e. deploying Ground Attack aircraft), but for the loss of flexibility. Previously we had the ability to operate a balanced force on a low intensity scale worldwide, now we can only operate a balanced force on a low intensity scale in a tiny fraction of locations. We can, of course, contribute worldwide with Tomahawk with the SSNs.

Looking to the future the new Queen Elizabeth Carriers can, for example, deploy more airpower (fixed and helo) than we (the UK) currently deploy from BASTION and Kandahar airfields combined. This will restore our worldwide capability on a very credible scale assuming we can overcome the formiddable technical and professional challenges to re-learn how to operate them. The knowledge and the experience currently exercised on the Invincible Class will have long since been made redundant.

Just a final point on "air superiority" though - we didn't actually achieve this in the Falklands and, as you observe, we lost hundreds of people as a result. But I think most would argue the end result was worth the terrible cost. Perhaps the political will no longer exists to do such a feat - but, until Iraq/Afghanistan, having inadequate/unsuitable kit was never show-stopper for British Forces from getting the job done.

It is with this in mind that I believe the coalition government have made their decision. And I believe that it is a sensible one, given the poor starting position the previous government left them with.

I don't think there is any dispute that money needed to be saved - and with the Afghan war dominating British military operations the cuts had to come from the units not involved in that war. But what was annoying was the lack of thought given to it. For example we have kept Tornado and HMS OCEAN. This combined cost alot more than keeping Harrier and HMS ILLUSTRIOUS. And yet the latter would have provided full flexibility to deploy both helicopters and fixed wing attack aircraft worldwide and have retained the expertise for the future Queen Elizabeth class. Harrier could have easily resumed Afghan taskings accepting that the airframes would become very heavily worn. I think it has here the coalition government fell down - they tried to give everyone what they wanted and the RAF wanted to keep the (RAF exclusive) Tornado.

The key question to ask is 'what have we gained by doing it the way we have done?'. The answer was a few extra Tornados - however, because the cuts didn't save enough money, these extra planes are now falling foul of Planning Round 11 (PR11). So bottomline is the strategy has spent more money and got less capability as a result. An ode to British Defence spending if ever there was one!

Finally, on an aside, a couple of new pieces of military related news over the last week or so that some may be interested in:
- Trident Steel Ordered
- Army to lose 20,000 troops
- Fox to crack down on procurement overspends (good luck!)
- Quarter of trainee pilots to be sacked

[Sonic67]

Perhaps this is where the real waste is:

MoD pays civil servant £250,000 a year while frontline troops suffer - mirror.co.uk

Fox: MoD cuts will hit civil servants, not troops - Herald Scotland | News | Politics

Thankfully some real savings could be made with a cull of this bloated service.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Perhaps this is where the real waste is:

MoD pays civil servant £250,000 a year while frontline troops suffer - mirror.co.uk

Fox: MoD cuts will hit civil servants, not troops - Herald Scotland | News | Politics

Thankfully some real savings could be made with a cull of this bloated service.

I fully agree the huge numbers of MOD Civil Servants needs review - which I think is being addressed by the 25,000 cuts in their numbers. But it's a difficult one - if we want to maintain our same capabilities, Civil Servants offer a significantly cheaper option than uniformed personnel to fill the support arms, e.g. finance, elements of administration, cleaning, infrastructure management etc etc. Given our 'teeth to tail' ratio there is no reason why they can't be used to ensure our money goes as far as possible. I would also suggest that MOD Civil Servants are fairly critical to all UK operations - in Afghanistan for example they operate from all MOBs - albeit the money they get for such deployments is absurd (to compensate for no X factor in their normal pay).

I think as we see the size of the Forces change, so to will the Civil Service numbers - and that is entirely right and proper. But I think, simply on cost grounds, the MOD Civil Service will increasingly be an integral part of the UK military.

[phil t]

What always used to amaze me was the price the MoD paid for spares. As a previous PLR and CSL holder, I was aware of the cost of spare parts. Things like spare parts for COTS (commercial of the shelf) printers were far more than you could buy from other sources. It seemed that what ever price an item was, a supplier would add a zero to its price. The MoD seemed happy to pay for these items.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Snip

Two troops for every civil servant in MoD - Telegraph

With two troops to every civil servant you'd think they do a wonderful job. The fact they still manage to screw up pay means hopefully they will be a big cull to bring us in line with other nations and then the money could go to the frontline.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

With two troops to every civil servant you'd think they do a wonderful job. The fact they still manage to screw up pay means hopefully they will be a big cull to bring us in line with other nations and then the money could go to the frontline.

Pay is always an immotive subject - but note if there was a "big cull" then who would do your pay? All three Services still have uniformed admin branches but nowhere near sufficient to man the JPAC. Would you wish to reduce Infantry numbers to increase Administrators? Because that is what you are proposing.

Also note that the backdesks at Kentigern increasingly have a uniformed support now.

[Sonic67]

What I am proposing is we bring numbers into line with other nations. If other nations can do it then so can we. If we have one civvy looking after every two troops then something is badly wrong especially if the service is poor as well. So it's a bloated service that needs cutting. If front line troops have to go then there's room to cull far more civil servants.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

What I am proposing is we bring numbers into line with other nations. If other nations can do it then so can we.

I think here we have to be very careful to define 'Frontline troops'. Broadly speaking, once you take into account full capitation rates, a MOD Civil Servant costs the UK a little over half what a uniformed person of equivalent rank/rate does. The latter, of course, can be defined as frontline under the 'Soldier First' (or equivalent concepts for the other Services) but actually are likely to spend the bulk of their career as rear-echlon staff. And if they are predominantly rear-echlon, why not civlianise the post to ensure savings and thus prevent further cutbacks to the frontline?

You refer to other countries 'doing it'. Well, I don't think that is very realistic given the shape and size of our Forces. The US for example maintains alot of positions in uniform that we have civilianised because they have the manpower to spare and their Defence budget acknowledges that the Forces double as a form of Social Security (i.e. free medical care for life). If we tried to parrot their organisation with the numbers of personnel we have, we would either need to increase defence spending or accept capability cuts. The former is unrealistic, the latter is already happening on an unprecedented scale.

[Sonic67]

Not sure why you are comparing with the US, If you read the link, France which is a country of a similar size and defence budget to ours has....

While Britain has just two active troops for every civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, France has almost five, Spain has almost eight and several smaller countries have many more. The MoD employs 85,730 civil servants.

... five soldiers for each civil servant. We have two soldiers for each. Therefore a cull of 50% say, should be possible.

So when can we expect value for money from the MODs civil servants?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Not sure why you are comparing with the US, If you read the link, France which is a country of a similar size and defence budget to ours has....

But they don't deploy on the same scale as us do they? Yes France is a global power that deploys worldwide but they do so on a smaller scale than our intervention operations. For example France has less than 4000 troops in Afghanistan set against our 9000 (a figure that excludes Civil Service numbers in Afghanistan). Again - would you prefer our teeth to tail ratio was reduced in favour of more uniformed administrative personnel?

So when can we expect value for money from the MODs civil servants?

Oh I see, you are saying this trying to wind me up. In which case let me arm you with this piece of info: my current post is a temporary five year one to assist with the Planning Rounds and preps for the future. I have my own companies to look after so a longer holiday in Government Service simply isn't viable. I thought I'd made this all clear earlier in the thread?