I've recently been considering joining the Reserves within one of the branches of the military. However, with all the turbulence within the military at the moment - in particular the massive cuts and the proposed changes to the way that Reserves are utilised - I am unsure how I feel. It's not that being mobilised would be a problem - in fact, I think that is part of the appeal for me (especially since the role I would be looking at is not front-line warfare, many of which are not open to women anyway, e.g. Marines, RAF Regiment etc.)
My concern is around the suggestion that Reserves may be used as distinct units, rather than (as is current practice) integrating Reserves into existing units of full-time military staff. The benefits of the current system are that Reserves will look at situations differently and bring variety and support to operations. But, since Reserves only commit to 2 weeks full time training per year plus a few weekends and regular fitness training, they are not expected to operate in isolation, but instead they work alongside experienced and skilled military staff.
I'm not convinced that the proposals for reforming the military are in the best interests of the Nation... I'd be interested in other people's thoughts
(p.s. sorry to those who made comments on the 1000th thread if this is not controversial enough!!)
Lilith xx
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Military reserves
Sex God
Quote by Inanna
I've recently been considering joining the Reserves within one of the branches of the military. However, with all the turbulence within the military at the moment - in particular the massive cuts and the proposed changes to the way that Reserves are utilised - I am unsure how I feel. It's not that being mobilised would be a problem - in fact, I think that is part of the appeal for me (especially since the role I would be looking at is not front-line warfare, many of which are not open to women anyway, e.g. Marines, RAF Regiment etc.)
My concern is around the suggestion that Reserves may be used as distinct units, rather than (as is current practice) integrating Reserves into existing units of full-time military staff. The benefits of the current system are that Reserves will look at situations differently and bring variety and support to operations. But, since Reserves only commit to 2 weeks full time training per year plus a few weekends and regular fitness training, they are not expected to operate in isolation, but instead they work alongside experienced and skilled military staff.
I'm not convinced that the proposals for reforming the military are in the best interests of the Nation... I'd be interested in other people's thoughts
(p.s. sorry to those who made comments on the 1000th thread if this is not controversial enough!!)
LB1
sorry for the highlighted part
as the world of ours grows war seems ever less likely or another world war anyway, so I'm not sure what you mean by not it the nations interest??
Orgasminator
Quote by Lizaleanrob
I'm not convinced that the proposals for reforming the military are in the best interests of the Nation... I'd be interested in other people's thoughts
LB1
sorry for the highlihted part
as the world of ours grows war seems ever less likely or another world war anyway, so im not sure what you mean by not it the nations interest??
Cuts cuts & more cuts to the regular forces!!!
And on the other hand the minister is saying we might have to rely on..
Other Countrys!!!!
Utilize reservists more..
And "Private Contractors" does that mean "Mercenaries"?
Sex God
Quote by sword-stileto
I'm not convinced that the proposals for reforming the military are in the best interests of the Nation... I'd be interested in other people's thoughts
LB1
sorry for the highlihted part
as the world of ours grows war seems ever less likely or another world war anyway, so im not sure what you mean by not it the nations interest??
Cuts cuts & more cuts to the regular forces!!!
And on the other hand the minister is saying we might have to rely on..
Other Countrys!!!!
Utilize reservists more..
And "Private Contractors" does that mean "Mercenaries"?
but for what exactly the threat of what or who ?
Orgasminator
Quote by Lizaleanrob
He did'nt say!!!
But then they never do.....
Sex God
Quote by sword-stileto
He did'nt say!!!
But then they never do.....
that,s the point im making
why do we need a large regular armed force when we have no threat
is it not best to train and use reserves
Quote by Lizaleanrob
why do we need a large regular armed force when we have no threat
is it not best to train and use reserves
I agree that the world is changing and the nature of war changes with it. However, I think it is naive to suggest that there are no threats to us. We are lucky that we're kept sheltered from it all, but I imagine there are constant threats to be dealt with - we're not talking world war level, but what about terrorism?
Also, the role of the armed forces is very broad - it is not all about warfare. We have a role to play in humanitarian work, and it is important that our Navy retains strategic positions. Don't forget also that, since other nations have them, we need nuclear submarines and people to keep those operational. And even though we may feel safe now, you never know what is on the horizon.
I'm not suggesting that we should make the forces bigger - but if there is a need for military personnel, why not keep more full time staff, rather than start mobilising reserves into their own units? Reserves have an important role to play, but there is no sustitute for a fully trained, full time member of the military.
Lilith xx
Quote by Lizaleanrob
but for what exactly the threat of what or who ?
rob whilst i do not know enough about the military and the training of them, what i do know that we are stretched at the moment.
we are currently fighting a "war" in Afghanistan, and we also have troops in northern ireland. if and of course it is a big if argentina invaded the falklands again, have we enough man power to take on argentina again as well
let us be fair also that the armed forces have shrunk in numbers and i for one would want enough trained soldiers to protect us from another,,,,, Iraq,,,afghanistan,,,,falklands war. remember we currently also have problems with iran. what would happen if as many believe Israel attack iran? what happens if then other muslim countries turn against Israel? what happens if the west intervene? what the happpens if china gets involved?
things rob that could very easily happen from where i am sitting. Syria could easily have been another libya had there of been oil there. the world is a smaller place rob, but the dangers are still there for the UK. to dwindle our armed forces down to a bare minimum could have massive consequences for us as a nation ,maybe not now but possibly in the future.
there are many supressed countries out there and many countries do not like the west or the UK. if the falklands were to be invaded tomorrow by the argentinian forces, have we the man power to get them back, with our current forces in the middle east??
Sex God
Quote by Inanna
why do we need a large regular armed force when we have no threat
is it not best to train and use reserves
I agree that the world is changing and the nature of war changes with it. However, I think it is naive to suggest that there are no threats to us. We are lucky that we're kept sheltered from it all, but I imagine there are constant threats to be dealt with - we're not talking world war level, but what about terrorism?
Also, the role of the armed forces is very broad - it is not all about warfare. We have a role to play in humanitarian work, and it is important that our Navy retains strategic positions. Don't forget also that, since other nations have them, we need nuclear submarines and people to keep those operational. And even though we may feel safe now, you never know what is on the horizon.
I'm not suggesting that we should make the forces bigger - but if there is a need for military personnel, why not keep more full time staff, rather than start mobilising reserves into their own units? Reserves have an important role to play, but there is no substitute for a fully trained, full time member of the military.
Is that not what the army is doing cutting its cloth to suit
a certain amount of wastage is being discarded it's like any business really, i also think the days of any real threat is long since passed
we are allies with the whole of Europe and Russia the united states, japan and china India etc do we really need a nuclear sub .....really!!!!
a few mad Muslims floating about but then just as many non Muslims extremist
i must admit i served in the forces something i don't discuss as a rule but i feel the time has come to stop wasting money on what might be and concentrate on now
you are right there are constant threats but most are dealt with at a level far above a fighting soldier these are dealt with by the likes of mi5 or mi6 due to the nature and advancement in technology that we now have
Lizaleanrob - Do you think that a unit of reserves will be able to operate as effectively as a unit where reserves are mixed with full time military? That is my real question. I don't disagree with making cuts and utilising reserves effectively - what I question is whether it is right to change the way reserves are used, so that there are units made up solely of reserves. If we need a smaller military, then make some cuts - but not to the extent that we then need to constantly have full units of reserves mobilised... Surely that would suggest that we need more full time military?
Lilith xx
Lilith xx
Sex God
Quote by Inanna
Lizaleanrob - Do you think that a unit of reserves will be able to operate as effectively as a unit where reserves are mixed with full time military? That is my real question. I don't disagree with making cuts and utilising reserves effectively - what I question is whether it is right to change the way reserves are used, so that there are units made up solely of reserves. If we need a smaller military, then make some cuts - but not to the extent that we then need to constantly have full units of reserves mobilised... Surely that would suggest that we need more full time military?
not quiet sure LB is it a case of casual labour
with a full time army means full time pay lodgings and equipment by using reserves they have a trained eager soldier without the expense
will the reserves do the job of full time soldiers that's a suck it and see question
I'm sure there are enough Sargent's in the army who if the feel strong enough about the problems can make things fail if you get my drift
The TA as I knew it has long gone from being the Regular armies point of scorn, the weekend soldiers are now an integral part of our defence and offence capabilities, no longer are they equipped with the regular armies worn out cast off's.
Someone realised that it was cheaper to have a large, well equipped and reasonably trained army than to have a large well trained but expensive one.
There are centuries of evidence to support this way of having the right abilities at your disposal, the most memorable for most is the start of the 2nd WW when almost all of our regular and fully trained troops where depeleted, worn out or killed then evacuted from Dunkirk, after that most frontline troops were reservists and conscripts with very little military training, for the next 4 years they did a pretty good job for us.
Throughout our history we have had a regular army heavily reinforced by conscripts and volunteers in times of war, there have been times when being the only country with a highly trained regular army has stood us well, Agincourt and those times, Trafalgar with a far better trained Navy, but those times are long since gone.
I believe we need a hardcore regular army of decent size and the best equipment money can buy, but a reasonably trained reserve force is the best back up to that way of working, far better that than sudden conscription and too many raw recruits.
Right now in all active service areas the TA is on the frontline and doing a bloody good job. Whilst every death and casualty is a tragedy the British Army has suffered only 419 casualties in the last 11 years of fighting in Afganistan, compare that with around 256 killed in a couple of months of the Falklands campaign and 57000+ casualties on the first day of the battle of the Somme. That is testament to the abilities of those who have served in Afganistan, thier dedication and effieciency, now I know that Afganistan is not an all out war situation but 11 years, that is a long campaign, during 3 years of "peace keeping" in Bosnia we had around 75 casualties and we weren't even fighting that war in the general terms of conflict.
Hats off to the reservists I say.
But one thing you should remember when considering "taking the Queens Shilling"
The British army has very few "non combatants", the Clergy are about the only soldiers who do not carry arms and who are not trained or expected to use them, every other British soldier is first and foremost a soldier then a tradesman.
The bands of all Regiments are trained medics and often in the frontline, drivers, cooks, and clerks are fully trained soldiers before they learn thier trade, many of the casualties in Afganistan have been drivers on convoy duty or clerks in forward bases. never join the British Army thinking you won't be expected to fight or be on the frontline. Medics (under the Geneva Convention) can carry small arms for self defence and are often called upon to be in the "thick of it" where the meat meets the metal and the Taliban are one of those armies that have not signed the Geneva Convention.
Someone realised that it was cheaper to have a large, well equipped and reasonably trained army than to have a large well trained but expensive one.
There are centuries of evidence to support this way of having the right abilities at your disposal, the most memorable for most is the start of the 2nd WW when almost all of our regular and fully trained troops where depeleted, worn out or killed then evacuted from Dunkirk, after that most frontline troops were reservists and conscripts with very little military training, for the next 4 years they did a pretty good job for us.
Throughout our history we have had a regular army heavily reinforced by conscripts and volunteers in times of war, there have been times when being the only country with a highly trained regular army has stood us well, Agincourt and those times, Trafalgar with a far better trained Navy, but those times are long since gone.
I believe we need a hardcore regular army of decent size and the best equipment money can buy, but a reasonably trained reserve force is the best back up to that way of working, far better that than sudden conscription and too many raw recruits.
Right now in all active service areas the TA is on the frontline and doing a bloody good job. Whilst every death and casualty is a tragedy the British Army has suffered only 419 casualties in the last 11 years of fighting in Afganistan, compare that with around 256 killed in a couple of months of the Falklands campaign and 57000+ casualties on the first day of the battle of the Somme. That is testament to the abilities of those who have served in Afganistan, thier dedication and effieciency, now I know that Afganistan is not an all out war situation but 11 years, that is a long campaign, during 3 years of "peace keeping" in Bosnia we had around 75 casualties and we weren't even fighting that war in the general terms of conflict.
Hats off to the reservists I say.
But one thing you should remember when considering "taking the Queens Shilling"
The British army has very few "non combatants", the Clergy are about the only soldiers who do not carry arms and who are not trained or expected to use them, every other British soldier is first and foremost a soldier then a tradesman.
The bands of all Regiments are trained medics and often in the frontline, drivers, cooks, and clerks are fully trained soldiers before they learn thier trade, many of the casualties in Afganistan have been drivers on convoy duty or clerks in forward bases. never join the British Army thinking you won't be expected to fight or be on the frontline. Medics (under the Geneva Convention) can carry small arms for self defence and are often called upon to be in the "thick of it" where the meat meets the metal and the Taliban are one of those armies that have not signed the Geneva Convention.
Sex God
Mids is correct in a couple of things. The Army, buy it's very nature is all about fights (check out your local garrison town on a Friday lol) The Army does spout the slogan Soldier first. The RAF says war fighter first, specialist second and the RN as far as I'm able to tell asks for men first, followed by women if absolutely necessary!
I do believe that one essential matter missing from this debate is the modern method of training and standing up a TA force.
TA forces are NOT expected to work in singularity from other branches of the armed forces. In fact quite the opposite, they are encouraged to participate and muck in fully.
The stated number of days or weekends per year is an absolute bare minimum, not a maximum.
Reserve forces are a long way from what is described by the OP, and rightly so. Reserve forces are subject to the same pre-deployment training as regular forces which, dependent on role can take up to 6 months from deployment. This means that the guys will be deemed competent to undertake the task, even though their experience may be limited.
So why a reserve unit like 253(V) Provost Company RMP might be called up, they won't just get on a plane and work out the job when they get there.
I do believe that one essential matter missing from this debate is the modern method of training and standing up a TA force.
TA forces are NOT expected to work in singularity from other branches of the armed forces. In fact quite the opposite, they are encouraged to participate and muck in fully.
The stated number of days or weekends per year is an absolute bare minimum, not a maximum.
Reserve forces are a long way from what is described by the OP, and rightly so. Reserve forces are subject to the same pre-deployment training as regular forces which, dependent on role can take up to 6 months from deployment. This means that the guys will be deemed competent to undertake the task, even though their experience may be limited.
So why a reserve unit like 253(V) Provost Company RMP might be called up, they won't just get on a plane and work out the job when they get there.
Nothing wrong with a reservist unit. In all armies throughout time, there has always been first class units and then secondary units who are less combat ready. These are then used in less risky locations.........with a caveat that they will be thrown into it if the backs were against the wall, including cooks/mechanics/etc. In WWII there were full TA batalions (with a smattering of regular officers and NCOs thrown in).
Dave_Notts
Dave_Notts
Sex God
i think we only have to look at volunteers like the RNLI to see just how well non full time groups can preform
i dont see any problems other than one of pride if reserves where mixed with full time soldiers
LB you are of course right when you say if we need full time reserves then surly we have places for full time soldiers
i also feel that there is a place for national service
i dont see any problems other than one of pride if reserves where mixed with full time soldiers
LB you are of course right when you say if we need full time reserves then surly we have places for full time soldiers
i also feel that there is a place for national service
Quote by Lizaleanrob
i think we only have to look at volunteers like the RNLI to see just how well non full time groups can preform
i dont see any problems other than one of pride if reserves where mixed with full time soldiers
LB you are of course right when you say if we need full time reserves then surly we have places for full time soldiers
i also feel that there is a place for national service
There was time when the TA were a joke to regular soldiers, my time, but soldiers respect those who stand with them when the lead flies and the TA do that now so the respect is not a problem now, every soldier knows that respect is something you earn and the TA have earned respect.
As for national service, no way, The British army is the best in the world because of it's ability to listen and learn in short its discipline, always has been, those that serve do not want to have to serve with people who do not want to be there,they want to work with volunteers who want to to the best job they can.
However, we do need a National non-combatant force which would be used for civil emergencies, taught to operate both Green Goddess fire engines and the Red engines that the fire brigade replace with new stock (a fire engine pumps water out as well as in so needed not just for fires but for floods too), taught search and rescue skills, first aid, combating forrest fires, operating heavy plant equipment to clear roads and buildings, how to set up field medical stations and field kitchens. Trained in the many army training camps that are normally empty except for taining excercises, trained under military style discipline but not for any form of military/combat role and exempting people who are in full time education or full time work for 3 months or more.
Quote by MidsCouple24
However, we do need a National non-combatant force which would be used for civil emergencies, taught to operate both Green Goddess fire engines and the Red engines that the fire brigade replace with new stock (a fire engine pumps water out as well as in so needed not just for fires but for floods too), taught search and rescue skills, first aid, combating forrest fires, operating heavy plant equipment to clear roads and buildings, how to set up field medical stations and field kitchens. Trained in the many army training camps that are normally empty except for taining excercises, trained under military style discipline but not for any form of military/combat role and exempting people who are in full time education or full time work for 3 months or more
Sounds just like German National Service. Either they go into the military or they serve their time in civil projects i.e. hospitals etc
Dave_Notts
Warming the Bed
No threats? Just off the top of my head we have......
The EU is an undemocratic monolith that has no mandate from the people of Europe, every time they have allowed a vote they have lost but then ignored it. It is going through an economic crisis that could very well leave the whole thing in tatters with nations such as Greece, Spain and Italy all ripe for dictatorship or military coup.
The banking crisis that started in 2008 is still going on and the last time there was a banking crisis like this it led to World War Two.
Argentina is sabre rattling about "Las Malvinas" and all of South America including the massive country of Brazil is on their side.
Russia is a mafia state run by billionaire oligarchs who could turn off gas and oil supplies at the drop of a hat.
Egypt has just installed an Islamist government and will now be taking a much harder line on all issues. They can close the Suez at a moments notice
Iran is still an ongoing problem run by religious fanatics who want the bomb
China is looking to take over as the world largest economy and the USA will do anything they can to prevent that happening, with potential flashpoints in Korea and Taiwan
We are still at war in Afghanistan
Pakistan is a failed nuclear state with a population of 170million people many uneducated and very hostile to the West
The UK is not self sufficient in energy and food plus water in the South East is at its supply limits (thankfully its poured down this month)
Am sure there are other threats too but these are enough to be going on with. I heard a quote last week that this year is similar to 1913 in that we have no clue whatsoever what next year will bring.
The EU is an undemocratic monolith that has no mandate from the people of Europe, every time they have allowed a vote they have lost but then ignored it. It is going through an economic crisis that could very well leave the whole thing in tatters with nations such as Greece, Spain and Italy all ripe for dictatorship or military coup.
The banking crisis that started in 2008 is still going on and the last time there was a banking crisis like this it led to World War Two.
Argentina is sabre rattling about "Las Malvinas" and all of South America including the massive country of Brazil is on their side.
Russia is a mafia state run by billionaire oligarchs who could turn off gas and oil supplies at the drop of a hat.
Egypt has just installed an Islamist government and will now be taking a much harder line on all issues. They can close the Suez at a moments notice
Iran is still an ongoing problem run by religious fanatics who want the bomb
China is looking to take over as the world largest economy and the USA will do anything they can to prevent that happening, with potential flashpoints in Korea and Taiwan
We are still at war in Afghanistan
Pakistan is a failed nuclear state with a population of 170million people many uneducated and very hostile to the West
The UK is not self sufficient in energy and food plus water in the South East is at its supply limits (thankfully its poured down this month)
Am sure there are other threats too but these are enough to be going on with. I heard a quote last week that this year is similar to 1913 in that we have no clue whatsoever what next year will bring.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
As for national service, no way, The British army is the best in the world because of it's ability to listen and learn in short its discipline, always has been, those that serve do not want to have to serve with people who do not want to be there,they want to work with volunteers who want to to the best job they can.
Do you guys recall that scene at the start of 'enemy at the gates' where the commissar hands a rifle and 5 rounds to every 2nd conscript, then gives the man in between 5 rounds and says when he's dead you pick up the rifle and fight? When you watch the film you get an appreciation of the desperation at the time. However there are conscript armies in Europe today who operate on just such a principal.
I cannot imagine the UK forces being so desperate but I wouldn't like to see it come anywhere close. National Service is a thing of the past, I personally would have been more than happy to do my bit but national Service was dropped to save money and because it was widely believed at the time that the need had passed.
I am 100% of the belief today that National Service being reintroduced would be a horrific thing to happen to our troops and agree totally with mids on this point. There is no doubt whatsoever that when the shit hits the fan a wholetime professional volunteer Airman, Sailor or Soldier is the person I would want next to me rather than a barely trained pressed man.
Quote by MidsCouple24
However, we do need a National non-combatant force which would be used for civil emergencies, taught to operate both Green Goddess fire engines and the Red engines that the fire brigade replace with new stock (a fire engine pumps water out as well as in so needed not just for fires but for floods too), taught search and rescue skills, first aid, combating forrest fires, operating heavy plant equipment to clear roads and buildings, how to set up field medical stations and field kitchens. Trained in the many army training camps that are normally empty except for taining excercises, trained under military style discipline but not for any form of military/combat role and exempting people who are in full time education or full time work for 3 months or more.
Having said all I did above I see no need for this type of service.
Quote by bayboy1664
No threats? Just off the top of my head we have......
The EU is an undemocratic monolith that has no mandate from the people of Europe, every time they have allowed a vote they have lost but then ignored it. It is going through an economic crisis that could very well leave the whole thing in tatters with nations such as Greece, Spain and Italy all ripe for dictatorship or military coup.
The banking crisis that started in 2008 is still going on and the last time there was a banking crisis like this it led to World War Two.
Argentina is sabre rattling about "Las Malvinas" and all of South America including the massive country of Brazil is on their side.
Russia is a mafia state run by billionaire oligarchs who could turn off gas and oil supplies at the drop of a hat.
Egypt has just installed an Islamist government and will now be taking a much harder line on all issues. They can close the Suez at a moments notice
Iran is still an ongoing problem run by religious fanatics who want the bomb
China is looking to take over as the world largest economy and the USA will do anything they can to prevent that happening, with potential flashpoints in Korea and Taiwan
We are still at war in Afghanistan
Pakistan is a failed nuclear state with a population of 170million people many uneducated and very hostile to the West
The UK is not self sufficient in energy and food plus water in the South East is at its supply limits (thankfully its poured down this month)
Am sure there are other threats too but these are enough to be going on with. I heard a quote last week that this year is similar to 1913 in that we have no clue whatsoever what next year will bring.
ouch! argh! oomph! eeek!
I don't usually quote whole posts but I had to this time... I never knew we were under so much threat! I'm scared now
Although, this reminds me a little of the American 'commie under every bed' paranoia
We have a new defence tactic to counteract all these threats, we are reducing the regular forces and the equipment they use and importing new Brits from all the countries that are a threat to us so to attack Britain would be to attack themselves therefore it would be a civil war which most people don't want 
Orgasminator
Miss LB I know a few people on here in different forces.. If you genuinely want to ask their opinion PM me xxx
Sex God
Quote by gorgeously-yours
Miss LB I know a few people on here in different forces.. If you genuinely want to ask their opinion PM me xxx
or they could post their thoughts like the rest of us Gorge
Depends why you want to do this and what you expect to gain or get out of it. After a 23 year muilitary career my advice is not to bother unless you are going into it full time as a career. However, the army (RLC) would be a great place for lersbian chics these days with some units at 80% lesbian; so if its sex you're after its the place to be!
Try a TA unit or a secondment as TA to the regular army or serfvice which is a 1 OR 2 YEAR FULL TIME JOB.
Enjoy
xxx
Try a TA unit or a secondment as TA to the regular army or serfvice which is a 1 OR 2 YEAR FULL TIME JOB.
Enjoy
xxx
Quote by doublepenspec
Depends why you want to do this and what you expect to gain or get out of it. After a 23 year muilitary career my advice is not to bother unless you are going into it full time as a career. However, the army (RLC) would be a great place for lersbian chics these days with some units at 80% lesbian; so if its sex you're after its the place to be!
Try a TA unit or a secondment as TA to the regular army or serfvice which is a 1 OR 2 YEAR FULL TIME JOB.
Enjoy
xxx
Make love not war, eh?
:thumbup:Quote by Trevaunance
As for national service, no way, The British army is the best in the world because of it's ability to listen and learn in short its discipline, always has been, those that serve do not want to have to serve with people who do not want to be there,they want to work with volunteers who want to to the best job they can.
Do you guys recall that scene at the start of 'enemy at the gates' where the commissar hands a rifle and 5 rounds to every 2nd conscript, then gives the man in between 5 rounds and says when he's dead you pick up the rifle and fight? When you watch the film you get an appreciation of the desperation at the time. However there are conscript armies in Europe today who operate on just such a principal.
I know the film well, Stalin and the people of Russia did have thier backs to the wall and whilst being costly in personnel, (Russians killed during WWII outnumbered the number of allies killed from Britain, Ireland, France, Holland, India, Belgium, Canada, USA, Austrailia, New Zealand, Africa, Nepal and many other allied nations put together) the tactic did work, but your statement below is naive, in the UK at the moment British Army Units are on a 3 tier rotational system, take 3 Armoured Brigades, the first is on active service and has equipment to do the job (alledgely) the 2nd is on Standby and is preparing the equipment last used on active service to go back into conflict and the 3rd is on stand down (training) and it's equipment is limited. So out of the 3 Brigades only one has fully operational and a full issue of equipment, the 3 Brigades actually share the equipment.
I cannot imagine the UK forces being so desperate but I wouldn't like to see it come anywhere close. National Service is a thing of the past, I personally would have been more than happy to do my bit but national Service was dropped to save money and because it was widely believed at the time that the need had passed.
I am 100% of the belief today that National Service being reintroduced would be a horrific thing to happen to our troops and agree totally with mids on this point. There is no doubt whatsoever that when the shit hits the fan a wholetime professional volunteer Airman, Sailor or Soldier is the person I would want next to me rather than a barely trained pressed man.
Quote by MidsCouple24
However, we do need a National non-combatant force which would be used for civil emergencies, taught to operate both Green Goddess fire engines and the Red engines that the fire brigade replace with new stock (a fire engine pumps water out as well as in so needed not just for fires but for floods too), taught search and rescue skills, first aid, combating forrest fires, operating heavy plant equipment to clear roads and buildings, how to set up field medical stations and field kitchens. Trained in the many army training camps that are normally empty except for taining excercises, trained under military style discipline but not for any form of military/combat role and exempting people who are in full time education or full time work for 3 months or more.
Having said all I did above I see no need for this type of service.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
He did'nt say!!!
But then they never do.....
that,s the point im making
why do we need a large regular armed force when we have no threat
Read the history of the United Kingdom, for example that covering our state of readiness in 1939, to be unprepared for a situation so grave and life changing is criminal
is it not best to train and use reserves
Exactly what we are doing at the moment, our Regular Army is being cut back and the number of reserve units increased, but for that to work you still have to have a good sized (good sized not massive) regular army
I am sure Mids with a much reduced armed forces, that in the event of a major attack on these shores by a foreign force, I am sure that we can as always rely on the French to come to our aid? :twisted:
It is a huge mistake to ever presume that one day we would not need a military ready and willing to protect us all. God forbid if we ever had a national call up like what happened in the last two great wars, as we would struggle to find enough home grown people. :shock:
If and of course it is a big if, Israel were to attack Iran, and other Muslim countries came to Iran's aid the wonders of the Arab spring may well just come along and leave large teeth marks in the West's bottoms. The middle east as has always been the case, is a powder keg of trouble. Pakistan is in my mind a possible major threat, as is Iran.
Maybe what we should do to save some money Mids, is to have a huge clear out of all the rubbish civil servants at Whitehall. I am sure that getting rid of a few thousand of them would enable us to retain a proper armed forces machine. Oh and not forgetting to cull a few of those Quangos just like Cameron said he would at the last election eh? As far as I know none have been scrapped.
It is a huge mistake to ever presume that one day we would not need a military ready and willing to protect us all. God forbid if we ever had a national call up like what happened in the last two great wars, as we would struggle to find enough home grown people. :shock:
If and of course it is a big if, Israel were to attack Iran, and other Muslim countries came to Iran's aid the wonders of the Arab spring may well just come along and leave large teeth marks in the West's bottoms. The middle east as has always been the case, is a powder keg of trouble. Pakistan is in my mind a possible major threat, as is Iran.
Maybe what we should do to save some money Mids, is to have a huge clear out of all the rubbish civil servants at Whitehall. I am sure that getting rid of a few thousand of them would enable us to retain a proper armed forces machine. Oh and not forgetting to cull a few of those Quangos just like Cameron said he would at the last election eh? As far as I know none have been scrapped.
