British Military Current Events

[daftandbarmy]

I assume this will be a short test :0

MoD stress-testing how UK would cope in war​

The Ministry of Defence is war-gaming a major conflict to "stress-test" supplies of ammunition and equipment in a war time scenario.

The MoD says it is the first war games to involve representatives of the defence industry – alongside military commanders and officials.

The week-long exercise began on Monday morning and is taking place at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham, Oxfordshire.

The Defence Secretary John Healey said the reason for the exercise was to ensure government and industry "are capable of innovation at wartime speed".

MOD stress-testing with war-games how UK would cope in war

The war games come amid fears the Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed gaps in Europe's war capabilities.

www.bbc.com

 

[FJAG]

That should be an ongoing strategic planning and review process with varying scenarios and a short PowerPoint presentation that even parliamentarians can understand.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The belief in short wars fought by regulars is a myth. Afghanistan was Canada's longest war. Ukraine has shaped up as an endurance contest. Even if there is a cease fire there, it will involve hundreds of thousands remaining in front line positions for years if not decades. Neither Russia nor China will go away nor change their mindsets. And regional disturbers like Iran and N Korea will continue to exist and will strike whenever they see an opportunity.

I wouldn’t say it’s a myth, rather what you are seeking to do.

Wars can be very short provided you have specific goals and realistic plans to achieve them.

Ukraine is a full on invasion of a sovereign state with the goal of annexing it. That was a serious commitment even back in the 1800s. Any sort of nation building exercise is a serious commitment, it is why Afghanistan was lost, we lacked the commitment.

But wars can also be much shorter. Gulf War 1, Falklands, etc. It is all about what is being fought over and what result is desired.

Usually for Canada we aren’t so much concerned about our sovereignty, rather our external interests. Those types of conflicts can be much shorter and easily resolved with a smaller regular force. The problem is when we decide to bite off more than we can chew.

 

[FJAG]

Wars can be very short provided you have specific goals and realistic plans to achieve them.

I expect one can probably look around and find a few examples amongst the hundreds of wars since WW2, but nothing springs to my mind that involved the West and ended conclusively. The last one that solved things conclusively was WW2 and that took six years and costs tens of millions of lives. Everything else, Korea, the Middle East (in its multiple forms), either took a long time (Vietnam). Even the Malvinas aren't really over.

The problem that we have isn't so much a setting or goals or a plan for the fight. It's the control of post-fight resolution. We suck at that.

 

[Kirkhill]

I expect one can probably look around and find a few examples amongst the hundreds of wars since WW2, but nothing springs to my mind that involved the West and ended conclusively. The last one that solved things conclusively was WW2 and that took six years and costs tens of millions of lives. Everything else, Korea, the Middle East (in its multiple forms), either took a long time (Vietnam). Even the Malvinas aren't really over.

The problem that we have isn't so much a setting or goals or a plan for the fight. It's the control of post-fight resolution. We suck at that.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I expect one can probably look around and find a few examples amongst the hundreds of wars since WW2, but nothing springs to my mind that involved the West and ended conclusively. The last one that solved things conclusively was WW2 and that took six years and costs tens of millions of lives. Everything else, Korea, the Middle East (in its multiple forms), either took a long time (Vietnam). Even the Malvinas aren't really over.

The problem that we have isn't so much a setting or goals or a plan for the fight. It's the control of post-fight resolution. We suck at that.

I would argue that the goals your basing it on is unrealistic which in turn makes the post-fight resolution unfeasible. Complete and total destruction of your enemy (the goal many seem to want these days) is a long term and expensive commitment which generally isn’t very feasible or worthwhile. It’s only in the last century has anyone really made that their main goals.

To me the types of wars Canada should be waging should be clear in intent with defined objectives and desired results with a realistic outlook as to what is needed to achieve that. Generally that doesn’t look like completely destroying your enemy rather achieving your objectives and getting out of dodge. Your enemy can still exist afterwards, provided they aren't actively attacking you (which thanks to our NATO shield is very unlikely) you don't need to completely destroy them. It also doesn't require huge militaries to achieve those objectives.

Part of our problem is our political system doesn’t hold up its end of that equation with a very short sighted and often unrealistic view of how things should work or what the fall out will be. We are good at creating soldiers, terrible at creating the bureaucracy and politicians needed to make that a reality. Democracy really doesn't lend itself well to fighting wars effectively (hard to long term plan with a 4 year election cycle).

Believing we can invade a country, force a regime change, and then force them to be like us without keeping ourselves tied up for decades is nonsense.

For example bombing Libya (which I do have issues with us not formally declaring war) is a example of the types of conflict that makes sense for us. We had a somewhat hostile regime in a moment of weakness.

We didn’t necessarily care what came out of Libya afterwards rather just removing the potential threat well it was easy to do so. We bombed Gaddafi and left, no need to stick around and mess about once our geopolitical needs were met.

The Falklands would be another good example, Britain's goal was to defend it's territory, once the territory was secured there was no longer a need to continue the conflict. Yes the Argentines still want the Malvina's but they aren't militarily fighting for it, nor are they likely to any time soon.

WWII to use your example wasn’t a conclusive end because of 6 years of fighting. It was conclusive because of several decades of occupation, the complete ‘re-education’ of the population and the convincing of them it is better to be part of our fold than on their own (complete with a economic program that made it worthwhile for them). That doesn’t make much sense for us to do with most countries.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No bass drum … poor Matelos!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Kirkhill]

No bass drum … poor Matelos!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

" A home on the rolling waves...."

 

[daftandbarmy]

More shots from the safely pensioned off crowd

Concerns net zero plan could leave British army at risk​

Concerns have been raised by some former military chiefs over plans for electric vehicles​

Former military chiefs have raised concerns that electric vehicles may put British troops at risk on the battlefield.

The Ministry of Defence is set to hold trials in 2025 to test whether electric vehicles (EVs) can match the capabilities of conventional petrol and diesel vehicles.

The scheme is reported to be an extension of a plan introduced under the Conservative government to develop EVs for use in combat.

Since the July General Election, the Daily Telegraph reports the new Labour government has given around £400,000 in contracts to Magtec, a company that specialises in the electrification of vehicles.

However plans to deploy electric vehicles in the army have caused worry in some quarters.

These include worries about how effective battery-powered vehicles would be, how they could be charged and whether they'd reduce combat ability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, told the Telegraph a switch to electric vehicles amounted to 'virtue signalling' by the Ministry of Defence 'trying to get into the climate change agenda'.

Concerns net zero plan could leave British army at risk

Concerns have been raised by some former military chiefs over plans for electric vehicles

www.express.co.uk

 

[daftandbarmy]

Whoa...

Two top British Army doctors killed themselves within weeks of each other after spending years in war zones.

Headline in the DT this morning. Further detail:

‘An inquiry has warned that being on a constant state of high alert without the benefit of any follow-up stress-management support could have had a severe impact on the Army medics’ mental health.’


Service Inquiry: Service Person (A) who was found deceased on 8 June 2022 and Service Person (B) who was found deceased on 21 July 2022

The Service Inquiry report into the deaths of two Service Persons in separate locations on 8 June 2022 and 21 July 2022.

This report has been published to inform the military Chain of Command and the public of the findings of the inquiry and its recommendations to assist in improving the:

- sharing of risk to life information

- frequency of operational tours and readiness state for specialists

- impediments to the provision of support caused by military organisational structures

- impact of COVID-19

- stigma and perceptions associated with medical downgrade


Service Inquiry: Service Person (A) who was found deceased on 8 June 2022 and Service Person (B) who was found deceased on 21 July 2022 - GOV.UK