Hello.
I was intrigued by a review of a book by Allan Mallinson - the Making of the British Army - in which it was quoted:
The British Army has become one of only two armies in the world of today that are capable of mounting independent operations of any scale overseas.
I was pleased to see that, but surprised. Of course the other one has o be the USA - but only two? Could not the Russians or the Chinese do that?
So I wonder whether anyone here has anything to say about that?
Share This Page:
British Army independent operations
-
bored_stupid
- Guest
The statement is probably pre Iraq/Afghanistan commitments but it was true at the time.
China has a huge army but it's mainly undeployable over any great distances as they don't have the logistics to support any large scale military mission overseas.
The Russians are the same as the Chinese although given the size of Russia itself it could be argued that they can influence enough of the world from their own borders!
It's all about power projection which requires Navies and logistic ships and most countries just don't have (or need) that capability as you only really need it if you:
a) Have overseas assets you need to protect
b) Like to poke your nose into other peoples businesses.
Us and the US usually fall into both categories!
Most countries military doctrine calls for the ability to influence the countries on their borders rather than in far flung places as that's usually where their biggest threats lie.
China has a huge army but it's mainly undeployable over any great distances as they don't have the logistics to support any large scale military mission overseas.
The Russians are the same as the Chinese although given the size of Russia itself it could be argued that they can influence enough of the world from their own borders!
It's all about power projection which requires Navies and logistic ships and most countries just don't have (or need) that capability as you only really need it if you:
a) Have overseas assets you need to protect
b) Like to poke your nose into other peoples businesses.
Us and the US usually fall into both categories!
Most countries military doctrine calls for the ability to influence the countries on their borders rather than in far flung places as that's usually where their biggest threats lie.
Thanks for the replies. I too am concerned about the trend to ever decreasing size of the forces. Although everything may be getting that much better, I guess there's only so much you can do with fewer ships etc. Whilst the two new carriers look far superior on paper to the 3 Invincible class ones, how often will they both be available for deployment, I wonder?
The last thing I want to do is to come here and get into an argument with my third post, but in my view work has started. I found this quote from six months ago:
"The Aircraft Carrier Alliance has now placed sub-contracts for almost 40% of the total value of the materials and equipment required to build both ships, and we are pressing ahead into full scale production in the shipyards. The UK's future aircraft carriers are already off the drawing board and becoming a physical reality"
I agree they aren't anywhere near being finished, my question was whether they will be sufficiently available, in the future.
Sorry for continuing an RN discussion in the Army thread......
"The Aircraft Carrier Alliance has now placed sub-contracts for almost 40% of the total value of the materials and equipment required to build both ships, and we are pressing ahead into full scale production in the shipyards. The UK's future aircraft carriers are already off the drawing board and becoming a physical reality"
I agree they aren't anywhere near being finished, my question was whether they will be sufficiently available, in the future.
Sorry for continuing an RN discussion in the Army thread......
