British Army

[suffragette]

Figures in today's, London Evening Standard, indicate the army is now 108 000 strong, as opposed to 317 000 in 1960 and this is too few a number to maintain our committments around the world.

The figures are:
Iraq- 7 100 UK troops
Afghanistan-5 800
Falklands- 1 200
Germany 22 500
Bosnia- 600
Kosovo- 200
N.Ireland- 8 500
Cyprus- 3 000
Gibraltar- 560
UN Operations- 300

The article states the Bosnian contingent may soon be removed and the committment to N.I. could be reduced to 5 000 in the near future, but there is no mention of the need to maintain such a large force in the peaceful and united Germany.

Could someone with far greater military insight than I explain why we are maintaining such a large force in a country that is no longer regarded as a potential frontline in any conflict?

[anotheoldgit]

Do you think that they are considering bringing National Service back?
Let's hope so it will solve a number of problems that this country has.

[Whickerman]

When you say "to maintain our commitments around the world", I thought you meant UN duty.

If not, you have no worries, as you have no business in another country.

[suffragette]

I should have said 'present' committments around the world, Whickerman, but I still don't understand your point, and you've not really attempted to answer the question.

[buildersmate]

Germany is where much of the infantry is based. They train there, and the kit is out there. They don't fight there. The historical need for them being there (Cold War) is not really a strategic issue any more. But they aren't on active duty there - it's effectively the same as being based in Aldershot or Catterick.
If they came back to be based here, where do you think we would put them? The last time a Brigade came back from Germany (permanently) we ended up building more facilties around Catterick to accommodate them.

[kwicky]

Whats the point of belonging to the EU if we go ahead and do our own thing? The schrizophenic method of being a sub-station of the USA as well, is costing our country dearly. It's about time we flew the big USA nest and welcomed in our EU partners where we could discuss problems on an equal basis.

[Lonnie]

As buildersmate says, its just the same as being in a British camp, My nephew was in Padderborn, and while there, he went all over the world, Middle East, Australia, Far East etc, no different than if he was in eg, Colchester.

Successive goverments have downsized our forces, but none so much as this goverment, or done so much to demoralise them.

I think there's a hidden agenda.

[suffragette]

Thanks for the answers and I accept I must be having a blonde moment, but I don't see how a base in Germany can be classed as the same as a base in Britain.

Surely, the type of warfare the soldiers were training for; large scale land conflict in Europe, is now as outdated as teaching cavalry tactics and the formation of squares.

I suppose my point is, why call for more soldiers when it would appear a re-organisation of present forces would seem both financially and militarily more prudent? I don't believe maintaining outdated bases and subsidising the livelihoods of German citizens providing services to those bases is in the best interests of the British taxpayer.

[anotheoldgit]

Think you are still suffering from a blonde moment suff.

There are lots of different types of training a modern soldier has now to partake in, whether they are stationed in Germany, England or anywhere else for that matter.
So I could not understand the paragraph in which you stated that the type of warfare the soldiers were training for, large scale land conflict in Europe, is now outdated as teaching cavalry tactics and the formation of squares.
An Army base is an Army base whether it is situated in Germany, England or Timbuktu.

It's exactly what buildersmate says it's where they live and where they train. These training areas can be open plains, for tank training, special constructed buildings for urban conflict training, and of course ranges for Artillery and other weapon training. If they want special condition training then they ship them out to countries that experience these conditions i.e. Jungle, Desert or Snow.

[suffragette]

I think you are probably right anotheoldgit. I think I'll go dye my hair. Thanks for your patience and answers.

[Lonnie]

'Large scale land conflicts', I like that phrase, Anyway, thats something the military should always train for, because no matter the type of war, conventional or Nuclear, you will always need ground troops to finish off.

The only good thing about our Middle East adventures, is that they are giving our boys and girls actual combat experience.

[kwicky]

Lonnie's answer struck a similar chord. Do you know that during the Afghan/Iraq blitz in the beginning the USA got all of it old munitions, some defunct, to dispose of. A clearout some would call it!