First impressions about British gameplay

[ASL Veteran]

I think the UK has suffered from this neglect since about 1650, despite this we havent done too badly. I also think that if you took a snapshot in any decade since 1650 you would see the same problems and statements regarding equipment etc.

The British army adopted the flintlock musket at least ten to fifteen years before the French did and were probably the first army to have completely switched over to the flintlock from the matchlock. The British army was the first army to use the screw elevating device for artillery sometime in 1750. There was a British unit of breech loading riflemen fighting during the American revolution. Congreve introduced rocket artillery to the British forces after British experience in India. Congreve also replaced the standard double bracket trail for artillery with the single pole structure (I forget the name). British soldiers used the new mini ball Rifles to great advantage in the Crimea while the Russians still used smooth bore muskets even though Russia was considered one of the most powerful militaries of the time - at least before the war started. British soldiers had breech loading rifles and were enthusiastic users of the Gatling gun when fighting the Zulus in the 1870s while Austria was still using muzzle loading rifles in their war against Prussian in 1866. Somebody invented the tank sometime during WW1 but I can't remember exactly who ...... .

I think it's patently ridiculous to say that the British military has been neglected since the 1650s. There weren't even any social programs to spend money on before the 19th century and something like 75% of the national budget for all nations went towards their militaries. Perhaps you could say that about the post WW2 military, but then probably most European militaries were neglected post war since they could always rely on Uncle Sam to bail them out of a jam. The French have deployed troops overseas in many locations since WW2, but like the British most of these commitments were to ex colonies and don't require much as far as 'heavy' forces go. It really just depends on doctrine and what type of war you plan to fight. I think doctrinally the US, at least since WW2, has had a 'firepower' doctrine and the US force reflects that. UK forces may have a different doctrine so maybe the force mix is right for what they plan on doing.

[wisbechlad]

Doctrine? The UK army has a doctrine? Nasty, continental things doctrines...

Since WW2, AFAIK, the UK army has two main purposes. Defend the North German plain (BAOR) and engage in "small wars" (Aden/ Borneo/ Falklands/ Afganistan etc)

So, paradoxically, it is the "light" forces that are offensive. The "heavy" forces were designed to be defensive. But as that defensive need has largely gone away, there is no urgency to (say) develop a new IFV. The light forces are where it is at - see all the recent arguing about helicopters to improve airmobility.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

I think the UK has suffered from this neglect since about 1650, despite this we havent done too badly. I also think that if you took a snapshot in any decade since 1650 you would see the same problems and statements regarding equipment etc.

Oh, I definitely agree that the Brits haven't done "too badly" at all. I think ASL Veteran's detailing of certain timely innovations and employment shows some of the reason for it. And considering the conditions facing Britain in 1940 I'd say it did an amazing job just staying in the fight, not to mention continuing to play an active role in the liberation of North Africa and Europe. I have my criticism, of course, but always with respect.

No one wants to pay for the military if they can get away with it and this includes all militaries.

On the contrary, nobody wants to pay for the military even if they CAN'T get away with it. It might take years, even decades, for the moment of truth to rear its ugly head... but inevitably it will. I've got a friend in the Belgian Para/Commandos who tells me things which I'm sure most in NATO know but don't want to get out in public. So far they have "gotten away" with it because other nations have been there to pick up the slack. Specifically the US, the UK, and to a lesser extent Germany and France.

I have no idea what your on about when stating that we are trying to disengage from any conflicts? From this side of the pond I see no talk of this at the 'coal face'. In fact the UK has been involved in conflict every year since ww2, and have taken casualties in the vast majority of them. We were fighting terrorists when a lot of people in the US thought it was cool or nostalgic to support them.

I'm talking about the widespread media reports of British polls disapproving of continuing involvement in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq rather prematurely. The fiasco that followed the Basra pullout is one major indication of that.

I wont even begin to compare the quality of our armed forces against any other nations, but having worked with many other nations over the years I think we come out very near the top of the pile, if not on top.

I would not dispute this at all. And I think CM:SF bears this out well. As you said in your follow up, the Brits are not significantly hindered from achieving their objectives compared to US Army and US Marines. However, there are some good discussions going on which do point out some specific circumstances where the aged equipment of the British forces appears to put them at a proportional disadvantage.

In sum, yes we can do with a bit more money to buy shiney things and yes sometimes the politicians can be a pain, but its not all doom and gloom and our equipment is good in the main backed up by a very professional force that has high morale and is extremely effective in what it does.

Doom and gloom may not be here yet, but it appears that even the British MoD has figured out that it needs to do certain things and yet for years the money hasn't been made available to it. My point is that the money appears to not be forthcoming any time soon. Whether that will make a material difference or not is unknown at this point. It's a shame that the dice have to be rolled.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Wisbechlad,

So, paradoxically, it is the "light" forces that are offensive. The "heavy" forces were designed to be defensive. But as that defensive need has largely gone away, there is no urgency to (say) develop a new IFV. The light forces are where it is at - see all the recent arguing about helicopters to improve airmobility.

Indeed. This debate is going on big time in the US. As evidence of this the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program was recently killed off. Forgetting for the moment it's massive pricetag and failure to stay on time and within budget constraints, it was really designed for a fight that it likely won't encounter. As much as its supporters tried to morph it into the ultimate do-anything-everything solution, it clearly wasn't. Spending a fraction of that amount on better COIN OPS capabilities would likely yield far better immediate and long term results.

The Pentagon's decision to continue with the current fleet of heavy armor is, IMHO, the right one. We are still using aircraft built 40 years ago that can take on anything built by our adversaries today. Upgrades, maintenance, and superior training will keep the edge sharp without having to plunk down huge amounts of money for brand new hardware.

Steve

[DaveDash]

I've noticed my units getting wasted big time in close quaters. Close quater lethality has seemed to have gone up dramatically.

For example, if a section moves through a doorway and the enemy waits for them in the next room, I'll lose half my section in seconds. I never noticed this with the Marines or U.S. Army.

I don't suspect this is native to the British forces, coding changes perhaps? However it really seems to hurt with the Brits and their small sections. To go from seven to three guys in a matter of seconds is a big ouch.

I'm also noticing I am having problems surpressing enemy infantry with my infantry. I miss those GL's etc.

[GSX]

Steve

I'm not going to banter back and forth as I actually agree with most if not all youve been saying. But Im on the inside looking out and your not. I know that the UK militaries equipment and conditions have improved immensly since I joined.

In all honesty though, theres just not enough of us and not much money for more and so this gets prevalence in a media that is interested in casualties.

I'm talking about the widespread media reports of British polls disapproving of continuing involvement in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq rather prematurely. The fiasco that followed the Basra pullout is one major indication of that.

I can only say that your above statement reflects the very reason we are in Afghanistan. Its democracy at work. We were due to leave Iraq 31 Dec 2008, the Iraqi government asked us to leave as our mandate was over. Right now all the Brits still in Iraq are sitting in Kuwait as the Iraqi government is sticking to its mandate. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/British-Troops-In-Iraq-Are-Moved-To-Kuwait-Because-They-Do-Not-Have-Permission-To-Stay/Article/200907415348035?f=rss

As a military force we can only do what the Government of our nation tells us to and they, being democratic should follow the will of the people, something all democracies have to live with. As Mr Churchil said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for the rest!

So now we are commited to Afghanistan, until such time as the UK government pulls out. Until that time we will do our best with limited resources - as we always have.

[GSX]

I think it's patently ridiculous to say that the British military has been neglected since the 1650s. There weren't even any social programs to spend money on before the 19th century and something like 75% of the national budget for all nations went towards their militaries. Perhaps you could say that about the post WW2 military, but then probably most European militaries were neglected post war since they could always rely on Uncle Sam to bail them out of a jam. The French have deployed troops overseas in many locations since WW2, but like the British most of these commitments were to ex colonies and don't require much as far as 'heavy' forces go. It really just depends on doctrine and what type of war you plan to fight. I think doctrinally the US, at least since WW2, has had a 'firepower' doctrine and the US force reflects that. UK forces may have a different doctrine so maybe the force mix is right for what they plan on doing.

I knew some smartarse would have a long winded answer. Mind you, a very good long winded answer.

Though my point, if missed, was that, no military ever gets everything it ever wants.

Thanks for educating me though.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Yup, it's true that the equipment and training of UK forces has improved quite a bit as of late. And of course the UK went into Iraq way ahead of US forces in terms of its understanding of COIN OPS. No question about it. My point is that relative to the spend happy Americans, the overall change is significantly smaller and that some pretty significant gaps are getting even wider. Yet despite that, quality is still quite high.

As for the pullout of Iraq... the handover of Basra was a disaster. American forces had to come in and "save the day" while British forces were, for the most part, not to be seen. The list of excuses for this came from politicians since it was a political problem forced upon the military by British political decisions, not Iraqi. The current situation we find ourselves in now, with the Brits sitting in Kuwait, is a different matter entirely.

As a reminder, my point was that the British public has been given a choice... pony up more money so the military can conduct its operations effectively (i.e. low casualties, high results) or reduce the operations so not as much money needs to be taken out of the people's pockets. The inbetween option, which is keeping the force in harms way without proper funding, is the worst of all choices and appears to be off the table.

The American population has a similar choice and it's waffled back and forth over the years, but has spent money like crazy the whole time. The resolve to stay in contact, and even increase contact, has largely come about due to a change in senior leadership (both political and military) and some degree of success in Iraq through sheer perseverance and some luck. The next few years will be quite interesting to say the least.

Steve

[flamingknives]

GSX,

As for the pullout of Iraq... the handover of Basra was a disaster. American forces had to come in and "save the day" while British forces were, for the most part, not to be seen. The list of excuses for this came from politicians since it was a political problem forced upon the military by British political decisions, not Iraqi. The current situation we find ourselves in now, with the Brits sitting in Kuwait, is a different matter entirely.

Was it the US who came to save the day, or was it an Iraqi force with US mentors?

I was under the impression that it was the latter, and that was what was being aimed for.

[Chainsaw]

When I got the marines, the first thing I fell in love with was the SMAW, now when I got the British its this I fell in love with, and seen very little mentioned on the forum since release about it despite that it such a big step...

Yeah, the on-map mortar!

even thoe its only 51mm, if you send your platoon HQ thrue the platoons all Warriors it can scramble together about 50-60 rounds and 15-20 smoke rounds!

I dont know how many small engagements I have won because the 51mm manage to suppress the enemy and giving my sections the fire advantage again or screen of with smoke so I could do som daring moves with my sections that enabled me to take out the enemy from betther positions!

So Gameplay-wise, one of the biggest impacts on me is the 51mm...

/Thomas

[hcrof]

I've got to agree with you there Chainsaw - I love it and use it all the time. It has got much more punch than a 40mm grenade and the high arc means that it will winkle the enemy out from pretty heavy cover. I hear they want to get rid of it though (In real life)

[flamingknives]

They did get rid of it. Then they went to Afghanistan and realised that it was very useful, brought it back, realised again that they were running out of ammunition for it (having shut the production line down previously) and brought in a 60mm mortar in the same role. The 60mm has the advantage that it fires a bigger bomb further and can also be used off the bipod if needed.

[cyoung]

I'm finding that every enemy troop is impossible to locate and far to precise with return fire while the brits can't hit a bloody thing!!!!!!

[cyoung]

But a quick note to say I still love this type of game. Thanks Battlefront!!!!!

[Battlefront.com]

Flamingknives,

Was it the US who came to save the day, or was it an Iraqi force with US mentors?

I was under the impression that it was the latter, and that was what was being aimed for.

My memory is a bit fuzzy, so I poked around a bit to refresh it. The British left and the city quickly devolved into chaos and militia control, despite rosy words about how wonderfully smooth the handover went. Things got worse and worse with police units either joining the militias or not doing anything about them (1300 were fired after the offensive ended). The Iraqis conducted a massive offensive on their own and it didn't go well at all.

They eventually called in for US air power, which pounded various targets for several days. Then US ground forces, in the form of about a battalion sized force of 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne, went into Basra in direct support of the faltering Iraqi offensive. True, these were forces employed as "advisors" and air controllers, but the fact is these were US forces while British forces sat on the sidelines. British forces later aided with air and artillery strikes along with very limited patrols outside of Basra.

Typical Telegraph "unbiased" view:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584627/Iraq-snubs-UK-troops-in-Basra-offensive.html

A more sensible view:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/middleeast/03basra.html?pagewanted=print

The point of this is that the British forces were prematurely withdrawn according to a timetable designed to placate domestic British consumption. The fact is that the force within Basra was woefully undersized and under equipped to deal with a city of that size. I saw a brilliant summary of this phase by the then commanding British officer (there was a long thread about it on this Forum, IIRC). He got into some hot water for not holding back the truth about the situation he and his men were put in.

The notion that the British forces withdrew because of Iraqi politics is a smoke screen. Just look at the fact that American forces, in contrast, have remained in Iraq in vastly larger numbers... just not based in the urban areas any more. So either the Iraqis were so dissatisfied with British troops on the ground that they felt they'd be better off without them, or the British government allowed a contractual dispute to give them an "out" to withdraw from Iraq before it was militarily advisable. No matter what, the facts are extremely clear... there is no credible argument to be made that the British forces withdrew from a Basra that was ready for self rule. Which is what they supposedly did.

This does not speak ill of the British military forces, rather it goes back to my earlier point that the resolve to keep military forces actively engaged in prolonged foreign occupations is even weaker than it is in the US. Support for Iraq has been faltering for years and the reduction of British forces despite obvious need for them to remain is a clear indication of this.

Steve

[MikeyD]

The fact is that the force within Basra was woefully undersized and under equipped to deal with a city of that size.

You reminded me how 3-2nd Stryker *Brigade* replaced the exhaused 101 Airborne *Division* in Mosul in January 04. That's 300(-) Strykers total to patrol the second largest city in Iraq, almost twice the size of Basrah.

[Combatintman]

Yep, Iraq for us was an utter disaster - everyone knows it but isn't allowed to say it. The pullout was entirely due to misplaced political decisions - the same sort of thing was being talked about in relation to Afghanistan recently - namely that we would be in 'overwatch' next year - if we do that it will be Iraq all over again but some comedian will say that it was a well-executed 'exit strategy'. Utter nonsense.

[Erwin]

As an update here in June 2010, I believe that the Brits are probably going to be pulling out of Afghanistan (as soon as politically possible) due to the very high casualties they have been recently suffering - esp with the engineers vs IED's for which they appear to be scandalously ill-equipped.

Just got back from the UK, and it seems like casualties almost every day, and more than the Brits can absorb imo.

[Wodin]

It's been going on for awhile now...however I can't see us pulling out any time soon to be honest...the rehertric being used is the same thats ben used for awhile now...we will pull out as soon as the situation permits...which we hope will be as soon as possible...so I cna see us being there for a couple more years at least. New equipment is beingbuilt at the moment for the troops....i.e vehicles that are safer that with regrads to IED's. If they are spending money on them then they wont be pulling at just yet.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Just got back from the UK, and it seems like casualties almost every day, and more than the Brits can absorb imo.

Admittedly i havn't been watching the news as much as normal recently but it seems to have been a while since i heard any news of fatalities. Certainly compared to the summer of 2009 when we had a really bad time

[MikeyD]

Canada's announced its on its way out in 2011. Canada's not exactly over-populated, about 1/10th the population of the U.S. One hundred forty two Canadian casualties in Afghanistan is nearly equivalent to U.S.'s casualties on a per capita basis.

[Jonny(FGM)]

List of ISAF casualty figures (i've left out any country with less than 10 casualties), their populations, and casualties as a percentage of population. By this measure we can see the danes have had it worst

USA: 1,020*

309,527,000

0.000329

UK: 293

62,041,708

0.000472

Canada: 146*

34,143,000

0.000427

Germany: 47

81,757,600

0.000057

France: 43

65,447,374

0.000065

Denmark: 31

5,540,241

0.000559

Spain: 26*

45,989,016

0.000056

Netherlands: 24

16,617,975

0.000144

Italy: 22

60,231,214

0.000036

Poland: 16

38,163,895

0.000041

Australia: 13

22,387,947

0.000058

Romania: 11

22,215,421

0.000049

[vincere]

List of ISAF casualty figures (i've left out any country with less than 10 casualties), their populations, and casualties as a percentage of population. By this measure we can see the danes have had it worst

USA: 1,020*

309,527,000

0.000329

UK: 293

62,041,708

0.000472

Canada: 146*

34,143,000

0.000427

Germany: 47

81,757,600

0.000057

France: 43

65,447,374

0.000065

Denmark: 31

5,540,241

0.000559

Spain: 26*

45,989,016

0.000056

Netherlands: 24

16,617,975

0.000144

Italy: 22

60,231,214

0.000036

Poland: 16

38,163,895

0.000041

Australia: 13

22,387,947

0.000058

Romania: 11

22,215,421

0.000049

Hmm, is that just KIA?

[Jonny(FGM)]

Yes that is just KIA, i don't know about other countries but in britain only KIA gets reported in the news, therefore WIA figures don't really affect public opinion as much

[Blackcat]

Admittedly i havn't been watching the news as much as normal recently but it seems to have been a while since i heard any news of fatalities. Certainly compared to the summer of 2009 when we had a really bad time

Alas your impression is, regretaby, false. The 299th fatality was in the newspapers this morning. I think that is the fourth or fifth this week and the 300 mark will probably be crossed in the next few days (WIAs don't make the news but there have been more than 1,200 since 2006).

Erwin is wrong if he thinks the current casualty levels are more than the UK can take. The reporting of casualties has now become so common that it reached the point where it has little impact on Joe Public. That said there never has been any great enthusiasm for the war, and the reporting of it in the UK media has been woeful (not least because of MoD restrictions).

However, to take the discussion further would violate the no politics rule and, anyway would have no bearing on the game.