Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

State of the British armed forces

103 replies

Wizeman · 23/03/2026 13:16

Just wondering if anyone else is worried about the state of our armed forces?

The world seems like its on a knife edge and from my analysis we are not ready for war.

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 24/03/2026 19:37

Wizeman · 24/03/2026 19:32

They have in small numbers like delivering supplies, qarter masters, radio operators.

Im telling you now in conventional warfare you do not want RLC trucks Logistics near the front unless its delivering supplies.

Tell me why you would have Logistics trucks fighting on the front with their gpmgs, have field hospitals on the front giving aid to soldiers, water purification and large radio comms on the front line? It didn't happen in the past and it wouldnt happen today with drones in CONVENTIONAL WARFARE

In afghanistan it was different, logistics would often travel through hostile territory and would have to fight out sometimes.

I don’t know. You need to ask the army top brass who train logistics specialists to fight and send them to the front line.

Wizeman · 24/03/2026 19:40

BIossomtoes · 24/03/2026 19:37

I don’t know. You need to ask the army top brass who train logistics specialists to fight and send them to the front line.

Some specialists will be on the front but a majority are behind the front.

Your not answering because you would sound silly

Who would put field hospitals on the front or a bunch of man trucks? The Russians would love it 😂 easy target.

OP posts:
notimagain · 25/03/2026 07:45

ThatPearlkitty · 24/03/2026 17:23

a team of 10 super soldiers vs 100 average joes etc with the right intel and equipment etc the 10 would win

Maybe but that sounds awfully like the "punch above our weight" argument the politicians like to throw around that has got us where are now...

If a handful of your super soldiers become ineffective and the intel is a bit off the odds start to become really bad.

This carries across into the equipment world and the current conflict.

For example there's no doubt the current Type 45 destroyers with long range sensors and medium/long range surface to air missiles would beat the pants of a or even several Falklands era Type 42 with Sea Dart....

But you need to be able to get the ships to sea and on station before they can do anything...and recent events show that we can't reliably do that quickly with the Type 45 because if you start out by only buying a small batch because of the cost, and then have to rotate them through the dockyards with unexpected frequency you can end up with nil stock to deploy quickly.

Similar with the carriers - we have two...much the same as in 82 (Falklands) but unlike in 82 rumour has it we don't have enough crew to have both at sea at once, with both carrying a full air wing.

Common opinion I've heard from many who have served is the Forces a lot longer than I did is things went downhill quickly after Gulf War Two...does it matter? One for the politicians and voters, but if Russia did want to stir things up elements of their Navy and Long Range Air Force are still effective.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page