Britain's unloved Army?

[uk 75]

Perhaps it is a legacy of the bloody slaughter in the English Civil War or more recent carnage in Flanders or Afghanistan but Britain's Army has tended to be unloved by Brits compared with the Royal Navy or the RAF.
The phrases British Expeditionary Force or British Army of the Rhine are associated with poorly equipped and sometimes poorly led formations of largely infantrymen sent to die in foreign fields.
More recently Iraq and Afghanistan have added to this dismal image.
Noone in 1991 would have thought that Russia would once again menace not just its unlucky neighbours but also the comfortable democracies of Western Europe.
Few young people in Britain or elsewhere in W Europe see Army service in a positive light.
FIlm from Ukraine of individual soldiers scurrying in vain before a drone kills them can have done little to help.
Meanwhile many young people here grow up in poor housing crumbling schools and with bad news on every screen.
It will take some remarkable people to get us ready to meet the challenges posed by the strutting dictatorships from Moscow to Pyongyang. We were taught at school that Chamberlain and Baldwin were "guilty men" but in comparison with today's politicians they were preparing Britain to defend itself in 1939.

 

[zen]

To contribute to this topic is inherently political.

The least political thing we can say is the UK doesn't need a large Army on it's islands. So any army is ultimately a force for aggressive wars abroad or defence of foreign countries.

 

[SteveO]

I think being fascinated by military kit and reading about it all the time put me off joining the military in the 1990’s.

I’m sure I missed out on a good experience but reading about unreliability, poor kit, cancelled projects and delays doesn’t inspire confidence that the powers that be took defence seriously.

I think a form of national service that includes some basic military training but is mostly about national resilience in emergency situations should be considered. It won’t involve being deployed for military service unless you volunteer and it won’t just be for young people (“don’t tell him your name Pike!”).

Basically we get more people who can move and fix stuff. Provide some Royal Engineer, REME and medical training.

Hopefully it could be a shared experience that brings people together and makes them fitter!

 

[TinWing]

Perhaps it is a legacy of the bloody slaughter in the English Civil War or more recent carnage in Flanders or Afghanistan but Britain's Army has tended to be unloved by Brits compared with the Royal Navy or the RAF.
The phrases British Expeditionary Force or British Army of the Rhine are associated with poorly equipped and sometimes poorly led formations of largely infantrymen sent to die in foreign fields.
More recently Iraq and Afghanistan have added to this dismal image.
Noone in 1991 would have thought that Russia would once again menace not just its unlucky neighbours but also the comfortable democracies of Western Europe.
Few young people in Britain or elsewhere in W Europe see Army service in a positive light.
FIlm from Ukraine of individual soldiers scurrying in vain before a drone kills them can have done little to help.
Meanwhile many young people here grow up in poor housing crumbling schools and with bad news on every screen.
It will take some remarkable people to get us ready to meet the challenges posed by the strutting dictatorships from Moscow to Pyongyang. We were taught at school that Chamberlain and Baldwin were "guilty men" but in comparison with today's politicians they were preparing Britain to defend itself in 1939.

I’d argue that the English Civil War was far less bloody than any phase of the 30 Years War on the continent. The New Model Army was actually quite disciplined and humane by the standards of the 17th century and Charles I refrained from harming London. Cromwell and William of Orange did put down the Irish but outside of Belfast not many British youths have any notion of “The Troubles” that ended in the 1990s. Moreover, I can’t imagine many young British people are acutely aware of current events in the ongoing conflict as it’s an interminable back-and-forth and rather boring. And in truth, young people are probably correct to ignore the trifling foreign policy concerns of elites and get along with their daily lives. The kids are going to be just fine.

 

[uk 75]

I was thinking of the impact on the civilian population in Britain of the English Civil War and indeed the Wars of the Roses earlier. A fear of standing armies is deeply engrained.

The famous Oxford Union debate that decided it would not fight for King and Country was not reflected in the Second World War. So I have to agree with you about the likely courage of today"s young people.

But the British Army has not faired well since 1945 in the way it has been resourced and its soldiers have been looked after. This needs to change.

 

[TinWing]

I was thinking of the impact on the civilian population in Britain of the English Civil War and indeed the Wars of the Roses earlier. A fear of standing armies is deeply engrained.

The famous Oxford Union debate that decided it would not fight for King and Country was not reflected in the Second World War. So I have to agree with you about the likely courage of today"s young people.

But the British Army has not faired well since 1945 in the way it has been resourced and its soldiers have been looked after. This needs to change.

I’d argue that the Wars of the Roses were far less violent toward the common English peasants and townsmen than the chevauchée raids the Hundred Years War were towards the French. Set piece battles were between the high nobility and regional towns generally weren’t besieged, unlike the later Civil War. If anything, the Wars of the Roses resulted in a weaker crown that taxed Englishmen at a rate that was far lower than in equally developed regions of late Medieval Europe. An English merchant in the reign of Henry VII paid less than 1/8 or 1/16 the taxes of a Burgundian subject of similar wealth. A financially weak crown couldn’t field a violent and unruly army of mercenaries of the type that made the 30 Years War bloodier, proportionately and in terms of the 17th century German population, than both World Wars combined. Moreover, Henry VII not only avoided taxing the commons as much as possible, he suppressed private armies through show trials and confiscatory fines places on the high nobility.

I’d argue that post 1945, British ground forces did as well, or better, than their French or America counterparts. Britain was outright successful against insurgencies in Kenya and Malaya. Arguably, The Falklands was a far more impressive display of military power than either Grenada or Panama.

In contrast, Vietnam broke American society in ways that very few non-Americans appreciate. Truth be known, the brilliant Detente diplomacy Nixon and Kissinger masked the consequences of Vietnam from the rest of the world. Operation Dessert Storm would revive American military prestige globally for the next 30 years. I’m not going to discuss the events of the last 5 years or the consequences, only to say that nobody blamed the British, or faulted their previous contributions in terms of ground forces.

 

[bob225]

I worked in education in the UK a few years back, looking after 16-18 year olds.

We'd get Armed forces and Emergency services to come in to do career chats.

The RAF & Navy were always great, smart, funny, interesting. They were also very positive about joining the military and had great knowledge about the careers available and the requirements, also had some good stories to tell.

On the flip side the Army team seemed disinterested, had knowledge gaps and when asked even suggested to the groups that joining the RAF & Navy was a better idea as i quit "You get much better looked after".

Sadly that wasn't even a one off, i hope they have improved things now!