Hundreds of Gurkhas axed in UK’s new round of cuts

**Deltacamelately** · 15 Jun 12,, 11:17

Hundreds of Gurkhas axed in UK’s new round of cuts
AFP | Jun 13, 2012, 06.07AM IST

KATHMANDU: Hundreds of Britain's Nepalese Gurkha fighters are to lose their jobs in a second round of cuts announced on Tuesday, which will see almost 3,000 posts slashed from the army.

The British embassy in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu said around 320 troops would lose their jobs as the United Kingdom's coalition government takes further steps to slash a record deficit.

The steep cuts to the 3,000-strong Gurkha brigade follow 400 redundancies in January. "As part of further work on British defence restructuring, the army have today notified those individuals who have been selected for the second round of redundancies," the embassy said in a statement.

"Around 320 Gurkhas have been selected out of the 2,900 jobs to go. The Brigade of Gurkhas has been growing since modernization in 2007, which also allowed them to serve for 22 years instead of 15."

Led by actress Joanna Lumley, a 2009 campaign won Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 with at least four years' service the right to settle permanently in UK.
Hundreds of Gurkhas axed in UK’s new round of cuts - The Times of India

While its understandable that the strategists want a leaner and meaner British Army, however, what will be the overall impact on the force structure and combat preparedness of the BA with the current slashing of combatant numbers? Will the BA still be able to field forces in tran-continental theatres with such shrinking numbers?

**dave lukins** · 15 Jun 12,, 11:45

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

While its understandable that the strategists want a leaner and meaner British Army, however, what will be the overall impact on the force structure and combat preparedness of the BA with the current slashing of combatant numbers? Will the BA still be able to field forces in tran-continental theatres with such shrinking numbers?

It grieves me to see the Forces slashed with a sabre like manner such as this. Our Forces are stretched to the limit and if the Falklands kick-off again (it won't happen) we would not be able to sent a sizable Force to do much about it. I foresee a European Armed Force in the future.

**Doktor** · 15 Jun 12,, 11:48

If Mr. Putin sees opportunity in all these slashing of forces throughout Europe, with USA dedicated to the Pacific Asian region, busy with China, I wonder how the governments in Europe will react. Slashing more?

**Deltacamelately** · 15 Jun 12,, 12:04

Originally Posted by dave lukins

It grieves me to see the Forces slashed with a sabre like manner such as this. Our Forces are stretched to the limit and if the Falklands kick-off again (it won't happen) we would not be able to sent a sizable Force to do much about it. I foresee a European Armed Force in the future.

Dave,

True as you said it is, this reminded me of one of the posts of our own Captain S-2.

Expensive? Yeah.

So is losing when it matters most. I don't know where. I don't know when. If "...the more things change the more they stay the same..." then we'd best expect to be challenged in a big way sometime in the future. A nation that can't field large numbers of well-equipped and competently-trained professional soldiers and marines will get what they deserve.

I wish the policy makers find better ways of cost cutting and recovering the economy.

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 12,, 13:37

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

Will the BA still be able to field forces in tran-continental theatres with such shrinking numbers?

Yes. We go back to WWII days where you stay in theatre until the mission is over. You don't get to go home on leave or be rotated out.

**Deltacamelately** · 15 Jun 12,, 14:12

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Yes. We go back to WWII days where you stay in theatre until the mission is over. You don't get to go home on leave or be rotated out.

Sir,

That being said, any Army with dwindling numbers will be hard pressed to act independently in such a scenario. Even hard deployment of the kind you suggest won't change that fact. The BA of WWII was surely not suffering from this deficiency, it can be said though that they were fighting too many battles at the same time. Little similarity there.

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 12,, 14:21

Yes, we were. A volunteer army did not cut it back then. We had to resort to conscription. And do recall how the regiment system was actually devised. 2nd Battalion was to send in replacement bodies for the 1st Battalion. In essence, going back to the old way means we cut out one battalion and still maintain the number of deployments.

However, the reality is that we would do more with less. It's already started. Company size garrisons have been replaced by platoon houses.

**dave lukins** · 15 Jun 12,, 14:32

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Yes. We go back to WWII days where you stay in theatre until the mission is over. You don't get to go home on leave or be rotated out.

There's not enough left to rotate or go on leave. I do however read that squaddies are being used as security during that conflict called the Olympic Games

**Deltacamelately** · 15 Jun 12,, 17:09

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Yes, we were. A volunteer army did not cut it back then. We had to resort to conscription. And do recall how the regiment system was actually devised. 2nd Battalion was to send in replacement bodies for the 1st Battalion. In essence, going back to the old way means we cut out one battalion and still maintain the number of deployments.

However, the reality is that we would do more with less. It's already started. Company size garrisons have been replaced by platoon houses.

Sir,

Not withstanding the wisdom getting into all this cut downs, I still have serious doubts. With the force levels going down so fast, the social factors regarding war casualities, economic considerations and growing capabilities of potential adversaries, at what point is your company, hell, even your platoon, going to remain battle worthy? Let's talk percentage here Sir. And, if I may add, is it worth the price to place a 1st rate military power of less than a 100 years, to such demoralizing/degrading gambles, just for quick money?

Its the soldier and not the economist who rants.

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 12,, 17:37

Wisdom? I won't use that word. Necessity is the word I would use. I have no illusions that deployments would go down. I also have no illusions that we get extra money for them. Then, the question is of priority. Where do we spend our money? The big brigade battles are out ... though we will still train for them ... in the event that we do actually need to do brigade battles (North Korea, Iran, Syria) but Russian columns marching through Germany? Forget it. We're not preparing for that.

Like all combat missions, we will withdraw once we become combat ineffective to regroup, rebuild, and then to re-commit. If our battalion gets to chewed up. We'll withdraw to regroup into a re-enforced company, re-enforced platoon, etc.

However, as Afghanistan has shown, it is not our combat capabilities that is lacking. It's the sustainment. Everytime the Taliban mass to oppose us, we clear them without effort. We then have to withdraw to rebuild ... and the Taliban moves right back in ... and we clear them again ... and again they return ... etc. We need to stay so that they don't return.

And we did abandon posts once they were no longer sustainable.

**Deltacamelately** · 18 Jun 12,, 09:30

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Wisdom? I won't use that word. Necessity is the word I would use. I have no illusions that deployments would go down. I also have no illusions that we get extra money for them. Then, the question is of priority. Where do we spend our money? The big brigade battles are out ... though we will still train for them ... in the event that we do actually need to do brigade battles (North Korea, Iran, Syria) but Russian columns marching through Germany? Forget it. We're not preparing for that.

Like all combat missions, we will withdraw once we become combat ineffective to regroup, rebuild, and then to re-commit. If our battalion gets to chewed up. We'll withdraw to regroup into a re-enforced company, re-enforced platoon, etc.

However, as Afghanistan has shown, it is not our combat capabilities that is lacking. It's the sustainment. Everytime the Taliban mass to oppose us, we clear them without effort. We then have to withdraw to rebuild ... and the Taliban moves right back in ... and we clear them again ... and again they return ... etc. We need to stay so that they don't return.

And we did abandon posts once they were no longer sustainable.

Sir,

Thanks for the perspective. I understand where it differs from my understanding - You have negated the possibility of Brigade/Divsion/Corps level battles. That's fine, but then you have to keep praying, battles of such magnitude doesn't happen.