The public disconnect from military life puts the Armed Forces in crisis
SIR – No amount of political posturing can disguise the fact that our Armed Forces have a major recruitment crisis (report, January 28).
There is nothing novel about the recruitment problem, or special to this country: it is why so many nations in both the past and present have resorted to conscription. The preferred British way to resolve the issue, however, has been the centuries-old tradition of a trained citizenry. Today organisations like the National Rifle Association, and events like the King’s Prize at Bisley, are ghosts of their former selves because their objectives have been countered by political decisions that have sought to segregate the military from civilian life, and sporting skill and interest.
If we are serious about the need to maintain a credible Armed Forces in the future, we must bridge that divide. Richard Munday
Much Hadham, Hertfordshire
SIR – Recent articles on the crisis in our military and the reduction in regular service strengths have ignored a key factor, namely the reduction in the number of reserve forces locations.
While working for Lloyds Bank in the early 1980s, I joined the Territorial Army (TA) and found myself enjoying soldiering more than banking. I took a regular commission and served a decade in the Army. I was not alone in making that transition from the TA to the regulars and the TA also received many ex-regulars who retained their usefulness on the reserve list.
At the height of the Cold War, there were multiple TA “drill halls”, with units based in every reasonably sized town in Shropshire. Now, there is only one Reserve Forces Centre, in Shrewsbury, meaning that the effort of travel within a rural county puts possible recruits off. More generally, there is no military presence in other towns in order to spark initial interest.
The reduction in reserve forces locations has contributed to the decline in regular Forces recruitment and post-regular service retention. These centres served as a vital gateway, introducing young people to military life. If new investment were available, expanding reserve forces locations might be a useful development. John O’brien
Condover, Shropshire
SIR – Highlighting the Royal Navy’s lack of ability to conduct missile attacks on land targets (report, January 28) is correct. The then defence secretary Geoff Hoon blocked my attempt as First Sea Lord to have the capability in the Type 45s, which had been designed with spaces for such a weapons fit. Thus the land attack capability of the Navy is vested in the submarine force and – more pertinently for operations in the Red Sea – our carrier aircraft.
Why has the RAF starved the carrier force of the aircraft required to enable a carrier to be deployed? Admiral Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
London SW1