The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

All very nice, and highly likely I say that the Army will no longer be cut from its current size. I just hope (like it did during the Iraq / Afghanistan debacles) that the other two services don’t get pillaged as a result.

The reason why numbers were cut was to invest in a more mobile / deployable force - the underlying need hasn’t changed just the scale. Also, when he refers to Europeans carrying more of the weight, then when it comes to land forces the continental European countries are best placed to do this first. JEF is where the British Army can add more value, but that again is very different from BAOR.

My overarching fear is that if more money and more soldiers are seen as the solution the mess will continue - what is needed is bold action, starting with the scrapping of cap badges.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
jedibeeftrix
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 16:30 All very nice, and highly likely I say that the Army will no longer be cut from its current size. I just hope (like it did during the Iraq / Afghanistan debacles) that the other two services don’t get pillaged as a result.

The reason why numbers were cut was to invest in a more mobile / deployable force - the underlying need hasn’t changed just the scale. Also, when he refers to Europeans carrying more of the weight, then when it comes to land forces the continental European countries are best placed to do this first. JEF is where the British Army can add more value, but that again is very different from BAOR.

My overarching fear is that if more money and more soldiers are seen as the solution the mess will continue - what is needed is bold action, starting with the scrapping of cap badges.
I know those of a naval persuasion see dream of bobbing around the pacific on tony Blair’s force for good mantra slipping away. But what I like about the speech is the final realisation that defence of where we live is what’s important, we have too many holes in that portfolio to even consider anything else until they are properly filled, which will be a medium term exercise.

Does that mean a return to BOAR no I don’t think it should. But it does mean investment in intelligence gathering assets, surface to air, surface to surface and air to service missile systems with the ability to move quickly ground forces to reinforce our partners in the nordics and Eastern Europe with as the general said means fighting in build]t up areas, not open deserts.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Just hope that politicians now back up the generals with additional Budget allocation for further Defence spending.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 18:07 I know those of a naval persuasion see dream of bobbing around the pacific on tony Blair’s force for good mantra slipping away. But what I like about the speech is the final realisation that defence of where we live is what’s important, we have too many holes in that portfolio to even consider anything else until they are properly filled, which will be a medium term exercise.
If it’s where we live you are focusing on then there is close to zero threat to the UK itself. What there is a threat to is access to energy, food and goods and believe it or not a lot of these come EoS either directly or indirectly by the use of raw materials. SLOCs are still critical and cannot be ignored. Having said that look at the apportionment of funds and very little is relatively spent (or will be spent) on what you refer to as a “dream”.

A balanced and appropriate force for the UK and it’s requirements is needed. Like happened for COIN in the 2000’s one branch of the armed forces cannot pillage the other two. Look at the current funding and the Army is well funded but is the worst of the three for value for money. That’s the problem that has to be solved before a single Penny is spent.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 19:27
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 18:07 I know those of a naval persuasion see dream of bobbing around the pacific on tony Blair’s force for good mantra slipping away. But what I like about the speech is the final realisation that defence of where we live is what’s important, we have too many holes in that portfolio to even consider anything else until they are properly filled, which will be a medium term exercise.
If it’s where we live you are focusing on then there is close to zero threat to the UK itself. What there is a threat to is access to energy, food and goods and believe it or not a lot of these come EoS either directly or indirectly by the use of raw materials. SLOCs are still critical and cannot be ignored. Having said that look at the apportionment of funds and very little is relatively spent (or will be spent) on what you refer to as a “dream”.

A balanced and appropriate force for the UK and it’s requirements is needed. Like happened for COIN in the 2000’s one branch of the armed forces cannot pillage the other two. Look at the current funding and the Army is well funded but is the worst of the three for value for money. That’s the problem that has to be solved before a single Penny is spent.
Don’t need all these p8s and e7 and there likes then as there is no threat to uk waters or airspace… the region which we live in is re arming for a reason.

Very little of the UKs energy and food comes from East of suez, thevast majority of imported food and energy is from, the continent, central and South America, Africa. Our critical sea lines are no where Near East of suez. While these east of suez sea lanes are continually trumpeted as critical to uk survival there is zero evidence to back it up, if the ports in the channel close there is chaos in the uk, not so much if they close in the strait of malacca

The goods from East of suez are by a large margin coming out of China. They don’t have to target sea lines they simply have to stop making them. One of the consequences of the current conflict I think will be a change to supply lines away from Russia and China to varying degrees over time.

The army’s decisions with armoured vehicles has been shambolic over the past 20 years but the navy’s has been just as bad and strategically inept but all three have failed to properly support what they have there is little depth behind the shinny acquisitions, defence reviews have become about equipment rather than readiness and capacity to deploy force.

As the secretary of states note in his speech today for to long we have bought things that we conviently and deliberately ignore how to support them then wonder why force structures have to shrink as a consequence.

https://www.ukdefencenews.co.uk/2022/06 ... ence-2022/

“ Defence has become a constant competition between capabilities and mass – between one domain or another. And commitments have been made without any real honesty as to the costs twenty years down the line.

Take for example the aircraft carriers. Announced with fanfare by Gordon Brown in 1998 and completed twenty years later.

In the early stages there was no honesty as to the financial costs, opportunity costs, or ‘required enablers’, and what they would mean for the rest of Defence in the long term.

Like so many projects there was an inherent culture of ‘someone else will pay.’ That lack of realism has impacted right across our Armed Forces.

In Land, too many Army leaders and politicians focused on platform numbers while meeting rising costs by hollowing out force elements and their readiness.”

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Going forward we have some good kit coming and we have infantry Battalions but we need to push our self as far as we can and as said we should be looking to push for

3 x armoured BCT's

1 x Armoured regt = CH-3
1 x Cavalry regt = Ajax
2 x Infantry Battalions = Boxer

All three BCT's should have a Reserve Armoured squadron , Cavalry Company & Infantry Battalion

We really need to push on and get our light Infantry Mechanised and to this end we know that Jackal , Viking and Foxhound works we also know that Bushmaster works and so should be looking at 3 if not 4 BCT's based around these vehicle types

On top of this we really need to push on with Artillery and look for 200 SP guns and 100 MLRS's plus more Air Defence

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

No I wou7ld not consider the two Protected Mobility Infantry Battalions with their supports viable battegroups in anything but a low intensity COIN operation. The simple fact that State on Stare peer level conflict is no longer simply another topic to be discussed at Staff Collage, it is a reality. THe idea of readiness cycles that we ahve worked to for the last thirty odd years are totaqlly inadiquate to allow our military to be ready and able to fight such a conflict. WIth such a small Army fir example, both Heavy BCTs, the Deep Fired BCT, 16 AIr Assault BCT and at leat one of the Light BCTs plus at least one of the LCG must be maintained at far higher readiness that they are at present. OF those mentioned, one Heavy, the Deep Fires and 16 AA need to be held at very high readiness, in fact across the board levela akin to what the Armed orces were held in the 1980s would be apt. THis along woth the neccessary stock levels of munition and cnsumables as well as increased personnel and training all need to be full funded and the Equip,emt plan and its timetables accelerated. We had Defense spending at over 4% of GDP during the depression of the ate 70s and early 80s so increasing the current level of spending is possible with the will to do so. Not to do so would be neglignet and a betrayal of out Armed FOrces and a default on the Governments primary responsibility to the nation.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Scimitar54

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 17:16 No I wou7ld not consider the two Protected Mobility Infantry Battalions with their supports viable battegroups in anything but a low intensity COIN operation. The simple fact that State on Stare peer level conflict is no longer simply another topic to be discussed at Staff Collage, it is a reality. THe idea of readiness cycles that we ahve worked to for the last thirty odd years are totaqlly inadiquate to allow our military to be ready and able to fight such a conflict. WIth such a small Army fir example, both Heavy BCTs, the Deep Fired BCT, 16 AIr Assault BCT and at leat one of the Light BCTs plus at least one of the LCG must be maintained at far higher readiness that they are at present. OF those mentioned, one Heavy, the Deep Fires and 16 AA need to be held at very high readiness, in fact across the board levela akin to what the Armed orces were held in the 1980s would be apt. THis along woth the neccessary stock levels of munition and cnsumables as well as increased personnel and training all need to be full funded and the Equip,emt plan and its timetables accelerated. We had Defense spending at over 4% of GDP during the depression of the ate 70s and early 80s so increasing the current level of spending is possible with the will to do so. Not to do so would be neglignet and a betrayal of out Armed FOrces and a default on the Governments primary responsibility to the nation.
I think you are wrong I think a light Mechanised Battalion with foxhound & Bushmaster like so

60 APC / C&C , 9 Brimstone over watch , 9 SP Mortar , 10 Assault Pioneer & 10 Ambulance plus a 8 x Cavalry Jackals

if all APC's & C&C's were fitted with 30mm or 40mm GMG plus a Javelin on RWS's and all other vehicles were fitted with 12.7 mm or GPMG then give the dismounted sections 2 NLAW's each this force is going to be a handful for anything other than a Armoured Battalion and even then if a Bushmaster over watch could carry 12 Brimstone said armoured force would be facing 54 x NLAW , 60 x Javelin & 108 x Brimstone add to this Artillery cover and the speed at witch the Light mech force can move about the battle field and for me this is a viable force in Peer on peer conflict against the likes of other light infantry and Air Assault troops it comes down to how you deploy them

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

The words first and only are depressing as we should have 3 Light mechanised BCTs
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

We could have three Heavy Mechanised BCTs if the relevant programmes were handled properly and a little additional funding put in place. WE need to have 3rd (UK) Division brought up to full capability and capacity, to operate as a Division, with permanent Divisional assets, and ideally some or all of its units moved back to Germany or further East.

Back to the three Heavy BCTs, if we reorganise the Armoured Corps form the planned two type 56 Regiment to a Heavy Cavalry Regiment with a Headquarters with two Challenger 3 and support vehicles, three Squadrons each with three troops of four Challenger 3s and a Single Challenger 3 in the Squadron HQ, and a forth Squadron containing three troops of six Ajax or Boxer CRV together with a single platform in he Squadron HQ. These would work with two Mechanised Infantry Battalions, an Artillery Regiment, a Engineering Regiment, a Signals Regiment and a Logistics Regiment. To achieve this we need 123 Challenger 3s and at least another twenty six, or two Squadrons worth as an attrition reserve. It will also require between six and nine hundred Boxers and around two hundred and fifty Ajax if that programme actually delivers.

These three Heavy BCTs plus the Deep Fired BCT would form the new look 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division, with additional Artillery, Air Defence, Engineering, Signals and Logistics held at Divisional level.

With the exception of the development of a Boxer CVR possibly using the Ajax's turret, all of what is needed to build the core framework is already in the EP. There will be a need for additional Boxxer variants at some point, but the numbers required, say up to fifty of eash would not break the bank.

What is going to hjt the Treasury is the need to dramatically increase our holding of Consumables from spares to ammunition, something they have never likes funding.

Creating the new look 3rd *UK( Division should be the Army's top priority ahead of many programmes that are aimed to deliver future capabilities but not until the end of the 2030s at the earliest. We need to get out house in order in Europe before anything else. Things like the development of the Ranger Regiment can be slowed as can the reequipping of the Light BCTs, but not halted. As for EoS, we should leave that to the Royal Navy for the foreseeable future. SO between now and 2030 the Army and the above progeamme should be top of the MoD priorities just below renewing CASD.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacS M H

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

We could have with some effort 3 x Armoured BCT's and 3 x Light Mechanised BCT's of

Armoured

1 x Armoured Regt = CH3
1 x Cavalry regt = Ajax
4 x Infantry Battalion = Boxer ( 2 x Reg & 2 x Reserve )
1 x Artillery
1 x Logistics

Light Mechanised

1 x Cavalry Regt = Jackal
5 x Infantry Battalion = Viking , Foxhound , Bushmaster ( 3 x Reg & 2 Reserve )
1 x Artillery
1 x Logistics

Air Assault

1 x Pathfinder
1 x Light Recce Strike
4 x AA Infantry ( 3 x Reg & 1 Reserve )
1 x Artillery
1 x Logistics

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Well if we were to play a little of fantasy fleets I would have

1ARRC
1x Strat Logistics brigade
1x Strat signals brigade

2 x Heavy Brigades

1 x Brigade HQ enhanced signals

1 x Cavalry reg
3 x Infantry battalions- 2x Close support company’s, (RS6turrets mmp/LMM/nlaw/hero)
2x Standoff company. (1 x skyranger30/LMM, 1xRT60/mmp )

1x Artillery reg- 3x MLRS Batt, 1x UAV Batt
1x Air defence Reg - 2x sky sabre batt, 1 CUAV Batt

1x eng reg
1x log reg
1x Med Reg

1x Divisional HQ

4 x light mech brigades

1x Brig HQ enhanced signals
1x Pathfinder recon company (para unit)

2 x infantry battalion-2x close support companies (Rs4 RWS/nlaw )
2x standoff companies ( Rs6 RWS mmp/LMM/Hero)

1x Artillery Reg-3x Himars batt,
1x Air defence Reg- 2x Sky Sabre, 1 CUAV Batt

1x Log Reg
1x Eng Sqn
1x Med Reg

1x Special Forces Brigade

1x SF
2x SF support Battalion
1x Ranger Reg

If we are going to concentrate on the “deep” battle and urban then we will likely need forces that can move quickly around urban environment set up defensive positions and are lighter logistically with good communication and the ability to defend urban areas from the air and range out to hit enemy at long range.

We don’t have the air assets for support brigade level air mobile operations and there’s at least more that a few questions over parachuting and large helicopter movements in shorad environments and if we would be prepared for the attrition rate so imo it should be the preserve of special forces and limited to reconnaissance formations. The land helicopter units should take on a form something like the US 160th deployed from land or sea.

I would have one of the light mech brigades formed on Gurkhas and support the Asia fwd deployed group the other in the uk to reinforce should it ever be needed. One brigade would go to Cyprus to support NATOs southern flank and readiness role in Cyprus. The other two brigades would provide rotating support to NATOs northern flank and the Falklands committment.

One of the two heavy brigades would be a high readiness to deploy to Estonia, Lithuanian via rail and Road moves via the strategic logistics brigade with a battle group fwd deployed.

Like everything the problem as with future soldier is the lack of logistics and eng units to support the formations to be independently deployable so to make it work would need a design to reduce head count in cavalry and infantry numbers and put them into air defence and support functions to remain within the overall headcount cap.

If you want a notional vehicle type I would have the heavy units on challenger and boxer, two of the light mech brigades on jltv (as the army seem hell bent on that option) and 2 on Viking or it’s replacement.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

what we see in future soldier is

1 x Deep fries BCT

2 x Armoured BCT's with

1 x Armoured regt ( there are 2 in the 12th )
1 x Cavalry regt
4 x Infantry battalions ( the 12th with 2 reg & 2 reserves and the 20th with 3 reg & 2 reserve )
1 x Artillery regt
1 x Logistics regt

1 x Light Mechanised BCT with

1 x Cavalry regt
5 x Infantry Battalion ( all reg )
2 x Artillery regt
1 x Logistics regt
1 x Engineer Regt

1 x Light Infantry Brigade with

1 x Cavalry regt
6 x Infantry Battalions ( all reg )
1 x Artillery regt
1 x Logistics regt
1 x Engineer regt

1 x Reserve Light Infantry Brigade with

2 x Cavalry regt
8 x Infantry Battalions

So we see within the 1st Division we have 11 regular Infantry Battalions and 8 Reserve Battalion so what I am looking to do is move some units around to form the 1st Armoured BCT

1 x Armoured regt ( moved from the 12th
1 x Cavalry regt ( moved from the Reserve light infantry Brigade )
4 x Infantry Battalions ( 1 moved from the 20th , 1 from the Light BCT and 2 from the Reserves )
Add to this a Artillery , Logistics and Engineer regts

This would leave the 1st division with

3 x Cavalry regts
10 x Regular Infantry Battalions
6 x Reserve Infantry Battalions

which could be reformed into 3 x Light mechanised BCT's of

1 x cavalry regt
5 x infantry Battalions ( 3 x reg & 2 x reserves )
Plus Artillery , Logistics & Engineers

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

headcount cap needs to be increased along with everything else if we want to be in the top table warfighting business. WE are still basing our readiness levels on a cycle, this needs to be either heavily modified or abandoned and more a return to the 1980s readiness levels for most units in BOAR. 3rd Division needs to be in the field and combat ready in a matter of weeks with the first units arriving within days.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I like the way Sir Patrick Sanders speaks:
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 11:43 will re-build our *stockpiles* and review the *deployability of our vehicle fleet*. And having seen its limitations first-hand as the Commander of the Field Army, I think we need to ask ourselves
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 11:43 ask ourselves *whether Whole Fleet Management is the right model* given the scale of the threat we face.
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 11:43 sophisticated and robust command, control and communication network. We will seek to speed up the delivery of planned new equipments including ** AND BUILDING UP NATO CMPATIBILITY** long range fires, attack aviation, persistent surveillance and target acquisition, expeditionary logistic enablers, Ground Based Air Defence*,
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 11:43
OHH, ANYTHING ELSE?
double-down on combined arms manoeuvre, especially in the deep battle, and devise a new doctrine rooted in geography
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
wargame_insomniac
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

A great thread on the Uk formation that formed for the Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait. A good comparison with the French division committed too and perhaps a basis on which the current army structure attempts to replicate.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

The CGS on the army’s challenges and how things might need to change


wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

https://uklandpower.com/2022/12/27/thou ... w-refresh/

Some interesting discussion, looking at interim conclusions from Russia-Ukraine War.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Dec 2022, 21:37 https://uklandpower.com/2022/12/27/thou ... w-refresh/

Some interesting discussion, looking at interim conclusions from Russia-Ukraine War.
The thing I find interesting in reading these pieces is how the “enemy” we are equipping to face has morphed to suit the procurement narrative over the years since the end of the Cold War, from no no not non state actors, to its about the rouge states like iraq then when they proved incompetent it was Russian threat now they’ve proved incompetent it’s a professional opposition. This maybe semantics but we should just say we have to train in the expectation we are facing a competent opposition on land sea and air.

As to the specifics the idea we fight what Nicholas describes as the first battle (or the Americans say stand in force) and the deep battle is I think sensible Ukraine has reinforced this in that you defend the territory you have you don’t want to fight to retake it.

On the army structure itself the idea of two heavy, medium and light brigades plus a sf brigade is what you would describe as a balanced force that in theory allows a high and low readiness option across the full contingency scale. However that means you don’t add an air assault brigade on top! That isn’t prioritising 4 key areas as he puts it.

While the heavy, medium, light construct is balanced and sensible it ignores the position we are starting from in terms of current equipment, equipment currently on order and more importantly how that fits in with the other two services to support a light medium and heavy deployment.

In my mind the two light brigades need to be configured like the old air mobile style brigade with recon elements within it and the sf brigade being the parachute trained elements. This is the rapid deployed force that fights the first battle with allies over strategic distances from the UK and are used to deny the enemy freedom of movement. They should be assigned the equivalent of sky sabre and himars in support of that aim. Do we have the light protected vehicles, transport aircraft and helicopters available to support such a deployment I would say not in the round and would need investment being prioritised here.

The medium is the problem we don’t have any. I’d argue mastiff is medium weight vehicle at present but it’s not configured in a brigade let alone two and it’s apparently being replaced with boxer which is heavy not medium. We don’t have the equivalent of an American Stryker or French Jaguar/griffon combination. I’d argue the aim of this force is to rapidly reinforce allies along the nato border in Europe with a focus for the uk being the JEF countries area of interest. Now you could do that with boxer in theory but I’d like see the lead battle group of such a boxer brigade deploy from the uk to say Estonia in 96 hrs is it doable.

We have heavy forces most are old, they are the most expensive and are strategically immobile and we haven’t invested in the rail and road assets to deploy them. If going fwd we are prioritising the first battle over the second should we be investing the majority of a finite budget in second battle assets to regain ground if our priority is the first battle. Should we perhaps only have 1 heavy brigade at a lower level of readiness to fight the second battle. Maybe put a reconfigured Ajax and challenger in this brigade.


Perhaps if the lesson of Ukraine is that rapidly deploying “standin” forces to support an allied nation is a priority to deter so we don’t have to fight the funds for that 2nd heavy brigade should be spent on a 3rd air mobile one with the supporting assets to allow it to deploy maybe a better option.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 11:08
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Dec 2022, 21:37 https://uklandpower.com/2022/12/27/thou ... w-refresh/

Some interesting discussion, looking at interim conclusions from Russia-Ukraine War.
The thing I find interesting in reading these pieces is how the “enemy” we are equipping to face has morphed to suit the procurement narrative over the years since the end of the Cold War, from no no not non state actors, to its about the rouge states like iraq then when they proved incompetent it was Russian threat now they’ve proved incompetent it’s a professional opposition. This maybe semantics but we should just say we have to train in the expectation we are facing a competent opposition on land sea and air.

As to the specifics the idea we fight what Nicholas describes as the first battle (or the Americans say stand in force) and the deep battle is I think sensible Ukraine has reinforced this in that you defend the territory you have you don’t want to fight to retake it.

On the army structure itself the idea of two heavy, medium and light brigades plus a sf brigade is what you would describe as a balanced force that in theory allows a high and low readiness option across the full contingency scale. However that means you don’t add an air assault brigade on top! That isn’t prioritising 4 key areas as he puts it.

While the heavy, medium, light construct is balanced and sensible it ignores the position we are starting from in terms of current equipment, equipment currently on order and more importantly how that fits in with the other two services to support a light medium and heavy deployment.

In my mind the two light brigades need to be configured like the old air mobile style brigade with recon elements within it and the sf brigade being the parachute trained elements. This is the rapid deployed force that fights the first battle with allies over strategic distances from the UK and are used to deny the enemy freedom of movement. They should be assigned the equivalent of sky sabre and himars in support of that aim. Do we have the light protected vehicles, transport aircraft and helicopters available to support such a deployment I would say not in the round and would need investment being prioritised here.

The medium is the problem we don’t have any. I’d argue mastiff is medium weight vehicle at present but it’s not configured in a brigade let alone two and it’s apparently being replaced with boxer which is heavy not medium. We don’t have the equivalent of an American Stryker or French Jaguar/griffon combination. I’d argue the aim of this force is to rapidly reinforce allies along the nato border in Europe with a focus for the uk being the JEF countries area of interest. Now you could do that with boxer in theory but I’d like see the lead battle group of such a boxer brigade deploy from the uk to say Estonia in 96 hrs is it doable.

We have heavy forces most are old, they are the most expensive and are strategically immobile and we haven’t invested in the rail and road assets to deploy them. If going fwd we are prioritising the first battle over the second should we be investing the majority of a finite budget in second battle assets to regain ground if our priority is the first battle. Should we perhaps only have 1 heavy brigade at a lower level of readiness to fight the second battle. Maybe put a reconfigured Ajax and challenger in this brigade.


Perhaps if the lesson of Ukraine is that rapidly deploying “standin” forces to support an allied nation is a priority to deter so we don’t have to fight the funds for that 2nd heavy brigade should be spent on a 3rd air mobile one with the supporting assets to allow it to deploy maybe a better option.
When you said "We don’t have the equivalent of an American Stryker or French Jaguar/griffon combination" I would say not currently but in my opinion this is what Boxer equipped unit should be once Boxer is finally rolled out en masse.

Using the example of Estonia, some of our Armoured forces should be advance deployed to Estonia as our ground contribution to NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence. Elements of 3rd division should be deployed in rotation with bulk of our heavy equipment i.e. our active Challengers, Warrior, AS90 and M270 MLRS etc should be kept there, so that the rest of the Division can reinforce quickly by moving troops with much of equipment already in situ.

The advantages of Boxer over tracked vehicles should be greater operational mobility, in that they can drive faster and for longer on normal roads. So Boxer equipped infantry should be our medium infantry equivalent to US Stryker / French Jaguar. But it will take a while for UK Army to fully roll out Boxer.

I agree that the two light Brigades would be predominately covering any army missions outside Europe, and be air-liftable by C17 Globemaster and A400M Atlas. Infantry wold be motorised with MRAP vehicles such as Panther, Foxhound, Cougar etc. I can't see us being able to deploy anything heavier oustide Europe without considerable investment in strategic airlift.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

It is possibly to use boxer as a wheeled brigade formation though that is not how the command paper last year envisaged it being used. It would be equivalent in that it’s wheeled however is would be significantly heavier than the French and American equivalents and that has consequences.

Placing the bulk of the heavy equipment back to north east Europe has an enormous cost, in both maintenance and training especially after we just brought it all back. It’s also geographically limiting in that we might have to go elsewhere, what is right for us is not necessarily the same as Poland or Germany.

The light brigades need to be able to operate across all types of terrain and their vehicles would need to be moved in multiples per fixed wing a/c sortie and by a chinook if required once deployed, that would rule out mraps and be more towards vehicles in 7 tons bracket.

The point vessels can deploy heavier forces outside of Europe if you have the time as you are into the months rather than days. This is particularly why weight in the medium category is important as the ability to reinforce a light brigade quickly with a medium weight battlegroup in say Africa or the Middle East would be more of a challenge with boxer.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Feels to me we are stuck in a loop of endless discussion of what the Army should look like that fits a traditional view rather than stepping back devising a strategy then matching equipment / force structures to that.

My view is that UK is and wants to continue to be a global influencer, whilst protecting its territory (to which there is very limited real threat currently).

Without a real threat to its territory the UK must remain vigilant to incursions and growing threats, but it does not need a large standing army.

This is better suited to a larger more capable reserve force than a small regular force.

To influence global events it needs to be able to act quickly to mitigate emerging threats, but as importantly it needs to be an enabler for allies to allow them to defend themselves through complementary capabilities that they do not have. Long gone are the days of large army forces deployed to war zones - they are both unaffordable for the UK and as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated do not work.

This lends it self more to the SF/FCF/Ranger structures being discussed coupled with highly mobile battlegroup sized specialist forces providing artillery, surveillance, air defence and other first tier capabilities. Alongside this is the engagement in training and supplies as proven in the Ukraine conflict.

I’d argue that none of this requires regular heavy or medium brigades.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 08:57 Feels to me we are stuck in a loop of endless discussion of what the Army should look like that fits a traditional view rather than stepping back devising a strategy then matching equipment / force structures to that.

My view is that UK is and wants to continue to be a global influencer, whilst protecting its territory (to which there is very limited real threat currently).

Without a real threat to its territory the UK must remain vigilant to incursions and growing threats, but it does not need a large standing army.

This is better suited to a larger more capable reserve force than a small regular force.

To influence global events it needs to be able to act quickly to mitigate emerging threats, but as importantly it needs to be an enabler for allies to allow them to defend themselves through complementary capabilities that they do not have. Long gone are the days of large army forces deployed to war zones - they are both unaffordable for the UK and as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated do not work.

This lends it self more to the SF/FCF/Ranger structures being discussed coupled with highly mobile battlegroup sized specialist forces providing artillery, surveillance, air defence and other first tier capabilities. Alongside this is the engagement in training and supplies as proven in the Ukraine conflict.

I’d argue that none of this requires regular heavy or medium brigades.
The strategy is borne out of the philosophy that underpinned fres. Deploy quickly to support an allied nation and use long rang surface to air and surface to surface fire to deny enemy movement. Or possession is 9 the 10ths of the law.

NATO territory is UK territory and the uk through JEF has a region in which to focus its deployed forces. So the need to have a medium force that can rapidly deploy to reinforce this area will remain as long as we remain within NATO.

We don’t currently have a large standing army nor do I see anyone calling for a large standing army. The question of the reserve is interesting but if you wish to deploy quickly then reserves don’t particularly suit that. If you have a force predominantly interested in territorial defence of your own country then they are better suited to that.

Having medium weight protection simply means that you can move and manoeuvre quickly in support of those specialist long range systems if the shooting starts in anger.

The reason to have a heavy force is that you may wish to take back territory from an enemy.

For the UK it’s all about scale and priorities. I think the uk priorities are toward the lighter end with those specialist capabilities but it does need to retain capability to contribute to an offensive operation as a contingency.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

What is needed is a reconfigured 1st division and a move to 4 Light Mech BCT's made up of

2 x Viking BCT's with

3 x full time and 2 x Reserve infantry battalions
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

2 x Bushmaster BCT's with

3 x full time and 2 x Reserve infantry battalions
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

This could give the army

1 x Deep fires BCT
2 x Armoured BCT's
4 x Light mechanised BCT's
1 x Air Assault BCT
1 x SFA brigade
1 x Ranger Regiment
1 x SF regiment

Post Reply