The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
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 »

Repulse wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 22:38
SW1 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 18:55 …should we simply say no?

So there is clearly a desire in democratic countries that feel threatened to request and have UK ground forces come and fight with them in there country.
No we shouldn’t say no, but we should ask ourselves how we can best give assistance. My point is that another (relatively poorly equipped) light or heavy battle group is a traditional response, but actually it just makes a small increase in what they have already. Providing specialist game changing capabilities is a better way.
This is where it depends.

In the short term the Polish army welcomed the UK sending an Armoured Battalion earlier this year because they had just sent their Soviet era tanks to Ukraine and had nt yet received either their US Abrams or South Korea K2 MBT's that they have ordered. Subsequently the first batch of K2's have been delivered and I beleive the first of the Polish Abrams are due to be delivered in 2023. The point is that soon the Poles won't need any UK Aemoured Battalions - the same with GBAD.

But the Baltic States would still welcome UK and other NATO troops, over and above being simply a tripwire, becaue we can still offer them many capabilities that they don't have. Which is why I believe that UK should advance deploy an Armoured Contingent in rotation to Estonia but leaving some heavy equipment there to speed up deloying further troops there if needed (and conduct regular exercises to doing just that to ensure that we have planned and accounted for all eventualities).

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 »

Repulse wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 12:54
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 09:44
Repulse wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 23:56
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 23:29 What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year
Yes, but at a much bigger scale.
But what dose your much bigger look like ?
The UK currently has only 40 GLMRS and a handful of Sky Sabre units - I think quadrupling it would be a good start.
100% agree on those two and I beleive that UK is trying to remedy those two deficiencies.

I know in Sept 2022 it was confirmed that the MOD intended to both upgrade our GMLRS to M270A2 standard and also intention to increase the number by 50-100% by upgrading mothballed vehicles:

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/09/ ... artillery/

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... rs-numbers

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 18:22 As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now
Saudi Arabia has 180 apparently
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 19:52
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 18:22 As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now
Saudi Arabia has 180 apparently
And ?

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 »

Repulse wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 19:52
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 18:22 As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now
Saudi Arabia has 180 apparently
Of the original un-upgraded 1980's M270 version.....
Unknown how many stlll in active operational use.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 20:27
Repulse wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 19:52
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 18:22 As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now
Saudi Arabia has 180 apparently
And ?
60 or 70 is ok, enough for two-three regiments - but double that and have the ability to deploy multiple units globally quickly they are a game changer. For example, what would be more of a deterrent to Russia in the Baltics two mechanised battle groups of Ajax etc, or two regiments with GMLRS/Sky Sabre?

Appreciate the Army seems to be moving in this direction, but scale matters. In a world of limited resources, scale means tough choices on spending priorities.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 08:52
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 20:27
Repulse wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 19:52
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 18:22 As said the the army has funding for 61 of 75 requested M270A2's now
Saudi Arabia has 180 apparently
And ?
60 or 70 is ok, enough for two-three regiments - but double that and have the ability to deploy multiple units globally quickly they are a game changer. For example, what would be more of a deterrent to Russia in the Baltics two mechanised battle groups of Ajax etc, or two regiments with GMLRS/Sky Sabre?

Appreciate the Army seems to be moving in this direction, but scale matters. In a world of limited resources, scale means tough choices on spending priorities.
this is what a mechanised battlegroup looks like.

https://mncne.nato.int/newsroom/news/20 ... e-abu-walk

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

If we are going to dial down into the Artillery for a minute then this is what I would like to see

1 RHA , 19 RA & 103 RA(R) with 155mm SP GUN
4 RA , 26 RA & 101 RA(R) with M270A2
3 RHA & 105 RA(R) with M-142 HIMARS
7 (P) RHA , 29 RA(C) & 104 RA(R) with 105mm and Exactor2

This for me would allow for

Deep fires BCT = 19 RA & 103 RA(R) SP Guns + 26 RA & 101 RA(R) M270A2
Armoured BCT's = 1 RHA SP Guns + 4 RA M270A2
Light Mech BCT's = 3 RHA M142 HIMARS
16 AA & FCF = 7 RHA , 29 RA & 104 RA(R) 105mm & Exactor 2

Plus as said all anti tank troops within the Heavy and Light Mechanised battalions would be replaced with by a Brimstone over-watch Troop

this could mean that a Armoured Battalion battle group could have Brimstone over watch troop + a battery of 155mm and a battery of M270A2 and a Light Mech battalion battle group could have a brimstone over watch troop + a battery of HIMARS

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 09:29 this is what a mechanised battlegroup looks like.

https://mncne.nato.int/newsroom/news/20 ... e-abu-walk
Thanks, so remove the Challengers and we are probably at something that could be towards something with high mobility.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:19
SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 09:29 this is what a mechanised battlegroup looks like.

https://mncne.nato.int/newsroom/news/20 ... e-abu-walk
Thanks, so remove the Challengers and we are probably at something that could be towards something with high mobility.
I go back to the point I made at the start, heavy, medium and light decide how many of each you require to retain contingency. The construct stays roughly similar, the weight of vehicle changes to aid the strategic and operational mobility.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:19
SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 09:29 this is what a mechanised battlegroup looks like.

https://mncne.nato.int/newsroom/news/20 ... e-abu-walk
Thanks, so remove the Challengers and we are probably at something that could be towards something with high mobility.
But then in a Armoured BCT who exploits the gaps in the enemy lines it is not just about pounding the enemy in one place you have to push them back so you would use your long range artillery to hit enemy C&C and logistics and then use armour and infantry to exploit gaps in enemy lines due to the loss in command and weak supply and this is what we are seeing to great effect in Ukraine

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:43 But then in a Armoured BCT who exploits the gaps in the enemy lines it is not just about pounding the enemy in one place you have to push them back so you would use your long range artillery to hit enemy C&C and logistics and then use armour and infantry to exploit gaps in enemy lines due to the loss in command and weak supply and this is what we are seeing to great effect in Ukraine
You are missing my point the British Army will not be doing this, it will be the allied nations we are supporting.

If we did need to them that’s when we ramp up the reserves into an expeditionary force.

There may be a need to do this on UK soil, but that’s about calling up reservists depending on the threat level.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:35 I go back to the point I made at the start, heavy, medium and light decide how many of each you require to retain contingency. The construct stays roughly similar, the weight of vehicle changes to aid the strategic and operational mobility.
Zero regular heavy or medium regular expeditionary Battle Groups. Would want the ability to scale and form 2-3 expeditionary divisions in say 2 years from reserves.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 11:05
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:43 But then in a Armoured BCT who exploits the gaps in the enemy lines it is not just about pounding the enemy in one place you have to push them back so you would use your long range artillery to hit enemy C&C and logistics and then use armour and infantry to exploit gaps in enemy lines due to the loss in command and weak supply and this is what we are seeing to great effect in Ukraine
You are missing my point the British Army will not be doing this, it will be the allied nations we are supporting.

If we did need to them that’s when we ramp up the reserves into an expeditionary force.

There may be a need to do this on UK soil, but that’s about calling up reservists depending on the threat level.
No I am sorry this will not work we need organic battle groups which our smaller allies can be feed into

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 11:08
SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:35 I go back to the point I made at the start, heavy, medium and light decide how many of each you require to retain contingency. The construct stays roughly similar, the weight of vehicle changes to aid the strategic and operational mobility.
Zero regular heavy or medium regular expeditionary Battle Groups. Would want the ability to scale and form 2-3 expeditionary divisions in say 2 years from reserves.
2 years this thing would be over in 4 weeks 8 tops

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 11:27 2 years this thing would be over in 4 weeks 8 tops
What thing? Assuming we keep the defences around the UK strong to stop a large scale invasion then we will have time.

Also,Ukraine has shown that conflicts will be years - it wasn’t armoured brigades that stopped the Russian advance.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

So what I would like to see is

1 x Deep fires BCT with

3 x Armoured cavalry regiments
2 x 155mm SP gun regiments
2 x M270A2 regiments
1 x STA regiment
1 x Logistics

2 x Armoured BCT's

1 x Armoured cavalry
1 x armoured regiment
1 x Heavy Infantry battalions
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

4 x Light Mechanised BCT's

1 x light cavalry
3 x Light mech infantry battalions
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistic support group

with all I have said about all infantry APC / C&C being fitted with RWS with Javelin and having Over watch Troop plus 120mm mortar troop and the reconfiguring of the Artillery this would mean my armoured BCT would arrive on the battle field with

130 ready fire Javelin + 2 x reloads
180 ready fire Brimstone + reloads
108 ready fire long range missile artillery + reloads
9 x 155mm SP guns
27 x 120mm SP Mortars

and mi Light Mech would arrive with

130 ready fire Javelin + reloads
144 ready fire Brimstone + reloads
54 x ready fire long range missile artillery + reloads
27 x 120mm SP Mortars

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 12:09
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 11:27 2 years this thing would be over in 4 weeks 8 tops
What thing? Assuming we keep the defences around the UK strong to stop a large scale invasion then we will have time.

Also,Ukraine has shown that conflicts will be years - it wasn’t armoured brigades that stopped the Russian advance.
Any war between Russia and Nato will be weeks not years

what stop Russia in Ukraine was armoured infantry and it the arrival of long range artillery that has allowed them to start pushing back by targeting enemy C&C and Logistic and then exploiting the gaps made by lack of command and ammo in the enemy front line. The reason Ukraine will be years is Ukraine can't push Russia out quickly due to numbers

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 11:08
SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 10:35 I go back to the point I made at the start, heavy, medium and light decide how many of each you require to retain contingency. The construct stays roughly similar, the weight of vehicle changes to aid the strategic and operational mobility.
Zero regular heavy or medium regular expeditionary Battle Groups. Would want the ability to scale and form 2-3 expeditionary divisions in say 2 years from reserves.
But that does not work if your aim is to win what they are calling the first battle eg you deploy quickly to change the calculus and stop the enemy invading first and attempt to stop the war from escalating to the point where you need to take back ground lost. You need to be able to do this to at least the medium armoured weight category.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 12:30 Any war between Russia and Nato will be weeks not years
If that’s true then the end is nuclear
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 12:51 But that does not work if your aim is to win what they are calling the first battle eg you deploy quickly to change the calculus and stop the enemy invading first and attempt to stop the war from escalating to the point where you need to take back ground lost. You need to be able to do this to at least the medium armoured weight category.
The aim is to be part of an allied force that does as you say - it’s just other local forces are providing the medium / heavy armour.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 13:09
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 12:30 Any war between Russia and Nato will be weeks not years
If that’s true then the end is nuclear
It would take no more then 10 weeks for Nato to gain the momentum at which point Russia would open its first can of sunshine and that would be that we could hope that one or to on each side would be set off before common seance was gained

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 13:20
SW1 wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 12:51 But that does not work if your aim is to win what they are calling the first battle eg you deploy quickly to change the calculus and stop the enemy invading first and attempt to stop the war from escalating to the point where you need to take back ground lost. You need to be able to do this to at least the medium armoured weight category.
The aim is to be part of an allied force that does as you say - it’s just other local forces are providing the medium / heavy armour.
It is but you have to be able to contribute to that allied force and move with them without being a burden. The local forces are providing the bulk of the effort hence our scale is sized accordingly. Depending on what you’re facing and where over what terrain will dictate the levels of protection required hence you are required to retain a balance.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Somewhat appropriate here

https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/ameri ... r-ukraine/

Even though the war will continue into next year, and perhaps beyond, it is time to begin assessing longer-term implications for modern warfare, especially in Europe. It is not too early in this age to draw inferences about how the character of warfare is changing. How can NATO and the United States adapt to best ensure Europe’s stability and advance U.S. interests?

There are two major issues in answering this question. The first is the ongoing debate about how shifts in military technology impact the balance between offense and defense. This debate has obvious implications for force structures across the West that should inform NATO’s security posture and investments. The second issue involves the overall balance of power in Europe and how NATO and the United States should be postured to best preserve stability. The implications of these shifts argue against increases in heavy tanks for the U.S. force structure and favor a posture along NATO’s frontier that is defensively oriented. This “hedgehog” approach is part of NATO’s past. An offensive posture that fails to take into account the changing character of warfare is counterproductive to regional stability and U.S. strategic priorities, which are increasingly at risk in Asia.

To be sure, the tank is not dead. U.S. forces have and will continue to employ armor. Clearly Ukraine is making good use of its tanks and could use more advanced models. But for the United States, it’s just not a priority investment for fighting sophisticated peers in high-intensity combat going forward. As Chris Dougherty has noted, the value of marginal investments in this platform over other deficiencies — secure command and control, unmanned aviation, munitions stocks, etc. — is the key question for U.S. force planning. The issue goes beyond bad Russian tactics or tank design, given the proven cost effectiveness of increasingly lethal systems designed to defeat modern armor with top-down munitions or precision fires. Despite their limitations, cuts in armor in Europe or the U.S. Army are not warranted. That said, increased numbers of heavy armor or an expanded permanent U.S. force presence in Europe are not strategically warranted either.

NATO ought to revitalize its modernization plans and reintroduce what Sean Monaghan reminds us was once known as the “hedgehog defense.” Such an approach calls for extensive investment in long-range precision strike systems — including artillery, munitions, unmanned aerial systems, and missile defenses — which favors NATO’s strengths. This should guide NATO’s transformation and the implementation of the Strategic Concept issued in Madrid in 2022, as well as how the U.S. military contributes to the alliance with its unique strengths. This may not reduce Washington’s defense expenditures on the continent much, but it will shape how these resources are allocated. It should also shape the Department of Defense’s design and development priorities beyond this theater for conflict in Asia as well.

Post Reply