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: 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.
Again - that depends on WHICH NATO countries that British Army is reinforcing.

Poland / Finland / Sweden?? Then yes they have / will have local armour at least equal to what we can offer.

3 Baltic States?? Then no, they have hardly any local armour, and are thus reliant on allied armour.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

The 3 Baltic states each have a Medium Mechanised BCT roughly laid out like so

1 x Recce Battalion
3 x Infantry Battalions
1 x artillery regiment ( with 30 x 155mm guns + 6 to 8 HIMARS )
1 x logistics Battalion

This is where the British come in with the 3rd Division with it Divisional HQ's Deep fires BCT and 2 x Armoured BCT's , 1 x Theatre logistics Brigade which terns into we will call it 1st Baltic Corps made up of 6 BCT's
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

If info in this tweet is correct ...



... than there was significant change in structure of the British armoured regiment, with troops moving from 4 to 3 tanks, squadron from 14 to 11, and regiment from 58 tanks to 46.

One good thing is that now, theoretically, British Army can have 3 armoured regiments, so either keeping KRH as tank regiment or making RWY fully equipped and deployable armoured regiment. In that case, wonder could UK create a TA armoured brigade, by using RWY and elements of 5 TA battalions affiliated with regular mechanised battalions which could be combined to create 2 fully staffed mechanised battalions. And add 155mm TA regiment to it. This way, 3rd Division could, in case of need, have three ABCTs, without increasing regular army. Issue is that 3 armoured regiment would only leave 10 tanks in reserve or for other purposes.

In new US Army structure, the National Guard would provide one penetration and at least one heavy division plus several light divisions. Similarly British TA could be structured to provide one armoured and one light infantry BCT, plus reinforcements for regular units.

One bad thing with new structure is that ABCT just got weaker, loosing 12 tanks, from 58 to 46.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

The question I have is dose the SHQ's need Challenger's could they operate from Ajax's if so by adding 2 more Challengers over all to make it 48 we could again have 4 Challengers in each troop

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 06 Jan 2023, 09:46 If info in this tweet is correct ...



... than there was significant change in structure of the British armoured regiment, with troops moving from 4 to 3 tanks, squadron from 14 to 11, and regiment from 58 tanks to 46.

One good thing is that now, theoretically, British Army can have 3 armoured regiments, so either keeping KRH as tank regiment or making RWY fully equipped and deployable armoured regiment. In that case, wonder could UK create a TA armoured brigade, by using RWY and elements of 5 TA battalions affiliated with regular mechanised battalions which could be combined to create 2 fully staffed mechanised battalions. And add 155mm TA regiment to it. This way, 3rd Division could, in case of need, have three ABCTs, without increasing regular army. Issue is that 3 armoured regiment would only leave 10 tanks in reserve or for other purposes.

In new US Army structure, the National Guard would provide one penetration and at least one heavy division plus several light divisions. Similarly British TA could be structured to provide one armoured and one light infantry BCT, plus reinforcements for regular units.

One bad thing with new structure is that ABCT just got weaker, loosing 12 tanks, from 58 to 46.
So using future Soldier as a guide the way I see it we could try something like this with the infantry

7th could move from 5 full time units to 4 + 1 reserve
4th could move from 8 full time units to 4 + 1 reserve
A new full time BCT could formed with 4 + 1 reserve
19th could move from 8 reserve units to 4 as a reserve light brigade

12th could move to 3 full time + 1 reserve
20th could do the same
A new reserve Armoured brigade could be formed from the remaining 4 reserve infantry battalions

the key things here are the 3 reserve light Cavalry units would need to be upgraded to be fully able units and 1 would have to move up to being a reserve Armoured cavalry unit

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2023, 14:42
sol wrote: 06 Jan 2023, 09:46 If info in this tweet is correct ...



... than there was significant change in structure of the British armoured regiment, with troops moving from 4 to 3 tanks, squadron from 14 to 11, and regiment from 58 tanks to 46.

One good thing is that now, theoretically, British Army can have 3 armoured regiments, so either keeping KRH as tank regiment or making RWY fully equipped and deployable armoured regiment. In that case, wonder could UK create a TA armoured brigade, by using RWY and elements of 5 TA battalions affiliated with regular mechanised battalions which could be combined to create 2 fully staffed mechanised battalions. And add 155mm TA regiment to it. This way, 3rd Division could, in case of need, have three ABCTs, without increasing regular army. Issue is that 3 armoured regiment would only leave 10 tanks in reserve or for other purposes.

In new US Army structure, the National Guard would provide one penetration and at least one heavy division plus several light divisions. Similarly British TA could be structured to provide one armoured and one light infantry BCT, plus reinforcements for regular units.

One bad thing with new structure is that ABCT just got weaker, loosing 12 tanks, from 58 to 46.
So using future Soldier as a guide the way I see it we could try something like this with the infantry

7th could move from 5 full time units to 4 + 1 reserve
4th could move from 8 full time units to 4 + 1 reserve
A new full time BCT could formed with 4 + 1 reserve
19th could move from 8 reserve units to 4 as a reserve light brigade

12th could move to 3 full time + 1 reserve
20th could do the same
A new reserve Armoured brigade could be formed from the remaining 4 reserve infantry battalions

the key things here are the 3 reserve light Cavalry units would need to be upgraded to be fully able units and 1 would have to move up to being a reserve Armoured cavalry unit
You could do this


2 x Armoured Brigades

1 x Brigade HQ

1 x Cavalry reg (Ajax)
1 x Armoured Batt ( 2 Sqn Challenger, 1 Inf Comp Ajax)
1 x Mech Batt ( 1 Sqn Challenger, 2 Inf Comp Ajax)

1x Artillery group- 3x 155mm Batt, 1x UAV Batt, 1x sky sabre batt

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


2 x Mech Brigade

1 x Brigade HQ

1 x Cavalry reg (boxer)
2 x Infantry battalions (boxer)

1x Artillery group- 2x MLRS Batt, 1x UAV Batt 1x Sky sabre batt

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

2 x Light Brigade

1 x Brigade HQ

1 x Pathfinder company (para)
2 x Infantry battalions (Light protected Vehicle)

1x Artillery group- 1x MLRS Batt, 1x sky sabre batt, 1xMUAS battery

1x eng Sqn
1x log company
1x Med Sqn

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

@ SW1

Would this be all reserves and if so first thing I can see is you are 2 challenger sqn's short as you would need 6 and the RWY would have 4

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:30 @ SW1

Would this be all reserves and if so first thing I can see is you are 2 challenger sqn's short as you would need 6 and the RWY would have 4
No that would be the regulars structure.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:33
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:30 @ SW1

Would this be all reserves and if so first thing I can see is you are 2 challenger sqn's short as you would need 6 and the RWY would have 4
No that would be the regulars structure.
What would you do with the other 12 infantry battalions and 1.5 armoured regiments

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:45
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:33
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 09:30 @ SW1

Would this be all reserves and if so first thing I can see is you are 2 challenger sqn's short as you would need 6 and the RWY would have 4
No that would be the regulars structure.
What would you do with the other 12 infantry battalions and 1.5 armoured regiments
Ensure all the above are fully manned and equipped

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:35 Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this
Well I accept I could well be wrong but money, infrastructure, people and equipment just doesn’t seem to be there to support the current notional structure and if we keep pretending it won’t get any better

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Looking at the idea of reserve BCT's 1 Armoured and 1 Light how could they look

Reserve Armoured BCT

1 x cavalry regiment = Royal Yeomanry move from Light to Armoured cavalry
1 x Armoured regiment = Royal Wessex Yeomanry
4 x Infantry Battalions = 1 from the 19th , 1 from the 12th and 2 from the 20th
1 x Artillery support = 1 Battery 155mm , 1 Battery M270A2 , 1 troop UAV , 1 troop air defence
1 x Logistics support = RLC , RE , REME

19th Reserve Light BCT

1 x Cavalry regiment = Queens Own Yeomanry
4 x Infantry Battalions = the remaining 3 Battalions would move to support the 3 newly formed full time Light Mech BCT's
1 x Artillery support = 1 x Battery L118 LG's , 1 x Battery Extactor , 1 troop UAV
1 x Logistics support

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:46
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:35 Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this
Well I accept I could well be wrong but money, infrastructure, people and equipment just doesn’t seem to be there to support the current notional structure and if we keep pretending it won’t get any better
I agree we need to be more realistic however with the new and upgraded kit on order for the 3rd Division including 148 Challenger 3 , 589 Ajax , 623 Boxer it is on the way

3 regiments of 46 Challenger = 138 leaves 10
5 regiments of 66 Ajax = 330 leaves 259
6 Battalions of 90 Boxer = 540 leaves 83 ( there is funding for another 400 Boxer's )

For me we need to get on with replacing the Bulldog and CVR(T) & Mastiff fleets with something like 1400 Patria 6x6

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:00
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:46
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:35 Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this
Well I accept I could well be wrong but money, infrastructure, people and equipment just doesn’t seem to be there to support the current notional structure and if we keep pretending it won’t get any better
I agree we need to be more realistic however with the new and upgraded kit on order for the 3rd Division including 148 Challenger 3 , 589 Ajax , 623 Boxer it is on the way

3 regiments of 46 Challenger = 138 leaves 10
5 regiments of 66 Ajax = 330 leaves 259
6 Battalions of 90 Boxer = 540 leaves 83 ( there is funding for another 400 Boxer's )

For me we need to get on with replacing the Bulldog and CVR(T) & Mastiff fleets with something like 1400 Patria 6x6
I would agree the army has become to heavy and the medium and light forces are under represented in fleet recapitalisation. Patria 6x6 is in the medium capability and arguably had we gone for patria amv for the 8x8 role it would of been a very logical choice. Though I am coming to the conclusion the best thing we could perhaps do is new some stormer vehicles

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

So to be clear what Vehicles are replacing what current vehicles this is my understanding

1 ) Boxer will replace Warrior , Mastiff , Ridgeback , Wolfhound = 1030 vehicles
2 ) Ajax will replace CVR(T) = 589 vehicles
3 ) MRVP -2 will replace Bulldog , Husky , Fuchs = 1100 vehicles
4 ) MRVP-1 will replace Foxhound , RWMIK land rover , Pinzgauer = 1000 vehicles

From this we have Ajax on order plus 623 Boxers with funding for another 400 more meaning groups 1 & 2 are well under way. Group 3 needs starting ASAP group 4 can be held back until 2030

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 16:50
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:00
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:46
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:35 Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this
Well I accept I could well be wrong but money, infrastructure, people and equipment just doesn’t seem to be there to support the current notional structure and if we keep pretending it won’t get any better
I agree we need to be more realistic however with the new and upgraded kit on order for the 3rd Division including 148 Challenger 3 , 589 Ajax , 623 Boxer it is on the way

3 regiments of 46 Challenger = 138 leaves 10
5 regiments of 66 Ajax = 330 leaves 259
6 Battalions of 90 Boxer = 540 leaves 83 ( there is funding for another 400 Boxer's )

For me we need to get on with replacing the Bulldog and CVR(T) & Mastiff fleets with something like 1400 Patria 6x6
I would agree the army has become to heavy and the medium and light forces are under represented in fleet recapitalisation. Patria 6x6 is in the medium capability and arguably had we gone for patria amv for the 8x8 role it would of been a very logical choice. Though I am coming to the conclusion the best thing we could perhaps do is new some stormer vehicles
I find interesting that you would go for a new development for me we need something off the self that is test and already comes in

C&C . APC , SP Mortar , Assault Pioneer , Ambulance , with the capability for air defence

For me if we getting NEMO 120 on Boxer then then buying Patria 6x6 that has been test with NEMO 120 mortar and the John Cockerill 90/10 remote turret plus in all of the above configurations would work. We also know that Latvia has ordered 200 vehicles for 200 Euros and that Finland is also going to order 160 vehicles add to this Germany , Sweden and Estonia joined the program in 2023. So we Know the UK NATO area of operation is the Baltic states and that all but one could be operating Patria 6x6 it could make good sense to buy 600 to 800 for the 1st division these along with the nearly 400 Foxhounds would be a good start for 2 Mechanised brigades of

1 x Cavalry = Jackal
4 x Mech Infantry = Foxhound , Patria 6x6
1 x Artillery suppoert group
1 x Logistics support group

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jan 2023, 13:32
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 16:50
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:00
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:46
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 10:35 Interesting that you think you have to scrap 12 Battalions to do this
Well I accept I could well be wrong but money, infrastructure, people and equipment just doesn’t seem to be there to support the current notional structure and if we keep pretending it won’t get any better
I agree we need to be more realistic however with the new and upgraded kit on order for the 3rd Division including 148 Challenger 3 , 589 Ajax , 623 Boxer it is on the way

3 regiments of 46 Challenger = 138 leaves 10
5 regiments of 66 Ajax = 330 leaves 259
6 Battalions of 90 Boxer = 540 leaves 83 ( there is funding for another 400 Boxer's )

For me we need to get on with replacing the Bulldog and CVR(T) & Mastiff fleets with something like 1400 Patria 6x6
I would agree the army has become to heavy and the medium and light forces are under represented in fleet recapitalisation. Patria 6x6 is in the medium capability and arguably had we gone for patria amv for the 8x8 role it would of been a very logical choice. Though I am coming to the conclusion the best thing we could perhaps do is new some stormer vehicles
I find interesting that you would go for a new development for me we need something off the self that is test and already comes in

C&C . APC , SP Mortar , Assault Pioneer , Ambulance , with the capability for air defence

For me if we getting NEMO 120 on Boxer then then buying Patria 6x6 that has been test with NEMO 120 mortar and the John Cockerill 90/10 remote turret plus in all of the above configurations would work. We also know that Latvia has ordered 200 vehicles for 200 Euros and that Finland is also going to order 160 vehicles add to this Germany , Sweden and Estonia joined the program in 2023. So we Know the UK NATO area of operation is the Baltic states and that all but one could be operating Patria 6x6 it could make good sense to buy 600 to 800 for the 1st division these along with the nearly 400 Foxhounds would be a good start for 2 Mechanised brigades of

1 x Cavalry = Jackal
4 x Mech Infantry = Foxhound , Patria 6x6
1 x Artillery suppoert group
1 x Logistics support group
I think we need to help ensure that we leverage components and component manufacturers for the vehicles from within the existing UK supply chain as that will help with the supportability of the UK fleet particularly as MRVP should be a large UK program.

Reason I would be happy accepting a development program is in my opinion the medium is the UKs most important area and with boxer coming if we grouped that into a medium brigade construct it can carry the burden allowing for time to develop the light. The other being that Jackal and foxhound could support light fairly well in the interim. Though I suspect JLTV will be procured to support across brigades and the 4x4 support vehicle.

Certainly the Nordic and beyond nato would be were ideally we would be deploying the light units so if a brand new development was out of the question I would look to using BVS10 as an alternative as they need access to all complex terrain.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

with Ajax & Boxer now running plus Challenger 3 upgrade we have our hands full there is plenty we could do with Patria 6x6 like UK comms , RT 20 turret or RS4 RWS built in Scotland other kit that can be added as said buy 600 to 700 of these. We could start now with a clean sheet design to replace Jackal , foxhound and others in the Light armoured group capable of being manned and unmanned coming into service in the 2030's with a order for 2000 vehicles for the Army , RAF Regt , RM

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/01/ukr ... abilities/

A top UK military leader revealed this week that operational analysis of the Ukraine war led the British Army to feel “very uncomfortable” with aspects of its Future Soldier modernization program.

Lt. Gen. Sharon Nesmith, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Eastern European conflict had in “the first instance” caused the army to reconsider how to address air defense, uncrewed systems, deep fires and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability gaps.

During the three-hour-long Wednesday UK defense committee hearing — which provided the clearest glimpse yet into the war’s impact on UK land strategy — Nesmith told lawmakers that in an attempt to fix the problems, the service has already completed an “internal balance of investment” and continues to look for opportunities to accelerate procurement. But the new approach could be troubled by “two realistic constraints,” Nesmith said: supply chain difficulties and industrial capacity.

“There is a lot [regarding] our industrial capacity [to focus on] and recognition that we have not invested in the land industrial base, as we would now wish to,” she added.

To support the Future Soldier plan, the UK government has approved a £41.3 billion ($50.4 billion USD) funding package for British army procurement and support to the end of the decade, but critics argue that the recent acquisition record of the service, beset by gross overspending, program cancellations, industrial disputes and equipment not entering service in line with original timeline projections, puts the 2030 target in jeopardy.

The scale of the those problems were extensively laid out by defense committee members pointing out that £4 billion ($4.9 billion USD) had been spent over 10 years on the Ajax armored reconnaissance vehicle program, despite the fact an official IOC date has still to be set.

Nesmith revealed that “assumed” IOC and FOC timeframes have now been agreed by the MoD but said she was not in a position to share the dates publicly because additional due process is required.

General Dynamics UK is under contract to deliver 589 Ajax vehicles in six variants to the British Army, but because of “overcomplicated requirements,” the acquisition did not originally go according to plan, explained Nesmith.

She said that there are now “far fewer” requirements so the acquisition is “simpler to deliver against and has a broader utility.”

The MoD has since commissioned high-ranking British lawyer Clive Sheldon QC to review the decision-making processes surrounding the Ajax effort and make recommendations for the Army to act upon. A final draft will be passed to lawmakers “around the end of January,” said David Williams, MoD permanent secretary.

He added that a “workable solution” has been found to solve the noise and vibration issues, with vehicle user validation trials currently underway. Ajax blast protection activities have been completed as part of those trials, while 143 vehicles are 80 percent complete and a further 400 hulls ready for production, according to Chalk.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

the Way I see it the Ukraine war has shown that all the old thinking still stands i.e a commander always needs

More soldiers
more Artillery
more tanks
More Air defence
more Logistics
more information
More time

And what it tells the Army / MOD is that it needs more of all of the above

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 17:08 the Way I see it the Ukraine war has shown that all the old thinking still stands i.e a commander always needs

More soldiers
more Artillery
more tanks
More Air defence
more Logistics
more information
More time

And what it tells the Army / MOD is that it needs more of all of the above
The army needs to be balanced across the board to support allies that’s what it suggests to me.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

The UKs peace time defence budget will never be enough to be a serious continental land power.

What you can argue is that what Iraq and Afghanistan have showed was not to believe your own hype and over commit.

What Ukraine has shown is that the ability to train and supply specialist / top tier kit is a key capability (arguably more than being able to send troops) - the gap is the industrial base to quickly send it and resupply our own stocks. Plus the value of supplying intelligence.
”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: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 17:20
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 17:08 the Way I see it the Ukraine war has shown that all the old thinking still stands i.e a commander always needs

More soldiers
more Artillery
more tanks
More Air defence
more Logistics
more information
More time

And what it tells the Army / MOD is that it needs more of all of the above
The army needs to be balanced across the board to support allies that’s what it suggests to me.
That is what I said because for the army to be Balanced it needs all of the above in some form or other

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Jan 2023, 12:09
SW1 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 17:20
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Jan 2023, 17:08 the Way I see it the Ukraine war has shown that all the old thinking still stands i.e a commander always needs

More soldiers
more Artillery
more tanks
More Air defence
more Logistics
more information
More time

And what it tells the Army / MOD is that it needs more of all of the above
The army needs to be balanced across the board to support allies that’s what it suggests to me.
That is what I said because for the army to be Balanced it needs all of the above in some form or other
Not sure all on that list adds balance from where we are now.

Post Reply