tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post2302030584453159009..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: SDSR 2015: solving the problem of hollow army 2020 Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-16388999464325586452015-07-15T17:18:39.708+02:002015-07-15T17:18:39.708+02:00You are not missing anything Gabriele. I used to g...You are not missing anything Gabriele. I used to get plenty of FOIA responses from the MoD but the last few I sent have remained unanswered ever since I sent them 3 years ago so I gave up as they are often the usual stock responses. <br />Daniele Mandellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-43445678941785103772015-07-12T19:47:51.993+02:002015-07-12T19:47:51.993+02:00I do not post FOIs because i'm not a british c...I do not post FOIs because i'm not a british citizen and i don't think it is fair for me to ride on british taxpayers money. But i do constantly check the MOD FOI answers repository to take note of anything of interest, and follow all other sources i can, from DESIDER to the NAO reports and daily written answers checks and all that. <br /><br />The british contribution to the NATO reaction force is merely a double-hatting of the Lead Armoured Battlegroup, pretty much, while i see no rush to join any Eurocorps both because it would be very unpopular a move and because it would also be pretty pointless. European battlegroups do not actually seem to ever go anywhere, and they never will until Europe's foreign policies continue to be so diverging and ultimately indecisive. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-15688423573033175512015-07-12T12:31:17.793+02:002015-07-12T12:31:17.793+02:00Very interesting blog Gabriele,
Out of interest w...Very interesting blog Gabriele,<br /><br />Out of interest where do you get your wealth of information from? Do you keep the MoD busy with freedom of information requests by any chance?<br /><br /> Also where would EU battle groups and the UK's VJTF contribution to NATO fit into your proposed ORBATs ? Should the UK join Eurocorps if it folowed your suggestion to disband the ARRC, or perhaps even join the Franco-German brigade?<br /><br />Regards,<br />J.TJ. Tattersallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-61243356651843120412015-07-08T18:00:17.980+02:002015-07-08T18:00:17.980+02:00Apologies Gabriele, but I have been giving your re...Apologies Gabriele, but I have been giving your response around the idea of moving to US style armoured batallion combat teams with 2 armour squadrons and 2 infantry companies in each. The more I think about this the more I like the idea and I am not sure I am following the lack of resources point, other than in MBTs. If you think about it we currently have 3 MBT and 6 armoured infantry batallions. To achieve 9 BCT batallions what we are talking about is an increase in MBT squadrons (and hence an increase in Chall 2s), but a decline in armoured infantry companies (and hence a decrease in Warriors). I would also certainly not expect an overall increase in manpower requirements, indeed potential a slight decline. More than happy to understand your rationale if different, but the real show stoppers to this would appear to be - 1/ Overcoming the Army's apparent dislike of MBTs and 2/ Overcoming the likely howls of protest over the introduction of a whole new permanent batallion type which combines cavalry and infantry - you can imagine the arguments there - one assumes that the 9 "names" would simply be 3 historic cavalry regiments and 6 historic infantry batallions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-65606110374824778072015-06-24T13:02:45.320+02:002015-06-24T13:02:45.320+02:00Cbrn Guru
Nice to hear from you again, bringing y...Cbrn Guru<br /><br />Nice to hear from you again, bringing your expertise to bear.<br /><br />"But they are being used less and less, LRT’s are a lot more common, in, grab a sample and out."<br /><br />I am not very familiar with the more modern military jargon but I presume that the acronym stands for Light Role Team or some such. I think that the present Light Role Team still uses the Pinzgauer 6 x 6 vehicle. I suppose too that the teams that man the vehicle can deploy and fight alongside the expeditionary forces. They can presumably detect, analyze and identify substances and provide advice to the commander on the ground.<br /><br />However, is a light vehicle such as the Pinz really substantial and robust enough enough for some of the work to be done? For instance, I read recently that a certain group in the Middle East, now wielding fairly widespread power, might possibly be developing chemical weapons. If an intervention were required in such an extensive area, would something like our light role teams be adequate?<br /><br />Surely armoured CBRN vehicles facilitate movement while Land Forces advance, don't they? Or am I just a Cold War dinosaur and thinker?MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-37302145007616788362015-06-23T23:34:00.498+02:002015-06-23T23:34:00.498+02:00It’s the Insurance aspect that most countries cann...It’s the Insurance aspect that most countries cannot get their heads around, yes we need various forms within the CBRN Defence pillars, detection or SENSE as it is now called by certain countries with the capability of reconnaissance and survey is one of them. The tick in the box to say, yep, if something happens then we can deploy that asset. But the use of liquid sampling and analysis normally via an MM1 or MM2 mobile GC/MS detection on wheeled vehicles, is it really needed, I think not. <br />I grant you that Stryker, VAB and FUCHs has had its customers, but they were procured years and years ago. It’s cheaper to upgrade than go down the road of finding a more logical and initiative replacement. I’ve been to 7 Regiment in Civitavecchia several times, if you talk to the guys they know that using the VABs is a waste of time, but upgraded them is the easy solution and keep practicing the same old drills. But they are being used less and less, LRT’s are a lot more common, in, grab a sample and out. Doctrine is changing slowly but surely, most Military CBRN organisations can see the writing on the wall and are changing the way they work. <br />But these without that knowledge are still the dumb customers for the vehicle manufacturers who still try and sell CBRN Variants.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09862246975531106320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-29087788170019706262015-06-20T23:29:12.820+02:002015-06-20T23:29:12.820+02:00I'm not sure i get what you are saying. 16 Air...I'm not sure i get what you are saying. 16 Air Assault brigade would either deploy for one brigade-sized tour and then have a brigade-cycle of "other task year" and "training year" before deploying again; or it works to form one battlegroup at VHR, each year. The battlegroup contains 1 actual parachute-ready company, and the others for helicopter assault. And it has one accompanying artillery battery, one logistic company, one engineer squadron, one medical squadron, and all other supporting elements. <br /><br />The British Army is now kind of too small to have problems of the sort of 2 PARA's commander "not knowing" the companies of 3 PARA. I see that, but worrying about that is a luxury the british army no longer can afford. Training must ensure the building blocks get along with each other. There aren't resources to do it differently. <br />Army 2020 even removes all supports from the direct control of the Brigade. Hell, it takes away even the Signals which used to build, sustain and protect the HQ. <br /><br />In the "absolutely not feeble" (quote) forces of today, certain worries are no longer affordable. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-35100003802725865642015-06-20T14:10:22.217+02:002015-06-20T14:10:22.217+02:00Fantastic article, I just still struggle with the ...Fantastic article, I just still struggle with the utility of the "standout" brigades.<br /><br />Because they arent in any way deployable Brigades<br />At best, they are 3 battlegroups, but even that is dicey.<br /><br />16 AAB<br />It only has one CSB, now, if thats an actual battalion, it can only be in one place at one time, and it can only run one deployment in a row, unless it is going to be at VHR forever and its members are happy to spend 18months overseas without breaks in combat deployments.<br />If its three Combat Support Companies, why not just call it that?<br /><br />From my reading it will "have" two para battalions and a heliborne battalion, but it will "fight" with two para companies and a heliborne company.<br /><br />In peace time, <br />1 para bat reports to 1 para bat col<br />2 para bat reports to 2 para bat col<br />1 Heli Bat reports to 1 Heli bat col<br /><br />In war time<br />1 para bat col commands 1 para bat 1 coy, 2 para bat 1 coy and 1 heli bat 1 coy <br />2 para bat col commands 1 para bat 2 coy, 2 para bat 2 coy and 1 heli bat 2 coy<br />1 Heli bat col commands 1 para bat 3 coy, 2 para bat 3 coy and 1 heli bat 3 coy<br /><br />Why?<br />Why not just have a peace time organisation that reflects war?<br /><br />The same applies to the support arms, who at least have clear lines of control, but its still confusing.<br />Battery 1 deploys with Para 1 Col, but when does the regimental col deploy?<br />I can see every col in the brigade (and the Brigadier) deploying on day 1 and 6 months later handing over to the second battlegroup, with 2Para Col, who's own battalion has two unknown (to him) companies, and a gaggle of majors.<br /><br />Dont even get me started on the CABTrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-23193674668084641332015-06-19T00:55:59.314+02:002015-06-19T00:55:59.314+02:00Thanks, some good info there.
On being under cont...Thanks, some good info there. <br />On being under control of engineers, yes, i see your point. I have nothing against that, it is just the arrangement of commands and relationships that it is perhaps more of a cluster than it should be. And at least one of the Fuchs seems to have definitely been painted black. <br />As for Fuchs being overkill, i wouldn't quite agree. It might be unlikely that there will be a major event, but one small core of capability must be available. I don't see anyone else rushing for the exit on Stryker, VAB, Fuchs and other tools of the trade. The british army losing that capability entirely was an absurd uniqueness. <br /><br />Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-11188976216918146792015-06-19T00:00:04.174+02:002015-06-19T00:00:04.174+02:00OK, Falcon Sqn, still forming up. Not sure about t...OK, Falcon Sqn, still forming up. Not sure about the gate guard FUCHs, I have not seen it there but I have not been to see them for a while. Last orbat I saw was 4 Troops with 2 FUCHS in each Troop and 1 FUCHS at Sqn HQ acting as Reach Back to AWE and DSTL. Both organisations are connected into the Bowman network via a “special link” as that’s as far as I am going to say on the matter. They were all sorts of rumours about colour schemes of the FUCHS, some mad cap ideas including painting the Sqn HQ FUCHs black!! Then urban pattern for two of them, plus desert for another 2, hopefully that has been kicked into touch. There are 4 delivered but only two are complete, two were delivered without their CBRN equipment fitted so have to be sent back, the whole refurbishment is a cluster, of course everyone is blaming everyone else. There was only 9 ever going to be brought back in because as I have stated in previous posts, is FUCHs really a viable option in today’s CBRN environment? What are the chances of a mass CBRN event, most NATO opinion is no, small events yes, Toxic Industrial Materials yes, improvised devices with the odd chemical war agent shell attached to them yes, the odd improvised rocket attack with a possible chemical fill yes. So is FUCHs a bit of a overkill, plus as I have stated before its weakness is that it must drive through contamination to get a reading, that means decontamination after the suspected area has been recced.<br /> <br />Plus Project A (not its real name, again classified) is on the horizon, that will encompass all elements of CBRN survey and recce, the only reason why Project A is not out to RFQ is quite a bit of the money for it has gone onto other priority CBRN projects and the refurbishment and establishment of Falcon Sqn. Anyway back to Falcon, I am not sure that the MEP’s you are suggesting are the ones that Falcon will get, but I might be wrong because I have not had an update on that. The original idea was to get the ones that the guys in Hereford did not want which had cranes, but as I said that may have changed. Falcon under 8 Engineer Brigade makes perfect sense because most CBRN tasks within NATO fall under the Engineers, plus they are protected by CO 22 and the Brigade Commander. If they were still controlled by the CO of the RTR, they would just be classed as second class citizens and be filled with the RTR’s problem soldiers that they do not want within the Sabre Sqn’s. <br /><br />As for UAV’s, that is not going to be a replacement for FUCH’s but an enhanced capability to gather quick samples for analysis or confirm if there are CBRN substances around. Again a good idea that is being explored by many NATO countries. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09862246975531106320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-70248633422046029422015-06-18T17:17:16.885+02:002015-06-18T17:17:16.885+02:00Thank you - I had assumed we had moved back to the...Thank you - I had assumed we had moved back to the old type-58 MBT regiment - most informative. Given the resources available then it looks like the best that will be achieved for each battlegroup is 1 recon squadron, 1 MBT squadron and then whatever armoured infantry can be provided per battlegroup (I assume 1-2 companies max). Not ideal, from an MBT perspective, but as you say, the most reality is likely to provide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-3294827199023115032015-06-18T14:07:15.014+02:002015-06-18T14:07:15.014+02:00The reconnaissance regiment has 3 Sabre squadrons,...The reconnaissance regiment has 3 Sabre squadrons, the other are support, HQ and other bits and pieces. <br /><br />The tank regiments now are Type 56, with 56 tanks each, spread in 3 squadrons of 18 tanks. Each squadron has 4 troops of 4 tanks, and 2 tanks in the HQ element. A further 2 tanks in RHQ give the total of 56. <br /><br />I would not want to see the reconnaissance regiment changed (indeed, i think the US are increasing the current squadron in their BCTs, as it is obviously not enough), unless it is to effectively lose any combat value moving over to a recce by stealth only approach. <br /><br />It would take additional tanks and Warriors to adopt a three battalion BCT-like structure with 2 tank companies and 2 infantry companies in each battalion, so it does not solve the problem of finite resources. It would however give an equal spread of tanks and infantry resorces to form three battlegroups. Experiences in BATUS with the current structure of the armoured infantry brigades has shown (as it was to be expected) that there are not enough tanks to properly support all battlegroupings. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-80842375914440250392015-06-18T12:57:49.021+02:002015-06-18T12:57:49.021+02:00Gabrielle - I have been giving your comment above ...Gabrielle - I have been giving your comment above some more thought. In the current structure an armoured brigade has 1 recon regiment (4 companies), 1 tank regiment (4 companies - 58 Chall 2s) and 2 armoured infantry batallions (6 warrior companies). Your US Heavy BCT really does seem very attractive if the resources could be secured. Each would require 1 recon squadron, 2 tank squadrons and 2 infantry companies. In effect we would be looking at an increase of 1 cav squadron per brigade and finding 26 more Chall 2s per brigade. It really would make a difference to have that strcuture - to the point that one might make the argument that we should drop the recon regiment and just have the 3 heavy BCTs? That would resolve the manpower problem and also cut down on the need for Scout SVs? Just a thought, which I agree is drifting into fantasy fleets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-91549617768156659552015-06-18T00:17:29.100+02:002015-06-18T00:17:29.100+02:00Guys,
Could I please ask, beg, that you refer to B...Guys,<br />Could I please ask, beg, that you refer to Battalions as Light Role, not Light Infantry. As a former Light Infantryman it hurts deeply!<br />Regards<br />PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-12455021545934697772015-06-18T00:16:17.552+02:002015-06-18T00:16:17.552+02:00I don't see it happening, but if the impossibl...I don't see it happening, but if the impossible happened, i'd want to see this exact same structure, obtained with less cuts and with regular formations less dependent on reserves. Reserves should allow formation of a fourth company, not be needed every time just to have the base 3 companies... <br /><br />And i'd prioritize investment in improved networking and communications on the move. That british HQs can only work when stationary, with no plan shaping up to mitigate this weakness, is a non desirable fact. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-74284637705153022522015-06-17T23:52:54.315+02:002015-06-17T23:52:54.315+02:00What if... a significant number of Tory rebels for...What if... a significant number of Tory rebels force the UK government to keep defence spending to 2% of GDP. Assuming the UK avoids another recession, that could mean quite a boost to the defence budget in real terms -maybe a 10% increase over 5 years. In such a scenario what changes would you prioritise to Army 2020?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-51779231403478961362015-06-17T21:01:30.168+02:002015-06-17T21:01:30.168+02:00Yes, Light Infantry battalions are 561 strong, reg...Yes, Light Infantry battalions are 561 strong, regular side. The two Gurkha battalions are established for perhaps 20 men more. Don't remember the exact number right now, but it is a few men higher. <br /><br />All the light role battalions (with the exception of 1 SCOTS and the Gurkha) are paired with a reserve battalion with an establishment of 400 trained men (trainees are in addition). On deployment, the two battalions should deploy as one, with up to 750 men. That means deploying less than half of the trained reserve element. This is also because a reservist, between a deployment and another, is given twice as much time as a regular. <br />So, when the second tour of duty comes around, the regular battalion deploys in the field using the other half of the reserve battalion as reinforcement. <br /><br />In theory, it is very smart. Some doubts on how many reservists will actually be available do remain. But i'm sticking with the mechanism for my Army 2020 proposal, since there isn't manpower to do differently and, really, if the reserve is what we get, the reserve is what must be made to deliver. <br /><br />The same general concept applies to hybrid artillery, engineer and medical: with 2 reserve batteries alternating to make up a single deployable one, bringing the regiments up to strenght and to the usual three sub-units structure. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-83458790121657528672015-06-17T16:42:48.420+02:002015-06-17T16:42:48.420+02:00A couple of questions if I may?
1. The 561 perso...A couple of questions if I may?<br /><br />1. The 561 personnel for a Light Infantry Battalion in the Adaptable Force - does that include both the 'paired' and non-paired battalions?<br /><br />2. If I understand you correctly with the 'paired' Battalions the regular ones have 561 people and the reserve ones about 400. In a national emergency they combine into one fighting unit of 960 or so? For regular future deployment to somewhere such as Afghanistan all 561 regulars would deploy but only 50% of the reserves giving a deployable Battalion of 760.<br /><br />Have I got that right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-73010261464315414332015-06-17T16:41:28.785+02:002015-06-17T16:41:28.785+02:00Gaby,
Thanks very much for your information on &q...Gaby,<br /><br />Thanks very much for your information on "hybrid" formations.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-12380032199056982682015-06-17T15:26:18.669+02:002015-06-17T15:26:18.669+02:00Everything boils down to national ambition. We are...Everything boils down to national ambition. We are a P5 UNSC member and one of the worlds biggest economies. We are also a self proclaimed nuclear power. What politician would openly belittle a country by saying "we don't want any of that" ? They won't, but they have an agenda and are quite happy to have their cake and eat it! <br /><br />Money should also not be an issue. Spending vast sums on the EU every year and ring fencing overseas aid at 0.7% of GDP, around 13 billion I believe, and rising, is absolutely bonkers at a time of fiscal constraint, and quite clearly shows where the governments priorities are, despite the spin and flowery political speak. There is money, they just refuse to spend any on defence. Even a small increase would be something. No. <br /><br />The hypocricy comes when government wants to grandstand on the world stage because of that status yet cuts to the bone at the same time, and I feel so many of Joe public do not even notice. If there were some decent defence journalists who could grill the government properly on decisions it would help, it seems most don't have a clue. Such as Cameron's comments months ago when the RAF intercepted Russian aircraft and he reckoned it shows the RAF has the planes and pilots it needs! Really? Why didn't someone ask for his comments on how now there are only 8 Fast Jet squadrons yet in 1998 there were 23? Put him on the spot and make him look like an ignorant idiot. <br /><br />The Tory pledge was no more manpower cuts, so I'm interested to see what happens. I am praying that the underspend and spare money in the headroom budget as unallocated could mean no more cuts to numbers.<br /><br />I would also like to see more off the shelf purchases of equipment rather than the buy British at all costs even if it costs the earth, is years late and billions over budget, to help offset any loss to the spare contingency budget. <br /><br />3 Division is safe, as the minimum heavy war fighting division. 16AAB and 3 Co seem to be going down the road of raiding forces for small scale quick actions rather than being used for an enduring deployment. <br />And if they are used for this all that will happen is various bits and pieces will be added to bring up to strength. I was always interested to notice that when the latest brigade roulement was announced for Helmand province the list of units assigned bore little resemblance to the units that made up that brigade on paper. <br /><br />I can only echo Gabriel's comments on needing more enablers to create capable brigades for the reaction force. <br /><br />I refuse to believe the rumour of the AAC ending up in the army. Barking mad. The RAF Regiment is small, and should remain as it is doing the job it does, which is guarding airbases and airheads usually far behind the front lines, so the idea they would move to the army, who are in the forward zone, is insane. <br /><br />I know Cyprus has several sites of strategic importance but can they not be guarded by existing RAF and MOD SBA Police, or a new detachment <br />of the MDP? Having one Battalion as Middle East theatre reserve is fine, same as the Gurkha Battalion in Brunei, but unsure of the need for 2. Daniele Mandellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-58584127452590036662015-06-17T12:24:21.617+02:002015-06-17T12:24:21.617+02:00Thanks for reply Gabriele.
In my view,
a. Visibili...Thanks for reply Gabriele.<br />In my view,<br />a. Visibility to the public is a poor 2nd to national defence.<br />b. There is no need for two battalions in Cyprus. <br />c. On the subject of the RAF regiment, what's its role?<br />You cannot cut the army to 82000 and have the same capability as before. It's my humble opinion that everyone should except this and plan for what the army can do.<br />Regards<br />Phil<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-86167879125264958972015-06-17T10:35:33.192+02:002015-06-17T10:35:33.192+02:00One of the actual "strategic" conclusion...One of the actual "strategic" conclusions of Army 2020 studies (and there are several bits of good thinking, despite the mess) is that it will be more and more desirable to have a 2-Star HQ between HMG and the deployed forces, even if a single brigade is in the field. This removes a lot of pressure from the brigade HQ, which can better focus on the actual operation, while Division pulls the strings and faces the relationship with the higher ups. Army 2020 puts a lot of focus on Divisional role, but then, in the practice, falls short of achieving the means to go with the doctrine. That's why a second division is needed, to have a better, enduring ability to have that 2-star layer available and ready. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-50388921026111935602015-06-17T10:31:53.430+02:002015-06-17T10:31:53.430+02:00Reducing public duty might be possible, but it wil...Reducing public duty might be possible, but it will reduce the army's visibility to the public, and this is not desirable, that's why i'm wary of messing too much with that. Cyprus i see as a strategic committment, and using Commando units is out of the question as the 3 Commando groups already are busy as it is, especially since the disbandment of P Sqn and the need to draw ship security teams from the line commandos. <br /><br />As for reducing to only battlegroup deployable strenght, that is what will happen if there are further cuts. But it is the end of Britain as a nation with any kind of actual power. What you propose is a dramatic ambition downsizing. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-6335012269877096942015-06-17T10:28:36.724+02:002015-06-17T10:28:36.724+02:00Hybrid refers to units which are part Reserve. Tip...Hybrid refers to units which are part Reserve. Tipically, RHQ and 2 companies / batteries / squadrons are made of regulars, and a further two companies / batteries / squadrons are composed of reserves. To deploy one sub-unit of reserve, you need at least 2 sub-units just due to the planning assumption about how often reservists can deploy. It is also a good thing to have considerably larger than normal sub-units, due to the fact that not all the personnel in them will be able / willing to deploy. <br /><br />In terms of equipment, 1st Division would stay much as it is now, with artillery using the L118. The engineers would have the usual mix of capabilities, on wheeled platforms (HMEE, REBS, ABLE, a few Terriers perhaps) Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-67300472338380599542015-06-17T10:24:01.936+02:002015-06-17T10:24:01.936+02:00For me, it would be very, very bad. The place of t...For me, it would be very, very bad. The place of the helicopters is in the army, not in the Air Force. It is the very anomaly that has made Joint Helicopter Command necessary in the first place. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.com