tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post7188212331315462207..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: Few revelations, lots of questions Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-73410889089823363312016-07-17T17:54:55.930+02:002016-07-17T17:54:55.930+02:00Hi Gabriele and MikeW.
Thanks for the reply Gabrie...Hi Gabriele and MikeW.<br />Thanks for the reply Gabriele.<br />How I would love to know more detail on the battle group. How many Challengers and warriors for instance?<br />My feeling is, the 2 warrior company's supported by support company is pretty normal anyway. Forming infantry combat teams. If the whole of support company is just supporting 2 infantry company's, I would find that worrying.<br />Not sure how many scimitar family vehicles there are in MBT regiment to play at strike brigades?<br />However, adding an extra recce troop to an MBT regiment could go someway to make up for the loss of the brigade recce regiment. Remember those 'lost' recce platoons and troops?<br />Please Gabriele if you hear anything more on this exercise let me know.<br />Phil (the cynical ex pongo)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-21950275897330064062016-07-16T23:16:50.322+02:002016-07-16T23:16:50.322+02:00Gaby
Many thanks for the reply. The whole theory...Gaby<br /><br />Many thanks for the reply. The whole theory is becoming a lot clearer now.<br /><br />"They can achieve that by increasing the number of tanks kept in the operational fleet... or by cutting the number of tanks in each brigade. I'm sure you can guess which is more likely."<br /><br />Yes, the cut seems far more likely but they can't keep on and on cutting, not with world security in its present extremely fragile state. Or can they? Thanks once again. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66452352645027952182016-07-16T21:50:55.358+02:002016-07-16T21:50:55.358+02:00I assume the Combined Arms Regiments would have sm...I assume the Combined Arms Regiments would have smaller sqns, of 14 tanks each. And there would be 3 combined arms regiments in each of the two brigades, for a total of 12 tank squadrons, with 168 tanks. That is exactly the same number as you have with 3 Type 56 regiments. Not one more, not one less. <br /><br />The problem is that i would really, really, really like to put tanks in two recce regiments as well, and that would require a greater number of tanks being kept operational. Which, in theory, is not impossible. But, we both know it, financially it is unlikely. <br /><br />Since the Army has 227 tanks, there are 59 for attrition reserve, back-up and training fleet (example, BATUS). In theory, a different Whole Fleet Management approach would allow shaping the recce regiments to include tanks, since anyway in peacetime no regiment has its fill of vehicles, but just a token fleet for training. <br />However, Army 2025 is supposedly meant to be able to deploy the two armoured brigades together, so Whole Fleet Management can't be an answer. "virtual" tanks do not deploy: if they are serious, there must be enough tanks to equip both brigades for deployment. <br /><br />They can achieve that by increasing the number of tanks kept in the operational fleet... or by cutting the number of tanks in each brigade. I'm sure you can guess which is more likely. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-18248409915844972112016-07-16T20:59:41.449+02:002016-07-16T20:59:41.449+02:00Gaby
Many thanks for the reply. Seems convincing...Gaby<br /><br />Many thanks for the reply. Seems convincing but I'll have a further think about it.<br /><br />One point is that with only two tank squadrons in each battlegroup, the total would be 36(2 x 18), which would outnumber the Warriors' 28 (2 x 14). It also poses the question of how many of the just over two hundred MBTs available to the British Army at the moment would still be employed under your battlegroup system.<br /><br />I imagine that depends in part on how many battlegroups you have per brigade. I suppose a brigade could have up to three or four. Say if you had three per brigade, that would amount to 108 tanks per brigade (3 x 36) and with two Armoured Brigades, that would amount to over two hundred, just about the total number of tanks available. Or have my calculations become silly?<br /><br />That would leave few,if any MBTs available for your recce formations However, I suppose the idea is that the organisation would be so much more fluid and flexible than that and vehicles could be "swapped". MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-69248859115965904862016-07-16T20:10:16.067+02:002016-07-16T20:10:16.067+02:00Mechanized Infantry in itself has nothing wrong, b...Mechanized Infantry in itself has nothing wrong, but the Army 2020 battlegroup was unsurprisingly found too light on tanks, while the Mastiff coy, between Warrior and Challenger 2, just didn't fit that well. <br />Mechanized Infantry was good as a medium weight force to link up with early entry units such as paras, but that was expected. <br /><br />The Combined Arms Battalion permanently made up of tanks, armoured infantry and supports is the current favorite in the US and in Israel, and it used to be employed in Italy as well. <br />For the British Army at the moment there are also other considerations supporting such an approach: <br /><br />- the stuff is all heading for Salisbury Plain, so logistic considerations are no longer a valid concern when thinking of mixing up <br /><br />- The planned number of Warrior CSP is insufficient for six battalions. Most graceful way to adapt without re-roling battalions is to adopt the combined arms structure, so "only" the number of coys changes. <br /><br />- Three tank regiments are due to fit into two heavy brigades. How do you do it, assuming you don't want to cut the number of tanks further? <br /><br />I just think it makes a lot of sense. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-3826777923137668122016-07-16T18:41:44.335+02:002016-07-16T18:41:44.335+02:00Gaby
Just one question that intrigues me. You sa...Gaby<br /><br />Just one question that intrigues me. You say:<br /><br />“So far, battlegrouping has been mostly practiced in Army 2020 format (1 tank sqn, 2 arm inf coy, one mech inf coy on Mastiff) and the Army 2020 format was never really found effective.”<br /><br />The Army 2020 format, as far as the Armoured Infantry Bde is concerned, is not dissimilar to that of the old Mechanized Infantry Brigade (1 Armoured Regt, 1 Armoured Infantry Bn, 2 Mechanised bns with support from Artillery, Engineer Logistics etc. units). That appeared to work successfully for many years. I have also read in “Soldier Magazine” reports of the Mech Infantry units in Mastiffs proving very successful in early exercises (unless that is propaganda). What has changed to make such a structure not so effective? Is it the non-purpose- built nature of the wheeled vehicles with which the Mech Bns are equipped? e.g Mastiff being a somewhat cumbersome, lumbering vehicle which is essentially an MRAP and not nearly as agile or fast as the 8 x8 we are likely to get? Or is it more to do with the structure of the formations themselves?<br /> <br />Lastly, is the increased “popularity” of the battlegroup” as an organisation more to do with financial resources likely to be reduced or are there good military reasons why you think it should become permanent? Seems rather small to me.<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-53455504960099326902016-07-15T23:27:39.390+02:002016-07-15T23:27:39.390+02:00Gaby
Many thanks for your detailed reply. You ma...Gaby<br /><br />Many thanks for your detailed reply. You may well be right.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />MikeMikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-82840043534029702016-07-15T20:27:30.395+02:002016-07-15T20:27:30.395+02:00The recce element was not detailed, but depending ...The recce element was not detailed, but depending on the circumstances it could be made up by the recce platoons of the infantry and tank battalions / regiments involved. <br /><br />The Fire Support Coy in this case is mortars, sniper, pioneer, Javelin, and comes from the infantry battalion. Widening the scope, a deployed battlegroup would receive an artillery battery and an engineer sqn. <br /><br />Why is this important? Because it might signal which direction the army is looking in when it comes to the current re-orbating. So far, battlegrouping has been mostly practiced in Army 2020 format (1 tank sqn, 2 arm inf coy, one mech inf coy on Mastiff) and the Army 2020 format was never really found effective. With the mech inf moving to the strike brigades, square battlegroups of heavy armor become the next obvious construct. <br /><br />As you know, if it depended on me, that kind of structure would become permanent. <br /><br />As for recce in the armoured brigades, yes. I think it is highly desirable to have a regiment specializing in reconnaissance, if it'll possible. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-20120418200352807162016-07-15T19:20:26.479+02:002016-07-15T19:20:26.479+02:00Like Anonymous, I have been reading your tweets, a...Like Anonymous, I have been reading your tweets, and am particularly interested in the concept of the battlegroup.<br /><br />You mention how the British Army is back, after years, to "battlegrouping with 2 tank sqns, 2 armoured Inf coys and Fire Support Coy." I am just wondering how much of a reconnaissance element such a formation would have. I believe that in a battlegroup containing only one Armoured Squadron (they are flexible) there might be just one Close Recce Troop, consisting of as few as 4 x Scimitars. I suppose that if you had 2 Armoured (Tank) Squadrons the number would increase. If we are dealing in battlegroups with such small numbers of recce vehicles, might it not be possible for the number of Ajax vehicles ordered to cater for the recce needs of both the Armoured Infantry formations and the Strike Brigades? i.e Would there have to be one Cavalry(Recce)Regiment in every Armoured Infantry Brigade? <br /><br />Also, could you please provide some information on what exactly the Support Coy would consist of. Would it be Artillery and mortars? If so, what kind of Artillery equipment do the battlegroups contain?<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-28205797408923806982016-07-15T17:39:51.775+02:002016-07-15T17:39:51.775+02:00Not really. Just heard that the Royal Tank Regimen...Not really. Just heard that the Royal Tank Regiment is back to practicing square battlegroups on 2 tank sqns and 2 armoured inf coy plus support; and i continue to think that this structure could and should be made permanent in the new plan. RTR also tasked (not sure why them...?) to help with experimentation and planning for how to use Ajax in view of the Strike Brigade problem. Other than this, we are at the same point as before. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-69442677804134619192016-07-15T17:28:10.423+02:002016-07-15T17:28:10.423+02:00Hi Gabriele,
Looking at your tweets, you seem to h...Hi Gabriele,<br />Looking at your tweets, you seem to have more information on the armoured and strike brigades?<br />Could you please enlighten us?<br />Phil (the cynical ex pongo)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-31471050801827130002016-07-06T16:33:41.393+02:002016-07-06T16:33:41.393+02:00Reconnaissance is a key task in any operation, so ...Reconnaissance is a key task in any operation, so it is never a bad idea to have a regiment tasked, training and structured to do it. What i think is not necessary is to have regiments of sole Ajax-and-family. Reconnaissance will still require a dedicate battlegroup, but structure-wise it might well be a more mixed units, with MBTs and more infantry. It could actually be a good thing, since a real battlefield will more often than not require the creation of exactly such a hybrid unit for reconnaissance. In Afghanistan, the Brigade Recce Force was tipically built up stealing pieces out of infantry battalions as well as cavalry regiments. With the heavy armour elements more or less all based in the same area, it could make a lot of sense to create combined regiments. <br /><br />The truth is that it is difficult to guess what the Army might be trying to do, as it is trying to square a circle in moving to the new 2025 target structure. What happens with Challenger 2 numbers and with their distribution? Will the Armoured Infantry still aim for 6 battalions, or will they become 4...? It's all very unclear at this stage. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-80645768779739747302016-07-06T13:58:48.893+02:002016-07-06T13:58:48.893+02:00A general question for all (and Gabriele in partic...A general question for all (and Gabriele in particular). Is there any reason why either the two armoured brigades (or the two mech infantry for that matter) should have an independent recon regiment of any sort? Could an armoured brigade not simply have 4 permanent composite regiments of the type outlined by Gabby previously, ie 2 MBT Squadrons, 2 IFV Companies and 1 Recon Squadron? That would give the army 8 deployable armoured battle groups and make the best of the Ajax, Warrior and Chal 2 assets already to hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-41245255912319042782016-07-05T20:48:01.463+02:002016-07-05T20:48:01.463+02:00Gabriele,
My money is on
"dog's breakfast...Gabriele,<br />My money is on<br />"dog's breakfast force structure"<br />Phil (the cynical ex pongo)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-81862670453985742762016-07-05T18:02:22.213+02:002016-07-05T18:02:22.213+02:00No. But i'm not sure if regular "Light Ca...No. But i'm not sure if regular "Light Cavalry" regiments will endure, since i'm not sure the Infantry Brigades will retain a deployable capability other than for non-brigade operations, defence engagement and all that. Jackal could just be shifted to the reserve Light Cavalry regiments and / or used to replace Land Rover fire support platforms in Infantry units. Isn't it rather absurd to use land rovers as weapon carriers within battalions mounted on Foxhound, for example...? <br /><br />But of course, perhaps the most realistic outcome is that the British Army will lose another 50 MBTs and the reconnaissance cavalry in armoured brigades and just carry on with the dog's breakfast force structure. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40642933695525817962016-07-05T17:28:44.521+02:002016-07-05T17:28:44.521+02:00Gabriele,
Are you suggesting that Jackal will be s...Gabriele,<br />Are you suggesting that Jackal will be scrapped?<br />PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-36501506958496653932016-07-05T16:04:03.283+02:002016-07-05T16:04:03.283+02:00Having only one regiment outside of the deployable...Having only one regiment outside of the deployable division might not be so much of a problem depending on what the six "infantry brigades" will be asked to do. And the answer might be "not much at actual brigade level", since Carter went at the RUSI land power conference to say openly that the army is no longer planning on a force structure supporting an enduring, long-term brigade operation. You can work out by yourself what this might actually mean. Perhaps the deployable brigades are about to go down from 3+2 to 4...Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-71907019378108779752016-07-05T15:56:50.776+02:002016-07-05T15:56:50.776+02:00There would be some Ajax / Ares, but in fewer numb...There would be some Ajax / Ares, but in fewer numbers. And it would probably require mounting the armoured infantry battalion's recce elements in Warriors. <br /><br />As for the US Army, they are restructuring their armoured brigades, and a company with 14 M1 Abrams is being moved into the cavalry sqn. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-10154585117449441852016-07-05T13:52:28.536+02:002016-07-05T13:52:28.536+02:00Gabriele
I did not know that the US Army is putti...Gabriele<br /><br />I did not know that the US Army is putting tanks back into armoured reconnaissance units. Interesting! Will they be equipped similarly, i.e. with tank guns as at present?<br /><br />When you say:<br /><br />A fascinating (but is it realistic?) hypothesis could see two "hybrid" heavy cavalry regiments formed for the Armoured Brigades. Less Ajax, but, say, 28 Challenger 2 as a complement."<br /><br />you use the term "Less Ajax". Does that mean "fewer Ajax" or "without Ajax altogether"? If the latter, in what sense would the heavy cavalry regiments be "hybrid"?MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-84961106498819204862016-07-05T11:35:54.316+02:002016-07-05T11:35:54.316+02:00Thanks for your thoughts Gabriele.
But if you kept...Thanks for your thoughts Gabriele.<br />But if you kept 4 RAC regiments in the armoured brigades, and there are to be 4 RAC regiments in the strike brigades, that would just leave one outside the armoured division?<br />As I understand the situation:<br />Scimitar/Ajax;<br />HC, RDG and RL.<br />Jackal;<br />QDG,RSDG and LD.<br />Challenger 2;<br />QRH, KRH and RTR.<br />It seems reasonable to assume one Challenger regiment will convert to Ajax.<br />Therefore, <br />4 Ajax strike brigades.<br />2 Challenger armoured brigades.<br />3 Jackal other brigades.<br />I can't see how else it could work?<br />I don't really think that they have thought, Oh the armoured brigades. don't have any reconnaissance apart from 8 Ajax from reconnaissance troops/platoons remaining within the armoured brigades.<br />Phil (The cynical ex pongo)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-86657898497201821452016-07-04T22:43:50.243+02:002016-07-04T22:43:50.243+02:00One Light Cavalry regiment MIGHT also change shape...One Light Cavalry regiment MIGHT also change shape entirely if a CBRN regiment returns, with the RAF Regiment handing back the role to the Army. This appears to be a done deal (or at least it appeared to be a while ago) even though no one is talking much about it in public. Either that or a return to a joint arrangement of some kind: the current, separated Falcon Sqn and 20 CBRN Wing RAF Rgt cannot possibly be satisfactory, i would think. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-90911212912010427442016-07-04T21:06:05.895+02:002016-07-04T21:06:05.895+02:00A fascinating (but is it realistic?) hypothesis co...A fascinating (but is it realistic?) hypothesis could see two "hybrid" heavy cavalry regiments formed for the Armoured Brigades. Less Ajax, but, say, 28 Challenger 2 as a complement. As the US Army is finally putting tanks back in armoured reconnaissance units, the British Army might feel inspired enough to try its own variant. <br /><br />Not to mention that such a hybrid regiment would make it possible to keep the same number of Challenger 2s as now, by giving each brigade a Type 56 regiment and a Hybrid regiment for recce and screening. <br /><br />Or you could form 4 hybrid units of Challenger 2 and some Ajax, and have two in each brigade. Since tanks and heavy cavalry regiments are all going to be based in Salisbury Plain (with the exception of the Household, a bit further away...), creating mixed units would not present big challenges in terms of storage spaces and training areas. Which is part of why i proposed the Combined Arms Regiments. Having the heavy armour more or less in one place allows you to think about mixes. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-2764579914521784092016-07-04T21:03:21.789+02:002016-07-04T21:03:21.789+02:00Mike,
I agree with you, it seems a drastic step to...Mike,<br />I agree with you, it seems a drastic step to remove the reconnaissance regiments from the armoured brigades, but, one of the reasons I came up with that opinion is there is only 10 RAC regiments. The household cavalry counts as two regiments, but in effect its just one.<br />a. 2 Challenger 2 regiments.<br />b. 4 Ajax regiments.<br />c. 3 Jackal regiments.<br />The strike brigades are getting 4 Ajax regiments, therefore there is no Ajax or RAC units left for reconnaissance role in the armoured brigades.<br />I only thing I can say, is maybe the strike brigade is going to perform the reconnaissance role?<br />I would like to know Gabriele's thoughts.<br />Phil (the cynical ex pongo)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-83289527679305660652016-07-04T20:29:19.528+02:002016-07-04T20:29:19.528+02:00@Phil
"My current view is that:
The two armo...@Phil<br /><br />"My current view is that:<br />The two armoured brigades are to loose there Reconnaissance regiments."<br /><br />That seems a very drastic move, Phil. I cannot imagine modern Armoured formations deploying without a reconnaissance element. What are you going to use instead? MBTs for recce? Mind you, I think that has happened in the British Army e.g. in the Second World War, when Cromwell tanks were used in the recce role. Correct me if I am wrong.)<br /><br />But you're right, numbers of vehicles are a problem. We are going to be short of Ajax family vehicles, if they are to play such a prominent role in the Strike Brigades as well as in the Armoured Infantry formations.MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-77018527168070579442016-07-04T17:29:28.863+02:002016-07-04T17:29:28.863+02:00The military term for such a formation is "a ...The military term for such a formation is "a typical UK bodge" whose very incoherence and adhoc nature will no doubt be celebrated as "making the best of what we have" as well as "value for money".....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com