The British Army and U.S. Army have been working together in Poland.
The British Army say that British Soldiers, assigned to the Legion Troop, C Squadron, also known as the Light Dragoons, conducted a reconnaissance exercise utilising a U.S. Army Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle-Javelin, assigned to the Lightning Troop, 3rd Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment, during NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group-Poland mission in Bemowo Piskie, Poland.
NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence consists of four battalion-sized battle groups deploying on a persistent rotational basis to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to demonstrate the alliance’s determination and ability to act as one in response to any aggression against its members.
Following Russia’s invasion of Crimea and its War in Donbass, NATO’s member states agreed at the 2016 Warsaw summit to forward deploy four multinational battalion battle groups to those NATO member states perceived to be most at risk of a possible Russian attack or invasion.
Perhaps this is blind optimism, indeed it is. But this seems a little promising, suggesting that additional boxer may be purchased to equip the regiment for the recce role in strike brigade.
The initial statement on the boxer purchase was this was the first order and that the buy could be significantly higher (can’t remember the number that was quoted), but the larger order part went quiet so not sure if it was ditched for cost reasons to just left for a later date for the decision to be made.
I don’t see it that way.
The Light Dragoons are not one of the CVRT units scheduled to get Ajax and join a Strike Brigade, but a Jackal equipped “Light Cavalry” regiment, one of 3 in 1 (UK ) Division.
They all had Tanks and CVRT before cuts. Another example of a big loss of firepower.
The Jackal may be fast and, I read, good off road. It has been used by the likes of UKSF, the Pathfinders, and the Brigade Recc Squadron. ( RM )
But is it not in effect a modern armoured WW2 jeep? And open topped too, leaving the people inside vulnerable. What armament does it regularly have? I’ve seen pics of them in Helmand with the RWS, a .50, a GPMG, a hand held Javelin stowed on the hull somewhere, even a GMG.
Is this really the ideal vehicle for being use in Poland for potentially facing a peer nation with armour and artillery, as opposed to the Taliban in the desert?
Maybe it is and an expert in their use can correct me. They seem ideal for desert use by small teams of SF behind the lines, but for line regiments of the RAC?
Possibly linked, or I may be putting 2 and 2 together and making 5, but it was reported by UKAFC and Gabriele some time back that one of the 3 Light Cavalry Regiments might re role to support 1 Intelligence Brigade. Not heard anything of this since.
Maybe if this happens it would be re equipped for that?
Maybe they will buy some Stryker!
That’s what I mean. A lot had been made of the removal of recce from armoured. Perhaps they intend to return ajax to the armoured brigades and re rule the light cavalry to a boxer variant.
I’d support their return if more Boxer are procured and given firepower. Otherwise where does the Strike Brigade get it’s firepower from.
Agreed. Ideally warrior upgrade would be scrapped with additional ajax purchased in a IFV format along with extra boxers with a turret ring module. And mount all the turrets destined for the warrior upgrade on the new boxer modules.
Yes. This has been suggested elsewhere.
The Ajax IFV variant (Ares) only carries 2+4 pax. Not an Infantry section.
The Griffin 3, which is based on the Ajax and summoned as a Bradley replacement carried 3+6, while the Spanish Ascod, which the Ajax was developed from carries 3+8.
I know this has been discussed in depth elsewhere recently, but I find it odd we are developing two strike brigades, one of which will be the experimental unit. What does the second one do, while the first is still developing the strike doctrine?
If we wanted to proceed with the concept quickly/cheaply we could have paired two Ajax units with two infantry battalions in upgraded Warriors (these might be turretless versions) and equip the two light cav units in the armoured brigades with Ajax.
Once the strike concept had been developed, we could form a 2nd wheeled strike brigade based on boxer. the lance 2 turret with is array of sensors and a 35mm cannon was designed for the boxer and would be cheaper than funding a boxer 40mm cta turret.
Although jackal is useful for peer to peer fighting. Think of it as a modern ferret.
A Ferret! Great. A Dingo Scout car in effect!
Do not be silly no one can fight in a ferret and any way jackle has no roof so the rain gets in,not for me.
Infantry have to deal with rain, as did the cavalry of old. Your not supposed to fight in the ferret or jackal. Your supposed to move about.
Hopefully not. Better to consolidate with Boxer as we should have done from the start. On that note, a question.
What the bloody hell is the point of the Strike Brigades?
The link below is to a Sept 2019 Blog from IISS which outlines how the Army has got into the current situation and how it appears to be getting its’ vehicle fleet updated – finally.
One little one liner – the British Army will be reduce to two tank regiments when all said and done!!
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/09/british-army-armoured-vehicle-procurement
Yeah that’s been the plan since 2015.
Hi CR. Old news!
Yes, 2 Ch2 Regiments and 2 AS90 Regiments.
The much vaunted and hyped Strike Brigades announced by Cameron in 2015 and called an “improvement” by Defence Secretary Fallon hide cuts. He said our 3 Armoured Brigades become 4, 2 Armoured, 2 Strike.
Yes. But what’s not highlighted are the cuts to the CS and CSS regiments in 1 Division as part of the package, which also loses a regiments worth of guns and tanks. ( The regiments themselves remain. )
People overlook that the 4 Brigades were actually 5. 3 Armoured, and 2 brigades in 1 Division that had supports to enable them to deploy. This does not include 16AA and 3 Cdo.
A typical spin job by HMG. Even the PR video interview released at the time of the then CGS Carter was shameful. He was interviewed by a clueless journalist who did not answer the right questions and allowed the CGS to paint this all as an improvement.
I wish I’d interviewed him! I’d have crucified him!!!
This slight of hand concerning Strike Brigades has been well documented by some of us.
Hi folks hope are all well.
I’m with Daniele on this. As a side issue related to field armoured matters, do we have any further news on Challenger 2 upgrade, anyone? I suspect this will be on indefinite hold under any proposed cuts. If so they will be well old and not worth the cost if the extended life programme is droped off in the next review.
Cheers
George
Your post piqued my interest, and I had a bit of a look at the history of Boxer. Germany somehow felt it necessary to do 7 years of prototype testing between 2002 and 2008/9 before accepting full rate production! I wonder, if we’d stuck with the programme in 2003, whether we’d have been able to pour our UOR money into building a decent fleet of these rather than various different MRAP vehicles which we are now trying to consolidate…
That is an interesting hypothetical. Although I imagine the like of fox hound, husky, panther and jackal would still have been procured. Due to the small roads in Afghan.
You make a fair point, although I feel they could have made them more of a replacement for snatch Land Rovers and the WMIKS (Can’t remember exactly what the acronym is) than for absolutely everything in inventory that isn’t CR2 or Warrior. I know that’s not what they’ve done, but it does kind of feel like that sometimes…!
The Germans and Dutch used their Boxers in Afghan and they seemed to be working OK. I didn’t see any damaged by IEDs or RPGs etc, but that’s not to say it didn’t happen. The Germans were operating in a pretty quiet part of the country, unlike the Dutch. The Canadians had their LAV3s and the US had their Strikers. Both of which suffered from IEDs, which was in the main the wheels and suspension being blown off. I did see one unfortunate LAV3, where 3 152mm artillery shells went off underneath it. It was a very sobering sight! The LAV3 and Striker were not designed to cope with IEDs and mines like a Boxer. They all share a V form hull, the Boxer has additional floor armour, a double skinned floor and suspended seating.
In some respects a Boxer will be able to cope with crap roads better than say a Mastiff. This is because the 8 wheels spread the weight better than 6 as it has a lower ground pressure for its mass.
We would still have a need for a Husky, Foxhound, Panther type of MRAP as they are great for ferrying four bods about, in good protection. If the Boxer had a decent turret with say the CTA40, it could have replaced WMIK and Jackel as the fire support vehicle. The Foxhound we had (which was awesome by the way!), had a RWS mount, fitted with GPMG. Which was great, until you ran out of ammo. As you had to get on top and replace the can. It’s amazing how sprightly you become with rounds pinging left, right and centre.
As a recce vehicle, the Jackel is very good. It’s fast, brilliant over most terrain and can carry lots of kit without ruining its speed or manoeuvrability. It can mount a GPMG as well as a 50 cal or GMG, so it’s got quite a punch. However, it is classed as light armoured vehicle with only protection against 7.62. Being open topped it is very vulnerable to shell splinters or grenades and would be useless in an NBC environment. So in this sense it can be likened to WW2 jeep. That role has never really gone away. It makes it an ideal ambush vehicle for getting Javelin teams in place quickly and relatively quietly and sneaking up to and behind the enemy’s line.
On a similar topic, any idea why the British thinking is not to install bullet proof glass to their vehicles whilst the US does.
I am guessing cost, but curious if there is another reason.
Hi all,
if a squadron of the light dragoon’s is permanently attached to the US battle group in Poland (I imagine the squadrons rotate), does this mean that the 4th infantry brigade has effectively lost its light cavalry, as well as all its supporting assets?
Could somebody explain why we are providing a recon squadron for a US battle group in Poland, as well as an armoured battle group in the Baltic’s? Surely the US can provide this themselves, or another NATO country. A squadron of Italian Centauro/Freccia would fit well with the US strikers.
I can’t explain but I’ll offer up an opinion.
NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence provides an opportunity to train for a very mixed multi-national force, combining relatively small elements to get troops out of their comfort zone of operating in a larger single country formation. Not something we might plan to do but something that might be forced upon us in a conflict.
The EFP is essentially a trip wire for Article 5. Its large enough and powerful enough to need to be addressed seriously should Russia ever come west. Thus most in NATO have skin in the game and would find it difficult to back out of commitments; so a backstop against political wavering. Too cynical? Perhaps. But if a weaker force, or a more homogeneous force is deployed then Russia might use that to split a NATO response.
Thanks GHF.
As you have stated, it would be difficult for countries not to commit forces to an article 5 response if they had already had troops killed by the Russians.