The recent episode of the OSINT Bunker Podcast revealed key insights about the current state of the Ukraine war and the future of open-source intelligence (OSINT).
In their latest episode, the panel discuss the Russian Wagner PMC march towards Moscow and the possible fall-out of that incident, the ongoing fighting in Ukraine and the Oryx Team’s OSINT work tracking equipment losses on both sides in the conflict.
The panel includes @DefenceGeek, @geoallison and @AnAustinThing2 with a guest appearance from Jakub Janovsky of the Oryx Project (@Rebel44CZ)
In this podcast episode, Jakub Janovsky, a member of the Oryx project, joins the hosts to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.
The Oryx project, which Jakub mentions is “planning to document Ukrainian and Russian losses until the end of the war,” and that they “don’t intend to continue the Oryx blog,” due to the workload and “the reality of burnout,” is a massive open-source intelligence (OSINT) effort that analyzed military equipment losses during conflicts, with a focus on the Ukraine war.
Jakub gives insights into the situation on the ground in Ukraine, highlighting that “Ukraine has a chance to break the stalemate, but it will be slow and bloody.” He believes it’s unlikely that all occupied Ukrainian territory will be liberated by force in the near term, with progress dependent on “how much further support the West is willing to provide.”
Jakub and the hosts discuss an interesting new trend they’ve observed: older, less effective military equipment being converted into vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs).
Jakub notes, “We’ve seen a lot of T-55 tanks, very old Soviet equipment, being converted into VBIEDs.” This trend may reflect “the condition of these vehicles and lack of immediate prospects for repair,” or the simple fact that repairing or maintaining old equipment can be logistically challenging, particularly for equipment like the Soviet-era T-55 tanks, which were last manufactured in the 1970s.
They also discuss the unsustainable nature of OSINT work, especially when it’s a hobby done for free. Jakub mentions that Oryx’s work was often used without credit by government agencies and think tanks, leading to burnout among the team. The hosts express hope for “more institutional support and new recruits for projects like Oryx to continue.”
Despite these challenges, Jakub assures that “the data from Oryx will be preserved,” and they plan to “continue to inform and educate others,” keeping the spirit of the project alive.
One for Daneile and a few others on here to read and answer!
“The British Army has been allocated a £41.3 billion ($51.4 billion) funding package for procurement and support to the end of the decade. The forthcoming Defence Command Paper — set to outline new procurement changes and due for publication before July 21 — could see existing acquisitions overhauled to better reflect equipment priorities influenced by the Ukraine war.”
LINK
The recent, June 28th edition of the thinpinstripedblogspot might also be of interest, written after Patrick Sanders speech to RUSI. It is a lengthy read and the conclusion is that as an island nation a large deployable army is a bit of a luxury. I’m a retired fish head so I am going to make no comment, Daniele and others, over to you.
That speech cost Sanders his job and probably his pension. Like McArthur and McChristal, serving chaps in uniform should stay out of politics. Having said that, regardless of the island nation issue the Army has been cut to the bone and nobody can predict what may be round the corner.
As the Roman said 2000 years ago, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”
as many who post here will know, this translates as “If you want peace, prepare for war”
Si vis pacem, para bellum is the motto of HMS Excellent, which is now Fleet headquarters but when I trained there in the early 1970’s was the Naval Gunnery School. I doubt that any of our elected politicians have ever heard the phrase, much less taken it to heart. Sanders won’t lose his pension, but I bet the thinking in Whitehall will be to get someone in post who is rather more pliable.
And it’s not just the Army who have been cut not just to but also into the bone, you only have to look at the desperate state of most RN frigates.
Island nation? Those who focus on this phrase think the army just defends the home base – not had to do that since 1066! Our army has almost exclusively been used for operations overseas.
“not had to do that since 1066”.
1940/41- Thankfully not put to the test but a real threat.
1805-Ditto
1745-Thankfully the jacobites went home.
1685-Defeated Monmouths’ rebels
Anglo Dutch war-Dutch troops landed at Felixstowe & repulsed
ECW-Quite the bun fight
1405 Franco-Welsh army invaded England
1380s-French raids on south coast
Late C13th- Robert the Bruce’s Scottish armies range right across much of northern England
1216- French army invited in invades England, eventually driven out after death of king John.
c1170s- Anglo-Flemish army lands on east coast, fails to storm Dunwich, defeated at Fornham St Genevieve north of Bury St Edmunds
c1069-Viking army raids Saxon rebels in the Fenland revolt
Plenty of invasions & scares since 1066. I may be a year or two out on some dates above & the list is not exhastive.
When you consider the size of the Taiwan army etc + reserves to deter or resist an invasion by the PLA, even for the defence soley of the UK home territories, our tiny army would be very hard pressed to mount an effective defence.
Thanks Frank for your exhaustive list, which rather ruins my pithy one-liner!
My point is really that the army’s main role is not the defence of the homeland using UK-based troops, although politicians and many lay public would not understand or accept that. Land defence of the UK against a hostile state is achieved by ensuring the security and stability of the Continent and our NATO membership is key, with the nuclear deterrent available to initially deter and if necessary to be used in the event of being overwhelmed by conventional forces.
Clearly the RN and RAF can also act to prevent invasion of the homeland by a hostile state.
You are quite right that our tiny army would be pressed to defend (every corner of) the homeland.
Cheers Nick C, I’ll take a look.
Mm. European NATO membership has multiplied significantly with the addition of the erstwhile Soviet states. None, for the most part, had any delusions over Russia’s threat and could be argued are falling over themselves to counter Her with increased land forces. Whither a modern BAOR as things stand?
The UK’s geographical position as maritime bulwark, with it’s traditional blue-water skills fighting on, above & under the waves, is what I’d be fairly sure these mainland allies will predominantly value.
None of this argues against whatever the UK’s ultimate split – over sea, air & land – being as coherent and efficient as possible. I wish them all well – under logical priorities.
Thanks for the pointer. I read the piece. I think the author ‘Sir Humphrey’ lost my attention when he said that a division operated at he strategic level (wrong, its at the operational level) and dismissed the notion of a British division ever going warfighting, overlooking Op Granby and Op Telic!
Our army actually does warfighting. Deploying a division to do warfighting is rare but less rare than a Carrier Strike Group doing warfighting or Typhoons engaging in dogfighting in a combat zone.
Of course – brigades or BCTs are more usable entities, then a division. Consider then a division to be a framework organisation.
Our island nation status as a determining factor as to Structure is only relevant if you consider only Military Home Defence to be what our forces do. Our armed forces do more than defend the homeland – we are a global power – we have and we need globally deployable forces from all three services.
We don’t need a huge deployable army (of 130k strength or more), but we don’t benefit and can’t achieve politically-directed tasks by having a tiny one.
For a nation our size and with our defence spend to deploy a 20-25,000 strong warfighting division (3Div) is the bare minimum. There should be no issues with having another division (1Div) for ‘delivery of land operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and to offer NATO the agility to command operations on its flanks. It is the UK’s persistently engaged force, working with partners throughout the world through strategic global hubs’. Quote from FS, of course.
Appreciate you posting this. I’m not sure I agree that 130k plus isn’t needed. I think of the size of the army (160k) during Afghanistan (2006) and how frequently we could have achieved our operational goals much more successfully with more boots on the ground.i appreciate the cost but imho it’s absolutely essential.
John, my earlier reply was binned for being spam! We didn’t have 160k Regs in 2006 – it was about 109k. Options for Change defence review (1990) had cut the army from Establishment of 160k to 120k in light of the end of the Cold War, but then further cuts followed for no good threat-based reason over the years.
Useful table in this under ‘Modern Army’:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
We needed an Inf Div in Helmand (I was there in 2008/9) but in 2006 we deployed just a BG (2PARA) and top cover from HQ 16AA Bde – soon increased to a brigade group in numbers, but still only a third of what was required.
Obama saw what PMs Blair, Brown then Cameron did not see and surged 10,000 US troops into Helmand to help us enabling us to hand over Sangin etc to them – very welcome but embarrassing.
Some say that our army failed in Afghan and Iraq, in large part due to: insufficient manpower deployed; wrong structure; and inappropriate kit (until UORs kicked in of course). Reducing to 73k will make future failure even more likely.
A somewhat sombering reply.
So in light of the new cold war getting warm if not hot then we should be at a minimum of 120k then.
I assume thats never going to happen – unless or until this current conflict gets even hotter.
At the very least it shows that the stockpiles of useful arms are nowhere near what they would need to be- so development and storage of that aspect needs to be addressed.
Whens Block IV due again ?
The 120k figure (a reduction of 40k) was because the Cold War had ended, so things weren’t hot at all. 120k was for the new peaceful world.
That was the figure for the new (quiet) world order. If the Cold War got hot there is an argument to go back to 160k, as was pre- 1990/91.
120k?160k? Never going to happen unless Russia attacks a NATO country and Article 5 is called ie General War – but we would never get the numbers up in time – we would go with what we had – currently serving Regs, Army Reserve and Individual Reservists.
Sadly I think some politicians think that 73,000 regs are operationally deployable – well they are not – true figure might be about 50,000.
There is some doubt as to whether there is any kit (clothing, weapons, vehicles, radios etc) for an expanded army for General War – I am pretty sure there isn’t anything.
When I think of stockpiles of munitions I think of the NHS preparedness for a pandemic – no massive sheds full of PPE etc. So I doubt we have war stocks of munitions beyond a token amount, maybe a few weeks consumption at best. It was different in Cold War days – I think we had good stocks back then.
Block IV – isn’t that an F-35 thing?
At least Russia can fall back on Putin’s personal bank account for the same then, considering hes squandered so much of the nations wealth whilst in power.
Agreed.
Tempest will be cancelled I am sure of it.
If it is at least we will get some great models planes out of it, Putin will have to call airfix to up the game for the Russian concepts so he can compete.
We are a global power, just not a superpower – and just not with enormous armed forces (albeit they are well trained, combat-experienced and capable).
The Chancellor still seems to find money for ‘good causes’ and Defence had a boost in the Spring 2023 budget, and another one previously in late 2020 (£16.5bn extra over 4 years).
Probably not much more coming to Defence for a while yet, except if Defence Command Paper expected later this month after the Vilnius summit endorses some increases in the light of ‘the war’.
Plenty of countries borrow a lot – the USA for instance – and they are also a global power!
Do hope that at least one lesson learned from UKR dust-up will be that some attention and resources should be allocated to C-UAS mission. Read an account that claimed a Guiness record of 1002 drones in formation flight for a recent Texas festival. Little imagination required to envision scale ChiComs will utilize in furure.
Id take anything from that blog with a huge punch of salt. Whenever I used to read it the tone was always justified “less is more” approach. Every time. So I’m not surprised it is arguing for a small land army. The tone to continually cut capabilities and reduce numbers was so stark I stopped reading it.
I did say that as a former fishhead I would make no comment, but it does seem to have produced some interesting and reasoned replies. One of the previous posts, about the running down of the RFA and the consequent reduction in the ability to be a blue water Navy I found interesting and relevant. Again others may have differing views!
When I was in the army, almost every defence review said that the outcome would be ‘a smaller but better army’ or ‘smaller but more agile’ or ‘a smaller but more lethal army’. All total BS of course, this political belief that a more effective army would emerge.
Far too much is made of ‘our island nation’ status to justify a small army – sure that status means that we are a maritime power, so we need a strong navy.
But our army is not now used to defend the country against marauding neighbours who are bent on invasion – we use our army principally in an expeditionary way, ranging from dealing with national crises to support for multinational (NATO, UN, US-led) operations, be they war fighting, stabilisation, peacekeeping or humanitarian operations – plus supporting and training friendly armies.
It also needs to deal with issues at home – ranging from Public Order (Op Banner was a 38-year Operation) to Counter-Terrorism and supporting Other Government Departments – the full MACM/MACP/MACC piece. It needs to be right-sized for doing all of that.
Many (especially Americans) say that our army failed in Afghanistan and Iraq – in large part because the deployed force was too small, of incorrect structure and not well or suitably equipped from the outset. We risk more failure on Operations by further cutting the army back – and more lives will be lost.
Those words….more “Agile” “Flexible” “lethal” pain me, as they’re a load of absolute B*****x that MoD’s Communications Directorate must be very proud of, as they keep repeating it since around 2005.
I’d be interested to see how that money will be spent. Troubling to see the words ‘and support’ as that might just mean maintenance cost for the entire fleet including the legacy stuff – if that is huge then that will hit the procurement portion.
I am of course aware that support is required! Just would like to know what the split is.
It’s true. In the defence boost given by Johnson the army got the biggest slice, and it’s yearly allocation is much greater than the RN and RAF.
An army of 72k should easily be able to field a competent Armoured Division. The Poles can field 4 Divisions, with Tanks and Artillery, with 70K.
We have other commitments from overseas garrisons to PD roles the poles lack but that’s still not sufficient excuse.
Such is the ability of Land to muck up defence procurement it is no wonder HMG are reluctant to give it more money until it proves it can organise itself, STICK TO A PLAN, and model itself on what is required to realise that.
For example, Carter threw A2020 in the dustbin as the obsession with wheels and Boxer overrode all else, while trying to pay for CH3, Ajax AND WCSP at the same time.
Boxer was meant to be from 2029 after the rest had been updated.
Daniele, I always enjoy your posts! I had not realised that the army’s yearly allocation is much greater than the RAF and RN. I have not seen a breakdown chart for a very long time, but I recall that the army was generally third out of three – where are the latest charts please?
If the army does get more than a third of the total, might this be partly due to the army having a higher salary and pensions bill and more infrastructure (ranges, training areas, barracks, married quarters) to maintain than the other services, more so than they are getting oodles of cash to spend on new kit – they might actually have less cash to spend on kit that the RN and RAF.
The Johnson defence boost of an extra £16.5bn over 4 years announced in Nov 2020 did not result in more money for the army:https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/19/uk-to-boost-defense-budget-by-219-billion-heres-who-benefits-and-loses-out/
It was intended for:
-The Tempest future combat air programme;
-a number of shipbuilding projects, including the T26 and T31 programmes and a fleet of logistics ships and possibly work on the T32 project and ‘a multipurpose research ship’; and
-various space and cyberspace assets, specifically the creation of a Space Command capable of launching a rocket from a site in Scotland by 2022 as well as a new agency focused on artificial intelligence.
Wallace managed to get an additional £5 billion in the Spring Budget 2023 allocated to defence spending over the next two years (2023/24 and 2024/25), and a further £2 billion per year in subsequent years up to 2027/28. Principally to counter inflation and to replace munitions gifted to Ukraine – not to rehabilate our army.
Interesting that some consider a division to be 10,000 (even Wallace supposedly said that in March this year specifically that we could not yet field a 10,000 strong division – alarming. I wonder when we can do that?).
When I was serving, a deployed division was up to 20-25k strong (three brigades of 5k each plus Div HQ & Sig Regt and a host of Div Troops units). The div fielded on Op Granby may well have been more than that. I know that KitKats have been getting smaller over the years but it now seems that divisions are.
I agree that we should be able to field a div from a 72k strength, otherwise FS Orbats are wrong (FS was based on the 72,500 army?). You might say we can ‘field’ two divs – at a stretch and calling up most of the Army Reserve – particularly if the modern div is 10k, not 20-25k strong, by some devious sleight of hand. I really can’t believe you can put together a warfighting div of only 10k troops.
Good call to bring Carter to account again! The man was a menace.
Hi Graham.
Well thanks! Lol. I have not seen any updated charts, just learn from the ongoing commentary over at UKAFC, Gabs Blog, that the army has not been short on cash. 10 billion plus on Boxer and Ajax alone. When can the RAF and RN spend that type of money.
I think that’s right, with 72K, or 76k, or however many, which is the RAF and RN manpower combined, the army gets the biggest slice of the 3 services, only 2nd of course to the Defence Nuclear Enterprise – that being AWE, Trident, the SSBNs, SSNs, SSE, NARO, and so on.
Biggest slice of the new money is what is read, maybe indeed that was incorrect if that link you give is correct.
For that Boxer Ajax outlay we are getting 5 mechanized battalions outfitted out of 30, 31? 4 regiments in the Armoured Cavalry role, of the scout variant ( and assume other variants in support much the way the CVRT family operated) with the remainder of the current Boxer order split in the CS CSS support regiments and Bns, make up of which, as we discussed months ago, we are still uncertain.
And…I need to stop this and go cut the ivy, the missus is pressurising me! Will reply more later.🙄😆
I think less £ would have been committed/spent if the army had:
-bought CV90 recce instead of Ajax and also
-upgraded Warrior for the AI (that was a mere £1bn programme, although it was a bit overbudget when cancelled) – and also
-bought a less expensive MIV (Boxer unit price is insane) for the Mechanised Inf (not to be confused with Armoured Inf, although that is happening now that tracked IFV is about to disappear).
I still feel intuitively that we have more armoured cav than is strictly necessary – other countries have one sqn medium or formation recce per armoured brigade – plus of course armoured cav in the recce tp of a tank regt and the recce pl of an AI Bn.
The Navy have had big spends in the past – the two carriers cost £7.6bn, each Astute and T45 is about £1bn each and going into the future then T26 are over £1bn each.
The F-35s for RAF and RN are very high unit price too.
Its now the army’s turn to spend and to buy AFVs and artillery after 20 years in the doldrums.
Might have helped to phase the big spending AFV/Arty procurements over time – then we would not see a £10bn spend as a headline figure at this moment in time.
Wiki says we have 33 reg inf bns and 16 AR ones – not checked that with another source.
Hope the ivy now looks nice and trimmed!
Ha! Morning Graham. Yes it does, I like Ivy. It gets a bad rep, but it is invaluable for wildlife.
Looking back, the 3 Armoured Divisions of the later BAOR era had 1 Armoured Recc Reg at Divisional level, and as we know the Armoured and Mech Inf had the Recc Troops and Platoons as you say.
So you have a point. There are greater CS CSS allocated at Bde level now it seems, like RS.
BTW, as an aside, I recall even with Warrior in them supplementing the 432s they were still termed Mech Infantry Bns, the change to Armoured Infantry seems to have come later.
I quite agree that the army needs to spend, and should. What I object to is their allies in the media like in the DT currently spreading the Sanders stuff and others blaming nasty RN CDS and evil RN RAF this and that for army ills of much their own making.
Your 3rd to last para is key. Now why did the HOCDSC not grill Carter on why he threw that all out the window and ordered Boxer while Armoured Cavalry in Ajax, Armoured Infantry in Warrior, and CH LEP were still unresolved??
I counted 31, thought 1 disbanded in FS and the 3 RGR, to make 33, never formed as a completed Bn, it’s assets were distributed amongst the Rangers. I might go count them again later, though, like the headline army figure, it’s all a bit moot if they’re not armed, equipped and brigaded correctly to enable all arms Bdes to deploy.
Hi Daniele,
My recollection is that Saxon bns were termed mechanised infantry – and that always from the 1960s that 432 bns were termed mechanised infantry. My recollection is that when Warrior was fielded they were called armoured infantry to differentiate from the remaining 432 battalions and the Saxon bns. But I may be wrong – and the AI term may have come into use some years after WR was first fielded. Question – going forward do we call the Boxer bns in 3xx’s ABCTs ‘armoured inf’ – and those in 1xx Mastiffs etc ‘mech inf’.
As an aside light role inf bns that were conveyed by unit-held 4-ton trucks were originally called ‘lorried infantry’ but later the term was ‘Type B’ Infantry.
I am sure you are more up to date on Inf battalion numbers than Wikipedia. So its 31 reg bns and still 16 AR Inf Bns?
Yep, Type B is forever ingrained in my mind with all the early books I read on BAOR and the UKLF 85-90 time frame!
I think so, I’ve not gone through my files yet! Dern will know if he is about.
And I’m back, sorry about that.
Divisions of just 2 Brigades. Amazed they have moved the goalposts on that, as you say, Divisions have, for as long as I’ve studied this subject, 3 manoeuvre brigades, of around 5k each plus Divisional supports which include the DAG, which FS embellishes as another brigade.
https://i.imgur.com/l9G5s1H.jpg
But look how pretty….
(This has caused a minor meltdown in the Anti-Ranger lot on Twitter btw which is hilarious characterised by people not knowing what they are talking about 😂)
Evening Dern. Sorry, that is the Rangers new IW? Similar to that used by SF?
Yup the Knights Armament Karbine, and the sight is also part of the acquisition, personally I preferred the SIG, but all the entries where good.
SF I think use Diemarco still.
Thanks. This is an area in which I have very little, if any, knowledge on. Do you know how many were acquired? And is this the IW also bought for use by the RM FCF and Pathfinders?
I have an idea but am not free to share, I hope you understand.
I think FCF and Pathfinders are going with the C8 for now, but might follow suit after the Rangers.
One of the sad things about the Rangers is that even when they where SpecInf they where a very closed doors society, so information on them is very sparce on the ground and the people who don’t like the idea don’t really get push back.
Morning mate. Of course, no worries on that.
I just hope they’re properly resourced, I’ve tracked a few CS CSS elements for their SOB ORBAT but very few. I know they operate in teams widely dispersed as we previously discussed, so yes the normal Bde ratio of CS CSS does not apply, but still.
I think the appropriate comparison to SOB is a US Special Forces Group, each of which consist of 3-4 SOF battalions and a support Coy. ASOB is pretty similar, with 4 battalions, similarly structured, and a signals squadron.
Thanks, I will have a look at them. I don’t study other militaries much, I probably should.
Assume a difference is the fire support, precision weapons, air support, available to US forces vs ours.
Kind of, I mean Green Beret SFG’s don’t have any organic fires so the firepower of a ODA is entirely dependent on what higher command has allocated them. Of course the US has a lot of fire support assets, but our arsenal isn’t anything to sneeze at. A team with a Typhoon armed with Storm Shadows, or a Reaper, ready for target designation is worth stopping to ponder.
Given the right political environment, and if Rangers and Green Berets can form a good working relationship you might even see a Ranger team calling in US fire support if there isn’t any UK asset available…
Yes, all good points. Given that it happens in other domains like the SF you’d think your last paragraph inevitable.
What is your take on 16AA going to 1 UK? I think I heard that the Divisional HQ is also getting an uplift in responsibility/assets? Unsure as yet what this entails , as 2 MR Sig Reg and 1 MI B plus their reserve pairings are already assigned to it as its DIEG, so it is not as if the HQ is bare.
I wonder why it was in Field Troops in the first place?
Didn’t know 16AA is going to 1XX, huh.
Pretty apathetic I guess, unless we have an ambition to turn 1 XX into a deploy-able division it just means a slight reshuffle of the golf clubs, If the ambition is to make 1 XX deployable then 4, 7, 16 makes a decent light division, so makes sense to me (I’d move 19 to Field Troops then).
I know why it was in field troops though, it’s because the Paras think they’re special and for ages 16 had been directly under CFA, “We’re a strategic asset.” So just momentum and a desire by the hats to stay out of a divisional structure IMO.
If only the CS CSS could be found for 4x.
Right, makes sense,thanks.
I remain doubtful about that, don’t know where the money or manpower would be drawn from to create them.
Yes, not without removing Inf Bns, but they all have a role themselves or have reduced in headcount.
Yep, construction of 3xx in FS is a pure ‘fudge’, with that weird third brigade (1DSRBCT), rather than a third manouevre brigade. It makes operations very difficult. Classically a div in warfighting mode would deploy either one bde up and two back – triangle shape – or the other way around, depending on terrain, enemy dispositions, whether attacking or defending etc. Example – in defence with two brigades up (ie forward) you can hold a good frontage and use the depth brigade as a reserve, to either plug a gap in the event of enemy breakthrough or to launch a counter-move against the enemy flank or rear. (A triangle is strong!)
No chance of having those two balanced options now. Its one manouevre bde behind the other, or side by side. Who provides the reserve? 1x? But they can’t seize and hold ground – no Inf. It’s nonsense. It is tactically illiterate.
It has been my opinion for some time it is a desperate attempt by the army to make it look like there are more real brigades than is the case, they called it a “merger” of 1 AI Bde and 1 Art Bde.
Give it some infantry, a logistics Regiment for the 4 artillery regiments in it, and dare I say, the 3rd Armoured Regiment that has not been converted to Ajax yet ( KRH, another Carter masterstroke ) and things might work out.
That last suggestion was a Dern idea from a while back, noting that the US Armoured Cavalry has tanks.
Better still, reconstitute the 3rd Armoured Infantry Brigade, as it was until Carter both his mitts on it, and restore A2020, which was better than the current set up. With 5 Bns of Boxer planned, and many more coming, more Bns could be equipped with it to restore at least 2 Bns per Bde.
I agree that the army has been playing’smoke and mirrors’ to convince that they have ‘enough’ brigades. 1DSRBCT is not a manouevre brigade in the classic meaning. It can be restructured to make it so, with the additions as you suggest.
I still think it odd to use recce vehicles to deliver fire instead of to conduct recce and surveillance as covertly as possible, but its normal for them to work to artillery and to call in artillery strikes on the targets they have identified.
I favour reconstituting 1DSRBCT as an AI bde. You would certainly need at least 2 AI Bns per bde then.
I wonder if any war games/simulations have been done with the 3xx structure as it appears now in FS?
I’d hope so! Otherwise we really have dropped if it is back of a fag packet time.
I don’t ever doubt the quality of our professionalism, training, and our tactics. Just the procurement, inability to stick to a plan for 5 minutes, lack of CS CSS, and reshuffling of the ORBAT.
I agree. Just don’t know why the army cock it up all the time and RN and RAF don’t.
By comparison with AFVs, can you imagine if RN and RAF had not procured or majorly upgraded any ships or aircraft respectively in the last 20 years!
It’s interesting to see how the Poles are stepping up with their investment in new military equipment, I hope we can find the money to do the same.
LINK
““Ukraine has a chance to break the stalemate, but it will be slow and bloody.” He believes it’s unlikely that all occupied Ukrainian territory will be liberated by force in the near term, with progress dependent on “how much further support the West is willing to provide.”
”
I am not so sure that it is true TBH.
I think that the Ukrainians are carefully breaking through the defences and minefields that the Russians has spent ages creating. Being very careful not to loose too much manpower and materiel in the process. Whilst at the same time mashing up as much Russian manpower and materiel as possible.
Once those lines are broken through it is very hard to see how the Russians are going to hold back the large mass of Western equipped units with serious tanks and firepower.
The Ukranians just don’t want to risk their nice fleets of tanks in minefields.
Once the lines are broken in a few places this could end quite fast. We know there are very thin Russian reserves given how close the armoured column came to Moscow and how 3,000 Chechens had to be drafted in to reinforce Moscow.
I would agree. Recent evidence suggest Ukraine is actively probing all along the font line, keeping the Russians guessing where the hammer will fall. The most up to date maps of Russian in depth defensive lines, show haphazard trench systems, that are not overly mutually supportive. Which means they could be isolated or bypassed fairly quickly. It is telling that the thickest lines of trenches lead to Crimea. But Ukraine has to get past the front line defences which have been measured to be 21 miles deep. Yet in the East they are fairly sparse!
One of Ukraine’s goals is to split the land corridor running along the Sea of Azov. But to do so from Vuhledar to Mariupol is likely to be the most contentious route. As I ‘m sure Russia are keeping a very close eye on that area.
There are a few other options that I would encourage. Which I’m not going to blurt out, as we don’t know who is reading these posts. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine pull off a fast one!
I totally agree.
Let’s hope the Ukrainians prevail soon.
Dealing with minefields should not be too much of a problem.
The bigger problems are Lancet Kamikaze Drones, Ka-52 helicopters with long-range ATGMs, and Artillery which the Russians still seem to still have plenty of.
All of the above have taken some toll on the Counteroffensive.
My belief is that Russia is still playing the attrition game, and it looks as if they can still afford to.
They are supposed to be running out of ammo according to some websites here, but I just do not see any evidence to support that.
Oh I think they are short of munitions anyway.
Well, they certainly have less but they have not stopped firing, the counteroffensive would be a pushover if that was the case.
The main thing has been the massive minefields and the new drones.
Their artillery can’t accurately hit anything – except by pure luck – so that isn’t the main issue.
They have very poor accuracy and seem to just grid aim. Pick an area on the map say 500m x500m then plaster it with thousands of rounds. Hopefully hitting something.
But that is what happens when you have a platform with:-
Poor sights
Poor gun computer
Worn mounts
Improperly calibrated gun
Bleed system that isn’t properly calibrated and is rough and ready anyway so muzzle pressure and exit velocity are all over the place
Ammunition that has highly variable charge
Other than that…..
I’m talking about the useless inaccurate artillery that Nad Vlad’s army depends on.
I wasn’t taking about drones except, elsewhere in the site, to say they were causing the Ukrainian’s problems……
Never mind…..keep trolling….
Well now, when it comes to sweeping generalisations it is the only thing that you have shown any ability in. That notwithstanding, not one thing you post ever stands up to scrutiny, you are a complete fact free zone, spouting endless disinformation and bullshit. If what technology and tactics that the Russian military have invested in are anything to go by then can I recommend that they buy shares in Betamax video tapes.
The part that used verbs, nouns and adjectives. In not just that comment, but virtually every comment you’ve posted . Along with your telling and shameful failure to condemn the numerous warcrimes of the Russian military.
Right, I’m going to briefly suspend my disbelief that you are a seventy something old man in Milton Keynes, and not a St. Petersburg based sock puppet.
Ukraine didn’t invade Russia on a pathetic and flimsy pretext. Ukraine didn’t deliberately target civilian housing, or hospitals, or schools or shops. It didn’t abduct children into Russia. It didn’t send extremist militias/ undisciplined troops into Ukrainian cities and towns to carry out summary executions of innocent people, or to rape them and torture them. Ukraine is perfectly entitled to defend itself under UN charter and any warcrimes that you presume are the fault of Ukraine (the ones that aren’t FSB false flags) can be laid firmly at the door of the Russian military. They started this shit. There is no equivalence or comparison between a sovereign nation defending itself against a hostile aggressor state like Russia.
History has shown that making deals or agreements with Russians is utterly pointless, you don’t need me to hold your hand, find a backbone and condemn what happened in Bucha.
We differ on way more than that. Do you think those executed Ukrainian civilians faked their own deaths?? You are such a coward. You and your fellow Russians deserve the term of orcs and untermenschen.
JIMK wrote:
“”I’ll condemn what happened in Bucha, only you and I differ on the perpetrators.””
Are you for real?
We’ve known all along he’s a racist thug, I’m not sure why anybody is surprised.
He’s being banned now.
Oh dear, now in your desperation you are willing to ignore what has happened in Bucha, never mind shed loads of other places. Aside from that, we are asking you to condemn the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, once you have condemned that, the rest falls into place, as once you admit the invasion is illegal then everything else subsequently also is.
Err, Good Morning-?, John*.
War is a difficult time to avoid accusations war crimes. One thing that could definitely have avoided such discussions in the first place is not invading another Sovereign state.
You are perfectly well aware that Putin / Hitler does not give a shit for Ukrainians, Russian speaking of otherwise. It’s the strategic facilities & resources he’s after, the whole population is simply collateral.
*In the meantime, can I recommend a glass or two of port (Porto or Madeira, no matter).
KRs
I see Farouk has ripped your crap to bits again, and you have no response for him?
As delusional as the people doing the invasion I see, colours are really starting to shine through now!
JIMK wrote:
“”I have read some ‘interesting’ generalisations written here but that just about takes the biscuit. You are dismissing as rubbish the main weapon systems of an army that has probably invested more in it than any other.””
The main Self-propelled gun (SPG) for the Russian armed forces is the 2S19 Msta-S which came into service in 1989. Its replacement 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV (of which only 12 have been produced) is still in the development stage
In contrast other nations sport much more recently purchased SPGs, SPGs I should add which are vastly technologically superior to the Russian Msta.
Regards towed artillery the most modern piece in use by the Russian Armed forces is the Msta-B in use since 1987, in contrast the M777 donated to the Ukraine first came into service in 2005 and comes with a digital fire control system, something which is lacking in any Russian towed artillery piece.
If we look at Rocket artillery (Aka MLRS) we find that the M270 and HIMAR systems vastly superior to anything the Russians have, due primarily to the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System munition which comes with GPS as standard.
Due to the disparity in numbers during the cold war between East and West, the west went down the route of quality over quantity meaning they invested far more into making their systems much more accurate (This included training) this we have seen in play inside the Ukraine where time, and time and time again, the Ukrainians pull off the most audacious strikes, be it against HQs, supply dumps, troop concentrations or as we saw the other week taking out 5 2S19 Msta-S (from the same unit) on a one shot , one kill basis. Now if you think you can equate that one shot one kill strike capability with a standard operating procedure of blanketing entire areas in which to neutralise the enemy (I’m talking thousands of rounds) as a good investment, then you subscribe to the mindset of pound-foolish penny shy. But as this is Russia, we are talking about allow me to change that to Pound foolish, a ton in my back pocket. Oh regards the effectiveness regards Russian and NATO supplied artillery:
https://i.postimg.cc/DftNLdCf/Comp-of-art.jpg
JIMK wrote:
“”In particular you have bracketed together to one standard thousands of guns that are from say 50+ years old like the towed D-20 and D-30 with those that have come off the production line in the last months like MSTAs or the new Coalition-SV which has its own counter battery radar and computer..””
The MSTA have been in service since the late 80s. the so-called new Coalition SV (AKA 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV) is still in development with only 12 examples made so far.
As for it coming with its own Counter battery radar. The most effective CBR the Russians currently have is the Zoopark 2 (of which Moscow has lost quite a few this past year) Have you seen the size of it, have you considered its power consumption, now please explain where a SPG designed to lobb 152mm shells on a scoot and shoot basis (meaning it cant be too big) is going to fit such a radar for long distance retaliation or even where they are going to fit the APU to power the damn thing.
Chuff. The vast majority of Russian Artillery is old, inaccurate due to the various reasons previously stated (lack of training, worn barrels, reduced EFCs and therefore accuracy, old mirrored none GPS sights, bad and lack of servicing etc). My god they couldn’t even have the correct modern tyres on trucks at the start, never mind expecting the recuperaters, buffers, expansion chambers, rotating pistons, etc to be serviced and not neglected due to corruption. They have a serious lack of guided munitions, to include Arty munitions, and to say otherwise is just desperation. While im not saying Russian OS isn’t effective, it does what it does, blow shit up, put down a lot of metal, but its not accurate hence the severe weight of firepower having to be sued to achieve even a basic effect. But I’m sure you know best, being a 76 year old civvy from MK.
The problem is. The Russians have access to vast reserves of artillery and rocket rounds so can indiscriminately fire off thousands of rounds to cover the frontal approaches.
They will eventually run down those reserves but likely will be resupplied by North Korea in exchange for food and fuel or China or Iran.
I don’t think they do have massive sticks anymore.
There have been using LIFEX ammunition that even Russia gas LIFEX’d.
The NK stuff won’t be terribly good and Iran doesn’t have the manufacturing base to make the quantities that Russia needs.
China could make it but I suspect they will steer clear maybe offering dribs and drabs through deniable cutouts such as NK.
Whatever’s – nobody on here takes anything you say seriously.
As you won’t condemn the criminal activities of the Russian army…..
Nato members (+ Sweden) in 2023 will spend a total 1.2 trillion Euro on defence. if you think Russia can match any were near that, you must be smoking something. We wont even start of the manpower and equipment Nato can deploy
What Russia has achieved? Eighteen months on from its invasion, it’s stuck in a quagmire barely 50 miles beyond its borders, over 200 000 dead and wounded troops, thousands of destroyed armoured vehicles and artillery pieces. No, no one in any Western military is impressed with Russian performance, you’re projecting utter tripe. Yet more unfactual sweeping generalisation.
Ha ha ha, that’s some desperate deflection and bullshit right there!! Been a hectic day at the troll farm today?? Have you been ordered to ramp up the misinformation and propaganda?
What huge new threat on NATO’s eastern border??? Only threat threat on NATO’s border is 250,000 soldiers, hundreds if not thousands of million dollar missiles and countless other pieces of military equipment lighter than they was 15 months ago. What are you waffling on about?
What huge new threat to NATO? do you think Britain is scared of hundreds of Russian Divisions reaching the English Channel? Or Germany in fear of losing Berlin again, what piffle, the Russian army can’t even penetrate more than 50 miles of Ukraine and now has to mobilise the entire Russian Nation to try and just keep what it took! The fact that Ukraine can even do a massive counter offensive, shows how cowed the Russians are. Russia has an enormous pile of nukes and that is the only fear, the worst nation having the most of the worst weopons, is somewhat trifling, but not its army, which however renewed you say it is, is actually finished as an entity that can take new ground.
Negotiate with who ?? What are you bullshitting about? Why don’t you ask Nato HQ directly what they’re going to do about this supposed threat on its Eastern border – an untrained, unskilled poorly led and equipped mass of conscripts that cannot advance much beyond 40 miles. . I think the word ‘contempt ‘ is how they would be viewed .
JIMK wrote:
“”Today it looks like the Russians have doubled, in just over a year or so, their army to around 500,000. This is a comment on just the last 6 months…””
Again you pull out the adage “never mind the quality feel the width” in which to peddle the line the Russians as winning.
Have a look at any video of captured Russians (plenty out there) in which to see the very poor quality of Russian soldiers. The Russian military for the past 149 years has operated on a conscription basis in which to fill the ranks. 98 years ago the terms of service was 1 year in territorial formations and 2 to 4 years in the cadre army. Front line slots were primarily filled by peasants with those from well off families getting sent to rear units or paying a tax. Things changed during WW2, with the next major change taking place in 1967 where a 2 year service for conscripts was mandated (3 for navy) Then in 2006 that was reduced to 18 months, followed by a drop to 12 months in 2008 with exceptions for Drs, Teachers and as we have seen the children of political elites (or those with money) That means between 2008 till 2022 (14 years) the majority of young males in Russia have received 12 months military training, now the actual training takes up 2 months. I started basic training in May , finished in Aug, then started my Combat engineer training in Sept and finished in Dec. That’s 8 months, when I arrived at my first unit, I found I knew nothing and it took me at least 18 months before I could be trusted to do something on my own. When I started out, I was a crap shot, I used to hate firing my weapon, range weeks on the coast always saw me the last to pass my APWT, and then after a few years it all clicked, I started shooting better, a lot better as I picked for the shooting team. That is what time in service does, it bestows experience. Now do be so kind as to point out what experience 1 years’ service. brings to the party. But hang on, those getting called up of late aren’t even getting that, they are receiving refresher training of around 2 months (or even less) after having not worn green for years.
Its one thing to say, look we have recruited 500K men into the armed forces and whilst that may have worked before the general staff system where soldiers lined up before each other and tried to capture the others flag. The Germans soon proved that system was outdated when they defeated the numerically superior France in 1871 in 6 months. Which they almost repeated in 1914 and did repeat in 1940.
That’s another 185,000 for the meat grinder then!!
JIMK wrote:
“”Its main armoured vehicle factory announced last week that is was turning its whole production over to T-90M. Queue stupid jokes!””
Main armoured vehicle factory, you mean its only factory which produces the T90M, (The only other tank plant in Russia is Omsk in Siberia which produces the T80 and the Msta-S) well produces is something of a stretch as Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) doesn’t exactly build them from scratch , rather it is mainly upgrading from finite stocks the T90A to the T90M standard (Hence the claims of a vast build rate) . The thing is when the T14 became the main focus of the Russian military, the stopped making the rest (72/80/90) and instead settled on upgrading them to cover the gap until the T14 came on line. When that program stalled, they looked at cheaper options which saw the T72B3, the T-80BVM, but not the T90M which was deemed to be far too expensive for mass production which explains why in the 4 years prior to Aug 2021, The Russian army received 56 T90Ms.
The thing about the T90M is its use of French electronics , which gives the tank its hunter killer capability on the battle field , (the sight will automatically) follow the target. That supply chain has ended and the latest captured Russian tanks have shown that the home grown Russian replacements are a couple of generations behind those supplied by the French.
Finally and a big finally as much as people big up the T90M, the fact remains it is still based on the T72, which was a cheaper version of the T64. All the faults that came with the T64 (Very little room for the crew, poor optics, disastrous ammunition storage and of course that very poor reverse gear (2.5 MPH)) are still prevalent in the much improved all singing and dancing T90M.
JIMK wrote:
“” Anyone here, answer me this, what steps has NATO taken to respond to this huge new threat that it has created on its eastern border?””
Well for a start, each and every NATO country has increased their defence spending for example Germany which was spending around 1.3% of its GDP on its military with an aim to reach 2% by 2030 is already at the 2% mark. Poland,(not exactly the richest country in NATO is buying 1000 K2PL and 250 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, as well as 600+ K9 SPGs. Then there’s the huge increase in military exercises, endeavours and deals. The EU has put in motion a plan of action for a combined ammunition production plan for all its members (That didn’t exist in Jan 2022)
JIMK wrote:
Don’t say Finland or Sweden as they were pseudo-NATO anyway.
Were they bollocks, both were neutral and prided themselves on their neutrality. Something about not wanting to offend their much bigger neighbour to the east.
JIMK wrote:
“ Its biggest move seems to be to deplete its armouries and weapons. This does not create a good position from which to negotiate.”
There’s this huge misconception banded around that NATO has run out of ammunition. It hasn’t each and every nation still retains its war reserve, what they have handed over to the Ukraine is ammunition they can afford to do without. The first tranche would have been ammo which would be close to its sell by date. That’s where the West differs from the likes of North Korea ,Iran, and even Russia who don’t subscribe to such good practices.
JIMK wrote:
“” I am pretty sure that in our military there is a far greater respect for what the Russians have achieved over the past 15 or so months than there is in the minds of some here who, from their written comments, regard them as orcs or even untermenschen.?””
Really, I think you’d be very surprised at the terms of endearment used by soldiers towards those they trust their lives with.
As for your inane remark regards respect, would that be towards how:
1) Russia spread its forces too wide from the very start.
2) How it only supplied its forces with stores for a very short campaign, and when they ran out, they suffered
3) The training they afforded their troops
4) The lack of leadership at all levels.
5) The recruiting of convicts
6) How they failed to take out the Ukrainian GBAD
7) The supply of poor equipment (first Aid kits comes to mind)
8) The conscription of a large % of the Russian male.
9) The shooting dead of retreating Russian soldiers
10) The indiscriminate targeting of civilian targets
11) The oppression and mass murderers of civilians in Russian held areas.
12) The sheer stupidly on display of Russian forces:
a. Driving over surface laid mines
b. Tying grenades around RPG warheads
c. Using SAM missiles in the surface role
d. Using armour without infantry support
e. An inability to act until they receive orders from above
f. Very poor infantry tactics.
13) The lack of optics on their personal weapons. Something you are on record of saying doesn’t count.
14) Having to bring out of storage ancient armour such as the T62/55/54
Love to see you in the lecture theatre asking a bunch of squaddies how they feel about the Russians. Pretty sure you’d hear a lot worse than orks and untermenschen.
Sorry nope, in our military there is no respect for what the Russians have achieved over the last 15 months plus. In fact Putin has proven that all planning assumptions were pretty wrong, and there was less to fear about a Russian invasion over the West German plains that we had thought. What Russia has shown to the West and the the UK, is that professional trained troops, in combined arms trained organisations, with modern serviced kit, with a decent logistic chain, are an absolute must and far outstrips the Russian way of thinking. But one lesson we have learned (reminded off) many thanks to Putin, is that numbers do matter…..Like I said no respect for what Russia has done, as professional militaries are shocked at just how bad they are.
Your desperation becomes sadder and sadder. What threat is that big group of half trained clowns to NATO? Go on, what threat does more under trained pax mean to NATO?
Not sure who your opening quote is from, but I agree with you. Recovery of territory including Crimea by Ukraine will take a long time, unless something crazy happens such as Putin falls from power and his successor withdraws Russian forces!
UKR does not have that many western tanks, I believe – and the US tanks have not arrived yet (so much for the world’s only superpower). As far as I know, UKR airpower does not have air supremacy let along widespread regional air superiority in their areas of breakthrough – perhaps an air expert can correct me as necessary.
UKR cannot win a long war of attrition and cannot afford a breakthrough force being encircled. They have to tread carefully, as they are doing now – and then win a war of manouevre. They are doing just fine.
The quote is from the podcast/discussion summarised in the article at the top.
Thanks!
I think it may be sensible for everybody to be a lot more cautious. It is possible that the slow progress of the Ukraine counter offensive may be due to more than the Russians hiding behind almost unassailable defences. There are reports that the Russian’s Electronic Warfare capabilities have been significantly improved and the performance of even high end Western weapons, such as JDAMS and HIMARS is being seriously degraded.
OSINT Who are these kids?
This must have woken a few people up from there sleep!
LINK
It’s reported that Sleepy Joe is pushing for VdL to be the next NATO Sec-Gen.
We we are doomed, doomed I tell you
She was by some accounts a hopeless German Defence Minister, presiding over low readiness, low equipment availability and reacting slowly to the G36 rifle scandal. Also, her ‘military experience’ was many years ago.
Biden, being a plastic Paddy, does not want a Brit like Wallace in the post, as he is very anti-British.
Also, where is the US-UK trade deal, Joe?
I head he fell asleep while he was trying to sign it.
They held the pen in his hand and moved the paper around a bit , but all to no avail.
Once they wake him up from his slumbers, and explain it all to him AGAIN (his memories not what it was you know) then they will give it another go…
Joe has recently referred to the ‘war in Iraq’ twice when he meant the war in Ukraine! Maybe Trump was right to call him ‘Sleepy Joe’.
Is anybody else worried that those f@#kwitted Russians are going to blow up the power plant in another desperate act? I am fairly sure they’re insane enough to do it and then obviously blame the Ukrainians of irradiating their own country for reasons nobody could possibly fathom. And the stupid Chinese and Indians etc would still support them.
Yes.
Why would they do that, what is the gain?
If they cannot have Ukraine, neither will Ukraine. At least, the irradiated bits. I pray the winds blow easterly for ever more afterwards.
Putin’s primary goal is to not have countries bordering his that oppose him. He want his buffer zone to be a proper sphere of influence. Ideally, he wants access to their resources, and economic output, like Belorus, and which he tried to achieve in Ukraine initially through negotiation. They can call themselves an independent country, just so long as they know their place.
If he can’t get that, he’d rather them not have a viable country or economy. He reduces their viability by political interference, backing opponents to salami-slice their territories (Donbas, S Ossetia, Transnistria, etc), and by invasion as in Georgia and as most recently tried in Ukraine. If he can break their military and he’s shown he’d willing to invade, they are in no position to say no to him. If all else fails, indiscriminate destruction will do.
This has failed so far in Ukraine; their will and capability to resist remains solid. However, I believe the destruction of the dam was deliberate, and yes I fear for the power station.
How are we fixed for heavy lift helicopters?
“BERLIN (Reuters) -Germany will buy 60 Chinook helicopters from Boeing in a package that will cost up to 8 billion euros ($8.7 billion), including necessary infrastructure for the aircraft, two members of the parliamentary budget committee told Reuters on Wednesday.
They said the committee had taken the decision to go ahead.
The sum includes the procurement of the CH-47 heavy-lift helicopters for 6.27 billion euros, 700 million euros for service, 240 million euros for national contracts and 750 million euros for infrastructure, according to earlier information.
Germany said it planned to buy 60 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters from Boeing last year to replace its ageing CH-53 fleet. Originally, 6 billion euros had been budgeted.
Forty-seven of the helicopters will be based in the town of Holzdorf, some 50 kms (31 miles) south of Berlin, a military source said, adding that the first of several Arrow-3 missile defence units Germany aims to purchase will also be deployed there.
Built to intercept long-range missiles, the Arrow-3 system will be able to protect large parts of Germany and Poland from Holzdorf, according to the source who said the town would be one of three locations where Arrow-3 will be based in Germany.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz shifted policy in February 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine, sharply increasing defence spending and committing 100 billion euros for the Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces.
“With the procurement of 60 heavy transport helicopters for 7.2 billion euros, we are launching one of the most important procurement projects of the Bundeswehr special fund,” Greens committee member Sebastian Schaefer told Reuters.”
That is our current fleet. Reducing to around 50. 38 in the forward fleet ( 7, 18, 27 Sqns) unaffected.
Many thanks Daniele, so not too bad.