The training exercise, dubbed ‘Iron Cyclone’, was hosted on Wiltshire’s Salisbury Plain Training Area.
This pilot exercise was a revamp of the traditional training regimen, focusing on making it more pertinent and challenging.
The primary objective was to enhance the combined arms proficiency of the force, a pivotal factor in ensuring success in today’s combat scenarios.
This exercise involved a comprehensive training package for the King’s Royal Hussars Battlegroup. Collaborating units included the 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, 26 Engineer Regiment, 19th Regiment Royal Artillery, and several supporting regiments, offering a chance to cultivate and strengthen their collective capabilities as a new Battlegroup.
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Perowne, the Commanding Officer of the King’s Royal Hussars, offered insights post his regiment’s return from a six-month deployment under NATO’s Operation Cabrit. He highlighted:
“This exercise was about reinforcing the ability to war fight from the lowest level, drawing from the lessons emerging from Ukraine and our Battlegroup experience in Estonia. The core idea was to incorporate these lessons to maximise our lethality, efficacy, and self-protection. The insights from Ukraine have underlined that foundational skills remain vital. This exercise provided an invaluable opportunity to fortify these skills.”
The 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, where the KRH Battlegroup operates under the 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team, is the British Army’s primary warfighting division. Through Operation Mobilise, there’s a concerted effort to enhance its agility, resilience, lethality, and expeditionary capacities.
Captain William Howlett, Intelligence Officer with the King’s Royal Hussars, commented on the novel approach:
“This pilot exercise introduced a fresh concept. It’s about streamlining processes to benefit our junior soldiers, optimising time and resources to ensure more individuals are trained efficiently and rapidly.”
Mines and artillerie seem the worst for soldiers. Some say they are more feared than ennemy bullets.
Counter artillery and other defences against it are vital IF fighting against artillery. Same with mines. Being able to clear paths, ideally stop them being used in the first place.
Trying to figure out what the army is meant to be prepared for is a struggle.
Dealing with mercenaries,
Helping countries in trouble eg Niger type situation,
A country doing a big invasion of a neighbour and the U.K. goes to help.
Mines are the worst, artillery to a degree can be countered by mobility, that mobility comes at the cost of increased vulnerability to mines. Horrid things.
Correct that’s usually the tactic to guide the opposing forces to manoeuvre themselves into a designated field then sit back and watch the carnage.
The lessons being taken from Ukraine need to be taken with some massive grains of salt. Both sides are using armies that consist mostly of rapdily mobilised and hastily trained personnel, with virtually no air support.
Neither of these statements would realistically hold true for any NATO country.
Ukraine used to have hundreds of warplanes.
Russia still has thousands.
I mean, how much airpower do you need?
Neither of those come close to NATO, and for the record Russia does not have “thousands”: It’s pre-war inventory of fighter and ground attack aircraft comes in at a little over a thousand total. The European part of NATO alone has about 900 more fighter and attack aircraft than Russia does (So very near 2-1 superiority), backed up by the two largest Airforces in the world (The US Airforce and the US Navy), all of which specialise in operating in contested air defence environments and have advanced SEAD capabilities because Air Support is critical to their way of war. If… Read more »
I think that although broadly right, this is a bit misleading. Yes NATO does indeed have better pilots (training), more airframes (though European Air Forces are acutely affected by lack of spare parts), and more advanced weapon packages, potentially. However Russia do boast a credible airforce certainly, though definitely inexperienced by NATO standards, but with more easily maintained and robust airframes, and large volumes of warheads. I seriously doubt Europe’s militaries can say the same. But much more challenging is Russias air defence systems. The S300s are dated, but the latest upgraded versions would make utter mincemeat of F16s (unlike… Read more »
Ross, going to have to disagree mostly with your post, although the comment about quantity aka mass, and the fact in an extended conflict, numbers do matter and have an impact, is true again in certain conflicts. However in regard to the RuAF, their current platforms are not always more easily maintained or robust, but in fact if that was true, then its all the more embarrassing, and shocking the amount of “serviceable” aircraft are hitting the deck of their own accord, through negligence of servicing, pilot incompetence or ground crew inexperience. In regard to Russian AD systems and defences,… Read more »
He’s also wrong about production capability though. NATO doesn’t retain a huge stockpile of rusting ammunition of dubious quality like Russia does, but as my reply pointed out, the 3 biggest artillery ammunition manufacturers on the globe are all NATO companies, and the next two are NATO aligned. It’s also not just that Ukraine started the war with legacy Russian kit, a lot of NATO countries would have done that a year or two ago, before they donated their Russian kit to Ukraine, although that is part of it. Ukraine could have had a pure NATO equipped force, but it… Read more »
Hi Airborne, I don’t think we are too far off each other, as I actually agree with most of your points completely. I would contest the Ukraine starting with NATO standard equipment scenario…..purely as that would be so expensive for them to acquire and maintain (without financial support) that the number of platforms would have been insignificant, and thus even more quickly beaten. Russian airframes may not be as robust as advertised… but I actually think it is as embarrassing as being primarily very low quality maintenance (and training), as with most issues involving largely/partially conscript armies. There is something… Read more »
There is definitely a place for both smart and dumb munitions mate, as the smaller the munition it is much harder to adapt a smart fuse or sensor system. Not all tasks will require a smart munition, but with more smart ordnance there is a smaller logistic chain, higher kill probability and quicker in and out of action times. But of course you are correct in that we need decent stockpiles of both, in preparation for any future extended conflict. Cheers.
The Russian airforce is not even close to comparing to NATO’s airpower. Again, as I pointed out European NATO (without the US and Canada) has nearly 2x the air frames of the Russian Air Force, and those include 5th Generation fighters, which Russia doesn’t. Then you add another 2,000 fighters in the USAF and USN. NATO has at least 4x as many airframes as Russia. Then you bring up S-300 and S-400 like it’s a gotcha. It isn’t. This is the reason I brought up the fact that NATO practices SEAD, and is very good at it (in fact it’s… Read more »
The S300+ S400 are like most Russian “wonder weapons” a one trick pony and easy to counter. Don’t believe me, look at the Israeli air forces experiences overflying Syria. They’ve run rings around the S400 and even tricked the system into shooting down Russian aircraft.
Ross is pretty full of shit tbh, I mean at least he’s cogent and not a troll like some of the others, but his main source is clearly Russia Today.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-russia-agreed-to-not-hamper-idf-air-campaign-over-syria/
Hi Dern, Anything related to NATO training and tactics I’m not contesting with you (as it’s patently obvious we are superior in that regard). We also don’t seem to be far off each other on my point that Europe’s militaries would struggle, both in terms of munitions and serviceable airframes. German air force is a well documented example….but I suspect not the only one. In terms of Russian aircraft not being robust, I think you are flat out wrong, don’t confuse bad training, and/or poor maintenance, as bad design. Soviet Russian equipment is well known even by NATO to be… Read more »
Well thanks for the straw man: we do not agree on European miltaries struggling, infact I specifically pointed out that European NATO alone significantly outnumbers Russian airframes, and that three of the 5 biggest ammunition producing companies in the world are based in Europe: Rheinmetall, Nexter and SAAB. But if you’re determined to pretend that points aren’t raised then you’re just going to be wrong. Russian aircraft are not “robust.” Sorry to break it to you. The whole “Robust” thing is a myth that basically comes down to Russian propaganda, they need frequent maintenance and FOD plods just like NATO… Read more »
Dern, do not dog whistle that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow suffering from Russian induced propaganda, it does absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument, even less so if you knew who you’re talking to, and besides which, is untrue. I could quiet frankly make the reverse accusation and suggest you simply believe our own Western version by listening to our own media, or simply believe all the Ukrainian propaganda….but as I say, that would not be helpful. Much like your ‘gotcha’ comment I also don’t indulge in ‘straw men’ tactics, I am not a journalist or politician, thank… Read more »
Ross, do not ignore points, strawman people and use vatnik talking points and then get upset when you get called on it. If you want to use those points go right ahead, but do not expect me to sit by and not draw attention to it. You can say you don’t induldge in either “gotchas” or “Strawmen” but you’ve demonstrably engaged in both in this thread so I’m adding “lying” to the list of traits you have. And thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what an SPG is once again. Anyway, you can try and paint yourself… Read more »
Dern, I have no idea who you are, nor how old you are, but you are clearly very triggered, and not really up for civil conversation. Only throwing up ideology and insults (all of which are rather obviously untrue).
So I’ll simply wish you a good day, and a hope you have a better temperament next time we correspond.
And Ross has moved on from Gotchas and Strawmanning to Gaslighting and Ad homimen.
I suggest you learn to be an honest intellocutor and you’ll soon find that people treat you better.
Too many people in the UK of all places seem to be drunk on Russian cool aid as Dern says. Much of this is stuff dating from WW2 where there is no doubt they got their production of good tanks and artillery fully into gear. The Battle of Kursk is another propaganda tool that still gives and gives. Personally I’m glad to see the Russians take a beating and I look forward to better days for Ukraine as part of NATO. This war seems to be about where the Russians stick their sunbeds. I hope it hurts and they learn… Read more »
“The Battle of Kursk is another propaganda tool that still gives and gives.”
Oh? In what respect mate?
I have to disagree as you are way off with a lot of the information that you are posting. Simple taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture of what’s happening, Russia has tried and failed for over a year and a half, to defeat a much smaller country….on it’s own border. It should have every logistic and maneuver advantage and has been fought to a standstill. It’s basically playing a home match and is losing. It’s been forced to into mass mobilization and has had over 100k killed and wounded. Speaking of weapons, its been forced to… Read more »
I don’t know… what portion of frontline in the hands of UK? What for
France? Given current Numbers: 20 km for 6 months for France.
When we look at frontlines in Ukraine…
Lets say that professional troupes are ready for offensive operation and that
somehow we are able to cover frontline with reinforcement, who will attack when professional soldiers attack potential is exhausted?
What unit clear mines? Artillery? Someone else´s men?
NATO has around 3.7 million active service personnel. This is 3x the entire Russian Armed Forces, full time contract soldiers and short term conscripts.
Not sure what a professional troupe is, but you are using the incredible dishonest method of comparing a single NATO country to Russia, instead of the entire alliance, which is what realistically would be fighting a modern peer conflict.
Hi Dern, I am not 100% sure of a availability of soldiers from Nato. It has never been tested. Amoung troups that do exists, how many could be send day one to fight the ennemy? In 1914, France and UK were allied. BEF was 50 k soldier in 2 weeks. French army was about 1,3M men at that stage. Not to say that British army help was not appreciated, quit the countrary in fact, but real numbers matters. Conscript is far stronger than professional army for territorial war. What would make sense is conscription in Finland, Poland, baltic countries and… Read more »
Math the 3.7million number I cited are full time professional soldiers, not reservers, conscripts, and territorials that need to be recalled to the colours.
I specified that in my initial comment.
Th UK has an ever smaller professional army it’s highly likely mobilisation would be needed if we were actually involved in a war.
Again: NATO has 3.7 million active service personnel. Stop doing the “compare Russia to individual NATO states” thing, it is not an honest comparison.
Two areas the UK is very weak in mine warfare and artillery, another area is an effective uav overwatch to try and negate the enemies mine deployment and adequate number of guided rockets to allow the distance to be increased so as to allow us(NATO)our traditional advantage in manoeuvre warfare. Hopefully they are testing this and the higher ups have the balls in the report to say those areas are critically underfunded.
Hi Fosterman, In artillery, France is not in a great Shake. Caesar canon seem to do well in combat but quantity are simply not there, nor amunition inventory or production. Nothing serious in Himars like solution. We are simply not ready yet. Lately, flying ammunition is becoming a part of artillerie. We are limited yet, but we will be equiped in 2030, with Patroler, Aarok, Eurodrone and tactical ammunition like Colibri and Larinae. I don’t know what will prevail in future (himars like rockets or drones). Both fill the same role, that was before thé one of tactical aviation (A10,… Read more »
The French army is in a much better place in terms of artillery and long range missile development. I think it would be beneficial if the UK could team up on long range fires instead of being tied to the US systems mainly down to cost and being tied down into the US missile ecosystem is bad for the army as a whole and industry. The argument for buying American is it’s cheap off the shelf but you get locking into there systems and suddenly the army has 10 different missiles but none are compatible across the fleet so actually… Read more »
Let’s cross the finger and nock some wood. Cooperation with both nations will rise again soon. Budgets are available and engineering and skilled labor are scarce. Good time to see new project. At least, I would like it to be.
😀 Good effort Math, the saying is “touch wood” not knock wood.
Anyway, welcome to the forum.
Unfortunately, the UK has one of the most opaque military procurement systems in the democratic world- it’s very difficult to know what is going on. The US and others are far more transparent. That said, there are a number of projects that are going ahead for UK artillery- not sure how many will stick and what status they are. The UK are currently modernising all (I think, although not sure how many we have) of the M270s (tracked Himars) that they didn’t send to Ukraine, so seems there’s good intentions there. We’re also down as an early customer of the… Read more »
Hi Joey, Thank you for your insights. I agree there is something with loitering ammunition against artillery and understand better why UK may look for 52 caliber tracked vehicule, with armored protection. In France, generals are looking for air transport mobility and see it as a must have. Without capability to project with A400M and easy move on theatre of operations, they will think it will lack Key success factor. I am not sure of anything yet. I hope they are right. In this regard, UK and France developped the 40 mm CTA. It could be used to protect high… Read more »
That’s interesting, do you think the French military will look for something like the C-17? I know they found the RAF ones useful in North Africa, and it’s one of the biggest reasons why I’ll be furious if the UK gets rid of their strategic airlift. What would their options be though, seeing as the C-17 line is closed, and I imagine that they’d want an Airbus solution if at all possible. I’ve no idea if those numbers are right, but that is an awful lot of money flying through the air! Realistically, I don’t think anyone would have 500… Read more »
Anti-personnel weapons are the worst for getting into the soldier’s psychic.
I wonder what the ‘fresh new concept’ was, as mentioned by Capt Howlett?
Incorporating some LL? That’s pretty standard – and isn’t really a new concept.
Mines are now taking a new front seat, after years of the liberal west saying mines (certain types) are very naughty and we shouldn’t have them, or use them. Mines, to include off road mines, are the best way of countering an enemy thrust, directing and channelling vehicles and people into pre determined killing zones, area denial and general worrying the shit out of the enemy planners (and in he offense just as essential for flank protection etc), just as . We need to be thinking and getting back to platforms (such as Shielder) which are able to bang out… Read more »
ahh the mark 7 anti tank with a mark 5 fuze clicked for a tilt fuze, those were the days, I think we might need to lend Dern and Ross our Glock and CZ though at this rate. I love a heated discussion especially when I’m not involved in it. Lol.
Agreed mate, Dern is in fact always on top of his game and knows his stuff, from both experience and decent research. If Dern pushes out a few facts (and reading the conversation) he is the one giving facts, correct and up to date info and keeping to the thread without pushing some misdirection, which Ross does seem to be doing. However like you, I love a good heated debate, and like you it makes a change I’m not in “contact” or collateral damage lol
I am always impressed with the amount of knowledge some people have, makes very interesting reading and as I am not current with tactics and weapon systems of today it is fascinating how current or future conflicts will evolve, still boils down to some poor grunt covered in crap, cold and tired having to take and hold land, that never changes.
Spot on, I thought the tech we had when I was in, was on the ball, but 8 years later after getting out (I still live in Colchester) speaking to the blokes and reading, it’s come on even more in leaps and bounds! But again, war, it’s all about taking and holding ground, something many advocates on here and elsewhere who always talk about drones replacing this that or another platform, forget! But we have some excellent SMEs on here and other guys who have an encyclopaedia knowledge of the military, and it’s always great to read and learn. 👍
Agreed. Dern is another SME here, for good reason. I think his ORBAT knowledge even makes me blush! 🙄😆
Agree on Shielder. I wonder whether the RMCS has any hidden away!
IMO, one lesson to take from the Ukr war is how easy it is for pre war assumptions and planning to be wrong. Remember, the day before the war Russian planners thought that Ukraine was ready to roll over, there would be limited effective resistance and the Russian army would overwhelm any that there was.
NATO must learn that lesson as well, that whatever assumptions they may make about their own and other’s capabilities before hostilities commence (i.e., NATO air superiority/ supremacy for instance) may not withstand first contact with the enemy.
I should imagine lessons are being learned on a daily basis, as It is after all, a ‘proxy war’ being fought there. Manufacturing technology has allowed drones to be produced cheaper than ever before. Drones used as Kamikaze ‘missiles’ are a massive threat in todays world. Drone use alone, could bring into question all manner of tactics, for Infantry and armoured deployments. Thus far, the only battlefield vehicles that may have a long term future, are Infantry vehicles, and even they may need to be totally re-thought in terms of speed and mobility. The lack of aircraft being able to… Read more »
Tom, why do you think Infantry vehicles are somehow immune from drone (and other) attacks?
Hi GM
I don’t think they are immune. Infantry vehicles will themselves be targeted, if the enemy has enough drones and missiles to do that, after they have finished off the oppositions tanks.
Graham,
Article published today (Business Insider) stated CR2 has joined the UKR counter-offensive w/ the 82nd Air Assault Brigade in the Zapporhizia oblast, near a city/Hamlet/village named Robbotyne (all UKR spellings are at best approximations). Evidently, the CR2 have been outfitted w/ an anti-drone cage attached to the turret. Hoping for good fortune and combat effectiveness. 🤔🤞
Thanks mate. I have been bemused that such a heavy tank was issued to air assault forces (in our army the airborne/air assault operate the lightest of equipment!).
Good fortune to them, as you say.