British Army strengthening readiness for war in Europe

I almost would type “Send code settings, over.”

I think I understand what you wrote… just.

Q1. Latvia paid/is paying millions for CVR(T)s – would they go off books for £0? Not being replaced but they have value, is that what happened?

Q2. Where does Joe public see the accounting?

Q3. How does MoD show they have recd. £Ms back into their account.

Q4. Why was Saunders so caged in his answers at Committee early week; why with cash in the bank should it take so long to get needed stocks back and indeed above the past stock when obsolete stock was written off but funds recd from MoD for all?

Q5. UOR kit on MoD books donated to Ukraine would also be entitled to a cashback, correct?

Q6. Why did Ben Wallace resign?

Thanks David, my three roles at Abbey Wood did not include all the finer aspects of MoD accountancy but I picked up some of the basics!
A1. When MoD disposes of any equipment they go off the Inventory books, irrespective as to whether they are sold for £millions or gifted for £0.

A2. Good question. MoD Accountsfor Year Ending 31st March are audited by the NAO, then presented annually to the House of Commons pursuant to section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. They are then ordered by the House of Commons to be printed usually in July, and are put on the gov.uk website for Joe Public to read – 2022/2023 accounts are at:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1172507/MoD_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2022-23.pdf

A3. Surplus MoD equipment is sold by the Defence Equiment Sales Authority (DESA). I understand that MoD rather than HM Treasury get the receipts, but I am no financial expert. Sales receipts should therefore be shown in both MoD accounts and DESA accounts as income.

A4. I am not privy to General Sanders’ approach on these matters. Of course the regeneration of stocks to replace those gifted to UKR is not just of interest to CGS but to the other service chiefs too, but of course the article is about the army. I have no details of how quickly (or not) orders have been placed to order replacement stock – but not much happens in the MoD at lightning speed. I cannot trace details of Sanders evidence to a Committee (HCDC?) this week. What did he say that was cagey?

A5. Any equipment once procured by UOR methodology gifted to UKR would be disposed of (sold or gifted) in no different a way to equipment that had been procured previously in the standard way. Not sure what you mean by a cashback?

A6. Wallace had been in post probaby longer than any other Def Sec. It is exhausting, stressful and thankless work. He said he wished to spend more time with his family which is often a euphemism but I have no reason to doubt it. It did not help that he made comments critical of Zelensky’s lack of fulsome gratuitude (very embarrassing to Sunak) and he may have found it a strain to continue to work with Sanders from June when Sanders became more critical of the size of the army etc. Wallace may also have felt that he could not further resolve defence problems as it would no longer be possible to secure additional defence funds.

The opacity of Defence Accounts is the problem although I must thank you for your insight into the matter.

One take away is that UOR taken onto permanent MoD inventory is charged to MoD, thus selling / gifting should mean mean a reduction in Defence costs… we live in hope Graham.

I mean…. TECHNICALLY the CVRT’s are being replaced… first by Warrior and then by Ajax.

Hi Dern, I did not express myself clearly. Specifically those CVR(T)s sold to Latvia and those gifted to Ukraine did not need replacing, as they (almost certainly) would not have been from UE/RP/Trg Org or Attrition Reserve.

Ukraine’s biggest threat is a protracted conflict where Western opinions become clouded by other conflicts. The Modern World prefers quick wars so that the media can pour huge resources into any given crisis but in short bursts. Hanging around long-established wars does not make for good copy as it begins to bore the viewing public. Putin knows this and the above factors could play into his hands if he can play the long game.

Resources is the key to this and the wider theatre. IMO Putin has Europe in a restraint by keeping Ukraine in a stalemate. He knows NATO will not commit troops to and ongoing conflict so it’s in his interests to keep the conflict simmering but not boiling. This also serves other actors well (China and Iran). While NATO pile in resources to Ukraine and Russian bears run down the flying hours of our first responders they all sit, they fuel the fire, they watch and they ready themselves. The one weapon we are missing here that has been deployed in abundance is ‘patience’. We just need to look at October 7th to realise that patience creates complacency and complacency creates holes in defences.

The European collective is very impressive however, its mindset is different from that of Russia. I can’t name one European country that would contemplate starting a war with a neighbour as Russia did with Ukraine, and that is the huge difference between the two. Russia could if required fight this war for another ten years even if its rate of replenishment is compromised by sanctions. Even then, Russia will expect its citizens to stick with the mandate come what may. Simply, we are dealing with stone-hard intransigence. A smouldering fire is just as dangerous as a full-blown blaze.

Oh I don’t doubt Russia is an issue for European security, I just don’t see Putin willing to go toe to toe with NATO..I think he is a profound risk to None NATO nations…there are a few situations in which I think Russia becomes a wider security risk.

1) A western conflict with china…I think you would potentially see a direct conflict at that point ( as I said I did not think it would go to war with NATO on its own..but as part of an alliance with china, Iran and friends..I could we Putin would think he had a chance roll the dice..and he is a dice roller).
2) the politician collapse of NATO…a few key ways I see this could happen.. A Trump administration could see the U.S. withdraw..this would mean Europe would need a new alliance….some of the eastern block countries becoming to politically miss aligned with the Western European…at the edges a Turkey..Greek conflict could erupt…or a new Balkan war could destabilise the south eastern part of NATO..

Putin will be using political warfare to make any or all of the above states to occur.

Trump during his tenure came around to accepting NATO – I think he enjoyed berating certain European nations for not hitting the 2% of GDP figure and enjoyed US being lead nation, with dominance exercised by himself and his senior officers in NATO command appointments. I think he has moved on from his early (2017) position of considering withdrawing from NATO.
NATO is stronger now in the last 5-6 years – spending up, eFP doing well, new members (Monetenegro, North Macedonia, Finland joined – and Sweden probably joining in the next few months with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine next on the short-list.

Interestingly I was reading a couple of pieces on what to expect from a trump presidency and NATO was top of the list. Apparently he still very much does not see the value or why the US needs to be part of it…from what I’m hearing the people around him are planning an exit strategy if that is the way he goes…..I suspect he will either leave it or attempt to force a massive redraw of the treaty….in reality trump it’s not going to go to war for a very small Eastern Europe nation he has no understanding of…so I think any redraw will involve both expulsion criteria as well as limit the requirements for intervention…

NATO does actually have a bit of a fundament problem that I think relates to its expansion, in reality it is more than anything a massive geopolitical and geostrategic deterrent ( if you attack one all their neighbours will pile in on you) but it’s is military power is underwritten by mainly the US and to a lesser extent by the UK, and France, maybe Spain and Italy to a more limited degree the other members are essentially limited to self defence or local action ( Polands armed forces are going to be defending Poland etc..not supporting a nation in the southern flank, Germany again is a nation focused on self-defence) …but what it all really means is that if the US, UK and France are not actually able to show they are willing to go to war for all the nations of NATO ( including a nuclear war) then NATO as a deterrent becomes pointless. You need credible capability, visibility of the capability and visibility of will, for a deterrent to work..remove and one of those and it becomes likely to fail..Trump and any negotiations of the treaty he would want would put at risk those fundamentals of deterrent and profoundly weaken NATO…my personal view is that our enemies think the west is weak..they don’t see strong, they see politically fractured, an unwillingness to fight a long war and take the consequences of that..( yes we are willing to send our armed force off to beat on a third world power, yes we are willing to see a few young people in uniform killed, but when it gets hard, when profound sacrifices are needed..our enemies don’t believe we will make them ( sacrificing our morals, taking a major economic hit, focusing on the long war, accepting economic damage to change our economies to-make them hardened etc, seeing mass deaths in our armed forces and civilians ).This is the unfortunate Truth at present and why I think our deterrence may fail..especially around nations where there is profound need and pressure to take action ( Russia, china, Iran are all driven by a profound requirement to have a conflict with the west, that needs a massive and comprehensive deterrence to keep a lid on).

Bosnia is an interesting one as it’s actually one of those fracture points that could cause NATO a political headache, making it a member could become problematic as I don’t think Bosnia is going to meet NATO entry requirements, it’s simply not that healthy a democracy and has a pretty fair chance of self destructing in the near future ( it’s in a profound mess). But it is a fracture point that may lead two NATO nations to go to war with a none NATO power ( Serbia)…..there is a not unlikely chance that the Balkans may blow up again and suck in a lot of European NATO energy….to basically keep a lid on it.

Thanks Jonathan, I find it hard to believe that Trump will be elected in 2024 but it is possible, unless he is in jail. It is odd that he has reverted back to an anti-NATO stance. He doesn’t see the point in it? In NATO’s 75-year history Article 5 has only ever been called once and that was to come to the aid of the US! Some mistakenly think that member countries have to commit military forces to combat if Article 5 is called but that is wrong – “…will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force..”
The use of armed force is but one option for a member state to consider.

I don’t see that NATO being a defensive alliance/deterrent is a fundamental problem. It has worked – no country has attacked a NATO member in all its history, even in a small way, let alone started a world war.

I don’t agree that the smaller NATO nations are limited to self-protection nor that some larger nations such as Poland and Germany may not come to the aid of a NATO ally.
When Article 5 was called in 2001, all NATO members responded and sent troops thousands of miles away to Afghanistan to tackle AQ (and their Taliban backers).

I see that if a future President Trump took the US out of NATO (I still think that unlikely), then Russia may not be deterred from its next ‘military adventure’ if it has any serious military strength left after its Ukraine war – and some (incl Gen Shirreff) speculate about one or more Baltic nations being invaded.

NATO is the most succesful military alliance I can think of – but I agree that its effectiveness is drastically diminished if the US pull out. The European members would have to drastically increase their military spending to partly compensate – and wew would not achive nuclear parity.

I agree that the accession of Bosnia might cause problems, as would the accession of Georgia.

Yes Trump is an individual who simply does not really have any grasp of geopolitics, history or international relationships…even his grasp of business practices and performance are quite frankly a bit less mediocre ( it was estimates that if he had simply invested his inherited wealth that he had available in 1978..(100 million) in a standard retirement investment portfolio it would now be worth 6 billion…as it is he’s only worth 2.5billion)…as for him winning the next election, I don’t think it can be called, if the democrats had a high performing individual I would be a bit more optimistic, as is Joe B is really just not a dynamic politician and I hate to say it he’s just to old to hold high office ( he should have retired to be honest and given another candidate a shot).

Re Trump and NATO, I don’t think he ever had a retrenchment of his view, he thinks it’s a waste of money and does not understand the purpose, interestingly I read an article in which it was explained that he simply did not understand that it was an alliance of peers and thought of it more as a protection racket in which European nations should be paying dues to the US for protection and that the European nations had failed to pay their dues…so I really don’t know where that man would go but a good indication is the Trump 25 plan that his supporters have developed..he’s going to resign the executive order for schedule F..basically changing the employment of federal employees allowing him to sack around 50,000 federal employees that he sees as a block ( mid and lower level civil servants) and replace them all with political appointees…the Trump campaign has been planning who to employ in these new political appointments..this is to smooth the road to a radical agenda.

a close source has said that at the start of his term trump will
” as a matter of top priority — go after the national security apparatus, “clean house” in the intelligence community and the State Department, target the “woke generals” at the Defense Department, and remove the top layers of the Justice Department and FBI.”

for an understanding of how Trumps team will create an MAGA focused civil service, judicial, intelligence and military administration read Axios “ a radical plan for trumps second term” it’s very interesting…as he’s planning to restructure the entire U.S. civil service in his Vision,,one of those areas is the MAGA view of NATO. Trump made it clear he’s going to remove any “NATO lover” from appointments and he plans for either NATO to accept 1) a massive increase in spend by each member state ( I suspect he will require a U.S. level 3% gdp) 2) and a removal of article 5 or he will take the US out of NATO…

Like you I don’t see a European only NATO will be the deterrent it was without the US…the Nuclear element will also be an issue with the two nuclear powers having to significantly step up and somehow develop a nuclear triad…in the end I think if a European only NATO wanted to keep a nuclear deterrent worth its name there would need to be a central NATO fund to pay for it.

Re a lot of European NATO nations only being defensive in nature, Thats generally fine and I take your point that all nations supported when the U.S. triggered article 5, but in that situation there was no real existential threat that any of the nations had to face or worry over….I think when you are talking about a war with Russia you have to see it from a geostrategic point of view and risk to the individual nations..not just capabilities…Poland for instance is developing into a significant land power…but will it really have the battle groups to spare defending the Baltic states..knowing that it’s quite possible that anything in the Baltic states could be encircled and trapped.while having to prepare for an assault across a huge length of boarder. I suspect if Russia did try and nip off a Baltic state, Poland would have a real balance issue around deploying significant ground forces…strengthening the Baltic states through other routes would be profoundly challenging..the eastern Baltic and gulf of Finland would be deathtraps for any navel reenforcement…finally the baltic states have no space to swap for time as Ukraine did…I also think without the U.S. and its strategic arsenal it Russia would use a nuclear threat to try and blackmail none nuclear nations…in the end I think nations like Poland, Finland etc would be to hard for Russia to swallow and easier for other NATO powers to re-enforce without risk, but I’m not sure a NATO without the U.S. would act as a deterrent to Putin in the baltic ( who is let’s be honest is a mad bastard) I also don’t think a European NATO could re enforcement the Baltic states to prevent overrun and a de facto Russian victory..I think in the case of the U.S. leaving NATO the only option for a European NATO would be a massive investment in permanent defensive armies in the Baltic states and not just tripwire forces…almost a 21c version of the inner German boarder….I also think NATO really does need to be very focused on its southern flanks as that area of NATOs weakness is instability in and around the nationstates in the eastern Mediterranean…Turkey Greece and some of the Balkan states could easily become a real problem.

A future President Trump could not of course require all NATO members to achieve 3% – he does not run NATO. Nether would axing Article 5 be a starter – it is a core element of NATO’s defensive/deterrent doctrine.

NATO members declare forces to NATO and NATO can choose to use them wherever is required if conflict arises. Poland could not state that they only had sufficient forces to defend Poland and had no spare BGs to defend the Baltic states. Thats not how it works.

That’s the problem Graham, what he can and cannot do is not really relevant..his US 25 team are gearing up for a renegotiation of the NATO charters…which can happen, it’s written within the NATO charters themselves that after a decade they could be renegotiated…if he did not get his own way he could Simply pull out of NATO and there is very little anyone could do..effectively from a legal standpoint in the US the legal case of “Goldwater v Carter” ( president) “ set the legal president that there is no legal recourse in regards to a U.S. president unilaterally pulling out of an international treaty..every time it’s happened the US courts have simply gone…not our job, foreign policy is the US presidents ball, the a number of US senators ( aware of the risk of trump leavings) have spent the last couple of years trying to put a bill through the senate that would block a president from leaving NATO without the senate agreement via a 2 thirds vote…it’s failed to pass every time…

re Poland and other nations level of support to another NATO power the articles are lose as to what aid is given

“ It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute”

As you pointed out before article five has always been a bit cagey..the US wanted it that way.

Trump pulled out of the Paris climate treaty and the NAFTA. He just did what he pleased.

Yes I think generally it’s a keeping everything crossed that trump does not become the next US president…..but you never know what will happen….yesterday if you had said Cameron would become foreign secretary on Monday I bet you could have got 1000/1 odds at the bookies.

Good and realistic take, Europe along (if we ignore nuclear options) overmatch Russia especially after the debilitating losses of the past year +. That said I do fear what happens in a further year as it is very possible an even more mad and vengeful Trump may come to power in the US. The potential irrationality of his decision making could have extreme repercussions especially as he will be unlikely to have any rational advisors at all. He could refuse virtually all support to Ukraine and very easily put to motion withdrawal from Europe and perhaps even NATO itself. Now that would leave that equally mad and. Vengeful Putin egged on by his most extreme advisors seriously thinking that Europe is a sitting duck and who knows what actions he might take and as we see in a Ukraine losing only makes him all the more tied to a desperate strategy. If he feels the US has in all reality abandoned Europe who knows what overstretch he might engage in after all rational and logical decisions are not his stock in trade. Who knows where it might lead and one thing is for sure the UK will seriously be in his sights. We can only hope that Trump values his golf courses so much that might be even to him a red line. So we all had better get our act together in prospect of that scenario and hope fear doesn’t break away too many European States like Hungary and Slovakia if Russia steps up the threats to weaken Europes combined defence. Divide and conquer is Russias modus operandi presently both pan Atlantic and within Europe.

Indeed, I personally feel that as a nation you can never truly depend on collective defence…yes it’s very important but there are so many roots to a political defeat of NATO ( as in NATO fractures)….

bizarrely I think Russian weakness could actually play into a political defeat of NATO..the reality was that during the Cold War collective defence was a survival requirement of all western powers……even the U.S. was threatened by the global communist movement..the Cuban missile crisis was not a European security risk..there was no single nation in Europe that could face the Soviet Union..and the U.S. Knew that once the soviet monster had gobbled Europe the U.S. would be isolated and one day destroyed…

But now the reality is France, Germany even Poland would feel that they could face Russia as a peer…so the rot could set in…why face an nuclear war for..say the sake of Turkey ( on one even likes the present government)…if Ukraine fell and Hungary was at risk…or Slovakia, Albanian, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonian…would Germany, France and UK really in the end risk a nuclear war for these nations..especially if the U.S. had pulled out of NATO and the only nuclear powers were France and the UK…

In the final analysis we do actually need to ensure that we are capable of fighting Russia as a peer on our own if necessary and the worst occurred.( not that I think NATO will fracture..but the whole point of the military is a mitigation against the worst possible outcome…not the best… and the first responsibility of the government and the people of a nation is the security of that nation).

In reality our army is actually more of a foreign policy tool than required for the direct security of the UK ( continental powers armies are for security…island nations armies are for meddling in other peoples wars..or invading someone) and if there was ever a theoretical Anglo Russia war we would not fight it with an army..but with our navy as our primary offensive arm and a our airforce as our primary defence….

I belive if Trump gained his seat again and he did push the idea of leaving NATO it would create an uproar in America.
i see this as a power play by the same Elite Family’s who financed both sides of the American Civil war,thus holding Amercia in infinate Debt and creating of the Federal Reserve owned by said family’s.
The Greed of the Elite in America is beyond imagination, they use the world as its playground, War is there greatest commodity, and they profit from it without any remorce. For, to them we are but a commodity to be exploited for financial gain.
(Elite = Cause, Govenments going to War = Effect), Weapon Sales all sides = profit,People = loss of life = profit, Destruction = Rebuild = Profit.
My point is, this life is messed up, but it don’t have to be. ‘ what does it take to change our destination for a better quality of life without war ?’

Your figures are way off – Russia is estimated to have around 400k + service personnel in Ukraine alone, from an Army of around 750k,it’s a given that they are of dubious quality but they have been Mobilising quietly in stages.

Hi Paul I’ve looked at the studies and there are some big differences between the Russian armies nominal numbers pans planned nominal numbers vs what’s is on the ground..also remember I’m taking specifically about the Russian army not other branches on the ground.

if we look at the likely composition of the Russian army pre invasion ( these are amalgamated from a few papers).

1) around 150,000 professional contracted solider, these are individuals on long term contacts and would be classes as professional soldiers.
2) around 150,000 semi professional contract soldiers on a two year short contract..these individuals are people who were part of the annual drafts for the years compulsory service but to get out of the squalor and get better food terms conditions and treatment, signed a two year contract.

That gave Russia an actual active army of around 300,000

it then had around 150,000 annual conscripts…these are not considered actual soldiers, they are not deployed away from Russia are provided literally no military training, they are essentially a drafted workforce..that the actual military brutalises on an annual basis.

so Russia invaded Ukraine with around 260,000 of its professional army, leaving around 40,000

its had around 250,000 casualties, 50,000 dead, the rests wounded…so essentially it lost its entire first army and gutted its professional force.

it then raised 300,000 reservists to add to it’s professional army…so

total start 300,000
losses 250,000
gains 300,000

At best Russia has an army of 350,000 most of those are now reservists who will leave at the end of the conflict…leaving Russia with almost most no professional solider left.

the 150,000 annual draft are still not considered solider are still not trained and still don’t get deployed outside of Russia.

so on paper Russia many say it has an army of 450,000-500,000 nominal numbers and aims to have an army of 600,000 army of nominal numbers..but that fails to take into account that the majority of the Russia army will be leaving the army the moment the Ukraine war ends as its simply reservists….at best in any future conflict I think the 250,000 number is reasonable even after its had 5+ years to regenerate its professional forces ( which are essentially now mostly dead, physical casualties or will be mental casualties).

Thanks Jonathan, sorry late reply, Russian’s Armed Forces are a bit of an enigma I admit, it’s hard to pin down their Army strength per se, all I can say is that RUSI put an estimate of Russian Forces personnel inside Ukraine as of March 2023 at 300k+, whether it is possible to increase that number by 100k in six months I’m not sure. I’ve put a link up that explains some numbers from a Russian perspective ( when it is cleared).

Yes, the Russia armed forces especially the state of the present and future ground forces is very unclear, I suspect not even the Russian government is completely sure. After all they probably have around 150,000 casualties wandering around in their numbers as well as 10,000s of troops who are now in reality psychological casualties who just cannot be processed out, stacked on top of the 300,000 mobilised reservists who I would imagine will be out as soon as they legally can be.

I think the other interesting bit is their officer corps, it’s my understanding the casualty rates have been staggering amongst officers and you have to remember that the Russian army does not have a core of leader NCOs like the west. The NCOs are essentially trained as technicians not leaders the junior officers do the training and leadership that western NCOs do.

I will wait for your link, cheers, it’s a shame the spam filters always knock them out a lot of the discussions need links.

Jonathan, i belive you are on the ball, Russia only has so much human and military resorce, i think if it does not stop at some point China will take a peak at whats going on, and decide wether or not to get involved, although i think China is busy with growth and financial investment and would perhaps not wish to risk the foundations they are building worldwide. If China steps up i think it would get messy real quick, and China investments would sour quickly too…case of wait and see !

Yes, did that bring the others up to establishment?

I don’t think it was used like that, would have to ask people posted there to know for sure, I think it was just that those regiments had three squadrons now instead of 2 (1 Med had gained an extra squadron a few years before somehow)

Thanks, I’ll have to look later whether I had them as 2 or 3.

We have weakened ourselves a lot by sending so much heavy kit to UkR. They are buying some used 6X6 Archers and starting to replace the ammunition though.

It would be interesting to see an analysis but much of the heavy kit (probably not munitions though) was surplus to requirements.

The Archers and additional MLRS systems are certainly a welcome addition David.

We have in the past deployed a division by sea using RFA/charter ie STUFT shipping (Op Granby, Op Telic).

Rail is also used to convey massive loads over long distances – the Chunnel has been tested many times for the transit of armour on rail flats.

Road deployment is commonplace too, but we have limited numbers of HETs to move heavy armour.

Morning Graham, one of the serious challenges we would have today is the UK flagged Merchant Navy is so small, we have little to mobilise regarding STUFT today.

Absolutely

You can still charter ships even if they are flying flags of convenience. In fact chartering is often preferable to STUFT, it pisses the owners off a lot less.

Hi John. Wikipedia says that the British merchant fleet whilst smaller than the WW2 years is the 10th largest in the world.

“In 2012 British merchant marine interests consisted of 1,504 ships of 100 GT or over. This included ships either directly UK-owned, parent-owned or managed by a British company. This amounted to: 59,413,000 GT or alternatively 75,265,000 DWT.[15] This is according to the annual maritime shipping statistics provided by the British Government and the Department for Transport.

I have no idea what much of that means but surely we could find half a dozen to a dozen UK-flagged merchant ships for charter if required?

Daily Telegraph do a Ukraine podcast and feature a regular contribution from a Ukrainen journo – “it is a long time since my brother on the front line saw any NLAWs or other Western kit.” (paraphrased – she mentioned NLAWS and Javelins(.

So, potentially, 7,000 in stock is a pretty bare cupboard.

I think it’s degraded, as the sortie rate can’t be sustained due to the pressing need for aircraft and engine overhauling.

Short time between overhaul has been a trade mark of Russian military aviation assets since the Soviet era.

These days they don’t have the great depth of asset reserves they used to have in Soviet times to counter the problem.

The remaining aircraft start to really feel the strain in these types of enduring operations.

That may be true to some extent but Russia has more options available to it, it has the luxury of persistent surveillance over most of Ukraine and has the means to Strike at will over those areas too. While everyone’s eyes were focused on the SCALP/Storm Shadow attack at a Shipyard in Crimea a tragedy occurred near the frontline where an awards and Medal presentation ceremony was interrupted by Russia firing an Iskander right into the middle of it with serious loss of life, no conventional Airpower was needed for that.

If it has the ability to strike everywhere why hasn’t the Russian Airforce struck the Su-24s that are launching the Storm Shadows? (Rhetorical question)

Concealment and a slight bending of the rules – for a long time there have been suggestions that Ukrainian Airforce Fighters retreat to Poland out of sight,but when they are given a mission they Fly back to Ukraine to Arm and Fuel,complete their mission then return back to Poland where they can’t be touched.Russia probably has any Operational Airbases covered by surveillance but there is nothing there for them to hit.

Yeah, that’s just Russian cope I’m afraid.

That was awful opsec. And to gather so many experienced seniors in one place, so near the front line and let the location go…

SVU are still in the game and someone has become rich or the blackmail paid off.

Yeah – most likely a tip off ,then Russia arranged assets to confirm.

Degraded.
The ZSU are crossing the Dnipro in force, still making slow progress near Robotyne and Bakhmut, and the Russians are smashing their forheads against Avidivka. There would be plenty of reasons to fly sorties.

👍

The fires might have dropped but they have not ceased, and despite the Russian losses they are still sending new troops and equipment to Adiiivka an Lupiansk where they have made small incremental gains recently.

Fending off attacks is not enough, if Ukraine is going to win it needs to advance into the territories occupied by Russia.

I acknowledged in my previous posts Russia is taking heavy losses , but that is the point I am trying to make here, they appear to have a resilience to battlefiield attrition. i do not see any sign of them running out of ammo or equipment anytime soon.

Hey Daniele,

I am sorry to hear about your mum.

please take care of yourself

Just seen your post DM hope you don’t mind, very sorry about your mam Kind regards Andrew.D

Mate I reiterate pac and Andrew, hope you are ok and thoughts to you and family mate! Do take care!

Mate. Respect. I admit I’m struggling and have never experienced this before.

Your not alone my friend, I had the same, you will be up and down, crazy thoughts but whatever you think and whatever you do, right now, from now, will mostly be right, correct and for the best. Take care, keep chatting 👍

Daniele, so sorry to hear your sad family news. Take care.

Thank you, Graham.

Daniele, it is an awful time, my mother is old (87) has dementia and is spending more time slumbering now, it won’t be long.

I miss the Mum who when 77 was being chatted up by a Russian truck driver on the overnight ferry from Rīga to Stockholm and at 2a.m. was still dancing; it’s a memory I will cherish, along with so many more; we have to let go Daniele. Hugs.

I miss the mum who at 79 walked into hospital after I delivered her there, and has gone from the strong willed, independent, determined mother I adore who I’d speak to or text daily to a wreck within 2 weeks. She is gone, but not gone. I actually pray for death for my mum as she would not want to be like this, I cannot help, the doctors refuse chemo, and I cannot stand seeing her like this.

I feel like I’d happily join her in spirit when that happens, as life seems to have no meaning to me any more. I know what I say is wrong, she would not want that, she has always urged me to live my life, to do things she never did, for her, for my beloved wife, and for Ollie, her cat, and I promised mum years ago I would look after Ollie, and her beloved Garden, if it came to it.

I’m an only child, and my mum is my emotional rock and base I have relied on for 51 years. Nothing will be the same again. My Dad is still around, they divorced when I was 12. I love him, but I’m not close to him or have the same bond I have with my Mum.

To be honest, I’m pretty lost, and Mum has not passed yet.

Thanks David.

david24737135 AT outlook.con

Terrible illness, my mother has it as well. My thoughts are with you

*Hugs* Hope you’re hanging in there. Really sorry to hear that. 🙁

Barely mate!

Believe me DM you will get through this it’s all just time .

So sorry to hear about your mum. My ‘mammy’ is 84, and slowing down a little more each day. Be strong, be safe and remember the happy times.

Not sure how many HETs we have now. 92 M1070F Oshkosh tractors were puchased in 2004. Some were sold at auction. Think we have 70-90?

I’ve no idea either.

Daniele, have you ever seen this (Table 5 of the Excel spreadsheet)?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-equipment-and-formations-2022

The HET number looks very wrong at 182! Perhaps they added together the number of tractors and trailer units? But the other numbers look about right.

No, I’d not seen that. Was it 17 or 19 TT Sqn that remains?
And am I imagining or was there planned to be a civvy fleet too? Sponsored reserves?

[617 TT Sqn disbanded in 1991 and pers transferred to form:

3 TT Sn which lost its TT role in 1993.

16 TT Sqn disbanded in 2014].

Today – only one TTSqn left – 19 TT Sqn (part of 27 Regt RLC) at Bulford. Is a mix of reg drivers and VMs – and civvy drivers and VMs (from FTX Logistics aka FasTrax) who don uniform and become Sponsored Reserves for exercises/operations.

Army website:https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/03/life-as-a-driver-tank-transporter-operator/

KBR/FTX Website says they still have 92 HETs (quite a fair number):
https://www.ftxlog.com/careers/vehicles/

Thanks. Agree, it cannot go below that.

19 TT Sqn, Bulford remains – a mix of regs and civvys (who don uniform to be Sponsored Reserves for exercises and operations). 92 HETs.

You said, your ‘old battalion’ by that I presume you mean the Para’s. The Para’s are, and always have been the ‘spear point’ of the British Army. They Need to be at full strength, or as near as can be. So based on your next door neighbours observations, there is no issue with retention, and recruitment? Wow!

And you want facts? You want me to compromise serving Soldiers, by giving you their names and Regiments, purely in order to placate your poor friend who got most of what he said wrong?

Actually one of my good neighbours, is a Colonel in the Army Air Corps. One of those who helped the Royals with flight training, to become an Apache Pilot.

Said Colonel (he wasn’t back then) is now an MBE. He is one of my ‘sources’, although it’s not the done thing for Officers to ‘gripe’.

I served many years ago, so as do you, know the system. I can however ‘gripe’ about it as much as I like, cos no-one will give a **** about what I say, and I will get no comebacks.

The British Army (ok other than special forces and special forces support Battalions) is dying. Recruitment for many Regiments has reduced to a trickle, and many many Soldiers want out. The situation is dire, and is well beyond ‘normal’ squaddie griping.

Did I ask for facts? Where did I ask for facts? Come on Tom stop getting so angry at people who are most probably on the same song sheet as you, and try to speak to people in a respectful and constructive manner! Oh as for teaching the royals to fly, there’s no pride in claiming your Brit was the one who taught that dipstick Hardy to pretend to be an Apache gunner and the secondary capability of flying! As for MBEs mate, that chuff isn’t any qualification to substantiate a gripe, mines in the drawer, cheers mate be safe!

And where did I ask for names and regiments? I’m intrigued mate, please cut and paste the part where I ask for names and Bns! Oh and there’s only on SFSG mate, not Battalions, cheers.

Thanks AB for your defence.
I am not sure what I have got wrong, as Tom does not say specifically.
I accept I do not have conversations with disgruntled serving or recently-left service personnel, as he says that he has.
In looking at ARRSE, I see little to no criticism of Sanders to justify a view that he is ‘a ‘feeble, useless bought and paid for yes man, is an arrogant pratt, and an absolute disgrace of an individual’. Most regret that he is leaving the job of CGS after just 2 years.
I can find nothing published Open Source about battalions losing their MT sections or sly redundancies.
Royal Green Jackets! Tom is up to date, haha. They have not existed since 1 Feb 07.
Nothing new about units being under-strength but its not Sanders’ fault – he is not in charge of recruiting.
I am sure all sensible contributors agree that opinion without any facts that can be proven is worthless.
I see others are having to do battle on the site too!

Agreed and cheers mate!

“Tom I asked you before, but you failed to reply, can you please provide a source for that MT removal claim?
Which Battalion?“
Or is the reason you can’t provide a source because you made it up?”

Its amazing how certain individuals in here ‘rush’ to the defence of fellow commentators, when someone from outside of the ‘click’ ‘pulls up’ or challenges something they… typed.

Did I make up the fact that every Infantry Battalion in the British army, is losing its MT section. Answer NO.

By all means ask any of your ‘sources’ to verify this. Ask any Officer of any rank in any Infantry Battalion. That’s my ‘source’!
Now, when you have asked the question from your myriad of sources, feel free to come back to me in order to apologise, and remove the slur from your comment.

Its feeble, pathetic and uncalled for!

Tom, unlike you I’m currently serving, in an infantry battalion, in the British Army. I have heard nothing about us loosing our MT section, which is why I asked you for a specific source. You didn’t answer me when I asked weeks ago.

I asked you again, not to “jump to the defence of another commentator.” But because I don’t like people peddling falsehoods they can’t back up.

And, having been challenged, you have been unable to show me a source again, so no, I’m not going to apologise for calling you out on your bullshit and I will do so every time I see you doing it.

Dern, You’re in the 4th Kings Own bottlewashers and dishcleaners Rigiment as their NERPs, life is sweet for you and AR can just pitch tents in a TAC, please be fair, Dern.

Queens Own actually 😛

Oh right, so you are currently serving in an Infantry regiment, in the MT section. Wow well done, and good for you! Respect.

Not in the MT section, but battalions are small enough that I’d know if we where loosing ours.

Your nasty little sarcasm just highlights the fact that my job is directly relevant to disproving your little made up fact.

Then again, you’ve been a nasty piece of work to everyone who has had the misfortune of interacting with you so I’m just going to assume you’re hating your little desk job and taking it out on strangers.

Light the blue touch paper and retire… Sarcasm???
I was genuinely congratulating you on your service that’s all, the same respect I have for all who have served, present and past.

“Your nasty little sarcasm just highlights the fact that my job is directly relevant to disproving your little made up fact”.

Wow…Dear oh dear oh dear. You really do have an overinflated opinion of yourself!

Your job is relevant to what? In your arrogant rant, you clearly stated that you do not know about MT losses, in Infantry Battalions.

So clearly, you are not privy to which Infantry Battalions have and are losing their MT sections from 31/12/2023.

The fact that you know nothing about this… well I’ll let others ponder and decide upon your true level of expertise, and to how relevant it may or may not be.

“you’ve been a nasty piece of work to everyone who has had the misfortune of interacting with you so I’m just going to assume you’re hating your little desk job and taking it out on stranger”.

Maybe that childish comment should be directed to… yourself?

I did my time in the trenches, eyeball to eyeball with the enemy, as a member of B.O.A.R. That’s part of my qualifications for being able to comment here!

I will conclude by saying keep/copy/paste your garbage comments, and go bully someone else, which it would seem you usually do.

Oh and BTW… YOU stuck your nose into a post, making it personal and offensive, not me! Quality behaviour, from someone who regularly posts…. stuff on this site. What must the neighbours think?

Don’t forget… 31/12/2023. Lets see who the real mug is. 🙂

Hey Tom, I’m not the one who’s managed to start having a go at three seperate commentators on this site at the same time Tom. You came into this with some extremely negative energy, and are now surprised when people give it back.

You claimed that ALL infantry battalions are loosing their MT sections:

stripping every Battalion in the British Army, of it’s MT sections,

I notice it’s now changed to only some, but since every battalion (including presumably mine) is apparently loosing it’s MT department, me working in a Infantry Battalion and talking to the MT on the daily, would make my job rather relevant vis a vis knowing whether or not we are loosing ours.

But obviously bringing credentials to back up what I’m saying is really incovenient so, you know, nasty little rant.

Eyeball to eyeball with the enemy in the BAOR

Yes those NAAFI runs must’ve been truly terrifying XD having been in the BAOR does not make you any more qualified to comment about the current state of the army than a civie I’m afraid, so that’s pretty irrelevant.

OH NO! I stuck my nose in and spilled your coffee. This is an open and public forum, if you say something feel free to be challenged on it. I simply asked you for a source, your source was “ask any infantry officer.” Which isn’t a source, but even after that, even when you said WHICH battalions you thought where loosing their MT departments, I found an infantry officer from those battalions and asked him, still nothing that confirms or even points to something that you could have gotten mixed up about.

Btw you where making this personal and offensive LONG before I stuck my nose into this conversation. The comment I initially replied to ended with you calling another commentator an idiot. So get off your high horse.

Tom Tom Tom, Dern has questioned your sources and you have none. Dern has verified with his own Battalion about losing the MT sickies, and they aren’t. He has spoke to a commissioned officer in one of the Battalion’s you claim to be losing its MT, it isn’t. All you are doing is getting yourself a bit worked up and not putting any realistic or viable comment into the mix.

And of course no one is denying your freedom to post on here, but Dern is certainly not bullying you, he is asking you for information with proof of your claims, he has taken you to task and sadly you have failed. Also as an aside note, while all service is respected (even RAF Reg as those barriers won’t open themselves) as all service is relevant and has a purpose in that moment in time, going “eyeball to eyeball in BAOR with the enemy” is pushing reality a little too far. We had a threat, not an enemy and it didn’t go kinetic mate, but thank you for your service.

Tom please name the Battalions losing the MT section to end this debate? “Ask any officer of any rank in any Infantry Battalion” mate I have, the man I’ve asked is currently the QM, a good long serving mate of mine who stayed on for that tasty LE pension, and he has no clue about it? Do elaborate and please try to keep it civil, cheers.

All the Guards Regiments to start with. Then The Royal Anglia’s. Happy Now???

Just asked a friend of mine whose an officer in the Scots Guards, he says that’s not happening (in fact he laughed at the idea).

Edit: Giving MASSIVE benefit of the doubt here, but could you be thinking of the Irish Guards and 1 Royal Anglians rerolling to SFA? They’re still not loosing their MT departments, but they are loosing a lot of manpower for the restructure?

Then I would say that your friend? is a Liar!

Honestly, at this point I don’t really care what “you would say” since it’s pretty clear you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Actually from the off… I haven’t the remotest interest in anything that you say.

Come the 31/12/2023, if you were anywhere near a decent individual, you would offer profound apologies and leave it at that.

I believe I know what will happen even when you will be proved wrong, buts lets just wait and see.

“Yeah well I didn’t care anyway” run out of ad hominems I guess.

Hey, if you have evidence on the 31’st please come show me, that’s all I’m asking for, is for you to provide a source that backs up your saying. I won’t apologise, because all I asked for was a source, and you’ve been unable to provide one so far.

Provide a source and this could be an interesting discussion, but for now, it’s just an angry man making claims he can’t back up.

See, I knew it! 😂 😅

Knew what? That I’d be happy if you actually could show evidence after I asked for evidence, you must be psychic 🙄

Go away bully boy… which coincidentally I couldn’t help but notice you doing to others on this convoluted tome.

I am actually starting to wonder if there isn’t an element of walter about you. Forces personnel, whether current or serving, NEVER get this irate, and obnoxious as you seem to do. Hmmm

So still stuck on the childish insults. Grow up, find a source.

So my insults are childish, and yours are… oh behave 😂

So still no source then to back up your claims?

So you say you speak to lots of serving soldiers and that’s your justification, but when Dern and I do the same, you call them liars etc! Are you ok Tom, you seem to be struggling somewhat.

Me struggling? Nooo not at all. 🙂

Er yes you are as you are continuing to resort to angry comments and one liners when asked to provide a source.

Don’t worry, he’ll just start a little thread on his own so he can call everyone who knows more than him a Walt lol.

I see he has thrown the Walt comment in, why would he use that? The only reason it is ever used during a “debate” is when one is under increasing pressure and struggles with the subject matter and wants to deflect the ongoing conversation! It’s sad really, quite sad.

I’d say part deflection, part projection of his own insecurities, part just trolling and trying to get a reaction IMO. This has long stopped being a productive conversation, it’s just become insults and goalpost shifting really. As you said, it’s quite sad. Fortunately there are plenty of people you can have a decent conversation with on here.

Would make sense?

It’s one of the reasons I asked for a source, I suspect it’s Chinese whispers or a misreading, but Tom’s unwilling to engage on that point.

Surely the SFA Bde reductions for those Bns. Assume Rangers would still need MT Sec.

I presume you mean the Royal Anglians (or do you mean the Ford Anglias?) and which Battalion, Viking’s, Poachers or Steelbacks? And all the Guards Regiments, really? Your misinformation here is quite galling and sad to see.

Oh you find my misinformation quite galling do you? How grossly unfortunate. Fortunately for me however, I find your ‘leaping to the defence’ of a grown individual, very sad to be honest. But hey ho.

Misinformation huh purely because you no credible source available to ask. 31/12/2023 then we’ll see. 🙂

Nothing to do with defending another poster, more to do with your quite angry and stressed out posts which verge on the rude and pointless. And it’s rather amusing how you never actually provide any info or sources to your claims, sources being important when making unsubstantiated claims and being rude to others who challenge your statements. But “hey ho” keep repeating in a child like way your “facts”! Anyway, I see you have no clue about the Infantry anyway, as my question in regard to the Anglians for example, was ignored.

So I have no knowledge of Infantry Battalions, on your say so? Oh ok then. 😂

You seem to have little knowledge of Infantry units yes, and you continue to resort to child like one liners, with no real information or sources to back up your claim.

Yawn…

NATO was set up as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union, which collapsed decades ago, why invite countries on Russia’s borders to join when there is no threat?

Another mischaracterization.
Countries aren’t “invited” to join NATO. They apply and their application is either accepted, or denied.

It might be more helpful to ask “Why would several states formerly invaded and occupied by the Russians suddenly want to apply to join a mutual defence treaty in the early 2000’s”
I mean it’s not like Russia had just fought two brutal wars in order to annex a former Soviet Republic that had become independent just before was it?

Strangely enough, all accepted, so I ask again would the US tolerate a Russian/ Chinese military alliance on its borders? Why is NATO who’s existence was to counter a threat ( Soviet Union) which no longer exists is parked on Russia’s border?

It has in the past, and why wouldn’t they accept a friendly nation asking to join NATO.

The real reason of NATO’s expansion eastwards can be found if you Google an American neo conservative politician by the name of Paul Wolfowitz, he was also responsible for the Iraq war debacle, after the fall of the Berlin wall, Russia ceded countless 1000s of square miles of territory, much of Russia’s navy was turned into fridges and washing machines, I state again that Russia posed zero threat to the west or former Soviet countries.

They didn’t mate. Until Putin arrived trying to recreate the Soviet Union.

They did, and Putin has no interest in trying to recreate the Soviet Union, which by the Russian ruling elites own admission was a vast corrupt rusting failure, Putin is guilty of not allowing his country to fall under the same left wing / woke ideology ofpro mass migration, white privilege, LBQT, Trans gender claptrap etc etc.

Okay, little Putinist troll, aside from the fact that he’s been trying to litterally recreate the Soviet Union by, one after the other, invading former Soviet colonies, care to explain exactly what is wrong with allowing Gay people to date and marry who they want?

‘ putinist troll’ you call me, oh dear! And there is no fact whatsoever Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union, which by Putin’s own account and many other ruling Russians was nothing more than a great big Communist failure, try again mate, If like myself you consider yourself a patriot then unfortunately you must have to admit we/ the west are not always the good guys, you do know that Ukraine comes BELOW Uganda in the UN lists of corrupt countries? Did you do any research into Paul Wolfowitz like I suggested you should, I guess not!

You literally are reguritating Putinist propaganda, so yeah, you are a Putinst troll. Plenty of research into Paul Wolfowitz, but if you want to make an argument, actually make it instead of expecting me to imagine your argument for you (again, pretty standard tactic for putinist trolls “I don’t want to try to structure an argument but if you google this you can maybe come up with one for me.”) BTW on the CPI (The UN’s list of corrupt countries) Uganda (142) is significantly lower than Ukraine (116), but you know who also is lower? Russia (137). You are right that Ukraine was lower than Uganda…10 years ago, but mysteriously, since they got rid of Yanukovych, their scores have been improving.

So I notice you didn’t actually answer my question. Gay bashing is easy in a drive by but not when you actually have to justify it huh?

More drivel from someone who can’t handle the thought we in the west/UK might actually be wrong about Russia, as for your arrogant long range assumption that I’m some kind of pro Putin troll just proves how little you know, I spend plenty of my free time counter trolling genuine russian trolls, and as for accusing me of ‘ gay bashing ‘ name one thing in my comments which says so??

Putin is guilty of not allowing his country to fall under the same left wing / woke ideology ofpro mass migration, white privilege, LBQT, Trans gender claptrap etc etc.

Maybe don’t act like you haven’t done something when I can scroll up and find it?

So yet again more half baked drivel, look it’s obvious we aren’t going to see eye to eye or anything close on this issue, I stand by everything I’ve said and I’m sure you do as well, let’s leave it at that.

Funny, I managed to answer and refute each point you raise, and asked you one concrete question: To justify a very bigoted choice of phrase.

Yet all you can do is answer with a very dismissive avoidance of a direct question. Almost like you’re running away when cornered.

BTW thanks for admitting you’re a gay bashing bigot and that you stand by it. Good to know you’re an utter scumbag.

PMSL, for a start you never answered my question about would the US tolerate a hostile military alliance on its borders? The reason you refused to answer that simple question is because it would blow your other pathetic arguments apart, but anyway, have you ever had yourself checked for something out for NPD, Narcissist personality Disorder? If you haven’t I strongly suggest you should, goodbye.

I did, by pointing out it has in the past, sorry you didn’t bother to read. Care to answer my question now?

Also again, if you want to make an argument make it, don’t expect me to google it and make it for you (even if it is a very thinly veiled ad hominem that you’re resorting to after being unable to come up with any answers before running away).

So please: Why shouldn’t gay and lesbian people have the right to marry? Fairly simple question Deebee.

Zzzzz Zzzzz

Why shouldn’t gay people have human rights?

We in the west have been wrong on many occasions in regard to geo political choices, but we are not wrong in regardto Putins Russia. Is Ukraine Ukraine model country, fuck me no way, corruption is everywhere, but doesn’t mean they should be left to rot and die? In reality the Russians are a threat but at the moment they are dying in droves, killed by Western kit, mannedby Ukrainians, and that alone suits every right minded country in the world, at this time.

I think if you bothered to speak to Estonians in the aftermath of the SECOND TIME Russia invaded Chechnia they’d feel differently.
Russia might not have been a threat to the US in the 90’s but it CERTAINLY was to the Baltic countries.

There’s this really funny pattern: Every time Russia invades a former Soviet Colony, be it Chechnia, Georgia, or Ukraine and Annexes lands, and suddenly other former Soviet Colonies become VERY interested in joing NATO (your own personal putinist conspiracy theories not withstanding, and yes I’m not going to take a lesson on the “real” reason for NATO expanding from someone who doesn’t even understand that NATO is an alliance you apply to join, not one you are invited to join)

That and the fact that Finland hasn’t gone from being a fairly peaceful nation to being swivel eyed loons intent on invading Russia since joining NATO.
Russia hasn’t had to divert hundreds of tanks and squadrons of aircraft to the Finnish border as Finland could invade any day now.

NATO is not a hostile alliance.

We can’t be woke liberals and crazy warmongers at the same time.

Mores the pity, wouldn’t mind if a few hundred Russian Tanks got stuck on Finlands border unable to be committed to any genocidal invasions Russia was fighting 🙂

I have to jump in here, countries apply to join NATO, thry don’t get “press ganged” and why should they not be allowed to join if they meet the criteria? To say there is no threat is a very civvy way of thinking, threats always exist, they just change, adapt and move with the times (or with the current fascist in charge at that time)!

No threat from Russia to eastern European nations? Are you serious? Russia (and before it the USSR) has a clear track record of invading non-NATO neighbours and near-neighbours.
As Dern said no country is invited to join NATO – they apply.

Thanks Dern. So no truth in Tom’s rumour of ‘sly redundancies!’?

None that I’m aware off, I wish he’d cite something more than “trust me bro,” because it feels like one of those things where Chinese whispers or even malicious misreading turns one story into something completely different, but for now I just have to go with “It’s just a dirty rumour.”