As the UK moves forward with its plan to provide military support to Ukraine through the deployment of tanks, the transformation of its industrial and equipment programmes remains a central focus of its vision for the future.
Despite the numerous challenges expected in 2023, the British Army say it is poised to advance towards its Future Soldier concept, as outlined in the 2021 Integrated Review.
This development, it adds, will enhance the Army’s ability to compete on a global scale, allowing for a consistent presence in engagement with allies and partners, and the creation of a modern force equipped to handle current and future threats. The Future Soldier initiative represents the most substantial transformation of the British Army in over two decades.
According to the British Army:
“The vision beyond 2030 sees upgraded, digitised and networked armoured vehicles provide the critical link to the ‘autonomous’ future of armoured capability through human and machine teaming.
They will continue to transform the way we operate and fight, as the character of conflict continues to evolve, providing the best opportunity to generate mass by augmenting our forces enabling us to increase the dispersion of manned platforms and remaining self-sufficient for longer.
Whilst new technologies present opportunities for significant advantage, the modern battlefield is still characterised by close combat, as demonstrated in Ukraine.
The battles there have continued to demonstrate that armoured vehicles, although not without risk, underwrite mobility, survivability, and lethality in the close battles of modern warfare contributing to combat credibility and deterrence. No existing capability can match the tactical utility or strategic influence of armoured forces.”
You can read more on this here.
I shall believe it when I see it. One review follows the next, ever since Future Army Structures in 2005 ? time frame. The changes and “improvements” have not even been fully implemented before the next reorg ( cuts ) happens and a new vision is formed another decade down the line. FAS 2005. A2020 in 2010. A2020 Refine in 2015. Future Soldier now. The one that made sense was A2020 refine, if it had been funded and brought to its conclusion, with 3 full Armoured Brigades, all tracked, with CH3, WCSP, Ajax. Boxer was then simply MIV planned for… Read more »
And I forgot to add, glad the Tank is still seen as relevant. But lets not go all BAOR wanting several hundreds of them. Retaining the 3rd Armoured Regiment ( KRH ) and not converting to Ajax meaning an uplift of planned CH3 to 200 plus, roughly where we are now, would be more than sufficient compared to the 148 planned. Spend most of the money properly arming Boxer variants, uplifting the RA, both AD, SPG, and MLRS, and improving logistics, CSS, and ammunition stocks across the board. The army is currently forming a 4th UAV Battery, a 4th HVM… Read more »
trouble is even an uplift to 200 tanks is going to need more money and other amendments, as you can bet the support arms have been cut to match 148 tanks.
I’m not aware of any new cuts to the CS/CSS beyond 3 RLC going, and assume nothing has been lost in supporting REME and CHARRVs? Also the structure for 3 Tank regiments is still there, as KRH still has Tanks, so not sure any additional cuts would have taken place yet. Amendments to CS/CSS are good, more important than the Tanks. Tanks and other armoured vehicles need HETs and a robust railway capability. I’m not aware of a further reduction in the RLCs Oshkosh HETs and after the cretins in 2010 got rid of the army railway capability, which was… Read more »
Not heard of any plans to scrap CRARRVs – I hear we still have 75 of the 81 built, which is quite a lot! Although some might be mothballed if we went down to two armd regts. Army railway capability was provided by RLC not RE. Wiki: “79 Railway Sqn RLC was disbanded at Marchwood on 13 May 2012.The Vehicle Support Specialists were resubordinated elsewhere in the regiment, and the Military Railways capability ultimately lost on the disbandment of the remaining Army Reserve unit, 275 Railway Troop, in 2014”. Cannot understand the logic of reducing from a Reg Sqn to… Read more »
Yes, RLC before it was cut.
I thought Id read one of the STREs in one of the Works Units has taken on the role. Will check when I’m home.
Just checked the files…507 STRE in 65 Wks Gp (R) I have with a railway infrastructure role. Hopefully it will expand as what better way to move vehicles over a vast distance quickly. We have the Points, we also have the Channel Tunnel. We still have railway access at several places on the MoD estate, critically Ashchurch and Ludgershall to enable quick movement of the armour from storage and from around SPTA.
Thanks Daniele, of course a Specialist Team Royal Engineers does a completely different job to a RLC Railway Squadron. The former design and build infrastucture (in this case railways), the latter just operate railways and maintain army-owned rolling stock. We need both groups. MoD (was AVSD, CVD etc) Ludgershall (Corunna Bks) closed as a storage site for AFVs, donkeys years ago (in March 1997?) – A Vehs moved to join the B Vehs at Ashchurch. Then Corunna Bks was home to 26 RE Regt until 2015. All period buildings/sheds now demolished and replaced by 246 army quarters. A Rail Forum… Read more »
Hi Graham. Your last sentence is key for me, as I thought the rail link which is single line branching off just west of Andover was indeed still MoD and still maintained?
I’d seen that the new quarters were there as drove past the building site yo the left as was going through there last year towards Marlborough, and also did a bit of looking around on the public roads around SPTA.
The sheds had gone as you say, but thought that the line was still useable if they need to load vehicles?
Hi Daniele,
Strikes me as very strange for MoD to have retained ownership of the Ludgershall railhead but to what end if there is no marshalling & parking area, no barracks, no hangars. Is there road access for HETS with 72 tonne tanks embarked?
Anyway as you are a railway chap you can make sense of this:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ludgershall-branch.170542/
No idea Graham,as I said, it’s new info for me that they’d dispensed with all of it.
Seems sad that, having co located what little heavy force the army has left at Tidworth, Perham, Bulford, Warminster, there is now no means to load them onto trains at that location for either Marchwood.
One to scratch off.
If the Ludgershall railhead is still available to MoD, then Tidworth is only a 2 mile road trip away, Bulford a 7 mile road trip and Warminster a 30 mile road trip.
But is the ramp and marshalling area there?
I have no idea. I’d assumed that area seen at 4.00 in the video is the ramp marshalling area and is still in place.
An interesting read, it does not mention any ownership by MoD so none the wiser what the truth of that is but the line is still usable and a test train runs periodically.
Seems all movement going forward out of SPTA area is by HET. Shame. Wonder what else railway wise has been abandoned?
Just found this, seems there was traffic up to 2021 at least, with an MoD movement from Kineton. When did the depot close and the buildings removed? Do you recognise that hardstanding and platform area at 4.00 on the video?
Whatever the truth is on this one, strategic assets like this rail line should be kept, as once it is built on, it’s gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq-R6Dr-w14
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4H24VUb4wTI the branch six months ago.
Railflats and other stock in the video are not permitted beyond Dollands Moor.
So the sidings and hardstanding are still there. Usable space for loading armour? No idea?
Looking a google maps., there still seems to be a loading bay with waggon parked up there. It also seem that some times it is very expensive to disconnect a line from the signal network, which seem to mean some are left connected
Funny you say that Simon, I just mentioned similar to Graham further up thread regarding a “Ground Frame” near Aldershot that was in the area of my old Box.
Yep, there is a disused railways group on Facebook and there are a number of examples of long closed branch lines into power stations, colliery etc with a signal set at red on the entrance to the branch, cheaper then a disconnect from the main line
Thanks. Assuming MoD still own and use or potentially use the railhead and the branch line is maintained and connected to the main netwirk, then I hope they have retained the ramp and enough real estate to manouevre and park multiple HETS laden with 72 tonne tanks etc
Ignorant question. How do they get the Tanks up there onto the wagons? Direct from the HET? Or using something liked that raised area on the video to effectively drive directly on??
Don’t think I ever saw that process. Pretty sure the tank drives off the HET and then (sometimes up a concrete ramp) onto a level piece of hardstanding (raised area) then onto the rail flat. I am sure someone else will correct or confirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ibv2x3Hf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otUzaJYieMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qMqHpwkqj0
You can see such a raised area at the sidings on the videos we have seen, so hopefully of use still.
Hopefully, yes. I wish MoD had kept the Tidworth army railhead – I have only just heard about that – I assume it was closed decades ago. So, the armour from Bulford, Tidworth, Perham, Warminster would have to use the Ludgershall railhead and be carried there on HETs – so you need the roads and bridges to all be Class 100 and for there to be ample space for a Convoy Marshalling Area (including turnng circles) and some admin facilities. I hope we have still got all the HETs!! Then where does the train go to for overseas expeditionary operations?… Read more »
Hi Graham. The Sea Mounting Centre at Marchwood has extensive railway facilities. Would be loaded onto the 4 Points. So Ashcurch/ Ludgershall/Kineton direct to ship side.
Bicester also had railway access, uncertain of its status will have a look.
For moves direct to the continent via the Channel Tunnel I’m not sure what happens there.
Thanks Daniele.
There is a sign on the gate at google street level view. “MOD Property keep out” view is dated July 2021, there are two entrances and a number of loading bays
Perhaps MoD does still own the railhead for the old vehicle depot (closed since March 1997) and that Network Rail maintain the branch line for MoD use. Is the marshalling area and local road network OK for HETs carrying 72 ton tanks ie a 100-ton outfit?
I would think the road is ok as it is the one that run past the old depot site (A3026) The other entrance is off the A342. The line original also went to Tidworth camp as well
I’m glad, it seems it has not all been thrown away.
Been held onto for a reason. 25mph maximum line speed, but that isn’t going to bother them to much. direct rail link to Marchwood with a couple of reverses
Brilliant. The lunacy will have hit new heights if they start throwing strategic infrastructure away.
I wonder why the rail line to Tidworth camp has been lost – and when that happened. Would have been useful.
Tidworth camp rail link. It was closed in 1963. the track bed into the camp has been built over
This is the area which Simon references and what I was referring to in my original post.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ludgershall,+Andover/@51.256308,-1.6278139,292m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4873f95247c37c2d:0xde81796d492063f4!8m2!3d51.255202!4d-1.621289
Further south west is the old railway yard and hangers/sheds where the forces housing you mentioned has been built.
I assume the area to the north bordering the A342 is sufficient to use? Seems rather small to me.
Its hard to see how numerous Class100 HETs could approach and manouevre.
Assume, as in the Cold War if things turned hot, A roads are Cat A and could be closed to non essential traffic. So maybe they would form a queue.
Civvy traffic isn’t the problem – the poice escort would shoo them out of the way – its whether the road surface and bridges could take repeated 100 ton loads – and whether they can get around tight bends and manouevre and park at the railhead.
It would seem from the video link below, that once you get to the depot it is MOD responsibility (as it states they are MOD rail staff) that is pretty much the same case as was with the NCB and still is with line into steel works etc
There is no vehicle depot at Ludgershall – it closed in 1997. There is now new army married quarters on the site.
The roads and bridges I was talking about are the ones from Tidworth, Bulford etc that the HETs would have to travel on if armour was being loaded onto rail flats at Ludgershall.
There is a road that I expect is MOD property that runs from Tidworth and come out on the road (A3026) by the old depot site. you can go about a 1.2miles up that road and you are at the rail yard. It looks like you could also get there from Bulford camp as well.
This reminds me of my first Signal Box at Ash Vale. There is/was a ground frame a few miles towards Aldershot, that is maintained “just in case” according to the Mobile Ops Manager for movements into a long removed siding into Aldershot Garrison, incase it is ever reinstated and connected again to the main line, if the balloon goes up.
So a control system is kept even though most the infrastructure has gone.
What’s a ground frame?
ground_frames | SimSig – Simulator of Railway Signalling Systems
Thanks Daniele. What do you do on the railways?
Signalman.
That explains your reference to Ash Vale Signal Box!
Was opposite part of Keogh Barracks and next door to Ash Ranges. I remember some Soldiers were on an exercise trying to reach an RV on Ash Ranges. 2 of the muppets thought it a good idea to go along the railway line to approach the RV from another unexpected direction. Caused quite a stir with trains ringing in to report trespassers lineside. One marched past, bergen on, and I went outside to say, politely, WTF are you doing!? Amazingly he was struggling to work out on the map where he was, so I helped! He had no idea of… Read more »
You have got to be so lost to be on a railway line next to a Signal Box saying ‘Ash Vale’ and not know where you are!
That’s funny.
I was a bit surprised to say the least, I think he was an NCO too.
What makes it worse, the line at Ash vale Junction splits in two with a branch to Ascot off off the main line, the reason for the box’s existence. So seeing the lay out on the ground is easy and it’s obvious on a map too. He was clueless. Trespass on a railway and people’s fears concerning “jumpers”, railway suicides, which is why drivers are so edgy when imbeciles go onto railway lines, seemed a surprise to him too.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4H24VUb4wTI the branch, six months ago.
Because they’re idiots??
A bit like binning the JCBRN Regiment only to get the role back again now.
Or thinking that wide river crossing can be safely dropped ( 28 RE cut ) and the M3 rigs given to reservists, 75 RE (R) leaving a single regular Troop. A regular sqn has been established now but just how did thwy envisage their Strike Brigades could manoeuvre if the bridges are out?
Any saving post 2010 was a saving. Idiots.
There is still 23 AES with M3s in Germany located with the German M3 Regt in Minden
Yes, that is the one I referred to above. Is it at Minden or Sennelager? Or are the two pretty much the same?
No they are not Minden is over on the Weser river so quite a bit from Sennelager😄I believe there is a reserve troop here in the UK or there used to be?23AES was the original SQN to have the rigs before 64 joined them in Hameln to form 28 Amphibious Engineer Regt ( the rubber ducks 😂)
Hi Jacko. Thanks, not been there thus my confusion with the geography. They did give the role to 75 RE (R) at Warrington and there was a Troop here but I think that has changed yet again with 23 AES re established in Germany forming part of the German Battalion. Yes, 28 RE. I first read of the rubber ducks from by books of the army in BAOR times. Of even greater importance then given we had 3 Armoured Divisions in Germany, each with 3 Brigades, each Bde having over 1,000 vehicles. 28 is now the CBRN Regiment at Rock… Read more »
Yep was in Hameln 76/79 with HQ troop MT and training wing,super posting right in the middle of town👍 Being in training wing I had to do the dvrs and crewman’s courses so got to go swimming😄
Respect mate.
So you’re the sites SME on M3 rigs and Rubber Ducks. I’ve only read about the things, but they look very impressive when doing those R Weser practices?
I was OC 28 Engr Regt Wksp REME in 1991/92 just before the Regt converted to M3. The Regt restructured at the time from 2 amph sqns and a large trg sqn (with rigs) to: a Regt with just one amph sqn (23 AES), a general/HQ sqn (64), a Plant Sqn (65) and a STRE – as I recall.
Hi Graham. So, another Rubber Ducks SME along with all things REME and Tanks! I love this site…
Yes, that ORBAT sounds familiar.
Thanks Daniele. Interesting to me that the only field force presence in Germany now is a Rubber Ducks sub-unit.
In contrast, I vividly remember when we had 1 (BR) Corps in West Germany comprising four armoured divisions plus a brigade in Berlin…and a Division-equivalent in NI on Op Banner – and multiple light brigades (both Reg and TA) in GB. How times change.
I only remember 1st, 3rd, and 4th Armoured Divisions, so one must have already been cut by the time I became interested in this subject by the mid 80s. 2nd Infantry Division was at York, and 5 Airborne, 1 Infantry ( AMF ) and so on.
2nd Armoured Division was in 1 (BR) Corps to 1982, then it was redesignated 2nd Inf Div and repatriated to UK with Div HQ in York and its brigades/units scattered largely throughout Yorkshire and neighbouring counties. The heavy metal was left in Germany and redistributed amongst 1st, 3rd and 4th divs. 2nd Inf Div comprised one reg bde (24 Inf Bde) with Milan-heavy bns (a massive 24 FPs per Bn) in Saxon and two TA Bdes (15 and 49 Bdes if I remember). This div’s role was to reinforce 1 (BR) Corps and to provide Corps Rear Area Security with… Read more »
I remember when it became 24 Airmobile, so assume it had lost the Saxons before that point. It then merged with 5 Airborne to become the 16AA we know now.
Even into the 2000s I recall we still had 6 Battalions of Saxon, the 3 brigades of 3 (UK) all had 2 Saxon, 1 Warrior Bn. I kept on reading them emphasising it had run flat tyres?!
Saxons too heavy for an airmobile brigade, so yes they went elsewhere on rerolling from 24 Inf Bde. I too remember the emhasis on the run flat tyres!
Boxer was meant to replace Saxons and residual 430s, first time around.
👍
I have had a couple of discussions with Graham about the HETs and they are on PFI (which may be about to run out). The railway capability cut was a crazy move as well, although I did read on another group I am a member of about gauge size being a problom with moveing armoured vehicles? again would need more investigation.
Not sure myself, and I work on the railway! 🙄
HS1 and Channel tunnel use a European gauge however I can’t imagine the mess transporting a challenger 2 tank would make of high speed rails. No way the French would allow it on the other side even if we did.
Strange. These came from England – Armoured battle group, took three train loads to move. This is taken in Lithuania.
I don’t see any challengers there.
There were three consists with the challies on the last one… so by the time I realised my train had passed them.
Also, trials had previously taken place with a movement to Germany if IIRC – Graham?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/army-moves-tanks-channel-tunnel-during-secret-exercise-184100465.html
I am surprised it took to 2017 to send tanks etc on the Channel Tunnel – unless it happened earlier even more secretively.
The CT is an asset to be used. I hope the railway capability is restored, even expanded. Though I’ve no idea on the costs/comparison of using a Point full of vehicles to Europe vs putting them on the railway.
Hi Graham, still need time to reply to your other posts; we’re Challies still in Germany until 2016? Danielle, the exercise was partly staged because it was feared Russian forces in Kaliningrad could interdict shipping. I was surprised to be asked to report on the rail link from Bialystock to Kaunas. When I did the trackwork was in a shocking state as the photos I took along the way showed. True, it travels through the Gap and would also be interdicted but at least they could have been unloaded at an earlier point. Another problem arose at Jelgava Junction, there… Read more »
Hi David, Fascinating! I was confused until the end when you said 2013 on time frame as I had you living up in Cumbria now.
I recall your many other stories on here when you lived over there. 👍
We reduced BFG down to a single division in the late 90s, which lost a bde repatriated to UK in 2009. 1st UK Armd Div moved back to UK in 2014. Troop numbers in Germany were down to 3580 in Apr 2018, to 2850 in Apr 2019 and by autumn 2019 BFG closed with last field force bks being handed back in Feb 2020. British Army German continues with 185 military and 60 civilians. That does not directly answer your question, but if 1xx moved back to UK in 2014, there probably were no Challys in field units in 2016,… Read more »
Jim,
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/british-army-tanks-channel-tunnel-first-time_uk_58808099e4b06288c29f7065
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/army-moves-tanks-channel-tunnel-during-secret-exercise-184100465.html
We have sent tanks on railflats on the Channel Tunnel several times over the years.
What mess is made of high speed rails? Don’t get that.
Do you mean gauge or loading gauge there?
Is there much difference between a Challenger at ~75 tons, and a couple of 44 ton large lorries?
Ahem. https://www.railengineer.co.uk/rail-infrastructure-and-the-507-specialist-team-royal-engineers/?amp
Enjoy.
They revamped part of the Weardale line IIRC. Mostly Network Rail bods.
Ah, good find!
Good to see they are revamping the links at Ayrshire Bks too, as that is the location for our forward fleet of armour in Europe. Much of it came from the drawdown of BATUS.
What is left in BATUS now?
I’d like to know myself, but as usual the army seem reluctant/secretive.
I’ve read it was emptied to help enable the Estonia operation, having the armour there in Europe in CHE at Ayreshire Bks more accessible than on the other side of the world.
Pity. We have so few now the wide open spaces for all arms BGs not seen as important as it was.
I’d also read they were still planning on using it for LI BGs.
With the railway capability being revisited, just this week 36 Engineer Regt, did some training with the Railway STRE. At last, some serious thinking is starting g to happen within the MOD, just need more funding and manpower.
I’m making $90 for every hr. to finish some internet providers from home. I absolutely never thought it would try and be reachable anyway. My comrade mate got $13k just in about a month effectively doing this best task and furthermore she persuaded me to profit. Look at additional subtleties going to
this article.. https://Americanliberty7.blogspot.com
Being realistic the front line for the British Army is never going to be on home soil. The front line is in Ukraine. They should be armed to the teeth against Russia. As for NATO being a threat to Russia, who in their right mind would want to invade the bloody country.
Russia has very large deposits of most minerals and gas and oil plus highly productive land. That is why it has been coveted for centuries.
A lot of the most productive land actually belongs to Ukraine. That is why Ukraine is coveted.
Indeed quite clearly part of the overall plan to intimidate Europe and indeed third World Countries with control over their basic food stuffs as well as their fuel requirements. It’s hardly a subtle tactic but clearly the cover of ‘NATO Expansion’ being a threat is enough to fool the useful idiots and gullible amongst us.
I was going to say the same thing to @JohninMK as you @Trevor.
If Russia has all they need, why invade Ukraine? Of course, those in the “know”, understand it was following BP and Chevron finding enough natural gas in the eastern side of Ukraine to compete with Russia in supplying all the energy needs of Europe for decades to come. It would have given Mordor real competition. You, see we now get down to the real reason Mordor invaded Crimea and now Ukraine proper.
Plus oil reserves off snake island and unexploited minerals !
But why would we want to invade russia ? We don’t is the answer.
No-one in the west is looking to invade Russia to seize that mineral wealth. We are not that mad.
We aren’t but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see China have a go at Siberia in the future!
The Russians took part of Siberia off China in the 1850s. The Chinese say they got Hong Kong & Macao back, so now they want those bits of Siberia back.
Ahh, Siberia, or as China have designated it “The Northern Resources Area”, borrowing a moniker given by a major power in history. Now, If I were the average Russian, I wouldn’t take notice of it. But, the name is familiar if you are a student of history, it was the name the Japanese gave it in 1937, had they known about the treasure there, they wouldn’t have poked either the United States or United Kingdom by invading the “Southern Resources Area” and hit Pearl Harbour. In fact, world history would be very different today had they known! British Empire would… Read more »
The Japanese did know about it although not as much as is known now. They were probing north when they had their knuckles rapped https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts
It gave them a very nasty lesson in what happens when a WW1 infantry heavy army fights a WW2 armour heavy army.
As they had a world class navy, thought the UK was tied up. and that the USA could be shocked into folding they decide to gamble.
It played out in a way that was ‘not necessarliy to Japans advantage’.
Then if they get away with it, to invade Taiwan. That’s playing a song from Putin’s Playbook.
Inevitably so the Chinese got good reason historically despise the Russians. Russia needs to do all it can to defend itself from this real threat to itself even if it’s decades in the future. Otherwise it’s a pure Chinese lapdog role as this Century progresses. Ironically its failures in Ukraine have only brought that threat closer and more certain. It’s made it’s neighbours in the West more powerful and informed of its threat, a big change to its former naivety, dangerously self weakening cooperation and military disarmament, damaged Russias own military power be it perceived, feared or actual, that will… Read more »
Absolutely correct @Spyinthesky. The Azeris have already decided to stop taking notice of Russia, sweeping aside its Peacekeepers to conquer parts of Nagorno-Karabakh. Then, Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Lachin Corridor comes as it accuses Armenia of dragging its feet over the fate of another critical route, the would-be Zangezur Corridor. Armenia has been openly courting Iran as much as Azerbaijan is courting and buying billions of dollars worth of weapons from Turkey. Georgia has also openly challenged Russia’s “Peacekeepers” on the peace line between it and their break-away South Ossetia. What future does CSTO have when 60% of its members… Read more »
Oil yes gas yes highly productive land no it hasn’t it has terrible land which is why it wants to take Ukraine and have Belorussian as it’s bitch
They’ll need to be very wary of China then.
The bit with the “highly productive land” that’s called Ukraine, not Russia and by the look of Putins dismal efforts by its dismal plastic military, that’s the way it will stay.
The best description I heard of the ‘Russian Menace’ in Cold War times came from the late Paul Newman. Asked why he wasn’t concerned about Russia’s threat to the west he replied ‘They can’t even successfully manage their own agriculture’. In theory the Russians have it all, except it’s in Russia and they live there.
Spot on 😂👍
Only idiots would invade for those reasons. Much cheaper just to buy in the open market then get bogged down in costly wars and occupations in the hope of acquiring these.
But then Putin has previously demonstrated he’s an idiot… 🤷🏻♂️
Approved of any rapes/ torture/ murders today?
Russia has suffered far less threat from others than those others have from outside, much of it indeed from Russia. Poland is arguably the oldest State in Europe formed in the 10th Century post defeat of the Celts by Slavs (England despite its origins is generally accepted as formalised post Norman Conquest) yet has been independent barely 300 years since sadly due to invasion. Russia has probably retained its Independence longer than almost any other State in existence so its feelings that it has a right to take the freedom of others to defend itself is laughable. It is the… Read more »
Sorry Spyinthesky, I will definitely pick an argument on that statement. The aim of United all lands into one kingdom was first spoken by King Alfred the Great. In 924, the first King of England was crowned at Kingston on Thames. Æthelstan (Grandson of Alfred the Great) was the first English King and as such, he wore a Crown, the first to do so. His father, grandfather etc, all wore helmets. After the battle of York, where Æthelstan’s father and uncle defeated the Kings of Alba, Strathclyde and Dublin, taking what we now call Cumbria today. King Edward the Elder… Read more »
No, it hasn’t. There have been no threats to Russia since 1941 when Winston Churchill immediately offered Russia Great Britain’s support. Elizabeth I of England traded with Russia, hence Muscovy Trade –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_Company
It’s the Russian mentality that MK proves he is a part of as if we ever doubted, ie that sense of infamy, infamy they’ve all got it in for me. As you say this delusional insistence that the World is jealous of Mother Russia is an ingrained facet of their psyche that probably goes back to the Mongol incursions that led to that original defensive survival mentality transforming through many generations over the Centuries of pure Empire building and extermination of others. The Chinese will have their revenge most like but best served cold and they have much patience. They… Read more »
No one is trying to invade Russia Johnsky.
We would like to simply trade for their resources, but they make that oh so difficult.
Napoleon, an alliance of U.K, France and Turkey, Kaiser Wilhelm and Mr A Hitler.
As you said who in their right mind 🤨
If you actually want to motivate their population, unite their opposition parties behind Putin and wrap him in a flag and seriously Piss them all off. Just invade a teeny wee bit of Russia. We are not that stupid.
Yes, we have an expeditionary army. It should be well equipped, with 1 Armoured Division to contribute to NATO. The rest should be light role for NATO flank, and out of area. The RN, RAF, SF, and Intelligence Agencies should always take priority with our geographical situation. That does not diminish the importance of Tanks, only that we should not try to be a land power with great numbers of them no more than Poland needs to control the Atlantic. The Russians have paranoia after what has happened to them with their history, which Putin uses to his advantage with… Read more »
We tried to be a land power three times in the past 100 years and were successful each time at the cost of bankrupting the country the first two times and gutting the other services on the third. There is a lesson to be learned there.
I totally agree with you Jim. I think the question is at what force level the British Army should have in that force posture.
We aspire to 1 Division for “warfighting” at the moment, before the 2010 cuts it was 2 Divisions.
I myself think 1 Division is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is well equipped. Tank levels should reflect that. More than we plan to have. but not excessively more.
( On paper, as Labour had already started nibbling away at them both of them )
Third time was the Cold War? or the Gulf War?
I think it is the army that is gutted, of the three services.
Cold War
Thanks Jim – we certainly had strong armies for those 3 campaigns, but I recall we had a strong RN and RAF too ie I don’t think the army sucked all the funding out of the defence budget, leaving the other services short. We still had 5 aircraft carriers in the 1960s, and 28 attack subs in the early 80s.
The United Kingdom has never been a great power (Enoch Powell). It fights abroad in alliances, frequently seeking limited aims (Basil Liddell-Hart). Blessed with a superb geographic position that allowed the U.K. to negate others advantages – huge numbers of Continental troops contained by a navy focussed on innovation and an unmatched ability to strike from the sea where ever and when.
I had not heard those sentiments from Powell and Sir Basil – and am surprised. Perhaps they wanted a controversial quote to sell a book. How does a country that has never been a great power have the largest Empire the world has ever known, the largest Navy over many centuries, create the Agricultural Revolution, then the Industrial Revolution, is known as ‘the workshop of the world’ for its industrial might, conquer enemies in more countries than has ever been known before etc. Is it a mark of a weak power that you fight with Allies? Really? Even the US… Read more »
Powell was the youngest Brigadier in the British Army in World War II. He spoke facts; at no point has Great Britain, leave alone England, had the man power to face a Continental adversary on land alone. Basil Liddell-Hart wrote an influential book ‘The British Way of Warfare’ that confirmed the essential colony building, later country establishing, role of British Expeditionary warfare and an historically unparalleled ability to raise and train effective fighting forces where ever its trading instincts took it (c.f. Iraq and Afghanistan for the U.S.A.’s record). The rest of your comment is hyperbole. Even with conscription in… Read more »
Tom, you seem to consider that being a great power means being a power with an enormous army that never has to, or never chooses to form an alliance in wartime. My examples of a nation’s greatness are broader markers of a nation’s greatness and are facts not hyperbole. Even countries larger and greater than the UK fight with Allies – the US did not defeat the Japanese in WW2 alone. The largest country in the world by far, the USSR, did not fight Germany alone. Great countries can and do fight with Allies. It is not true that the… Read more »
That whenever a war breaks out we end up needing a large ground army and have to break the bank creating one from scratch when we should have had one in the first place?
And yet, when the Army goes to expand it’s SF, everyone gets very uptight and wingey.
Hi Dern, good to see you back.
Assume you mean SOpsB. To be fair I meant Tier1 SF proper when I mentioned my own priority preferences, but I get your point. I think that stems from peoples take on the number of Inf Bns remaining and how few are mechanized or armoured and wanting more of that, including me. Also maybe seen as duplication with the SFAB, even though we know that is not the case?
The thing is “Tier 1 SF” gets you more bang for your buck if supported by a Tier 2 formation. Simply but a lot of what UKSF does doesn’t require a full Hills phase passed SAS patrol in country, but still needs operators with a SF/non conventional mindset. Expecting the, by definition, small number of Tier 1 units to cover all those bases results in a overstretched force, but by having a Tier 2 force, in this case ASOB, they can take over some of those taskings, meaning Tier 1 can focus on the things Tier 1 can only do.… Read more »
“but by having a Tier 2 force, in this case ASOB, they can take over some of those taskings, meaning Tier 1 can focus on the things Tier 1 can only do. “
Agreed. And they started to cover that base with the SFSG after Sierra Leone.
Further back in time, I recall the Det was formed to relieve SAS of that task, and became so specialised the SAS ended up being posted to it, and it is now a Tier 1 in its own right.
SFSG isn’t really a Tier 2 SF force tbf, it’s more of a Tier 1 Combat Support formation. I.e. it’s role has always been to support and enable maneuver and action by UKSF, not operate on it’s own. Using the Conventional metaphor, if Tier 1 is an Armoured Brigade, and Tier 2 is a Light Mech Brigade, SFSG is an Artillery Brigade. Alternatively: SAS, SBS = US Devgru/Delta Force Ranger Regiment = US Green Berets SFSG = US 75th Ranger Regiment Also worth noting that SRR is really weird. Specialised is the right word, it’s focus is hugely in one… Read more »
Thanks for that.
i agree that the SFSG was created to take on a role that supports the traditional SF units and that there was a dire need for that during the years the UK were embroiled in Operations during the ‘war on terror’ but enabling those ‘tier1’ units to manoeuvre and carry out their specialist role much like 75th Ranger regiment does, did evolve during this time especially in Afghanistan and in my opinion will continue to do so. A lot of the ‘door kicking’ roles that that tier1 forces were so obsessed during that time are not the best use of… Read more »
I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying about SFSG. The size argument doesn’t really cut mustard tbh. All US SF formations are a order of magnitude larger than their UK counterparts. It’s simply a much bigger force. Delta Force alone is a Brigade sized formation. As for SFSG investing blood and earning a VC, that’s not up for debate, but blood and VC’s don’t make a Tier 1 SF unit, otherwise we’d have no shortage of them. Nor was I saying that they aren’t indispensable. To go back to my analogy: Would an Armoured Division be any use without it’s… Read more »
I don’t wish to impugn anyone, but if facts are what matters then the comparison you made as to how the different units ‘match up’ is misguided. Because there are distinct differences to what a 75th Ranger Battalion is expected to do within their mission statement. There are some similarities with SFSG, and much of that difference is indeed down to their size and placement within SOCOM. There are certain parities and indeed cross pollination between the units, but their size, composition and strategic reach most definitely does make them a different beast to the SFSG, whereas I would agree… Read more »
Wow jumping around there a bit. You’re welcome not to like my comparison but you’re really splitting hairs here. Full Strength Coys aka: Infantry Orbated companies, with platoons and a fire support company. I was saynig that SFSG is not orbat-ed as a SF or SOF unit. It’s a conventional unit in structure, like the US Rangers. As for your comments about the Rangers, that’s fine, but you’re not in a position to comment on the unit and it’s perception in the wider SOF community, let alone which level they’re at, hence why I refer to the commentry as “hot… Read more »
Yes, I can tend to jump around when describing emotive subjects such as this, it can be a curse at times. But assumption goes both ways Dern, and like I explained, I would not be commenting on something such as this based purely on my bias or ‘internal army gossip’ That would not serve me or in this case the validity of my comments. I have learnt at my cost in the past that the devil is in the detail when discussing matters such as this, so ‘splitting hairs’ as you say, as divisive at can be, is essential to… Read more »
And you’re mixing two things up again and leaving me with a mess of a comment that I can’t even begin to decipher, sorry.
So yeah, we’ll disagree.
I’m Sorry you find my comment difficult to decipher, I’m not quite sure what Im mixing up? I was commenting on your comparisons and the roles that you described in your post.
My comments are based on my experience of the subject, and I guess everyones experiences are different.
So yes, let’s disagree. That’s the beauty of debate👍
I think the last time the army fought an invader on home soil was 1066. Since then, with the exception of the civil wars in the 17th Century and Op Banner in Northern Ireland the field army has always been essentially expeditionary and mostly always operated with allies. Totally agree the front line for western European armies, including our BA, is Ukraine, and our potential enemy is Russia. Gen Sanders said this was our 1937 moment (except in 1937 we had been rearming for 2 years already). Given what Future Soldier says we could not deploy a modernised ‘armoured’ division… Read more »
1797
Though not the army, true enough. They retreated at the sight of Welsh women, legend says.
1845
Any advance upon 1845!
Well during WW1, there were those German ships shelling English towns on the North Sea coast.
10 to 7?
I must have been drunk again. I was thinking of 1745, and 1797 take precedence.
Ha! If the legend is half true – & one does really hope so – I think it likely the French were all ‘terribly…..terribly pissed at the time’🤢
1943 Battle of Bamber Bridge?
Police, eh; what can you do with them? Invasion, though? add in the ‘terribly……’ factor and how about last weekend!
Americans counter with Jacksonville, perhaps. Full circle: Police, eh; what can you do with them?
Rgs
Ahhh, Battle of Fishguard for those that don’t know their 1797 history. I didn’t mention that brief 3-day campaign, on 22–24 February 1797, involving 1 enemy frigate, 1 corvette and a lugger. It seemed insignificant.
I didn’t, for one.
Little known that the French occupied Hertford Castle several hundred years ago for a bit, and some argue William of Orange was an invasion if a popular one but we have thankfully been free from true invasion for a long time thankfully.
I would consider 500 MBT’s the minimum strength for the regular British Army, in peace time. With a numerically equal reserve force at a lower level of readiness. Perhaps even an MBT of slightly lesser capability.
500 is never going to happen though.
Realistically I’d be happy with 200 tanks. I’d be ecstatic at 300.
To put my mere 500 into context. Poland is building a force of 1000 K2PL MBT’s. It has also ordered 280+ Abrams, in addition to it’s existing 300 Leopard 2 of various kinds. It also has a quantity of upgraded T72. That’s poor old, hard up, former communist Poland. A NATO member just like us. Granted they have Russia on one side and Germany on the other. Both have a track record of invading. They also suffer the EU trying to impose it’s none economic policies on the Polish people. I fully appreciate why they want a deterrent and the… Read more »
Poland also has no nuclear deterrent nor a large (by European standards) and advanced navy that we do. Lacking those things allows you to maintain a larger land army.
A standing army will always be cheaper than a standing navy and air force.
They only have a GDP (2018) of $526 billion. With a population of 37,953,180. Compared to ours $2.638 trillion and 66,727,461 population 2018. Navy, nukes or not, we can afford it.
I think our politicians are actually scared of having a numerically large well equipped army.
I’d be asking, then: can Poland really afford it? they’re planning to increase defence spending to GDP, so roughly around $26 billion per year on defence. An impressive amount for Poland, but can it really afford the 1,500-ish tanks they’re planning to order?
Not only those but 500 HIMARS plus around 40 or so F-35s. I can’t see how they can afford it all.
We certainly don’t need 500+500 tanks. I’d be ecstatic with 300 tanks and spending more on the Navy and RAF.
Of course they can afford, it is called priorities.
Did you check the giant budget value of UK Government?
and tax rate of British citizens?
It is just there are billions going out of British taxpayers for quangos, departments and departments of departments, advisor groups, NGO’s and NGO’s of NGO’s, “Education” , “Universities” BBC, advisors groups, etc etc.
I’m sorry, are you saying education isn’t a worthwhile spend?
Are you one of those persons that the word “education” have mythical properties?
A big part of education are XXI century equivalent of aristocratic titles. It is credentialism.
What % of students in UK go to hard sciences?
Are you one of those persons that believes education has no value and everyone should just leave school at 16?
If our children are educated better then their work prospects are better, their earning potential as adults increases and they can take on high-skilled jobs.
Investment in education and training benefits the economy long term.
Oh the fear of Aristocratic aspiring Bourgeoise of being seen working with its hands…spending 20 years learning how to write clearely seldom achieving it, to spend their existence in a office creating regulation and legislation to make the lives of people that do things an hell.
You have a very strange worldview. My guess is you honestly do believe everyone should leave school at 16 (if not sooner) and go into manual factory work etc, and that everyone in an office job is doing a non-job. The people who work with their hands these days, and in the future, will need those hands to be skilled. You don’t get that without an education and training. And I’m not necessarily saying university education, but more money does need to be spent investing in children’s education to ensure we don’t have generations of unskilled workers and leaving us… Read more »
“I think our politicians are actually scared of having a numerically large well equipped army.”
They’re not scared of having one, just of funding it.
The Tories would see money to grab in spending cuts, and Labour would see money they can put on the NHS.
They would never openly admit to being scared. But too few MP’s and civil servants have been in the military. There are too many career politicians. In the perfect world, having served would be a requirement before being eligible to stand for election! They decide when the military are deployed and go to war, without any idea what is involved. Sit down and strap in for this next bit. Which is why GB needs a shake up of British society. With the military very much involved in all sectors of life. From a combined military and civilian healthcare system. To… Read more »
Yes and we forget that thanks to the friendly Russians moved it substantially west to give them a bigger buffer (or gain more European land in reality) much of Western Ukraine was once Poland as some of West Poland was once German. Over a millennium outsiders have manipulated its borders endlessly even the Swedes of course, so no Country has more right to feel concerned about its very existence. Poland is a giant in waiting and always been kept down by its jealous neighbours whenever possible, good job it doesn’t express Russias views upon generating buffers zones and depriving other… Read more »
Poland are almost a landlocked country which is very close to Russia. It’s also a relatively big country and don’t have their own nuclear deterrent.
In no way do we need half the tanks they have for an expeditionary force. Stop with the nonsense.
200 + spares (so 250ish) will do us fine.
I’m sorry but that ignores the bigger picture, is short sighted and lacks ambition. If we had a manufacturing facility ready and waiting to build more MBTs if necessary. (Although making good wartime losses would be a tall order for a single factory.) I could be persuaded to accept a standing force of 400 and perhaps half that number in reserve units. But would that number be sufficient to maintain a private or state owned manufacturing, repair and upgrade facility. Keeping it financially viable and fully staffed. I don’t think so. 500 plus 250 reserves, could be enough to ensure… Read more »
To make UK Tank production viable again i think the achilles heel would again be Exports – even an exceptional design would have to compete in a very competitive market ,the US has plenty of M1’s in stock ready to be refurbished,as you say Germany can still build Leopard 2’s,albeit slowly and in Greece funnily enough,and South Korea has now pitched up with a good design which can be produced quickly,it won’t be an easy sell.
That is very true. Which is why the future of British tank technology must now include cooperation with another nation. Vickers hit that barriert with their Mk 7. They utilised the Leopard hull and combined it with their very advanced turret. The resultant beast outperformed the Challenger in literally every respect. If memory serves, either the entire turret or just the best bits were incorporated into the superior Chally 2. The point here is cooperation with another nation is OK. As long as we have a fully licenced manufacturing factory here in the UK and the entire supply chain. Little… Read more »
There were originally 386 CH2 tanks, It would be good if we could get numbers back up to 350 and all upgraded to CH3
A good start but still a very small number. See Poland.
The idea is to work with the hulls we have, that would be the easiest option.
It would be a fine stop gap if there were well advanced plans to build a new state of the art, optionally manned MBT. However that is not the case.
A decade ago, it was decided to buy German when Chally2 was to be replaced. For commonality reasons. Thankfully BREXIT killed that EU army crap.
‘Chally2 was to be replaced’ a decade ago? The fleet would have been less than 5 years old, ie virtually brand new.
Sorry, typo – CR2 fleet would have been under 15 yrs old a decade ago – still relatively youthful, given that some of our armour (ie 430s, CVR(T)s) run for 50 or 60 years!
Really, does anybody remember a tank re-placement program in 2012?
Do you remember official release of the plan to establish an EU Army. It was being planned but denied in public. Along with who was going to provide what and when.
Not being a military man I would be interested to hear from others what they feel about the sort of ‘light’ tanks or tank destroyers that, say the French favour to augment their MBTs. Would these be a very useful back up capability that would expand the overall capability and effectively add to effective numbers. If so then how could the UK gain such an added capacity in support of our MBT fleet. Boxer, or some other alternative? Should it have a big gun or should it rely on missiles ie Brimstone one presumes as things stand ideally or alternatively… Read more »
This is an over simplification 101 introduction. A MBT is a clever blend of three attributes. Protection (armour), firepower (the tanks primary and secondary weapons) and mobility (It’s engine power to weight ratio, speed over rough terrain. When it comes to tank on tank warfare, only a MBT of similar capability will do, to face off against a peer. But if it ever comes to simply tanks fighting tanks, someone has made a serious error! Mechanised infantry in IFVs, supporting artillery and close are support are vital. Many factors influence the desired “blend” of MBT attributes. Not least of which… Read more »
I think it a shame that TDs across western armies are scarce and sometimes mocked. They can be very useful in a hull-down defensive position to beef up infantry in defence; releasing tanks for the offence elsewhere. Plus they are cheaper than tanks.
We used to have a great TD – CVR(T) Striker! 5 missiles with a 4k range on the roof and 5 reloads inside. It went out of service with no replacement years ago; time to replace it.
We. Are. An. Island.
One that is over a thousand miles away from any land threat.
We need a good expeditionary army that can defend our homeland too. The rest should all be going on the navy and airforce.
Our army has been used more times and with greater numbers deployed in real, kinetic operations than the Royal Navy. It does not deserve to be relegated to an also-ran as you suggest.
80 of those 386 tanks were scrapped in 2010-2018 and 79 are probably in bad condition.
Very wasteful given that the CH2 is such a good piece of kit.
Political decision of the Cameron Government in the 2010 review to save money in the wake of the global economic crisis. Nothing to do with the army.
Same review got rid of Invincible-carriers and Harriers and cut army from 102,500 to 82,000 via an interim figure of 95,000…and did so much more damage besides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2010
True. Blame Cameron as it was his decision to reduce to 227. Nothing to do with the Army or MoD.
It was 72, they wanted permission to break em down permanently. The hulls was all that was left as they were completely stripped. But .. no one who I worked with ever found out if this permanent destruction actually went forward. Foi was asked by my old boss few years back but was declined and not answered. I’m NHS now so from one bad wasteful organisation to another
Hulls of what? Challenger 2s? So 72 were scrapped, not 80?
But then you say you don’t know if this destruction went forward? So orders came down to scrap 72 CR2s but you don’t know if it was carried out?
No bcoz I was leaving, last I knew they had decided to totally scrap them but my manager was one of a quite a few who said it was a stupid idea bcoz of the problems replacing destroyed ones.
Thanks. Do you know who sent the order down to Ashchurch. How did they scrap them – strip everything off and then what?
I did put the freedom of info attachment here as well, if it went through fully it’s something to show how badly run parts of the mod/British army really are, very good smart people let down by Completely clueless people with no idea about anything military while working for it
Didn’t see that attachment.
Could you post the attachment again please – or a link to it.
We no longer have 350 CR2s for conversion to CR3, as 80 were scrapped.
With 100 or so in reserve, storage, or with AC at Bovington that works out about 8 Armoured Regiments George. That is some expansion, never mind the supports required to enable such a force.
I favour the RN and RAF 1st myself, with us at a smaller level for armoured warfare. Just not as small as we’re scheduled to be.
George,
We bought 420 CR1s for the Cold War and replaced them with 386 CR2s for the post-Cold War army.
I can’t ‘buy into’ 500 tanks for the regulars and another 500 for the reservists.
Although had the cold war continued on for a bit there were plans for 800+ CH2 to replace all tanks.
CH1 operated in conjunction with Cheiftain so there were 850+ tanks in service.
Quite true that we operated a mixed fleet of CH (Chieftain) and CR1 (Challenger 1) from about 1983-1998. Prior to that, around half the original 900 Chieftains had been taken out of service when CR1 came in. Very unusual to have a mixed tank fleet. I remember the Chieftain Replacement competition which sought to replace that remaining Chieftain half fleet – contenders were M1 Abrams, Leo2, CR2 (which existed only as a design) and Leclerc (a late bid). It also ending up replacing the CR1 too. M1 was quickly rejected due to fuel consumption and maintainability. Leclerc was rejected as… Read more »
How many Tanks the British Army needs is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string – realistically any number between 200 and 250 would be ideal, can’t see the reasoning for any more than that.
The idea is to keep a viable force that we can deploy without allied support if necessary. Also keeping a good many trained tank crews, so retention and promotions needs are met by the normal turnover. In addition to maintaining a domestic manufacturing, servicing and export industry.
Note how our military industrial capacity has declined in line with the size of our forces. It takes longer to train engineers in armour production factories, than troopers. They have almost double the working career than soldiers.
Out of curiosity, with this tank force of 500 regular + 500 reserve, how large do you see the rest of the Army being?
An army in excess of 300,000 regular troops eligible for front line service. Including excess support assets A 1960 size standing force for what has become the new Cold War. Only one tenth of WWII numbers.
Reserve/Territorial force of variable size but roughly the same. (Combined numbers never falling south of 500,000.) Consisting of personnel of various degrees of readiness, dependant on role. Including 50,000 men capable of deployment with little preparation. Armour, mechanised infantry, airborne forces and artillery.
I’m sorry but 300,000 troops in the Army alone (so excluding RAF, RN & RM) is just pure fantasy fleets.
The defence budget would have to more than triple, and what would you sacrifice to pay for it?
The defence budget would be ring fenced and fixed at 15% for a decade. Dropping to 10% if possible. The only sacrifices would be the entire overseas aid budget, minus payments to Nepal, Fiji and the recruiting grounds. Let the other nations with bigger GDPs than ours take up the slack. Along with scrapping the Carbon neutral subsidy and returning to cheaper fossil fuels.
GB has extensive reserves still in the ground, here on the mainland and in the surrounding seas. Also untapped reserves of oil and gas off the Falkland Islands and other places.
I’m sorry but that plan and the numbers you give are simply insane. They make Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng look like a couple of fiscal geniuses. The entire UK GDP is currently $3.131 trillion USD/£2.557 trillion GBP. 15% of that is £383 billion per year; an increase of almost 9 times our current amount. With that amount are you planning on the UK fighting China 1 on 1? Because that would put our spending ahead of China’s and only behind the US. Your maths doesn’t add up, either. The foreign aid budget is around £11 billion per year, so… Read more »
We need enough tanks to equip our mere one warfighting division, plus tanks for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
The powers that be have decreed we go down to 2 armoured regiments, so 112 tanks – plus say 20 for Trg Org, and say 15 for RP and say 35 for Attrition Reserve would be 182.
180 to 200 CH3 MBT would suffice. Agree with comments above.. 3 Armoured brigades.
Spot on as always mate, understanding of the needs and priorities of the Army, many don’t, to include political leaders and some uniformed head sheds 👍
Just hoping that our CH2s and Europe’s Leopards get adequate air cover in Ukraine for combined arms. It’s not the Middle East but it is a top attack battleground. There must be a comprehensive plan for that aspect??
Currently hearing any Abrams may not arrive until end of year. Perhaps Biden’s plan is to keep the f-k out of there till then – then decide that F16s are OK after all!
I still think those retired ex USMC AH-1W attack helicopters, would be a good choice for Ukraine.
Was thinking similar, older Apaches, if any available. Some ASW helicopters too, to tackle any lurking subs. Nothing much is mentioned lately about drones on the Ukrainian side. Hope supplies are still coming through.
The clock’s ticking.
I’m pretty sure the risks have been calculated mate, although would be interesting to see exactly what! Maybe more LLAD etc?
Going to have to be, I guess. Plus more armour top protection, hopefully. Maybe also radio disruption. Good for adapted drones, but still handicaps Ukraine’s counter offensive in occupied territory. Russian’s aren’t stupid and will be learning. Current weakness appears to be just that top attack anti-tank missile option. But cannot bet the house on that lasting. Likelyhood they’ve obtained some examples before US / NATO clamped down heavily on audit oversight (lot of Ukrainian sackings lately). So potential to improve their anti-tank effectiveness, maybe with covert help from sympathetic states not lacking in electronic tech capabilities. As you say,… Read more »
Just re-read Future Soldier. I had forgotten how detailed it was including the timings of moves. Stripped of the obligatory and tiresome obsessions with climate change and diversity, the planned structure sort of makes sense but the retention of existing regiments doesn’t fit well. Could they be ditched entirely? My biggest concern is the lack of reserves, both people and equipment. If we lose an operational MBT, we can’t replace it. The Ukraine war has shown how rapidly stocks of equipment are depleted. The pace of construction of everything from IFVs to combat aircraft and warships is glacial. So we… Read more »
The Reserve Regiment, the RWY, does not even have it’s own compliment of Tanks I understand. They provide IRs and crews.
I think the IR will uplift the RA, and AD considerably. Sadly, and Graham touches on this point often, without 5 brigades we can not do an enduring operation.
Our Divisions have also had 3 manoeuvre brigades before. Now they’ve fudged that too with only 2 Armoured and the DRSB on top. Not much of a division as it’s frontage will be minimal.
Which existing regiments do you want to ditch and why?
If we lose an operational MBT, of course we can replace it. We have an Attrition Reserve and an armoured delivery organisation (Royal Wessex Yeomanry) complete with CR2 trained crews.
We do plan to retain MBTs – that is why we are buying CR3. But the Attritional Reserve does not amount to 50%.
148 Ch2 will be upgraded by 2030 when unmodernized hulls are to be discarded. Each BCT will have 56 leaving 36. Some of these will be needed for training and as cover where major breakdowns require extended workshop time. We have no capacity to build additional Ch3s. If we were to suffer serious losses, where’s the reserve?
My comment on whether regiments are still needed was just a reaction to the future soldier structure. I think the US army, centred on a BCT structure, has retained regimental numbers but they aren’t a key part of the organisation.
56 tanks to each Type 56 armoured regiment of which two in the future ORBAT so yes that leaves 36 of the 148.
The 36 are split between the Trg Org (RAC and REME), the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve. I have no figures for each component but there is an Attrition Reserve. Every AFV fleet has an Attrition Reserve.
Are regiments still needed? Not sure what you mean. Do you mean armoured regiments, artillery regiments, engineer regiments, RLC regiments? Why do away with them?
“but the retention of existing regiments doesn’t fit well. Could they be ditched entirely?”
Yes, sorry I missed that bit. What regiments Peter?
All of them. Why do we still need them in the new structure? For a more detailed consideration, have a look at Sir Humphreys uncharacteristically downbeat blog today about the British Army. I have tried to think through what the army might look like if we were able to start from scratch. But until government makes clear whether the priority is full spectrum capability in Europe or a wider but lighter intervention role, the task is impossible. That’s really why there have been so many reviews and reorganisations. Ideally, we should have both capabilities, but not with current troop numbers… Read more »
I agree, defence forces need to be scaled for the threat we face and a conventional invasion of Europe by Russian land forces is off the table. The systemic threat is from the CCP and heavy armoured forces will be of little benefit in that fight. We need to rebuild the army but numbers can’t go back up. US war gaming over Taiwan shows that we desperately need more submarines and a longer range anti ship missile capability. The government should launch a crash upgrade program for storm shadow like the US is doing for JASSM giving it a secondary… Read more »
Bring back the BAOR. Bring back the BAOR.
Good point, its a given the Tories are going to suffer their biggest ever defeat come the next election (if not before if the Unions/media and the left have their way) and the first thing they will do is have a……defence review. They will sell their review along the lines of ensuring the British Military is well supported for the future, and then proceed to cull all 3 branches of the military I expect the Navy to be cut (sell off a carrier) end the building of Nuke subs, end the purchase of F35s, (get rid of nukes in which… Read more »
Old Corbin (or how you spell it) would have taken an axe to the armed forces and there is still many in that party who’d happily do likewise. That said, the Ukrainian war has put a sock in the cutter’s mouths but give it two years or so of peace and the knives will be out again. Basically, UK defence is in poor hands regardless of which political party is in power and that is the sad truth.
After years of political historical revision, we have bred the last couple of generations to see British History as only evil, that white straight Christian people are a stain on the earth and that only by erasing anything that links to that past can amends be made to imported third worlders who have never been slaves by people who have never owned slaves. Lets be honest, these wonks are here to stay and when you have the main news stations in the Uk inviting black race hustlers in which to allow them to claim that in the city of Memphis… Read more »
It is not accidental you feel this way. This is one of the stated aims of woke ideology. Many philosophers have contributed to this material but core elements are the elevation of group over individual, emotions over reason, will over morals, beliefs over biology and the political over humanity. It is a radically post modern system that prioritises the “authentic inner self” over all. Some have argued that you, ARE your feelings so anything that makes you feel bad is violence against you. This “liberation” is achieved by deconstructing every relation of rights and responsibilities we exist in: by recasting… Read more »
Utter bullshit; sad and pathetic but very predictable that you old farts think like that LOL
Have you ever read ‘Capitalism the unknown ideal’ by Ann Rand? It is a collection of essays of hers from the 50s-early 70s, She makes very similar points talking about student politics in the 60s. This trend has been building for a long time. The campaign is built on a foundation of talking about real problems and deliberately abusing them to overshoot and overthrow society. Unfortunately most of the people who complain about ‘woke’ issues are the ones who want to stop progress on the real issues and push society back into evil. Because the British system pushes everyone towards… Read more »
Yawn. Right trash stupidity is what should be erased, which means cretins like you….
Pieiades,
I see you are still pissed off how when you walked over to me wearing a dress and asked me my name, i replied:
“Unlucky”
I think if he disagreed with your comments he should have said what he disagreed with and why. The way he just condemned you in an insulting way is very childish and part of why it is difficult to debate with the ‘wadical’ left.
Unfortunately the fact that you fight back with comments that are homophobic/misogynist/transphobic does sort of confirm what he wrote.
Oh dear, you seem angry now you realised your “Jim fixed it for me” badge has been stolen from your one bedroom council flat! 👜
We shall see.
I trust Labour on defence no more than I can toss Kier Starmer. But it’s not going too well with the Tories either with their dreadful record, so, we shall see.
I shall be looking for all the Labour lot here, whatever happens.😃
It’s not looking good either way for an increase in defence spending.
“But there was surprise among some of the Tory MPs attending the 80-minute meeting that none of those present called for an increase in defence spending in the chancellor’s Budget.”
You are more likely to hear Redwood & Co calling for spending cuts and tax cuts
It does not have to be either of those two parties, there is a third option, right of centre. It is up to us, tom dick and harry, to VOTE for the third option.
A change from the two dinosaur parties is desperately needed!
Good to see another Lib Dem here
I take it you mean Reform ? Who do seem to be nudging upwards in the Polls.
Reform is a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theorists. They’ll get nowhere.
OK There are some fringe members of reform who are out there somewhere on planet Z. But then again the same can be said for the Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and the SNP. They are a bit like the distant cousin you only meet at weddings who’s parents a little too closely related. I live in an odd little part of the U.K where all 3 of my wards councillors are Reform. I know 2 of them personally (1 for over 40 years) and they were both active supporters of the vaccination programme. How do I know this is true ?… Read more »
The majority of Reform are on Planet Z, just check them out on social media. They are, in an attempt to make themselves more respectable/ electable rowing back on a few things like vaccine criticism. Which is why Richard Tice rebuffed Andrew Bridget’s approaches after he was suspended from the Tory Party for his anti-vaccine rhetoric. Some may have been fooled to join them simply for their support for Brexit, but they are a hotbed for conspiracy theories. And the anti-vax/ climate-change-denier/ pro-Putin brigade are ALL pushing their followers to vote Reform at the next election. My personal experience? Close… Read more »
It is. But who Marius? In the last 4 General Elections, I have only voted Tory twice, so I’m all ears. Lib Dems are too pro EU for my tastes so I will not vote for them as things stand. The top two have things stitched up that they will always succeed. Look at UKIP. 4 million votes in 2015, more than the Lib Dems and SNP combined, for 2 MPs. Lib Dems and SNP had what, 60 plus MPs. Fair? Now with PR that would have given UKIP 90 plus MPs I believe. And when will Labour or the… Read more »
Labour held a referendum in the 90s on changing the voting system, PR was an option. The good old British public voted to keep the system as it is though. The tories have never given the public a choice.
The Tories as part of the coalition government gave the public a choice as part of the agreement with the LibDems. But it was for the overly complicated AV system not PR and was defeated in the referendum.
I really can’t remember that! Wow, must have been a busy year for me and its all become a blur.
Let me refresh your memory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
The Tories only offered AV because they knew it wasn’t acceptable. We need PR, not fptp.
Ukraine expect a major Russian offensive c25th Feb. I’d like to see our army capable of fielding an armoured division & 2 mech infantry divisions as an absolute peacetime minimum.
The Tories offered the referendum because that was in the coalition agreement. Why on Earth the LibDems permitted them to put AV rather than PR on the ballot I have no idea. I’d have voted for PR, but voted against AV due to my previous experience of it.
Speculation is 23rd, Russia’s “Defender of the Fatherland Day” or 24th, the first anniversary.
Reply too late at night and I tabbed the wrong person. I was just curious.
A vote any other way is a wasted vote in our first-past-the-post voting system. This has been demonstrated in elections for decades.
Try using a magnifying glass and tweezers!
!! 😄
Trust the TUC when it comes to ship building and a desperate desire for labour to rebuild its base in Scotland.
Labour won’t cut any defence budget. It will keep it ticking along at what ever levels it inherits.
Jim, I so hope you, as a Labour man, are correct. To me the SNPs rise has been fuelled by Labour’s demise there, I so badly hope Labour regains ground and puts the SNP back in its box.
The SNP is crumbling for sure, it’s always going to be 30+percent but sturgeon is increasingly a liability now and they have no one in the wings to replace her.
I agree that the Tories, barring a miracle, will lose the next election – and that Labour will immediately commission a SDSR. If John Healey is SofS, then he is fairly sound.
The cuts you suggest may happen are horrifying – but the 6th Astute boat will just have been commissioned and the 7th not far off being finished, however the initial design work on the successor class could be cut. The anti-nuke brigade are surely not that strong in the Labour Party? They voted in favour of the plans to build Dreadnought SSBNs.
It was interesting to note the pace at which China is building up its own submarine fleet.
China launches second possible Type 093B hull01 FEBRUARY 2023
“China launched the eighth Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) at Huludao shipyard in northern China between 13 and 18 January 2023. This is the second Type 093 hull to be launched from the new assembly halls on the eastern side of the harbour.”
There is virtually no anti nuke brigade left, (all went to the greens)in the Labour Party and the TUC won’t allow for cuts in shipbuilding.
Momentum.
Yes, them! They worry me. With good reason. 🙄
Yes, Corbyn their poster boy may have been overthrown, but they still exist and have a strong grip amongst party activists and in constituency organisations. And they are still fervently anti-nuke, anti-defence, and anti-British.
Well, both main parties have their extremist wings. The Momentum nutters in Labour, the hard right nutters in the Conservatives. The former would savage defence spending, except that the TUC would not accept that. The latter pay lip-service to increasing defence spending, but at the same time want to cut sharply the numbers in public service and slash taxes, so would in reality have no more money to give to defence or anything else. One cannot gauge these parties views on defence by looking at what the two extremes would like. Neither extreme is likely to have more than a… Read more »
Momentum is very much alive and working in the background. These hard core activists that have taken oven local constituency parties haven’t disappeared in a puff of smoke. The danger with the Tories is unintended consequences. The Liz Truss style nutters might want to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but they’d damage the economy so badly in actual £ terms it would be less than 2% is today. Labour learned through Corbyn not to let members choose leaders because the membership tends to be hard-left and will choose a nutter. The Tories learned through Truss not to let… Read more »
I can assure you from direct experience that outside of a few urban elitest centres they have very much been snuffed out. Their has been a quiet civil war going on in labour since 2019 and Starmer has won. Not to say they can’t come back but many were young and idiolistic and easily board.
Yeah heard the same about Blair and Militant Tendency…
plus ca change, plus ca meme chose
Momentum is very much a spent force, it’s having a hard time raising funding now.
I have no idea what will happen at the next general election. The Tories deserve to lose, but Labour policies could be worse. Not a great choice.
Daniele, A very good summary. MoD also pushes the timeline back. Future Soldier (2021) set 2030 as the date to deliver a modernised armoured division. I am sure the previous ‘opus’ said 2025. You have hit the nail on the head in highlighting the inability to bring in 4 huge programmes over a similar timeline. Some strategic planning should have happened to properly phase replacements or very major upgrades after 20+ yrs service ie: CVR(T) – ISD 1971 – should have been replaced in the early-mid 90s Warrior – ISD 1987 – should have been upgraded (eg. WCSP) in the… Read more »
The killer is Boxer, Graham. That was planned for 2029 in 3 battalions, to replace the Mastiff in HPM Heavy Protected Mobility Battalions.
At least sort the tracked heavy part of the army out before getting all weak at the knees for wheels.
The greatest loss of the entire debacle is Warrior, as Boxer in its current form is not an IFV, as we know.
I wonder if the new IR will order the CV90 as an IFV and put the Boxers in their own all wheeled brigades. Far too sensible I imagine, and expensive, for Andover.
They will keep on with Ajax and won’t have a tracked IFV. I don’t understand the obsession with Ajax, but casting around for a role for Ajax seems to have driven the last two orbats. I think Ajax was promised to be so good that all other armoured vehicles have been evicerated in some macho doubling down. Boxer weapons, Challenger numbers and Warrior everything have been sacrificed on the altar of “we don’t need that because Ajax”. It’s the only explanation I’ve come up with for what’s happened. I hope I’m wrong and that we return to balance before the… Read more »
Nice last sentence!
I think you’re spot on regards Ajax and the Orbats.
Jon,
Not sure why you don’t know Ajax’s role – recce vehicle to replace Scimitar. Then the Strike role was invented and added on but the spec didn’t materially change. [Ajax variants replace other CVR(T)s]
Its basically a recce vehicle, so it doesn’t replace tanks, IFVs, APCs or anything else.
And we are not buying that many of them (together with variants) – 589 – it was meant to be 1,100.
Ajax a bit heavy for a lot of bridges, will there be a recce bridge layer ?
We are going from a 7.9t Scimitar to a 38-42t Ajax! If you need a bridge layer to enable recce to move about the battlefield, you have blundered ‘big time’ with your choice of vehicle. Recce operate forward of the main body and are meant to be free agents, with nimble vehicles and pretty much self-sufficient. I have always said that Ajax is too big and too heavy (and too expensive and made by the wrong company, and delivered too late, etc etc) to be an effective recce vehicle. So, no bridge layer in the Ajax family. They will have… Read more »
You know I know what it is. I’m not saying it’s any kind of functional replacement at all. Far from it. But I can’t otherwise explain the idea behind the late, unlamented Strike Brigades and the make up of the current Armoured BCTs. There may be yet another crack at this after the IR refresh in a couple of months. I’m hoping to see enough flexibility for a self-deployable wheeled mechanised infantry brigade, which can also be combined with heavy tracked armour when fast movement isn’t indicated. I think flexibility is necessary when you lack mass. That may be a… Read more »
Jon, we talking about Ajax or Boxer here?
Ajax is a far from ideal replacement for Scimitar; Boxer (particularly if lacking a 40mm stabilised cannon) is a totally unsuitable replacement for upgraded Warrior.
The British Army certainly lacks mass which you need in the offence. Perhaps our troops, if faced with a numerically strong, quite well equipped and reasonably competent peer opponent, is destined to adopt a defensive posture – or rely on massive air support to first write down the opposition before making progress.
I assume MoD has ordered the Boxers that replace Warrior as the announcement of the change in plan was in May 2021? If so, then MoD would have to pay cancellation charges. Still don’t know what Boxer has been/will be ordered for that specific role. I haven’t seen text of the reasons why WCSP had to go (but can guess at them); CV90 would be a very good successor to WR., and bring back the term ‘Armoured Infantry’. Boxer should be in their own wheeled brigades, as you say and call them ‘Mechanised Infantry’. Its not just Andover that drives… Read more »
LOL. I read this after I wrote my previous message above. Maybe it isn’t such a stupid idea after all.
The first words that came into my mind Daniele. ” I’ll believe it when I see it” I’m not going to try to examine the detail but I still don’t know where we’re going. We are going to get 148 C3’s…fine….but then what? The majority of Ajax and Boxer variants appear to be support vehicles, apart from the Ajax Recce. where there are enough for each C3 to have one each.
By my reckoning we are getting around 150 IFV types between the two makes, enough for about 1000 infantry. This is getting sillier by the day.
“Support vehicles” are as important as others Geoffrey, and still in a combat role, be they RA, RE, RS, REME, and they are also found in the RAC Regiments and AI or MI Battalions of the Infantry. Having said that, one of the issues is the desire felt by many to kit out a greater number of Infantry Battalions, which currently are scheduled to be but 5 in number out of that 1,000 Boxer order, which seems bonkers. One thing that Gabriele on UKAFC keeps banging on about, which I agree with, is that the 700 odd Warrior we had… Read more »
No argument about support but nigh on 700 vehicles to back up two weak armoured infantry brigades? Not long ago the plan was new armoured brigades, strike brigades etc etc. Now, after twenty years we have what?….another five year wait, and what threat are we “getting ready” for exactly. I don’t think anyone in the army knows, my friend.
So I would expect a number of new build Challenger 3 to be ordered. Fitted for but not with … British steel. Lol.
I’m sure the number of CH3s will increase to around 200 and some say that’s still too few. What can be gleaned from this statement is that heavy armour will have a place going forward and that could mean an eventual replacement for Challenger. Sadly, it won’t be a British design but most likely be bought off the shelf and partially assembled in the UK like the Boxer. Again, don’t expect large numbers but around 200 -300 tanks from 2040 onwards.
Doesnt make sense to have new build Challenger 3 and that program was only supposed to keep the tank competitive for another decade. Your more likely to see them moving quicker to be in at the start on the Main Ground Combat System which is supposed to enter service between 2030-2035 or considering complementary alternatives that could be delivered in the meantime such as the CV90-120 as an airmobile light tank or Panther KF51 as a high firepower medium tank.
So the MGCS basically a Leopard hull with a souped up Leclerc turret!
and it’s taking an age for it to come about. Panther which the Germans will have control over like the Leopard. Let’s have more CR3 which is despite what some might say it is a brand new tank.
CR3 has a newly cast turret but its just recycling the hulls and most of the hull components bar the engine and transmission.
The engine is a Perkins CV12-9A replacing the older Perkins CV12-6A in the Challenger 2 but maintaining the same 26.1L displacement and power, their relying on the improved transmission to offset the couple of tons its put on.
Ok what’s to stop upgrading the engine,the suspension is also being tweaked,The turret is where it really matters and it has been designed to be able to except upgrades. What will the other contenders have that cant be incorporated in this turret?
When Chieftains went through their base overhaul they where striped down to nuts and bolts and came out to all intents and purposes brand new tanks,same is happening here with this upgrade.
We did Base Overhaul (BOH) for every single AFV type, not just Chieftains, roughly every 7 years but it varied from type to type. Upgrades were done during this refurbishment process if the revised parts/assemblies were available from Industry. If there were enough changes to the Build Standard then a new Mark number was assigned. As you mention Chieftain, take a look at the Wiki entry to see how many Marks resulted – it is impressive. In about 2002 when I was in Tanks Systems Support IPT at DLO Andover, we introduced Base Inspection & Repair (BIR)as a successor to… Read more »
What happens by comparison now?
I left my DLO post in 2003 – prior to which I was launching BIR (to replace BOH) for tank variants and my colleague was doing the same for CR2. ABRO, the umbrella organisation for the REME static workshops, was our delivery organisation. BOH was conducted roughly every 7 years on all AFVs but it did depend on mileage too. You wouldn’t do BOH on an Attrition Reserve vehicle in storage that had not moved in years. BOH was phenomenally lengthy and expensive. [When a unit lost a AFV to the programme they got a replacement from the Repair Pool].… Read more »
Graham, thanks for that very detailed reply. So private profits winning the day again.
Related, one of the last in house repair orgs, DECA, the Defence Electronics Components Agency, is moving directly under DES from being a stand alone MoD agency. So at least that has not been sold off like ABRO, DSG, and it’s strategic importance recognised.
So much privatised/sold off etc. My old R&D unit, RARDE Chertsey – converted to the DRA agency (funds cut accordingly and lots of Jobsworth management crap imposed), renamed for no reason to DERA, then was going to be totally privatised but the Yanks objected for good reasons so it was split into Dstl (retained in-house) and QinetiQ (sold off). Disaster. What we did at RARDE (previously called FVRDE and MVEE) was astonishing. We now almost totally rely on private industry for innovation in vehicle design & development as Dstl is too small to do much in that regard. Private industry… Read more »
Don’t mention the re brandings! Causes chaos with keeping track of it all. Some seem to just be “Americanisms” and others, no idea why. Is it literally some smart aleck wanting to put their stamp on things?
My point is if you wanted more Challenger 3 you would have to make new moulds and do additional hull castings. If you wanted 50-100 more beyond those being converted with 14 of the non-conversions already being sent to Ukraine and more likely to follow it just wouldnt be worth it due to the short production run. The fresh turrets viable as its using a modified Leopard 2 mould as its base.
The Chieftain Tank did make extensive use of Castings for the Hull,im pretty sure both Challenger marks don’t being Fabricated instead – the base Turret for CR3 is though by all accounts so the skills should be available if needed.
There are a few more changes over CR2 than the ones you describe!
That’s basically what the MGCS is.
And basically what Rheinmetall’s alternative, the Panther is – which is why they’re only marketing at existing Leopard users.
CR3 brand new tank?!
-ammunition in the hull,
-manned turret,
-no chance for drone version.
-no automatic loading system.
All of this is past not the future.
Any examples of your super tanks on the horizon then? And don’t sayT14🙄
Why?
Indeed T14 is a modern concept, not sure if execution is well done.
M1 AbramsX another example. Israelis are also doing something in same vein.
We are talking real world not looking at concepts for the future! CR3s ammo is stored in the turret,the British doctrine is that a 4 man crew can fight and maintain a tank in any 24 hr period of combat more than a 3 man crew,while out of combat who is to say the loader cant operate a drone that I am sure could be incorporated.if T14 is more than a concept where is it in Ukraine?
If anyone of you did not noticed i was answering to the idea of building new CR3 posted by the OP above PaulW.
—
If CR3 will have only rounds in the turret then it will have a paltry quantity.
AbramsX is a technology demonstrator aka a sales pitch by General Dynamics. No orders have been placed, none are in production.
MGCS is the programme for the future European MBT,the Leopard2/Leclerc hybrid is called the E-MBT,which is basically a collaboration tech demonstrator,so they are not the same thing https://www.edrmagazine.eu/knds-from-the-leo-clerc-to-the-e-mbt
Shouldn’t really use those photos then should they? Does this prove they have not even got as far as a demonstrator of the actual vehicle? If so this tank is miles away down the road!
With present attitudes both politically and military I agree it does not make sense to design a new holy uk tank to replace CH3. however with new tech wihch has to be UK designed and built (we have seen problems with releasing leapord and if you remember the SP forces chinook) there will be at some point in the future the need for something with the equivalent of a go anywhere. fully protected machine with the ability to make a big bang. It may not even look like our vision of what a tank is but it will have similar… Read more »
So someone within the government has spouted off, said things that people want to hear, bamboozled others, and lied through their teeth. There is no Army concept. There is no future vision. There are no plans for expansion. There are no plans to retain those serving. There are no plans to feed them better. There are no plans to pay them better. Moral is at an all-time low, and regardless of what information or ‘statistics’ may be in the public domain, cuts are still being made within some regiments. Soldiers are tired, fed up, fucked off and in ever increasing… Read more »
2023 – 2024 pay review due in May 2023
Tom wrote: “”There are no plans to feed them better. “” That’s very interesting when the Army went over to pay as you dine, the one thing I couldn’t help but notice was how the quality of food fell. Instead of wholesome meals they were replaced by vast quantities of fast food. On my duty officer duties I would have to visit the junior ranks during meal times . All the army chefs had been replaced by not as qualified civy chefs. I came across one actually picking food off the floor where it had dropped and placing it on the… Read more »
Yeah but we’ve got the Rangers now so we’re saved lol 😂
Off topic but I can’t see an appropriate recent article to post this on and this article is likely to attract folks who know a lot more than me about land warfare.
Everyone expects Russia to launch a major late Winter/early Spring offensive. Would Ukraine be best off building up its defences and allowing Russia to take the risks and higher casualties associated with attacking or would they be better off launching their own offensive to try to knock Russia off balance?
How history repeats itself. No idea really.
Reading that reminded me of 1943, and Manstein’s counter offensive. Should Germany attack at once, as Hitler demanded, or wait for Russia to over extend in its own attack before striking. Manstein won the argument and the Russians were clobbered.
After, with Citadel, the Russians did the same, waiting for Germany to attack before launching their own offensive on the north flank of the Kursk saliant.
All over the same ground as today. 🙄
So many of us humans really are a blight on the world.
Daniele wrote: “”After, with Citadel, the Russians did the same, waiting for Germany to attack before launching their own offensive on the north flank of the Kursk saliant. All over the same ground as today.”” I’ve read quite a few Russian books (translated into English) where they claim that actually Kursk was much closer than the Russian Empire promoted as fact. This has been backed up by others which is also supported by the fact that it was Hitler who ended the battle of Kursk, and diverted the reinforcements heading east to Kursk, south to Italy where the Allies had… Read more »
Hi Farouk. Thanks for that battlefield observation re Brimstone. In UKR we trust. Their commander is nearing legendary status, apparently, and playing a blinder so far. Those books are correct. Manstein wanted to continue the attack at the southern end of the salient, where the SS Panzer Korps were at the spearhead. It took the Russian reserve front, 5th Guards Tank Army, to deploy to stop them. ( Often called the worlds biggest tank battle. ) It is all moot for me, as the German front striking south into the Kursk salient was taking a right beating and made very… Read more »
Daniele wrote:
Might like this then
“I’m very well read on the Eastern Front, so I’d better curb my enthusiasm for this topic”
I have always been interested in the Stalingrad battle. Do you think von Paulus should have tried to break the 6th Army out of Stalingrad when Manstein’s relief Operation Winter Storm was launched in Dec 1942? Manstein got within 30km
Yes!!! Without doubt. Many of his Corps commanders were urging him to but he wouldn’t disobey orders at that point. They would have lost most of their heavy equipment, but they were doomed if they remained anyway as an airlift to resupply after the Demnyansk operation was never going to succeed as the tonnage required was too great. Once all hope was lost when they pushed the Germans far back holding out made sense as it tied the Russians down. The irony is the original Case Blue only saw Stalingrad as a side show, merely cutting the Volga from being… Read more »
For the pair of you (David & Daniele) A couple of pictures you may like:
https://i.postimg.cc/TYM4VBpY/059.jpg
(i did post this ealier on but it was sent to purgatory.
and directly opposite the Tiger 2 was this little beast:
https://i.postimg.cc/sx5dPhST/DSC00735.jpg
Is that you mate poking your head out the top?
They came way after Citadel, but what a Tank.
Daniele wrote:
Yup thats my ugly boat race
Daniele wrote:
In that case, here’s a Stug III G which was definitely there , photo taken at the Bundeswehr Museum of German Defence Technology in Koblenz
https://i.postimg.cc/XvGcqc9B/DSC01604.jpg
Nonsense mate.
Indeed they were. The Germans ended up with more Tank Destroyers than Tanks, as they were cheaper and easier to produce, and lets face it, needed with endless thousands of T34s coming at them.
Jagdpanther is my all time fav, so futuristic for its time.
One of the problems with Tank Destroyers and Citadel was the Ferdinand Tank Destroyer, or Elephant, which along with Panther Tanks the Germans waited for, delaying the whole operation and giving the Sovs even more time to prepare. They had no MG and were easy prey for Russian infantry.
Morning DM-0 remarkable tank the KingTiger . For a 19944 tank, it looks like a “modern” tank. Imagine if the German’s built them with a more powerful engine and better suspension!
Morning Chris. Indeed. Good job they never got the Maus sorted!
Geez, imagine that DM! Mind you,I’m sure that would excite many a Typhoon pilot. Nice big juicy target! 😁
More from the side:
https://i.postimg.cc/05FnSN8J/DSC01613.jpg
Was a great vehicle for them, and mass produced too. I recall they were also in some Infantry Divisions before the Germans started using them in their own Tank Destroyer Bns in PZ G and PZ Divisions.
Thanks F, they are indeed good tank pics 🙂
Great pic re the King Tiger Farouk. Gives a great idea of the scale of the thing. Did you take these at Bovington tank meseum?
Nah, it was taken at the army College Shrivenham (They have a huge hanger full of armour)
Awesome pics Farouk, thanks for posting!
That’s a king tiger. They only became operational in late 1944. The standard Tiger MK1 was rushed to Kursk where they proved mechanically unreliable and most of those committed were destroyed by enemy fire, or broke down and were scuttled by their crews to prevent Russians capturing them.
I think most that caught fire were the brand new Panthers. The 1st Tigers had already seen action on the Leningrad front before Kursk happened , and also in Tunisia. The Tigers formed Heavy panzer battalions.
The other thing the Germans did wrong was to minimise the production of spare parts for the established tanks in favour of production of new model tanks.
I think it would have been difficult to break out in the middle of Dec ’42 because at that time 6th Army’s ammunition and particularly fuel was insufficient. A motorised breakout might have been possible a few weeks earlier, but in Dec42 the German troops would have had to walk out west, fighting through the Russian lines to reach Manstein. And leaving behind a substantial force to protect their rear as they did so. However, I have read that some units did manage to break out west, by probing for weak points in the Russian lines and pushing through at… Read more »
I always wanted to visit there, just to visit the Mamayev Kurgan and pay my respects to the defenders of Stalingrad.
Sadly doubt that will happen now, that the Nazis have actually changed sides.
Personally, in spite of the difficulties, had I been von Paulus I would have tried it. Even if they only got 75,000 or 100,000 men out, it would have been worth it
Ever seen the Jude Law film “Enemy at the Gates” ? There’s several films about Stalingrad, but that one is probably the best
Great film, Vasily Zietsev, what a hero. Apparently the Nazi sniper story is bogus, with some claiming it happened. But he was real and started the sniper movement after Stalingrad, including many women.
Worth reading apparently. Blood Red Snow
Not one I’ve seen?
The greatest one in my opinion is “The Forgotten Soldier” by Guy Sajer.
“Devils Guard” is another good one, but that’s when the SS had cleared off to Vietnam!
I’ll give them a try!
This is another first-hand account worth reading.
ARCTIC WARRIORS – A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF CONVOY PQ18
Hi DM. Both excellent reads that ive had for many years (i spent £20 on a 2nd hand copy of Devils Guard which was apparently quite rare due to limited print runs). However both works of at least partial fiction if you believe the balance of opinion.
Yes, quite possibly. There is controversy as to whether Wagamuller even exists. I’ve had my Devils Guard copy since the mid 90s I’d heard it is hard to find now.
“Forgotten Soldier” was an excellent book – tho I wonder if its completely accurate or tbh just fiction. I think the jury is out on that one tbh. Another along a similar line ( tho deals with the northern front around Leningrad) is ‘If this be Glory’ by Hasso G Stachow. Again I’ve tried unsuccesfully to determine if this is fact (as purported) or fiction. Worth a look tho.
Not read that one. I think Guy Sager has written an account that is genuine, but then again Bravo Two Zero is full of holes too and they were indeed dropped off in Iraq, so a bit of embellishment to add to the real events seems pretty standard.
In Forgotten Soldier, my fav character is the Veteran, fascinated by him. I see him in my minds eye as James Coburn as Steiner in the film Cross of Iron.
The Veteran – I was going to mention him……😂. Makes me want to read it again.
I have read ‘Forgotten Soldier’ I think you might be right in thinking its a work of fiction. Several of the places and actions he describes have been questioned by the military historians
On the other hand, Guy Sajer clearly has military experience and he’s also a good writer, so maybe it’s best to just say that he wrote a jolly good book
Die verratene Armee or Durchbruch bei Stalingrad by Heinrich Gerlach, originally written when he was a POW and recalled partly under hypnosis after his release. Years later his original manuscript, held by the USSR, was rediscovered.
Incredibly detailed account of the collapse of German forces and their retreat westwards into Stalingrad.
Eastwards!
I was scratching my head at that…!
Indeed! Great book- Breakthrough at Stalingrad in English translation.
I once read that the Luftwaffe air supply of Stalingrad was doomed, as they lost too many JU52 in the Crete invasion.
It was. Yes they lost JU52 at Crete but that was back in 1941. The greater losses were at the Demyansk pocket in 1941/1942, which, as usual, Hitler refused to evacuate. The 3rd SS Division Totenkopf held it and was successfully supplied by the Luftwaffe, but they lost so many planes and crews, and it was a far shorter distance so more tonnage could be carried. It broke the Luftwaffe transport force. At Stalingrad. The Russians were bombing the airfields being used, and which were being pushed further away by the Russian advance, meaning smaller tonnage and longer flying distances.… Read more »
Transport aircraft were so far down the list on Hitler’s production priorities (Bombers & fighters first), that the Crete losses were not made up, even 2 years later. Take your point about Demyansk though. The Luftwaffe was short of trainer planes too.
Yes, good points.
Regards Crete, I’ve visited Gen Freyburgs grave, it’s at Marthas church near to where I live.
strangely enough Crete was another operation, were those invading didn’t think the local population wouldn’t resist and would welcome them!!
There is a short video clip on YouTube of Goering in WW1 in his aircraft – he took over von Richtofen’s squadron from the Red Baron’s successor.
I think Ukraine should try to lull the Russians into specially prepared kill zones with HIMARS and SPGs zeroed in. Absorb the Ruskie attack then counter. Casualties are going to be WW1 level in Ukraine this spring, expect 100k + killed or wounded across both sides. I think the west has pontificated too long and without the requested heavy armour and combined arms being deployed too Ukraine, more crucially time allowed for the UA to train and prepare the Russian steamroller with hundreds of thousands of troops and knackered old IFVs, tanks and artillery pieces just blasting everything in front… Read more »
I do believe that Russia will launch a new offensive, with the main thrust coming in the east (possibly a pincer movement in which to capture a huge chunk of the Ukrainian military) in which to try and capture those areas Moscow claims as its own. I also suspect that they will launch minor thrusts (Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv) backed by a couple of days of devastating missile attacks especially targeting major lines of communication in which to divert (and slow down) manpower and attention from the major thrust. If everything goes to plan (And I suspect that an airborne drop… Read more »
Interesting views. I sort of studied the “reserve” in Russia, ie machine and manpower. They can throw a hell of a lot of gear into a fight still. If, just if, the Chinese start to resupply Russian deficits? It throws a curve ball into the west’s plans. Quality is fine, but quantity can outdo it eventually. A multifront offensive would be hard for Ukraine to counter. As for the political will of the west? It will fracture. Hungary and Germany are the weak links, a Labour government in Britain, and US elections looming. That’s the trouble with proxy war, populations… Read more »
If China sells them all the guns and if North Korea send them a million man army to fight.
Russia can’t overwhelm anyone it has neither the population or industry. Ukraine has mobilised far more than Russia.
But hasn’t Germany ‘crossed the Rubicon’ by agreeing to supply tanks and for her allies to supply their Leo2s? They are also upping their defence expenditure.
Xi is being inscrutable. I think he wants Putin to fail.
The Han Empire wants Siberian gas, oil and coal. If Putin falls China will do what China wants.
Yes indeed. China might also quickly ‘resolve’ any remaining border disputes with Russia on Putin’s fall from power.
Interesting posts by you and Daniele like yourself I noticed that we are sending yet more Brimstones to the UA and I just can’t get something out of my head. MBDA and Poland are very rapidly developing a whole range of concepts for Tracked and wheeled vehicles to carry boxed Brimstone launchers. Just check out Ottokar-Brzoza Tank Destroyer. Given that Ukrainians seem to all be related to Heath Robinson in terms of mechanical ingenuity I just can’t get one of the concepts out of my head, And it isn’t like Russia hasn’t kindly supplied the base vehicles. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a28928680/tank-destroyer-concept/ Then again… Read more »
Nigel shared a link to that a while ago.
We have not had such a longer ranged capability on an armoured vehicle since Swingfire / Striker was cut, though I recall some Warrior or 432s had Milan F Posts on them.
It was the BMP version that caught my eye and it just screams “don’t try this at home, unless you are Ukrainian” 😂
For UK I really like the lighter 4 x 4 or on a Boxer.
Are reading about US supplying GLSDB to Ukraine ? If true that may be a game changer as a 150km range would allow them to just about precision hit anywhere in the occupied territories (excluding most of Crimea).
No, was not aware of that. It is a fine line between supplying what they need to halt and eject the invaders and what western tech may escalate by then being used to strike into Russia. That I am against.
If it was ATACMS I might just start clearing my cellar out but the US has ruled that out and probably hasn’t got many spare. What I find interesting is when you do a bit of map work, it is a very well thought out extra capability. The stated range is 150Km or 93 miles which could in theory just hit some Russian border areas and the Northern part of Crimea but it’s tight. And a bit of a waste of the capability of the system. I watched the Boeing / SAAB promo recently and if it performs as advertised… Read more »
Agreed. I hope the Russians don’t end up with this sort of thing.
Seen the price of an ATACM and it comes out £1m a pop for a missile that can be shot down,these new ones you get 10 for £1m and can’t be shot down! Work out which one you would rather have👍
As the SDB exist & sit in sheds as does the rockets (they were for now banned cluster warheads), the cost of a ground launched SDB could be as low as $40k.
Don’t be silly Boeing are involved 🤪
Yes, but so are SAAB.
As Corporal Jones would say I like it Sir, I like it very much.
We could do with some of these for our MLRS.
Yep it ticks every box for the UA present situation. Range is enough to hit most of the occupied areas. It ticks frighten the Bejesus out of their rear echelons, logistics and C2. And it is very affordable.
It shouldn’t frighten Biden too much and the Swedes seem to be a wee bit in “Gnarly Viking” mood at the moment.
Don’t know if he has been mentioned but a good watch is Jake Broe on YouTube.
There was also the Milan Compact Turret on a CVR(T) Spartan.
Yes.
Your joking right?
You been watching too many kremlin CGI videos. He does not have any T14 tanks. It was all smoke and mirrors. What is left in Russia after all their best and brightest left is a nation of donkeys pretending to be the equal of industrialised countries. Once there Cold War stock piles are gone they will be reduced to throwing sticks.
They could not counter attack and in circle the girl guides much less the Ukraine army with NATOs ISTAR a capability.
I read last year that there are 20 T-14 Armatas and they were not fielded but were still being evaluated by a Government department.
Wow, did you go to Staff College Farouk?! When did you leave the army and what cap badge were you?
How accurate is a tank shell against an opposing moving tank? I would have thought a missile would be far more accurate. Mount the missiles on fast moving shoot and scoot, with infantry, and you have a modern (sic) tank. Somewhat cheaper as well. As in an exam paper – discuss.
In modern systems with well trained crew a shot is usually an hit.
A sabot round goes up to 1800m/s initial speed so it travels a little less than 1800m in 1 sec with natural speed degradation. Means the enemy tank have no chance to move much, to 3km range flight time would be a bit more than 2 sec . mean also the round trajectory have a very low drop off.
Add nice things of modern FCS like auto tracking etc…
Missiles are much slower.
Missiles are slow in comparison to a tank cannon shell. It’s very possible to spot the missile and take out the launcher leaving the missile to wander off course unguided. There is the option of fire and forget missiles, see point 3… Missiles are vulnerable to active defence systems. Missiles are horrifically expensive compared to cannon rounds. Especially with fancy guidance systems. Tanks can support infantry, destroy defensive positions effectively (and economically). They have more than one role. Tanks have a psychological effect on anyone facing them on the ground that no other system has. The tank and its cannon… Read more »
Only tank armour is going to stand against an opposing tank. If your technical is too lightweight it can be easily taken out by the opposing tank gun or even the coax. A problem if the missile is not a first time kill.
Based on watching TV news channels, it seems that Sunak is still refusing to even hint of any increase in the Defence Budget, as an ex-Chancellor he’s probably far more receptive to Hunt’s arguments against any uplift than Boris or Truss were. But the pressure for at least a small increase in the Spring Budget is surely irresistible, particularly as without an increase of c.£3 bn the UK won’t meet in 2024/25 the NATO 2% of GDP target for defence spending – which will be very embarrassing as for years the UK has been demanding that other European countries meet… Read more »
We should invest in an anti ballistic missile (ABM) system only if there is overwhelming evidence that someone out there wants to launch missile strikes against the UK. It would be horredously expensive (and other defenc eprohjects would have to be shut down) and coverage would have to be restricted – but to what locations/sites? Key military sites/all military sites/London/??
I think there is merit in the UK having at least one battery of ABM/high end SAM. It would give us experience. If we needed more in a hurry, at least we have some trained staff to train others. We would know what we needed in future systems. We would have at least some defence from the threat to fire a single ballistic missile at us.
Where would you put your single ABM Battery?
Portsdown Hill! 😜
I guess you live near there, or just want Portsmouth protecting from Ballistic missiles!
Even the US and the Russians have only got minimal ABM defences.
No, I’m in Surrey. Portsdown Hill has the LBTS, Land Based Test site, which includes a T45 radar installation. The experts on this site, Davey especially, have mentioned it’s possible it could play an ABM role, so thought linking AB Missiles to it meant putting them relatively close by. Furthermore, any one with any knowledge of our UK military infrastructure knows there are more installations in the southern area of Britain, west of London, than elsewhere. A legacy of the war years. Key ones especially. Aldermaston. Burghfeld. Porton Down. The army around SPTA, and the many naval installations around Portsmouth.… Read more »
Interesting – the USA and USSR (as was) put ABMs around their capital cities.
Where its needed at that moment. Could be guarding Trident at Faslane. Or out of the way at Spadeadam. Or an old Bloodhound site on the East Anglian coast.
BS. Tank numbers cut. IFV’s retired with no replacement offering the same capability, reduced to a battlefield taxi service with limited fighting capability.
Nothing but a load of meaningless management jargon.
If that’s the way something that is central is treated then the rest of the army is truly f#*^ed senseless!
Nobody will make a decision.Keep Ajax,scrap Ajax…Send Challengers to Ukraine,don’t send them,Warrior what to do???Buy off the shelf?Upgun Boxer?,Use Boxer for Ajax duties?
Ajax will be kept. CH2 will go to Ukraine, but only to prompt others to act by sending many more modern tanks than we can. Warrior will be used by the RAC until Ajax family is ready. There is nothing else, and CVRT retires this year. I believe we will see up gunned Boxer variants, funding is in place for 1000 plus, details of which have yet to be revealed beyond the 623 on order already. If Ajax is kept and works, using Boxer will not be necessary. You’d hope they will increase the number of Infantry Section vehicles and… Read more »
Daniele, How many Boxers (by type) are you calculating per Inf Bn?
Is the Wikipedia entry correct? Granted it does not include the additional 100 ordered, but was the info correct about the first 523? I don’t now know how many of each type is being ordered. How is it we are getting 1,000 Boxers then?
I’ll have to look back on UKAFC, the breakdown for the 1st 523 was on there. I recall something like a mere 80 infantry section vehicles. Will look when I’m home from work. The 1,000 plus figure has been repeated on several defence sites as a number for which funding is allocated. How many would you put in a Bn? I’d base my number on the old Warrior Bns, unless my recollection is out of date. 1 per section, so 3 per platoon, thus 9 per Company? Plus any in HQ and FS Coys. Assume Ajax will be in Recc… Read more »
Suppose Coy and Bn HQs would have a Boxer too, so another 5 or 6 ?
Please see my other reply.
Hi Daniele, UKAFC? Just 85 Infantry Carrying Vehicles (we wait to see if they get cannons, then we could call them IFVs, otherwise it would be APCs, so ICV is a temporary term for now). How many ICVs per battalion? maybe 4 ICVs per Platoon? – add in 1 for Pl HQ (in my day this was Pl Comd (ie PC), Pl Sgt, runner/rad op, 2-man lt mortar crew (the M6-895 bipod-type 60 mm mortars acquired 2007 was deleted in 2013 to save money! Maybe an attached medic might take up a seat.) May be in an ICV or a… Read more »
So how many is that per Bn? Which will number 5 as things stand.
Around 50.
Difficult to say. So many Boxer variants and we don’t know always which types are allocated to the admin people, and if Pl Comds get ICV or a C2 veh.
Assuming Pl Comds get an ICV rather than an expensive C2 vehicle – and the REME Tiffy at Coy level gets one – that is 13 per rifle coy, so 39 per bn – plus a few for admin guys in HQ Coy – and maybe A-Tk Pl comd and Mor Pl Comd get an ICV.
Got to be at least 45.
UKAFC, UK Armed Forces Commentary. One of the other sites I study. The Italian bloke who writes it, Gabriele, really knows his stuff regards the British Armed Forces, despite not having any UK links…it is like he adopted us as his own.
It is only periodically updated but the Twitter feed is daily so lots of breaking news and info there.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTPXWKkvj4k-7q01mkoeqV6IZ4wLo9-vPRhrV3JoQAOHtdh2mTKw6tAIgu7d5xnRMJV4RxTNsWtevQmJl0Pk5Au0MRSGS7-ktibHGjjUm58QlnXUGR4BFBf-zKDbaI9uY8wTYjhrWs_IZeqG6g8gaonQ3Lc8PWlVF5xM1gL4yz2A5Hn2n5bxN6UjGN/s703/BOXER%20variants%20and%20sub-variants.png
Thanks Daniele – this is better laid out than the info in Wiki. ICV – Not sure if an Inf Pl Comd gets an ICV or a C2 wagon. Better if he has an ICV as C2 wagon is expensive and he would not need a massively complex comms fit. Need to consider some of the 85 are for the Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve – and so there is just enough ICVs for 2 x Mech Bns. MCV – deduct some for Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve – and there is comfortably enough to equip 2 bns… Read more »
The list can be added to…’use Warrior for Ajax duties as the latter is not ready’; ‘increase defence expenditure due to the Russian threat?’ ‘don’t increase defence expenditure because of all the pay rises to settle?’…
While the article paints a rosey picture, it fails to acknowledge the contradiction of the 2021 ambition which favors less close combat and more of a high tech focus that emphasizes cyber warfare and high-end systems over troops and armor.
Of course. Their 5 yearly fancy reviews are based on spin, rosey talk, lots of promises of fancy future tech, and ignore the realities of the battles taking place. Like Armour still has a role and that great kinetic effect is needed to actually kill people sometimes beyond Cyber. It is no different to Cameron and Clegg signing off on the 2010 cuts and saying Jets and Tanks no longer needed over the West German plains, or any of the Labour reviews that came out with the same rosey talk, the same excuses. I still remember Sir Jock Stirrup telling… Read more »
Heard a retired UK general on TV say we ought to be able to deploy a self sufficient armoured division, as we did in Iraq. Do you agree and if so what would need to happen for this to be possible? And how quickly could this be done assuming no major change to new vehicle programs; i.e. Ajax works, Boxer for everything else?
I agree. That should be the bar that the UK, as a non land power, reaches. Will take years, regiments reformed, uplift in manpower. Ironic that, as usual, it is a retired officer on TV rather than a serving one outside Downing Street creating headlines by saying “Enough is enough” to these bloody politicians…. The Division, in my view and based on previous, should have 3 identical manoeuvre Brigades, so 2 are up with the 3rd in depth. 1 UK Div is currently planned to only have 2 Armoured Inf bdes, with the other Brigade being the DSRB. That set… Read more »
Daniele, appreciate the thought and effort you have put into this comprehensive reply. There is a lot to take in. It will be interesting to see the results of the interim defence review. The way I read it your proposal for 3 identical armoured brigades would be the driver of change. First create your re-organised structure p then increase proposed CR3 number by 50%; assume Ajax works; create a Boxer IFV version with a cannon, replace AS90 and recruit more soldiers. It’s all possible if the will is there. Of all the actions I would say that AS90 is the… Read more »
Pleasure, Paul. The frustration is up to 2015 we had it, but threw it away, and some of the vital enabling CS/CSS too. I myself believe they will go for the Korean offer for an AS90 replacement, with lots of UK content as they are offering. The 623 Boxer on order so far will be expanded to 1000 plus, the budget for which has been confirmed, so I hope to see Cannon, 120mm Mortar, and Overwatch variants involved. One look at the original Boxer order showed a lack of infantry section vehicles and too many C2 for some reason, especially… Read more »
Agree the tracked IFV WSP ship has sailed. Its Boxer for ( almost) everything now – UK jobs. CV90 won’t happen. The ability to ship Boxer modules separately from the chassis does mean more possibilities for transport by air. UK built K9 looks like a no-brainer for a tracked spa, if the price is right. Quick hit; equip 1 regiment with the first 24 off the shelf made in Korea?
Yes I that is what I heard, with others built under licence here, try and get some skills back.
Hi Dan Looking at the British Army from afar and gleaning from Wikipedia and I might be out of date but the British Armoured Corps has 8 Regular Regiments and 4 Reserve Regiments – QRH/KRH/RTR/CONVERT RSDG back to Armour then QDG/RDG/RL/LD all train up on AJAX Could this be a good setup? Have 4 Regular Armoured Brigades all paired with: 1 Tank Regiment 1 Heavy Cavalry Regiment And do the same with the Reserve (currently RWXY/QOY/SNIY/RY – convert one of these to Tanks) then: 2 Armoured Brigades both with: 1 Tank Regiment 1 Heavy Cavalry Regiment You would need 8… Read more »
Hi Chris. 9, don’t forget to include the HCR which is still, AFAIK, the first Regiment to become Ajax Armoured Cavalry, albeit not part of the RAC. Lots of musical chairs! Just what the army seems to love with all the cuts hidden within the mayhem. Keeping KRH on Tank and converting the RDG instead, which is a Jackal Light Cavalry unit, means the RDG would ideally need a unit move, as they are at Leuchars and it makes no sense to me basing armour up there. They also provide Light Recc support to one of the other LI bdes… Read more »
Hi Daniele I’d still advocate a 3 Armoured Brigade Division but have the 4th Brigade as a reserve/independent brigade or if the proverbial hit the fan it could pair with my 2 Reserve Army Brigades to make a 2nd Armoured Division. As for Type “44” brigade that’s an attempt to be realistic with the number of Challengers left but squaring them over 6 Brigades (4 regular/2 reserve). Wiki says Britain bought 386 + 20 driver training versions. If others closer to the know say 80 have been scrapped then 306 are still around. Reactivate and convert all to Challenger 3… Read more »
Hi again Chris. Understood, it would be a powerful uplift indeed and such a reversal on the way the army has been heading for years. Lol don’t apologise! HC consists of the recc Regiment at Combemere Bks in Windsor. 4 Squadrons plus an HQ Sqn, 2 each from the Life Guards and Blue’s and Royals. There is also the “HCMR”, the HC Mounted Regiment, at Hyde Park in London, with an HQ Sqn and 1 Sqn each of the LG and B&R. A few notes going forward on the terminology for your knowledge. The Infantry form Battalions on the field,… Read more »
1 x REME/Engineer Regiment? I think you must mean a REME battalion and an Engineer Regiment – they of course do totally different roles. REME repair and recover equipment and Combat Engineers (Royal Engineers) provide mobility and counter mobility support, build infrastructure etc.
Actually on deployment you could have just a CS Coy from a REME battalion in the bde Orbat with reach-back to a GS Coy REME behind the bde rear boundary.
Interesting thing about the number 4. I recall many years ago that the army’s ‘rule of 3’ meaning 3 sections to a platoon, 3 platoons to a company and so on…should be replaced by a ‘rule of 4’. The theory is that in defence you can have two elements forward, one in depth and one as an uncommitted reserve for counter-moves. In the offence, you can have two elements assaulting, one providing a fire support base to fix the enemy and the 4th as your reserve. Great theory but too expensive, so it went into the bin! Except that armoured… Read more »
I’m no military man as we know, But it makes sense to me?
Some regiments and Battalions of the CS CSS arms have 4 sub units, others 3. Seems to vary.
My comments related to manouevre arms – Inf and armour.
CS/CSS not involved in manouevre in the same sense.
Yes, I know, I was just adding the others into the mix as an observation. 👍
I remember Boris Johnson as PM decried the tank just before Russia launched tank armies into Ukraine.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1572041/boris-johnson-russia-ukraine-tank-war-europe-invasion-putin-tobias-ellwood-spt
These politicians and the Treasury are the real enemy!
Exactly.
Cyber is the ultimate way to do cuts on the sly. They never say what they are investing in specifically or give any form of performance reviews etc, to demonstrate that the money on cyber is actually being spent and being spent on stuff that is actually defence related. On the flip side Ukraine has effectively removed Russia from the threat board, from a conventional perspective, and any war that doesn’t involve Russia would be one where we are supporting allies and not doing it for our own defences, meaning they are effectively optional in regards to what kit we… Read more »
That great military analyst, Dominic Cummings, believed that the AFV (not just the tank) was dead and that an army just needed drones and cyber gizmos. Sadly some people actually believed him!
Will it involve more than the pitifully pathetic 148 challenger tanks they are going to upgrade? Or is that just a pipe dream of mine?
Of those 148 tanks, 112 are in field force units. A very slim resource.
Oh dear…. UK defense budget thing is not going well at all.. you have a major European land or in your backyard. You are giving all your equipment away but you really don’t seem the need to budget replacements or maybe actually get better so this does not happen in the future. What the hell is going on!
Maybe substitute ‘Russia’ for UK in your thinking and you may get closer to the mark. And thx for Russia giving Ukraine lots of equipment…..
What hell is going on? Good question. I hope the answer is that England is remembering how she was formed, more than a thousand years ago, in adversity when her militias were led by Aethelstan to victory over the invading Danes; who we successfully assimilated on condition they got baptised and behaved themselves. Maybe we are remembering we are a people and ought to look after ourselves.
But I’m not holding my breath. 😂
Sorry could you try again, this time in vaguely coherent English? I’d also suggest asking for a refund from whoever ‘taught’ you English. 😆
Amusing isn’t it mate, he has claimed to be from the UK but must have forgot as he is using the term “you you you” Hilarious little saddo isn’t he.
If he’s from the U.K. he must have dropped out of education at primary school-level 😆
Yes it’s sad that one of the highlights of his life is making ludicrous statement online and actually thinking that nobody doesn’t recognise him as an idiot with an anti-British fetish.
Esteban, we’re not laughing with you, we’re laughing at you 😆
Nothing for you to worry about nobber! When the shit hits the fan we will still run to your rescue as always😉
“What the hell is going on!”
Russia getting its arse kicked using some of it.
How’s the one-week training course going for the conscripts thieves and rapists at the moment? Shot any more deserters lately?
Esteban wrote:
Which is the responability of those major European countries to defend.
Esteban wrote:
It really would help your cause if you carried out a little reserch before bumping your gums. Here is a wee snippet you may wish to digest:
https://i.postimg.cc/cHT7F9db/Opera-Snapshot-2023-02-02-155904-researchbriefings-files-parliament-uk.png
taken from:
Your trolling is improving, keep it up. 👍
But you’re still way below the level of TH, Harold, and Mike, so more effort needed old chap.
Oh dear, more schoolboy errors, using “you you you”, but didn’t you claim to be from the UK on many occasions on here! Oh dear, your not even a good troll my little US fanboy. Put the handbag down and wipe your nose.
Yes the British Army needs at least 200 heavy tanks, Challenger 3, then Panther or Abrams X, but it also needs at least 100 companion lighter tanks. Something easier to deploy & able to get through narrow forest/jungle/mountain tracks or tight urban streets. Probably no more than 32 tons, so it can be carried by A400M. Say the Italian Centauro II turret mounted on a Boxer or Ascod.
CR3 should be fully fielded by 2030 and may serve until about 2055. I doubt Panther or Abrams X will be on the shortlist as replacements as they will be ‘old hat’. Do you have no faith in British industry to produce a successor to CR3?
I agree that a lighter tank in addition to the heavy MBT would be very useful and aid flexibility.
Of course we could build a new heavy tank from scratch, but the cost, time & effort would be enormous, for a relatively small number of tanks. We could justify licence building an existing foreign design, as long as we do not tinker with it too much. Ascod/Ajax, I am looking at you.
We might have to ask the Chinese nicely for some Type 15’s 😀🙄
According to one retired General on Forces-news Sir Richard Barrons , former commander joint forces command the British army is roughly 10 years away from being fit for purpose and Tier 1 capable with any meaningful force . Currently in reality we are barely Tier 2 capable . It will require 3 billion uplift per year to bring us back to where we need to be. yet here we are giving away money and equipment for that war that’s being deliberately kept going by the political ratbags who are also responsible for the hollowing out of our amazing and still… Read more »
Right so IF it all kicks off who are the first people any of our allies want to see side by side with them? The British warts and all!
There is only one person keeping this stupid war going and that’s that imbecile in Moscow!
Aye your on the money it’s stupid alright ……..
🇬🇧🏴
Leaks and kite flying are now coming thick and fast for the updated Integrated Review. Looks like the British Army is going to be the clear winner with more armour, long range artillery and deep strike missile systems. The goal seems be to upgrade 3 (UK) or 1 (UK) Division to be designated a “heavy” Mechanised or even Armoured formation without American generals rolling about in laughter! The RAF wants two more Wedgetails (i.e. five again) plus approval to buy a Hawk replacement, and the RN is struggling hard to avoid any cuts (LSS, T32, MRSS…) .
I see BAE is telling the defence committee that it is perfectly possible to update RAF Tranche 1 Typhoons & keep them in service past 2030.
So “The Challenger 3 programme will see 148 upgraded to Challenger 3 “
So do the other 100 or so stay in service, but not upgraded – if not this is a cut of about 40% in number. Am I right?
Yes, as things stand that is indeed the plan.
Going down to 2 Armoured Regiments., QRH, and RTR does not require more.
Hopefully they retain a 3rd Regiment and numbers remain around 200.
Fingers crossed this new review does more than just retain another 50 Ch3. Even converting 200 won’t make a lot of difference as there is very little on the horizon to support them. The more I read about the debacle the army has got themselves into the more I despair. Nick Carter should be held accountable, a few others too. They reek havoc with their pet projects then retire on a fat pension with seemingly no remorse or recognition of their failure. Anyway, rant over. At least the state of the army is gaining more attention.
It all depends who’s in charge mate! For an instance way back in 83 I was in the Armoured Engineer Regt we then got aCO who was ex para engineers, it all started to be more on how fast we could do BFT/CFTs than looking after our tanks! It all comes from the top and always will.
It will take 10 years and cost billions more £ to sort the army out.
Rob, what do you mean in saying we could not support 200 CR3s? Do you mean that they would only be supported by Boxer which may lack a cannon?
Sadly it will take about 10 years and many £bns to sort the army out.
Yes that’s exactly what I mean. Perhaps they’ll just force Warrior to carry on until they have finally enough Boxers in IFV form, assuming that’s what the plan is. If the rumours in the news are true, there is no new money for defence so it’ll certainly take those 10 years.
Warrior is due to soldier on in AI Bns, unmodified, until replacement Boxers are fed into units. You are being optimistic in assuming we will get the IFV version of Boxer.
Some Warriors are also being converted to the recce role as an interim until Ajax is deployed.
We bought 386 CR2s, these being fielded from 1998. The 2010 defence review forced a reduction to 227 in-service tanks, therefore 159 were put into storage but out of use. Of these 159 some 80 were scrapped sometime before 2018.
So we now have 227 in-service and 79 out-of-service.
The 100 or so CR2s that are not being upgraded to CR3 standard will be sold or scrapped when CR3 is in service. We never keep equipment once it has been declared Obsolete and once a successor is in place. Why would we? It costs a lot to keep an old class of vehicles in storage. Also, the Treasury are desperate to get the proceeds of any sale. The army has had a cut of 40% or so in its tank fleet before – the Cameron government cut the tank fleet down from 386 to 227 in the 2010 Defence… Read more »
I am one who believes in storage when we have so few. assets – MBT I could agree if a new tank was being built – not though is it?
We are very short on tanks and weapons that could help us defend the UK. Most of our assets are pledged to NATO to defend Europe against Russia. I could live with that but leaves us vulnerable.
Talking of Cameron he sold the entire Harrier fleet to the US and left ships like Lusty being a helicopter carrier. very astute.
It would require a fundamental shift of policy to keep equipment, be they tanks, ships or planes – that had been formally declared Obsolete and replaced by successor equipment. Budget would have to be found to build extra storage facilities for the equipment, special tools, spares, training aids, simulators etc. Budget would have to be found to maintain Design Authority, to maintain the equipment in storage, continue the safety case, exercise the equipment etc etc. Then you would have to train field force regulars or reservists to operate and maintain (in the field) the old kit etc. I often wonder… Read more »
I read your post with interest. it certainly shows the flaws. NATO – Yes we are obliged to defend mainland Europe, problem is, if we are defending them, who is helping us, maybe the uS would be scrapping with China who knows. As for storage if that is not a viable option, then say with tanks, reserves could use them. Really there should be more soldiers regular to be equipped. I agree Hammond and Cameron destroyed UK defence -Like selling the entire Harrison fleet and Lusty was – we what was Lusty? Defending the UK – Type 31 is not… Read more »
I am not sure we want to keep old tanks and other kit and issue them to reservists. They have got their own (modern) equipment. I fully agree that we should have some diesel-electric subs in the hunter-killer sub mix.We had 28 attack subs in the early 80s – and those oceans have not got any smaller. Even if most of our tanks were in eastern Europe on deployed operations, it doesn’t mean the homeland is defenceless – tanks are not very useful for homeland defence except if the enemy lands their tanks on our shores in huge number. Motorised… Read more »
Late but! I agree but what’s the alternative?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1736518/brexit-labour-david-lammy-eu-army-rejoiners-john-healy-defence-security-update
Options for Change determined that we needed to shrink the regular army to 120,000 to fit with the post Cold War world – that cut of around 40,000 was the Peace Dividend. The army should still be at that number (120k), but it has been cut 4 times since then for savings reasons, not because the world got safer or the tasks reduced. Nothing would get us back to 120,000 or anything like that, except to be staring an existential war in the face. We are stuck with fielding one warfighting ‘armoured division’, 16 AA Bde and a few light… Read more »
But the Ukranians have no Tanks as yet to prove their worth in fact they claim to have destroyed hudreds with misiles, Armoured vahicles doesnt neccessarily mean tanks
Ukrainians have a lot of tanks, just that they haven’t got the western ones yet.
Ukraine war: 80 years on, we are facing German tanks again – Putin
And about fcking time too.
And how Putin has twisted it is bloody outrageous.
Twisting the narrative to suit his own warped agenda.
What a surprise!
I found this an interesting listen the other day.
https://radio.bfbs.com/radioplayer/podcast/ac1c6191-5500-5e78-b77a-32c33a5e0a71
I found that article fascinating. Russians have changed little since my discharge in 1991 as an Op Ack. Such easy pickings.
We have to convert all 227.
If the total program cost for 148 is £1.3bn, converting the whole stock must come in at well below £2bn.
Either that or let Ukraine have the lot and get Leopard 2s.
The MoD needs to bring the British Army out of the doldrums…
Just shows how even a relatively small increase in defence funding could help us upgrade all 213 Chally IIs to C3 (213 is minus the 14 we’re sending to Ukraine).
I think Leopard 2s would be a good fit for the army, but I’m uneasy about how it’s gone the past few weeks with Germany. Could they veto our using them in a war they didn’t like, as well as dithering or vetoing our re-export of them in future?
Yes, if we convert all 227; that will enable a 3rd tank brigade.
I thought the CR3 programme was costing £800m?
I see Germany is shipping to Ukraine 88 Leopard 1s in addition to the promised 14 Leopard 2s. Thoughts on the UK buying up Jordanian CR1s to add to our 14 CR2s?
We can usually only help with what we are making or replacing. There are supply chain and training issues limiting missile production and our land equipment procurement is ‘not completely satisfactory’ at the moment.
I think buying up and quickly refurbishing the CR1s is our best option to help right now and they have already been partial upgraded (they now all have the same 120mm smoothbore as the M1)
I think Jordan did not proceed with converting its CR1s to smoothbore due to funding issues. Anyway, KADDB should refurbish the CR1s (if they need it) in Jordan – but we would have to pay for it.
The Jordanian CR1 conundrum has been discussed at length on here, there might be moves going on in the background but nothing of any note seems to have been made public.
Germany has just announced 88 refurbished Leopard 1s are going to be donated to Ukraine. From stores.
The ones they have kept will have all been upgraded to 120mm. This means the same gun as early Leo 2 or the M1, but more limited ammo storage and lighter armour. They are also in the same weight class as the Ukraine’s current tanks. if the Ukrainians can fit the cheap and cheerful APS system they use to them it will be a very good tank for them.
Funny you should mention the Leo 1, at the Bundeswehr Museum of German Défense Technology in Koblenz they have cut a Leo 1 in half which not only reveals how little space there is inside, but also the thickness of the armour:
https://i.postimg.cc/c1zcQBYT/DSC01638.jpg
1 side:
https://i.postimg.cc/2ynFkP66/DSC01639.jpg
T’other
https://i.postimg.cc/766WLY8L/DSC01640.jpg
Thank you; Good link.
That armour is even thinner than I thought it would be and I can see why they only upgraded a few then switched to all Leo2s as quick as they could. I believe the 120mm smoothbore is all one piece? I would not want to be the loader in that.
But it remains the weight of tank their support/recovery vehicles are all designed for and available in numbers. It is also fast and can maneuver with their T72s.
I hope they are all sent.
Apart from some test Vehicles being fitted with the 120mm gun, the Leopard 1 still has the L7 105 mm gun,and frantic efforts are being made to source enough ammunition for them to supply to Ukraine.Where did you hear that these Tanks would be upgraded to 120mm ?.
I thought they already had been!
My recollection was that they had started the conversions but they were going slowly as they cost more than expected. Then as the Leo 2 was successful they just switched to that instead. I was surprised they had any Leo 1s still in reserve and assumed they had to be the ones upgraded. You know what they say about making assumptions!
This means we will find out about the 105 v later T72s after all.
Mea Culpa
The only 120mm conversions were done for test purposes – with the Leopard 2 coming onto the market there ceased to be much need for it.Not saying it couldn’t be done but timescales and funding mean the 88 sent will be 105mm.
Given the present disgusting state of affairs of the Army as whole fighting force and the necessary support units,spares, reserves moral in fact the whole dam lot. I think most on here would agree this is a disgrace and a real insult mostly the the troops themselves (both serving and retired) I think we are still very much a lone wolf in the wilderness with only one or two MPs of the same view. I really think it is up to us to put ALL MP’S on the spot and say to them that you will not vote for them… Read more »
Join france and Germany to build euro tank ,all 3 countries have the expertise ,whan can be done together but in Britain you have braindead idiots who have no clue as to what their doing ,just look at the run down by labour and tories of our armed forces, bottom line is WE ARE IN TROUBLE BIG TIME, so watch this space folks as Britain falls to the wayside
‘Stay calm and carry on’ as they say. Despite the naysayers the British Army is not obsolete. It can still deploy a number of – still powerful – armoured battlegroups. CH2 is still one of the best mbt’s around and is light years ahead of most orcish equipment. Sure it could ( and will) be better – and hopefully more than 148 will be upgraded. Same goes for much of the other gear – not top notch but well up to fighting orcs.
The UK holds observer status on the MGCS project – time will tell what that produces.
Ukraine war: US to provide long-range missiles in latest aid packagePublished 6 hours ago Something for the Russians to chew on over breakfast. “The package includes ground-launched small-diameter bombs (GLSDB) which can hit targets 150km (93 miles) away. But officials refused to be drawn on speculation that the munitions could be used to attack parts of annexed Crimea. “When it comes to Ukrainian plans on operations, clearly that is their decision,” Pentagon spokesperson Brig Gen Pat Ryder told reporters. “This gives them a longer-range capability, long-range fires capability, that will enable them, again, to conduct operations in defence of their… Read more »
Russian tactics – what tactics?
This is well worth a gander imho.
https://wavellroom.com/2023/02/01/anatomy-of-a-russian-army-village-assault/
Interesting, kind of shows why things have gone so wrong. As you said “what tactics”!!
Maybe also a good opportunity to move on from the 5.56 calibre weapons. The US are replacing the M4/M249 with the new 6.8 calibre XM15/XM250 weapons. Perhaps the British Army might want to jump on that wagon. All the 5.56 stuff could go to Ukraine.
We should wait and see if 6.8mm is adopted by NATO as a standard.
No mention of the railway link to Leuchars,
now home to the Dragoon guards, who are now armoured cars but could revert to tanks.
The CO when they first took over did not know that there is a branch line, which only needs 100 m of track to recross the main road.
71 Regt RE are co-located and could easily host an STRE.
A bit far from the majority of your correspondents knowledge base, but there is a ferry terminal at Rosyth which could be recommissioned I’m sure.
Nearest point to the new Nascent Scandinavia theatres.
The view on the track outside the base shows it has been cleared a bit in the last couple of years
Sky News is reporting today that publication of the IR update has been delayed until probably April because senior government officials consider that the draft doesn’t adequately reflect recent international events, and the Treasury and Hunt are also insisting that there is no increase in UK defence spending. Sounds like bad news is coming for the RN unless 1SL Admiral Key is a very persuasive and effective in-fighter in the corridors and committee rooms of power.
Sounds like even worse news for the Army.
Surely they should have started work on the IR upgate in late Feb 2022?