Tanks retain ‘central role’ in British Army vision of future

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 reservist Tp then bin that after only 2 years.

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 thinks the MoD still owns the railhead, which is mystifying.

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? Your field not mine! Perhaps to Dover and on to the EuroShuttle or to Marchwood if they have a railhead.
If the latter, maybe best for the HETs just to drive down to Marchwood instead.

Perhaps we need even more armour to be stashed in Germany if this is all too difficult.

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 the stir he’d caused upstairs at Control. I sent him on his way off railway property.

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 Barracks in Woodbridge.

Were you garrisoned there Jacko?

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 24x being also available as the Corps Commanders reserve. A very successful re-structuring arising from a defence cut (it cost a lot to station tps in Germany, so this was the first step in reducing troop numbers there whilst maintaining the same number of tanks facing 3rd Shock Army). BTW, Saxon was great at transporting an Inf Section under armour long distances on the road, with radio comms and a pintle MG – ‘to the war’; its detractors ignore that.

As a Captain I was BEME 24 Inf Bde in Catterick in 1985-86!

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 a Russian Latvian was jailed for spying on NATO troop movements!

It was interesting times from 2013 – 2020!

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, but there may have been some in vehicle depots in Moenchengladbach and Paderborn.

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.

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 still be standing, Russia would have been defeated, Germany possibly in a shorter time. No Atomic bomb created?

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 take years to repair if at all and dictated that it will now be totally reliant on the supply of Chinese technology or Black market alternatives to feed its economy military or otherwise.

It could have become part of the West generally and become a powerful part of it indeed, in the coming decades or become a Chinese ‘colony’ it took a deluded desperate act to avoid those futures by a man needing instant results for his overblown legacy, looking to at least improve its increasingly junior partner status with China, but instead will now get the worst of both Worlds whatever the final resolution in Ukraine. The fact that it’s so called Caucasus allies in, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (having already lost Azerbaijan) and even Armenia, are looking outwards to the EU, Turkey and even the US for increased cooperation says something about how the distrust of Russia is hitting home.

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 openly challenge Russia’s hegemony? Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are all moving away from Russia. They have small areas that want independence; only Russian influence has stopped these wannabe republics from the type of open war we saw after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The three remaining “Stans” are forever moving towards an Iran that’s no doubt emboldened by Russia’s desperate crawling for weapons. 

None of this will be missed by China, who, unlike any of us, thinks in decades and centuries. Why pay billions of dollars for energy and minerals with the wealth they earned from supplying the world with its consumables, when you can just walk into an area that already contains 2 million Chinese? After all, Russia constantly uses the “ethnic Russians” reason for invading its neighbours. Sauce for the Goose…………..

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 largest Country in the World for a reason, it took land from its neighbours to steal their valuable assets even if like most Empires it started out as a defence mechanism and told these new ‘assets’ (if they weren’t ethnically cleansed altogether like the Circassian’s and Tartars) they were now ‘Russian’ so no surprise they are still at it. Indeed it has been argued one of the major reasons that Ukrainians, children especially are being kidnapped on mass and taken to Russia is because it’s been internally noted due to poor birth rates that under 50% of Russians now show strong Slavic physical characteristics. That has deep and distressing historical Wagner-esque overtures one might have hoped were long condemned to history.

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 died in 924, and his son Æthelstan, took the throne, as mentioned before. Æthelstan was a great military leader but a wise man too. He knew his brother and a group down in Winchester objected to the King’s wars. Æthelstan decided to make a pact with Sihric that he wouldn’t attack his kingdom or support others who might if he agreed on the same. Sihric agreed and married the sister of Æthelstan to seal the deal. When Sihtric died, the kingdom of Northumbria became Æthelstan’s to rule, making one Kingdom. In the year 927. Æthelstan’s kingdom established the borders of England. They have remained pretty much the same since. The final recognition that Æthelstan was King of England was when in a gathering at Northumbria, the Kings of Bamburgh, Strathclyde, Deheubarth, and Alba accepted Æthelstan as King of England. 

England could have been larger, and had it been done properly, it wouldn’t have had a thorn in its side for the past 1200 years. In 937, Æthelstan defeated the King of Alba and Dublin, making it as far north as a castle just south of modern-day Aberdeen. Had he drawn the English border there, Scotland most likely wouldn’t have continued to exist. 

His victory is celebrated in a dramatic Old English poem that was copied into the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Still, any British school kid would probably know that from their history class at school, right?

(cheers, BA. History)

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 know forcing others to willingly grow reliance on them economically is the way to World domination (as they see it) at that point their growing military (in uniform or under cover of civilian power) can enforce the issue. When that comes as Russia has ironically now ensured is their future, then they really will be faced with only self sacrifice through the nuclear option to total submission. Putin certainly has left a legacy but far from the delusionally obtainable one he hoped for. It reminds me of Hitler declaring war on the US thinking they would be occupied in the Pacific so that he could as he saw it strangle the UKs war efforts and supplies, leaving him to concentrate on the East. Some logic on paper, but madness in reality and a massive miscalculation that only ensured the final outcome. Then like now a massive gamble that had a chink of light but in reality just brought on the protagonists’ worst nightmare.

No one is trying to invade Russia Johnsky.

We would like to simply trade for their resources, but they make that oh so difficult.

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 fights with Allies.
Was our aim in participating in WW1 or WW2 ‘limited’?

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 1916 the British Army, strengthened with Canadians, Australians, Indians and others was inferior in numbers to the French by some distance; in the Second World War the famous 8th Army comprised more many nationalities, languages and all major and some minor religious faiths. An American observer struggled to comprehend how such a combination could be welded into a effective fighting force. As I pointed out, having a large Continental army means less at the level of naval warfare; no one has found a way to place a million men on the ocean in any way that wasn’t just taking a cruise. The U.S.A. doesn’t need Allies and, as numerous episodes since Korea in the 50s to Afghanistan in this current century provide examples, behaves accordingly. Most people it seems – right or left – get their ideas about British Imperial power from Hollywood or Channel Four.

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 USA can fight sizable wars without allies – there was no example in WW2. The USA had fighting allies in the Korean War, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan – you seem to say otherwise? Why?
The only times the USA has fought without Allies have been minor sideshows – eg. Panama, Grenada – and the latter was a fiasco, by the way.

You don’t mention my examples of our having a large navy (perhaps up to the mid-80s) whilst also having a large army in Germany.

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. To use a conventional analogy: Tier 1 is your Armoured Brigade, Tier 2 your Light Mech Infantry. Tier 2 is cheaper, and more numerous, and we really dont want to deploy a battlegroup on Challenger and Warrior for every tasking, but sometimes really only an MBT will do.
I think the issue with SFAB is that nobody really understands what SpecInf started as, and what it ended as, and the difference between them. So they see SFAB being created to take up the OG SpecInf role, not realising how much that formation had changed in 3-4 short years (and even more so now that they’re Rangers obvs).

“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 area, while the other “Tier 1” units have a much more balanced focus.

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 those organisations unless it is very high value.
There were a fair few stand alone-enduring operations that were the sole responsibility of the SFSG, and I see no reason why that won’t continue. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get there too, and this is reflected in the losses SFSG sustained…and also the small matter of a VC.
SFSG, as much as it is convenient to be branded a UK version of 75th Ranger Regt, is a magnitude smaller than the 75th, and unless it grew, by a existentially, cannot offer the same capabilities. This is clearly not down to ability of the personal, more that the assets available on all levels are limited, as they have to ‘fight’ to have them, which would usually be at the expense of the tier1 units. I would happily go out on a limb and say that SFSG are an indispensable asset to the SF Group and are now firmly embedded in the group now, after 17+ years of of development. (This should give an indication of how long it takes to become an established/trusted entity within Special Operations when we look at the new UK Ranger Regt and its embryonic position in the army. A new cap badge is the easy bit) one also looks to the Fleet Contingent/Squadron and their role in UK maritime interdiction that they have taken on to support/compliment the SBS. FCF is another example of a change of role, albeit they are rekindling a traditional ‘special operations’ role that is arguably already in their DNA.

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 artillery? No. It’s just that it has a different role compared to that of the Mechanised and Armoured Infantry Brigades. Not a lesser one, but a different one (again like a Mechanised Infantry brigade has a different role to the Armoured one.)
It is set up like a more conventional formation: Fullstrength Coys with Platoons, and fire support elements, which is very different from both Tier 1 SF and Tier 2 SOF forces. Commenting that this gives them a different mission set and makes them a distinct kind of formation from the rest of UKSF does not impune them.

As for the UK Ranger Regiment, very little about them is in the public domain so comments about “change in capbadge being the easy part” are pretty much just hot hair.

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 that the Tier1 units have much closer links in what they’re mission set is.

With reference to the UK Ranger Regt I most certainly would not being making ‘hot air’ comments about a new regiment for the want of a reaction or as a throw away comment, it would not be without context & some substance. Surely that would be akin to making a statement like:-
“Full strength Coy’s” that’s an assumption based on what exactly??
What I was trying to articulate (clearly not very well) is, that creating a new regiment, with a new cap badge and saying it is now a SOF unit, as of this or that date, is the easier part. Maybe not administratively, as it takes an age to do most things normally, but, the part that is more difficult and hard earned is the integrity of the unit within the SOF community, forged over time and ultimately on operations.
It’s taken a long time for SFSG to be accepted into that particular arena, and as much as the new Ranger Regt are aiming to be the equivalent of the US Special Forces (Green Berets) it will be a long while before they get to that level. They are most certainly not there yet.
I am sure over time, as has been proved many times in the UK armed forces they will be a fantastic asset, and even now they are no doubt proving the concept that they were created for.

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 air.” It’s not meant as a nasty put down to you, but simply anyone basing their opinion on the Rangers on Open Source information, or even internal army gossip, can only post assumptions and their own biases.

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 give the full picture.
I feel that Certitude is a much stronger position to base one’s opinions on; or was this forum created purely for perception, and a debate built predominantly on uninformed schools of thought? I do hope not.
So to that end, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree mate👍

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👍

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.

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 possibility to go on the offensive if necessary. The chances of them needing to take on the CCP or becoming involved defending former overseas territories is almost zero.

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 uncompetitive as a nation.

Unless you envision the UK becoming the home of future sweatshops. Given your sneering at any form of education I have a feeling you might want just that.

“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 military recruiting and training as part of the National Curriculum. Military personnel and cadet forces a legal requirement in EVERY educational establishment in the land.

Some serious involvement in national logistical networks too. Sea, road, rail and air. When I was very young, there used to be Army REME LAD and recovery posts. Spaced along all major trunk roads. There also used to be a dedicated military train unit too. Royal Engineers I think. Don’t quote me on that until I have confirmed.

Overt military involvement in national communications systems would be a no brainer. Installing and maintaining optical fibre networks, microwave coms and policing them.

You get the picture. The cost of a huge military presence would be offset in so many different ways. Kids would see them everywhere and aspire to do the same.

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 Countries of any means of defence because of its own sense of racial and cultural superiority. It certainly has more right than Russia to do so.

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 a steady supply of orders, servicing and spares. But it would be tight and a precarious situation for such a critical industry.

However, 1000 plus would definitely do it! Quantity brings down the unit price and wins export orders too. Go ask the Germans, they learned the lessons from WWII.
Leopard 1 = 6,565 hulls constructed. Of which 4,744 were main battle tanks. 1,741 utility and anti-aircraft vehicles. Plus 80 prototypes and pre-series vehicles.
Quoting the success of Leopard 2 makes me depressed. 3,600+ hulls completed and the production lines are still churning them out. With at least two new MBT designs ready on the shelf, for production if needed!

GB permitted them to steal our commonwealth orders too. After the success of Centurion (4,423 MBTs +) we dropped the ball and never picked it up again. Terrible lack of planning by HM Gov. Negligent to the point of treason in my opinion. Things could have been so different. It’s not too late to turn things around. BAE Systems is our last remaining ace, if we choose to play it. (GDUK is the joker.)

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 chance of the US or Germans permitting us to set up a rival manufacturing plant.

However, the South Koreans would I imagine love to get their hands on the most advanced armour being worked on in GB, along with all those nice wizzbangs planed for Chally 3. Their Black Panther also has a very nice, reliable 1,500 horsepower engine/powerpack. Poland got there first and that could be a problem.

There is one other major tank producing nation that nobody seems to throw in the mix, Israel. They would very much like to get their hands on all the above mentioned tech. Merkava 4 opens the possibility of a front engine design combined with a an extremely powerful and well designed engine. A collaboration with them would be very interesting indeed. Providing the possibility of collaborating on a very heavily armoured IFV based on the same hull. Along the lines of Namer. 3 crew, 9 infantry PLUS one stretcher casualty, or stores.

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 Javelin, Spike or the like of the new MBDA missile displayed on the CV90.

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 is terrain. On vast steppe, with huge areas in which to manoeuvre the most mobile MBTs generally have the advantage. Keeping out of range of the enemy and outflanking them to destroy the weaker but vital supply train. Whereas in closed terrain, areas between impassable mountains, wetlands, minefields or other planed tactical obstacles. Protection and firepower tend to give the advantage. Even that is an over simplification of the situation because a skilled commander can often turn a perceived weakness of his tank force into an advantage over the enemy. Using all arms integrated support and cunning.
Literally libraries of books have been written on the subject. Many are classified. I would recommend studying the achievements of the Israeli tank forces against the Egyptian forces in Sinai.

Now to your question. The usefulness of another type of platform to supplement British tank numbers and what form it would take. Bearing in mind it is an exercise in staving off the inevitable due to battlefield attrition.

In my humble opinion any such asset must have a good long reach, to both locate and destroy enemy tanks before giving away it’s location. Perhaps an armoured vehicle that can deploy numerous hard to detect sensors for warning of the enemy approach. With many many hunter killer drones for top attack of MBTs and IFV/APCs. An airburst function for dismounted infantry would be good too.
Although the current antitank missiles mounted on vehicles are very effective, they are bulky and generally only a small number are carried. In addition, launching can give away their location and invite trouble.

There is no golden bullet answer because eventually attrition of any small tank force with no reserves is it’s demise. I was very impressed with the firepower of the Russian Terminator vehicle (T72 hull with a turret containing two 30mm rapid fire cannon, large calibre mortars, heavy machine guns and 4 antitank guided missiles.) Something similar would certainly give valued support, to a Challenger squadron but could never replace a MBT . It would also use up a tank hull that could be better utilised in it’s original role.

I’m a fan of the CV90 system of vehicles but they have limited protection and firepower when compared to a tank. There are two double barrelled rapid fire mortar equipped examples. Very impressive indeed.

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.

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 protection was not even at CR1 levels. It is said that most of the army favoured Leo2, but politicians forced CR2 through.

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 where does the remaining £328 billion a year come from? (that’s 15% GDP spend minus the foreign aid and current defence budget). You could scrap the NHS, police and education budgets and those combined savings still wouldn’t get you there. It’s old hat, people thinking that if only we scrapped the aid budget we could have a giant military, but it’s complete bunk.

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.

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, we’ll see. But Ukraine pays any blood price regardless.
Messy times ahead, no doubt.

That Putin is incapable of backing down has been a reported trait since childhood, as previously noted. If he csnnot save face, only way to stop him likely resides within Russia itself, especially if he’s seriously sick! but who knows if that is true. None of which can stop us continuing to oppose the f..ellow, of course.

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?

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 and the current budget. Future Soldier seems to make a reasonable attempt to deliver something of both capabilities. But the equipment to do it is years away from FOC.
And the pressures on public spending on other things is only growing.

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 all as oppressed and oppressor. Then smashing it. Those who are awake to these power dynamics are the “woke”. A core tenet of woke is the oppressed are not aware of their oppression because it has been internalised. Hence morality, faithfulness to you spouse, responsibility to you family etc. anything that restricts your will or blunts your feelings are examples of internalised oppression.
But, you cannot foster societal revolution with a strong community spirit, institutions that act justly but are tempered with mercy, where common values, beliefs and hopes (England / New Jerusalem) etc. unite the people and provide a long term moral average.
The aim of woke politics is to systematically attack every single one of these to leave people disheartened, isolated and angry. This lack of “common sense” as you put it is a deliberate philosophy of disillusionment.

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 the two big parties: The Tories as a very corrupt version of what Franco was doing with the Falangists and Labour as a wimpy Stalinist grouping; There is no one pushing a clear Liberal agenda in Britain which I think is the only way forward.

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! 👜

You are more likely to hear Redwood & Co calling for spending cuts and tax cuts

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 ? I was one of the folks who stood getting wet, sunburnt, wearing a Hi Viz vest being abused by the occasional loony tune at our local Big Bang vaccination centre (nicknamed locally as the Golden Turd). And I know who also helped, you don’t.
Local elections aren’t national ones but my local bods are out there all year round, picking litter, getting things done, walking the streets and just listening to folks.
Please don’t Tar everyone with the same brush, it’s like saying all Labour Party members support Jeremy Corbyn.
The word for someone who does that is bigot.

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 to 3 years now investigating and reporting for take-down those on social media that denied the existence of Corvid, claimed it was 5G, claimed the vaccine contains HIV, etc, etc, etc.
Personally my worst experience of the pandemic is the realisation that up to 10% of the population are completely deranged and uncoupled from reality…

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 Tories EVER agree to that change which scuppers them?

I’m not even sure if that is desirable as I’m not very knowledgeable on the pros and cons of PR vs FPTP, and that is all politics, so lets stick to military.👍

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.

!! 😄

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.

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 token presence in the next government, the Conservatives Sec of State and Labour’s Shadow Sec of State will be calling the shots and both are pretty sound.

The endless bigging-up of the busted flush called Momentum is simply a Tory election ploy designed to frighten the faithful. Alas, nobody really takes Momentum seriously any longer.

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 members choose leaders because the membership tends to be hard-right and will choose a nutter.

🤷🏻‍♂️

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.

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 to do without one.

The only bridge layer in the army is the Titan, based on CR2 and to enable tanks and those with them (eg Armd Inf) to cross large gaps – not for recce to use as they should already be well ahead. Titan can carry a single 26-metre-long bridge or two 12-metre-long bridges. I

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 stupid wish born of my lack of experience, but that’s what I think.

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.

LOL. I read this after I wrote my previous message above. Maybe it isn’t such a stupid idea after all.

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 BOH, which was faster and more economical.

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]. In BOH a vehicle was removed of its CES which was catalogued, inspected, boxed and stored. The veh was completely stripped down and all items which had a refurb programme went through that programme, even if little used/in good shape. The hull was inspected for faults especially weld cracks, rewelding done as required with the hull being tipped on a manipulator to allow down-hand welding. Inspected. Shotblasted. Spray painted all over with x coats of paint and then fully rebuilt with the refurbished (or new) assemblies, sub asemblies, components. Mods/upgrades done as necessary. Final testing, run on a test track, CES refitted. It could easily take a year and I dread to think what it cost.

BIR – not everything was removed. Cracks were checked and rewelded if necessary. Only items that were below spec were changed/refurbished. Mods/upgrades done as necessary. Patch painting at the end.

ABRO merged with DARA, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency to become the Defence Support Group from 1 April 2008. DSG was then contracted out to Babcocks.

I have no knowledge as to whether all AFVs got a BIR from 2003-ish or if they were abandoned to make savings. No idea if Babcocks did BIR or their own procedure but rumour control is that they binned a lot of useful workshop equipment and were likely to cut corners as they have to turn a profit for shareholders. I no longer have contacts in REME and can find no articles anywhere on the subject. Sorry!

I read an article about the CR3 conversion and was horrified that they said all CR2s would get a full BOH (not BIR) before they hit the CR3 conversion line. If true that is a step back over 20 years and is wasting time and money. Need to do a BIR (but not checking items that will be junked) then convert the vehicle and include a spray paint – and test. Should not take 9 years to do 148 vehs or cost £5.4m a pop.

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 is not focussed on R&D for military kit so its an issue.

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.

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.

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!

Daniele wrote:

“”I’m very well read on the Eastern Front, so I’d better curb my enthusiasm for this topic.””

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 a supply route was sufficient while the main thrusts went South and South East to Maikop, Grozney, Baku. Hitler’s obsession with the name Stalingrad ate an entire army, and part of another.

It is also interesting to speculate if the Waffen SS might have made a difference at Stalingrad and taken it sooner.

Stalingrad would also have fallen in late August if Hitler had not meddled with the plans and split AG South in two, which left the 6th Army as the northern pincer too weak to take it quickly and caused such a traffic jam further south that the thrust to the oilfields from Rostov was also hindered.

He who holds everything holds nothing, Hitler’s judgement, while sound earlier in the war, had become blurred by drugs and his obsession with no retreat and hold.

There I go again, totally off tangent to your question, sorry.
What’s your view David?

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:

“”Is that you mate poking your head out the top?””

Yup thats my ugly boat race
Daniele wrote:

“”They came way after Citadel, but what a Tank.””

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 night

Corporal Hitler, who loved maps and who was fond of sacking experienced commanders, did see that 6th Army was holding down substantial Russian forces. But he sacrificed about 200,000 battle hardened troops by refusing to pull them out sooner. Hitler was notorious for micro-managing battles and that’s why they lost the war.

Fighting in a built up area is always a nightmare, especially if it’s been reduced to rubble. I hope the UkR high command have read up on Staingrad

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. The main airfield at Stalingrad, Gumrak, was unsuitable, and the pocket a collecting place for every AA gun they could find.

Hitler agreed to it as Goering insisted it could be done, desperate to save face and try and get some brownie points with Hitler after the Luftwaffes failure at Dunkirk and in The Battle of Britain. He was also a drug fuelled art stealer by that time but Hitler listened.

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.

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.

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 it is Bloody Scarey. But only if you are a Russian who feels safe anywhere in the occupied areas of Ukraine.
Unlike most missiles or shells it isn’t just a fire in the direction of the enemy in a straight ballistic arc, with maybe a bit of precision steer at the the target.

But find a command post 80 miles away on the rear face of a mountain and it is fired to go past the side of the mountain and then use its wings to steer round and hit it from the rear with a CEP of 1.5m.

If it is true it could be a real game changer.

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.

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. My knowledge on ABM is minor, but I’m assuming, with our nation so small, such an installation in that area could cover much of the region.

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.

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 C2 variant. Not usual for a Pl HQ to get a specialist C2 veh as they are pricey and PC’s radio fit need not be complex, but Boxer may be different.

Assume 2 x C2 variants for Coy HQ (one for OC, one for 2IC – wirth assorted staff incl signallers, CSM). Then CQMS needs a vehicle – for delivery forward of CSups, other stores. Not sure what vehicles. MT Sgt could ride with CQMS and his gophers.

Coy Ftr Sect REME – has a ES Repair variant (where is the recovery variant??). Tiffy would probably have a Boxer ICV to replace his 432 – I doubt he would get a C2 variant.

Fire Sp Coy – Mor Pl has their own Boxer variant. Mor Pl comd may have a ICV or C2 variant. Anti-tanks would get the FS variant(?) but Pl comd may get ICV or a C2 variant. Recce Pl either in Ajax (that awkward wheel/track mix in the bn!) or Boxer recce variant (ie Boxer Recce/FSV).

Bn HQ – min of 2 x C2 variants (one for CO, one for Bn 2IC). Plenty of other folk in Bn HQ (ie Adjt, Ast Adjt, Trg Offr, RSM, PTI – can’t remember all the numbers) who need a ride.

HQ Coy – very complex assemblage of persons including QMs Dept, Tech QMs Dept, LAD Main, Regt Police, clerks, chefs, assault pioneers (or are they in FS Coy?), MO and bn medics to set up RAP, MTO and staff, Padre. No idea what rides they will all have!

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/

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 (8 vehs per bn) or at a pinch then 3 bns (with only 4 vehs left for the non-Field Force allocation).

Amb – 61 sounds generous as 1 per rifle company is the usual allocation – plus a number with RAMC.

No ES Recovery variant? What’s happening? Are they saying that ES Rep can do recovery as well? It is possible – just needs suitable role equipment for that – main winch, possibly an aux winch too, and possibly an earth anchor – plus specialist CES.

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 priority…checks both the urgent and important check boxes. Archer on a MAN chassis?

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 when you add the C2 variants of the Ajax order too.

It needs balancing and more Infantry versions with cannon so more battalions can be mounted on them.

Something like this

Up close with the new Boxer vehicle variant armed with Brimstone missiles (forces.net)

I’d have preferred they stuck with Warrior CSP, and put Boxer in their own all wheeled brigades, but I think that has gone now, I cannot see them funding a CV90 IFV just for the armoured brigades as well.

Yes, I will be looking at the IR very closely and will be able to say quite quickly if it is a fudge, spin, or a real reorg ORBAT wise based on what is cut and what is expanded.

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 Regular + 4 Reserve Mechanised Infantry (preferably 12 + 6) Regiments + Artillery and ancillary services.

From reading the British Army had 386 Challenger 2 but reduced to 227 but some are in storage but condition unknown.

Dropping to a Type “44” Regiment you would need 264 tanks + spares/training so at least 300. This might be doable?

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 so that would need addressing, unless the Light Cav Reg that supports the DSRB was moved.

You’d need an uplift in Mech Infantry, as you outline. Not insurmountable and we have too few planned on Boxer for my liking with a 1,000 plus order.

I don’t ever recall post WW2 a British Division with 4 Armoured Brigades? Maybe someone else knows, pre 80s/90s is not my thing. It was usually 3, so either a very big Division or your putting the 4th Armoured into another formation?

They would have to convert DSRB back to Armoured, a ridiculous u turn after such a short period of time, or create an entire Bde from scratch, as well as convert one of 7 LM or 4 LI to armoured to get the 4 you suggest, which then means more LI Bdes need creating as the Army does need Light units and Brigades for many roles.

All doable but the biggest issue for me is finding the CS/CSS for them, that old drum I keep banging, plus the light brigades. If a Brigade is to be deployable they each need those enablers. They are short even with the current FS set up, with 4LI and the DSRB missing enablers or relying on the reserves.

The Type 44 Regiment? Not sure when that was last used, I recall the 90s and early 2000s we had T58?

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 versions so doubling the armoured budget.

There would then be 6 x Type “44” Regiments = 264 + 42 spare/training + 20 driver training.

As to the HCR many apologies Wiki didn’t list it at the top so I thought may have been ceremonial only. No problem just add it to the Orbat as a heavy Ajax Regiment and keep RDG in Scotland as a light and covert one of the other’s to Armour.

My ideal Armoured brigade would then have:
Brigade HQ
1 x Armoured Regiment (44 Challenger 3) (14 per Company + 2 at HQ)
1 x Heavy Recon (44 Ajax) as above
2 x Mechanised Infantry Regiments (70 + 70 IFV – CV90)
1 Artillery Regiment – 3 x 8 gun Batteries (K9A3) + 1 x MLRS Battery
1 x REME/Engineer Regiment
1 x Logistics Regiment
1x Medical Company
1 x Anti Air Company
1 x Apache Regiment (8 AH64E)

Chris

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, not Regiments, but then those Battalions are actually formed into Regiments in the British Army’s traditional regimental system! Which probably confuses plenty.

The REME form Battalions, not Regiments, beneath being Companies. There are also Workshops and LADs Light Aid Dets embedded in the formations of other Corps.

The Royal Engineers form Regiments, consisting of Squadrons.

The RAMC has had regiment sized formations at Bde level, not Companies, and those regs consist of Squadrons.

The Anti Air are Batteries, as part of the RA.

The Apache Regiments consist of 2 Squadrons, each of 8 Apache. The 2 regiments are part of 1 Aviation Bde. One of those regiments, 3 AAC, supports 3 (UK) Division, so maybe a squadron at Brigade level but not the whole regiment.

The MLRS Batteries were allocated with AS90 Regs at Bde level before but have been centralised under the DSRB, and I do not know how that will operate and whether batteries will be earmarked to support brigades or whether they will act independently.

The 2 Armoured Brigades we have remaining are not really a million miles away from your ideal that you listed, just without the kit!

There are a couple of posters on here who I suspect know a great deal more than me on the ORBAT and how it all fits in place, so I’d be interested to see if they comment on force ORBAT you proposed.

Regards.

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 regiments have 4 sabre squadrons, and a troop has 4 tanks but the squadron does not have 4 troops – so it is an imperfect example of rule of 4.
I am a great believer in the rule of 4.

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. 👍

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.

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 going to be as good as Type 26 so with a price tag of £250 Million we could build enough to use them as swarm. Hulls are what is needed,

Defence of home seas – i reckon submarines diesel electric much cheaper could to a job – The Nuclear subs can’t be everywhere.

RAF – Well let the RN have the F-35B – and buy some F-35A and even some ‘Saab JAS 39 Gripen’ and along with Typhoons the RAF would be credible.

I am dreaming I know but while our tanks would be in Europe, we would be vulnerable. With such a small army we would end up with conscripts with a rifle.

Question how long before we ran out of ammo in a conflict? have the Brimstones we donated to fight Russia, been replenished, or even will they.?

You said “The Tories have no real claim to being the ‘party of Defence’.” – You may well be right but, who the heck would be any better, Starmer?

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 Infantry would be the dominant Arm.

In Labour, I have a lot of time for John Healey.

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 brigades of various types and roles. I would like the 10,000 cut to 73,000 to be reversed but I am not sure if Ben W can pull it off. We need to equip the regular army properly by ‘recapitalising’ equipment as the jargon has it – and to increase the size of the Reserve Army but it has been hard to recruit to the 30,000 figure, let alone a higher figure. Quite a conundrum.
There is now an argument (lesson learned from Ukraine-Russia war) that we should keep a larger stock of Attrition Reserve equipment. We should also consider if the Army Reserve has all the equipment it needs, and whether it is heavy enough and capable enough.

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.

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.