Caribbean wrote: I suspect that the existing version could be used to cover a great deal of the training requirement, with gunnery being the obvious difference.
Caribbean wrote: be used as Opfor in training exercises as well.
Caribbean wrote:I believe there's a tad more to training to operate a tank than firing the gun and learning a new interface. Operating as a unit would be pretty high on the list. Tactics would be in there. Navigation, command skills, standard process and procedures as well. All stuff that could be done in an unmodified vehicle (much of which would need to be innate skills, so you can still function when the pretty, pretty hi-tech gear goes phut at a critical point). Then move on to the simulators (good, but not quite the same as being there) and finally to the "real thing" for advanced training.
Presumably they could also be used as Opfor in training exercises as well.
RunningStrong wrote:Keep the legacy platforms for reservists by all means, but don't think for a moment they can just jump into a upgraded vehicle without significant re training.
abc123 wrote:Why not have 3 smaller regiments of 38 tanks?
Caribbean wrote:Retain some of the old C2s (with some comms and maybe sight upgrades, rather than wholesale turret replacement), but use the reserves to provide replacement crews (not vehicles) for the regulars
whitelancer wrote:a linear structure(based on 2) lacks flexibility and mass
whitelancer wrote:abc123 wrote:Why not have 3 smaller regiments of 38 tanks?
First, 3 smaller Regiments are less efficient, in terms of manpower and equipment than 2 Regiments. Its just not as simple as dividing every thing by 3 rather than 2. You would need for instance another RHG, as their is very little scope for reducing their size (they will still need to be able to command a BG), additional manpower and equipment will be needed. Note by going to 38 tanks you have increased the overall numbers required by 2. The same would be true in many other areas. Their would be savings, just no where near enough to provide for an additional Regiment.
Second, effectiveness. Sabre troops operate best with 4 MBTs, Sabre Squadrons with 4 Sabre Troops, hence the total of 18 MBTs per Sqn. As for Armoured Regiments 4 Sabre Sqns is optimum. (I would say the same basic structure is true of Infantry Battalions). This makes for very large units not in itself a bad thing, but they have to fit in at higher levels as well. As the same is true of the higher levels, with 4 Manoeuvre Units per Brigade and 4 Brigades per Division being optimum, but you would end up with an enormous and unwieldy Division. In Cold War days that would have meant most of BAOR would have been contained in 1 Division! To get around this compromises need to be made. That usually means going from a 4(square) structure to a 3(triangular) structure, at certain levels. Note the British Army not infrequently swapping between a triangular and square structure at various levels. This works well enough, but a linear structure(based on 2) lacks flexibility and mass. This means taking a Sqn from each Regt and creating a new Regt would not be a sound idea, instead you would have to create 3 Sqns from 2. The best compromise would be to go back to 14 MBTs per Sqn, that however would require another 20 over and above the total for 2 current Regts. Changing the structure at one level effects other levels making it all very complicated.
Finally why would 3 Armoured Regiments be better than 2?
Caribbean wrote:RunningStrong wrote:Keep the legacy platforms for reservists by all means, but don't think for a moment they can just jump into a upgraded vehicle without significant re training.
...... and yet the rumoured plan appears to be to do precisely that with the reserves. Retain some of the old C2s (with some comms and maybe sight upgrades, rather than wholesale turret replacement), but use the reserves to provide replacement crews (not vehicles) for the regulars, presumably using a combination of the old versions, simulators and a small number of the new version for type-specific training.
RunningStrong wrote:that sounds parallel to the Royal Artillery use of Light gun reservists to support the AS90 regular army.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:and in 'modern' military thinking I guess the Soviet end-of-WW2 Breakthrough Armies may have had that concept:
abc123 wrote:I think that British Army and it's tank force is in such state that any talk about this or that being the most effective is a moot point. This is fight for survival. When you are drowning, you don't care whether this or that life-jacket is more effective...
abc123 wrote:And if 3 armoured regiments aren't better than 2, than 2 are not better than 1 or 0.
whitelancer wrote:justify your position, don't just come out with some meaningless twaddle
whitelancer wrote:If the number of Challengers to be updated drops much below the rumoured number of 148 its debatable whether it will be worth having them at all.
If you didn't like my answer or think the question was irrelevant that's fine, but justify your position, don't just come out with some meaningless twaddle.
Lord Jim wrote:AS for unit rotation, well we won't be deploying a whole Regiment anywhere unless we are involved it a Peer conflict
Andy-M wrote:New video out today.
General Sir Nick Carter: I think the requirement is now pretty clear, and that is one of the reasons why Challenger 2 is taking a long time. It is because there was this realisation that the programme was not ambitious enough. It needed a smoothbore gun. It needed the ability to put a missile down that barrel to overmatch Armata, as you rightly describe. It needed its protection levels to be significantly enhanced. So the requirement has evolved.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests