The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose things have moved on. In the past you often had two rates of fire quoted for artillery systems, its "Burst" RoF and its continuous RoF, with the latter substantially less than the former for obvious reasons. Now with the latest artillery systems, with auto loaders and cooling systems the RoF stated can be seen at the standard rate of fire, one which the platform can continuously perform at, so I would say there has been a step change. I haven't the figures so does anyone have the continuous RoF for the AS-90?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:I haven't the figures so does anyone have the continuous RoF for the AS-90?
6 per minute for three minutes. Might seem bad at first, but:
1) doesn’t seem so far behind the 8 per minute quoted in a few places for the 2S35
2) who is going to sit still for three minutes when counterbattery fire could be there in two?
3) can you provide logistics to support that rate of fire?

So no, it’s not a step change unless you believe puffed-up edge cases of capability. Even if the edge case really was the normal capability it isn’t an “order of magnitude” different.

The artillery arm of the British Army clearly needs some investment, but we mustn’t expect or require a vast improvement. Waiting for perfection leads to having to go into action with what we have now, except more worn-out when the physically impossible inevitably fails to deliver.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

From what I have read, including in Jane's the 2S35 can pull up conduct an 18rnd fire mission and be underway in less than two minutes. It can rinse and repeat this until its 70 round magazine is empty, and it has been designed to be reloaded rapidly. To meet this capability the Royal Artillery does need a step change in its capabilities. As a minimum any future system will need to be able to conduct a MRSI fire mission of between eight and ten rounds in less than two and a half minutes to a range of at least 40km. The system must have good cross country and extended road mobility, not requiring the use of transporters to move over significant distances. Integral with the SPG must be an ammunition carrier that is able to rapidly reload the gun without any additional equipment and with minimal personnel exposure outside the vehicle. All artillery must be networked with the rest of the Brigade(s) to reduce the time delay from spotter to shooter to a minimum, utilising an array of ISTAR assets accessed and controlled from Company level upwards.

One of the reasons I have advocated replacing the M270 with the HIMARS sooner rather than later is that it gives the Army readily deployable Artillery system than can match the range of the possible opposition. The AS-90 can then be replaced with less urgency and we can afford to wait and see where the latest development programmes in the US and Germany lead. In the mean time we will also need to ensure we have the necessary munitions for both the HIMARS and the AS-90 including a round in the class of the Franco/Swedish BONUS submunition carrier. These are available now and could be brought into service rapidly.

If we stick to the current planned with two Armoured Infantry Brigades and two "Strike" Brigades, whilst we really should only have Tube and Rocket artillery that can keep up with the latter, it may be more cost effective to retain the AS-90 and M270 for support of the Armoured Infantry, giving the Royal Artillery two Regiments of the former and one of the latter, but upgrade them, finally giving the AS-90 the long desired 52 cal barrel or one even longer. A new 155mm wheeled system will still be needed to support the "Strike" Brigades, equipping two Regiments and ideally a Regiment equipped with HIMARS to compliment them. Following this path may be the most expensive route, but will probably appeal to the more traditionalist staff within the MoD.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I would humbly suggest that a probabilistic approach to life and for the potential for breakthroughs would be more useful... and in the defence context will help to avoid nasty surprises, than being pedantic on language.

In the distribution of outcomes there is the 'hopelessly optimistic' tail... and then there are the black swans sitting on the other tail :)
- tech things do not work in isolation. The Pz 1s that drove the vastly superior (technically and in numbers) French and British tanks to the sea were only a part of the new formula which caused, let's say, some slight disequilibration... for a while (until 1942)
- may we can - may be we can't - agree that bursts of creativity have been - at least before internet time - followed by long periods of stasis, and history has not been kind to those who have been happily sitting around during such periods. Even Yoda... that story started before internet time, comes within a heart beat of failure to protect what he had been tasked with as the "Chief Strategist". So the story needs a "Luke" to move "it" into the right gear :D (...like in 1942)

So as for the future of the army, and specifically re:how our artillery will/ should shape up? Discuss
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, Reagan said to his planners "step on the gas, boys" when internet age was dawning
... and wholey-moly, the tiny microchip brought victory home

And just to go from bursts of creativity back to burst-RoF, what LJ states as 'new' in " Now with the latest artillery systems, with auto loaders and cooling systems the RoF stated can be seen at the standard rate of fire" is not even new, but rather an application
A. what has been around for good while in naval guns, weighing tens of tons
but now
B. thanks to miniaturisation, can be fitted, in a useful form, onto a turret that can not only sit on a tank chassis, but the combo can move... like an AS90, which in its day, in this respect, was "the best in class"

The times are a-changing?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

I think that use of language is important to convey accurate information. If anything can be waved as “just a figure of speech”, usually by people using hyperbolic oversell who have been proven wrong, then you lose the ability to be specific.
If you can’t be specific, you cannot communicate clearly. If you cannot communicate clearly, you’ll end up with something you didn’t intend.

In the case of artillery, the 2s35 is more capable than the AS90 -this is no surprise as the AS90 is getting to be 30 years old with minimal upgrades. But that’s it. It’s better. Not a “quantum leap”. Not a “game changer”. Just an advantage. The more you hype up the enemy and demand “order of magnitude” improvements to our kit to compete, the more you let our fielded capabilities whither without doing anything to replace or improve them.

More than anything else, if we are planning on operating these strike brigades, they need some kind of decent artillery to support them. There is a project looking at that at the moment. It’s feasible that it could be a wheeled platform that could also serve to supplant the AS90. Minimising the number of platforms to do a similar job is a good thing, although you’d want to be careful that optimising for one mission (light weight, good operational/strategic mobility) doesn’t compromise others too much (firepower, survivability). Modular protection can help in that regard but then you have the risk of being flayed in the press when your lightly armoured, highly mobile version inevitably gets caught out and shredded*. “Why didn’t the use the additional armour?”

On the subject of armour, with the Boxer being armoured against 30mm, what realistic use is that? The only time you’ll see 30mm on the battlefield is if your opposition has brought AFVs, in which case you really shouldn’t have brought only mechanised infantry. Meanwhile it is adding weight and cost to your vehicles.


* A note of caution regarding strike brigades, really

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

The proposal I am putting forward actually increases the amount and weight of indirect fire available to the proposed Mechanised Brigades. This ranges from the integral 120mm Mortars, where each Mechanised Company would have up to three attached, to the two HIMARS and two 155mm SPG equipped Regiments. To this you could also add the Extractor Mk2/GL Brimstone Batteries. Just as important each Brigade would have access to a significant variety of unmanned systems that would be accessed by units down to Company level, all networked and tied in to the artillery and air assets available.

As for armour, well the Boxer has a good level of protection that can in increased though applique armour packages together with soft and hard kill APS. Modern peer warfare will have a level of lethality greater than anything that has come before, and it will be imperative to get the first shot, the say "Kill or be killed", has never been more apt. Up armouring vehicles like Infantry carriers is possible, the Israeli Namer is a good example, but these vehicles are expensive, and require HETs to relocate them any distance, and even the Israeli only use then in limited numbers. Their main Infantry Carrier is still the venerable M113, though it is to be replace by an wheeled 8x8 platform.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: But that’s it. It’s better. Not a “quantum leap”. Not a “game changer”. Just an advantage. The more you hype up the enemy and demand “order of magnitude” improvements to our kit
Let's 'hyper' the US plans, for a change... they could soon be 'MOTS' for us
- not that we shouldn't benchmark against likely OpFors (but the US will have done that, too)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:The more you hype up the enemy and demand “order of magnitude” improvements to our kit to compete, the more you let our fielded capabilities whither without doing anything to replace or improve them.
Historically yes, but that is something that the MoD has to sort out. I strongly believe that kit in service should be constantly being improved through a series of step by step upgrades, not waiting ten or so years and then conducting a major, and expensive modernisation programme. But the MoD must also be looking towards the future and what technologies can be developed both in the near and long term. This is where we must improve our R&D capacity and fund it properly. We must also where needed work with allies to share the cost burden and new ideas.

What must be avoided at all costs is the historical trait of the MoD to constantly look to the future and taking its eye off the condition and effectiveness of the kit already in service.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Historically yes, but that is something that the MoD has to sort out. I strongly believe that kit in service should be constantly being improved through a series of step by step upgrades, not waiting ten or so years and then conducting a major, and expensive modernisation programme.
That's a Treasury issue. They shoot down any incremental upgrade program by challenging "why does it need to be done now rather than later?", a question that's impossible to answer until the kit is no longer operable.

When it comes to spending money, a safe bet is that 99% of the problems are Treasury caused. Phd's in the art of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. And led over the past decades by a bunch of prize bar stewards: Brown, Osborne, Hammond.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Both of the below are apt descriptions for what's been going on
Ron5 wrote: a question that's impossible to answer until the kit is no longer operable.
and this first one is complicated further by the fact that the Treasury has the lowest average age (and a very high turnover), so if you start to answer by benchmarking capabilities to what "an" OpFor might be fielding, the likely answer is: "where was it said, in the SDSR, that we would need to try and do such things?"
Ron5 wrote: knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

The default setting for the Treasury should be that unless THEY can prove a piece of kit is not needed, then they provide the funding, intervention by the PM with standing.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by RetroSicotte »

Lord Jim wrote:The default setting for the Treasury should be that unless THEY can prove a piece of kit is not needed, then they provide the funding, intervention by the PM with standing.
A dangerous approach. Then you'd just give rise to the mass misinformation and derision tactics to try and project false narrative on how "worthless" something is to try and get said justification.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Wasn’t sure where to put this but as it’s future army form was likely as good as any. I had not been aware that JLTV was not air portable by chinook. So where does that leave the current rapid deployment forces.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... poor-idea/

Most alarming is that the modified CH-47F can’t lift 94 percent of Marine Corps vehicles. Those vehicles include the Corps’ Light Armored Vehicles, trucks and the armored Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV, that will replace the aging fleet of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

Which is probably why they, the Marines have stuck to the CH-53 and ae purchasing the latest K version which is even bigger and even more powerful. The existing CH-53E can easily carry a LAV-25 and it variants as an underslung load so besides the heavy armour and AA7VA1 the new version should be able to carry just about everything else if needed either internally or underslung.

This article also gives an idea of the work required to be able to operate CH-47s routinely of ships. WE have not done any real work to modernise our Chinooks except maybe some tire down points. This is the reason the Merlins HC4 are our default helicopter of maritime and amphibious operations.

The German programme to replace their aging CH-53Gs is going to be interesting as it is the CH-47F and CH-53K that are the two competitors.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

RetroSicotte wrote:A dangerous approach. Then you'd just give rise to the mass misinformation and derision tactics to try and project false narrative on how "worthless" something is to try and get said justification.
Under the current system I agree, what is needed it a total overhaul of how programmes are run form raising a requirement to disposal. The Treasury needs to be made to take a step back and stop micro managing every other departments budgets.

As a basic example if a report by the NSC highlights a growing maritime top tier threat and a lack of Escorts to meet said threat leading to an SDSR calling for an increase in the number of high end Escorts to 24, then the Treasury should fund such a requirement without raising issue after issue. The experts have made their recommendation and the SDSR has acted upon it. It should not be for the Treasury to find fault in private or in public.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by RetroSicotte »

Lord Jim wrote:Under the current system I agree, what is needed it a total overhaul of how programmes are run form raising a requirement to disposal. The Treasury needs to be made to take a step back and stop micro managing every other departments budgets.

As a basic example if a report by the NSC highlights a growing maritime top tier threat and a lack of Escorts to meet said threat leading to an SDSR calling for an increase in the number of high end Escorts to 24, then the Treasury should fund such a requirement without raising issue after issue. The experts have made their recommendation and the SDSR has acted upon it. It should not be for the Treasury to find fault in private or in public.
I do agree in principle. "Design to meet the requirement" is the basis of every argument I make on here, and it's why I continually try to remind in every post to not "argue for cuts" by falling into the "It's this or that" or "At least it's better than". State the requirement. Keep stating the requirement. Never let anyone fall into adjusting their personal levels of 'acceptable capability' downwards when it shouldn't ever be.

A base design that supports that, where the NSC/Forces clearly and repeatedly state "THIS is whats needed, end of." and then it's on the Treasury to take the heat for "why didn't you fund it to match the need then?" would be far healthier, and make the culprits far more susceptible, rather than right now where the MoD is constantly forced to undermine their own need by not being allowed to say the reality.

Key example, the recent helo debate. Room full of debate on "whats needed", not a single one of the people there brought of the NEED for the Wildcat datalink, or the NEED for more ASW helos, or the NEED for replacements to be planned for this or that. Just vague, nebulous "we need a strategy for the future to cover needs".

Be specific. Be clear. Never ever adjust the line if the threat itself is not changing. Let the other side be the ones to not live up to it.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:Wasn’t sure where to put this but as it’s future army form was likely as good as any. I had not been aware that JLTV was not air portable by chinook. So where does that leave the current rapid deployment forces.
In their Vikings.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

Has anyone else got any ideas of how the Army should look moving forward? Myself I am quite surprised the only real debate over my proposal has been regarding the Artillery.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by jedibeeftrix »

No, I'm broadly on board. I do have a few questions a page or so back. ..

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Has anyone else got any ideas of how the Army should look moving forward? Myself I am quite surprised the only real debate over my proposal has been regarding the Artillery.
The artillery issue was mostly highlighting a lower level issue with the requirements for things, then the idea of certain things being “game changers” based on top trump stats.

I have a general problem with “speed as armour” and “coordination as Survivability” because it violates maxim 47 by expecting the enemy to dance to your tune. It also needs a great deal training and skill to keep moving and keep coordinated.

We seem to be crediting our potential adversaries with great abilities (the high-end stats of their kit is what the nominal stats of ours needs to beat) while simultaneously being tactical imbeciles (we will be able to use a force density that approaches homeopathic levels to dissuade an army that retains and practices operational art with divisions.)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

LJ

A different view. A globally deployable small scale specialist warfare (commando) supporting the tier 1 SF capability, but able to operate independently as well. Units assigned to domains and regions of the world drawn from an stream lining and up spilling of marines, Paras and Gurkhas. This force will undertake direct action, national and international emergency crisis response, airfield seizure, port seizure, special reconnaissance, intelligence & counter intelligence, combat search and rescue, and counter terrorism.

The main field army formed around 4 medium weight brigade configured to begin with along the lines of a US Army Stryker brigade as the units are worked up and exercised tweaks and changes can follow. The primary focus is rapid deployment for reinforcement across the nato area. Bridges crossing points ports and airports that support this formations deployment and movement can be secured initially but units from the commando force above in any major conflict.

To support these formations they can use modify to any configuration any of the following three vehicles Supracat HMT400/600 series, boxer and MAN 8x8 series trucks. Once these formations are manned equipped and supported and funds left over can be used to add what niche vehicles the army wish’s but only once these units are established.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

Jedi.

To actually answer your questions I missed first time around.

The Idea of a square Armoured Cavalry Brigade is on the surface very simple. I see a need to retain two Armoured Regiments, as these are really the only units from the current Armoured Infantry Brigades that provide capabilities that the Mechanised units need as they cannot themselves provide. The two Recce Regiments are there because I doubt we can totally cancel the Ajax programme and this would be the minimum purchase I think we could reduce the contract to. However these four Regiments actually provide a very useful an capable combat formation that is well suited to either supporting the Mechanised units or operating as a Brigade in itself.

Battle Groups formed form this Brigade would both stiffen to defensive capabilities of the Mechanised Brigades, all of which would be equipped with Boxer, as well as providing greater offensive punch if required.

Divisional level assets I have tried to list in previous posts, but I do eventually see a wheeled 155 mm SPG equipping two Artillery Regiments at Divisional level. Until then one or two AS-90 Regiments would be allocated to the Armoured Cavalry Brigade, as whilst they would still be useful assets, they would not be able to deploy with the Mechanised Brigades without affecting the strategic mobility of these units.

Moving on, in future conflicts, especially against peer opposition, retaining the initiative is going to be the key objective. With such high lethality levels a force must be able to move fast hit hard and move again. It is not a case of getting the opposition to dance to your tune, it is being able to choose your music, dance how you want to, and then kicking the other guy in the nuts when he is trying to work out what is going on.

We must be realistic about what feasible opposition are capable of. Russia for example has been running a pretty slick PR campaign regarding al the new toys it has been developing. These are however still only available in very limited numbers. What is not advertised is that they have been running a very effective upgrade programme for its existing equipment combined with a major re organisation of its military and the whole hearted adoption of asymmetric warfare capabilities. All of these have been combined into a new military doctrine that is far removed form the Old Cold War steam roller across the border from East Germany.

NATO is trying to catch up but after suspending decades trying to show its relevance itself in low lever COIN operations, believing there was no longer a threat from the east. All member states with the possible exception of the USA, massively reduced their ability to fight a major peer level conflict and had let many capabilities atrophy. Our reliance of UAVs and GPS could turn out to be our Achilles heel if the opposition finds a way to remove them form the Battle Space. NATO more than ever relies on "Force Multipliers", whilst the opposition has been spending years working out how to neutralise them. How effective these efforts could be we will not know until they are revealed but NATO needed to be able to fight effectively without them. NATO's mass on paper is superior to that of some opposition, but in reality it is very widely dispersed, and any opposition would have a window of opportunity to seize their objectives before NATO can bring sufficient forces to bear.

The UK's forces would be some of the first reinforcement to arrive in any future conflict in Eastern Europe. Our spearhead units would have to arrive in theatre within 48 hours at the most. Unlike GW 1 and 2 well will probably only have a warning of day in which to get things rolling, assuming the NATO Council can actually agree to take action, which is not guaranteed. NATO still has not sorted out a "Passport" system to allow the movement of troops through its member countries without checks and documentation. Things are being worked on but the civilianisation of NATO since the end of the Cold War has brought with it a large bureaucracy as always happens. The Military Command Structure now has civilian oversight at every level as well as being duplicated by civilian counterparts. The opposition know this and know what they can do and how far they can go without triggering a NATO response.

We are playing catch up.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:we will be able to use a force density that approaches homeopathic levels to dissuade an army that retains and practices operational art with divisions.
Agree that this assumption needs revisiting
SW1 wrote: The main field army formed around 4 medium weight brigade configured to begin with along the lines of a US Army Stryker brigade
A good concept for situations where the above assumption applies
SW1 wrote: Bridges crossing points ports and airports that support this formations deployment and movement can be secured initially but units from the commando force
but this sounds too much like Pegasus Bridge ' reheated'
- what is the role of hi-readiness forces from other NATO countries, already on the scene?
Lord Jim wrote: these four Regiments actually provide a very useful an capable combat formation that is well suited to either supporting the Mechanised units or operating as a Brigade in itself.

Battle Groups formed form this Brigade would both stiffen to defensive capabilities of the Mechanised Brigades, all of which would be equipped with Boxer,
OK, something to throw towards the 'Schwerpunkt' once one ... or many, serially... develop
Lord Jim wrote: Our reliance of UAVs and GPS could turn out to be our Achilles heel
v true; over-reliance on precision fires (including 'air' when conditions permit that component)
- the haste to write off AS90s that are tactically very mobile over any terrain (err, dense forests and mountains?) and protected enough to be penny-packeted into BGs when that is required is, in my opinion, overdone
... penny-packeted? Bring the DAG back! Which can realistically only happen by rebalancing the tube and rocket artillery (while growing the sum of both)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

The AS-90 still have a very valid and useful role to play until a suitable replacement is available, which I why I advocate retaining at least one Regiments if not two, each of four eight gun batteries, and keep them as part of the Armoured Cavalry Brigade, but able to be redistributed if and when needed. We must however procure new ammunition types to maximise their capability.

Post Reply