The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »





Almost a thro back to the 90s

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

The Royal Welsh are in the Baltic as the core of a Combined battle group with Latvia Denmark and France

For me what we should be doing with our Heavy BCT's is having them form the core of a joint Division and then have our Light Motorized infantry formed into Battalion battle groups forming the core of a joint BCT so we could see the 1st Baltic division made up of the British 4th Armoured BCT plus Estonian and Latvian Brigades

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 May 2022, 09:04 The Royal Welsh are in the Baltic as the core of a Combined battle group with Latvia Denmark and France

For me what we should be doing with our Heavy BCT's is having them form the core of a joint Division and then have our Light Motorized infantry formed into Battalion battle groups forming the core of a joint BCT so we could see the 1st Baltic division made up of the British 4th Armoured BCT plus Estonian and Latvian Brigades
Not sure we should be committing the 2 heavy brigades to an enduring commitment in one area. They are to coin the naval analogy should be used similarity to how the navy uses it carriers. One high one low readiness able to conduct exercises or respond to an attack to retake occupied lands not for enduring commitments.

It should be the forces of 1 div the light mech groups who are fwd positioned to work with allies providing recon and intel capabilities as well as defensive nlos attack capability to deter. There logistically light, quick to deploy and we can sustain them easier. This does mean we would need to invest in them more which would mean maybe this is a longer term goal.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe maybe not it is just ideas however I do think we really need to push on and get the 1st division into 6 if not 8 Battalion battle groups and if possible they should have no more than 220 vehicles this would have to cover the Cavalry , Infantry , Artillery and Logistics this should allow the hole battle group to be moved on one Point class
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 10 May 2022, 10:54
Tempest414 wrote: 10 May 2022, 09:04 The Royal Welsh are in the Baltic as the core of a Combined battle group with Latvia Denmark and France

For me what we should be doing with our Heavy BCT's is having them form the core of a joint Division and then have our Light Motorized infantry formed into Battalion battle groups forming the core of a joint BCT so we could see the 1st Baltic division made up of the British 4th Armoured BCT plus Estonian and Latvian Brigades
Not sure we should be committing the 2 heavy brigades to an enduring commitment in one area. They are to coin the naval analogy should be used similarity to how the navy uses it carriers. One high one low readiness able to conduct exercises or respond to an attack to retake occupied lands not for enduring commitments.

It should be the forces of 1 div the light mech groups who are fwd positioned to work with allies providing recon and intel capabilities as well as defensive nlos attack capability to deter. There logistically light, quick to deploy and we can sustain them easier. This does mean we would need to invest in them more which would mean maybe this is a longer term goal.
This had been talked about in various threads but agree it does make most sense to discuss it in this thread.

I am assuming that NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence will retain all eight multinational battlegroups for the foreseeable future. The initial four battlegroups since 2017 in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively) and this year's additional battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.

So UK is leading the battlegroup in Estonia, contributing to the battlegroup in Poland, (and I believe currently has other troops participating in short term exercises in a couple of other NATO countries). So this will determine where we have troops advance deployed. I believe it would make a lot of sense if the heavy brigades advance deployed some of the heavier vehicles and equipment.

Rather than keeping the heavy equipment stored at Paderborn in Germany, I think it would make sense if this heavy equipment was at least partly kept in Estonia or Poland where we are commited to the NATO EFP battlegroups. I agree that the 2 heavy brigades would need to advance deployed on rotation. Either rotating complete brigades to Estonia / Poland or rotating battalions from each brigade, to allow each force to have time at home for leave, training etc.

It would make sense for these advance deployed British troops to be integrated with local troops. For Estonia where UK command the EFP battlegroup, then an Estonia infantry battalion would come under UK command (along with Danish and Icelandic contingents). For Poland the US comand the EFP battlegroup, so the UK troops would come under US command along with Polish troops (along with Croatian and Romania contingents).

So I think it would be a 3 step reinforcement to Baltics / Poland:
1) Advance deployed troops under NATO EFP battlegroup
2) Rapid reaction force from either RM Commando via Albion + Bay class or 16th Air Assault Brigade via airlift
3) Army Brigade reinforcement deployed via Point class or rail transport

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Scimitar54 »

Tempest414 Wrote:
Maybe maybe not it is just ideas however I do think we really need to push on and get the 1st division into 6 if not 8 Battalion battle groups and if possible they should have no more than 220 vehicles this would have to cover the Cavalry , Infantry , Artillery and Logistics this should allow the hole battle group to be moved on one Point class
Great idea, put all our eggs in one basket ! :crazy:

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 »

Not sure how two Light Cavalry Regiments and up to six Battalions of "Light Role" Infantry are going to have an impact, especially as there won't be enough trucks to keep them moving or supplied and there support would be inadequate

One of the reasons for the MRV(P) and the Light BCTs is to move away fom the traditional "Light Role" format for the bulk of the British Army's Infantry. These need to have a protected mobility capability as a basic requirement and compulsory for combat deployments.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 11 May 2022, 02:50 Tempest414 Wrote:
Maybe maybe not it is just ideas however I do think we really need to push on and get the 1st division into 6 if not 8 Battalion battle groups and if possible they should have no more than 220 vehicles this would have to cover the Cavalry , Infantry , Artillery and Logistics this should allow the hole battle group to be moved on one Point class
Great idea, put all our eggs in one basket ! :crazy:
How do you think the army moves its kit if not in a Point class but to be clear when I talk about moving a whole BBG in one Point class this would be in peace time or pre deploying in time of tension

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 May 2022, 04:07 Not sure how two Light Cavalry Regiments and up to six Battalions of "Light Role" Infantry are going to have an impact, especially as there won't be enough trucks to keep them moving or supplied and there support would be inadequate

One of the reasons for the MRV(P) and the Light BCTs is to move away fom the traditional "Light Role" format for the bulk of the British Army's Infantry. These need to have a protected mobility capability as a basic requirement and compulsory for combat deployments.
We do not deploy anything bigger than a BBG and that BBG would not be alone but part of a joint BCT like we are seeing in Estonia on Bold Dragon with the Royal Welsh or up North with 2 Royal Anglian

having 6 or 8 Battalion battle groups made up of

1 x Cavalry company = Jackal & Coyote
1 x Infantry battalion = Foxhound , Bushmaster fitted with RWS mounted 12.7 , 30mm , 40mm GMG , 120mm SP mortar & ATGW
1 x Artillery group = 1 x 105mm battery 6 guns , 1 x Brimstone Over Watch Battery , 1 x Air defence
1 x Logistics group = Logistics , REME , Engineers , Medics

These formations can work alone or come together to make BCT's or form the core of Joint BCT's with others

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Scimitar54 »

Tempest414 Wrote:-
How do you think the army moves its kit if not in a Point class but to be clear when I talk about moving a whole BBG in one Point class this would be in peace time or pre deploying in time of tension.
It should not even be considered in time of tension either, as it would make an almost irresistible target with which to “commence hostilities”.

In peacetime you might think that it would be acceptable, provided that adequate exercises using a more appropriate means of transport are carried out. However, it would still be an unjustified risk. Can we really afford to risk losing that much kit in the case of an accident at sea? Or do accidents never happen? :idea:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

given that the Points have moved 4 battle groups in as many months it is with in the norm if you want to split the the risk you deploy a whole BBG on 2 Points plus escorts

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Scimitar54 »

Quite so! :thumbup:

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Find it sad that MOD won't reverse the planned cuts in tank numbers from 227 to 148.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/lessons ... perations/

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Good video on youtube about 16 AA BCT in Swift Response with 2000 UK troops and 500 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 »

Whilst we still need to rotate units through a readiness cycle, we need to accept the fact that is we are to be able to fight a peer level adversary the equipment level of all frontline units need ot be the same, Gone are the times where only a certain number of TES kits were available for AFVs, that could be transferred to whatever unit was at high readiness. This means the British army need to re evaluate its level of spares and ammunition for a much higher rate of consumption and realise that UORs may not produce the necessary items in time. We need the shelves of our Warehouses and Armouries to be full. Just to bring the units we have now up to full combat effectiveness will take a substantial amount of funding before we look at filling the numerous capability gaps that exist or the lack of capacity across all branches of the Army to conduct high intensity warfare. The world has changed and we need to relearn the lessons of the Cold War with regards to the issues listed above. If we don't the Army will have a combat effectiveness timescale listed in days. Until we sort these issues we must reduce our plans for globally deployed forces, limiting them to LSG (South) and a few low end Naval vessels. Everything else needs to be fully integrated into NATO formations along with our sea and air assets. NATO is back at the top of our priorities and anything else will have to wait for resources until we are once again able to deploy viable military forces in the NATO area of operations. Do our Political leader understand this situation, in a nutshell no, they are still using assumption that are out of date and no longer reflect how things have changes. As it stands out Army might just as well be officially classed as canon fodder in any future peer level conflict,

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jun 2022, 15:39 Whilst we still need to rotate units through a readiness cycle, we need to accept the fact that is we are to be able to fight a peer level adversary the equipment level of all frontline units need ot be the same, Gone are the times where only a certain number of TES kits were available for AFVs, that could be transferred to whatever unit was at high readiness. This means the British army need to re evaluate its level of spares and ammunition for a much higher rate of consumption and realise that UORs may not produce the necessary items in time. We need the shelves of our Warehouses and Armouries to be full. Just to bring the units we have now up to full combat effectiveness will take a substantial amount of funding before we look at filling the numerous capability gaps that exist or the lack of capacity across all branches of the Army to conduct high intensity warfare. The world has changed and we need to relearn the lessons of the Cold War with regards to the issues listed above. If we don't the Army will have a combat effectiveness timescale listed in days. Until we sort these issues we must reduce our plans for globally deployed forces, limiting them to LSG (South) and a few low end Naval vessels. Everything else needs to be fully integrated into NATO formations along with our sea and air assets. NATO is back at the top of our priorities and anything else will have to wait for resources until we are once again able to deploy viable military forces in the NATO area of operations. Do our Political leader understand this situation, in a nutshell no, they are still using assumption that are out of date and no longer reflect how things have changes. As it stands out Army might just as well be officially classed as canon fodder in any future peer level conflict,
When we look around right now we see 2 Royal Anglian Light Mech in Norway with Foxhounds , We see a 2000 strong Armoured Battle group with 30 CH2 , 60 Warrior plus AS-90 and Bulldogs in Estonia , We see the 3000 strong 2 Para Battle group with Artillery and Logistics support Plus C-130's , Chinooks and Apache's in North Macedonia . There is also another Armoured Battle group in Poland supported by Sealift and a theatre enabler Logistics group in all some 8000 troops 72 CH2's , 180 Warriors , 200 other armoured vehicles plus Logistics support Vehicles
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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 »

All of which is as it should be, but goes against the current Governmental policy of our Army being a globally deployable force, well what is left that we could deploy and that would make a difference. The Government needs to accept the world has changes and therefore its aspirations and policy need to as well. This in turn raises the need to at least revise the findings of the last Integrated review as well as at least extending the planned budget with its additional funding of arounds £4Bn per year out to 2030. This would add around a further £24Bn to the MoD's budget over this timeframe.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jun 2022, 01:06 All of which is as it should be, but goes against the current Governmental policy of our Army being a globally deployable force, well what is left that we could deploy and that would make a difference. The Government needs to accept the world has changes and therefore its aspirations and policy need to as well. This in turn raises the need to at least revise the findings of the last Integrated review as well as at least extending the planned budget with its additional funding of arounds £4Bn per year out to 2030. This would add around a further £24Bn to the MoD's budget over this timeframe.
On top of the above deployments the Army has 1 Battalion battle group in Cyprus another in Brunei plus a 400 strong UN task force in Mali so another 2400 troops so 1/8th of its total force on top of this we have a garrison on the Falkland and training teams in Kenya , Somalia , Zambia , Nigeria , Iraq , Poland so the Army has troops deployed from the high North all the way to the Falklands seems pretty global to me

I am not saying we do not need new kit and a lot more of it yes we do

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 wouldn't call the Battalion's in Cyprus and Brunei "Battlegroups", but yes the forces in Mali are a SF focused Taskforce. the Falklands Garrison is based around an Infantry Company, and we have small training teams around the world, all of which are very effective at showing the flag. I suppose it all depends on how a Globally deployable Army is measured. Is it like that already stated with training units of various sized and a small number of SF orientated operations ongoing, or is it the ability to concentrating combat power anywhere in the world. My argument was aimed at not being able to do the latter whilst we need to concentrate on NATO and bringing our forces up to a level of capability and capacity, that they are viable in a high intensity conflict.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

I am shocked that you would not call the 2 Mobile protected infantry battalions plus logistics , Engineer, REME , Medical and Artillery based in Cyprus a Battle group and as for Brunei it might not be a full battle group but it is a Re-enforced Battalion with logistics , Engineers and medics
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Interesting that UK and France getting closer militarily whilst seeming to be moving further apart politically. Hope this is a sign of France back into focussing on NATO rather than trying to set up EU Defence force.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/french- ... -division/
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixArmChairCivvy

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Rentaghost »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... B8uf1G9s2b

So for Precision Land Strike they are looking to replace Exactor with something that can be fired from GMLRS? And it has to be capable of precision targeting against moving and/or armoured targets out to 80km.

I may be well of base here but is that basically taking something like Brimstone or JAGM and bolting it to the top of an MLRS rocket? I get the the one platform, many payload ethic - that is scarily sensible.

If PLS is going to be a thing, won't light forces require some kind of access to it, thus only having M270 MLRS launchers might not be optimal? And really, wouldn't you just need more platforms to do this to allow precision strikecalongside all the other work MLRS will be tasked with.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 13:45 But before we jump into the rabbit hole of tracked Boxer surely we need to make sure we have enough wheeled ones for 4 Battalions so something like

180 APC's
100 C&C
40 SP Mortar
40 Brimstone over watch
20 Assault Pioneer
25 Ambulance
40 CRV

Then we need to ask why are we buying tracked Boxer what job do we want it to do because for me before we start buying tracked Boxer we should buy 300 Viking's and 900 Bushmaster in

APC
C&C
SP Mortar
Brimstone Over watch
Assault Pioneer
Ambulance
Utility
True but then I would have prioritised 1 div prior to sdsr and certainly would now. Reason being they are the only type of force we deploy and sustain reliable and quickly as a defensive force to support countries who ask for our help and havent lost territory. We could achieve result quicker focusing on them, but there is a comfort of history with heavy armour. Take the old 24 airmobile organisational template and generate several such formations and instead of focusing on helicopter moves mount them on something like Viking, bushmaster,jtlv, hmt series ect take ur pick

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

As said for me right now I would go for 400 Viking's and 520 Bushmaster split like so

Viking = 200 APC , 60 C&C , 30 SP Mortar , 30 Brimstone OW , 40 Assault Pioneer & 40 Ambulance

Bushmaster = 200 APC , 100 C&C , 50 SP Mortar , 50 Brimstone OW , 60 Assault pioneer , 60 Ambulance

this along with foxhound would allow for 3 x Viking Battalions and 5 x Foxhound - Bushmaster Battalions in the 1st Division

across the board all APC's should be fitted with 30mm cannon and 40mm GMG and Javelin RWS's . All C&C , Mortar & AP should be fitted with 12.7mm RWS

So each Battalion would end up capable of engaging the enemy from 100 meters to 20+ KM with the heavy kill area being 2000 meters using 12.7mm , 30mm , 40mm GMG , 81mm Mortars , Javelin

with the next area being 4000 meters using Javelin , 81mm mortar and Brimstone

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference


First, and most importantly, boosting readiness. NATO needs highly ready forces that can deploy at short notice for the collective defence of alliance members. Deterring Russia means more of the Army ready more of the time, and ready for high-intensity war in Europe. So we will pick up the pace of combined arms training, and major on urban combat. We will re-build our stockpiles and review the deployability of our vehicle fleet. And having seen its limitations first-hand as the Commander of the Field Army, I think we need to ask ourselves whether Whole Fleet Management is the right model given the scale of the threat we face. The time has come to be frank about our ability to fight if called upon.

Second, we will accelerate the modernisation outlined in Future Soldier. NATO needs technologically advanced modern armies able to deploy at speed and fight together. They must be able to integrate effects across the domains, all stitched together by a sophisticated and robust command, control and communication network. We will seek to speed up the delivery of planned new equipments including long range fires, attack aviation, persistent surveillance and target acquisition, expeditionary logistic enablers, Ground Based Air Defence, protected mobility, and the technologies that will prove pivotal to our digital ambition: CIS and Electronic Warfare. Most importantly, this will start now - not at some ill-defined point in the future.

Third, we will re-think how we fight. We’ve been watching the war in Ukraine closely and we are already learning and adapting. Not least to the help of RUSI, Many of the lessons are not new - but they are now applied. We will double-down on combined arms manoeuvre, especially in the deep battle, and devise a new doctrine rooted in geography, integrated with NATO’s war plans and specific enough to drive focused, relevant investment and inspire the imagination of our people to fight and win if called upon.

And Fourth, I am prepared to look again at the structure of our Army. If we judge that revised structures will make the Army better prepared to fight in Europe, then we will follow Monty’s advice and do “something else”. Now of course adapting structures has implications for the size of the Army - and I know that there will be questions on Army numbers locked, loaded and ready to fire from the audience! Put simply, the threat has changed and as the threat changes, we will change with it. My job is to build the best Army possible, ready to integrate with fellow Services and Strategic command and ready to fight alongside our allies. Obviously our Army has to be affordable; nonetheless, it would be perverse if the CGS was advocating reducing the size of the Army as a land war rages in Europe and Putin’s territorial ambitions extend into the rest of the decade, and beyond Ukraine.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply