Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 11:53
Tempest414 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:07 I would say having regiments with a mix of M-270 & MAN 8x8 K239 would be a good thing
And what would be a benefit of having two platforms. Both have same weapon system, provide same load and are similar in weight. So what is a point?

Keep in mind that, like it someone or not, M270 will remain in the British Army, upgraded of course. Contract is already signed. The only question is should Army buy more and if when and what. I personally don't see any advantage in having both M270 and K239 as it is just complicate things without bringing much to justify that. Procuring M142 would have sense if RAF keep its C130 fleet which would most likely not happen. So if Army decide to get more MLRS, than to me there is only sense to go with more M270A2, or with a platform that can be lifted by Chinook, like LIMAWS (even tho not sure if there is much point in this too). Anything else is totally unnecessary.
The only real point is the ability to to deliver the same weapon system and effect to the battle field or move it without the need HET's M-207 has a range of 480 km's & 35 MPH where K239 has a range of 800 km's 50 MPH you can also play about a bit by put a tarp over back of a K239 and put it in with some Logistics MAN 8x8 when on the move to cover movement of the system

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 10:20
Tempest414 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:38
SW1 wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 09:26 You may still only have 2 6 cell pods, but with two vehicles, they can be in two different locations so if one is taken out the other is still available, also there is benefits of not pushing vehicles up to the limits of their transport weight wise, you get more flexible especially on aircraft with the option to fly into many more airstrips. Swings and roundabouts.
All very much right and if the UK had unlimited logistics and manpower then 2 vehicles and 6 men over 1 vehicle and 3 men may well be the way to go also K239 comes in at 25 tons A400M has a max load of 36 tons so it would be well within its operating window where two M-142's would be 33 tons and there for A400M would be at the far end of its operating window
Yes true but on a400m particularly if you were heading tactically into rough strips the max weight of the payload carried is well below the max payload it can carry on strategic missions. Think there’s more of a balance to be had with the single pod launchers esp if you were wanting such systems to support our light forces
So just looking into the payloads of C-130 and A400M plus the weight of HIMARS and M-270 so

C-130 has a payload of 19 ton and HIMARS has a weight of 16.2 tons so this works out to be over 4/5 the total payload meaning C-130 can't land anywhere but a runway to deliver HIMARS

A400M has a payload of 36 tons and M270/ K239 has a weight of 25 tons so this works out to under 3/4 of the total payload and as said this is within the rough ground capability of A400M

so using our A400M's we could deliver 1 HIMARS or 1 M270 to a forward rough ground site or 2 HIMARS to a runway

Also HIMARS has a range of 480 km's at a speed of 52 MPH where K239 has a range of 800km's at 50 MPH so when you put A00M and K239 together it gives you more tactical capability than with C-130 and HIMARS

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7222
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 287 times
Been liked: 330 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

I do wonder why we are talking so much about airlifting MLRS around the place? Any large scale deployment is going to require the use of the Points to get both combat and support vehicles in theatre in the number required. What is important is how say MLRS both get to the port and from the destination port to its area of operations, and how much support such a move would take.

As for the one verses two pods argument, what is the cost of a HUIMARS compared to a K-239 and how easy and costly would it be to base either system on a MAN HX chassis. I have a feeling HIMARS is significantly cheaper then the K-239 for obvious reasons and the former would be available through FMS. With the former we could plug into the US Army spares network for both Truck chassis and launcher, whilst with the K-239 we would be able to use our existing support for teh launcher hopefully but with conversion to a MAN HX chassis, we would have a stand alone truck chassis in very limited numbers which would increase support costs.

So if we wanted a limited quantity, but rapid delivery of a wheeled MLRS platform the only real choice is HIMARS off the shelf, say fifteen to eighteen platforms for two Batteries plus spares. These would give the Light BCTs a significant boost in mobile fire support, and could be used to support other light units such as the Ranger Regiment or 16XX, to compensate for the weakness of the 105mm Light Gun presently their main support weapon system. Of course they could also be use to supplement the M270 MLRS in Europe if the need arose.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1005
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 35 times

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 05:51 As for the one verses two pods argument, what is the cost of a HUIMARS compared to a K-239 and how easy and costly would it be to base either system on a MAN HX chassis. I have a feeling HIMARS is significantly cheaper then the K-239 for obvious reasons and the former would be available through FMS.
You have a feeling that US equipment would be cheaper than South Korean? At a time of a record low sterling value? Err...
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 05:51 With the former we could plug into the US Army spares network for both Truck chassis and launcher, whilst with the K-239 we would be able to use our existing support for teh launcher hopefully but with conversion to a MAN HX chassis, we would have a stand alone truck chassis in very limited numbers which would increase support costs.
So the HIMARS we'd need to integrate with the US Army spares that doesn't exist in the UK...

And with then MAN we'd be using a chassis we have over 7,000 and an existing launcher pod...

As I've said before, HIMARS makes zero sense to the British Army, and this is supported by just how few US origin land platform products we tend to buy outside of UORS (where we could share a joint US supply chain in Afghanistan).

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 08:38
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 05:51 As for the one verses two pods argument, what is the cost of a HUIMARS compared to a K-239 and how easy and costly would it be to base either system on a MAN HX chassis. I have a feeling HIMARS is significantly cheaper then the K-239 for obvious reasons and the former would be available through FMS.
You have a feeling that US equipment would be cheaper than South Korean? At a time of a record low sterling value? Err...
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 05:51 With the former we could plug into the US Army spares network for both Truck chassis and launcher, whilst with the K-239 we would be able to use our existing support for teh launcher hopefully but with conversion to a MAN HX chassis, we would have a stand alone truck chassis in very limited numbers which would increase support costs.
So the HIMARS we'd need to integrate with the US Army spares that doesn't exist in the UK...

And with then MAN we'd be using a chassis we have over 7,000 and an existing launcher pod...

As I've said before, HIMARS makes zero sense to the British Army, and this is supported by just how few US origin land platform products we tend to buy outside of UORS (where we could share a joint US supply chain in Afghanistan).
I would agree K-239 can do every thing HIMARS can do but better as said above as far as the UK is concerned HIMARS is not the game changer A400M is as we can do with A400M and M-270 what the US can do with C-130 & HIMARS so when it come to support of 16xx we can fly in M-270 or K-239 to a rough ground site and crack on

and as far as the Light Mech and Light Infantry goes they will have a large numbers of MAN trucks in support so the 8x8 K-239 would not be a problem at all in fact its 800km range would but a big plus over HIMARS 490km's

M-270 = 25 ton 2 x weapons pods range 480km's at 40mph and is air portable by A400m & C-17
HIMARS = 16.2 tons 1 weapons pod range 490km's at 52 mph and s air portable by C-130 , A400m & C-17
K-239 = 25 tons 2 x weapon pods range 800km's at 50 mph and is air portable by A400m & C-17

I do however see a use for K-239 type vehicle based on a MAN 8x8 chassis with the same upgraded M270 kit working with the Light BCT's

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7222
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 287 times
Been liked: 330 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Few questions.
How many countries operate either South Korean MLRS compared to HIMARS?
How many Countries using HIMARS have changed the truck chassis?
How many Trucks with a similar chassis to that of HIMARS has the US Military bought and how many are in Europe and therefore require a supply chain?
Do we know the actual cost of both HIMARS and the K-239?
Has the K-239 the capability to fore the US Army's new long range precision guided missile like HIMARS can?
How many HIMARS or K-239s couds a C-17 carry?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 14:08 Few questions.
How many countries operate either South Korean MLRS compared to HIMARS?
How many Countries using HIMARS have changed the truck chassis?
How many Trucks with a similar chassis to that of HIMARS has the US Military bought and how many are in Europe and therefore require a supply chain?
Do we know the actual cost of both HIMARS and the K-239?
Has the K-239 the capability to fore the US Army's new long range precision guided missile like HIMARS can?
How many HIMARS or K-239s couds a C-17 carry?
1 ) To be straight down the line most if not all those looking to operate HIMARS just buy off the shelf from the US and all operate C-130 as its tactical air lifter
2) what the US truck chassis is means nothing to the UK as we have MAN trucks and anything else means opening a new logistics and training line
3) HIMARS costs about 5.1 million per unit K-239 is unknown
4) Maybe it fires everything else. However for the UK I would say take the weapon & Fire control system from the upgraded M-270 and fit it to a MAN 8x8 chassis then our new MAN MLARS could fire what ever M-270A2 could
5) C-17 can carry 4 HIMARS or 3 M-270/ K-239 so not that big a jump and = less pods 4 v 6

The biggest operator of M142 HIMARS is the USMC and it needed this syatem to fit in its C-130's and this limited its ability to one pod the UK can get the same effect by loading M-270A2 on to a A400m this means if we the UK want a wheeled HIMARS system we can have a two pod MAN 8x8 system based on the M-270A2 system

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7222
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 287 times
Been liked: 330 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Lord Jim »

Whether you airlift in a c-139 or a C-17 is really irrelevant. We are not going to be airlifting medium to latge forces now or in ther future, most likely any system will be moved by see.

If we expanded our inventory of GMLRS weapon systems and decided on a wheeled platform cost is going to be the key driver. If a UK HIMARS variant using the MAN HX 6x6 platform can be developed and brought intyo service in a cost effective and timely manner then I would say this is the one we should go for. The South Korean K-239 of the self id peobably going to be closer to a M270 in price and adapting it to a UK specific platform agfain useing a MAN chassis, but this time a 8x8 is only going to push the cost up further.

The truck used in HIMARS ihas been bought in its 1000s by the USD Military and a number of its allies. There will be a vast spares pool that can be accessed from where ever the US Military is based. Therefore with a run of the mill availability contract, the running costto the UK military of simply adopting HIMARS will not be significantly gtrater then using the MAN chassis but will avoid the development and trials requirements for the latter if we went down that route. Poland for example wants around 500 HIMARS mainly to replace its Soviet era MLRS ir still retains, such as the BM-21 GRAD. It is not choosing to adapty the platform to use a truck already in use with the Polish Military as it sees no need to.

UF we follow the logic of mounting new weapon systems on platforms already in UK service to ease support costs why didn't we work to have MLRS on a Wattior chassis rather then the Bradley#s.

However the most important issue I see is we need more Mobil Fires platforms. I suppose the simplest opton would be tosee if we could purchase another Regimensts worth of second hand M270s from the US Army and add those to the upgrade programme, givving us two regular and one reserve GMLRS Regiments, or expanding on the current plan, three Regular Regiments that woul dbe brought up to wartime strength by Batteries from a Reserve Regiment. Going down this route would remove the benefits the Army would have gained by having a wheeled platform able to move far greater didtances than the M270 in a more timely fashion.

REmoving that capability would also affect the MFP Programme and would peobably concentrate the Army#s interest in the K-9A23

As for lighter MFPs to support the Light BCTs as well as the Ranger Regiment, 16AA and possibly the FCF, having a serious look at the light weight gun and MLRS platforms that were developed in the UK a while back but cancelled to save money might be an idea.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

The simple fact is M-142 and M-270 use the same fire control and Launch system and this is were all the cost is. A MAN 8x8 will set you back about 100K and we know it can carry a twin pod and if the Fire control fits in a M-142 it will fit in a MAN 8x8 I would say given the cost of M-142 is 5.1 Million I reckon we could get a 12 round 8x8 MAN MLRS for 6 million and if on are on about buying say 30 it will cost an extra 30 million and for that you could get an extra 6 M-142's this would allow you to bring 36 x 6 rounds =216 to the battle field or with the 30 x 12 rounds = 360

Now if you are removing the need to airlift but you still want a wheeled vehicle then for me this is the way to go

And yes the US truck is in service in the 1000's in NATO but so is the MAN truck we alone have 7000+

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the key to the Artillery is to get Brimstone into the Mech infantry Battalions this would give them organic fire power out 25+ km's removing the need for light gun support. This in turn could free up 2 reg and 2 reserve regiments to move to SP guns and MLRS and could leave us with

3 x light gun regiments ( 2 x Reg and 1 Reserve ) in support of FCF & 16XX
3 x SP gun regiments ( 2 x Reg & 1 reserve )
4 x MLRS regiments ( 3 x Reg & 1 reserve )

For me if the heavy Mech battalions can be fitted with RWS mounted Javelin on its APC's and get Brimstone Over watch in place of the ATGW Pl this could give each battalion the ability to engage the enemy from 500m to 25km with 160 Brimstone & 60 Javelin missiles plus each sections with 2 x NLAW this as said could free up the Artillery to get on with everything 45km's and beyond

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1005
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 35 times

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 19:54 Whether you airlift in a c-139 or a C-17 is really irrelevant. We are not going to be airlifting medium to latge forces now or in ther future, most likely any system will be moved by see. .
We have one of the largest strategic airlift capabilities in Europe, and probably one of the largest globally.

Seems an odd capability to have if we're going to wait weeks to ship be sea instead.

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 11:10 4 x MLRS regiments ( 3 x Reg & 1 reserve )
For Army it would be better to provide regular artillery regiment for 4th LBCT instead of creating another MLRS. If they want to increase number of MLRS, simplest way would be increasing number of systems in already existing batteries. Increase number of systems so that in wartime, the regiment has some 24 to 27 systems, with some replacements. I am really interested how 1st DRSBCT (maybe they should consider adding more letters in the name) will even supply the two MLRS and two 155mm regiments with ammo, considering that it does not have a single logistic unit assigned to it. I doubt that adding more artillery regiments to it would make this any easier.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

For me when you first look at HIMARS there is a lot to like but when you start digging it is not that much of an step up once you get near the battle field its 2 pluses are

1) it can drive form its base to the port get on the boat and then drive to the battle field
2) it can fit in a C-130

out side of this it becomes pretty standard once on the battle field like range and speed

M-142 can drive 490km's at 52 mph on the road this is reduced quite a lot when off road
M270 can drive 480km's at 40 mph on the road and will not drop off as much off road

Of course you would not like to drive 480km's in a tracked vehicle and with all this said if the army said it was going to get M-142 for one or two of it regiments I would not say no but we have to see its pro's and con's

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 19:28
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 11:10 4 x MLRS regiments ( 3 x Reg & 1 reserve )
For Army it would be better to provide regular artillery regiment for 4th LBCT instead of creating another MLRS. If they want to increase number of MLRS, simplest way would be increasing number of systems in already existing batteries. Increase number of systems so that in wartime, the regiment has some 24 to 27 systems, with some replacements. I am really interested how 1st DRSBCT (maybe they should consider adding more letters in the name) will even supply the two MLRS and two 155mm regiments with ammo, considering that it does not have a single logistic unit assigned to it. I doubt that adding more artillery regiments to it would make this any easier.
Don't forget that the 3rd division has the 25th OS Engineer group and the 101st OS brigade ( Logistics )

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 503
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 726 times
Been liked: 84 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 19:54 Whether you airlift in a c-139 or a C-17 is really irrelevant. We are not going to be airlifting medium to latge forces now or in ther future, most likely any system will be moved by see.
Taking a step back for a minute. it does depend on how big a formation and to where.

If we are looking at EoS then I believe we are looking at a Company of troops plus support. Most probably Light Infantry so not likely to be including heavy equipment tracked vehicles like CH3, Warrior or AS90.
Maybe Boxer but more probably lighter wheeled vehicles such as Jackal etc, But even Light Infantry still needs to have support from artillery, anti-tank and air-defence, not to mention logistics, engineering, signals and medical support.

So we need sufficent strategic airlift to take all of the above, one Light Company plus support platoons/troops, and be able to move it within a designated time period anywhere in Asia / Middle East / Africa. And as you have made the point before, we only will know if we have a realistic capacity to accomplish this by continued training with periodic but regular practice exercises.

Then closer to home we would have to move between a Battalion and a Brigade of troops either to NATO's southern flank in Mediterranean (which I personally think we should be leaving to the likes of France / Spain / Italy to accomplish given their combined number of carriers / LPH & LPD's / escorts), or to NATO's northern flank in Scandinavia / Baltics (which I think is most likely and a more realistic a priority for UK armed forces).

So for many a decade that involved either BAOR in Germany or amphibibious rinforcement of Norway. Now that has changed, firstly with NATO's Enhancd Forward Presence Groups in Poland and Baltics, and the more recent applications of Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Whilst I may feel comfortable about deploying Bay / Point class in the North Sea, sending them into the Baltic becomes far more dangerous given the number of antiship missiles that Russia can deploy from either Kaliningrad or their Baltic Fleet.

Currently I believe that UK is leading or contributing to EFP's in Estonia / Poland respectively. We can certainly forward deploy some troops along with some heavy equipment. The rest we would have to move by either sea / air / train / road (if wheeled). The latter two are feasible only for as long as the Suwalki Gap is open, and the former two face the challengs of Russian Anti-Access and Area-Denial sensors and defences.

I am not saying that you were wrong but I believe we need to consider all these points before we can decide what sort of new artillery systems we need to buying:
-what size of Army fighting unit are we talking about and what supporting units will they have
-where do we want to deploy such units
-what units or heavy equipment can we advance deploy
-what size of reinforcing units will we sending from UK
-in what timescale do they need to reinforce

That will determine whether we would be looking to reinforce by sea / air / train / road, and this is where both the strategic and tactical mobility of the various artillery and missile systems that discussing come into play. But I believe need to be clear on all of that before can decide whether best to go for M270 / HIMARS / K-239s etc
-

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 503
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 726 times
Been liked: 84 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by wargame_insomniac »

RunningStrong wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 18:56
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jul 2022, 19:54 Whether you airlift in a c-139 or a C-17 is really irrelevant. We are not going to be airlifting medium to latge forces now or in ther future, most likely any system will be moved by see. .
We have one of the largest strategic airlift capabilities in Europe, and probably one of the largest globally.

Seems an odd capability to have if we're going to wait weeks to ship be sea instead.
Especially if you have say the Point class sealift ships with a max speed of 21.5 knnots travelling to the Baltic States or eastern Med. Even if protected by RN's limited number of AAW destroyers, that feels like putting all our eggs in one large, slow moving basket.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 19:28
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 11:10 4 x MLRS regiments ( 3 x Reg & 1 reserve )
For Army it would be better to provide regular artillery regiment for 4th LBCT instead of creating another MLRS. If they want to increase number of MLRS, simplest way would be increasing number of systems in already existing batteries. Increase number of systems so that in wartime, the regiment has some 24 to 27 systems, with some replacements. I am really interested how 1st DRSBCT (maybe they should consider adding more letters in the name) will even supply the two MLRS and two 155mm regiments with ammo, considering that it does not have a single logistic unit assigned to it. I doubt that adding more artillery regiments to it would make this any easier.
As I have said for me the 4th LBCT is a cop-out within the 1st division we have 11 regular and 8 Reserve infantry Battalions plus 4 Cavalry Regiments these are split into

7th LMBCT = 1 Cavalry & 5 Regular Infantry battalions
4th LBCT = 1 Cavalry & 6 Regular infantry battalions
19th Brigade = 2 (R) cavalry & 8 (R) Infantry battalions

For me we should be splitting the 1st D into 3 LMBCT's of

1 Cavalry regiment , 3 regular Infantry Battalions & 2 reserve Infantry Battalions. The remaining cavalry and infantry units would move to the 3rd Division to form a third Armoured BCT

I would expect all six of these BCT's to be given a battery of MLRS this would allow a LMBCT to enter theatre with 27 brimstone launchers (each with 12 missiles = 324 ready rounds ) and 6 (wheeled ) 12 round 8x8 MLRS = 72 ready rounds

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 08:35 I would expect all six of these BCT's to be given a battery of MLRS this would allow a LMBCT to enter theatre with 27 brimstone launchers (each with 12 missiles = 324 ready rounds ) and 6 (wheeled ) 12 round 8x8 MLRS = 72 ready rounds
Why would MLRS battery be attached to battalion/brigade level unit? It would be much better to keep them grouped so that they can mass its strike potential than dispersing them around to support smaller units. After all they have range to strike deep into enemy territory, they don't need to be attached to brigade level to do this.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

the way I would like to see it the 3rd division would be formed like so

1 x Deep strike BCT = 4 x Cavalry regts , 3 x SP gun Regts , 2 x MLRS

3 x Armoured BCT's = 1 x Armoured regt , 1 x Cavalry regt , 4 Infantry Ballalions (2 reg & 2 Reserve ) with Artillery , Engineer & Logistic support

25 Engineer close support group

101 Logistics operational sustainment Brigade

the fact is MLRS could offer interlocking deep fries from Battalion through to Corps level plus as you see from the above the 3rd division would still ends up with 3 SP gun and 3 MLRS regiments

the 1st division would have 1 MLRS regiment and 1 reserve light gun regiment

16XX and FCF would get 1 light gun regiment each plus Brimstone over watch based on Viking

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3445
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 264 times
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by SW1 »

The artillery isn’t going to deploy on its own and we aren’t deploying a brigade of artillery to a single area. Hence a battalion or brigade will be attached to Artillery for there protection. Group them together for administrative purposes is fine in the U.K. but I thought part of future solider was to configure formations how they intend to deploy and fight.

If you believe what has been said about the future direction of travel for the army concentrated on deep fires and urban defence, then you could also argue of what use of gun artillery in such a force.

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 11:16 the way I would like to see it the 3rd division would be formed like so

1 x Deep strike BCT = 4 x Cavalry regts , 3 x SP gun Regts , 2 x MLRS

3 x Armoured BCT's = 1 x Armoured regt , 1 x Cavalry regt , 4 Infantry Ballalions (2 reg & 2 Reserve ) with Artillery , Engineer & Logistic support
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 11:16 the 1st division would have 1 MLRS regiment and 1 reserve light gun regiment
So, 3rd Division should have 3 armoured and 7 cavalry regiments. Which is one more than Army currently has. On the other side, 1st Division would be a joke of formation with just one TA light gun regiment and, for some reason, a MLRS regiment. And three TA recce regiments which are not equipped to fight as such but were actually intended to bring three regular regiment equipped with Jackals to full strength, and provide fourth squadron and replacement to them. So 1st Division would be totally toothless, completely reliable on TA. On the other hand none of 3 armoured brigades would be more capable either, considering that with keeping three tank regiments with just 148 tanks, all of them will be able to field just 44 at best, without any significant reserve. So basically British Army would fall on three, not really impressive, armoured brigades and one air assault brigade and, if shit really hit the fan, one infantry brigade which will heavily rely on TA. 1st Division would be completely useless as formation in case of any war as it does not provide anything but several infantry battalions with really weak support.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 20:04
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 11:16 the way I would like to see it the 3rd division would be formed like so

1 x Deep strike BCT = 4 x Cavalry regts , 3 x SP gun Regts , 2 x MLRS

3 x Armoured BCT's = 1 x Armoured regt , 1 x Cavalry regt , 4 Infantry Ballalions (2 reg & 2 Reserve ) with Artillery , Engineer & Logistic support
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jul 2022, 11:16 the 1st division would have 1 MLRS regiment and 1 reserve light gun regiment
So, 3rd Division should have 3 armoured and 7 cavalry regiments. Which is one more than Army currently has. On the other side, 1st Division would be a joke of formation with just one TA light gun regiment and, for some reason, a MLRS regiment. And three TA recce regiments which are not equipped to fight as such but were actually intended to bring three regular regiment equipped with Jackals to full strength, and provide fourth squadron and replacement to them. So 1st Division would be totally toothless, completely reliable on TA. On the other hand none of 3 armoured brigades would be more capable either, considering that with keeping three tank regiments with just 148 tanks, all of them will be able to field just 44 at best, without any significant reserve. So basically British Army would fall on three, not really impressive, armoured brigades and one air assault brigade and, if shit really hit the fan, one infantry brigade which will heavily rely on TA. 1st Division would be completely useless as formation in case of any war as it does not provide anything but several infantry battalions with really weak support.
Well where to start with this mess of a post

The 3rd currently has 3 Armoured and 6 Cavalry regt's and I am saying we should move 1 of Reserve Cavalry regts from 1st to 3rd to make it 7

the 1st is a joke as it stands and has 1 regular light gun and 2 reserve light gun regts plus nowhere did I say the 1st would end up with 3 reserve cavalry regts as it stands it 2 regular & 2 reserve units

As thing stand now the Army would fall on 2 not really impressive armoured brigades , 1 LMBCT and 16XX all poorly supported

Now to be clear what i would like to see is 6 Heavy and 9 light mechanised infantry battalions all of these battalion would follow the same basic form of 60 APC/ C&C , 9 Brimstone over-watch , 6 SP Mortar , 10 Assault pioneer & 10 Ambulance. All APC /C&C would be fitted with a RWS fitted with a 30mm cannon or 40mm GMG plus a Javelin missile I would then give every section 2 NLAW this mean that each

Heavy mech Battalion could bring
9 x 18 Brimstone = 162 missiles
60 x Javelin missiles
54 x NLAW missiles

Light mech battalion could bring
9 x 12 Brimstone = 108 missiles
60 x javelin missiles
54 x NLAW

Now this would mean each battalion would have organic fire power out to 25+ km's if each brigade was given a MLRS battery this would mean we could see

3 x Armoured BCT,s of
1 x Armoured regt = 44 CH2/3
1 x Cavalry regt = 60 Ajax with 40mm cannons + Javelin and Hero 120
2 x Infantry battalios = 100 boxer with 324 Brimstone missiles , 120 Javelin , 108 NLAW , 12 SP mortar + 30mm cannons & 40mm GMG
1 x Artillery = 1 x MLRS battery Deep over-watch , Air defence , UAV

And 3 x Light Mech BCT's of
1 x Cavalry = Jackal with 12.7 HMG + NLAW and hero 120
3 x Infantry battalion = 100 Foxhound & Bushmaster with 324 Brimstone , 180 javelin , 162 NLW , 18 SP mortar + 30mm cannons and 40mm GMG
1 x Artillery = 1 x MLRS Battery Deep Over-watch , Air defence , UAV

this would allow all of these formations to engage the enemy form 100 meter all the way our to 50 miles I find that hard to call toothless

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1005
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 35 times

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 20:03 M-142 can drive 490km's at 52 mph on the road this is reduced quite a lot when off road
M270 can drive 480km's at 40 mph on the road and will not drop off as much off road

Of course you would not like to drive 480km's in a tracked vehicle and with all this said if the army said it was going to get M-142 for one or two of it regiments I would not say no but we have to see its pro's and con's
Nice SI unit muddle ;)

I think you have to consider the wider spec too. An M270 travelling that distance on road is probably have greater maintenance (unless rubber band entirely removes this?), Logistics (definitely more fuel) and crew fatigue (tracks on metalled road).

The question then is once we get into the 50-100km GMLRS weapon range capability, why are we going off-road (and the need for tracks)?

If the answer is counter battery repositioning then I kind of accept it, but similarly wheels will allow you to move potentially faster from your point of fire with a time of flight possibly measured in minutes.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 202 times
France

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 12:03
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Jul 2022, 20:03 M-142 can drive 490km's at 52 mph on the road this is reduced quite a lot when off road
M270 can drive 480km's at 40 mph on the road and will not drop off as much off road

Of course you would not like to drive 480km's in a tracked vehicle and with all this said if the army said it was going to get M-142 for one or two of it regiments I would not say no but we have to see its pro's and con's
Nice SI unit muddle ;)

I think you have to consider the wider spec too. An M270 travelling that distance on road is probably have greater maintenance (unless rubber band entirely removes this?), Logistics (definitely more fuel) and crew fatigue (tracks on metalled road).

The question then is once we get into the 50-100km GMLRS weapon range capability, why are we going off-road (and the need for tracks)?

If the answer is counter battery repositioning then I kind of accept it, but similarly wheels will allow you to move potentially faster from your point of fire with a time of flight possibly measured in minutes.
You are right however if we take some lessons from WW11 all the way to Ukraine then the movement of displaced people on the roads trying to get away may mean you have to go off road to get to the fight however with this said I have no problem with having both tracked and wheeled MLRS systems with the tracked units held in the 3rd division and the wheeled in the 1st

sol
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 35 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 11:55 The 3rd currently has 3 Armoured and 6 Cavalry regt's and I am saying we should move 1 of Reserve Cavalry regts from 1st to 3rd to make it 7
No it does not. Currently it has 3 armoured, 3 heavy cavalry and 1 light cavalry. It also has two TA units, RWY and RY. But none of those two are intended to work as fully operational units but to provide crew replacement and reinforcements to specific units. RWY to 3 armoured regiments and RY to light cavalry regiment in the DRSCT. Moving another TA unit is pointless as it is not fully operational on its own and it is suppose to strengthen one of other two light cavalry regiments in the 1st Division.

Post Reply