The future form of the Army

[wargame_insomniac]

Feels to me we are stuck in a loop of endless discussion of what the Army should look like that fits a traditional view rather than stepping back devising a strategy then matching equipment / force structures to that.

My view is that UK is and wants to continue to be a global influencer, whilst protecting its territory (to which there is very limited real threat currently).

Without a real threat to its territory the UK must remain vigilant to incursions and growing threats, but it does not need a large standing army.

This is better suited to a larger more capable reserve force than a small regular force.

To influence global events it needs to be able to act quickly to mitigate emerging threats, but as importantly it needs to be an enabler for allies to allow them to defend themselves through complementary capabilities that they do not have. Long gone are the days of large army forces deployed to war zones - they are both unaffordable for the UK and as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated do not work.

This lends it self more to the SF/FCF/Ranger structures being discussed coupled with highly mobile battlegroup sized specialist forces providing artillery, surveillance, air defence and other first tier capabilities. Alongside this is the engagement in training and supplies as proven in the Ukraine conflict.

I’d argue that none of this requires regular heavy or medium brigades.

I could agree on that as I don't think that UK is able to project heavy or medium brigades beyond Europe.

Therefore we should be working on the assumption that we are reinforcing our NATO allies, and most likely on Northern flank with fellow 9 members of the Joint Expeditionary Force (Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway) and myabe Poland.

[Repulse]

…but it does need to retain capability to contribute to an offensive operation as a contingency.

Emotionally I can see where you are going on this, but in reality it is exactly that thinking which is killing the Army.

What we are talking about is a traditional offensive where an enemy is entrenched probably in prepared defensive positions. Attacking them with a conventional armoured force is definitely one option, but it’s not the only one, and definitely not one to be taken lightly or done quickly. I’d want to see air superiority in place with months of surgical air / artillery strikes and attacks on supply lines to soften and demoralise enemy forces.

How many countries could sustain an offensive presence for this period? Russia has struggled enormously. Also, this time allows for offensive forces to be called up and trained.

[SW1]

…but it does need to retain capability to contribute to an offensive operation as a contingency.

Emotionally I can see where you are going on this, but in reality it is exactly that thinking which is killing the Army.

What we are talking about is a traditional offensive where an enemy is entrenched probably in prepared defensive positions. Attacking them with a conventional armoured force is definitely one option, but it’s not the only one, and definitely not one to be taken lightly or done quickly. I’d want to see air superiority in place with months of surgical air / artillery strikes and attacks on supply lines to soften and demoralise enemy forces.

How many countries could sustain an offensive presence for this period? Russia has struggled enormously. Also, this time allows for offensive forces to be called up and trained.

I’m not sure it’s killing it in so much that we can’t predict the future so having a balance and retaining institutional knowledge is important. We may have to retake ground against a highly competent opponent, it’s the scale that I think the army has wrong it’s not a divisional armoured operation for the Uk. The UK can deploy a land hq that can command more than a single brigade like it did in telic just not an all armoured one or indeed an all UK division. I think it would be used less and would not be at high readiness to deploy but would be exercised regularly.

Given funding and likely use I’d probably go for 1 heavy (along the lines of a U.S. armoured brigade), 2 medium (along the lines of US Stryker brigade) and 3 airmobile styled brigades ( along the lines of the old 24 airmobile) with the SF brigade

[Repulse]

…The UK can deploy a land hq that can command more than a single brigade like it did in telic just not an all armoured one or indeed an all UK division. I think it would be used less and would not be at high readiness to deploy but would be exercised regularly…

Having a semi regular HQ makes sense and a capability useful for both allied operations and also as a seedcorn to quickly scale a reserve force.

Would like to see a multi-divisional reserve force complemented by the same specialist regular units used to support allied nations when the UK is not under direct threat.

[SW1]

…The UK can deploy a land hq that can command more than a single brigade like it did in telic just not an all armoured one or indeed an all UK division. I think it would be used less and would not be at high readiness to deploy but would be exercised regularly…

Having a semi regular HQ makes sense and a capability useful for both allied operations and also as a seedcorn to quickly scale a reserve force.

Would like to see a multi-divisional reserve force complemented by the same specialist regular units used to support allied nations when the UK is not under direct threat.

I don’t think there’s a need for that level of reserve structure we simply wouldn’t get into the level of attritional warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine to justify it because we have nuclear weapons.

I think the reserve structure needs to change maybe to take on the support to civil powers role more, but more as an ability to enhance niche and specialist areas like medical, cyber, coms, intel.

Interesting to read the reports from Ukraine of how their IT industries and professionals switched to using and modifying commercial style drones to produce an intelligence picture they could pass to artillery ect for attack. This maybe something we could look to develop in reserve forces for not a lot of outlay.

[Repulse]

I think the reserve structure needs to change maybe to take on the support to civil powers role more, but more as an ability to enhance niche and specialist areas like medical, cyber, coms, intel.

I like the idea of a “National Resilience Force” to take on broader roles.

Perhaps a multi-divisional force is too ambitious, but it needs to be a structure that can scale. One thing that I think should also happen, is that all cap badges should move to reserve forces (some whom take up ceremonial roles). This would allow the regular forces to be structured as needed without the burden of history. Also, regional reserve forces would work better by their nature.

[Tempest414]

I think the reserve structure needs to change maybe to take on the support to civil powers role more, but more as an ability to enhance niche and specialist areas like medical, cyber, coms, intel.

I like the idea of a “National Resilience Force” to take on broader roles.

Perhaps a multi-divisional force is too ambitious, but it needs to be a structure that can scale. One thing that I think should also happen, is that all cap badges should move to reserve forces (some whom take up ceremonial roles). This would allow the regular forces to be structured as needed without the burden of history. Also, regional reserve forces would work better by their nature.

What the fuck do we need a national resilience force for what would it do that other department can't when properly fund and staffed we don't need to muddy the waters even more

No we need the Army to do what the army is for and that is combat the reserves are there to bring more trained mass when needed this is what we saw in Ukraine in Feb the fall army including reserves standing up and deploying to there start points and then mobilization of the public followed

What we are seeing in the 3rd division is the reserve battalions embedded in the BCT's and we need this in the 1st division as well and as said we need the 1st to become a full Light mechanised division to allow a fast moving well defended force capable of deploying anywhere we want to deploy them

the UK's Four light rapid deployment forces are 16 AA the Rangers the RN Commandos and the RAF Regiment

[Repulse]

What the fuck do we need a national resilience force for what would it do that other department can't when properly fund and staffed we don't need to muddy the waters even more

Because war isn’t as simple and well defined as you’d fucking like it to be. Sure there is an argument that every department should have a higher degree of resilience, but extraordinary events require a military style approach and organisation.

No we need the Army to do what the army is for and that is combat the reserves are there to bring more trained mass when needed this is what we saw in Ukraine in Feb the fall army including reserves standing up and deploying to there start points and then mobilization of the public followed

Under my proposal the regular army will still fight, just in a useful way rather than pointless penny packet formations. Afghanistan is a very good example of pretending that a small force can be more than a liability.

we need the 1st to become a full Light mechanised division to allow a fast moving well defended force capable of deploying anywhere we want to deploy them

No we don’t - our forces should be configured against a real need and strategy, not some outdated vision of what an army should look like.

Iraq and Afghanistan again showed the limits of what such a regular force could achieve, and on top of that the acceptance of countries having foreign boots on the ground is much less than it was, so if anything the effect will be even less and side effects more.

[SW1]

What the fuck do we need a national resilience force for what would it do that other department can't when properly fund and staffed we don't need to muddy the waters even more

Because war isn’t as simple and well defined as you’d fucking like it to be. Sure there is an argument that every department should have a higher degree of resilience, but extraordinary events require a military style approach and organisation.

No we need the Army to do what the army is for and that is combat the reserves are there to bring more trained mass when needed this is what we saw in Ukraine in Feb the fall army including reserves standing up and deploying to there start points and then mobilization of the public followed

Under my proposal the regular army will still fight, just in a useful way rather than pointless penny packet formations. Afghanistan is a very good example of pretending that a small force can be more than a liability.

we need the 1st to become a full Light mechanised division to allow a fast moving well defended force capable of deploying anywhere we want to deploy them

No we don’t - our forces should be configured against a real need and strategy, not some outdated vision of what an army should look like.

Iraq and Afghanistan again showed the limits of what such a regular force could achieve, and on top of that the acceptance of countries having foreign boots on the ground is much less than it was, so if anything the effect will be even less and side effects more.

What would you suggest is the acceptance in say Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland , Romania or Ukraine to having a regular force of foreign U.K. boots on the ground?

[Tempest414]

What the fuck do we need a national resilience force for what would it do that other department can't when properly fund and staffed we don't need to muddy the waters even more

Because war isn’t as simple and well defined as you’d fucking like it to be. Sure there is an argument that every department should have a higher degree of resilience, but extraordinary events require a military style approach and organisation.

No we need the Army to do what the army is for and that is combat the reserves are there to bring more trained mass when needed this is what we saw in Ukraine in Feb the fall army including reserves standing up and deploying to there start points and then mobilization of the public followed

Under my proposal the regular army will still fight, just in a useful way rather than pointless penny packet formations. Afghanistan is a very good example of pretending that a small force can be more than a liability.

we need the 1st to become a full Light mechanised division to allow a fast moving well defended force capable of deploying anywhere we want to deploy them

No we don’t - our forces should be configured against a real need and strategy, not some outdated vision of what an army should look like.

Iraq and Afghanistan again showed the limits of what such a regular force could achieve, and on top of that the acceptance of countries having foreign boots on the ground is much less than it was, so if anything the effect will be even less and side effects more.

well the last time I looked through my military trained officer eyes properly equipped light mechanised forces were highly useful and wanted able to conduct many tasks from full combat to UN peace keeping

what I want from you is a full brake down of how your force would be configured and what kit it would be given to conduct its full range of tasks

[Repulse]

What would you suggest is the acceptance in say Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland , Romania or Ukraine to having a regular force of foreign U.K. boots on the ground?

Finland has a wartime strength of over 200k with more tanks than the UK. They have also been wary of their geographical position, and are very unlikely to want to have a UK heavy, medium or light units based there. They would have limited strategic value, but great political value to Russia to enforce the bad US/UK on their borders narrative. Rapidly deployed (from the UK) artillery or ground attack air assets would be much more useful to them.

Estonia / Latvia are more accepting given their small size and limited resources, they see them aa a tripwire force and a guarantee that the UK will be involved if invaded. But again why should these be traditional armoured / infantry units?

Poland has significant ground forces already, focused on national defence with twice as many tanks as the UK. A UK battlegroup or even bridged has little to offer. As has been shown recently engineer units do.

Ukraine would love anyone’s boots on the ground, but it will and never should happen. Again even if the UK was so inclined it would be a ridiculously small offering with the potential to be more of an embarrassment than asset.

[Repulse]

well the last time I looked through my military trained officer eyes properly equipped light mechanised forces were highly useful and wanted able to conduct many tasks from full combat to UN peace keeping

what I want from you is a full brake down of how your force would be configured and what kit it would be given to conduct its full range of tasks

The last time they were useful was arguably Kosovo, but that was 25 years ago. Please give examples where you think deploying such a mechanised force within the broader constraints of the UK capabilities makes sense. A light force Sierra Leone style makes more sense, but this is exactly why the Paras, RMs and Rangers are needed.

Giving a full breakdown of fantasy kit lists isn’t worth my time, but I would start by creating additional long range artillery regiments (like 26th Royal Artillery Regiment with MLRS/EXACTOR2) and air defence regiments (like 16th Royal Artillery Regiment with Sky Sabre) and ensure that these were capable of rapid air/sea deployment with required logistical support.

[Tempest414]

well the last time I looked through my military trained officer eyes properly equipped light mechanised forces were highly useful and wanted able to conduct many tasks from full combat to UN peace keeping

what I want from you is a full brake down of how your force would be configured and what kit it would be given to conduct its full range of tasks

The last time they were useful was arguably Kosovo, but that was 25 years ago. Please give examples where you think deploying such a mechanised force within the broader constraints of the UK capabilities makes sense. A light force Sierra Leone style makes more sense, but this is exactly why the Paras, RMs and Rangers are needed.

Giving a full breakdown of fantasy kit lists isn’t worth my time, but I would start by creating additional long range artillery regiments (like 26th Royal Artillery Regiment with MLRS/EXACTOR2) and air defence regiments (like 16th Royal Artillery Regiment with Sky Sabre) and ensure that these were capable of rapid air/sea deployment with required logistical support.

saying the last time anything was used in the case of British army over the last 20 years is a none starter as it has been used in a way it was not trained and equipped for and over that time it had to rethink , retrain and reequip for a new way of fighting. From my last visit to Wattishame and the Apache force they said they had just returned from an EX in the Baltic and were having to rethink and retrain for operations in Europe after years of operations in Afgan

As for when and how a light mechanised forces can be used there are many ways from full combat to UN duties like Mali . The Light mech BCT's can also brake down into BBG's in real terms the modern light mech in BVs 10's and Bushmaster's are the old light infantry fast moving well protected forces able to exploit gaps and fill gaps that might appear

As said we already have a number of Light rapid intervention forces starting with 11th brigade SFA and Rangers , 16 AA , RM and RAF Regiment these are all capable of deploying fast with light logistics foot print

[SW1]

What would you suggest is the acceptance in say Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland , Romania or Ukraine to having a regular force of foreign U.K. boots on the ground?

Finland has a wartime strength of over 200k with more tanks than the UK. They have also been wary of their geographical position, and are very unlikely to want to have a UK heavy, medium or light units based there. They would have limited strategic value, but great political value to Russia to enforce the bad US/UK on their borders narrative. Rapidly deployed (from the UK) artillery or ground attack air assets would be much more useful to them.

Estonia / Latvia are more accepting given their small size and limited resources, they see them aa a tripwire force and a guarantee that the UK will be involved if invaded. But again why should these be traditional armoured / infantry units?

Poland has significant ground forces already, focused on national defence with twice as many tanks as the UK. A UK battlegroup or even bridged has little to offer. As has been shown recently engineer units do.

Ukraine would love anyone’s boots on the ground, but it will and never should happen. Again even if the UK was so inclined it would be a ridiculously small offering with the potential to be more of an embarrassment than asset.

Well that would go against everything we have seen this year then. Finland seeing a challenger sqn, infantry and chinook helicopter’s deployed for exercise and uk signing an agreement to defend Sweden and Finland. 2 battle groups deployed into Estonia and there desire for more, a light battle group and air defence battery deployed into Poland and air defence a/c into Romania.

So while the countries in question have significant capabilities they have also requested uk forces to come along side them should we simply say no?

So there is clearly a desire in democratic countries that feel threatened to request and have UK ground forces come and fight with them in there country.

[Tempest414]

Not to mention 16 AA battle group in Masedonia and a Light mech battle group in Norway

[Repulse]

…should we simply say no?

So there is clearly a desire in democratic countries that feel threatened to request and have UK ground forces come and fight with them in there country.

No we shouldn’t say no, but we should ask ourselves how we can best give assistance. My point is that another (relatively poorly equipped) light or heavy battle group is a traditional response, but actually it just makes a small increase in what they have already. Providing specialist game changing capabilities is a better way.

[Tempest414]

What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year

[Repulse]

What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year

Yes, but at a much bigger scale.

[Tempest414]

What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year

Yes, but at a much bigger scale.

But what dose your much bigger look like ?

[SW1]

…should we simply say no?

So there is clearly a desire in democratic countries that feel threatened to request and have UK ground forces come and fight with them in there country.

No we shouldn’t say no, but we should ask ourselves how we can best give assistance. My point is that another (relatively poorly equipped) light or heavy battle group is a traditional response, but actually it just makes a small increase in what they have already. Providing specialist game changing capabilities is a better way.

I’m not sure what game changing capabilities you’re talking about. A battle group today is different from the past and will have different capabilities within it in the future.

[wargame_insomniac]

What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year

Yes, but at a much bigger scale.

But what dose your much bigger look like ?

The UK currently has only 40 GLMRS and a handful of Sky Sabre units - I think quadrupling it would be a good start.

[Repulse]

I’m not sure what game changing capabilities you’re talking about. A battle group today is different from the past and will have different capabilities within it in the future.

Game changing in terms of any allied nation we are supporting. I agree the configuration and role of a Battle Group is evolving, and I do not want to get hung up on words. What I am focusing on is specialist supporting assets, such as air defence, long range artillery, surveillance, EW, ground attack etc - rather than tanks and infantry.

[SW1]

I’m not sure what game changing capabilities you’re talking about. A battle group today is different from the past and will have different capabilities within it in the future.

Game changing in terms of any allied nation we are supporting. I agree the configuration and role of a Battle Group is evolving, and I do not want to get hung up on words. What I am focusing on is specialist supporting assets, such as air defence, long range artillery, surveillance, EW, ground attack etc - rather than tanks and infantry.

I wouldn’t disagree that investment should be focused on those areas but they also require infantry to defend and hold the ground for those things and they’re logistical enablers. Hence they form into a battle group.

If you look at how 24 air mobile brigade was configured at the end of the Cold War you will seen even then there was bias to what you suggest. It’s not hard to see how a similar structure updated with modern equipment and vehicle weights could be developed.

[Repulse]

I’m very happy with the term Battlegroup if it’s being used for something useful. Also agree 100% on the need of infantry to defend these assets. Would also have assigned engineer units also.

In the future a can see that a “Battle Group” with combined highly mobile air defence, artillery, SFs and air assets with infantry and engineers to build protection/protect could be the new form of a modern “moving castle” capable of defending / controlling a wide area.

[Tempest414]

What like the 101st , 102rd & 104th operational Sustainment Brigades , 1st Signals brigade or the Divisional field HQ all of which were deployed on EX across Europe this year

Yes, but at a much bigger scale.

But what dose your much bigger look like ?

The UK currently has only 40 GLMRS and a handful of Sky Sabre units - I think quadrupling it would be a good start.

Well we now have funding for 61 M270A2's and the army wants 75. Everybody wants more Sky sabre units and I would go as far as adding a RAF regiment sqn with SS

For me part of a game changing move would be to reconfigure our Mechanised infantry as things stand a Mech infantry battalion has a mortar platoon and a AT platoon so my new Light mech Battalion would have say

Bushmaster APC/C&C fitted with RWS 12.7mm , 30mm , 40mm GMG plus a Javelin
Bushmaster 120mm SP mortar
Bushmaster brimstone over-watch
Bushmaster rapid ranger AD
Bushmaster Assault Pioneer

I would have this basic set up across all mechanised infantry units giving them organic over-watch and strike out to 40km this could in tern free up Artillery regiments to move from light guns to M-142 HIMARS