Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:Formation reconnaissance was rather held at the divisional level (indeed even artillery regiments were held at the div level).
Ohh, those were the days when we had divisionS and one or several of them could muster a DAG (about as much artillery in one as we have left, all counted).

We can't have a situation in which we'll have to wait until the ONE and only division is in-situ, and only then things can be done "properly" - whatever the doctrine says 'that' should be.
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: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by Lord Jim »

If I have read the articles correctly, with the "Strike" Brigades current plans, only on of the Recce/Cavalry Regiments would act in direct support of the two Mechanised Infantry Battalions and the second would act more like a traditional Recce Regiment, providing a screen for the Brigade or even other formations.

As for the Armoured Infantry Brigades, as we all know, under present plans they will hove zero Recce, as none of the Armoured or Infantry units will replace their integral CVR(T) Recce units with Ajax, but rather the units will be removed from their organisational structure. This leaves them totally dependant on the "Strike" Brigades to provide them with intel as well as any Divisional level assets that are in the field.

But it is all well and good talking about the Armoured Infantry Brigades etc, but they have to be able to get to the operational theatre, and they will find this very difficult until the Army's limited fleet of HETs has already done two round trips to deliver the Strike Brigade and initial Fires formations. Given the stress put on these vital platforms, how many would have become unserviceable during those two journeys? The logistical issues of moving a "Strike" Brigade and just one of the Armoured Infantry Brigades are immense, and until we actually carry out a full scale exercise deployment, with little or no advance notice, I seriously question our ability to deploy the forces necessary within any reasonable time frame to be of use.

J. Tattersall

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by J. Tattersall »

under present plans they will hove zero Recce, as none of the Armoured or Infantry units will replace their integral CVR(T)
Are you quite sure that is correct? I know that the UK Armed Forces Commentary blogspot has previously asserted that's the case, but I tend to find that site a bit of a curate's egg.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:logistical issues of moving a "Strike" Brigade and just one of the Armoured Infantry Brigades are immense
ArmChairCivvy wrote:can't have a situation in which we'll have to wait until the ONE and only division is in-situ, and only then things can be done "properly"
... as said, good to be able to field a division capable of manoeuvre warfare, but putting that together should not negate each brigade's ability to be deployed and then fight in an all-arms way. On its own, or while waiting for others to arrive.
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by J. Tattersall »

@Lord Jim
under present plans they will hove zero Recce, as none of the Armoured or Infantry units will replace their integral CVR(T)
However Forces.net https://www.forces.net/services/army/al ... ry-vehicle says
AJAX is intended to support the British Army's new Strike Brigades, Armoured Cavalry Regiments, Armoured and Armoured Infantry battlegroups and Combat Suppport elements.
which seems to imply that armoured and infantry units will have their CVR(T) replaced by AJAX.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by Lord Jim »

J. Tattersall wrote:JAX is intended to support the British Army's new Strike Brigades, Armoured Cavalry Regiments, Armoured and Armoured Infantry battlegroups and Combat Suppport elements.
The statement is a bit of a shotgun statement, saying it is intended to support the new "Strike" Brigade when they are integral component of the "Strike" Brigades, then mentioning the Armoured Cavalry Regiments, but these again are the units that will make up half of the "Strike" Brigades, so saying the Ajax is to support these units doesn't make sense.

You could easily deduce that the "Strike" Brigades as planned will each have a Cavalry Regiment assigned to the role of a Recce/screening force which will support the Brigade as well as other formations including the Armoured Infantry Brigades and their component Battlegroups.

J. Tattersall

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Perhaps, but I still haven't seen anything to verify that the army doesn't plan to replace the CVR(T)s in armoured regiments and armoured infantry battalions. I just wondered what was the source of the information?

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

... which reminds me, where are the new ones? 50-ish of Scimitar 2s and the same number of 'all sorts'?
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Ajax will equip the British Army’s Armoured Cavalry Regiments, as well as elements of the Armoured and Armoured Infantry battlegroups and Combat Support and Combat Support elements.
or so says MOD DE&S https://des.mod.uk/what-we-do/army-proc ... port/ajax/

Once again I've yet to see any evidence at all that CVR(T) won't be replaced in armoured regiments and armoured infantry battalions. The claim is all starting to look like a bit of an urban myth whose veracity is never checked.

I'm afraid I don't know what's happened to the Scimitar 2s though.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:In principal only establishing one "Strike" Brigade would allow each Armoured Infantry Brigade to be reinforces by both a Ajax "Recce/Cavalry" Regiment and a Boxer "Mechanised" Infantry Battalion, giving it integral recce capability and reinforcing its infantry content.
Are we not returning to the pre-SDSR thinking of the multi-role brigade?

With: 1x Tank Rgt / 1x ArmInf Rgt / 1x ForRec Rgt / 1x MechInf

From a position of Zero expertise I am somewhat attracted to the idea of keeping two small 'demi' brigades (tracked Arm-Inf). **

With: 1x Tank Rgt / 1x ArmInf Rgt / 1x ForRec Rgt

And sinking other resources into doing strike properly.

With: Lot's of Boxer and MAN platforms, encompassing all major roles necessary for strike: 40mm CTA recon / 30mm unmanned IFV / overwatch [+] 155mm / HIMARS / counter battery

** two 'demi' brigades could equally be one large brigade designed to generate two substantial battlegroups...

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote:** two 'demi' brigades could equally be one large brigade designed to generate two substantial battlegroups...
Sounds much better :)

Surprisingly, the thinking in both the UK and in Russia is that bdes are "holders" of an all-arms collection, and then in practice you select which rgmnt (armour, AI...) will be the nucleus of a BG suitable to the task on hand - and top it up.
- such battle groups are quite small
- and unsurprisingly Russia is moving to make them bigger (and more pre-formed, EW and all kinds of things we get to read about and which did not figure in "establishment strengths" that much before)

Against this background a Div of 3 bdes, makes for 6 (partly pre-formed) demi-bdes is not a bad idea... at all
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)

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

and this sounds rather like where army thinking is heading with generating many more smaller 'brigades' to create multiple (as in more than one!) functional divisions...
-----------------
on a separate note; i am finding this desire to strip formation-rec from the heavy Arm-Inf brigades a little curious in this age of information supremacy.

one way of looking at it is an admission that heavy Arm-Inf [only] has a role in [support] of a wider mission that includes strike...
... which is another way of saying that heavy brigades have been downgraded to an auxiliary function in the army of 2030!

the logical conclusion of which is that heavy-tracked will shrink relative to the ambition stated for medium-wheeled, so rather than 1x strike and 2x heavy-metal, the reverse will be true.

again, to me this looks like 2x demi-brigades/1x large-brigade of Arm-Inf, and two[+] of Stike.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

Trying to make Brigades mini Divisions is a mistake, 0nce you have added everything needed to make them independent formations they become bloated and inefficient. Instead we should concentrate on producing an effective Division or better Divisions. This allows for more streamlined Brigade structures with Division supplying the supporting assets far more efficiently.
If we believe the blurb, Strike is intended to be an enabler, "shaping" the battlefield to allow a Division to carry out its mission. It therefore needs to be considered in those terms rather than as an independent formation.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:If we believe the blurb, Strike is intended to be an enabler, "shaping" the battlefield to allow a Division to carry out its mission. It therefore needs to be considered in those terms rather than as an independent formation.
We should believe the blurb :) , but at the same time that is mainly (just) for one scenario.
- under that scenario, we have a one-shot army (beggars can't be choosers)
- BUT there are other scenarios as well
I also believe in what the Boy Scout said...
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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

Making best use of the manpower (including reserves),and equipment we already have as well as what's in the pipe line, I see no reason we couldn't produce 2 if not 3 Divisions. If we need to employ less than a division that's no real problem. If its a Brigade we just add assets from within the Division to give it the ability to operate independently.
As for other scenarios, is a Strike Brigade, (rather than the concept) the right choice? In my opinion its far too heavy and logistically challenging.

J. Tattersall

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by J. Tattersall »

whitelancer wrote:As for other scenarios, is a Strike Brigade, (rather than the concept) the right choice? In my opinion its far too heavy and logistically challenging.
Well that clearly depends on the scenario. Not quite so logistically challenging as an Armoured Infantry brigade.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by Caribbean »

whitelancer wrote:As for other scenarios, is a Strike Brigade, (rather than the concept) the right choice? In my opinion its far too heavy and logistically challenging.
Surely, if you need a lighter logistics footprint, you mix and match with motorised infantry and light cavalry? Hopefully they will all move to "protected" status with the purchase of Bushmaster and JLTV, as well as acquiring some additional firepower in the form of towed/ portee 120mm mortar (maybe as an addition, at battalion level, to the 80mm at company level), Garl Gustav/shoulder launched LMM (at platoon level?) and improved section level weapons. If JLTV is actually acquired, then it has some interesting options for vehicle-mounted ATGW, LMM and even 30mm gun systems.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

J. Tattersall wrote:Well that clearly depends on the scenario. Not quite so logistically challenging as an Armoured Infantry brigade.
That maybe true, but doesn't make it easy to support logistically. You would be better off with a much lighter force. That's the problem I have with medium forces, they lack the deploy-ability and low logistic footprint of light forces and the sheer combat power of heavy forces.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

@ Caribbean
As my post above.
I can see a scenario with a light force being supported by a Strike Battlegroup, or even a Battle group conducting an independent operation, I just cant see a situation where you would want to conduct an independent Brigade sized operation.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: cant see a situation where you would want to conduct an independent Brigade sized operation.
I seem to remember that due to how areas of responsibility were shaped, all these (before further, more mixed rotations) were bde-sized and operated independently (though within a wider mandate):

"During 2006, the 3 PARA unit were the first to be placed within Helmand Province,[23] deployed within one thousand two hundred soldiers altogether of the Battle group including 16 Air Assault Brigade,[24] subsequently replaced by Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade. These troops have since been replaced by the 12 Mechanized Brigade as total number of UK personnel deployed was increased to nearly 7,000."
as per Wiki
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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I seem to remember that due to how areas of responsibility were shaped, all these (before further, more mixed rotations) were bde-sized and operated independently (though within a wider mandate):
I probably didn't make it clear, I was talking specifically about deploying a Strike Brigade on an independent operation.
Talking of Afganistan though, one could see the original operation,(2001) as almost a blueprint for the Strike concept. Small disaggregated teams(SF) operating over a wide area on many axis, using Joint Fires to disrupt, confuse and destroy the Taliban forces ultimately allowing their defeat by the Northern Alliance!

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: was talking specifically about deploying a Strike Brigade on an independent operation.
Talking of Afganistan though, one could see the original operation,(2001) as almost a blueprint for the Strike concept
We are in complete agreement.
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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:We are in complete agreement.
:o
I think I better have a lie down.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well we all seem to have plenty of ideas of where we want to see the Army in ten to fifteen years the problem is how are we going to get there with the level of funding we have. Talk of multiple divisions formed from small ultra high tech "Demi Brigades" sound wonder but we can barely for a single division at present and the Army's current plans are going to create a Division that will be barely viable in any future peer conflict, be composed of two parts that will be very difficult to co ordinate as the time taken to deploy the various assets will be disparate to say the least, i.e. the first part my have ceased to exist by the time the second arrives.

The Army must look again at where its current plans stand and whilst there is still time rethink what it needs to at least make its planned formations viable. For example, for "Strike" to have a chance at attaining its mission objectives it need to be totally wheeled, and a "Strike" Brigade needs to be an all arms formation with access to substantial firepower, both direct and indirect. It also needs a rapidly deployable long range fires element, able to self deploy with the Division as well as significant ISTAR and other supporting assets. The Whole formation should be able to deploy from barracks and in the field, say in eastern Poland, within a week at most, fully assembled and ready for combat.

To have a chance at achieving this the Army must find a way to free up resources to allow for the establishment of the first "Strike" Brigade and have it equipped to be able to carry out its mission as well as re equipping a number of Royal Artillery Regiments with both a Wheeled Gun Platform and replace the current tracked GMLRS with the wheeled HIMARS platform.

With current funding the Army is going to have to choose as to whether it wished to have either viable heavy or medium units in the medium term. At present the only AFV programmes actually in the delivery pipeline are Ajax and Boxer as all other programmes have yet to have full production contracts signed. But there is still time to change direction. Reducing the Ajax contract would be one way to free up at least some of the £3.5Bn allocated for production, of a platform that is in reality out of step with what the Army needs. Reducing the size, composition and number of units within 1st (UK) Division, but retaining a full HQ would free up substantial saving through reduced personnel costs.

Maybe we should look to only have one heavy Brigade but have it composed to two Armoured and two Armoured Infantry Regiments. This retains the most important assets, the Challengers, whilst making savings by only upgrading half the Warriors we currently intend to. Boxers could be used to provide many of the support platforms such as Command, Ambulance, REME support and Mortar Carriers. Have two Ajax Equipped Divisional Recce Regiments as well as use the Ajax to equip Recce Sections in the Heavy units, which would reduce the numbers of Ajax variants needed to around a third.

The above may only produce one "Strike" and one Armoured Brigade organised and equipped to be viable formations in the medium term, but the former will allow the "Strike" doctrine to be honed and allow a second Brigade to incorporate the lessons learned when it is formed as finances allow. Maybe the "Demi" Brigade idea will be a more realistic option by this time and instead of a second "Strike" Brigade we see two or more of these formed to compliment the existing two Brigades. But in the short to medium term the Army must concentrate its efforts and resources on creating formations and obtaining capabilities that are needed within this timeframe, not looking twenty years into the future as planning for what might be. Its past mistakes have left it with mass obsolesce and a requirement for major re equipment programmes that need urgent attention now.

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

Re: Strike Brigades (SDSR 15)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: whilst making savings by only upgrading half the Warriors we currently intend to.
That would be going halves for the second time
... will be back for the second half of the post, the news first (i.e. tomorrow's front pages)
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)

Post Reply