British Army Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Firn

Active Member
The Pinzgauer was introduced to replace the one ton LandRover, which used to be used by 29, 7RHA and other light gun regiments and mortar troops etc. The vehicles cross-country performance is exceptional.

There was never a requirement for it to be armoured prior to Iraq/A-Stan. The UK manufacturer who bought the sole rights to produce the vehicle from the Austrian's simply offered a 'protected' version (same level as Snatch), which provided protection against fragmentation and small arms. It was never intended to be marketed as a full on MRAP vehicle.

The increasing use of sophisticated IED's meant that the Vector became obsolete before it was even deployed, hence the UK's decision to go for the Mastiff's, Ridgebacks etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
What I never understood was the purpose of such a redesign. They made it not armored enough to withstand small blasts and yet armored enough to reduce the famed tactical mobility to a bad joke.

Here is a report of Maj Roy McGriff III, United States Marine Corps updated in late 2005. He analyses very well the role vehicle survilabilty played against guerilla mine-warfare. His conclusions are neither innovative nor surprising.


The American way in Vietnam

MRAP Future wars said:
To counter these threats tactically, the Army chose to coordinate and emphasize a prevention and neutralization strategy while virtually ignoring survivability. The results of this policy were catastrophic vehicle losses exceeding 80 percent of six major end items for 1970 and the loss of 68 percent of all vehicle combat losses from 1967 to 1970. The percentage of people killed and wounded from mines and ambushes jumped from 7.2 percent killed and 11.2 percent wounded in 1967 to over 25 percent for both killed and wounded by 1970.i

Culturally, the Army appears to have accepted mine and ambush casualties as the cost of doing business. The U.S. did not possess significant mine and ambush protection of any consequence during the conventional mine warfare of WWII and Korea, and a combined mine casualty rate of less than 5 percent suggests this may have been a necessary and acceptable risk. The Army acknowledges they had three non-removable armor kits for their ¼, ½ and 5-ton trucks but they never institutionalized its use.ii

Failing to harden their vehicles against a threat that produced over 23,000 casualties in three years calls into question their military priorities regarding force protection. Furthermore, this situation presented the enemy an opportunity to cause U.S. losses that undermined our resolve and became the one of the most significant contributing political factors leading to the U.S. withdrawal.


The Rhodesian approach

Fire Force: Rhodesian STOM


In contrast to the U.S. failure to recognize and solve the mine and ambush dilemma in Vietnam stands the Rhodesian victory over mines and ambushes during their Bush War. The Rhodesian Bush War is of particular importance to the Marine Corps for two reasons. First, the Rhodesians developed, implemented and fought using a doctrine similar to STOM they called the Fire Force. Second, within seven years of suffering their first mine strike in 1971, they virtually eliminated mine fatalities and effectively defeated the mine and ambush threat at relatively little financial cost to their government.i


The Fire Force operated out of remote and secure Forward Airfields (FAF) similar to STOM’s sea-base from which the Rhodesians would launch company to brigade-sized combined arms teams directly onto an objective area via air assault. After the air assault force was launched, the “land-tail” would form up and convoy to the objective with supplies and reinforcements.ii Many of these raids took place from STOM-like distances ranging from 20 to 100 miles from the FAFs. Similar to what STOM envisions, Fire Force logistical and support convoys had to fight across large areas of landmine-infested and unsecured enemy-controlled territory. Initially, the Fire Force tactics worked exceptionally well, and the Rhodesians brought ever-increasing pressure upon the communist insurgents.


Then on 27 April 1971, enemy forces adapted and launched an unconventional mine campaign that placed the Fire Force and the Rhodesian government in jeopardy. The communists began mining the roads leading to their strongholds and then spread out to encompass and threaten the whole of Rhodesia’s military and civilian population. This prevented the Rhodesian land-based follow on forces from quickly reinforcing the air assault element and forced the Rhodesians to rely solely upon their limited aircraft to resupply and reinforce the initial waves. The Rhodesians simply did not have enough aircraft to cover, reinforce and sustain their forces via airlift.iii


In short, the Rhodesians could land on the objective, but they could not hold it because the “land-tail” could not survive the mines and ambushes during the convoy from the FAF to the objective. The soft skinned land tail needed to become a protected offensive weapon because in the outnumbered Rhodesian Army everyone needed to survive in order to fight.
So there we have the problem in a nutshell


Urgent action - brilliant results


Rhodesian Army Quarter-Master General, Colonel I.R. Stansfield faced what appeared to be an insolvable problem. First, United Nation sanctions isolated Rhodesia from world markets and restricted him from purchasing the armor from which he might fashion MRAP vehicles. Second, Rhodesia could not afford to buy the armor even if he could gain access to the world markets. These circumstances forced Rhodesia to design, build and field an MRAP vehicle fleet alone.


And less than six years after the first mine strike in April of 1971, the Rhodesians succeeded in transforming their entire vehicle fleet from an unprotected liability into an offensive capability that restored tactical and operational mobility to the Fire Force, virtually eliminated mine related deaths and significantly reduced mine related casualties. Following is a brief synopsis of how this small, financially constrained country sanctioned off from the rest of the world developed an MRAP fleet of vehicles over 25 years ago that, unbelievably, are more survivable than any comparable vehicle produced by the U.S. today.


To counter the successful fire force tactics, the communists began an offensive unconventional mine warfare campaign in 1971. Using mines they quickly began to exploit the unprotected Rhodesian infrastructure, laying mines along roads, city streets, and random open areas of the countryside surrounding farms and villages. In order to protect its citizens and maintain its legitimacy, the government formed a mine warfare committee that included the federal government, police, civil vehicle organizations and private companies. According to Stansfield, the committee’s most important and far reaching decision was to make survivability the most important aspect of mine and ambush protection, [emphasis added] and they laid down very specific criteria for crew protection.i


Next, Stansfield combined Rhodesia’s exacting and exhaustive mine casualty records with the mine warfare committee’s extensive vehicle blast tests to determine the major kill mechanisms associated with mines. Then he used this information to design and build special-purpose vehicles to effectively counter the kill mechanisms.ii Stansfield categorized the principles of mine protection under primary, secondary and tertiary kill mechanisms.

Primary kill mechanisms included acceleration, fragmentation and overpressure. Acceleration is the dynamic vertical acceleration resulting from a mine blast that often produces permanent or fatal neck and spine injuries. Fragmentations are the pieces from the mine itself or other debris propelled by the mine blast that cause massive soft tissue damage primarily to the head, heart and lungs. Blast overpressure is the sudden violent pulse of air generated by the mine blast that destroys the circulatory and respiratory system.

Secondary kill mechanisms resulted from vehicle parts failing under the stress of the mine blast and causing traumatic injury to the occupants. Tertiary kill mechanisms resulted from the various traumatic injuries produced by a vehicle crash often resulting from a mine blast.iii


Successful mine and ambush strikes also score a psychological mobility kill because they degrade the morale and confidence of offensive-minded forces. Successful mine attacks create hesitation, and sluggishness that degrade operational maneuver, while the confidence and high morale derived from knowing the operating force is protected from mine attacks is immeasurable. Stansfield recognized this fact and set about developing a fleet of vehicles capable of defeating each of the mine kill mechanisms listed above. In addition to protecting the operating forces, these vehicles actually changed the character of Rhodesian countermine warfare from passive defense in terms of neutralizing and avoiding mines and ambushes to an active offensive strategy of seeking them out.


The Rhodesians progressed quickly through first and second-generation field expedient and bolt-on protection like the U.S. Army attempted in Vietnam. The Rhodesians understood these methods did not afford them the protection they needed, reduced load carrying capacity, and cost prohibitively. Their third generation vehicles consisted of deep v-shaped blast deflecting hulls welded onto existing truck frames. These vehicles yielded substantial increases in protection from mines and small arms with the added benefit of protecting the occupants during rollovers from vehicle accidents.


Rhodesian design culminated with fourth generation MRAP vehicles designed from the ground up to protect against all three mine kill mechansims. These MRAP vehicles significantly expanded the offensive force options available to the Fire Force. In fact, they were so robust and survivable the Rhodesian Army began using them as offensive mobile fire support platforms in addition to their other logistical and transportation duties. The MRAP vehicles were so well protected and mobile that by the time the third and especially the fourth generation MRAP vehicles were fielded, the Rhodesians no longer attempted to detect and avoid the killing ground of an ambush, they detected and attacked directly into it.iv The Rhodesians had in effect turned an enemy strength into an exploitable vulnerability because the level of protection they enjoyed enabled them to literally drive through an ambush unharmed, then turn and destroy it.


The Rhodesian MRAP efforts to reduce casualties through survivability clearly speak for themselves. Their extremely detailed mine casualty records indicate unprotected vehicles suffered a 22 percent kill rate, while 1st and 2nd generation MRAP vehicles only suffered 8 percent casualty rate. However, 3rd generation MRAP fatality percentages drops to 2 percent while 4th generation falls below 1 percent. Rhodesian MRAP vehicles immediately restored the tactical mobility, and operational maneuver critical to the Fire Force while virtually eliminating casualties. The Rhodesians had effectively defeated the mine and ambush threat with mild steel, a sound design, and a philosophy that protecting their forces to improve their mobility was the key to victory.
Tactical victories, one might add. Still the ability of the Rhodesian to give their troops the tactical and strategic mobility back was certainly amazing given the dire overall ressources. A good deal of the AO in Afghanistan are more difficult to navigate and enforce greater compromises. But it doesn't seem to be that the British Mod has only recently learned the most important lesson: High mine protection is not something you slap on the next vehicle you come across!

Even relative light vehicles with around 7 tons can prove a very high mine/blast IED protection for their weight, as long they were ground up and carefully designed for that very purpose.



The Panther's have now arrived in theatre, these where spec'd prior to the A-STAN conflict, they are not full-on MRAP vehicles and could again end up being the wrong platform, too lightly protected. However They have made some improvements, quote as follows:

"Panther, which was delivered to 1 Mechanized Brigade for training last summer, has undergone design adjustments following a series of hot weather trials to make them ready for operations in Afghanistan. These include:

* rear view camera for improved situational awareness
* protected engine compartment
* the addition of a fourth crew member
* theatre-specific electronic counter-measures"

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Panther arrives in Afghanistan
The Panther is an Inveco LMV, produced nearby. It should have been built up with overall and mine protection in particular as a priority and can be far more easily upgraded. It has not the protection levels of a "classic" MRAP but a sensible addition for the use in terain where weight restricts the use of heavier ones.

2006 the MoD still seems to have been thinking "light", while almost all the other nations went "heavy" with Level 4 up with 0,5-1t of important difference. Now given the weight increase of 700 kg I hope it has been brought up to a Level 4 standard.

The MLV Protection system meets various levels, from STANAG level 1 to STANAG level 4, which was required by the Italian Army. The Italian MLVs use the latest version AMAP composite armor, protection while the British version uses lower level of protection. The armoring system uses appliqué armor panels, placed between the inner and outer hull. This concept provides for protection upgrade capability, to meet changing The armor protection of the MLV is concealed under the panels, as shown in this view of the MLV's driver's position.mission requirements, as well as introduction of new, lightweight materials as they become available. The crew is also protected from mines of up to 6kg under the wheels. The MLV can be fitted with a mission configured overhead weapon station, equipped with day and night vision.
 
Last edited:

citizen578

New Member
Thank God for that....

I felt that this should be mentioned, especially for our overseas members who aren't aware of the issue:

BBC: Gurkhas Win Right to Settle in the UK
All Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 with at least four years' service will be allowed to settle in the UK, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said.

Ms Smith told MPs she was "proud to offer this country's welcome to all who have served in the brigade of Gurkhas".

It comes after a high-profile campaign by Joanna Lumley and other supporters of Gurkha rights - and an embarrassing Commons defeat for the government.

Some 36,000 Gurkhas who left before 1997 had been denied UK residency.

Ms Lumley, the actress who has been the public face of the campaign on behalf of the Gurkhas, said: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give."

She called Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who she had met earlier, a "brave man who has made today a brave decision on behalf of the bravest of the brave".

Gurkhas, who are recruited from Nepal, have been part of the British Army for almost 200 years.

'Sacrifice and distinction'

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the U-turn by the government was a "great victory for a well-run campaign, that has publicly embarrassed ministers".

He said it was a shame that the government had had to be dragged "kicking and screaming" to the decision.

Ms Smith's statement was greeted by cheers from MPs.

She told the Commons: "I'm delighted that we have now been able to agree - across government, across the House and with the Gurkhas' representatives - new settlement rights that all those who have served us so well, so highly deserve."

Under the measures outlined in the House, Gurkhas will be allowed to settle in the UK with their spouses and dependent children under 18.

Ms Smith said she expected to welcome 10,000 to 15,000 applications from Gurkhas over the next two years.

She added that some 1,400 outstanding applications for settlement currently before the UK Border Agency would be processed on the basis of the new policy "as a matter of urgency" before 11 June.

Ms Smith added that the Gurkhas had served the UK "with great courage, sacrifice and distinction and they continue to make a vital and valued contribution to our operations around the world".

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, welcomed the statement.

"The prime minister and the minister have finally listened to the will of this House and the will of the British public," he said.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee, said it was a "historic" day for British democracy and said 21 May will be "remembered as Gurkha Rights Day".

'Sympathy and support'

Gurkha Justice Campaign lawyer David Enright said there was still work to be done to ensure that veterans received pensions in the UK, but said "that is for tomorrow".

He added: "The people wanting to come here are not coming for pensions. They are coming here, on the whole, because they want to work."

The prime minister suffered a shock Commons defeat on the issue, forcing ministers to reconsider existing rules on how many Gurkhas can settle in the UK.

It was followed by an extraordinary piece of Westminster theatre when Ms Lumley - whose father was an officer with the 6th Gukha Rifles - came face-to-face with minister Phil Woolas in BBC studios and quickly won public assurances over future policy at an impromptu joint press conference.

At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Mr Brown told the House of Commons that he had a "great deal of sympathy and support" for the Gurkhas.

He added: "I believe it is possible for us to honour our commitments to the Gurkhas and to do so in a way that protects the public finances."
:D :D :D

BBC NEWS | Politics | Gurkhas win right to settle in UK

Some truly fantastic news. For once, it was great to see the entire country united behind our forces, and recognising what is done for our well-being.

As Miss Lumley would want me to say...

"Ayo Gurkhali!!"

(apologies if this is a little too political for some)
 

Grim901

New Member
Absolutely great news. What Ms Smith said today pissed me off though, tried to pretend like they hadn't got it wrong consistently on the issue until today.

/politics.
 

Firn

Active Member
Army faces biggest cut since Crimea

THE Ministry of Defence intends to cut army manpower to its lowest level since the Crimean war.

Plans to axe three infantry battalions – a total of 1,800 men – are being discussed despite the overstretch caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would see the size of the army drop below 100,000 for the first time since the 1850s.

The army is so desperate to protect funding for Afghanistan that it could offer cuts only in infantry units to meet demands for savings.

General Sir David Richards, the incoming head of the army, offered to sacrifice The Green Howards, the regiment of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the current head of the army.
More is offered by the link.

It seems to be one of the worst possible moments to axe three battalions, I wonder if it really goes through.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
not this crap again. the Times is famously bad declaring cuts wait and see until a more reliable source appears
It sounds like complete BS, it also talks about delaying frigate replacements a further 20 years, retiring the harriers and removing the remaining T42's from service early.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
I can't help having a feeling that "one gets what one deserve".

Having 100k men, and being able to deploy, what, 10k? to the battlefield, just seems "expensive". Those 90k guys in uniform at home what are they exactly doing?

I suspect that there is a wide range of explainations on why you need 100k men in uniform in order to deploy, say, 10k - Though I also suspect that amoung the explainations double to quadrople redundency and horrifying inefficiency is amoung the possible explainations.

Adding on what seems to be a string of highly expensive aquisitions by the MoD, almost forces the finance guys to, at some point, say enough is enough and more money is not going to fix this problem.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It sounds like complete BS, it also talks about delaying frigate replacements a further 20 years, retiring the harriers and removing the remaining T42's from service early.
The frigate replacement has already been delayed about 15 years (another 20 years would mean frigates >50 years old!), & T42 retirements brought forward. I believe the article is a rehash of an old one, which had some truth when first written, but is now being trotted out again by someone who hasn't noticed that it's out of date.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Interesting new textile armour on display in the UK, quote taken from the MOD site: " The revolutionary, textile-based TARIAN vehicle armour system will give lightweight protection against rocket-propelled grenades, in place of the current bar armour that is fitted to vehicles such as Mastiff and Ridgback."

If you take a look at the photo, it looks like someone has cut-up their bedsheets and fastened them to the side of the crew cab. I just can't imagine how such material will withstand the rigors of combat without ripping? One advantage, it must be extremely light. If it proves to be as effective as they say then the potential is endless - easy to deploy (prepacked in rolls), easy to configure (cut to shape) and easy to fit. Useful for the target hardening of vehicles and buildings in theatre.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Revolutionary armour unveiled at Defence equipment event
 

Firn

Active Member
We will see if the Army really has to cut menpower in the worst possible time since the Cold War ended.


The Cloth armour is pretty much the logical consequence in the area of spaced vehicle armour which is already at least sixty years old. I personally fancied that a fine meshed web would be a good solution, but of course such a high strengh textile is a far better integrated solution. I'm pretty sure it gains the necessary strengh by some layers of webs, pretty similar to layered rip-stop patterns. A clever solution, kudos the developers and to the MoD, if it works.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
I wonder if anyone watched the BBC Political Programme "This Week" last night?

I ask, as they had former Head of the British Army General Sir Michael Jackson discussing the prospects for British Defence. It was an interesting debate with usual panellist's Michael Portillo; a former Tory Defence Minister, Diana Abbot; a veteran Labour Back Bencher and hosted by Andrew O'Neil; a Veteran Newpaper Editor and Broadcaster .

The interesting part is that there was broad consensus, that irrespective of who won the next General Election, the new Government would almost immediately announce a Full Defence Spending Review, based on the dire position of the public finances and that the results of the review would be entirely cost rather than operationally driven.

The Broad consensus was that the need was for less Capital Intensive Hi-Tech Equipment and that the main requirement was to boost serviceman numbers, especially for Infantry. Top for the chop? Big Ticket Items like the New Carriers and Trident or its replacement.

Did this surprise me? no as I have been sceptical about the Carriers ever seeing the light of day, from the moment they were first announced. What did surprise me was the candid way this was being discussed from people suitably qualified to speak with authority.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I wonder if anyone watched the BBC Political Programme "This Week" last night?

I ask, as they had former Head of the British Army General Sir Michael Jackson discussing the prospects for British Defence. It was an interesting debate with usual panellist's Michael Portillo; a former Tory Defence Minister, Diana Abbot; a veteran Labour Back Bencher and hosted by Andrew O'Neil; a Veteran Newpaper Editor and Broadcaster .

The interesting part is that there was broad consensus, that irrespective of who won the next General Election, the new Government would almost immediately announce a Full Defence Spending Review, based on the dire position of the public finances and that the results of the review would be entirely cost rather than operationally driven.

The Broad consensus was that the need was for less Capital Intensive Hi-Tech Equipment and that the main requirement was to boost serviceman numbers, especially for Infantry. Top for the chop? Big Ticket Items like the New Carriers and Trident or its replacement.

Did this surprise me? no as I have been sceptical about the Carriers ever seeing the light of day, from the moment they were first announced. What did surprise me was the candid way this was being discussed from people suitably qualified to speak with authority.
General Richards, the next C&C made a speech this week making reference to a ‘Cavalry vs. Tank’ moment in military thinking. This refers to the died in wool view of certain WWI Generals about their desire to keep the horse and not move on to the tank. He’s says we have the same problem today with a cold war mentality – keep investing in heavy tanks and artillery.

Richards is an extremely bright guy, held in very high regard for his military intellect. He is an advocate of moving away from a cold war mentality of very high-tech weaponry, which often arrives late, over budget and in some cases approaching obsolescence. The battlefield for the immediate future is going to be asymmetric in nature. This represents the wolf closest to the sled as they say.

In my opinion Britain doesn’t need two 60, 000 tonne carriers, what she needs is two 40,000 tonne, versatile Commando Carriers with well decks and capable of carrying a small flight of STOVL aircraft – basically a UK centric WASP Class.

People often refer to another Falklands moment, but the Falklands have in essence become a floating aircraft carrier. It has the hard shelters to protect more than two squadrons of Typhoons, plus the accommodation and logistical set-up to sustain a brigade. So in times of increased tensions you simply C17 in the necessary resources to deter attack.

What Britain needs to focus on is:
  • Increased numbers of UCAV, UAV’s
  • Increased airlift: at least six more C17’s
  • C3, C2 & C1 Naval programme (protect our sea lanes)
  • 2 x Wasp equivalents
  • More Helo’s
  • FRES Race, Warrior upgrade programme and more MRAP’s

When the Conservatives get in power in 2010 and conduct their review Carrier Strike will be cancelled and to placate the Navy two smaller ships will be procured to support amphibious operations. I will bet a thousand pounds this will happen. I for one won’t be disappointed because we need to focus on asymmetrical warfare and winning the war on terror – fail here and all the heavy tanks, artillery and AEW Destroyers will prove surplus to requirement.:(
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
The carriers have gone too far to cancel and the Invincible's probably cannot be run on long enough for another program to be started now.

As for the army, what was the war in Iraq if not a State on State action? UK armoured Brigades played a part in that. In an intervention against Iran Armoured forces would be required, as would Naval and Air forces.

Naval, Armoured and Air forces would also be required for a war against North Korea. Never prepare for the last war, always prepare for the next one.
 

Firn

Active Member
Naval, Armoured and Air forces would also be required for a war against North Korea. Never prepare for the last war, always prepare for the next one.
... and never forget to fight the war which you are fighting right now. ;)

All in all it seems of course that Britain is right now an overstreched former empire gone bust, but things will look differently in ten years from now.

While I too think that Britain has to concentrate like many other nations on the current conflicts the most important task of the armed forces we don't know what the future brings. It is the hard challenge for wiser heads than mine to find a good solution.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
People often refer to another Falklands moment, but the Falklands have in essence become a floating aircraft carrier. It has the hard shelters to protect more than two squadrons of Typhoons, plus the accommodation and logistical set-up to sustain a brigade. So in times of increased tensions you simply C17 in the necessary resources to deter attack....
The Falklands lesson wasn't about the Falklands themselves, but about the principle that war demonstrated, i.e. that you can't always rely on local air bases being usable. The Falklands being safe at the moment does not affect the lesson learned: it isn't about them, specifically.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
The Falklands lesson wasn't about the Falklands themselves, but about the principle that war demonstrated, i.e. that you can't always rely on local air bases being usable. The Falklands being safe at the moment does not affect the lesson learned: it isn't about them, specifically.
The Falklands lesson wasn't about the Falklands themselves, but about the principle that war demonstrated, i.e. that you can't always rely on local air bases being usable. The Falklands being safe at the moment does not affect the lesson learned: it isn't about them, specifically.
Agree, but the Falklands is the only British territory, which continues to receive attention from a potential aggressor.

We are about to witness a sea change in the UK reference the military, and I suspect when the Conservative Government enters power we will witness some radical changes in defence planning. The real issue here is the UK is embroiled in a conflict, which will run for generations. Even if we succeed in Afghanistan the insurgent die-hards will switch to another location, whether it is somewhere like Yemen or Bangladesh. The problem isn’t going away, and with the increasing disparity between rich and poor in developing nations, the likelihood of asymmetrical conflict will not diminish but increase.

Countries need to stop counting ships, tanks and planes when discussing capabilities and start focusing on what it is required NOW to win the war against the rising threat of radicalism and failed states. Even though many like to concern themselves with a reinvigorated Russia and expansionist China, these two do not represent the clear and present danger staring us in the face today. Economics determine superpower status, not standing armies (just look at North Korea).

Britain must increase the size of its army. For every Brigade on operations you need two more on training, leave, exercise cycles back home to allow for an acceptable rotation cycle: six months combat operations, followed by a twelve month break. 3-Para for one are now on their third combat tour in Afghanistan, for this level of tempo to be sustained they must have down-time, which means we must increase the number of deployable infantry / Para / Commando battalions.

We need to prioritise our limited funds on boots on the ground, strategic lift, helicopters, ISTAR and improve equipment for ground operations. Not waste money on twenty year programmes, which suck up funds leaving us wanting for less technological solutions for down and dirty operations in the weeds.

How can we focus on equipping a military to fight a conventional war against a foe, which might never happen, when we are engaged in intensive combat operations in Afghanistan? People say we should treat the latter as a sideshow and not get too distracted to ensure we remain ready to deal with a major confrontation. The problem is Afghanistan style scenarios are going to become more and more frequent over the next 20 years.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
The British Army has enough Infantry, but it needs to keep what it has. One solution to the current problem would be to deploy Territorial Army units to Afghanistan as formed Brigades, or as individual battalions as part of a regular brigade. The Americans have been deploying their National Guard units to Iraq since 2003.

Regarding Helicopters, replacing the Puma's and Commando Sea King with more Merlins would probably go a long way towards sorting out the Helicopter shortage in Afghanistan.

You say 6 months in combat, 12 months out is the minimum. Isnt the current rotation 6 months in combat, 18 months out, for a 2 year rotation cycle of 16th Airborne Brigade, 3 Commando Brigade, 11th Light Brigade(as of recently), 52nd Infantry Brigade and 19th Light Brigade. 11th Light was reformed out of assets normal assigned to the regional brigades specifically for Afghanistan.

The assets exist, its just a matter of using them. For example mechanized brigades could either be added to the rotation or added as a second in country unit at a time. Territorial Units could form stand alone brigades or deploy as part of a larger regular force as I suggested before.

As for the Helicopters, as i've suggest, either re-equip the units with Merlins or deploy them as currently equiped if they are good enough. I'm fairly sure the Puma's havent had an Afghan deployment, but i'm not sure if the Sea Kings deployed with the Commando's or not.

Remember that the last time these units fought in a conventional war in their expected fashion was only 6 years ago with 1st Armoured advancing through Southern Iraq and 3 Commando Landing on Al Faw peninsula.

The British Army has been fighting insurgents non stop since the end of world war 2 with a similar force structure to now.
- Israel (1945-1948)
- India (1945-1948)
- Cyprus (1955-1959)
- Malaya (1948-1960)
- Kenya (1952-1960)
- Indonesia Confrontation (1962-1966)
- Aden (1963-1967)
- Northern Ireland (1968-1998)
- Sierra Leone (2000)
- Iraq (2003-2007)
- Afghanistan (2001-Present)
- Kosovo (1999)

There was also the odd full scale war such as the Falklands, Gulf War I & II, Korea & the Suez Crisis.

Wars against Insurgents are nothing new, nothing that has not happened before. There has not been a single period since world war two that the UK has not been fighting an insurgency somewhere in the world.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Agree, but the Falklands is the only British territory, which continues to receive attention from a potential aggressor.
...
True, but before the war, Argentina was not seriously thought of as a potential aggressor. If it had been, all the stuff that went on before the invasion would have rung alarm bells all over Whitehall - and it didn't. That's a second lesson to be learned: be prepared for problems to pop up in unexpected places.

Also, we sometimes intervene in places which are not British territories, e.g. Sierra Leone.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
True, but before the war, Argentina was not seriously thought of as a potential aggressor. If it had been, all the stuff that went on before the invasion would have rung alarm bells all over Whitehall - and it didn't. That's a second lesson to be learned: be prepared for problems to pop up in unexpected places.

Also, we sometimes intervene in places which are not British territories, e.g. Sierra Leone.
Sorry Swerve Sierra Leone was a former part of the British Empire
Sierra Leone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freetown was the capital of Gold Cost. Op Barres was though necessary because of the perceived colonial commitment.
Kosavo would have been a better example the Carriers were used for CAP and CAS their as well.
CVFs are too far gone for cancellation Gen Richards is defiantly in the Counter insurgency camp compared with Dannet who was a bit in both camps. Their is defiantly a bit of self interest as well from Richards as he is head of the army and wants a bit more money from RAF and RN coffers.
He defiantly the general we would want for A-Stan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top