AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

smallbore

Old-Salt
Forget current platforms and organisations if you want effectiveness at some point in the future, preferably sooner rather than too late.
As I understand it the army's commitment to NATO is a single armoured brigade somewhere in Europe?
We have the people and equipment to do that right now, but because it would result in mass redundancies in the officer posts, it doesn't happen.
Let's instead imagine our fantasy armoured brigade:
3, preferably 4, tank battalions, each with an organic infantry company, an organic artillery battery, a field workshop, a supply platoon, medical platoon, MPs and whatever else.
Collect the equipment and crews in one place, then weed out what's unnecessary.
Forget cap badges and arms of service, from now on this entire brigade sized formation will be known as, say, 1st Dragoons. A single chain of command, a single badge, a single HQ for both command and administration.
That saves, or gets rid of, a handful of battalion hqs, a similar handful of disparate qm departments, and the supposed flexibility of organisation to task is down to the brigadier in charge.
If you really, really must keep light infantry, put them somewhere else to do the follow up stuff like holding PoWs or aiding civpop.
The Americans called it an "Armoured Cavalry Regiment" (11 ACR, 2 ACR in the 80's/90's). The idea is not new, it more a question of "Could the British Army make it work without adding in pedestrian infantry ?"
 
@TamH70 , has identified the main problem . . . that "We don't have enough warm bodies" !!

But, to then organise those that we do have, into an amorphous, anonymous, indistinguishable mass . . . or MESS . . . is NOT the solution !!

If the abortion of an aberration that is the RLC teaches us anything . . . it is that such cross-function mergers, result in the reduction of trade specific expertise; loss of control and management of individual functions; abandonment of core principles; all of which may be represented within - and, maintained by - the SNCOs of the "Forming Corps", but will be lost within a generation of SNCO being appointed from within the (now) merged "Super Corps".



It is unfortunate that @oscar1whisky has such a life experience, that it has led to a misunderstanding of the role and function of officers :( !!

To better illustrate my arguement, it may be possible to use as an extreme example . . . a multi-discipline, civilian manufacturing operation. Applying what has been suggested in this thread today, all the "managers" would be removed from the different functions . . . the canteen/catering . . . the stores/purchasing/supply . . . all the different individual manufacturing/assembly operations . . . the multitude of office support, wages, HR, patents/legal . . . security . . . etc..

And, it is suggested - today in this thread - that "supervisors" from each specific, individual, function could be moved from one area to another . . . that they would all continue to operate seamlessly and efficiently.

I think NOT !! Now transfer that scenario, from the local industrial estate, into a combat zone and add in fatigue, stress, uncertainty, and that the unit is trying to kill the enemy that is - in turn - trying to kill them, and it is suggested that today's "New Military Doctrine of Misplaced Jointery" as espoused on ARRSE, is at best misplaced and at worse counterproductive and dangerous !!
Possibly the silliest post for a long time on here.
Firstly, civilian firms tend to have very small management teams, and cartainly nowhere near as many " managers" as the army appears to need. The vast majority of work is done by trained labourers, led by more experiencee supervisors. All other " management" posts you suggested are people bluffing about their importance.
Next up, when the RLC formed it did not become a grey sludge of anyone doing any job: chefs cartied on cooking, drivers carried on driving, stores still got stored and issued by people specifically trained to do that.
In regard to the rest, tank units have their own niche trades, infantry try to do everything from recce to anti tank, from pioneering to fire support, from stores to resupply to medics, all with tgeir own little hierarchy. Engineers have their own plant fitters, their own recce assets, gunners too have their own recce.
The whole thing is a mass of empire building at the cost of effectiveness.
 
Possibly the silliest post for a long time on here . . .
The whole thing is a mass of empire building at the cost of effectiveness.
I did say it was “an extreme example”, to illustrate the absurdity of what you are now proposing !!
 
There is one particular contributor to this thread, that will be along - eventually - to explain to us all, and using, quoting logarithmic tables, astrology, precision measuring instruments and audio recording/measuring devices, that you mis-heard and are - in fact - WRONG !!
Why would I do that? It’s an interesting anecdote and not wrong.
It’s not like he’s claiming that sound recorded on an indifferent microphone and filtered at least two compression algorithms before being played back is an absolute and true representation of the actual noise.
 
We have some 70,000 soldiers to field a couple of brigades. The problem is that many of them are equipped and organised to die like flies
Not directly comparable, I know; but the Polish Army has between 60,000 and 70,000 active duty personnel
They are managing to field the following (some of which should only be fully operational in 2022):
Poland_Land_Forces_-_Organisation_2020.png


But then, they do have Vlad the Bad stirring the pot immediately to their east to concentrate minds.

As regards equipment upgrades, they are considering the K2 PL (a licence built modified South Korean Black Panther) for the MBT fleet and the locally produced "Borsuk" (Badger) IFV should be coming into service soon.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
3, preferably 4, tank battalions, each with an organic infantry company, an organic artillery battery, a field workshop, a supply platoon, medical platoon, MPs and whatever else.
Oh FFS
I reaclly can't be arsed to explain why this is an utterly crap organisational concept. But you might chose to reflect on the BAOR orbat (i.e. the one when we had an army that worked) and note that this was never done.
Dig our any number of the "single combat arm" papers that were written as see why they were all correctly identified as idiocy. (Hint, commanding an inf section at mph when dismounted and with less firepower than an MBT coax requries a significantly different skill set to commanding said MBT)
 
Oh FFS
I reaclly can't be arsed to explain why this is an utterly crap organisational concept. But you might chose to reflect on the BAOR orbat (i.e. the one when we had an army that worked) and note that this was never done.
Dig our any number of the "single combat arm" papers that were written as see why they were all correctly identified as idiocy. (Hint, commanding an inf section at mph when dismounted and with less firepower than an MBT coax requries a significantly different skill set to commanding said MBT)
Can I hold your coat . . . ?! ;) .
 
Last edited:

NemoIII

War Hero
And within 2 years of that group of people being moved from Armour to Infantry thr specialist long range recce skill set using vehicles would be gone.

By doctrine infantry units are meant to cover a very narrow area around them, about 2km if I remember rightly. Different levels of recce cover further. By the time the Army managed to rewrite doctrine and sort out the training courses, which will invariably include an utterly pointless and excessively long insertion tab carrying too much kit that requires new batteries every 8 hours, the people with the skills to conduct recce in depth will have left.

What a clever idea.....


Has anyone seen who is currently deployed on the EFP Poland? It was seen as the perfect deployment for Light Cav, and a major thing that was looked at when people questioned what Light Cav was actually for.

Be a Shame if it was...... The infantry!

Many people are dishearten in the RAC, 3 of which units could easily be replaced by a Infantry Bn by the seems of it. I'm suprised the RAC allowed the Infantry to get hold of this deployment.
 
Oh FFS
I reaclly can't be arsed to explain why this is an utterly crap organisational concept. But you might chose to reflect on the BAOR orbat (i.e. the one when we had an army that worked) and note that this was never done.
Dig our any number of the "single combat arm" papers that were written as see why they were all correctly identified as idiocy. (Hint, commanding an inf section at mph when dismounted and with less firepower than an MBT coax requries a significantly different skill set to commanding said MBT)
I don't recall saying that infantry section commanders could or should ever cross post as tank commanders.
Single combat arm studies?
Was there never a combined arms study?
 

TamH70

MIA
I don't recall saying that infantry section commanders could or should ever cross post as tank commanders.
Single combat arm studies?
Was there never a combined arms study?

I've never heard of one of them being done but I never mixed with officers much until I landed up in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.

If it hasn't been done, I would however put money on the reason being that if it was, nasty inconvenient questions might start getting asked, like the ones raised on this thread and the other one about fixing the army.
 
I've never heard of one of them being done but I never mixed with officers much until I landed up in this wretched hive of scum and villainy . . .

"this wretched hive of scum and villainy . . .".

Oh !! . . . How very dare you . . . are you referring to ARRSE ?! ;) .
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen who is currently deployed on the EFP Poland? It was seen as the perfect deployment for Light Cav, and a major thing that was looked at when people questioned what Light Cav was actually for.

Be a Shame if it was...... The infantry!

Many people are dishearten in the RAC, 3 of which units could easily be replaced by a Infantry Bn by the seems of it. I'm suprised the RAC allowed the Infantry to get hold of this deployment.
Are you surprised ? Join the Cav and end up driving around in a pimped up open topped jeep. Then you find out that the CR upgrade is slowly sliding right to the point that maybe one regiment will finally get upgraded one day and the much vaunted new recce AFV is turning out to be a heap of steaming c**p.

And on the rare occasion you deploy oversea with NATO Allies you discover that everyone is actually buying vehicles that work.

Of course your morale is sky high & climbing....
 
Your argument concludes with the recce role being performed by (dismounted) "unarmoured" infantry . . .
Where did I say that?

You said "someone will notice there is no Armoured Infantry but hey ho".

If the infantry are not armoured . . . I hope they will NOT be fighting from soft-skinned vehicle . . . hence I thought that they will be (dismounted) "unarmoured" infantry . . . or was that "an-extrapolation-too-far" ?!

Quite simply I did not mention recce. The RAC is in a parlous state , light cavalry is a double bluff and whatever of it is useful can be absorbed into the infantry in a heartbeat as it doesn't fulfil any role that is essential.

So what do we have left? CR3 eventually and they will be deployed in 2 regiments within the so called Armoured Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. Quite soon some one will notice there is no Armoured Infantry but hey ho.

If there is no Ajax the remaining Armoured Cavalry regiments are stuffed, what is their purpose?

There are some hard decisions coming up and most likely the real future size of the Cavalry is two reduced size CR3 regiments with all other combat roles absorbed into the Infantry and the Recce tasks dispersed elsewhere . . .
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Are you surprised ? Join the Cav and end up driving around in a pimped up open topped jeep. Then you find out that the CR upgrade is slowly sliding right to the point that maybe one regiment will finally get upgraded one day and the much vaunted new recce AFV is turning out to be a heap of steaming c**p.

And on the rare occasion you deploy oversea with NATO Allies you discover that everyone is actually buying vehicles that work.

Of course your morale is sky high & climbing....
I'm still marvelling at the fact that it's to take nine years from now for FOC of CR3.

Seriously?
 
Last edited:

TamH70

MIA
I'm still marvelling at the fact that it's to take nine years from now for IOC of CR3.

Seriously?

Wot?

Or indeed "Flat Wot". (As explained here: Flat, with a worked example below)

And that's exactly how it's written, too: "what" with a period at the end.

When the speaker recovers, What Were You Thinking? tends to be invoked."

That can't be true. It's impossible.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Wot?

Or indeed "Flat Wot". (As explained here: Flat, with a worked example below)

And that's exactly how it's written, too: "what" with a period at the end.

When the speaker recovers, What Were You Thinking? tends to be invoked."

That can't be true. It's impossible.
Aye. My flabber was gasted.

It's outrageous.
 
You said "someone will notice there is no Armoured Infantry but hey ho".

If the infantry are not armoured . . . I hope they will NOT be fighting from soft-skinned vehicle . . . hence I thought that they will be (dismounted) "unarmoured" infantry . . . or was that "an-extrapolation-too-far" ?!
No dummy, the roles, manpower and equipment move to the infantry.
 
Oh FFS
I reaclly can't be arsed to explain why this is an utterly crap organisational concept. But you might chose to reflect on the BAOR orbat (i.e. the one when we had an army that worked) and note that this was never done.
Dig our any number of the "single combat arm" papers that were written as see why they were all correctly identified as idiocy. (Hint, commanding an inf section at mph when dismounted and with less firepower than an MBT coax requries a significantly different skill set to commanding said MBT)
An artillery battery organic to a battlegroup is about as much use as tits on a fish. Operates around 20km behind the BG, cannot fire and manoeuvre on its own, cannot fire missions above a single battery, loads a vast logistic headache on the BG echelon.

An organic engineer squadron would rapidly become pioneers.
 

Latest Threads

Top