Changing the army - how?

Not really. The conventional war will be between Ukraine and Russia.

If you were Ukrainian Army ( Circa 200k ) - Would you fight a conventional war against the Russians ?

even if Russia manages to somehow 'switch off the whole of Ukraine infrastructure' (which is vanishingly unlikely to be possible).

Why is it vanishingly unlikely to be possible ? - Isn't cyber the next big thing according to Radakin ( Only the UK is probably 20 years behind the curve )
 

Alamo

LE
Hm. But we should expect (in fact, we have a NATO commitment) to be a part of the gang that sees the other gang off.

Someone tell me how Rangers slot into the NATO Orbat.
They’ll become a whole bunch of under resourced recce patrols, that lack mobility and firepower, and a JPR drag on the Air, Maritime and SF components.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
They’ll become a whole bunch of under resourced recce patrols, that lack mobility and firepower, and a JPR drag on the Air, Maritime and SF components.
As compared to a decently resourced armoured formation, eh?

Poor show from us.

Certainly transformational - in terms of reputation and credibility.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If you were Ukrainian Army ( Circa 200k ) - Would you fight a conventional war against the Russians

Yes. Of course. If I'm defending my homeland against an invader, with the advantage of being on the defensive, I'd definitely fight. I can't imagine there's be many countries that'd happily sit around waiting to be invaded by their neighbour when they have a decent army and a massive reserve. Also worth noting that a very large proportion of the Ukrainian fighting age male population has already been engaged in combat operations against Russia in the Donbas.

Why is it vanishingly unlikely to be possible ?

Because cyber doesn't work like that except in Sci Fi films.
 
Yes. Of course.

We can go round in circles

Or you could contemplate why the British Army has degraded its tank / armour capability, to the extent that it is nearly non existent.

Perhaps the grown ups do not envisage another conventional battlefield / war ?
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Nor can I - least of all with the latest Land force configuration- and as a result, I find it hard to see how UK Plc is making good on its commitment to NATO.
There is an argument - not necessarily one I'd cleave to, you understand - that our NATO commitment is at sea, in the air, through provision of command and control, special forces, certain other capabilities and - of course - instant sunshine and that the land component isn't a key one, given our geographic situation and the presence of other, better-suited land powers, some compliant with their obligations (hello Warsaw), some distinctly not (Gruessi, Berlin) and some sort-of-in and sort-of-out (bonjour, Paris).

The elephant in the NATO room is the USA, of course. It's encouraging that they're moving back to a fighting divisional structure from the former BCT idea and that they're (re)forming breakthrough (3 armoured brigades, scads of engineers), heavy (2 armoured, one Stryker brigades), whose only sensible use would be in Europe. Whether the political will exists, of course....

The new US structure is here and interesting to study: Future US Army Division Structures

Over and above that, if - and I stress it's not likely, to my mind - the Russians make a conventional grab for the Ukraine, even supported by a massive cyber assault, they're going to pay, big style, in blood, treasure and international sanctions. They might win, they might not, but any victory would be utterly Pyrrhic, Vlad is keen and aggressive, but he's not stupid.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If you have another suggestion, I would be interested to hear it.

It's pretty obvious and well rehearsed on arrse. It's some,or all, of: chronic mismanagement of the procurement portfolio, frequent changes of direction from different CGSs, repeated budget cuts and political intervention, and the army's attention being focussed on two (mostly) non-conventional wars taking almost 20 years.

If the grownups didn't think we'd ever fight a conventional war then they wouldn't be investing in any form of armoured forces, which are the biggest chunk of the army's budget aside from the AAC. They'd gladly spend the money on other capabilities instead.
 
If the grownups didn't think we'd ever fight a conventional war then they wouldn't be investing in any form of armoured forces, which are the biggest chunk of the army's budget aside from the AAC.

With a total Army of circa 70k - What conventional war do you envisage fighting with a total Army of 70k ?
 
From the same source as above, an interesting - if. a touch Polyanna-ish - discussion of the future British Army force structure, notably 3 Div and the Recce-deep fires set up: Deep Strike: The Future of British Warfighting?
Deep strike can be done far better, and arguably cheaper, by air or naval forces.
Claiming that UK has super special recce troops linked to large amounts of heavy, accurate artillery, is only a bright idea until the opposition kills one or t'other.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
As I think I many have noted before, even as an ex-soldier myself, one who joined a multi-divisional Army, with a deployed Corps and the slack to have 30,000 troops in NI while still maintaining the 'Wacht am Aller', I think I'm reasonably relaxed about running the Army down into a much narrower capability envelope and strength, with only a few high-capability light units maintained at high readiness and lots and lots of low-level engagement at a low technological level worldwide - provided, provided, that some thought has gone into the industrial and logistic processes which would be required to rebuild and re-establish a mass land component in the event of an existential threat.

It's not that clear to me why we would absolutely need to have a heavy Corps, or division, in Eastern Europe, given the absolute need for the NATO nations in that neighbourhood to generate, on their own behalves, sufficient peer-level forces to deter aggression. If the Poles, say, maintain - for the sake of argument - three or so full-strength modern Corps level formations, with state of the art kit, it's not clear what we could add to the party.

The Germans, if sufficiently scared, will have to step up. They won't/can't rebuild the Bundeswehr into its former 3-Corps state and 2 and 4 ATAF will remain shadows of their former selves, at least in terms of airframe numbers, but they can certainly generate, from kit at hand, provided it's taken out of pres and re-manned, at least a Corps equivalent, with added airpower.

Where we score, heavily, is in air and naval and that's probably where our main efforts should be deployed, at least in the NATO context.
 
We can go round in circles

Or you could contemplate why the British Army has degraded its tank / armour capability, to the extent that it is nearly non existent.

Perhaps the grown ups do not envisage another conventional battlefield / war ?

In which case we know that's exactly how the next conflict will go.........
 
Top