Realigning the British Army after Ukraine

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
An attempt to stop thread derailment elsewhere…

Our most recent defence review emphasised Light, cyber, Rangers and so on.

Then along comes Ukraine and Light starts to look rather wrong. Certain VSOs might have predicted the right threats but I contend that their solutions were wrong.

James Heappey has recently nailed his colours to the Light philosophy but, hey, ex-Rifles.

I strongly disagree with him - and others who say we got it right; I think the driving criteria were money and real change being ‘too difficult’.

But we need to change.

There is already a ‘Changing the army - how?’ thread. That’s about ethos. I intend this thread to be about strategy and the necessary equipment.

What do we do from here?
 
Last edited:
An attempt to stop thread derailment elsewhere…

Our most recent defence review emphasised Light, cyber, Rangers and so on.

Then along comes Ukraine and Light starts to look rather wrong. Certain VSOs might have predicted the right threats but I contend that their solutions were wrong.

James Heappey has recently nailed his colours to the Light philosophy but, hey, ex-Rifles.

I strongly disagree agree with him - and others who say we got it right; I think the driving criteria were money and real change being ‘too difficult’

But we need to change.

There is already a ‘Changing the army - how?’ thread. That’s about ethos. I intend this thread to be about strategy and the necessary equipment.
I'd suggest that reforming BAOR farther east would be wasteful, and probably in the wrong place when needed.
Instead, a full, armoured, all arms brigade in each of Poland, Finland and Ukraine would give support to trustworthy allies, give some flexibility and, if we must, allow various Ranger units to concentrate on learning one language.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
200k army, of which about half heavy arty systems?
Dream on, the country currently couldn't afford that level of manpower let alone the eqpt, barracks, exercise costs etc.

Sorry for my first post on this thoughful thread to be negative but dreaming gets nobody anywhere.
 

4(T)

LE
Dream on, the country currently couldn't afford that level of manpower let alone the eqpt, barracks, exercise costs etc.

Sorry for my first post on this thoughful thread to be negative but dreaming gets nobody anywhere.


In pure financial terms, the country could easily afford that defence spend; it simply chooses to budget its wealth on other things - predominantly forms of welfare.

Either there is a will to have credible defence forces, or there is not. Currently there is not.
 
Start by realising an effective way to shut down the use of drones in and around the operational environment.

The fact that someone could buy a cheap plastic drone for £200-£1000 and use it as an effective deterrent / surveilance / counter weapon to a £6 million tank / artillery / command unit, must surely require some thought.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
In pure financial terms, the country could easily afford that defence spend; it simply chooses to budget its wealth on other things - predominantly forms of welfare.

Either there is a will to have credible defence forces, or there is not. Currently there is not.
The country is willing. Westminster isn’t.
 

4(T)

LE
Besides which, 50 percent artillery?

Thats what it boiled down to in our WW1 and WW2 experience, and the current general war in Ukraine seems to indicate that arty remains the dominant force on the battlefields.

Edit: I'd say that the Ukraine war experience doesn't even reflect the true impact of arty, as neither side is using anything like the effects that we in the west would expect to deliver (ToT, massed units, burst fire, specific target effects such as linear, etc).
 
Start by realising an effective way to shut down the use of drones in and around the operational environment.

The fact that someone could buy a cheap plastic drone for £200-£1000 and use it as an effective deterrent / surveilance / counter weapon to a £6 million tank / artillery / command unit, must surely require some thought.
National Army Museum last weekend were selling drones with cameras @ £60.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
I think some of the suggestions above could actually cause more problems than enough. Increasing our capacity and plonking brigades in former Soviet countries could be seen as an offensive gesture by both Russia and China. Personally, I feel we should reinstate the old cold war brigades. We faced down the Shock Armies of the Soviet Union then and Europe felt more secure.
 

Dubb_al_Ibn

War Hero
Thank you for starting this thread. I think it is something that is needed away from the Ukrainian thread and one that I'm sure will provoke some sensible ARRSE discussion. However, although I am looking forward to discussing "strategy and necessary equipment" I think it may be useful to agree first on what we want the army to do.
  1. Defend the UK mainland and infrastructure from external threat
  2. Defend UK overseas territory and infrastructure from external threat
  3. Support and work with the other services
  4. Support UK and allied agencies in peace supporting/enforcing roles
  5. Support UK and allied agencies in humanitarian relief
  6. Support UK and alied agencies in "democratisation" (is that a word?) projects.
  7. Provide support to UK policing agencies/national government and local authorities (the old MACP, MACA and MACC)
  8. Maintain a viable "reserve" of trained personnel to react to upsurge in any of the above areas.
That's just me thinking quickly off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Obviously some of these tasks will take more of a priority at various points in time and will of necessity detract from others. But somehow all of these very different tasks need to be rolled into an specific, viable and achievable strategy.
 

Alamo

LE
, if we must, allow various Ranger units to concentrate on learning one language.
Which, almost inevitably, will be wrong. Witness the panic bouncing from Russian, to Serbo-Croat, to Arabic, back to Russian. And unless you can roulement within a unit that speaks the language, you can also practically guarantee that the one you need is at the bottom of the FORM cycle (or whatever the current phrase is).

I’m sorry, but the UK just doesn’t have the mass to apply the regional logic.
 
Thank you for starting this thread. I think it is something that is needed away from the Ukrainian thread and one that I'm sure will provoke some sensible ARRSE discussion. However, although I am looking forward to discussing "strategy and necessary equipment" I think it may be useful to agree first on what we want the army to do.
  1. Defend the UK mainland and infrastructure from external threat
  2. Defend UK overseas territory and infrastructure from external threat
  3. Support and work with the other services
  4. Support UK and allied agencies in peace supporting/enforcing roles
  5. Support UK and allied agencies in humanitarian relief
  6. Support UK and alied agencies in "democratisation" (is that a word?) projects.
  7. Provide support to UK policing agencies/national government and local authorities (the old MACP, MACA and MACC)
  8. Maintain a viable "reserve" of trained personnel to react to upsurge in any of the above areas.
That's just me thinking quickly off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Obviously some of these tasks will take more of a priority at various points in time and will of necessity detract from others. But somehow all of these very different tasks need to be rolled into an specific, viable and achievable strategy.
You’ve left off two key tasks; fulfil the UKs NATO land commitments and prance around London on horseback and ammo boots.

Both of these are defined tasks.
 
Which, almost inevitably, will be wrong. Witness the panic bouncing from Russian, to Serbo-Croat, to Arabic, back to Russian. And unless you can roulement within a unit that speaks the language, you can also practically guarantee that the one you need is at the bottom of the FORM cycle (or whatever the current phrase is).

I’m sorry, but the UK just doesn’t have the mass to apply the regional logic.
Do the armed forces recognise the speciality of "linguist"? There are gifted individuals out there with the facility for languages and if we do not recruit them we are missing a trick.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Thank you for starting this thread. I think it is something that is needed away from the Ukrainian thread and one that I'm sure will provoke some sensible ARRSE discussion. However, although I am looking forward to discussing "strategy and necessary equipment" I think it may be useful to agree first on what we want the army to do.
  1. Defend the UK mainland and infrastructure from external threat
  2. Defend UK overseas territory and infrastructure from external threat
  3. Support and work with the other services
  4. Support UK and allied agencies in peace supporting/enforcing roles
  5. Support UK and allied agencies in humanitarian relief
  6. Support UK and alied agencies in "democratisation" (is that a word?) projects.
  7. Provide support to UK policing agencies/national government and local authorities (the old MACP, MACA and MACC)
  8. Maintain a viable "reserve" of trained personnel to react to upsurge in any of the above areas.
That's just me thinking quickly off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Obviously some of these tasks will take more of a priority at various points in time and will of necessity detract from others. But somehow all of these very different tasks need to be rolled into an specific, viable and achievable strategy.
Good list

Item 2 - highlighted has been traditionally why we have Royal Marines - who are trained and ready to serve on, off, around and if necessary under these things:
1653125985253.png

HMS Bulwark (L15) - Wikipedia

1653126064281.png
HMS Albion (L14) - Wikipedia

1653126190219.png

Royal Marines launch raid from submarine in Cold Response 2022 - Naval News

...just sayin'....pint of 1664 please.
 

Latest Threads

Top