Realigning the British Army after Ukraine

[Cold_Collation]

I think I can give a partial answer to that.

The Russians are being driven back, defeated locally time and again, by two-man teams of Infantry armed with battlefield-changing, anti-armour weapons.
I realise this is backed up by top-notch real-time Int . But actually destroying RUS armour - wherever it is found is being done mainly by part-time Infantry.

The relevance to the Thread could be ........ maybe we should increase the number of Inf Bns and ( learning from the UKR practical experience ) spend a lot more time on this kind of training.

This will directly link into " Well, if we are going to increase the number of Bns - I highly recommend 1 Loamshires be recalled to the Colours ! )
And it continues from there ....

Infantry are emphatically not the only battle-winners in Ukraine. That’s pure fantasy.

 

[bobthebuilder]

I’ve been involved in several Planning Rounds, all of which have involved the deletion of some units, and occasionally the creation of new ones. At no stage has a Treasury official been anywhere near the decision. Now, deletion of (for some reason) sacred cap badges may be political, but the MOD has made the proposals.

I’ve often wondered whether the MOD is actually any good at fighting for its budget. Whether the senior leadership is any good at firing SofS in to secure the maximum possible. My suspicion is that the default setting is to minimise cuts, because management of ordered decline is the ingrained culture.

 

[Steamboat]

Infantry are emphatically not the only battle-winners in Ukraine. That’s pure fantasy.

Is the UK ready to accept the casualty rate the Ukrainian infantry battalions are taking?

 

[Fwederick]

Is the UK ready to accept the casualty rate the Ukrainian infantry battalions are taking?

Are the US?

 

[skimmer]

Drones? EW rather than a hard kill.

One of the squadron/troop? operating a combined radar and focused EM pulse weapon. The radar would have to pulse operate as well to reduce detection time. Drones are not fast and must have a poor signature but it might be feasible. Still on page one so apologies if this has been suggested, debunked or laughed at already.

 

[Glasgow_Jock]

For me no, when I left Regular Service under Options For Change I had no Reserve Liability. If I did have with my parent Corps being REME I'd have gone wherever they decided to send me, it could have been any unit or cap badge but I'd still have been a REME soldier (well, Artificer ).

If we were being invaded by orcs Ukraine style I think the emphasis would have been on your 14 weeks' common military syllabus.

Hastily recalled, issued a rifle, some ammo, maybe a helmet and body armour, absently reminded which end the rounds come out of your bang stick, placed in a building/ fire trench in the path of advance, nice little momentary speed bump for orc artillery/ RPG/ drone strikes.

Slava Britannia

 

[Albertous]

Which of course is why the Parachute Regiment, LRDG, Commandos and SAS were so crap in the Second War having no tradition or history to call on.

No wonder those poor old Ukrainians collapsed like a house of cards when the Russians invaded a couple of months back.

My own humble opinion is the 4 regiments/services mentioned had a fair number of maverick big personality founders, eccentric dare I say, who didn't quite fit into the tradition regiment/capbadge life but stamped their own personalities and motivations on the new units to make them very successful and they attracted a fair number of good highly motivated officers and soldiers who likewise were not quite content in traditional regimental life, all helped by being mostly volunteer organisations.

That is not to knock the traditional regimental system, it's just not for everyone, especially when one factors in the disperate range of available service people occasioned by conscription.

 

[Glad_its_all_over]

I don't buy the idea that a bunch of professional British infantrymen - whether light, heavy, airborne or Commando - would, or even should, offer their lives, gladly, in defence of a foreign nation in the same way the gallant and admirable Ukrainian territorials and reservists have been doing. They're fighting an existential war for their national survival, we fight wars of choice - and are significantly (and rightly) more reluctant to take huge casualties, in particular as our resources are both extremely slender and desperately shallow.

The Ukrainian model would be fine if enemy armour were cruising across the South Downs or attempting to outflank our troops at Winchester. Under those circumstances, sure - although where, precisely, we'd lay our hand on the large number of part-trained infantry and irregulars required is an exercise left to the reader to consider - under any others, not so much.

What the war in Ukraine does tell us is that artillery remains king of the battlefield and that fires, supported and informed by ISTAR, are what kill people and make it possible to gain and hold ground.

 

[medwaymud]

Infantry are emphatically not the only battle-winners in Ukraine. That’s pure fantasy.

The Int side and morale plays a massive part -which I said.
Which leaves
UKR armour - in effect the same as RUS, just operated by higher motivated soldiers.
Arty - the first 5-6 weeks of the war was fought using the same stuff as RUS. All the sexy kit from Germany, US, Holland etc has been coming in since the hordes were already getting a bloody nose.
Air - I cannot quantify how much UKR air has played in the outcome so far ....That information is not being widely circulated.

I believe the RUS columns were stopped, slowed down, routed by Javelin, NLAW et al by Inf ambush - from 80 to 800m - to a great extent.

 

[Steamboat]

as

Are the US?

Yes.

 

[alfred_the_great]

10 Bns of Infantry still need 10 Barracks, 10 cookhouses, 10 sets of wages etc etc.

Are you going to throw out all History, Identity and owned Traditions - just for the sake of saving a few bob on Staybright capbadge variation and stable belts ?

Yes.

 

[CC_TA]

Cut foreign aid to zero, spend the equivalent on defence.

Do people still believe foreign aid is spent aiding foreigners?

 

[Glad_its_all_over]

My own humble opinion is the 4 regiments/services mentioned had a fair number of maverick big personality founders, eccentric dare I say, who didn't quite fit into the tradition regiment/capbadge life but stamped their own personalities and motivations on the new units to make them very successful and they attracted a fair number of good highly motivated officers and soldiers who likewise were not quite content in traditional regimental life, all helped by being mostly volunteer organisations.

That is not to knock the traditional regimental system, it's just not for everyone, especially when one factors in the disperate range of available service people occasioned by conscription.

That's all lovely and I think we all understand how effective these small units were - on the other hand, I don't suppose they made the War a day shorter and they certainly did nothing much to make it unnecessary for, say, XXX Corps to trudge all the way across France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.

Special forces don't win wars. There is an argument that 1 and 2 SAS, say, between 1944 and 1945 arguably represented two divisions' worth of high-calibre NCOs and officers, who could probably have had a much more strategic impact if they'd been serving with regular troops.

 

[medwaymud]

Foreign aid is a form of defence.

Not when we are paying it to eg India it isn't.
That is the India that buys Russian weapon systems, does not join in on sanctions while this criminal Invasion is happening, has a Space Program.

That Foreign Aid is a form of madness.

 

[Albertous]

That's all lovely and I think we all understand how effective these small units were - on the other hand, I don't suppose they made the War a day shorter and they certainly did nothing much to make it unnecessary for, say, XXX Corps to trudge all the way across France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.

Special forces don't win wars. There is an argument that 1 and 2 SAS, say, between 1944 and 1945 arguably represented two divisions' worth of high-calibre NCOs and officers, who could probably have had a much more strategic impact if they'd been serving with regular troops.

I agree, the war would not have been won without the "traditional" army.

I was just opining why I personally think these new units in WWII quickly developed an ethos, professionalism and own identity without the hundreds of years of cap badge history.

 

[Alamo]

I’ve often wondered whether the MOD is actually any good at fighting for its budget. Whether the senior leadership is any good at firing SofS in to secure the maximum possible. My suspicion is that the default setting is to minimise cuts, because management of ordered decline is the ingrained culture.

I know we have bad form for anticipating what the market will bear, and asking for what we think we might get rather than what we think we need. A classic example of which was helicopters in Afghanistan and Gordon Brown. He could honestly say he paid for those that were asked for, but what was asked for was what we thought he would pay. Main Building called it ‘politically aware military advice’.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

Infantry are emphatically not the only battle-winners in Ukraine. That’s pure fantasy.

Air Power and Artillery is what creates breakthroughs and its the critical element in fighting through any opponent willing to stand and fight. Its also arguable, that the drone has made it more likely than ever you can expect something to be flying over your head as they are so cheap and disposable and we need something as cheap to match them.

Its probable every Battalion from Infantry to Logistics now need an integrated Air Defense Platoon and possibly new Battalion AD Company in the same way the Germans back in the day churned out masses of 20mm FLAK guns.

 

[BPS666]

And the reason we have such trouble procuring ordinance.

Best speak to the RACD about Ordinance........... The RLC might be able to help with Ordnance.

 

[Roadster280]

I’ve often wondered whether the MOD is actually any good at fighting for its budget. Whether the senior leadership is any good at firing SofS in to secure the maximum possible. My suspicion is that the default setting is to minimise cuts, because management of ordered decline is the ingrained culture.

Which brings up an interesting point. For too long, Defence hasn’t been a vote winner. A pound spent there is a pound not spent on benefits/schools/hospitals/dogshit arty farty initiatives. There did not seem to be the political interest/will to fund the MOD to the level required in order to achieve the (ever-restricted) aims set by Review after Review.

Contrast with the US. I can think of three initiatives that the DOD wanted to do, but were overruled by Congress. No, you can’t retire the A-10. No, you can’t shut down the Lima Tank Plant. Donate the Iowas as museums if you must, but they are NOT to be modified, and can be recalled.

Now there may be very good reasons for the DOD wanting to do those things, but that is not my point here - my point is that Congress was sufficiently interested to deny those proposed cuts. I don’t see Westminster being so involved, unless the Red Arrows or shiny guardsmen were for the chop. Then there’d be outcry, over something as militarily useful as HMS Belfast.

 

[SEMPER SURSUM]

G'Day From Oz,
You must improve the average soldier, more money, earned by tests for proficiency in various military requirements, learning languages, computing, nursing and so on. Better educated NCO's. More exciting "work", 1953 when I joined 2 Para in MELF was straight into 'The Gun' but within six weeks I had trained to fire the 3 inch Mortar and jumped as a member of a 75mm Anti Tank Gun team. All of this on top normal MMG training, security and the usual bulldust parades.
Take Care
SEMPER SURSUM

I'm with Simon Evan's little lad