Realigning the British Army after Ukraine

Alamo

LE
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.
Can’t speak for the other services, but the RAF has it as a SIGINT speciality in the aircrew world.
 
200k army, of which about half heavy arty systems?
You are one of the surviving Russian generals and I claim my 5 pounds
 
Long range in both the Army and Navy, based mostly around missiles. Air Transport and AH owned by the Army. Missile based National AD owned by RN. Strategic nuclear and non-nuclear in RN. No requirement for manned aircraft other than AT and AH. RAF personnel are given the opportunity to be selected for transfer to Army or RN, or else transfer to the Job Centre.
Yes because the army can be so trusted with anything that isn't a bloke on foot or maybe a horse......
 

Alamo

LE
Long range in both the Army and Navy, based mostly around missiles. Air Transport and AH owned by the Army. Missile based National AD owned by RN. Strategic nuclear and non-nuclear in RN. No requirement for manned aircraft other than AT and AH. RAF personnel are given the opportunity to be selected for transfer to Army or RN, or else transfer to the Job Centre.
Assuming this isn’t a wind-up, it’s one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve read on here.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
You mean scrapping WFM? Each crew gets its own vehicle?
That's just as barking and out of date some posters are unfortunately (not you btw), there was good reasons to introduce WFM, one of which was we didn't have the manpower to provide one crew per veh nor the money to train that level of troops if we did. I can remember track mileage being a factor from the 1970s let alone now!

Unless or until a UK government comes up with a universally agreed funding model for the AF and other government depts the MoD will be forced to decide which eqpt it can afford to maintain (and how) and sacrifice other stuff to meet those needs, and that includes replacements and upgrades.

It would help a bit if we had VSOs in place that considered the entirity of the AF and what it is employed by the government to do instead of concentrating their minds on their own pet projects which are designed to protect their Regiments.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
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.
There's probably more than enough cunning ones serving already.
 
That's just as barking and out of date some posters are unfortunately (not you btw) [...]

Oh I know I'm out of date. My knowledge of AFV design all starts to go a bit wonky about 75-80. It wouldn't, I suspect, take long for a modern AFV engineer reading my opening post to wet himself laughing, I suspect.
 

Bubbles_Barker

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?
Light troops with ATGM seem to have done well, but it’s only one club in the bag. Key thing is not to organise, train and equip to fight the last war. So first we need to see what the Russians, Chinese etc learn from Putin’s arrse kicking.

They’ll be back and even they might not be so shit next time.
 
Last edited:
Light troops with ATGM seem to have done well, but it’s only one club in the bag. Key thing is not to organise, train and equip to fight the last war. So first we need to see what the Russians, honest etc learn from Putin’s arrse kicking.

They’ll be back and even they might not be so shit next time.

Despite them doing well the Russians were still able to advance for several weeks, until Ukraine dusted off it's heavy armour and started whacking the Russians upside the head.
The UKR armour was conspicuous by its absence at the start of the war, presumably saving its strength.

So I think we can safely say that light infantry can slow, delay and maybe even attrit the enemy armour, but they can't stop it.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
Oh I know I'm out of date. My knowledge of AFV design all starts to go a bit wonky about 75-80. It wouldn't, I suspect, take long for a modern AFV engineer reading my opening post to wet himself laughing, I suspect.
You're not alone, I consider myself well out of date leaving in 2012, but despite working on virtually every type of eqpt from QMs push bike to tank transorters to the tanks they carried, my level of knowledge is not at your level and never will be.
 
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?

The US have a policy of being able to fight two wars simultaneously and win both.

We have downsized so much that we can't fight one war on our own let alone win it.

I think we need to start with a reasonable and honest review of what we need rather than what is the minimum that we can get away with. I have serious doubt's that we can rely on our NATO partners for our own survival, I suspect that Germany and France would drag their feet just long enough, hoping that we had been beaten before they had to act.

I don't trust the Biden administration either, see threats to ruin our trade deal with the US if we change our own domestic policy on Northern Ireland

If the current state of the world has taught us anything it is that a degree of self sufficiency is a good thing and i'd suggest that being able to fight a conventional war, alone if needs be and to conduct limited counter terrorism / counter insurgency at the same time would be a good place to start.

We wont always have Ukrainians on hand to provide the manpower.
 
D

Deleted 139028

Guest
Light troops with ATGM seem to have done well, but it’s only one club in the bag. Key thing is not to organise, train and equip to fight the last war. So first we need to see what the Russians, honest etc learn from Putin’s arrse kicking.

They’ll be back and even they might not be so shit next time.
I doubt, for many reasons, they'll be any better but you're absolutely spot on about fighting the last war. The best prepared armies observe, adapt, train and practise the future war not those past and to do that means adaptive tactics, intelligence, and the officers in place* that are so well trained they are capable of making battlefield decisions for themselves without waiting for direction from above or reading them out of a manual.


* I know I often criticise officers but good ones are worth their weight in gold, and that's one place we need to improve on.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
You reckon? Wayne and Waynetta going to forgo their prosperity and cushy state provided life for defence? I think not.
There will be plenty of millionaire socialists using Wayne and Waynetta, Frogmella and Spudulika as a stick with which to beat any Government daring to suggest such a thing.
 
As I said AT Regt, if not a Regt all Regts have a AT Company.
I’m a relic of the Cold War so in my day, there was an anti tank platoon in support company in every infantry battalion using wombats and each platoon carried an anti tank weapon in the form of the Carl Gustav 84mm. And then of course 66mm came along although I did wonder how good they would actually be against armour.

Anti tank weapons since then have evolved enormously over the years and the destruction of so much Russian armour in the Ukraine is probably a testament to that but my question is do infantry battalions these days not have an anti tank capability similarly sized to the capability it had back in my day albeit with modern anti tank weaponry?
 
Last edited:

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
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.
It does. But it depends where you think you will be deployed to. For example, when Bosnia started the Army had just two Serbo-Croat speakers. The idea of the SPIBs is for a heavy Offr/WO/SNCO mix to specialise in a particular region of the world. Language skills will be a part of that.

STANAG 6001 if you’re interested.
 

Yokel

LE
Fantasy Fleet threads:

Fleets? It is funny that you mention fleets...

Am I alone in thinking that it is time to see what lessons we can learn from the 1980s NATO Marutime Strategy. Use NATO's superior access to the sea and superior naval and amphibious forces as a counter weight to Russian land power?



If only Dr Lehman had become President.
 
Top