Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

An aside, but the Army isn't serious about reforms until it amalgamates 5 understrength Guards regiments into one new regiment called simply The Foot Guards with 3 full-strength battalions. If it won't do this itself then it needs to be forced from on high, probably by Cummings.
More accurate... ;)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Cut now does not mean not replaced when innovation and budget allows.

This is not an exhaustive list.

CR2
Warrior
AMLRS
AS90 / 1RHA
Rapier
Husky
Mastiff
Panther
Ridgeback
Wolfhound
Bulldog / FV430
12RRA
Light Cav
AWB
CSB
1. You'd seriously cut all of those?

2. Do you seriously think any of those would be regenerated if they were cut?
 

TamH70

MIA
1. You'd seriously cut all of those?

2. Do you seriously think any of those would be regenerated if they were cut?
He would, considering that he works in the big fishbowl in Khodynka Airport in Moscow. :)
 
1. You'd seriously cut all of those?

2. Do you seriously think any of those would be regenerated if they were cut?
We would end up with less capability than the Irish Defence Forces. However, the OP's posts does highlight a valid point i.e. the plethora of equipment that the Army are trying to maintain, each with their own spares requirements.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
All joking asides etc, this is essentially about one issue only; the White Ensign that now appears on the uniform. It’s a fcking joke, and an expensive one at that.

No issue with Royal - they are a fine fighting force with exceptionally high standards but FFS it’s time to bring them into the Army.
I disagree, there is a push for "one Navy" from 1SL and to make sure RM are wholly integrated but that's as much about internal culture than it is about any protectionism. What it does do is highlight the difference between RM and Inf, even Spec Inf.

Integrating the proposed capability into LAND would most likely see dilution of their training and role.
 

Check_0ne_Two

Old-Salt
1. You'd seriously cut all of those?

2. Do you seriously think any of those would be regenerated if they were cut?
Absolutely.

The economic and political climate means it won’t be used.

We’re not stopping the Russian hordes, securing oil assets in Africa or playing in the Pacific any time soon. Yet all continue to sap budget.

None of it is agile, most is overmatched in P2P , or not needed in small scale intervention. All prevents innovation or replacement because ‘ it will do for now. ‘

Some have replacements already earmarked. Gap it.

You don’t regenerate based on legacy. You generate based on perceived threats and response.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Absolutely.

The economic and political climate means it won’t be used.

We’re not stopping the Russian hordes, securing oil assets in Africa or playing in the Pacific any time soon. Yet all continue to sap budget.

None of it is agile, most is overmatched in P2P , or not needed in small scale intervention. All prevents innovation or replacement because ‘ it will do for now. ‘

Some have replacements already earmarked. Gap it.

You don’t regenerate based on legacy. You generate based on perceived threats and response.
I can see what you're after but it's very dangerous thinking. We're in trouble enough in terms of where we are. If a lot of those capabilities were 'gapped' you'd never see them back.

In all honesty, if we were to call 'Stop' and say only those capabilities which are useful can stay, several of them would. CR2 is competent, it just needs upgrades out to end-of-life. It can still kill things just not with the overmatch it once enjoyed. You'd want it if you didn't have it, mind. WR the same. MLRS the same.

The problem is I think you're confusing stage of life (I'm careful not to say obsolescence) with incapable.

Some of those things are getting long in the tooth, sure. They'd have needed replacing in the not-too-distant even if we'd kept after their upkeep. AS90 is pretty much shagged out, for example.

The real problem is that we should be farther up the road in terms of their replacements by now. A lot farther. But we've dicked about and not been helped by having had a guy in the driving seat who was too prejudiced towards his own favourites, if I might put it like that.
 
. But we've dicked about and not been helped by having had a guy in the driving seat who was too prejudiced towards his own favourites, if I might put it like that.
But those black buttons on you look fabulous Darling...
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I'm told that, after the rather slow landings in The Falklands, a meeting was held on board ship to discuss "the problem". RN types dominated ignoring the RFA Captains at the table. Eventually one of said professional mariners said to the RN present "you do know that we could have run our ships on to the beach to unload? It would have been a lot quicker".

Apparently none of the RN officers present knew that the RFA ships could do that, nor that the professional mariners of the RFA were trained to do so.
I'm sure thats true. Because the COMATG staff planning the landings hadn't constantly trained with the RFA support assets nor had they regularly done the beached RFA exercise. Nor had they been aware that a beached RFA ship on the beach is going no where. And is a nice big target for the airplanes. And if hit would have closed that beach head down. Nor where they aware that on beaching the RFA needed to be dry docked and inspected. Because all those COMAG staff would have had no idea. Including the RFA staff officer in COMATG.
 
Cut now does not mean not replaced when innovation and budget allows.

This is not an exhaustive list.

CR2
Warrior
AMLRS
AS90 / 1RHA
Rapier
12RRA
Light Cav
AWB
CSB
Husky, Panther , Foxhound, Ridgeback Wolf hound = JLTV
Mastiff, = MIV and Bushmaster/ Eagle 5 (or whatever is selected)

Bulldog / FV430 = ABSV /MIV and Bushmaster/ Eagle 5 (or whatever is selected)

Which should at least reduce logistics and support burdens

Light cav - reduce to a single regiment give it a JLTV or something to s
Which leaves Heavy Armour and Air defence

Army 2025 - Fantasy fleets
1x Cavalry Brigade = 1 Regt high readiness
3 or 4 Regiments of Dragoons ( Take a strike brigade mount everything on AJAX and make the infantry liability part of the Dragoon regiment**) Each with Overwatch variant, Javelin teams 4* Mortars (try to fund a 120mm gun variant).
1 Regt Engineer
1 Regt Arty 2BTY 8Guns / Tubes obs Bty AD Bty
Log regts + Field Ambulance -

3 Armoured Div
CAAM , HVM , MLRS
Engineer Close (1) Gen (1)
Log Regt
Field Amb / Hosp

2 Bde each of (on paper)
2*MBT (44) (Accept short term that deploying the div is likely to be as 2 AI or 2+1 Reg MBT)
2*Warrior
1xAS90 (replacement)

1 ( Inf ? ) Div - ondependent brigades

2 Wheeled Brigades each of
1 Cav - Mix of wheeled Armour 3 sqns, 2 Boxer -inf
1* RA regt (3 BTY 8 - 6 reg 2 reserve ) Engineer Regt , Amb Logs

Air Mobile Bde
3 Inf , 1 Light gun , Eng - Log - Field Amb

Amph - Bde
Absorb 3 CDO Bde support assets , 2 Inf Battalions ( Cdo provides 3rd)

SF Bde
SAS, 2x Para btn- in place of SFSG - Paras no longer direct entry

5 LI
2 Public Duties btn
3 battallions on Bushmaster / JLTV - tasked to provide 3rd Battalion to Boxer Brigades if needed and other general duties IMATT - belize etc

That gives
9 or 10 RAC - (+1)
20 Infantry (-11)
Organised in 7 Brigades*** - the liability for the extra brigades support assets offset by ditching 11 LI

The significant Equipment changes are additional MBT - (176 vs current 168) long term - short term muddle through
Replacing the 3* Light cav on Jackal with a JLTV - Boxer mix

I cant see why that isnt achievable indeed surely the army could still lose a few bodies

As for the reserves (heres the silly bit)
2 on Ajax 2 on MBT 2 on Warrior miv light etc and when the equipments to be replaced actually by sufficient to equip them - which will bring down unit costs and make everything far more viable


**Precedent Dragoons were mounted Inf
***And lets trim them down a bit as well where possible
 
Last edited:
I'd wait to see what's happening across the pond, there might be a whole calibre change on the horizon.
wont fix the fundamental problem the US Army has - don’t hit the target, target don’t fall down.
 
Infantry by another name.
To be fair, a very similar debate occurred at the start of the 20th Century as part of the lessons learned process of the Second Boer War. Should the cavalry be employed as 'cavalry' in the traditional sense or as mounted infantry?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
To be fair, a very similar debate occurred at the start of the 20th Century as part of the lessons learned process of the Second Boer War. Should the cavalry be employed as 'cavalry' in the traditional sense or as mounted infantry?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
You could always employ them a 'cavalry in the traditional sense' but retain the option to employ them as dismounted cavalry should the need arise.
 
To be fair, a very similar debate occurred at the start of the 20th Century as part of the lessons learned process of the Second Boer War. Should the cavalry be employed as 'cavalry' in the traditional sense or as mounted infantry?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
which turned out to be a pretty nugatory debate... as the implications of barbed wire, modern artillery and barbed wire had yet to be fully appreciated and the arrival of the tank and fighter aircraft were only just over the horizon.
 

Latest Threads

Top