Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 'Not the CR2 army leadership' thread

The most interesting thing from the USMC redesign is that they have repeatedly wargamed it, and changed stuff due to those wargames. This was not an FMC led cut process, this was a Command Intent "we're going to do this, what do we need to know" process.

The broadest of brush strokes can be found at


But yes, the USMC can rely on the US Army to do the heavy stuff.

I'd point out we have no analogy of the Force Design process they went through with repeated wargaming and SME input...
 
Secondly should we not be mirroring what the USMC are doing?

What ? Prepare for an Island hopping war across the Pacific, South China Sea, Philippine Sea & all the other seas with long range fire support from the RN with missiles capable of reaching ranges of upwards of 270 miles ?

This sudden fascination with swapping the entire UK Armed Forces to conducting Littoral strikes only is utter bull. Does anyone really think HM Treasury is going to spend enough cash to build enough carriers of at least 2 different types, enough warships, aircraft, helicopters and enough decent weapon systems to both conduct littoral strikes, protect the groups conducting the strikes whilst protecting UK vital Sea LOCs and the UK coast ? It's La La land dreaming.
 
Once the final bill for Corona is in the British Army is likely to be two platoons mounted on mountain bikes protected by a couple of rowing boats for off shore adventures.
 
Interestingly, the French are keeping the Leclerc MBT but are binning tracked IFVs in favour of 8x8 MIVs.


We will be binning MBT's in favour of tracked IFV 'Medium Tanks' and getting shiny new 8x8 MIVs.

Strike Brigades (or what ever it is this week), its the future - again.
 
We will be binning MBT's in favour of tracked IFV 'Medium Tanks' and getting shiny new 8x8 MIVs.

Strike Brigades (or what ever it is this week), its the future - again.

We have a current MBT fleet on 227 CR2, but not all of these can be upgraded due to cost and due to overall condition. Realistically, we are looking at an upgraded fleet of c.150-c.180 Challengers, which is enough to equip two Regts plus a Trg Regt (-). Is it really worth spending the best part of half a billion quid on as few as 150 MBTs? I don't think so...
 
What ? Prepare for an Island hopping war across the Pacific, South China Sea, Philippine Sea & all the other seas with long range fire support from the RN with missiles capable of reaching ranges of upwards of 270 miles ?

This sudden fascination with swapping the entire UK Armed Forces to conducting Littoral strikes only is utter bull. Does anyone really think HM Treasury is going to spend enough cash to build enough carriers of at least 2 different types, enough warships, aircraft, helicopters and enough decent weapon systems to both conduct littoral strikes, protect the groups conducting the strikes whilst protecting UK vital Sea LOCs and the UK coast ? It's La La land dreaming.
Not quite, the thought of binning tanks in favour for large amounts of indirect strike.

200 CR3 are going to help Strike brigades how?
 
Exactly. Neither are they overly busy just now. Realistically we have too small an army to be of much use in a major war on continental Europe, no great desire to become involved in Africa, Asia or South America, and no need to be involved in North America, Australasia or Antarctica.
I suspect we'd be better off either going full heavy metal, or boosting RM numbers for long range littoral forays.
No great desire to become involed in Africa? That's where we're going to be.

Africa
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I'd point out we have no analogy of the Force Design process they went through with repeated wargaming and SME input...

We make some effort at it, but not to anything like the extent the US does.

And there is an unfortunate problem for results to be declared to mean that whatever the current CORGI is, has been proven and successful, even if the wargame resulted in a fairly disastrous outcome... (<cough>Strike Brigade Bloodbath...)
 
Last edited:
We make some effort at it, but not to anything like the extent the US does.

And there is an unfortunate problem for results to be declared to mean whatever the current CORGI is proven and successful, even if the wargame resulted in a fairly disastrous outcome... (<cough>Strike Brigade Bloodbath...)

The G4 and G6 assets are not there to support the Strike dispersed operating model.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The G4 and G6 assets are not there to support the Strike dispersed operating model.

"The troops will be required to make very great exertions" - the mating cry of the G3 ninja everywhere.

Of course, the lack of firepower eases the logs and comms issues somewhat - no need for all that heavy artillery ammunition or bandwidth-hungry fire missions.

Oh, and medical issues get interesting (in a "oh God oh God we're all going to die!" sort of way)

And... well... anyway... just crack on and make it happen, there's a good chap, let's not have any negativity here...
 
To consider what might happen at any organisational and equipment level I think it first helps to understand the prevailing European mindset, even with Brexit.

The powers that be have (I think) decided that readying for a war with China or Russia is not something they have the mandate, desire or willpower to do. The prevailing mindset is that if Russia were to roll over the border (unlikely we would just accept it and that is how it is now and will stay that way and that we are just going to live with that risk in the hope that it does not materialise.

Therefore there is no point in spending more than is necessary to manage the smaller scale matters that pop up from time to time or to give the impression to the voting public that the Government is really trying.
 
Why do we need tanks

A 120 mm Round from a ch2 in the direct fire can really persuade the enemy that a warrior has backup
Simple answer to those, that have not seen a soft top callsign rescued by a armoured QRF
 
To consider what might happen at any organisational and equipment level I think it first helps to understand the prevailing European mindset, even with Brexit.

The powers that be have (I think) decided that readying for a war with China or Russia is not something they have the mandate, desire or willpower to do. The prevailing mindset is that if Russia were to roll over the border (unlikely we would just accept it and that is how it is now and will stay that way and that we are just going to live with that risk in the hope that it does not materialise.

Therefore there is no point in spending more than is necessary to manage the smaller scale matters that pop up from time to time or to give the impression to the voting public that the Government is really trying.
I suspect Russia has enough problems without worrying about invading Europe, with the Chinese eyeing up Siberia, the Stans an ever present jihadi threat, migrants crossing its territory, and the ongoing ops in Syria.
It's already effectively peeled Turkey from NATO, has a good internal market for its agriculture, and has no shortage of oil.

All the most imminent threats to Europe are sat in MENA, on their way, or already here.
But nobody wants to accept that.
 


Interesting article from someone who just when thro the process


Notice this wording

"the interview did not have to grade an officer with enough fidelity to move them up or down the overall rank order of assessed officers. It only had to determine if a candidate exhibited characteristics that convinced a majority of the panel members that he or she was not ready to command a battalion "
Quoted from other thread.
 
I suspect Russia has enough problems without worrying about invading Europe, with the Chinese eyeing up Siberia, the Stans an ever present jihadi threat, migrants crossing its territory, and the ongoing ops in Syria.
It's already effectively peeled Turkey from NATO, has a good internal market for its agriculture, and has no shortage of oil.

All the most imminent threats to Europe are sat in MENA, on their way, or already here.
But nobody wants to accept that.

Russia does have enough to concern itself with and bigging up our forces for a direct confrontation probably would be a dust gathering exercise, for now at least which seems to be what we are counting on.

Beyond that then who knows, but if the threat started to ramp up I am not sure we would be able to react to that, we will still be in the lap of the gods.
 
Why do we need tanks

A 120 mm Round from a ch2 in the direct fire can really persuade the enemy that a warrior has backup
Simple answer to those, that have not seen a soft top callsign rescued by a armoured QRF
I have, I have also seen those call signs being “rescued” by fast air, Indirect Fire and AH.
 
^ I really like what they've done in USA and would like it to be implemented in UK.

I'm thinking for Sub-unit OCs and COs, and their associated WOs this would be fantastic. Those who were unsuccessful in passing would be moved to the General Staff branch and be promoted along the SO route, abley supported by WO SO3s.

Might have to bring in some sort of robust examination for staff work.

I really like the peer and subordinate review for those wanting a command position. A proper Phys test and the blind interview is mega.
 
Why do we need tanks

A 120 mm Round from a ch2 in the direct fire can really persuade the enemy that a warrior has backup
Simple answer to those, that have not seen a soft top callsign rescued by a armoured QRF
Why do we need Warrior IFVs in lieu of APCs then?

Gen question.

Tanks are a blend of mobility, protection and firepower.

IFVs add troop capacity to that blend. Meaning there is less space for the other three.

Leading to (IMHO) very protected APCs such as T-15, BMO-T, and Namer.

Or firepower heavy such as BMP-3.

Or firepower and manoeuvre heavy like BDM-4.

Bradley's, warriors, pumas, and lynx's seem to sit in a does neither particularly well slot.
 
Why do we need Warrior IFVs in lieu of APCs then?

Gen question.

Tanks are a blend of mobility, protection and firepower.

IFVs add troop capacity to that blend. Meaning there is less space for the other three.

Leading to (IMHO) very protected APCs such as T-15, BMO-T, and Namer.

Or firepower heavy such as BMP-3.

Or firepower and manoeuvre heavy like BDM-4.

Bradley's, warriors, pumas, and lynx's seem to sit in a does neither particularly well slot.
Iirc the original aim of Warrior, Bradley & Co was to wait til the RA/AAC/RAF had blatted the baddies, before advancing in support of tanks, then debussing on the objective to clear and hold it, not to act as a glorified apc.
The early warrior training film showed this, using its weapons on strong points that bombardment and tanks had missed, while the tanks continued to advance beyond the ( infantry's) objective.
Perhaps doctrine or usage changed?
 

Latest Threads

Top