gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3454
    MEMBERS
  • 199628
    MESSAGES
  • 13
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

UK force design: should Land forces be reduced/changed?    General Military Discussion

Started 6-Nov by gatnerd; 8697 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

6-Nov

So I was browsing X and I came across this post detailing future UK armored vehicle acquisitions:

This got me thinking again about whether it really makes sense for the UK to focus on a traditional Land Army of armored vehicles and troops vs directing funds elsewhere. 

-The UK is an Island, at the furthest remove from Russia or any other credible land based threat

-Its overseas territories other then the Falklands have no plausible threat of invasion 

-Unlike other NATO countries (outside of France and US) the UK has a substantial Navy and Nuclear deterrent that requires a lot of the defense budget.

-In terms of supporting NATO and deterring Russia, or helping support the US, the UK's contribution of armored vehicles offers less bang for the buck then other options. (Think $1Billion in Armor vs ~6,000 GMLRS rockets)

What if instead of its current plans to maintain a regular Land Army, the Army was cut to largely SF / Royal Marines, and the rest of the Land Budget was directed toward other priorities such as Long Range Precision Fires (M270A2 and its munitions stockpiles), Ground Based Air Defense, Munitions Stockpiles, and the rest toward the Navy and Air Force?

graylion

From: graylion

6-Nov

gatnerd said:

Land Budget was directed toward other priorities such as Long Range Precision Fires (M270A2 and its munitions stockpiles), Ground Based Air Defense, Munitions Stockpiles, and the rest toward the Navy and Air Force?

Fundamentally acting as force multipliers in allied efforts. Not a bad idea - if the UK was willing to commit to always act in concert with others.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

6-Nov

Indeed UK chose to not have a viable Land force instead they built 2 massive supercarriers that have no planes or a fleet to support it. UK procurement is traditionally an exemplary case study of bad decisions.

Drummond is also spewing BS with the let's buy these 4x4 instead, most of the choices he listed are more expensive and less versatile than Patria 6x6 or Arma6x6 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

7-Nov

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Indeed UK chose to not have a viable Land force instead they built 2 massive supercarriers that have no planes or a fleet to support it. UK procurement is traditionally an exemplary case study of bad decisions

Yes the more I look into it, the carrier situation isn't great.

To me this further points to a need to prioritize rather than trying to have a complete Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

In reply toRe: msg 4
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

8-Nov

An interesting article I came across, arguing Britain should shift from a focus on Armored Divisions to a focus on Rocket Divisions backed by SF doing targeting Recon - pretty similar to what I was saying.

https://wavellroom.com/2022/02/23/rise-of-the-rocket-launcher/

"The British Army has a fascination with ground manoeuvre.  A rocket division offers an opportunity to think about how we fight differently.  Of course, if we are to fight a peer-on-peer conflict, we are likely to be doing so as part of NATO but these shouldn’t be excuses for remaining stagnant and neglecting our ability to fight the divisional deep.  A rocket division is a credible contribution.  

.

The British Army’s current trajectory increases the number of rocket assets and grows a Special Observer capability.  This will improve our ability to fight the deep battle.  However, this is not a ‘silver-bullet’ and is a short-term plan.  The longer-term solution is the creation of a division with rocket launchers at its core.  The handing over of the baton from armour to rocket launchers is crucial for future success and key activity in the British Army’s fight to remain relevant."

stancrist

From: stancrist

8-Nov

gatnerd said:

What if instead of its current plans to maintain a regular Land Army, the Army was cut to largely SF / Royal Marines, and the rest of the Land Budget was directed toward other priorities such as Long Range Precision Fires (M270A2 and its munitions stockpiles), Ground Based Air Defense...?

Seems to me that would result in a rather inflexible force incapable of offensive operations and maneuver warfare.

In reply toRe: msg 6
Refleks

From: Refleks

8-Nov

They have commitments, being a part of NATO, which may entail a land war in Europe. One would hope they would not sacrifice bringing something meaningful to the table at the altar of unsustainable entitlements. 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

8-Nov

Refleks said:

They have commitments, being a part of NATO, which may entail a land war in Europe. One would hope they would not sacrifice bringing something meaningful to the table

Well thats the thing, what would actually be more impactful in supporting NATO in Europe:

1. A Long Range Precision MLRS and Ground Based Air Defense network with deep magazines of munitions for each 

2. A complete little land army with shallow magazines due to lack of funding due to budget constraints and need to also fund a navy, air force, and nuclear deterrent

In reply toRe: msg 8
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17-Nov

Relevant, in regards to the need for UK Ground based Air Defense both for NATO and its overseas territories, as well as the finite number they have available:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1725285310467088534

Is investing in new tanks vs the same $ in air defense a better investment?

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

17-Nov

Let them waste money and time on Challenger 3 , where would we be it Brits wouldn't continue the proud tradition of generally betting on wrong horses all the time? 

TOP