Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[GR66]

Does that make the UK the first to adapt Ukrainian war experience into doctrine/potential doctrine?

On a related note, I'll channel my inner @Kirkhill and point out that modern AT weapons seem to be closing in one being the game changer the Yeoman longbow companies were in the Hundred Year's War. Yeoman archers were a lot cheaper to train, equip, and pay, than mounted men-at-arms.

If the UK can mount an effective AT missile system on a light, and cheap platform, they essentially make negate the effectiveness of armour.

I don't know about "negate". Infantry will still have to cross open ground between built up areas. Modern sensors/UAVs will allow artillery to target light units moving in the open more quickly/accurately than was possible in the past and precision munitions are not available in endless supply.

I can see light units with precision weapons (ATGMs/NLOS missiles/Loitering Munitions) shaping the battlefield and possibly blunting/slowing (and possibly even preventing?) attempts at large scale maneuver, but then heavily protected units will be required for close assaults on built up defended areas.

 

[Furniture]

Probably not? It’s a dedicated experimental group, their whole job is to try new shit out.


we’ve hat effective light platform mounted AT weapons since the 1970s. Hell we have TOW on Iltis. Stuff has gotten better, but a lot of Ukraines early ATGM success is due to A: Russian infantry being ineffective and lacking in numbers and B: confirmation bias. Also they have to fill weight of the West’s economy supporting that.

Fair, but the difference between TUA and Brimstone on a light launcher seems about the same as Genoese Crossbowmen and Yeoman archers. Both can achieve the same effect under the right circumstances, but one does it better and cheaper.

A LAV or TLAV with a TOW is likely not as cost effective as a truck with a Brimstone(or whatever LR AT missile you prefer) launcher on the back.

I don't know about "negate". Infantry will still have to cross open ground between built up areas. Modern sensors/UAVs will allow artillery to target light units moving in the open more quickly/accurately than was possible in the past and precision munitions are not available in endless supply.

I can see light units with precision weapons (ATGMs/NLOS missiles/Loitering Munitions) shaping the battlefield and possibly blunting/slowing (and possibly even preventing?) attempts at large scale maneuver, but then heavily protected units will be required for close assaults on built up defended areas.

Longbows didn't make heavy cavalry charges obsolete, they simply made them less of a single solution to all problems. Heavy cavalry didn't die at Crecy, or Agincourt, but how heavy cavalry was used definitely changed...

AT missiles don't make tanks obsolete, but if well deployed they negate the advantage heavy armour gives.

 

[FJAG]

It's interesting that there is nothing in the article about normal attachments that would go to a company such as an artillery tactical group (read FOO party) and an engineer section. This para is concerning:

The short engagement ranges and urban clutter also reduce the ability to employ supporting firepower assets, like mortars and artillery.

I don't want to get bitchy (but I will), infantry during peacetime seems to forget about supporting arms. The M777 was invaluable as a precision and area weapon in a close, complex terrain fight in Afghanistan. In 2006 and 2007 rounds were routinely dropped in to under 200 metres and I know of several at 80 m from own troops. Western urban terrain does have more height which makes terminal fall of shot more challenging but in these types of fights that height seems to get reduced into rubble. I think one of the issues is that the Brits don't have the M777. I'm not sure I'd trust the AS-90 like our guys trusted the Triple 7 (I haven't seen it's PE tables (but our folks didn't trust the PzH 2000 for close in work)

I've looked at the four rotos in 2006 and 7 and the story is the same each time. During predeployment training the guns were sent off to a corner to play by themselves ... until theatre ... and the first TIC when suddenly the scales fell off everyone's eyes. Training for danger close in an urban terrain is something our range safety won't let us do. Afghanistan is 10 years behind us and really 15 from the really kinetic days and a whole new generation of folks that haven't felt a danger close come in is now running things at the tactical level.

I'm not anti-infantry centric - hell urban warfare ought to be infantry centric, and maybe I'm reading entirely too much into one article, - but fires enablers came as a surprise to our folks as well as the Brits there who didn't have LAVs, nor M777s, nor all those aircraft (well a few Harriers and attck hels) when they started out. By not even a mention of the normal enablers that are pushed to the companies my suspicions are up even though I know that there is an artillery trials and evaluation unit within the Experimentation and Trials Group.

 

[IRepoCans]

Is anyone actually running the ISSP electronics? The head sets are a night mare and in ear.. which is kinda gross to be honest. I know they haven’t made it out to Edmonton, vests or kits, and the units that do have them are just tossing the electronics in the CQ and leaving in there.

From what I've seen in Pet is we've stripped everything off except the radio, V60 control box / PTT and dudes were making use of civ-ATAK. With the third stage of ISSP in swing delivering the newer Harris radios you're kind of stuck with the V60 PTT since it hard to find a commercially available PTT that has the 19 Pin connector for the 163. Which is a bit of a pain in the ass as I'm not a fan of in ear myself so I run Comtacs with my own PTT for the 152 (so now I have to figure out some shenanigans for that), but the new DICE helmets are going to be the test bed for the army's (infantry driven) program to deliver over ear comms / hearing protection headset that works with the third stage of ISSP.

 

[markppcli]

From what I've seen in Pet is we've stripped everything off except the radio, V60 control box / PTT and dudes were making use of civ-ATAK. With the third stage of ISSP in swing delivering the newer Harris radios you're kind of stuck with the V60 PTT since it hard to find a commercially available PTT that has the 19 Pin connector for the 163. Which is a bit of a pain in the ass as I'm not a fan of in ear myself so I run Comtacs with my own PTT for the 152 (so now I have to figure out some shenanigans for that), but the new DICE helmets are going to be the test bed for the army's (infantry driven) program to deliver over ear comms / hearing protection headset that works with the third stage of ISSP.

You can get an adapter, and they are in the system but in very small numbers. It’s the reason our 163s are in the vault until we can get the PTT / head set piece sorted. We tried running that in ear comms thing (again I find sharing that disgusting) with the 163 and it was no dice for us. So back to rocking two 152s off a two drop PTT. The army writ large should just do what the JTAC program has been doing comms / atac wise instead of adopting the ISSP nightmare. But I digress.

Fair, but the difference between TUA and Brimstone on a light launcher seems about the same as Genoese Crossbowmen and Yeoman archers. Both can achieve the same effect under the right circumstances, but one does it better and cheaper.

A LAV or TLAV with a TOW is likely not as cost effective as a truck with a Brimstone(or whatever LR AT missile you prefer) launcher on the back.

See where I mentioned light to light, we used to have them on the Iltis? TOW costs 1/4 a brimstone missile. Not that I’m a fan of the light ATGM carrier just pointing out it’s far from revolutionary. And that difference between TOW and Brimstone is that of a TI 84 calculator and the newest IPhone.

Longbows didn't make heavy cavalry charges obsolete, they simply made them less of a single solution to all problems. Heavy cavalry didn't die at Crecy, or Agincourt, but how heavy cavalry was used definitely changed...

Your Longbow being cheap analogy doesn’t really stand up btw, but we aren’t here to discuss the relative expense of medieval missile weapons. Suffice to say that there’s a reason longbows didn’t take off all over Europe.

AT missiles don't make tanks obsolete, but if well deployed they negate the advantage heavy armour gives.

Just as they always have since their inception. Not revolutionary, evolutionary.

 

[IRepoCans]

You can get an adapter, and they are in the system but in very small numbers. It’s the reason our 163s are in the vault until we can get the PTT / head set piece sorted. We tried running that in ear comms thing (again I find sharing that disgusting) with the 163 and it was no dice for us. So back to rocking two 152s off a two drop PTT. The army writ large should just do what the JTAC program has been doing comms / atac wise instead of adopting the ISSP nightmare. But I digress.

Sweet, do you happen to know the NSN or make? Because I'm at the point where I was just going to call up TEA and see if they had anything since they supplied the V60 kits for my buddy's unit at JBLM.

 

[GR66]

In other news, unrelated to 12th century philosophy or the dubious merits of unpaid conscripts / volunteers.

British Army experiments with Dstl study on urban combat

The British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) have been testing improving future urban operations using a new experimental force concept.

www.gov.uk

The NGCT that ETG are experimenting with is based around 2 Phalanx Platoons and a Manoeuvre Support Group. The Phalanx Platoon is built of 3 sections of 10 personnel, an anti-armour/anti-structure capability, a platoon systems operator, a platoon commander and a platoon sergeant.

The new section consists of 2 4-person fire teams and an independent command element comprising section commander and a section systems operator. This command element was shown to increase the situational awareness of the section, through the employment of drones and intelligence kit, while reducing the cognitive burden on the section commander.

The systems operator is also removed from the fire teams to focus on controlling the small uncrewed air systems (UAS) and updating the Dismounted Situational Awareness (DSA) system, providing greater situational awareness to both the section commander and platoon headquarters.

Each Phalanx Platoon has a shoulder-launched rocket team, armed with a Carl-Gustaf weapon system. This enables a rapid, multi-shot capability that can utilise different warheads dependent on the mission and does not require a specialist user to operate in the same way that Javelin does. By having this capability independent of the sections, it allows a more effective employment of these capabilities while reducing the load on the sections in both weight and cognitive burden.

The Manoeuvre Support Group consists of assets that would traditionally be found in a support company, increasing the lethality options immediately available to a company commander. The entire company will be mounted in light mobility vehicles, to offer enhanced mobility but not a platform to fight from

I had to go back and re-read the article because based on the structure they are recommending you wouldn't think that the experiment was designed to study urban combat. This structure to me lends itself more to light, dispersed forces covering the open terrain between urban centres...the types of forces that @Kirkhill champions. For urban combat I think you need almost the exact opposite of what is being proposed.

Heavy tracked IFVs are required to safely move the infantry between cover. Heavy engineering support - both combat dozers and lots of sappers - is required. Tanks and IFVs with heavy guns capable of firing at high elevation are needed to provide direct fire support against enemies in hardened positions. Indirect fire support required for sure...but give me 155mm and a vehicle mounted 120mm mortar that can plunge through the roof of a building please!

Urban combat eats people and ammo. Four person fire teams will quickly have to be amalgamated due to casualties. Javelin and Brimstone are very expensive munitions designed for taking out armoured targets at multi-km ranges. Give me tons of light, short-range disposable HE launchers for urban combat. I don't even see any mention of machine guns in the ORBAT either. It's almost like the structure is based on a bunch of dispersed SF room clearance teams rather than an urban assault group.

 

[markppcli]

I had to go back and re-read the article because based on the structure they are recommending you wouldn't think that the experiment was designed to study urban combat. This structure to me lends itself more to light, dispersed forces covering the open terrain between urban centres...the types of forces that @Kirkhill champions. For urban combat I think you need almost the exact opposite of what is being proposed.

Heavy tracked IFVs are required to safely move the infantry between cover. Heavy engineering support - both combat dozers and lots of sappers - is required. Tanks and IFVs with heavy guns capable of firing at high elevation are needed to provide direct fire support against enemies in hardened positions. Indirect fire support required for sure...but give me 155mm and a vehicle mounted 120mm mortar that can plunge through the roof of a building please!

Urban combat eats people and ammo. Four person fire teams will quickly have to be amalgamated due to casualties. Javelin and Brimstone are very expensive munitions designed for taking out armoured targets at multi-km ranges. Give me tons of light, short-range disposable HE launchers for urban combat. I don't even see any mention of machine guns in the ORBAT either. It's almost like the structure is based on a bunch of dispersed SF room clearance teams rather than an urban assault group.

Brits have actually alternated pulling MGs from their sections / giving the section a GPMG / holding LMGs at the company CQ across the board. This seems to built on a get into the down and work from their kind of attitude.

Heavy IFVs are…. Well I mean what are we talking about when we say that? Namer and Puma? Not in the cards for everyone so do what you can with what you have I guess. Keeping in mind this Bn is built to experiment and see what works. I highly doubt this is the finished product.

 

[markppcli]

Sweet, do you happen to know the NSN or make? Because I'm at the point where I was just going to call up TEA and see if they had anything since they supplied the V60 kits for my buddy's unit at JBLM.

Of the adapter? It’s Harris but in very very small numbers. 1 CMBG has like 4 total. Still waiting on headsets that will fit the 19 pin connections. I’m pearly of the 163 based on conversations with US TACP guys. But we shall see. I hope we just issue all in the infantry sections a atac phone, and the EUD connectior to a 152/163, it would save a lot of pain.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I had to go back and re-read the article because based on the structure they are recommending you wouldn't think that the experiment was designed to study urban combat. This structure to me lends itself more to light, dispersed forces covering the open terrain between urban centres...the types of forces that @Kirkhill champions. For urban combat I think you need almost the exact opposite of what is being proposed.

Yes, good observation.

I'm guessing this is all part of the 'Future Soldier' changes announced in 2021 which, in true British fashion, is about preparing for previous wars, like Afghanistan and Iraq

The Yorkies are tasked as 'light mechanized infantry', so I guess that accounts for the 'Jeep-force' look and establishment. Good for packing into the back of a big, fat jet to go 'Golly Bashing' somewhere sunny in the colonies, not so good for confronting a peer army on the plains of Central Europe. Same goes for their much trumpeted 'Ranger Regiment'.


Future Soldier is a reform of the British Army resulting from the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy ("Global Britain in a Competitive Age") published in March 2021. The aim of the reform is to create a more lethal, agile and expeditionary force, able to fight and win wars and to operate in the grey-zone between peace and war. [1] Future Soldier was published on 25 November 2021 and deals with the organizational changes of the British Army, with changes to personnel and equipment were set out in the Defence in a Competitive Age paper published on 22 March 2021.

The British Army will be reduced to 73,000 regular personnel by 2025. The reserves will be kept at the current level

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team[edit]​

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team is a high readiness and highly mobile formation.

• 7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team, in Cottesmore[10]
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, in Leuchars (Light Cavalry)
  • 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, The Rifles, in Beachley (Light Mechanised Infantry; moves to Cyprus in 2023 and then Chepstow in 2025)
  • 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, in Cottesmore (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Topcliffe (Close Support Light Artillery; will gain an additional group by May 2023)
  • 105 Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Edinburgh (Close Support Light Artillery - Reserve)
  • 32 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support Engineers)
  • 6 Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, in Dishforth (Close Support Logistics)
  • 3 Medical Regiment, Royal Army Medical Corps, in Catterick (Close Support Medical Regiment; redesignation from 5 Medical Regiment in 2023)
  • 1 Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support)

Future Soldier (British Army) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[markppcli]

Yes, good observation.

I'm guessing this is all part of the 'Future Soldier' changes announced in 2021 which, in true British fashion, is about preparing for previous wars, like Afghanistan and Iraq

The Yorkies are tasked as 'light mechanized infantry', so I guess that accounts for the 'Jeep-force' look and establishment. Good for packing into the back of a big, fat jet to go 'Golly Bashing' somewhere sunny in the colonies, not so good for confronting a peer army on the plains of Central Europe. Same goes for their much trumpeted 'Ranger Regiment'.


Future Soldier is a reform of the British Army resulting from the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy ("Global Britain in a Competitive Age") published in March 2021. The aim of the reform is to create a more lethal, agile and expeditionary force, able to fight and win wars and to operate in the grey-zone between peace and war. [1] Future Soldier was published on 25 November 2021 and deals with the organizational changes of the British Army, with changes to personnel and equipment were set out in the Defence in a Competitive Age paper published on 22 March 2021.

The British Army will be reduced to 73,000 regular personnel by 2025. The reserves will be kept at the current level

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team[edit]​

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team is a high readiness and highly mobile formation.

• 7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team, in Cottesmore[10]
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, in Leuchars (Light Cavalry)
  • 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, The Rifles, in Beachley (Light Mechanised Infantry; moves to Cyprus in 2023 and then Chepstow in 2025)
  • 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, in Cottesmore (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Topcliffe (Close Support Light Artillery; will gain an additional group by May 2023)
  • 105 Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Edinburgh (Close Support Light Artillery - Reserve)
  • 32 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support Engineers)
  • 6 Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, in Dishforth (Close Support Logistics)
  • 3 Medical Regiment, Royal Army Medical Corps, in Catterick (Close Support Medical Regiment; redesignation from 5 Medical Regiment in 2023)
  • 1 Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support)

Future Soldier (British Army) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is actually 2 Yorks, which are the Experimental Infantry Group. Basically they’re running the trials for all this equipment full time. Probably a great place to work I’d imagine.

2 YORKS – Infantry Capability Pathfinders for the British Army

During October and November, the 20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team led the British Army’s collaboration with the US and other allies, testing a range of innovative systems in California. Project C…

www.yorkshireregiment.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Heavy or Light in the urban fight?

Are you attacking or defending? The Ukrainians seem to be doing well enough defending with Light troops exploiting Line of Sight weaponry and using High Angle of Attack weaponry sparingly. The Light Troops are supported, and moved, in light, unarmoured vehicles moving on roads behind the points of contact.

The russians seem to lack heavy weapons and when the heavy weapons are concentrated the Ukrainians still manage to hold their own with the weaponry available to the light troops backed by artillery.

The ukrainians don't seem to have much more success with heavy armour supported assaults than the russians.

The ukrainians are also, apparently, exploiting their military engineering assets

They have a good base on which to build - the Soledar salt mine complex.

Battle rages for control of 200 km-long salt mine tunnels in eastern Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine war is now focused on a region around the Donetsk city of Bakhmut which has 200 km-long disused salt mine tunnels underneath

www.indianarrative.com

Monte Cassino was held by airborne light infantry (Erste Fallschirmjaeger) against 2 armies fully equipped with heavy and air assets.
The defence was strengthened when the Allied air forces reduced the Abbey to rubble. The Abbey held from January to May. The Fallschirmjaeger successfully withdrew in good order to the Gustav Line which held for another month.

 

[Kirkhill]

wrt section level "drones"

@daftandbarmy

Whatever else we do artillery-wise, I'm hoping we're introducing a 'Magyar' like capability. This guy's a genius

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628546751677300736

Magyar's birds seem to have an impact.

The birds and the operators are dispersed in the field to support operations down to the section level. At day's end their intelligence is gathered on thumbsticks from across the AO and then reviewed to create a priority list for the next 24 to 48 hours. Targets are cross-checked and assigned to the suitable, available systems.

In short - the section gets local, actionable, intelligence immediately. Higher gets useful, actionable intelligence from all areas of interest and contacts and gets the time to curate them and develop opportunities to influence the battle in the next 24 to 72 hours.

Looking at the 6 section level Sys Ops, the 2 platoon level Sys Ops and the 2 MFC Sys Ops, (and I would guess additional Sys Ops at the OC level) I am guessing that the Brits are monkeying around with Magyar's systems.

The "drone" - free flying or tethered - is replacing the binoculars - with the advantage of a built in recorder.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, good observation.

I'm guessing this is all part of the 'Future Soldier' changes announced in 2021 which, in true British fashion, is about preparing for previous wars, like Afghanistan and Iraq

The Yorkies are tasked as 'light mechanized infantry', so I guess that accounts for the 'Jeep-force' look and establishment. Good for packing into the back of a big, fat jet to go 'Golly Bashing' somewhere sunny in the colonies, not so good for confronting a peer army on the plains of Central Europe. Same goes for their much trumpeted 'Ranger Regiment'.


Future Soldier is a reform of the British Army resulting from the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy ("Global Britain in a Competitive Age") published in March 2021. The aim of the reform is to create a more lethal, agile and expeditionary force, able to fight and win wars and to operate in the grey-zone between peace and war. [1] Future Soldier was published on 25 November 2021 and deals with the organizational changes of the British Army, with changes to personnel and equipment were set out in the Defence in a Competitive Age paper published on 22 March 2021.

The British Army will be reduced to 73,000 regular personnel by 2025. The reserves will be kept at the current level

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team[edit]​

7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team is a high readiness and highly mobile formation.

• 7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team, in Cottesmore[10]
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, in Leuchars (Light Cavalry)
  • 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 1st Battalion, The Rifles, in Beachley (Light Mechanised Infantry; moves to Cyprus in 2023 and then Chepstow in 2025)
  • 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, in Cottesmore (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland, in Catterick (Light Mechanised Infantry)
  • 4th Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Topcliffe (Close Support Light Artillery; will gain an additional group by May 2023)
  • 105 Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Edinburgh (Close Support Light Artillery - Reserve)
  • 32 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support Engineers)
  • 6 Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, in Dishforth (Close Support Logistics)
  • 3 Medical Regiment, Royal Army Medical Corps, in Catterick (Close Support Medical Regiment; redesignation from 5 Medical Regiment in 2023)
  • 1 Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, in Catterick (Close Support)

Future Soldier (British Army) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Northern Ireland - how many armoured cars did the IRA have? How many did you have?

The IRA, on the defensive, had the streets, sewers, houses and yards, along with the locals, working in their favour. You, on the offensive, needed the armour to move to the contacts, but, still spent a good amount of your time on foot.

I think the key to "urban combat" is clear fields of fire and long lines of site.

If you are down in the rubble - you are probably losing.

 

[markppcli]

In Northern Ireland - how many armoured cars did the IRA have? How many did you have?

The IRA, on the defensive, had the streets, sewers, houses and yards, along with the locals, working in their favour. You, on the offensive, needed the armour to move to the contacts, but, still spent a good amount of your time on foot.

I think the key to "urban combat" is clear fields of fire and long lines of site.

If you are down in the rubble - you are probably losing.

Are you seriously correlating conventional urban combat with counter insurgency vs a terrorist grouo that had no interest in direct confrontation?

 

[daftandbarmy]

In Northern Ireland - how many armoured cars did the IRA have? How many did you have?

The IRA, on the defensive, had the streets, sewers, houses and yards, along with the locals, working in their favour. You, on the offensive, needed the armour to move to the contacts, but, still spent a good amount of your time on foot.

I think the key to "urban combat" is clear fields of fire and long lines of site.

If you are down in the rubble - you are probably losing.

Well, they (and other paramilitaries) also bullied, murdered and tortured their way into the hearts and minds of much of the local populace, over a series of decades, creating a deep fear based culture allowing them a wide spectrum of tactical freedom, so I guess if we proceeded along the same line of business we might be successful as a light force

 

[BrianWL]

I remember being with a German Division while FACing in Germany when they still had conscription. I remember how much pride 4 CMGB had in how well the local Germans treated them. I'll tell you how well the Canadians were treated didn't hold a candle to how well the public treated their own troops. They were "our boys" and the civvies couldn't do enough for them. Where Canadians were freely given the barns to sleep in, the German conscripts were given the living rooms.

A nation is much more invested in their conscript sons than they are in some professionals that spend the vast majority of the time out of sight and out of mind of the public.

with the lack of interest in service to nation today.......I think conscription will be the way of the future. everyone serves. period.

 

[FJAG]

This is actually 2 Yorks, which are the Experimental Infantry Group. Basically they’re running the trials for all this equipment full time. Probably a great place to work I’d imagine.

Exactly. The Experimental Group has artillery and armour and everything so one would imagine that with 2 Yorks in support they therefore need to be able to test everything from heavy mech to very light and determine the basic doctrine from the ground up.

 

[GR66]

Heavy or Light in the urban fight?

Are you attacking or defending? The Ukrainians seem to be doing well enough defending with Light troops exploiting Line of Sight weaponry and using High Angle of Attack weaponry sparingly. The Light Troops are supported, and moved, in light, unarmoured vehicles moving on roads behind the points of contact.

The russians seem to lack heavy weapons and when the heavy weapons are concentrated the Ukrainians still manage to hold their own with the weaponry available to the light troops backed by artillery.

The ukrainians don't seem to have much more success with heavy armour supported assaults than the russians.

The ukrainians are also, apparently, exploiting their military engineering assets

They have a good base on which to build - the Soledar salt mine complex.

Battle rages for control of 200 km-long salt mine tunnels in eastern Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine war is now focused on a region around the Donetsk city of Bakhmut which has 200 km-long disused salt mine tunnels underneath

www.indianarrative.com

Monte Cassino was held by airborne light infantry (Erste Fallschirmjaeger) against 2 armies fully equipped with heavy and air assets.
The defence was strengthened when the Allied air forces reduced the Abbey to rubble. The Abbey held from January to May. The Fallschirmjaeger successfully withdrew in good order to the Gustav Line which held for another month.

Both heavy and light are required for the urban fight. With modern ISR assets and precision weapons, light dispersed forces may be called for in the open areas between urban centres. And much of the actual urban combat itself as you noted is in fact dismounted, so by definition "light".

However, there are times you need to move in the face of enemy fire and that requires armoured forces. (@markppcli - not necessarily HAPCs like Namer...but armour that can maneuver in rubble and take MG fire, shell fragments, RPG's etc.).

The part I think you're missing is that even in urban combat maneuver warfare is required to win. Battles like Berlin, Stalingrad, Mosul, Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and now even Bakhmut are essentially sieges. The defenders seriously hurt the attackers in every case, but once the defenders lost their ability to maneuver their positions were ultimately identified and destroyed. At very high cost certainly, but once a defender is pinned in place and unable to move in the face of fire the attacker ultimately shrinks their perimeter. If you want to "win" an urban battle you need to be able to maneuver around the enemy's strong points and isolate them so they can be reduced. Heavy vehicles give you that ability whereas "jeeps" or "armoured cars" do not.

 

[markppcli]

Exactly. The Experimental Group has artillery and armour and everything so one would imagine that with 2 Yorks in support they therefore need to be able to test everything from heavy mech to very light and determine the basic doctrine from the ground up.

Which begs the question about the ATG / FOO but maybe they’re trying to do as much organically as possible ?