Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[markppcli]

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.

I’ll also add the heavily reported effectiveness of IFV automatic cannons cited in Ukraine. Having that protection to move, coupled with the ability to shred urban cover is very helpful.

 

[markppcli]

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

Oh hey just remind me, what flag flies in Belfast ?

 

[Kirkhill]

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

I am.

In my view the only difference between the conflicts is the intensity and the time scale. The goals and the environments are identical. One side wants to hold. The other side wants to take.

 

[markppcli]

I am.

In my view the only difference between the conflicts is the intensity and the time scale. The goals and the environments are identical. One side wants to hold. The other side wants to take.

The IRA never held ground, never fought for territory. They’re wildly different ball games, it’s football Vs volley ball.

Coupled with that whole thing were they were terrorists / organized criminals, and we’re bound by those pesky laws of armed conflicT and the comparison is pretty quickly found to be pointless. Especially the hold / take analogy. The Brits held Northern Ireland, the IRA wanted it. You’re backwards.

 

[FJAG]

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

You, if anyone, should know of the difficulties in developing JTAC and indirect fire support skills and keeping them current.

I'm all for organic capabilities with the all-arms call for fire, but I've gone to the point where I think that the complexity of providing fires has grown to the point where even trained reserve FOOs can't do the job anymore. Too much kit; too many complexities.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you subscribe to the axiom that – and I paraphrase inter-war British military thinker Captain Basil Liddell Hart here – a tank is, like a ship or a shell, merely a munition of war to be expended at a profit, then the commitment of older vehicles by the Russians begins to make some sense. That “profit” can be measured in damage done, economics, or balance of casualties inflicted, or all three.

Make no mistake huge numbers of Russian tanks will terrorise Ukraine

There has been a general chortling in the commentariat over news that the Russians are now apparently transporting obsolete tanks to the Ukraine war zone.

www.express.co.uk

But what are tanks for anyway? When I went through Sandhurst we were told that “the best anti-tank weapon is another tank”, a statement which with hindsight is clearly ludicrous.

There are far better and more economical weapons to take out a tank; mines, anti-tank missiles, and drones, for example, to name but three. Why use a £10 million tank when a £100,000 missile will do the same job, and maybe more efficiently?



No, the primary purpose of a tank is to apply what we like to call “shock action” to the enemy.

That shock can be physical, moral, or psychological, but the end result is the same. The enemy ceases to resist.

And a tank does so by virtue of firepower, protection, and mobility, enabling its crew to operate and survive in the threat environment that is the modern battlefield.

As it happens, a tank’s main utility in combat is not to take on and destroy other tanks, although that is certainly part of it, but to support other arms like the infantry and engineers to secure their objectives.

A relatively smaller part of their time will be spent seeking out and destroying the enemy’s tanks.


Which brings us back to Russia’s obsolete tanks now being deployed to Ukraine. The T-54/T-55/T-62 models may be way out of their depth against western opponents, but they still have their uses against infantry and other softer targets.

Which raises, again, the relative values of building lots of "obsolete" low cost light tanks (Leo 1s, MPFs, Wheeled Tank Destroyers, Centauros, MGSs, Type 16s) or a small number of exquisite, crafted for purpose, works of military art.

 

[Kirkhill]

The IRA never held ground, never fought for territory. They’re wildly different ball games, it’s football Vs volley ball.

Coupled with that whole thing were they were terrorists / organized criminals, and we’re bound by those pesky laws of armed conflicT and the comparison is pretty quickly found to be pointless. Especially the hold / take analogy. The Brits held Northern Ireland, the IRA wanted it. You’re backwards.

No its no.

You think in terms of the kit.

The mindset of the combatants is unchanged. One wants to stay and the other wants them to go. And both sides will reach for the tools available to them and adopt the tactics that suit their tools and timelines.

We work on winning battles and are surprised when we lose wars.

Europe, Asia and the Americas are replete with never ending wars. Dene and Arizona Basket Weavers. Iroquois and Algonquin. Gaels and Britons. Turks and Han.... Battles can be won but animosity persists - thus wars persist. They persist from chucking rocks to the rattle of the Thompson Gun and back to the chucking of rocks.

 

[MJP]

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.

Drop a line to the TA for the 163, you can the contact details throughthe link below(DWAN only). Click on any one of the numbers under the TA col and the contact details will appear. It is also the ERN for all material associated with the 163. I did a quick look in DRMIS and some of the cables do have low numbers but in true fashion couldn't figure which was what based on descriptions

AN-PRC 163 ERN NSN

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh hey just remind me, what flag flies in Belfast ?

The Red Hand.

 

[markppcli]

The Red Hand.

Not so much

No its no.

You think in terms of the kit.

Well firstly you began about kit. I spoke about goals and the way you achieve them.

The mindset of the combatants is unchanged. One wants to stay and the other wants them to go. And both sides will reach for the tools available to them and adopt the tactics that suit their tools and timelines.

Not all conflicts are faught the same way. We agree on that. I don’t think that a conventional war is going to be won by blowing up civilians with car bombs, which seems to be your argument.

We work on winning battles and are surprised when we lose wars.

Maybe we’d do better if we began knee capping locals? Is that what you’re getting at?

Europe, Asia and the Americas are replete with never ending wars. Dene and Arizona Basket Weavers. Iroquois and Algonquin. Gaels and Britons. Turks and Han.... Battles can be won but animosity persists - thus wars persist. They persist from chucking rocks to the rattle of the Thompson Gun and back to the chucking of rocks.

 

[markppcli]

Drop a line to the TA for the 163, you can the contact details throughthe link below(DWAN only). Click on any one of the numbers under the TA col and the contact details will appear. It is also the ERN for all material associated with the 163. I did a quick look in DRMIS and some of the cables do have low numbers but in true fashion couldn't figure which was what based on descriptions

AN-PRC 163 ERN NSN

Yeah it’s a bit of a specialist item at the moment. Like I said there’s like 4 for 1 CMBG. We’ve had issues running Sordin’s off Liberator PTTs so I don’t know how plug and play the adapters will be.

 

[MJP]

Yeah it’s a bit of a specialist item at the moment. Like I said there’s like 4 for 1 CMBG. We’ve had issues running Sordin’s off Liberator PTTs so I don’t know how plug and play the adapters will be.

@IRepoCans it is likely NSN 01-6782806 but the TA can confirm. Low numbers in the system although there is a significant order coming in FY 23/24

 

[markppcli]

@IRepoCans it is likely NSN 01-6782806 but the TA can confirm. Low numbers in the system although there is a significant order coming in FY 23/24

That all tracks. I’d try and find the nsn next week but I’m off to sunny cold lake and we don’t actual control our own comms inventory because reasons

 

[McG]

Which raises, again, the relative values of building lots of "obsolete" low cost light tanks (Leo 1s, MPFs, Wheeled Tank Destroyers, Centauros, MGSs, Type 16s) or a small number of exquisite, crafted for purpose, works of military art.

You know there is a spectrum between obsolete and state of the art, right? And your “low cost” descriptor is probably not accurate for most of what you apply it against. The goal is to get the most capability per dollar spent. That is not achieved by trying to keep things rolling decades past their best before date, and it is also not achieved when paying the premium for the newest capability on the market.

 

[dapaterson]

Nor is it achieved by trusting glossy pamphlets (or their electronic equivalent) from manufacturers promising innovation.

 

[FJAG]

Nor is it achieved by trusting glossy pamphlets (or their electronic equivalent) from manufacturers promising innovation.

I don't know about that. I just read the P8 article in CDR again and I'm sold.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No its no.

You think in terms of the kit.

The mindset of the combatants is unchanged. One wants to stay and the other wants them to go. And both sides will reach for the tools available to them and adopt the tactics that suit their tools and timelines.

We work on winning battles and are surprised when we lose wars.

Europe, Asia and the Americas are replete with never ending wars. Dene and Arizona Basket Weavers. Iroquois and Algonquin. Gaels and Britons. Turks and Han.... Battles can be won but animosity persists - thus wars persist. They persist from chucking rocks to the rattle of the Thompson Gun and back to the chucking of rocks.

The one main learning from urban warfare in Northern Ireland is that it is intensely exhausting, and consumes enourmous quantities of manpower and materiel.

Patrolling for 24/7 for months on end, while dealing with random acts of violence, bombings, riots etc, all in a landscape that 100% favours the attacker, is somewhat draining to say the least.

You definitely need armoured vehicles of some kind, as well as aviation assets. It's never wise to run it as an Infantry only show.

I'd say you could easily double the manpower required for similar 'non-urban' objectives, and still need more for various surge requirements.

But I think we've learned that lesson over and over again in various other conflicts too.

 

[dapaterson]

I don't know about that. I just read the P8 article in CDR again and I'm sold.

There's a difference: You can compare an actual flying aircraft to the pamphlet, and talk with its operators.

When it's a paper airplane or a MMEV, all you have is photoshopped images and vague promises of performance.

 

[McG]

When it's a paper airplane or a MMEV, all you have is photoshopped images and vague promises of performance.

And even a custom built concept vehicle is a long way from production run realities.

 

[KevinB]

No its no.

You think in terms of the kit.

The mindset of the combatants is unchanged. One wants to stay and the other wants them to go. And both sides will reach for the tools available to them and adopt the tactics that suit their tools and timelines.

We work on winning battles and are surprised when we lose wars.

Europe, Asia and the Americas are replete with never ending wars. Dene and Arizona Basket Weavers. Iroquois and Algonquin. Gaels and Britons. Turks and Han.... Battles can be won but animosity persists - thus wars persist. They persist from chucking rocks to the rattle of the Thompson Gun and back to the chucking of rocks.

I think you’re missing the forest from the trees.

Some wars can be fought and won, and are a one and done.
Other wars leave the root cause of a conflict, and the victory hasn’t either fixed the problem, or vanquished the aggrieved party to an extent that the issue is buried.

Armies aren’t policy makers (at least in democratic countries), they are instruments of government policy.
Using (and structuring) one’s forces intelligently is a way to ensure that there aren’t forever conflicts.