- Pronouns
- He/Him
British Army 2020 Refine
November 9th 2020
By Olde Delaware
Only 10 months later but I am finally tackling this article. For me it is long overdue but as far as the outside world goes, the once a decade decision by the British Army to reinvent itself has been raked over the coals. Specifically in this instance for its decision to do away with armor. Now you may be asking yourself, what exactly is armor? Why is it so critically important and if it is important, why is it being cut? If you are an American or a resident outside the British Isles, you may also be asking how does this affect me. That answer depends on where exactly in the world you live.
But for now, lets go with the Refine as it currently stands.
Every ten years, the British Army produces a white paper on how it will operate over the next ten years. This white paper changes from Government to Government. Conservatives or Tories usually shrink the military. This can be seen quite clearly in how under-prepared the United Kingdom was during the invasion of the Falklands which occurred under the Prime Ministership of Margret Thatcher. Whereas the Labour Governments usually spend the money to modernize the forces at the expense of cutting the strength of units. For instance, the United States uses the Battalion system which means 600-800 troops operate in one unit doing a range of jobs from infantryman (or woman) to logistics such as driving a truck. The British system uses the Regiment system which ranges from 300-500 troops and are specialized. Which means 1st Regiment would require an additional regiment or unit to also do their logistics. Whereas the American system has that factored in.
So now with that in mind, let me introduce you to the British Army as it stands post 2020 refine:
Caption: This is what is known as an "Order of Battle". Within this tree is the entire structure of the British Army.
Within the refine is fewer numbers of British armor units, show in the OOB above as "Royal Tank Regiments". In the latest white paper, the British Army is moving toward an American model of fast moving mechanized infantry. I know what you're thinking right now, OD, this is all greek to me. What do you mean by 'American Model' and what is Mechanized Infantry? Let me see if I can break it down a little better.
In the past, an army was only as fast as its horse and its wagons. As we've gotten more technologically advanced, we've learned that we can get troops to the battlefield faster and safer and in greater numbers if we place them in vehicles. We saw this in action with the Germans in World War II, who were the first to use halftrack vehicles and trucks to move forces overland during the Blitz. During the Cold War, the Soviets produced the first mass produced Armored Personnel Carrier of the post war era, the BTR-50. Which was able to move men safely to the front lines and provide light combat support in the form of a machine gun. They improved on this by creating the first infantry fighting vehicle of the post war era with the BMP-1. Which carries troops and also sports a cannon on the front for combat support. Thus the term "Mechanized Infantry" was born.
The Soviet model of "Mechanized Infantry" was to call their units "Motor Units" which meant they were supplied with APCs and IFV's. The United States on the other hand never made a distinction on what their infantry units had until the middle of the 2000's when Infantry Brigades changed to "Stryker" Brigades. The term Stryker in this sense refers to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle the Stryker which is used by both Canada and the United States. The goal of the U.S. Army at the time was to create a light and quick deploying force that could be moved at a moments notice.
The next question is obviously "Why is that a bad thing, that the UK is doing that?"
As far as protecting the UK and its dominions, having a quick deployable and "light" force is perfectly fine; If and only if the country is limited by technological means. Britain is moving this direction not because it has suddenly stopped doing research into the next generation of military equipment but because of Government constraints. While it is true that the United States has created a lighter force, it has not cast off its armor as the British Government has considered doing for one very important reason. That our potential enemies still have theirs, that they are researching newer and better armor and armaments for them and are building them at a quick rate as they modernize.
Armor in this case means one thing.
Tanks.
Currently, the British Army fields the Challenger II tank. An aging tank as far as tanks go but extremely capable and able to provide fire support and meet the challenges on the battlefield. Having entered service in 1998, the Challenger has no new variants nor new or modern equipment. There is also at the present time no upgrade or successor research underway. The British fields at present 227 operational Challenger IIs across the British Army.
The reason why it is so important for Britain to retain its tank fleet is complicated but it comes down to two major reasons.
It's duties to NATO and the ability to provide for its troops the means to defend in any situation on the battlefield.
The latter I cannot show as I am not a British soldier nor a member of the Ministry of Defense but I can show what British armor means to NATO in one image.
Caption: Shown above is the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. Britain's contribution to the EFP is Chief Defense of Estonia and HQ support in Poland.
In the event of a Russian attack (Chances are slim to none of this ever happening), the United Kingdom's contribution along with that of Denmark, France and Iceland would be all that stand in the way of the invading army. The British contribution to the EFP in Estonia contains a regiment of tanks. Deployment of British tanks in this area would allow for France and Denmark to deploy their tanks elsewhere. Saving forces in reserve is vital to prevent forces from being overrun and possibly forced to surrender. Should the British carry out the plan to remove tanks completely, the reserves of NATO will fall on the United States, Germany and Italy. The numbers of which the former two could only hold out for so long in a sustained attack, especially if resupply or transport from the United States becomes unfeasible.
So now we've circled back to the original question, which is what is the point here.
The point in my eyes is simple. We are in a modern and new age of warfare. The 21st Century and its technology can do great things and it can do terrible things. Images of war have changed from trucks and troops to drone strikes. Despite this, there are jobs that drones simply cannot do nor do we have the technology to automate the system. So we depend on our vehicles being their very best, the body armor we give our troops to be the best quality and that they are equipped with the best in food and weaponry to carry out their mission. While we can farm out some of these things to armored vehicles, we cannot replace the strength and firepower of the tank...at least not yet.
We have made this change before, for instance how many active Battleships are there in the world? If you answered "What's a Battleship?" Well then you get my point, But these weapons of war still have their place. Until the day comes that the last one is decommissioned, the British Government have an obligation to their troops and to their countrymen to ensure the strength and defensive posture of their military is of the utmost quality.
Anything less is dereliction of duty to the peoples they have sworn to protect.
November 9th 2020
By Olde Delaware
Only 10 months later but I am finally tackling this article. For me it is long overdue but as far as the outside world goes, the once a decade decision by the British Army to reinvent itself has been raked over the coals. Specifically in this instance for its decision to do away with armor. Now you may be asking yourself, what exactly is armor? Why is it so critically important and if it is important, why is it being cut? If you are an American or a resident outside the British Isles, you may also be asking how does this affect me. That answer depends on where exactly in the world you live.
But for now, lets go with the Refine as it currently stands.
Every ten years, the British Army produces a white paper on how it will operate over the next ten years. This white paper changes from Government to Government. Conservatives or Tories usually shrink the military. This can be seen quite clearly in how under-prepared the United Kingdom was during the invasion of the Falklands which occurred under the Prime Ministership of Margret Thatcher. Whereas the Labour Governments usually spend the money to modernize the forces at the expense of cutting the strength of units. For instance, the United States uses the Battalion system which means 600-800 troops operate in one unit doing a range of jobs from infantryman (or woman) to logistics such as driving a truck. The British system uses the Regiment system which ranges from 300-500 troops and are specialized. Which means 1st Regiment would require an additional regiment or unit to also do their logistics. Whereas the American system has that factored in.
So now with that in mind, let me introduce you to the British Army as it stands post 2020 refine:
Caption: This is what is known as an "Order of Battle". Within this tree is the entire structure of the British Army.
Within the refine is fewer numbers of British armor units, show in the OOB above as "Royal Tank Regiments". In the latest white paper, the British Army is moving toward an American model of fast moving mechanized infantry. I know what you're thinking right now, OD, this is all greek to me. What do you mean by 'American Model' and what is Mechanized Infantry? Let me see if I can break it down a little better.
In the past, an army was only as fast as its horse and its wagons. As we've gotten more technologically advanced, we've learned that we can get troops to the battlefield faster and safer and in greater numbers if we place them in vehicles. We saw this in action with the Germans in World War II, who were the first to use halftrack vehicles and trucks to move forces overland during the Blitz. During the Cold War, the Soviets produced the first mass produced Armored Personnel Carrier of the post war era, the BTR-50. Which was able to move men safely to the front lines and provide light combat support in the form of a machine gun. They improved on this by creating the first infantry fighting vehicle of the post war era with the BMP-1. Which carries troops and also sports a cannon on the front for combat support. Thus the term "Mechanized Infantry" was born.
The Soviet model of "Mechanized Infantry" was to call their units "Motor Units" which meant they were supplied with APCs and IFV's. The United States on the other hand never made a distinction on what their infantry units had until the middle of the 2000's when Infantry Brigades changed to "Stryker" Brigades. The term Stryker in this sense refers to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle the Stryker which is used by both Canada and the United States. The goal of the U.S. Army at the time was to create a light and quick deploying force that could be moved at a moments notice.
The next question is obviously "Why is that a bad thing, that the UK is doing that?"
As far as protecting the UK and its dominions, having a quick deployable and "light" force is perfectly fine; If and only if the country is limited by technological means. Britain is moving this direction not because it has suddenly stopped doing research into the next generation of military equipment but because of Government constraints. While it is true that the United States has created a lighter force, it has not cast off its armor as the British Government has considered doing for one very important reason. That our potential enemies still have theirs, that they are researching newer and better armor and armaments for them and are building them at a quick rate as they modernize.
Armor in this case means one thing.
Tanks.
Currently, the British Army fields the Challenger II tank. An aging tank as far as tanks go but extremely capable and able to provide fire support and meet the challenges on the battlefield. Having entered service in 1998, the Challenger has no new variants nor new or modern equipment. There is also at the present time no upgrade or successor research underway. The British fields at present 227 operational Challenger IIs across the British Army.
The reason why it is so important for Britain to retain its tank fleet is complicated but it comes down to two major reasons.
It's duties to NATO and the ability to provide for its troops the means to defend in any situation on the battlefield.
The latter I cannot show as I am not a British soldier nor a member of the Ministry of Defense but I can show what British armor means to NATO in one image.
Caption: Shown above is the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. Britain's contribution to the EFP is Chief Defense of Estonia and HQ support in Poland.
In the event of a Russian attack (Chances are slim to none of this ever happening), the United Kingdom's contribution along with that of Denmark, France and Iceland would be all that stand in the way of the invading army. The British contribution to the EFP in Estonia contains a regiment of tanks. Deployment of British tanks in this area would allow for France and Denmark to deploy their tanks elsewhere. Saving forces in reserve is vital to prevent forces from being overrun and possibly forced to surrender. Should the British carry out the plan to remove tanks completely, the reserves of NATO will fall on the United States, Germany and Italy. The numbers of which the former two could only hold out for so long in a sustained attack, especially if resupply or transport from the United States becomes unfeasible.
So now we've circled back to the original question, which is what is the point here.
The point in my eyes is simple. We are in a modern and new age of warfare. The 21st Century and its technology can do great things and it can do terrible things. Images of war have changed from trucks and troops to drone strikes. Despite this, there are jobs that drones simply cannot do nor do we have the technology to automate the system. So we depend on our vehicles being their very best, the body armor we give our troops to be the best quality and that they are equipped with the best in food and weaponry to carry out their mission. While we can farm out some of these things to armored vehicles, we cannot replace the strength and firepower of the tank...at least not yet.
We have made this change before, for instance how many active Battleships are there in the world? If you answered "What's a Battleship?" Well then you get my point, But these weapons of war still have their place. Until the day comes that the last one is decommissioned, the British Government have an obligation to their troops and to their countrymen to ensure the strength and defensive posture of their military is of the utmost quality.
Anything less is dereliction of duty to the peoples they have sworn to protect.
