How should the field Army be structured?
As we have said in previous posts, that depends on the role the UK assumes in the coming years but if we are to make a prediction that despite future conflicts being unpredictable a reasonable guess can be made that the days of heavy armour on heavy armour clashes are likely to be less common.
However, the need for an armoured capability is still obvious, even though it is likely not to be used as much in future conflicts it still remains a core need and if one examines the operations in Iraq in 2003 onwards Challenger provided invaluable support. Remember, the aftermath of the invasion was supposed to be a classic COIN operation, yet Challenger 2 remained a key weapon system. Although the UK has not found the justification for deploying Challenger 2 to Afghanistan, other nations have deployed main battle tanks to great effect. Despite being perceived as a cold war relic the main battle tank remains a potent and relevant battlefield weapon, no matter what the nature of that battlefield is.
Armoured units comprising Challenger 2, Warrior and FRES Scout are still going to form the hard core of Army fighting capability in the foreseeable future.
The traditional distinction between mechanised and light role is their means of transport. Mechanised units have used Saxons and Bulldog armoured vehicles with heavy armoured support and were eventually to be replaced by the FRES medium weight concept.
Light role units have generally relied on air mobility and lightweight vehicles like Land Rovers and Pinzgauers, with the de-rigueur moustache of course.
Operations in Afghanistan, which in a global guardian context, are likely to be the prevalent type have seen these distinctions blur. Armoured infantry is still used occasionally but the light role and mechanised units are increasingly using the same equipments scales and vehicles, substituting helicopters for Mastiffs as the need arises.
The UK has two deployable divisions;
1 (UK) Armoured Division, comprises 3 combat brigades, the 4 Mechanised, 7 Armoured and 20 Armoured. All the usual combat support and combat service support regiments are also represented and the division is stationed in Germany.
3 (UK) Mechanised Division, comprising 1 and 12 Mechanised Brigades, 19 Light Brigade and 52 Infantry Brigade, again with all the usual CS and CSS formations.
In addition to the deployable divisions the Army also has The 16th Air Assault Brigade as part of the Joint Helicopter Command and various other smaller units like theatre support, special-forces and special-forces support.
In 2003 the ‘Arms Plot’ was abolished with each of the combat units assigned a specific role, armoured, mechanised or light and the role of armoured brigades reduced, many of them re roling to formation recce.
The question is, are the likely future conflicts going to see a distinction between light role and mechanised, could they be merged into a single versatile infantry capability that could operate in either role, a return to the original FRES concept of a medium weight force perhaps?
6 Division is in fact not a Division but a deployable divisional headquarters unit that was formed to share the command rotations of Iraq and Afghanistan. After being reinforced it deployed to Afghanistan as Joint Task Force 6.
Although only lifed to 2011 I think this should be continued with as a permanent arrangement, in fact expanded to provide a two deployable ‘command HQ Division’ capability that can deal with the full range of operational tasks. This Divisional HQ could then create composite units (as happens now) as the requirement dictated.
1 and 3 Div could then be collapsed into a series of self contained brigades.
The Army structure could then be…
2x Deployable Divisional Headquarters including divisional support elements
2x Heavy Brigades, equipped with Challenger 2, Warrior and AS90 etc
6x Medium Brigades, equipped with FRES and Protected Patrol Vehicles
2x Rapid Reaction Brigades, 16 Air Assault and RM 3 Commando (I know this is RN)
Plus special-forces, theatre support and other elements
This would be an overall increase of 2 brigades, allocated to the Medium role.
Any takers?
Hmmm, a mix of Global Guardian and Contributory, perfectly viable and keeps the UK as a land focussed US-lite.
I discussed the possibility here, among other options:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/britain%E2%80%99s-future-strategic-direction-5-%E2%80%93-cant-we-just-fudge-things-and-hope-for-the-best/
You’ve got an interesting plan there admin, but I feel it lacks substance. What for example is in your heavy and medium brigades?
Current plans say that an armoured brigade should have an armoured battalion, two armoured infantry battalions along with support of an AS90 regiment, mechanised look the same but with an armoured infantry dropped for two mechanised. Light brigades should have a Formation Reconnaissance and four light role battalions with a light role artillery.
All should have air defence, engineers, REME, RMP, medical and RLC support. Armoured and mechanised also get an anti-tank troop and a recce squadron.
Looking at the actual structure of the brigades though it seems that 1,4, 12 mechanised and 7, 20 armoured are all formed the same way. 1 armoured, 1 formation reconnaissance, 1 armoured infantry, 1 armoured(in armoured)/mechanised(in mechanised) infantry as available and 1 light role. Engineers, AS90, RMP, RLC, medical and REME all provided, no sign of AA though. 19 Light and 52 Infantry have 4 and 3 light role respectively along with support. Not looking into Royal Engineers, REME, RMP, medical and RLC, this leaves 1 armoured infantry and 8 light role battalions not in brigades.
I like the idea of separate, deployable division headquarters. It keeps the army flexible and with the ability to deploy as much as necessary, not a bit of that division and nothing else.
I had already considered amalgamating mechanised and light roles, so I would advise scrapping mechanised, and train all light role battalions in how to be both, equipping the battalions with whatever vehicles are necessary at the time and train accordingly. These would not be either fast reaction forces or probably even a ‘ready’ brigade. If they were to be deployed there would be more training first.
I also agree fundamentally with the Brigade being the largest separate unit, but if we are going to organise the army into brigades then I’d like to be clear about what’s going to go into them. Following your plan and with the least change to strength that leaves the heavy brigades with 2-3 Armoured battalions, 4 Armoured infantry Battalions and the possibility of up to three formation reconnaissance regiments and possibly a light role infantry battalion. That’s somewhere between a very big brigade and a small division.
Finally, if your still awake after that then I might be interested in writing a piece on this for the FDR.
Lacking in bloody substance, you better believe it
This is just the opening gambit, I am going to flesh the composition out in further posts but the main thrust of the idea is to break down the two deployable divisions into Brigade sized chunks, a bit like the US Brigade Combat Team concept which has Heavy, Infantry (light role) and Stryker (medium)
There is a lot of flux at the minute with structures, 11 Light Brigade for example and this is a good thing I think, the ability to form and collapse formations as needed. So although I like the flexibility of this it does say that organisationally we aren’t quite there. I agree that the distinction between light and mechanised is becoming unclear and there might be some merit on basically merging them into a single structure that can flex up and down (medium and light) as needed
Lets explore this as we stumble along, will drop you an email re you doing a piece but in general and this goes for everyone. As long as you have something interesting to say Think Defence welcomes everyone.
Before commenting on structures and future force levels, as you note at the start of the article, you need to pin this against your strategic direction.
Jedibeeftrix seems to think your ‘recommending’ a mix of Global Guardian and Contributory from the RUSI suggested options ?
Is this correct, is going to be the basis of your suggestions ?
If so I may write you something based on ‘Strategic Raiding’ to compare and contrast ?
Re: Heavy Brigades and Light Brigades, these titles suggest a lack of flexibility. How about a number of composite brigade with small Challenger (as an example) units should the mission require it?
Or alternatively, a number of independent units (Challenger again) that could be ‘bolted on’ to large formations as an when necessary.
You used the term “Cold War relic” to describe Challenger there, which raised an interesting question for me, what the bloody hell isn’t??
I’ve seen just about every major piece of equipment the UK has or is about to have described as a Cold War relic on various defence sites and forums including;
Challenger, Tornado, Typhoon, CVF, FRES, AS90, T23, Astute.
What exactly would our armed forces look like if we ditched all these irrelevant Soviet killers? What would we have left? Perhaps we should stop using Cold War relic because it implies these things have no use, but i’m sure a bomb dropped by Typhoon or shell from a Challenger will kill Mr Osama just as well as Mr Vladmir.
Just something to ponder.
Too many men for raids in force, no where near enough for occupations.
Six Brigades would be a lot if we were to be raiders, never mind ten.
Whereas decent Occupations for long periods of time would require more like 25 deployable combat brigades.
Imagine Helmand if each of its 13 provinces had a full brigade deployed
I said they were perceived as cold war relics but have utility in all types of operation
I think massed tank battles and the idea of such are a cold war relic, intelligent and brilliant anti tank weapons have put paid to that, but tanks themselves are still massivly useful pieces under the right conditions
I very much like the idea of moving toward a system like the American Brigade Combat Team idea alongside 2 permanent deployable headquarters and other units such as the SAS etc. I see this approach as very flexible and modular as you could tailor deployed forces to the situation such as lots of armour or lots of infantry. Furthermore with each brigade combat team bringing its own integrated support elements it should simplify organisation or at least it does in my own mind. The big grumble will naturally be how many of each type of brigade do we need vs. how many we can afford which will be affected by what strategy the next Government decides it wishes to pursue.
Re the point about Light and Mechanised brigades what to call them is immaterial in my opinion as long as the change is actually implement and works effectively. I agree with the points made they should be more flexible using vehicles or maybe no vehicles depending on the operation that they are involved in at the time. Also just a question would there be Aviation brigades if not where would support and attack helicopters or larger UAV’s fit into the structure? It might possibly be a daft question but better to know than carry on not knowing.
The ‘Cold War relic’ line is generally something that is rolled out by someone against something when they can’t really think of a better reason to say why they don’t like it very much. For instance the Army and Navy would say that Typhoon is a cold war relic because they would rather have more tanks or warships. It’s all rather petty in most cases and largely to do with the fact that defence is underfunded or that there is so much money wasted that the services cannot get what they want or sometimes need. So they have a go at the other services equipment projects where substantial amounts of money is being spent in the futile hope to get some of that money spent where they want it to be spent.
When used by others I think it’s just a reflection of how they think the world should be, all pretty peaceful and perfect with no need for violence or fighting with anyone. Therefore no need to spend money on defence when it could be ‘put to better use’ elsewhere such as throwing it into the many Government spending blackholes. Although I think the current Government have been doing this for the last decade or so whilst borrowing away to keep spending heading upwards. (Apologies for the political snipe in the last line bit off topic)
With regards to the Air Assault Brigade, will it be a true airmobile brigade with plenty of helicopter support or merely an infantry brigade with a squadron attached?
I have a feeling it would be just the latter just so we can say we have one without actually going to the full expense.
Treasury bean counters, don’t you just love ‘em!
Richard you make a good point and I would strongly imagine it would be the latter as well thanks to the mighty bean counters. It would be nice to have a fully trained up specialised supported Air Assault Brigade with the proper equipment for the Air Assault job for a true rapid reaction capability. Ideally I would have the air assault boys with lighter equipment alongside a fully equipped specialised RM brigade ready to rock and roll at short notice one with light equipment one with heavy equipment. However that is asking maybe a bit much of the MoD, politicians and bean counters but it would give excellent flexibility and ability to respond to situation with the correct tool.
Gentlemen, what is all this chatter about the BCT ?
It’s just a term, and we have our own terms, and in fact our own doctrine, we don’t need to blindly copy the Yanks in every aspect !
Seriously, all modern armies are like lego sets. Starting right down at the bottom with the ‘half section’ or ‘brick’ of 4 men, up through the section, platoon, company and battalion, and even the brigade, the British army has long had a mix-and-match approach which results in actually ‘combat formations’ generally referred to as Battle Groups. Taking a direct quote from armed-forces.co.uk:
“A Battlegroup is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel and the Infantry Battalion or Armoured Regiment that he commands, provides the command and staff element of the formation. The Battlegroup is then structured according to task, with the correct mix of infantry, armour and supporting arms. The Battlegroup organisation is very flexible and the units assigned can be quickly regrouped to cope with a change in the threat.”
See this page for details: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html
So, where the American army has different types of Brigade Combat Team (Infantry, Stryker, Heavy) we have different types of Brigades too (Light, Mechanised and Armoured).
So truly there is nothing magical, special or radical about the BCT – honest !
Good resource on current UK army structures:
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armyindex.htm
The wikipedia page on the BCT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
Although this discussion essentially focusses on the ‘big picture’ with regard to formations, I would like to see the creation of a ‘Ranger’ Brigade within the army.
This would essentially be a brigade which would maintain the fitness levels and esprite de corps of units like the Royal Marines/Parachute Regiment but without the specialisation in amphibious or airborne warfare, because of this it would also be cheaper to operate.
Members would still be free to acquire their jump wings or commando dagger to enhance their capabilities. Admittedly it would probably be considered the cheaper cousin of the other two but just as capable on the battlefield all the same.
Your thoughts would be welcome.
wasn’t that the idea behind the recce regiment formation a couple of years ago, and the ranger name was originally suggested. Not quite brigade size i agree but do we havethe manpower/budget for a whole brigade?
Richard while I don’t disagree as you maybe would have imagined in my blue tinted world there would be quite a few more Royal Marine commandos running about. There are around seven thousand or so Royal Marines at present and if going a strategic raiding route I would like to see around 15,000 Royal Marines. That would allow for a much larger number of elite infantry as well as for additional specially trained units in whatever areas and skills are deemed to be important such as Jungle warfare etc. The army would naturally still have its own elite infantry units in the form of an airborne brigade or possibly two depending on funding and available manpower although unlikely. I would note that I’m thinking about a Brigade being rather large of around 5,000 men or what some would call a reinforced Brigade the reason is for simple math when thinking about things. Yes maybe a bit mad but I’m out of my depth a bit understanding army structures so feel free to correct or educate me if you want.
Paul would that be the Special Reconnaissance Regiment that you’re talking about if so they are only company sized according to http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-reconnaissance-regiment/.
hi euan I read the link and it’s misleading it’s mixing up it’s units i rang a friend who is still in the mob to check and he states a i thought the recce regiment is based in st athens and is bigger than a company (one of the para batts is there) it looks like the author of that piece is thinking of the int company (formerly known as 14 int) that is based up in hereford and does as it states recruits from all 3 services, male and female, however this is a far more specialised role
although speaking to my friend who is the know, reading various sites on here they conflict on info, it seems it has the former 14 int (although it hasn’t been called that for years) on it’s books it’s not all about plain clothes int gathering.
it looks like info on this reg is harder to find than the SAS but it without a shadow of doubt bigger than a company.
I’m sure various enlightened people on here will chip in there are clever people on here, i’m learning lots!!
me again!!!
could this be the answer for richard and possibily what i was originally thinking about)
Special Forces Support Group
Based around a core group from the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment, The Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) is a new unit within the UK Special Forces, which was set up on 3 April 2006. SFSG directly supports Special Forces operations worldwide and also provides an additional counter-terrorist capability. Personnel for the SGSG also come from the Royal Marines, and the Royal Air Force Regiment. Members of the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) will retain the cap badges of their parent units but also wear the SFSG insignia.
All SFSG personnel have passed either the Royal Marines Commando course, the Airborne Forces Selection course run by the Parachute Regiment or the RAF Pre-Parachute Selection course. Quaified personnel are then equipped and provided with additional training to fit their specific specialist role on joining the SFSG.
The UK MoD has described the main role of the SFSG as “Providing direct support to UK Special Forces intervention operations around the world. They will be prepared to operate in war-fighting, counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations at short notice. Their roles may include provision of supporting or diversionary attacks, cordons, fire support, force protection and supporting training tasks. Prior to the creation of the SFSG, these tasks have been carried out by other units on an ad hoc basis”.
Hey Paul, yeah that is another option sorry I should have mentioned that as well. The SFSG or something like it is what I would have as that additional elite infantry brigade if that is what you are thinking. However it may as well be an additional airborne brigade rather than a completely different type of brigade especially since the SFSG is largely para’s and they would still be highly trained and capable. Or maybe part of each brigade maybe a company or so could be even better trained for supporting special forces replicated across the 2 possible army airborne brigades and RM’s. That would be a not insignificant number of highly trained men to provide additional support to special forces when and where they need it
Euan and PaulG et al
I would like to see additional ‘light forces’ with a purpose. I believe that UK normally uses ‘light infantry’ label as an excuse to not buy enough armour, as soft skin vehicles are death traps (whether in Afghanistan or back in the Soviet days).
If we are to indulge in more ‘asymmetric’ operations whatever RUSI type strategy we subscribe to, then having specialist ‘light fighters’ with a real reason to exist seems sensible. Much of this by the way is not new and has been suggested before:
1. Create ‘Army Special Operations’ forces. This would subsume the SF Support Group, the Special Recce Regiment and take the other two Para battalions out of the Air Assault Brigade and make them ‘Ranger’ battalions; this includes taking the Pathfinders back from 16 Air Assault – they can raise their own recce formation.
2. Add an “Army Commando’ battalion to 3 Brigade RM. As there is not enough slack in the system for them such an influx to the RM training system, as many of them as possible should be put through the All-arms Commando Course to qualify for a Green hat. This battalion could become the ‘Armoured Commando’ in the BVS10, freeing up the 3 existing Commando’s for their traditional light fighter role (which verges on SOF anyway).
3. Transfer 1, 2, 3 and 4 Rifles to the 16 Air Assault Battalion. Rifle regiments are historically light fighters too.
4. Disband remaining 2 Rifles regiments and spread the man power round the rest of the infantry ! What does this have to do with anything you ask ? Well to keep the current number of battalions re-form 2 Gurkha battalions, returning the Brigade of Gurhkas to a full 4 battalions of famously capable light fighters with a distinct leaning towards jungle warfare !
So we end up with Army SOF/Rangers, strengthed Commando Brigade, more homogeneous Air Assault Brigade, and a Gurkha Brigade as the core ‘light infantry’ elements of our force structure.
Whadya’ think ?
Hi Jed,
I was going to cover SF in a separate, obviously blacked out, post later
Re the US doctrine, I wasn’t for a gazillion years suggesting the adoption of the US BCT terminology, especially the term they use for support elements ‘brigade special troops battalion’ Who would want to be a part of something that is speshul. However, terminology aside, the US Army and USMC are years ahead of the UK in several doctrinal areas so playing catch up isn’t always a bad thing but I agree that it should be ours. I also agree that all forces are lego like, in fact I think I made the point that the UK armed forces have always been more flexible in this regard, setting and collapsing formations to suit the need.
That said, from an organisational perspective I think we need some surgery to support this flexibility and make it ‘business as usual’ rather than ‘all hands to the pump’ which is why I wanted to collapse the divisional structure and a brigade the highest single formation with a divisional HQ capability available for larger operations and to manage multinational deployments as well.
Do what we do well, that is where I shall be coming from with my suggestions (that will shamelessly steal everyones good ideas)
LOL
I am loving the thought of a heavily redacted article on the Special ones… all blacked out sentences and paragraphs…. !!
What is the planned operational rotation for the six-brigade future army structure (next steps)?
i.e.
1x tasked abroad
1x high readiness
1x extended readiness
2x workup
1x recovery
cheers