In September last year a wrote about the Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA) and how it is probably one of the smartest things the MoD has done recently, how it will have a profound effect on future costs and capabilities in the vehicle fleet and that the MoD will receive almost no publicity or credit for doing so.
A Forward Operating Base
In addition to vehicles, the same concept has been applied to bases and soldier equipment as part of the Land Open Systems Architecture (LOSA)
LOSA Architecture
GBA is defined in Def-Stan 23-13 as an open standard that defines interfaces to power, data, water, waste and fuel.
Forward bases are the stock in trade of an Army, at the end of Herrick IX in April 2009 the British Army had 55 in Afghanistan and by November 2010 this number had risen to 132. Fuel in particular is a major concern, with these forward bases in 2009 accounting for only 3% of actual fuel used but 25% of the fully burdened fuel cost, this latter figure includes the cost of transport and force protection.
Generic Tactical Base Laydown
Not Bastion
The various life support needs such as water, waste and hygiene are considerable and where numerous systems exist in isolation waste and incompatibility will be the result.
Force protection needs, Base ISTAR for example, all need to be united into a coherent environment.
GBA, therefore, seeks to define all elements of a base into single system rather than a collection of disparate parts. The ultimate goal is to reduce construction time, personnel used for life support activities and fuel usage whilst offering capability improvements across each element.
Generic Base Architecture
Ambitious
So, GBA is as important as any major project, despite it being a low key and poorly funded activity.
LOSA will be the major theme of this year’s Defence Vehicle Dynamics event.
GBA2 (FOBEX) was a demonstration exercise that involved many organisations and had a wide ranging remit.
FOBEX10 is seeking to identify potential enhancements to the Tactical Base (TB) capability, specifically in the establishment of an integrated system of a ‘30 person Patrol Base (PB)’and (tba) Control Points (CP) from ‘green field’ to levels 1 and 2, and the subsequent removal/disassembly
FOBEX 10 could provide a specific experimentation opportunity for interoperability and infrastructure rationalisation around ground based ISTAR and ‘Sense and Warn’ equipment.
FOBEX10 will be an evaluation of industry claims that FOB’s can be built differently (i.e. quicker, better, cheaper, or better managed). These alternatives constructs are to consider, but not be constrained by, the themes of the Land Open System Architecture functional model, and current thinking on sub-component elements includes addressing the following:
- Improved quality of infrastructure
- Waste disposal
- Power supply and distribution, including vehicle delivered power
- Water management including treatment testing and bottling, recycling and storage
- Alternative Force Protection Engineering approaches
- Precision air dispatch,
- Immediate medical support
- Integrated Survivability Systems
- Helicopter Landing Site (HLS) dust reduction
- Expedient resurfacing
- Laundry
- Winterisation
- Cover from view capability
Team Castrum was led by Selex Galileo Battlespace solutions and included Marshall Land Systems who provided perimeter surveillance using their Trakkar unmanned ground vehicle (based on the Hobo) fitted with a 3m Clark mast, Roke Resolve EW package and Chess Dynamics Owl surveillance equipment.
Marshall Trakkar with OWL and Resolve
The video below shows the basic Trakkar
The Trakkar has also been demonstrated with a Nordic Power Systems fuel cell auxiliary power unit
Trakkar with fuel cell
From the press release
The fuel cell generator is targeted at users requiring virtually silent auxiliary power to keep batteries at peak operating condition. In the situation depicted on the stand the fuel cell, producing 1kW, is providing sufficient power to maintain the batteries of Trakkar® at peak power so that when the vehicle needs to operate in silent mode it is ready to do so.
The diesel fuel generators are based on a Nordic Power patented technology, named “Cool Flame”. The primary role of the generator is expected to be as an auxiliary power unit to extend and enhance silent watch capability and duration.
“The current development programme is producing an integrated standalone advanced technology demonstrator. At present it is producing 1kW, sufficient to charge batteries, but as the technology is scalable our long term ambition is to produce up to 10kW
The diesel fuel cell at present produces 1kW has a 28 volt output, noise levels of less than 45dBA at 2m and is at least as efficient as a standard diesel generator.
Marshall LS also demonstrated their Safebase deployable armoured sangar.
Marshall Safebase Armoured sangar
Marshall Safebase Armoured sangar
Base security was provided from a Marshall Safebase deployable armoured sangar fitted with a Selex remote weapon station. A sensor fit could also be deployed. Safebase is based on a 10ft Marshall shelter with a rising sentry position, which can be lifted into position in 30 seconds. Once deployed the space in the base of the tower can have multiple uses. It can for example serve as a mini operations room or as an RWS control station
The Selex RWS was the Enforcer model.
Also on show, the Observer 100 is a trailer borne surveillance system using thermal imaging, daylight cameras and radar than can operate for 30 days without refuelling (when operating off grid) and setup in no more than 10 minutes.
Selex Observer 100
Other partners in Team Castrum were IBM, Paradigm, SELEX Communications, MIRA, Rolls Royce, DRS Technologies, NSC, Hertel, BAE Systems and SELEX Galileo.
The recent PowerFOB exercises in Wales and the Episkopi training area in Cyprus demonstrated appropriate GBA technologies but with a focus on power efficiency. Over 30 companies showed a wide variety of technologies.
PowerFOB recognised that a range of technologies would be needed to meet the desired objective of a 50% reduction in fuel use. Better management of generators, renewables and storage would all play a part.
The trials were split into three load classifications; 500W plus for sensors, 5KW for small tactical bases and 50KW for medium tactical bases. Although these thresholds were set for the trials it was emphasised there is nothing typical about each base, solutions should be scalable and modular.
All equipment was required to be transportable in 20ft ISO containers, robust and able to operate with minimal supervision or skilled maintenance personnel. All the solutions would ultimately need to be GBA compliant so that performance and usage data could be transmitted to a single situational awareness display or to other locations.
Using a baseline provided by a similar sized FOB in Afghanistan (FOB Catina) the demonstration showed;
- Energy storage produced a 22 per cent fuel saving
- Energy storage plus demand management produced a 37 per cent fuel saving
- Energy storage plus demand management plus renewables gave 40–50 per cent fuel saving depending on mix of renewables that were used.
CK Solar showed a solar thermal collector
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRUaWsIq75I
Kraft Maus showed an 8KVa mobile hybrid wind/solar/fossil power platform.
In fuel burn tests, a conventional, 2kW light generator burned 0.6l/kWh of diesel, whilst the Kraft Maus 8kVA burned 0.2l/kWh on its first run of 36 hours, with a total output of 53kWh. It provided 84kWh totally fuel free power for the five day performance test.
Kraft Maus 8Kva
Tradewind Turbines showed their transportable wind turbine.
Tradewinds turbine
Tradewinds turbine
The video shows the turbine at the earlier Wales FOBEX
Silicon CPV had on display an integrated solar/conventional power system.
Silicon CPV
As a means of reducing power demand energy efficient shelters were also shown, the Fortis Shelter from Hertel for example.
Even relatively minor improvements in energy use all add up; moving to lower voltage DC instead of transforming AC down, induction hubs, LED lighting, solar helicopter pad lights that charge during the day and are used at night, glycol refrigeration and low power laundry systems.
Making sure generators are selected on likely loads rather than over sizing which then results in low utilisation and inefficiency is another challenging aspect.
With the increasing use of COTS/MOTS networking, data processing, storage and display systems in bases, a great deal of which is AC, we expend fuel cooling the device and suffer losses because the equipment itself can usually run perfectly on lower voltage DC. It is reckoned that saving 1 watt at the equipment saves another 3 in cooling and other losses.
Sun have a 2Tb storage server that uses only 300 watts for example but is any of this kind of technology being integrated into the numerous data systems, ground control stations and other equipment for example?
Bases start with construction, not smart sensors or wind turbines so a range of building and infrastructure materials have also been trialled, the ubiquitous Hesco Bastion being joined by modular building systems, matting and fortification materials like cuplock sangars or concrete cloth.
Concrete Cloth Layed by Soldiers at FOBEX Demonstration
Enhanced Protection Systems (EPS), of Springer fame, showed the Stalwart protected weapon station.
EPS Stalwart
EPS Stalwart
Despite the allure of all this exciting technology we might achieve similar efficiencies if we simply manage what we have better, improve efficiency, make sure the dots are joined and never forget the human elements of leadership and good equipment care.
That said, the ubiquitous puffing billy might also be overdue for replacement, to the relief of eyebrows everywhere!
Hawkmoor Self Powered Water Boiler
Read more about PowerFOB here and a few videos to end on.
It seems that no one system is a magic bullet, careful selection of technologies with integration between them with GBA compliance being the underpinning logic.
Although the MoD has perhaps been a little less bold than US forces who seem to be able to get kit into theatre on a trial basis much quicker than us the but are working to different constraints and the more cautious and considered approach means that kit should, in theory, get to theatre in a much more coherent manner with all the constituent parts having an effect greater than the sum of their parts. That said, the UK is far in advance of the US in other areas, generator use and management being one notable example.
There is loads of good work going on in with the parallel tracks of GBA, FOBEX and ‘system of systems’, let’s hope it survives contact with the MoD’s budget process and as we see the end of Afghanistan, projects like this sustained.
I dont know why they have not fitted solar pannels to the top of containers yet. They is around 160 sq foot of space on the top of them that could be used. As much again if they fitted them to one side or double again if put on both side’s. Put a hinge on the as well so the angle can be adjusted. so not only will they be able to supply power but can be used to transport hesco ect to the site as well?
Dave
Well, if you ship containers by sea, they’re stacked on each other. A plastic solar cell might not take too kindly to being sat on by another 20 ton container.
I wish Western forces would ditch the idea of forts altogether.
This thread has the potential to run and run to well over 500 comments:
1. Arguments about static vs manoeuvre warfare, or whether we should be in the country at all.
2. Lots of sexy ISTAR masts.
3. Machine guns.
4. Wind turbines and eco-stuff to save fuel and resupply (I think that’s a really good idea, if it works)
5. Gucci little robotic golf buggies for all sorts of infantry fun.
6. A pretty opaque idea of a “Base Area Network” with the ethernet and wifi replacing good old Don 10.
7. Containers and loggy shit.
I was pleased to see that the man who invented Hesco Bastions got some honour recently – that’s an invention that could have improved soldiers’ lives back in the days of the Roman Legions and ever since, but it took until the very 20th Century for a good old bluff Yorkshireman to make it happen. You haven’t seen the British Army in action until you see 2 Chinooks fly in and with a Sapper fork lift and mini tracked digger, a platoon of infantrymen, and quite a lot of sweat and shouting construct a perfectly functional and reasonably protected platoon patrol base in less than two hours. 82 Hesco Bastions is good going in that time.
Thanks, TD.
I’ve got a veritable cavalry charge of all sorts of hobby horses to ride on this one!
“I wish Western forces would ditch the idea of forts altogether.”
And do what?
I just had to look up the “concrete cloth”. I’d never have thought of it. This is a completely genius idea, and there’s a British supplier who’ll even do you a prefab shelter in the stuff.
Only needs air and water (which of course needs to be trucked or flown in if in the desert), not a problem elsewhere in the world. 25 or 54 square metres of hardened shelter erected by 2 untrained men in an hour or so, ready for use a day later. What’s not to like?
http://www.concretecanvas.co.uk/
Because Im waiting on bad news about my car I will share what the FOB I was at had in the way of infrastructure. I won’t give troop numbers although they have almost certainly changed and for all I know its been handed over or taken down now. But it was basically a Company Group(-) sized FOB.
It was protected with a mixture of compound wall and good old HESCO with firing steps and a few ramps so JACKALs could be driven up to fire over it. It also had 5 sangars (fear not the locals even knew what number they were) made from HESCO and sandbagged roofs with cover provided by scrim etc.
It had a mortar line with at least 3 barrels (public domain) of 81mm and a big dark cavernous ammo bunker protected by two HABs. Inside there was the ANA camp, we’ll ignore them. And then there was the medical treatment facility in a HAB and the ops room in a HAB. We had a Cortez camera up on a massive pole and which some idiot had draped a camouflage net over the base of, presumably to camouflage a very high pole from the Taliban Air Force.
Power was provided by several light field generators I think they were called which were very reliable and were filled by jerry cans which were bought in on the CLPs. We had a POL point with Kero, a large fuel bowser and other POL. Water was provided from a spring although it was not used for drinking, that came in on the CLPs too. The water was used for cooking, I really don’t know why we weren’t to drink it it was used by the cookhouse to make screech. There was also a field kitchen which the ungrumpy and always happy to serve you chefs made delicious smash, day in, day out. We had a pump which served the showers but the heater element in it was broken for most of the tour and surprisingly ice cold showers even in 40 degree heat remained an unpleasant experience, in the winter, truly horrific.
Mortar proof?
“25 or 54 square metres of hardened shelter erected by 2 untrained men in an hour or so, ready for use a day later”
- reminds me of the Swedish army testing igloos, whether they would dissipate incoming in the form of 155mm
- I think the contents survived, though the igloo came crushing down
ACC,
presumably, once it’s up the boys will continue to doll it up by pushing sand or earth over it. You can’t stop them – it seems pre-programmed in an infantryman’s brain to add more and more protection to his bedroom once he’s told he can’t move it every night. I don’t blame them.
I’ve emailed the link to a mate of mine who runs a place up in Scotland and was looking for shelters for the quads and other stuff out at the other end of the place, but not very impressed with what he had seen on the civvy market (it was the cost of builders and 3 weeks of laying foundations that really stopped him). Lay some turves and heather onto it and it will blend in completely in a few months – ideal when you’ve got rich Septics coming across and paying £Lots for shooting and stalking.
Don 10, good speaker cable, apparently
Concrete canvas is pretty expensive I think
And DefenceCell is the new Hesco
http://www.defencell.com/world_home.html
I always thought “Don 10″ was some form of MoD-mandated target for the numbers of insurance-claimable destructive fires that were needed to balance the books. A bit like the Atlantic Conveyor sinking naturally because of the total tonnage of equipment that various Quartermasters claimed were on board in order to get the BoI to authorise write-offs.
@ TD, re Defence Cell
honestly, is there no limit to the ingenuity of Sappers? If only they had charm and a good line in conversation in addition to their undoubted broad range of talents, they’d be worth inviting to dinner. They wouldn’t be able to make it of course, due to testing some new technique of digging, but still, you always want Sappers about.
Observer said, “Well, if you ship containers by sea, they’re stacked on each other. A plastic solar cell might not take too kindly to being sat on by another 20 ton container.”
Like TD i also have a container fetish. They are types where this would be no problem at all. Also under the floor of a container there is space where you could install batteries. For use of a night as well.
Dave
Looking at the concrete canvas shelter specs, you can fit 16 of the 25 sq M versions in flatpack into a standard ISO. It’s all fork-liftable. Whether for dragging out into the desert on a DROPS wagon, or for having on board an RFA ready for disaster relief, not bad at all.
(Sandwich-at-desk lunch ending soon, so enough browsing fetishistic engineering and concrete websites!)
@ James
Action messing would sound a bit more colourful if you were under desk under fire……
X,
Life’s not fair. During 107 hours of GW1, all I ate were some biscuits, a couple of chocolate bars and some oranges that we had in a wooden box behind my hatch (BV bust***, too busy to stop and cook, you can peel and eat an orange while on the move). And yet I saw a documentary in which the Andrew were eating cheesy eggy hammys, bacon butties and similar under the “Action Messing” category. I’m telling you, life on board is too soft, carpets, foam seating and proper beds, and you get fed properly…
There was a VC winner in Korea called Pte Bill Speakman, who when he ran out of ammunition started throwing tins of food at the Chinese who thought they were grenades. Now that’s a real lunch break!
***The BV being bust would normally in peacetime render a vehicle inoperable and liable for base repair. We didn’t have Paul G available however, so had to crack on.
@ James
With the civilising of catering at HMNB what sailors gain afloat food wise, ashore the Sealords taketh away……
Generic Soldier Architecture is more interesting…
sorry james, i would’ve been there but due to being late back from canada (delayed because lifeguards had spent 6 years riding nags up and down the mall and needed extra help the usless tw@s0) so although still at 7 armd assigned to 22 bde not 7.
Any hoo, this thing has lots of legs particularly since some boffin attached to Dod in the states worked out they used 70 gallons of fuel to deliver 1 gallon in the sandy places, hence dollars ahve been diverted to solve this. I remember eading somewhere they are genuinely looking at small nuke reactors in ISO’s (show me your hands TD!) for company sized FOBs, estimates at less than 10 years away. In the meantime it’s the shape of the turbines the are playing with as shown above it’s not your 3 bladed affair often seen static off the coast (well that’s what i see most days,waste of fu**ing money) some brit has come up with a design that can be best described as a lawn mower blade vertical, which works in very low speed winds which gives it consistency.
Pedal power has been looked at well, voltage and keeping fit in a oner, bonus!!!
does that mean the crow can pedal so everyone else can listen to their ipods?
George, not read much on GSA, how about doing a piece for TD on it
Paul G,
you often run into problems with the paramilitary wing of the London Tourist Board.
I wasn’t SCOTS DG or in 7 Armd Bde at the time – I was still 16/5L. Tell you what, we had the most fantastic EME and also Omlette, and the Tiffys as well. There was of course a limit to what they could do, but it was not very much that they couldn’t do. I’ve seen some REME shambles in my time (and they’ve probably seen some of mine, to be fair), but it all worked like clockwork in 16/5L on the REME front for GW1.
Best little vignette: broken down Scimitar on Olly bar tow by Samson. Both come under 12.7mm fire from half right, both traverse off and reply with MG, and blow me, hit the ruddy target and destroy it while still moving themselves. Squadron Leader directed that the kill be recorded in favour of the Recy Mech, with 10 cases of beer for the Fitters when we got home paid for by Squadron funds. Band of brothers, that was. Happy to have that crew along.
“During 107 hours of GW1, all I ate were some biscuits, a couple of chocolate bars and some oranges”
Poor Officer admin!
@ Phil,
ha! You may very well be correct. But before you castigate me entirely, consider some alternative possibilities (in addition to the BV being bust):
1. Don’t like cold compo, except in an emergency. War does not qualify as an emergency.
2. Having too much fun to eat. You don’t get too many wars occurring in your life when you are at the peak of your physical prowess aged 26, in the most fantastic desert environment, against an enemy you are almost guaranteed to beat, and surrounded with mates of all ranks you’ve spent 7 years training alongside.
3. Kate Adie’s Landrover crew took one of our boxes of compo shortly before STARTEX, because they had none.
4. I like oranges, also chocolate. Not so much the biscuits, but you need some roughage.
To be serious, it actually was not much of a hardship I noticed at all. After ENDEX, we all crashed out for 12 or so hours, having none of us had any kip at all during the 4 1/2 days. Woke up absolutely f**king starving. SQMS arrived with some fresh stuff. Fried up something like 20 eggs on the primus stove for the three of us to fill our bellies with banjos until we could take no more, drank between us my last bottle of smuggled whisky, then went back to sleep.
@Phil
“And do what?”
* patrol
* pull 360° 24/7 security
* be unpredictable
* avoid wars that are against so thoroughly incapable opponents that they can’t even rape a stationary target (because such opponents are clearly no threat to us)
Completely unrealistic in such a campaign.
Unrealistic is the idea that you could “win” such a campaign from forts while your opponent patrols and is in intense contact with the population.
They’re not Mordor. There’s plenty of interaction. We used to invite folk round for tea and a chat. Christ we even used to hire stuff from them. Your doctor doesn’t work in a field to make him accessible do they? They just come up to the FOB and knock like a building with a door.
Be fair S O, you need both kinds, static and mobile, in an army. There is a season for every reason.
I for one would hate to have to sleep out in the open in semi-hostile territory, or do maintainance bare arse naked out in plain sight of any sniper, or refuel/rearm without cover from anyone with a RPG or MG with incindary/tracer rounds.
Of course, no one ever won purely on the defensive (or none that comes to mind), but fighting from fortified areas gives you enough of an advantage that frees up more of your forces for aggressive action.
“* avoid wars that are against so thoroughly incapable opponents that they can’t even rape a stationary target (because such opponents are clearly no threat to us)”
They don’t need to hit you, they just wear the latest in desert fashion that goes boom.
Agreeing standards are vital of course to interoperability, but single/centralised approaches are not the only way to do this. There are significant costs to agreeing and maintaining agreed standards, not least of which is the time it takes to negotiate what happens when new components or interfaces need to be added. Are they added without agreement, or delayed until agreement? These costs need to be traded against the supposed advantages listed above, not lost.
To get around these problems, such standards can rapidly become too watered down or abstract to be of any practical use, and simply act as another layer of trivially-fulfilled requirements as, say, frequently happens with MODAF.
Or they are bypassed as we see with the situation awareness descriptions that require descriptive text, because the land data model is insufficient even in Helmand.
As an exercise in discussing and working through the integration problems: Good. As an output requiring prescriptive compliance: Bad.
Catching up with comments
@David, another container fetishist, will sort that secret handshake thing we were talking about! On the subject of PV panels on containers I think they would probably better be demountable because they need to be maintained and that gives some flexibility in siting etc.
@Sven, see what you are saying but GBA spans everything from a main operating base like Bastion to a patrol base and as Phil has said, difficult to see how one can do anything on a large scale without a base
@James, yes, tonnes to go at. Of course, agree on the Field Sqn Field Troop. Confessions of a MEXE Shelter anyone
@Phil. Were the generators on trailers and slope sided, stealth style. These are called Field Electrical Power System or FEPS, supplied by Rolls Royce under a PFI. If they were the smaller ones like this the Light Field Generator from HGI
The problem with running lots of smaller generators is that they often don’t run at full load which generally speaking buggers them up and wastes fuel. As you know, fuel and spares need transporting in and this is exactly what GBA/FOBEX is trying to rationalise on. Your experiences sound again, like what the whole GBA/FOBEX thing is trying to address
@ACC, extra infill on the top of something like a concrete canvas shelter acts as a thermal stabilise, reducing the need for heating and cooling which, of course, needs power and therefore needs fuel.
@Martin, interesting comments but GBA is about the interoperability using common protocols, connectors etc. It is exactly NOT a one size fits all thing
@Observer
“Of course, no one ever won purely on the defensive (or none that comes to mind), but fighting from fortified areas gives you enough of an advantage that frees up more of your forces for aggressive action.”
The share of troops in forts easily exceeds 80%, in some cases 95% of deployed personnel in AFG. A fort is a place to hunker down, not an economy of force wonder.
@TD:
I do not recall that divisions on campaign in WW2 built forts when they weren’t at the front-lines.
The real reason for my opposition isn’t performance or non-performance in fghanistan. It’s the bunker and fort mentality, this indoctrinating that easily visible, predictable, durable, stationary, above-ground objects could provide security against an opposing force.
A capable enemy would massacre the troops in their forts. The forts alone are reason enough to pull all Western troops out. Pull ‘em out before they add even more such small wars nonsense to their experiences.
“The share of troops in forts easily exceeds 80%, in some cases 95% of deployed personnel in AFG. A fort is a place to hunker down, not an economy of force wonder”
You’ve just made that figure up.
You need check points to interdict Taliban movements. You won’t believe how much land a check point can dominate, it is far more effective than patrolling through an area, even regularly.
But you also need mobile strike forces to strike deep, and we have those too.
You definitely need both. And you’d be surprised how well a check point locks down Taliban movement, especially when it has a camera.
Wondering around the ulu is not a good way to conduct any campaign. How do you interact with the locals if they don’t know who you are and you don’t build relationships and they don’t know where you are going? This is well before the security issues Observer brings up which you can only solve by moving about like a slow ponderous caravan unable to access many areas because you’re bringing your supplies with you. You just can’t do it.
You combine static units who do local patrols and mobile striking forces.
And also there’s the issue of the heat, patrol all day in the Afghan heat?! Right.
And don’t think the Taliban are ninja’s in the night either, they have their bed down areas and little bases.
“@Phil. Were the generators on trailers and slope sided, stealth style. These are called Field Electrical Power System or FEPS, supplied by Rolls Royce under a PFI. If they were the smaller ones like this the Light Field Generator from HGI”
Yes FEPs! I don’t know where I got the LFG thing from. And yeah we had the little buggers for the check points. Noisy bastards and broke a lot, try sleeping next to one running for two weeks at a time. But the one in one PB ran on a full load I think, we have a fridge, the chargers, a camera, a radio and believe it or not a widescreen TV (there was no empty wall bracket in the new BSN cookhouse missing a TV…) and a PS3.
“I do not recall that divisions on campaign in WW2 built forts when they weren’t at the front-lines.”
Arguably they should have done. And quite often they actually did. And besides, its a very different context. Nobody built any FOBs in 2003 or 1991.
Fortified bases are common throughout history esepcially when occupying hostile areas. However, they historically work as “launch pads” for mobile forces; Norman Castles for knights, Cavarly forts on the US western frontier, etc.
On the other hand I vaguely remember a British Officer using “flying” armoured coloumns in Iraq, getting away from fixed bases. Anybody have more information on the success, or lack thereof, of this?
re forts vs constant mobility.
I think there’s a very strong correlation between the type of war. We wouldn’t have dreamed of building a structure during GW1, because (1) we’d have been on the move again within 30 minutes, scarcely enough time for a decent argument about siting and arcs of fire to start, let alone get resolved, and (2) the job was to go and kill Iraqis, not let them come to us, and (3) HMtQ very kindly provides mini-forts with tracks and guns pre-attached.
On the other hand, once the job is to dominate an area in all senses from fire to providing protection to enabling infrastructure / normality etc, the job is measured in time and space, not in striking at static points or a meeting engagement. It takes time, and if you’ve got time, so has the enemy to work out cunning ways of attacking you, so you need some protection.
Is this also now time to open up the intelligent “just in time” logistics solution for forts, based on an intelligent data network and all sorts of smart meters providing status of fuel supplies, etc, or is it more comfortable to stick with the daily standard load and shedloads of spare capacity, because it guards against things like the weather socking in the choppers or the Pakistanis closing their border so the trucks don’t run? Pros and cons of both, I’d imagine. I was kept very clear of logistics matters by the Army, and rightfully so as they are important.****
**** I was once asked to fill in a form for spares needed for my Troop prior to a Gunnery Camp – normally the Troop Sergeant, the magical Mick Bode did that. I decided we all needed new rubber episcope blinds, so 48 for the four wagons. There was a set of boxes to fill in the quantity, so being intelligent and well educated I filled in “48″, leaving lots of blank boxes. Got one of the boys to rush the form over to the QM(T) department, and he was sent back with a flea in his ear to give to me. Turned out I’d tried to order something like 48 million blinds, as the incompent OCR software in whatever loggy IT system they were using interpreted blanks as zeroes. I sell that sort of stuff nowadays, and let me tell you, our’s is brilliant, never makes that sort of mistake…
@james, that would be like the time i was advance party (qty 1, i lived 30 mins away) for adv training in capel curig and the had a shed floor to roof with black bin bags, bloke ordered 100, thing is they come in boxes of a thousand, so he got 100 boxes = 100,000 bin bags! No-one questioned the order, and we wonder where the money goes.
@ James – interesting problem. Perhaps certain products are pushed forward, such as food, water, etc which are consumed pretty constantly while others are ordered when they reach a certain level, with a built in safety margin?
Bet they’re still there! Not the time to talk about probably a quarter of a million pounds of DRASH tentage left stuft and broken in Towthorpe Lines up near York. Lazy fucking civvy storemen. They looked like rats but not as industrious or intelligent.
They also had crates and crates of NBC casualty bags which made me feel odd.
Paul G,
the ending of the story is that the RQMS(T) had taken the form from the Trooper, and he had enough brain power to work out my mistake. He told the QM(T), who then had great pleasure at very loudly relaying the sorry tale to the Mess at lunch, cueing gales of laughter from everyone else present at not only my stupidity, but also the fact that I was filling in such a form to start with, when I had a perfectly reasonable Toop Sergeant and also two young thrusting Corporals who were looking to get themselves a Troop Sergeant slot. The Ops Officer took me to one side and told me to stay off the tank park and go for a run or a TEWT instead – “that’s why you’ve got NCOs”. Joys of being a 20 year old sprog Troop Leader, and all a learning experience.
Sir how would you go about putting up a flag pole if you had to?
Well Sgt I’d find a pole, dig a foundation, put the pole in the foundation and shore it up. Maybe using concrete.
No no no Sir!
What do you mean Sgt?
Sir, you say, Sgt, I want a flag pole there.
Good one Phil.
SO, if you want the 80% to be outside fortified areas (I so agree that number is made up) and the Taliban have yet to be located…
Doesn’t that mean your troops are sitting around outside instead of sitting around inside? Or worse, driving around in circles aimlessly and burning up gasoline?
And afganistan is not a mobile war, it’s COIN, which is a totally different situation. I even had an argument with Phil last time in that I really prefered mobile war, while his opinion is that in a saturated environment, war will end up turning static, but even a biased observer like me would never dare suggest doing without secure areas. Under constant strain of combat without a rest, troops go loopy. Look under trench warfare in WW1. Now imagine it without the trenches.
“You’ve just made that figure up.”
You wish, I wish. Not real, though.
We actually don’t even need to dig up all the unofficial reports about the problem (I doubt ISAF is going to admit it officially): We can make a quick plausibility check.
Take the tooth:tail ratio, which is about 2:1 to 3:1. OK, say 2:1 (which is VERY optimistic).
Now this one third (the teeth), how much of its time is it going to be on patrol, how much is it going to rest/train/be sick/in forts?
Want to use an optimistic 1:3 ratio for this?
There we are already at 2:(1/3) = 6:1
That’s 6/7 inside the wire. 85.7% in this quick & dirty plausibility check.
Reality IS worse for the large forts, and not much better for the small outposts. The troops are almost only hunkering down in those fortifications. The only major exceptions are the “offensives”, that are sweeps without proper cordon. These can see a thousand men in the field for a while. The total force is two orders of magnitude larger, of course.
@ S O
I think you have a very weird idea of what a COIN campaign would entail. I seem to remember a historical example of a British coloumn trying to march a great distance across Afghanistan once. I think that ended with everyone dying? How would you supply such moving coloumns? Food, water, batteries, ammunition, just to start? What’s stopping the enemy from just downing tools, waiting for the coloumn to pass, and then reasserting themselves once the sweep has passed?
The opfor downing tools is the least of my worry. I’m more araid that without secured rear areas, they’ll just slip into my “tail” bivocs and slit everyone’s throats. Then you’re left with the “teeth” and no supplies. 3 days is how long a force can usually sustain itself before shortages kills efficiency.
SO is really making weird suggetions.
Sorry about the spelling in the last post, my keyboard was acting a bit strange.
@SO
Not only are your numbers made up, they’re also low and messed up, and you are also operating under a number of mistaken assumptions.
Tooth to tail ratio isn’t 2:1. It’s more like 10:1 and climbing these days. And before you go on any bulls-it about “fat, lazy, moneywasting etc” crap, the reason is the proliferation of support systems like fire-finding radar, UAVs, air support generation, anti-missile systems, intel generation, vehicle maintainance etc.
Just because people are “support” or “rear line” staff does NOT mean they are useless like you are assuming. Without them, you can kiss your COIN campaign goodbye. As well as the lives of most of the troops on the ground. “An army marches on it’s stomach”. Sounds familiar? And some of the staff are WAY to valuable to be walking patrols. You want a pilot on point? He catches a bullet, there goes millions in training costs, not to mention a 150 million dollar plane sitting in the hanger doing crap all because it’s pilot died. All because of a 5 pence bullet. Pioneer Engineers walking patrol? One ambush and you’ll lose a large chunk of mine clearing capability. Guess you’ll have to do the “commando way” of clearing minefields/IEDs then. *stomp, stomp… ok safe…next!..*
Your idea of “combat troops” seem to involve forming every Tom, Dick and Harry in a line and have them charge at the enemy. You sure you didn’t train under the ChiComs?
Chris B
That was the retreat from Kabul in 1842. Over 16,000 killed or captured and only one William Brydon escaped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Elphinstone%27s_army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brydon
“The troops are almost only hunkering down in those fortifications.”
That’s just plain wrong. In my experience across working with Danish and US.
@Jim
And the 2nd incident in that sorry play (or was it 3rd?) was the British camp being set up in an undefensible shallow depression and getting shelled. More arguement for defences IMO.
@Phil
He’s working on some very wrong assumptions. Like “every man a swordsman”, or “advance in a phalanx”….
“Tooth to tail ratio isn’t 2:1.”
You probably got it the wrong way. Admittedly, I was a bit misleading here.
I meant to write about 1/3 teeth and 2/3 tail, which is a generous value for Western forces. Below 30% combat and forward observer personnel is rather normal in our technicised armies. I used the generous assumption to ensure nobody who’s discussing with good intent comes up with a disagreement about the exact figure. After all, using 2:1 instead of 3:1 was influencing the calculation against my point.
The actual accurate ratios depend on the specific force, even location.
“It’s more like 10:1 and climbing these days. And before you go on any bulls-it about “fat, lazy, moneywasting etc” crap, the reason is the proliferation of support systems like fire-finding radar, UAVs, air support generation, anti-missile systems, intel generation, vehicle maintainance etc.”
10:1 is incorrect, and the whole discussion would be pointless if it wasn’t. After all, I was mentioning that the vast majority of troops sits in the forts.
You don’t need to lecture me about support. I know support. Point being, almost only the personnel outside the wire exerts influence in the country.
“Just because people are “support” or “rear line” staff does NOT mean they are useless like you are assuming.”
Poor strawman attack. They’re not useless in my opinion. They’re merely not of relevance to the population, and Afghanistan’s conflict is very political. The quantity of mechanics has no political effect.
“Without them, you can kiss your COIN campaign goodbye.”
WRONG.
WESTERN troops are too incompetent to do away with support. More adaptable or simply third country troops could simply live off the land as did occupation forces for thousands of years.
WESTERN troops failed BADLY in counter-insurgency with their technicised approach, and the Russians failed as badly unless they had mroe troops in country than there were indigenous people. The only Western “COIN” success is Iraq, whose people coincidentally happened to sort out most of their conflicts with ethnic cleansing while the Americans “surged”.
““An army marches on it’s stomach”. Sounds familiar?”
Sure, but keep in mind 30 million people in Afghanistan do not starve without flown-in hamburgers. Guess why.
In fact, I doubt that the Taliban have even a single mess hall with climate control.
Maybe they would lose, not win, the political fight if they had?