• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Quick and probably obvious question in relation to Force 2025. I've come across these two military symbols in Force 2025 documentation:

View attachment 68753

To me the one on the left is motorized recce and the one on the right is motorized infantry. I've seen the former in Force 2025 in relation to the recce platoon in a mech battalion and the other in relation to Force Protection organizations.

The point though is that we have typically not used the "motorized" modifier when dealing with e.g light battalions and recce elements whether motorized or not. Is there a reason why these are showing up now? Do they have some hidden meaning that only Freemason's know about?

:unsure:
Differentiates that recce platoons are in TAPV / G Wagons, I imagine the same for the FP Bn.
 
Very much this, AJAXs problems are it’s speciality suites. The same chassis is being used with no issues by the Austrians and Spanish.

I would remind both of you, Mark and Kevin, that this is Canada. And if the Brits can muck a perfectly functional vehicle ... well, hold our Moosehead.
 
I would remind both of you, Mark and Kevin, that this is Canada. And if the Brits can muck a perfectly functional vehicle ... well, hold our Moosehead.

What are you talking about, old chap? ;)

1645216625118.png



At least they off loaded the Saxons to the Ukrainians, poor things:

The Telegraph is reporting that the former head of the British Army has condemned a decision to deliver dozens of retired British Saxon armored personal carriers to the Ukrainian government as “nothing short of immoral”. General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff between 2006 and 2009, described the Saxon armored vehicles are “quite useless”. Said Dannatt: “I took these out of service by the UK Army in 2005/6 as completely unsuitable for current operations, so I find it incredible that they are being sold/gifted to Ukraine. I am incensed by the thought we are supplying, even via a 3rd party, SAXON APCs to the hapless Ukrainians.” Ukranian sources said that 20 Saxons have been delivered to Ukraine, with another 55 expected to arrive soon.

 
Last edited:
What are you talking about, old chap? ;)

View attachment 68780



At least they off loaded the Saxons to the Ukrainians, poor things:

The Telegraph is reporting that the former head of the British Army has condemned a decision to deliver dozens of retired British Saxon armored personal carriers to the Ukrainian government as “nothing short of immoral”. General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff between 2006 and 2009, described the Saxon armored vehicles are “quite useless”. Said Dannatt: “I took these out of service by the UK Army in 2005/6 as completely unsuitable for current operations, so I find it incredible that they are being sold/gifted to Ukraine. I am incensed by the thought we are supplying, even via a 3rd party, SAXON APCs to the hapless Ukrainians.” Ukranian sources said that 20 Saxons have been delivered to Ukraine, with another 55 expected to arrive soon.



But as gawdawful as they might have been apparently they were better than what the Ukrainians (/Russians) had.... Which might give somebody pause when considering current force dispositions.

At the first glance, the AT-105 seems to be an obsolete vehicle. Nonetheless, the Ukrainian soldiers using the platform cannot speak of it highly enough. One of the soldiers of the Airmobile Brigade appreciated the Saxon’s good performance on the road and in an off-road context, since the performance characteristics of the British vehicle, in certain situations, exceed those of the contemporary BTR vehicles used by the Ukrainians. The interviewed soldier claimed that AT-105, in off-road conditions, turned out to have better mobility than the BTR-4 platform. The second example shows that AT-105 4x4 vehicle has all-terrain capabilities which are no worse than those of the track-chassis platforms (2S3 Akatsiya), while on hardened surfaces the vehicle is even more mobile. This type of comparisons takes place because of the fact that the aforementioned airmobile units use a quite varied and surprising inventory.


It's crap. But not as crap as the other guys. :LOL:
 
But as gawdawful as they might have been apparently they were better than what the Ukrainians (/Russians) had.... Which might give somebody pause when considering current force dispositions.




It's crap. But not as crap as the other guys. :LOL:
The other crap has a lot more armor than the Saxon.
I have a low opinion of most of the WP vehicles - but having driven in a Saxon once - I'm not sure I'd want to be in any of those options when stuff starts flying.
 
The other crap has a lot more armor than the Saxon.
I have a low opinion of most of the WP vehicles - but having driven in a Saxon once - I'm not sure I'd want to be in any of those options when stuff starts flying.

The Saxon is a good old 4 tonner, ruined by putting a stupid armoured box around it so they could move the Reserves from the UK to the Central Front, after the Soviets crossed the IGB, without getting whacked by Soviet arty shrapnel.

It was obsolete as soon as The Wall came down. Maybe a bit before that...
 
So small elephant in the room, anyone thinking a Symmetrical Medium Force is a solid option anymore?

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

Thought not.
 
That's still head scratcher for me -- usually one seizes airfields with paratroopers.
Fixed wing transport crews tend to get itchy in a contested air environment. If you don’t have full control of the air, then helicopters at low level are what you have to use. But you’re right, that means going in light — and without the airdropped tracked vehicles so beloved of the Russian Airborne.
 
Fixed wing transport crews tend to get itchy in a contested air environment. If you don’t have full control of the air, then helicopters at low level are what you have to use. But you’re right, that means going in light — and without the airdropped tracked vehicles so beloved of the Russian Airborne.
Clearly no control of the skies, which also makes an Air Assault as massive gamble.

I’d have chalked that one up in risks outweigh reward.
 
Are you referring to the Ukrainians as light ?


I am saying I have not seen reported evidence of many Ukrainian AFVs in direct combat. On the other hand I am seeing and hearing lots of tales of soldiers, on their feet, achieving successes with NLAWs and Javelins. I am also hearing lots of reports of the initial air assaults, and acts of sabotage, being countered by Territorial Defence Units.

My suggestion is that Ukraine, despite its circumstances, is still husbanding its heavy forces and not committing them yet. The few images I have seen of Ukrainian tanks and SPGs have been of them sitting on the backs of Tank Transporter Trucks, either in parks or on highways being redeployed.

So, no I am not referring to the Ukrainians as light. I am suggesting that they seem to have not yet felt the need to commit heavy forces, at least none that they are willing to advertise, and instead are letting/reporting light forces (regular and territorial) absorb the initial impetus. And they seem to be having some, reported, success in the early going.

The Russian penetrations have not achieved Blitzkrieg effectiveness, in my opinion, from what I can see, from available Open Source information.

Cheers, Mark. :)
 
I am saying I have not seen reported evidence of many Ukrainian AFVs in direct combat. On the other hand I am seeing and hearing lots of tales of soldiers, on their feet, achieving successes with NLAWs and Javelins. I am also hearing lots of reports of the initial air assaults, and acts of sabotage, being countered by Territorial Defence Units.

My suggestion is that Ukraine, despite its circumstances, is still husbanding its heavy forces and not committing them yet. The few images I have seen of Ukrainian tanks and SPGs have been of them sitting on the backs of Tank Transporter Trucks, either in parks or on highways being redeployed.

So, no I am not referring to the Ukrainians as light. I am suggesting that they seem to have not yet felt the need to commit heavy forces, at least none that they are willing to advertise, and instead are letting/reporting light forces (regular and territorial) absorb the initial impetus. And they seem to be having some, reported, success in the early going.

The Russian penetrations have not achieved Blitzkrieg effectiveness, in my opinion, from what I can see, from available Open Source information.

Cheers, Mark. :)
So in other words. Yes
 
Back
Top