Join GHQ's free e-mail list. Just enter your e-mail address and click on the Subscribe button. You can cancel your subscription at any time.

GHQ Models Forums
The Best Damn Wargaming Forum
 
  FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    MemberlistMemberlist    UsergroupsUsergroups    RegisterRegister 
  ProfileProfile    Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages    Log inLog in 
Ajax
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    GHQ Models Forums Forum Index -> Military Models General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:59 pm    Post subject: Ajax Reply with quote

The British Army will receive its first production models of the Ajax land combat system by the end of 2018.

This signals the requirement to upgrade our British holdings.

GHQ, get on this, please.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hoth_902
E5


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 342
Location: Pacific Northwest

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I love the Warrior, and plan to build several companies of them, I am anxious to see the AJAX produced. On the same page as you panzergator.
_________________
Quanity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Her Majesty's Government has graciously established British Forces, Gator State, to reinforce and assist Gator State in its defense and bits mission within an alliance with the US Army.

To that end, BFGS currently consists of a base armoured infantry battalion, 3rd Bn, The Staffordshire Regiment, mounted in Warrior; C Company, 4th Bn, Staffs, mounted in improved Warrior; two squadrons of Challenger I; a reinforced reconnaissance troop in CVR(T) Scimitar; a four piece M109 battery; and a reserve Chieftain squadron. Reporter, please note that, while British battalions are similar to US units of the same term, a British squadron is equivalent to a US troop or company and a British regiment is equivalent to a US battalion or squadron. A British troop is equivalent to a US platoon.

Her Majesty's Government intends that, when Ajax becomes available, 3rd Battalion's Warriors will be exchanged for Ajax, with Warrior being refurbished, then used to complete 4th Battalion, Staffs. Once there are two full AIBs present, the armour establishment will n increased by an additional 18-tank Challenger II squadron, thus requiring a brigade headquarters. It is anticipated that BFGS will receive additional combat support vehicles, including air defense, combat engineers, etc.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hoth_902
E5


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 342
Location: Pacific Northwest

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Panzergator,

What is a good reference for the composition of British units? I am currently building some units up but do not know where to find such data.
_________________
Quanity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have several references from the 1980s which I stubbornly adhere to, since the organizations are usually more to my liking. But to find the modern stuff, I try various modifications of internet search criteria such as "modern British armoured infantry organization.". It is helpful to know the country term for what you are looking for because you are more likely to get your answer with fewer modifications. You generally will have to wade through a lot of WWII entries, so be careful.

In British forces, infantry mounted in Warrior are armoured infantry battalions, companies, and platoons. Note spelling. Mechanized infantry are mounted in FV432, AT105, and Boxer. Tank organizations are regiment (US battalion), squadron (uS company/troop), and troop (US platoon). There are a couple interesting websites and I'll have to leave the forum to get them, so check back in a few on this thread. You will not be able to click on them, but can enter them in your search bar.

You must use words like "current," "modern," " 1980s, " "2000s" etc; anything you can use to refine your search. Regardless, you will be inundated with WWII data to peel away.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)


Last edited by panzergator on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duplicate deleted.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redleg
E5


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Riverside, CA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was looking for similar information recently and I found that the British Army website was fairly helpful. If you scroll down through this list there are some items that have details about unit organizations. Others have info on specific weapons systems, and some have locations of units.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armyindex.php
_________________
"Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl".
-Unknown Artilleryman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen that one and found it very useful.

I am avoiding the downsizing practices of post-Cold War. No US combined arms battalions, no reduced-strength Brit tank squadrons. Squadrons are fully manned - 18 tanks fully operational. For Brit AIBs, I will add a 4th company mounted in Boxer.

At some point, I will start building armored brigade combat teams. I am going back to 5-tank platoons and 4-company pure battalions. Have to figure out how to get more infantry dismounts in a mech battalion.

All budgets currently severely constrained by college and transportation fleet costs, however. That hopefully will end within a year. Then it will just be taxes...😕
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CG2
E5


Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 199
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AT105 (Saxon) is long gone and Boxer is not yet in service. Check this blog out : if you don't know it, it's very good.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/
_________________
CG2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I know about AT 105. I am referring to a spectrum ranging from 70s to present. My collection focusses mostly on 70s and 80s.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GG2,

Thank you for a very interesting and informative article.

While I certainly understand the need to be budget-conscious, and a wheeled APC is better than none at all... I assert that armies depending on wheeled combat vehicles are courting disaster. Auxiliaries...fine, but not primary combat vehicles.

Vehicles like STRYKER and Boxer give legislatures an out, an escape from making hard decisions about defense spending. Armies can have more of them and transport them by air and stuff they would like to be able to do. But in heavy combat, these vehicles will fail their mission. Near-peer combat means a hard slog, and that requires percherons, not thoroughbreds. Don't put 'em in cavalry, either. I TRY to picture these things as being quick and responsive to maneuver, but they are FOUR WHEELS LONG, long and thin, and lightly armored. Can't turn, likely to roll over, limited cross-country... Can't get out of trouble. Yes, it will highball down the road, roads that will be holed, rubbled, covered in refugees and junk.
Yes, I am prejudiced. I'm almost 69 and not likely to change my mind.

And I am REALLY WEARY of having to go back and re-edit because some smart-a** phone thinks it knows what I really meant to write.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)


Last edited by panzergator on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CG2
E5


Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 199
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couldn't agree more, and Ajax is no substitute for a real tank either. Good for police actions but not for a heavy peer war. I guess it's a mixture of not really expecting to fight that kind of war in the near future coupled with budgetary pressures. Ajax is better than Scimitar, Boxer is better than Saxon but comparisons with Challenger and Warrior are a different story!

And please can we actually have some British Ultra-Modern Heavy Weapons that are actually still in service!
_________________
CG2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. There is no reason for Brit equipment not to keep up. And I would still like to see Conqueror in the table, too.

The problem with not expecting to see near-peer conflict is that is exactly what happens when you don't expect it. As the Romans used to say, "If you want peace, prepare for war.". The other useful little saying about Rome was " Their drills were bloodless battles and their battles bloody drills. " It just doesn't get any better. That was the U.S. going into Desert Storm! Can you hear me doing my Tim Allen? Argh! Argh! Argh! Argh! THAT is why I stick to J series TOE 4 companies per bn, cross attach by company, 8 pieces per battery! REAL ARMORED CAVALRY, AND THREE REGIMENTS, TA BOOT! OK! Ok! I'm settling down now. I'm settling down. Gone, now...all gone. Thrown away for that POS, STRYKER. Pretend CAVALRY!

I know GHQ has to spread it around a little, include other countries and such, but the Brits are STILL IN IT! Whereas Germany has all but withdrawn from the game. Even Britain talks about Challenger II as a legacy vehicle, but MY GOD! WHAT A SUPERB MACHINE! Given the U.S. doesn't keep divisions in the European continent any more, it ought to lease some of those Challengers in storage to form a couple brigades around. Get those problems with main gun ammo sorted out, though. I may build a US tank battalion of Challenger!

ORGH! ORGH! ORGH! ORGH!
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redleg
E5


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Riverside, CA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys are getting me all excited! I'm redoing my budget to see if I can fit some British stuff in now!

Question for PanzerGator and anyone else around during the Cold War: Did other countries participate in the REFORGER exercises, or was it just the US? I recently read that it started as a way to reassure the Europeans that the US was still committed after pulling 2 divisions out of Europe for Vietnam, but I was wondering if the Brits or Canadians or anyone else sent units over for the exercises.
_________________
"Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl".
-Unknown Artilleryman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
panzergator
E5


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Posts: 859

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brits, Germans, Dutch, Canadians, occasionally French, Italians, Belgians, Luxembourgers. Look up Operation Gyroscope, search for USAREUR field exercises. It started before somebody came up with the clever title. Like all of this stuff, it was an evolution, realizations, changing requirements, changing budgets.
_________________
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    GHQ Models Forums Forum Index -> Military Models General Forum All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Military Models  |  N-Scale Models  |  HO-Scale Models  |  Contact GHQ
About GHQ  |  GHQ Forums  |  GHQ Order Form

©Copyright 2004-2011 GHQ Models - All Rights Reserved
Website created and hosted by KDV Technology & Consulting