PC/WI: British Army structured like US Army, more helicopters & mechanised infantry?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yep..

I'd be curious in seeing a breakdown / comparison between US and UK holdings of vehicles at the divisional level. I figure the UK had armoured / mechanized forces in BAOR, (the U.S. also maintained light infranty formations.) I never had the impression that the relevant UK formations were signficantly under equipped vs their U.S. counter parts. Was there a vehicle class where a U.S. Armoured or Mech Division had a clear advantage over a similar UK formation ?

I do acknowledge that the U.S. maintained a large fleet of helicopters and maintained heli borne formations that I don't believe had UK equivalents.
The British Army current operates 331 Challenger 2 MBT. A further 70 are in long term storage.

The U.S. Army currently operates roughly 4,000 M1A1/A2. Around 3,000 M1 are in storage.

The USMC operates 400+ M1A1/A2 despite the vehicles less than ideal features for amphibious operations.

The TOE for Royal Armored Corps Brigade size formations calls for 54 MBT in three squadrons (18 vehicles per squadron). The U.S. Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) has 64 MBT in four companies (14 vehicles per Company). Probably the most significant difference between the U.S. and UK armored brigades is the organic artillery. The HBCT has two batteries of SP 155mm howitzers (9 tubes per battery) and two 120mm SP mortar carrier companies (7 vehicles per company) along with an organic combat engineer element (two companies) while the British Armored Corps brigade has no significant organic artilley or engineer capability (this is a scenario that extends to the UK "Strike" and "specialized infantry" brigade structures vs. the U.S. Stryker and Infantry BCT TOE). The HBCT/SBCT/IBCT are designed to be a "turn key" formations, while the British Army 2020 brigades are not.
 
The British Army current operates 331 Challenger 2 MBT. A further 70 are in long term storage.

The U.S. Army currently operates roughly 4,000 M1A1/A2. Around 3,000 M1 are in storage.

The USMC operates 400+ M1A1/A2 despite the vehicles less than ideal features for amphibious operations.

The TOE for Royal Armored Corps Brigade size formations calls for 54 MBT in three squadrons (18 vehicles per squadron). The U.S. Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) has 64 MBT in four companies (14 vehicles per Company). Probably the most significant difference between the U.S. and UK armored brigades is the organic artillery. The HBCT has two batteries of SP 155mm howitzers (9 tubes per battery) and two 120mm SP mortar carrier companies (7 vehicles per company) along with an organic combat engineer element (two companies) while the British Armored Corps brigade has no significant organic artilley or engineer capability (this is a scenario that extends to the UK "Strike" and "specialized infantry" brigade structures vs. the U.S. Stryker and Infantry BCT TOE). The HBCT/SBCT/IBCT are designed to be a "turn key" formations, while the British Army 2020 brigades are not.
Thanks Cal Bear I was thinking more about the Cold War era where I seem to recall the UK maintained at least one armoured division. Still good info.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks Cal Bear I was thinking more about the Cold War era where I seem to recall the UK maintained at least one armoured division. Still good info.
It is really hard to compare back during the recent unpleasantness, especially with an eye to the OP's question. The U.S. armored division of the era was a much larger formation the BAOR's equivalent, something tracked all the way back to WW II. BAOR divisional equivalents ran about 180 MBT, with the U.S. running about 240, but the U.S. division was also larger overall with considerably more personnel than the British (or German/French) formation.

The U.S. military also, during the height of the Cold War, went red rats about helicopters, to the point that the U.S. Army actually developed the Air Cavalry concept followed almost immediately by putting rotary wing operations in place for just about every formation in Vietnam except the heavy armored formations (ironically the British were the first to make a significant helicopter borne assault during the Suez Crisis, but it was seen as something of a "one-off" done by specially trained troops from one of the Commando formations). That was when the helicopter became as important (as common) to U.S. formations as boots and rifles. By Contrast the British Army didn't create an actual full time "air assault" formation until the 21st Century (well, 1999), when the British force structure had already shrunk to its current much reduced state.
 
Different force requirement means different force TOE. The U.S. Army is, with the exception of the USMC, the ONLY ground force on Earth that is expected to be operate anywhere in the world, at almost any time (even the Corps isn't as "heavy" as the Army due to its "kick in the door" mission).
To put things in perspective the US Marine Corps has more than twice the manpower of the British Army, more armoured vehicles and tanks than them, and IIRC more helicopters and jet aircraft both than the RAF. The only thing they're missing are the ships and that's because they're handled by the other part of the US Navy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
To put things in perspective the US Marine Corps has more than twice the manpower of the British Army, more armoured vehicles and tanks than them, and IIRC more helicopters and jet aircraft both than the RAF. The only thing they're missing are the ships and that's because they're handled by the other part of the US Navy.
Which really puts things into perspective since the the eyes of the Pentagon the Marines are a "light" force. As far as Marine Air Wings vs. the RAF/British Army

Marine air wings operate 38 F-35 (eventually slated to be 353 airframes) 144 F-18s, 108 AV-8 (290 strike fighters)

18 EA-6B

56 KC-130J tankers

105 AH-1W Super Cobras, 72 AH-1Z Vipers (i.e. the Super Duper Cobra) for a total of 177 attack helos

142 CH-53E, 138 UH-1Y, & 253 MV-22 (733 rotary wing transport).

There are also a number of misc. personnel transport/support aircraft, training aircraft, 83 stored F-18s, and the "VIP" aircraft of the President's Air wing

By comparison the RAF operates 140 strike fighters (125 Typhoons, 15 F-35, 30 Tornado GR.4), 14 A-330 tankers, 83 rotary wing, 7 AWACS, and a variety of support/training aircraft. The Brish Army operates 50 attack helos and a total of 88 rotary wing transports of various types.

So the USMC had roughly double the fixed wing strike aircraft, three times as many tankers, 3.5x the number of attack helos, roughly five times as many rotary transport as the entire British military

Number are all for "active" aircraft.

These numbers are one of the truly revealing statistics when one tries to compare the U.S. armed forces to any other. The UK is #5 in total defense spending and its entire defense establishment is smaller than the Corps (which isn't even an entirely independent branch).
 
The British military traditionally splits the funding roughly equally 3 ways. So if the army wants more air lift capacity it can only afford this by reducing another capacity like armour or infantry.
I'm just curious does the RN fund Trident out of their share or is that funded separately ?
 
Which really puts things into perspective since the the eyes of the Pentagon the Marines are a "light" force. As far as Marine Air Wings vs. the RAF/British Army

Marine air wings operate 38 F-35 (eventually slated to be 353 airframes) 144 F-18s, 108 AV-8 (290 strike fighters)

18 EA-6B

56 KC-130J tankers

105 AH-1W Super Cobras, 72 AH-1Z Vipers (i.e. the Super Duper Cobra) for a total of 177 attack helos

142 CH-53E, 138 UH-1Y, & 253 MV-22 (733 rotary wing transport).

There are also a number of misc. personnel transport/support aircraft, training aircraft, 83 stored F-18s, and the "VIP" aircraft of the President's Air wing

By comparison the RAF operates 140 strike fighters (125 Typhoons, 15 F-35, 30 Tornado GR.4), 14 A-330 tankers, 83 rotary wing, 7 AWACS, and a variety of support/training aircraft. The Brish Army operates 50 attack helos and a total of 88 rotary wing transports of various types.

So the USMC had roughly double the fixed wing strike aircraft, three times as many tankers, 3.5x the number of attack helos, roughly five times as many rotary transport as the entire British military

Number are all for "active" aircraft.

These numbers are one of the truly revealing statistics when one tries to compare the U.S. armed forces to any other. The UK is #5 in total defense spending and its entire defense establishment is smaller than the Corps (which isn't even an entirely independent branch).
Nice post thanks. It might be worth a reminder that the UK also maintains their own capability to maintain their own nuclear weapons (and presumably to design and produce new ones if needed) along with an SSBN force.

I suspect that isn't cheap :)
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
I'm just curious does the RN fund Trident out of their share or is that funded separately ?

The UK govt changed the way it was funded in the early 80's, just before the Falklands.

The running, hiring of the missiles and the building of the vessels comes out of the RN's budget.

That's why the RN had to remove retire some of their vessels to pay for it, that's even without the "John Nott's" axe!

There's a section on it in Sandy Woodward's book "100 Day's".

Regards filers.
 
Everything hinges on mission and is shaded by culture. The US Army wanted to get back its control over tactical air (CAS) but the USAF blocked everything fixed wing as far as it could so we get rotary wing. You need the same power struggle and outcome for British Army versus RAF. Even so we need a reason to have so many helicopters.

Falklands was the most recent big out of area (i.e. not NATO) use of British power, it was primarily a Navy show, the RMs conducting a "classic" landing and assault. We saw Parachute Battalions added to bulk out forces and SAS added so the Army was in it. The big debate was if RM Commando Brigade was enough and the thinkers began to want an Army Brigade added for more punch, more fighting power on the ground and to complete the occupation/clean-up. And all of this is really light forces, essentially just leg-mobile infantry. If anything the RN needed more helicopters to truly do an air assault, support logistics and move troops over the soft ground. And that Army brigade being heli-mobile would be really nice. But we are talking a Division equivalent, the RM and OOA Army Brigades, against the very real commitment to NATO and Germany. A one-off mission to the Mandarins. The budget was strained to keep BAOR up to snuff and the RMs held on to funding as it had a NATO mission in Norway, where does more helicopters add to these missions? Find that and you can entertain a more robust Army aviation emulating the US Army model.
 
The current replacement comes out of the total MOD budget. Think previous ones have come out of the general government budget though.
It did, but then they decided to try and be cheapskates by passing it on to the defence budget. My general view is that since it's a strategic asset that, hopefully, never gets used operationally if the government wants it then the cost should come out of the consolidated fund.
 
Top