Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mechanised Battlegroups

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pod
    replied
    Thanks for that guys.
    I'm sure it's probably been dealt with allready but i have to ask - Why are we playing this BG game then ?
    It would seem on this basis that who ever we end with in the BGs would be more annoyed with having to make a niche/token committment fit in and the tree huggrs back home would be crying bloody murder however few bodies were deployed. The boys and girls of the DF would seem to be on a hiding to nothing- though should i really be surprised?

    Leave a comment:


  • passerby
    replied
    Originally posted by Pod
    If the aim is to provide a mechanised battalion-plus sized unit then surely the DF will need a minimum of twice as many Mowags as they already have, pooled in a central location along with a comparable TOE in terms of combat support elements e.g a minmum of 6 Mortar units, along with dedicated AT, recce and engineer elements ? Not to mention providing the service support elemenets with the resources to keep up!

    Or have i got the wrong end of the stick on this battle group business- I'm assuming that the DF commitment would be a full(ish) BG to a lager formation?
    Wrong end of the stick completely, I'm afraid. There is no question of Ireland putting up a full BG or anything like it. Current max o/seas commitment is 850. Of this, main commitment at any one time will be to UN "blue helmet" operations, meaning that max available for BG contribution will be 2-300. However, as we will continue to require a resolution of the UN Security Council for deployment, BG partners will want to keep Irish contribution small because of the risk of the Irish not being able to take part in an operation. At a guess, I'd say we are unlikely to send anything more than a company, and more likely a platoon plus, or "niche" elements such as EOD/medical, i.e. pretty token participation. No problem finding transport for this many!

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Hi Pod,
    I think planners don't assume that you are moving absolutely everyone at the same time.There'll always be a proportion of the total back at base or sick or detached elsewhere,etc.I remember reading that the Germans in WWII, the true originators of the mechanised arm, worked on the basis of a physical seat for 80% of personnel, allowing for room for stores and kit and ammo,etc. I don't think one can plan to carry absolutely everyone until you're talking about a retreat!
    regards
    GttC

    Leave a comment:


  • Pod
    replied
    Originally posted by Victor
    But doesn't that assume you are moving everyone at the same time?
    Yes.
    Surely the ability to move the whole group together if would be the point of it all?:confused:

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry
    replied
    I believe he means training for the next overseas mission

    Leave a comment:


  • Docman
    replied
    Originally posted by Turkey
    otherwise once the BG goes on a deployment then all training at home stops.
    Isn't this already the case.... stripping the DF of equipment to keep overseas committments going.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turkey
    replied
    I think it would be safe to say that the DF would need anything up to 3 times the current amount of vehicles in order to be able to maintain this BG commitment, otherwise once the BG goes on a deployment then all training at home stops.
    That is unacceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry
    replied
    Sending a mechanised Battlegroup overseas when it does not even have the required amount of vehicles to do its job would not only be idiotic, and asking for trouble, it would be nothing short of shameful, and would make us look like a bunch of tinpot amateurs, not professional peacekeepers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    But doesn't that assume you are moving everyone at the same time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pod
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV
    A full BG is around 1500 personnel, the eventual DF comittment will be 130 - 800 troops.
    But if the comittment even approaches 800 there's still not going to be enough

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Pod
    Or have i got the wrong end of the stick on this battle group business- I'm assuming that the DF commitment would be a full(ish) BG to a lager formation?
    A full BG is around 1500 personnel, the eventual DF comittment will be 130 - 800 troops.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pod
    replied
    Thanks FM. It's never going to happen though is it/ Or will it take another mess in the Congo to move things along?

    Leave a comment:


  • FMolloy
    replied
    Originally posted by Pod
    If the aim is to provide a mechanised battalion-plus sized unit then surely the DF will need a minimum of twice as many Mowags as they already have, pooled in a central location along with a comparable TOE in terms of combat support elements e.g a minmum of 6 Mortar units, along with dedicated AT, recce and engineer elements ? Not to mention providing the service support elemenets with the resources to keep up!

    Or have i got the wrong end of the stick on this battle group business- I'm assuming that the DF commitment would be a full(ish) BG to a lager formation?
    You are correct, providing such a unit would require a lot more resources than are currently available. My comment was in the context of the widespread mechanisation of the Army.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pod
    started a topic Mechanised Battlegroups

    Mechanised Battlegroups

    Originally posted by FMolloy
    A battlegroup will be a battalion-plus force, the idea is to have one deployed overseas and another in training at home. That won't require widespread mechanisation, the Army will still be maintaining light infantry battalions. There's not a huge amount of difference between the two types of formation anyway.

    If the aim is to provide a mechanised battalion-plus sized unit then surely the DF will need a minimum of twice as many Mowags as they already have, pooled in a central location along with a comparable TOE in terms of combat support elements e.g a minmum of 6 Mortar units, along with dedicated AT, recce and engineer elements ? Not to mention providing the service support elemenets with the resources to keep up!

    Or have i got the wrong end of the stick on this battle group business- I'm assuming that the DF commitment would be a full(ish) BG to a lager formation?
    Last edited by Pod; 14 March 2006, 23:54.
Working...
X