Jump to content

FletchRDG

Members
  • Content Count

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FletchRDG

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 11/03/1987

Personal Information

  • Location
    England
  • Interests
    Computer Advertising, Graphic Design
  • Occupation
    Graphic Design
  1. Well the ideas were that contractors already supply NAAFFI and cookhouses with food, equipment and luxuries. They want to expand that into the supply of everything the Armed Forces need. Though Im not sure if contractors would ever be trusted by the MoD or the Armed Forces with the transit of munitions and arms. Civvies tend to let things go missing. They only want the RLC to provide logistics in wartime environments. So cost of fueling and maintaining the wagons is placed on private contractors and away from the RLC. The wagons used to transport nationally and internationally would be reduced because of that reason.
  2. Well its no surprise about Tories being tight-fisted and short-cutting tools but they have announced in the SDSR '10 that they want to reduce the RLC. See theres opportunity for private enterprise to capitalize at the expense of security for troops. They want to issue contracts when needed and create a market of competition for the private sector.
  3. The MoD should have planned and built larger facilities earlier. Or extended land. The 6,000 vehicles (according to the Guardian) that should have come straight over from West Germany are in East Germany in storage whilst they shut down the BFG garrison. DSG that runs Ashchurch is due to be sold off in 1014/15, to be in private contractors hands. From what I heard the aging CR2 hulls had seen better days, they were beginning to show signs of buckling and cracks. Instead of replacing them they decided to get rid and cannibalize what was left and bulk up spare parts, saving money on further procurement. But what is a hull when everything else is in working order. There were already D&M personnel that wouldn't further burden REME and their LAD Workshops. Or cost more on the taxpayer other then training new ranks but that comes hand-in-hand. Not that the MoD brought them in to finish what VDS couldn't to get the orders into service on time. It all boils down to inexperienced and tight-fisted bureaucrats, cutting corners and getting their friends into profitable positions. They also planned to reduce the RLC and use private contractors to do the Armies logistics. No security risk Im sure they've thought through very well.
  4. The SDSR '10 announced the MoD to was to reduce CR2 holdings by 2017 or 2020. The number was to be reduced by 40%. The MoD placed an order of 127 CR2s in '91. A further order was placed for 259 in '94. A total of 386 gunned tanks. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2 The British Army purchased a total of 386 (excluding training vehicles) Challenger 2’s, minus the destroyed Challenger 2, leaves 385, divided by 100, 1% equals 3.85 x 40 equals 154 Challenger 2 are to be scrapped. 385 – 154 equals a fleet of 231 Challenger 2’s to remain in service with the British Army. http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank/ CR2_Commander said: If they were to go, it would contravene what the SDSR '10 announced. Loosing another 63 tanks would make it a 60% reduction and not 40%. But if all tanks were evenly distributed within the remaining Armour Regiments, it would make each Regiment a type 77 not a type 56. Making sure all tanks are in constant working and battle ready order.
  5. Then thats not a reduction of 40% if they are to be scrapped, its more like 60%.
  6. Well Army 2020 sees 40% reduction of holdings of CR2s. Bringing the fleet from 387 "gunned" tanks down to 231. This saw 5 armoured regiments reduced to 3. 231 divided into 3 regiments is a type 77. Those with unsound hulls were to be "cannibalized" for spare parts, like the CR1 MkI and II prior to the first gulf war. 3 regiments at type 56 would mean theres 168 tanks being used and 63 doing nothing. Right now, yes its probably the case that they're commanded by a Lt Col. Its why I mentioned the defence cuts but on average, throughout its history it has been commanded more by a Col then by any other rank.
  7. Its not a case of having my own ideas. Im sure they were a Lt Col and given command of a regiment at some point in their career but when they were given command of this regiment most were not Lt Col. Hence going by average, not by the present CO. Starting in one Regiment and transferring to the next. The present CO is from the RSDGs. The 2ic can be a Major given the CO is a Lt Col, the 2ic can also be a Lt Col dependent on the rank of the CO. Im not saying your wrong but you aren't completely right either.
  8. This is a 328 year old Regiment, and has been commanded by the rank of Lt Col 14 times at least, Col 49 times, Lt Gen 24 times, Gen 20 times and Field Marshal 4 times at most. That is from conception upto the 80's. Each SHQ has a pair, there being 5 Sqns. Then 48 MBTs allocated to 4 Sqns with 3 Tp each. RHQ or C Sqn SHQ can't have the tanks or it makes the Regiment a type 60.
  9. Well Ive just been going by a specific Regiment, this would have the CinC as HRH PoW. There is a Colonel of the Regiment but they are often retired and the present one is a Brigadier. But if the Sqn Ldrs are Maj and 2ic are Capt, Tp Ldrs Junior Officers (2Lt/Lt), their 2ics being Tp Sgts. It makes sense that next in the chain of command would be higher then Maj. But at the moment the CO is a Lt Col. Though this could be temporary. The average rank for the Regiments CO is Col. Your right that the CO of a type 58 Regiment wouldn't have a pair of MBTs in RHQ but they would be if they were a type 44 Regiment. I think I got abit confused there, if they did it would make it a type 60 Regiment. Present parameters have changed in the UK due to Defence Cuts (and the government in all its "wisdom"). This can have an effect on the length the Lt Col stays that rank.
  10. FletchRDG

    Call Signs

    Sorry if this is topic has been brought up elsewhere (by John0) but this is not directly relevant to SB itself, just an associated area of interest. I'm looking for British callsigns, I know that BATCO is involved but I wont go into that. Im just interested in the markings on tanks for a type 58 armoured regiment (a now obsolete formula). this is what I have so far: 0A - Commanding Officer (but from what Im told, this is not marked on the tank and is just a radio callsign) (Senior officer - Colonel or above) OB - 2ic (Senior Officer - Lt. Colonel) OC - 2/2ic (Senior officer - Lt. Colonel) RHQ - Diamond (numbers ?) HQ Sqn - no shape (10 - 13? or 50 - 53?) A Sqn - Triangle (10 - 13) B Sqn - Square (20 - 23) C Sqn - Circle (30 - 33) D Sqn - Rectangle (40 - 43) A Sqn (Triangle) A Sqn HQ B10 - 0B - Sqn Ldr (Major) C10 - 0C - Sqn 2ic (Captain) 1st Tp 11 - Tp Ldr (Junior Officer) A11 - Tp Sgt B11 - Tp Cpl C11 - ? 2nd Tp 12 - Tp Ldr (Junior Officer) A12 - Tp Sgt B12 - Tp Cpl C12 - ? 3rd Tp 13 - Tp Ldr (Junior Officer) A13 - Tp Sgt B13 - Tp Cpl C13 - ? This is just a guess but would the "C's" be Tp Cpls and the "B's" are a 2nd Sgt to the Tp Sgt?
  11. its just an odd classification, a medium MBT? lol but anyway I think those are the most recent to use such terms. It'll eventually change, it maybe just government ministers/senators and developers/manufactures holding on to the terms or being wrongly advised by people who aren't really in-the-know or are using seriously outdated terminology and haven't kept up.
  12. well the CV90-105 and CV90-120(T) are considered to be light tanks: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/ This Rheinmetall Marder is dubbed a "medium MBT" on the tank itself but the description says light tank: http://www.desura.com/groups/tanks/images/marder-light-tank1 This is the Indonesian Defences OBRUM light tank project: http://indonesiadefense.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/new-light-tank-technology.html
  13. Well I know Ive got a heap of books to read still lol it sucks not being able to use the real thing. This game as well as the odd army demo will be the closest ill ever get to using these machines. I have 17 more osprey new vanguard books to read yet, centurion is in there somewhere. And all are written by scholars/authors, some who lecture at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and some are historians at the Bovington Tank Museum, also the home and host to the Royal Armoured Corps. So is it safe to say weight classes were designated during WW1 up until the 60s, then a mixture/turn to role classes upto the 80s and then from the 80s to the present weight classes completely phased out?
  14. The reason I ask really is because there are a few countries that still hang on to certain terms. Im guessing weights were completely dropped after the 80s considering tanks like the M41 Walker Bulldog, M551 Sherdan, the Stridsvagn 103 "S-Tank", the Norinco type 63 Amphibious Light Tank, the Steyr SK 105 light tank, TAM, FV101 Scorpion 90, AMX-10 PAC 90, Stingray and Close Combat vehicle light were still being designated but are still in service in some form or other. I know that the Centurion was originally dubbed a "universal tank", taking the best aspects of light, medium and heavy tanks. Then soon after was re-dubbed a main battle tank. Probably because the British Army upgraded the Mk1 Centurions with the 20pdr guns with the L7 105mm gun, making the Conqueror heavy tank obsolete and was phased out within 2 years of service. Making the centurion the main gunned tank in the army. The Warrior originally was called the MCV-80 or Mechanized Combat Vehicle but has been re-classed as an APC/IFV. There is no medium designation, I was just projecting WW1/WW2 weight classes as if they were relevant in the present tense. The Scimitar CVR(T) is not a tank, it is a recce vehicle but I was going with the weight class and what it probably would have been if we were to carry on using weight classes. But Hoggydog cleared up certain things for me. No need for a consensus due to the phasing out of weight classes in newer vehicles. General terms are being used more. Thank you Hoggydog for clearing things up for me. I have the tanks and armoured vehicles visual encyclopedia by Robert Jackson, only as a visual and timeline reference, the info is somewhat wanting and does look like its been taken straight from wikipedia but visually and Chronologically correct. I apologize if seems to be a stupid question. But In my defense Ive never served, I tried but was turned away so the only way I know about things like this are to ask those who do know.
  15. My dad (RIP) always said a Scimitar CVR(T) wasn't a tank lol my dad being in the RDGs at the time. I was corrected lol But as my FMP (Final Major Project) at university, Im writing an illustrated book of the fundamentals about tanks. Just things that are already in the public domain. Kind of like tanks for dummies type of thing. I want to illustrate general tank anatomy (no specific tank design), ammunition types and the physics behind it, history (based on British tanks due its birth place) and how its grown from the start to where it is at present and where it can go in the future. Im still finding new things and Ive been studying tanks since I was 14. The thing that always got me was the weight/role debacle. Reading history it just confused me a little because there are still light tanks not necessarily in the BA. For example the Thai Stingray light tank.
×
×
  • Create New...