Call Signs

[FletchRDG]

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?

Edited October 28, 2013 by FletchRDG

[Gibsonm]

If is a Regiment, then the CO is a LTCOL.

The "Regt Colonel" or "Colonel in Chief" can certainly be more senior (for some Regts its a HRH) but they don't deploy in a tank to the field.

The Regt 2IC will be a Major.

[FletchRDG]

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.

[Gibsonm]

No, the Regt 2IC is a Major - just happens to be the senior MAJ.

The CO is a LTCOL and has been for what 200+ years.

There is only one LTCOL per Regt.

QDG, CO = LTCOL

SCOTS DG, CO = LTCOL

RDG, CO = LTCOL

QRH, CO = LTCOL

1 RTR, CO = LTCOL

2 RTR, CO = LTCOL

...

As you say the CinC and Regt Colonel are cerimonial roles and they don't fight with the Regt.

Happy for RHQ to have two tanks (CO's and 2IC's).

[FletchRDG]

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.

[Gibsonm]

Yes they may have gone on to become COLs, etc.

But when they commanded the Regt I'm sure they were LTCOL.

If you look at my signature block you may notice that I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

But anyway no point in my continuing if you already have your own ideas.

Enjoy.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Gibsonm

[FletchRDG]

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.

[CR2_Commander]

Lt Col command Armoured regiment.

Army 2020 have reduced tank sqns to 3 with the 4th becoming a command and recce sqn. 4 troops of 4 tanks with 2 more in sqn hq giving 18 tanks per sqn. Plus the 2 tanks in RHQ. Type 56 Regt.

Regards

[FletchRDG]

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.

[Gibsonm]

OK so just for fun, when the Regiment was commanded by:

Lt Gen 24 times, Gen 20 times and Field Marshal 4 times at most.

What was the rank of the person commanding the Brigade that the Regiment served in?

Since those three ranks (three, four and five star to use US parlance) outrank a MAJGEN, the usual rank of a Divisional commander (two star), let alone a BRIG who usually commands a Brigade (one star)?

[CR2_Commander]

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.

Then you are correct in the fact 63 tanks will be sat around doing nothing or be cut up to make more tins.

[FletchRDG]

Then you are correct in the fact 63 tanks will be sat around doing nothing or be cut up to make more tins.

Then thats not a reduction of 40% if they are to be scrapped, its more like 60%.

[Hedgehog]

Then you are correct in the fact 63 tanks will be sat around doing nothing or be cut up to make more tins.

40 live in Canada.

[According to Wikipedia]

Fletch, it might help if you reference these claims?

[CR2_Commander]

Not quite 40 out there. There is also the lot down Lulworth. A few at ATDU and several at Bovington. But I was refering to the operational lot within the 3 RAC Regts. My bad

[FletchRDG]

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:

Then you are correct in the fact 63 tanks will be sat around doing nothing or be cut up to make more tins

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.

[CR2_Commander]

All very good in theory but where would we park them all. We don't have enough real estate for a full regt let alone an extra 21. Plus having the man power to fix and maintain them. We still have to find somewhere to shoe horn in another regiment yet. The rest of vehicles will sit idling away in whole fleet management up Ashchurch in CHE until required. They should have pressed up the remainder instead of binning them

[FletchRDG]

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.

[Tjay]

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.

Surely not. :shocked:

[FletchRDG]

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.

[Grenny]

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.

Well, isn't that cool. Instead of having loggies that received the "all arms combat training" and can at least protect themselves...you get contractors and have to allocate combat troops for their protection.

Just genius ;-)

[Hedgehog]

Well, isn't that cool. Instead of having loggies that received the "all arms combat training" and can at least protect themselves...you get contractors and have to allocate combat troops for their protection.

Just genius ;-)

Nope, that is what Allies are for.

Subcontracts of a different nature, dear boy.

Plus you don't actually pay allied forces.

And if the supply contractors are killed, eh, a pittance of a compensation to the families.

This will more than likely be paid once a decade, if ever.

Soldiers, you have to feed, clothe, maintain for years.

Politicians are like Kerbals, not as stupid as they look, are they?

[FletchRDG]

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.