Cold War British Army- The Royal Artillery

[LouieD]

Good Morning Gents,

Work has taken a life of its own but I wanted to at least start this topic. @Darth Stalin asked about additional RA units on TTW on his Cold War RAC thread. Now I have not found any extensive files at Kew in regards, however I do have a few things......

1) BAOR was chronically short of artillery, 155mm and above. Farndale, Bagnall, and others wrote extensively about this in RUSI and "Haul Down" Reports constantly make mention of this.

2) Though Abbot and 105mm ROF Light Gun were bought in numbers, by the 1980's the 105mm round was not expected to have any serious affect on massed armour formations. Coincidentally 105mm ammo stocks were pretty healthy for the BAS/RARS and NATO methodologies. As we have discussed, not so much regarding 155mm ammo.

3) There was an "Future Indirect Fire Study"  completed in the late 1980's, the MOD has it. However my FOI request was denied because alot of the theories and systems (MLRS/AS90/M109) will be on active service in the Ukraine shortly and they did NOT want to give anything away. I just asked that it be saved and delivered to Kew after the current unpleasentness.

 

I have more but off to work. I will let you chew on an answer to a question I asked a former Lt Col Gunner:

 

"During the 80s we only ever manned 6 guns with the 7th and 8th guns by and large kept in storage in Ordnance Corps depots.  Although towards the end of the 80s the 7th and 8th guns were often brought out of storage to replace one of the in service guns that was inoperable.  The IRs amongst other trades also included extra limber drivers as well as ammunition numbers.

 

As far as I am aware there were no firm plans to form additional batteries or regiments to that which was already in the orbat.  The King’s Troop had a secondary role to State Ceremonial to provide FOOs and IRs.  I am pretty sure there was no plan to turn it into an operational gun battery."

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by LouieD
fix mis spell

[Stuart Galbraith]

When the Gulf War occurred, it will be remembered the MOD had to ask access to the NATO 203mm ammunition stockpile. They had previously asked the Belgians for some, and they were told to rock off, which you can imagine didnt go down particularly well. It does illustrate quite how empty the cupboard was when it came to some artillery systems.

Even development of artillery systems were sclerotic. I remember delving into the MOD meeting minutes from 1973, and found a reference to 'project foil'. Which was seemingly a long stalled rocket artillery system in which the army put great store (there was a document I couldnt access discussing whether the MOD should buy more Chieftains or more rocket artillery). Anyway, when they finally figured out they didnt have hte money to develop it, we went with the Europeans, which with the Americans on board became MLRS. So basically a system we identified in the early 70's didnt enter service till the late 1980's. Which I suppose is still pretty good timing, when you look how long it took to get ASRAAM and Brimstone into service.

Thanks for that Louie, always interesting.

[Perun]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:33 PM, LouieD said:

Good Morning Gents,

Work has taken a life of its own but I wanted to at least start this topic. @Darth Stalin asked about additional RA units on TTW on his Cold War RAC thread. Now I have not found any extensive files at Kew in regards, however I do have a few things......

1) BAOR was chronically short of artillery, 155mm and above. Farndale, Bagnall, and others wrote extensively about this in RUSI and "Haul Down" Reports constantly make mention of this.

2) Though Abbot and 105mm ROF Light Gun were bought in numbers, by the 1980's the 105mm round was not expected to have any serious affect on massed armour formations. Coincidentally 105mm ammo stocks were pretty healthy for the BAS/RARS and NATO methodologies. As we have discussed, not so much regarding 155mm ammo.

3) There was an "Future Indirect Fire Study"  completed in the late 1980's, the MOD has it. However my FOI request was denied because alot of the theories and systems (MLRS/AS90/M109) will be on active service in the Ukraine shortly and they did NOT want to give anything away. I just asked that it be saved and delivered to Kew after the current unpleasentness.

 

I have more but off to work. I will let you chew on an answer to a question I asked a former Lt Col Gunner:

 

"During the 80s we only ever manned 6 guns with the 7th and 8th guns by and large kept in storage in Ordnance Corps depots.  Although towards the end of the 80s the 7th and 8th guns were often brought out of storage to replace one of the in service guns that was inoperable.  The IRs amongst other trades also included extra limber drivers as well as ammunition numbers.

 

As far as I am aware there were no firm plans to form additional batteries or regiments to that which was already in the orbat.  The King’s Troop had a secondary role to State Ceremonial to provide FOOs and IRs.  I am pretty sure there was no plan to turn it into an operational gun battery."

 

Do you have links to those reports

[Perun]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:39 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

When the Gulf War occurred, it will be remembered the MOD had to ask access to the NATO 203mm ammunition stockpile. They had previously asked the Belgians for some, and they were told to rock off, which you can imagine didnt go down particularly well. It does illustrate quite how empty the cupboard was when it came to some artillery systems.

Even development of artillery systems were sclerotic. I remember delving into the MOD meeting minutes from 1973, and found a reference to 'project foil'. Which was seemingly a long stalled rocket artillery system in which the army put great store (there was a document I couldnt access discussing whether the MOD should buy more Chieftains or more rocket artillery). Anyway, when they finally figured out they didnt have hte money to develop it, we went with the Europeans, which with the Americans on board became MLRS. So basically a system we identified in the early 70's didnt enter service till the late 1980's. Which I suppose is still pretty good timing, when you look how long it took to get ASRAAM and Brimstone into service.

Thanks for that Louie, always interesting.

Does that means that UK didnt have any 203 mm shells

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh it probably had some for live fire exercises. But the bulk of them were expected to be taken out of the NATO stockpile, or so it would appear. Louie has posted up before the somewhat carefree attitude to maintaining ammunition stockpiles, so it shouldnt be that surprising I guess.

[LouieD]

On 3/21/2023 at 2:57 AM, Perun said:

Does that means that UK didnt have any 203 mm shells

I will post the numbers of all caliber artillery ammo in the 1989/90 time frame this evening.

[Perun]

Is there any news on this one 🙂

[LouieD]

Sorry, work and family......

1989/90

105mm HE = 665493 (NATO SPG = 1440000; BAS/RARS = 865995)

155mm HE & Bomblet = 265710  (NATO SPG = 675000; BAS/RARS = 504330)

No NATO SPG listed and no BAS/RARS listed (203mm)

175mm (all natures) = 30340 (BAS/RARS = 86400)

203mm (all natures) = 5193 

 

[Perun]

13 hours ago, LouieD said:

Sorry, work and family......

1989/90

105mm HE = 665493 (NATO SPG = 1440000; BAS/RARS = 865995)

155mm HE & Bomblet = 265710  (NATO SPG = 675000; BAS/RARS = 504330)

No NATO SPG listed and no BAS/RARS listed (203mm)

175mm (all natures) = 30340 (BAS/RARS = 86400)

203mm (all natures) = 5193 

 

Thanks mate

[LouieD]

@Perun as you can see, regarding the 203mm ammo, why the British had to raid the stocks of other Allies for the Gulf War. What is strange and it appears to be a MOD/British Army “thing”, the 1989 & 1990 Sustainment statements do NOT show any numbers for 175mm/203mm ammo. I had to pull that from an earlier document. I have found in my research that the MOD/British Army seems to “hide” things that it wants to despose of or that is out of service. I will give you two “for instances”

In the early 1980’s documents show over 200 SALADIN, by 1989/90 it only shows the 12 in Cyprus….. I have made FOI requests for disposal/sale documents but I have come up empty. It is hard to fathom that in 6 years 200 or so just disappeared….

 

Centurion…. I have some Old & Bold swear that they saw dozens upon dozens in Driclad in BAOR in the early 1980’s. I saw a CFE document once (which I cannot rediscover!!!) that said there were 570 in store in 1990. All the official documents I have received which get very detailed regarding WMR and Sustainment (see above) only account for 50. When I contacted the MOD years ago, I had some helpful employees that asked around. No one knew for sure and no one could confirm or deny but I was told they “wouldn’t be surprised” if 570 Cents were lying around various depots & ranges back then. Finally a Yves Debay book from 1990/91 also quotes the 500 Cent figure……

it’s a mystery that probably will never be solved unless I can get a hold of all the Centurion serial numbers and starte checking through the Merlin Archive.

 

 

[PCallahan]

I've seen that 570 number for Cents about before... I think IISS has it in the 1989 annual (though I've lost not one, but TWO copies of it in recent years)

[LouieD]

42 minutes ago, PCallahan said:

I've seen that 570 number for Cents about before... I think IISS has it in the 1989 annual (though I've lost not one, but TWO copies of it in recent years)

Pat, I believe I saw it there also….. I going to have to find my copy!!!

[Perun]

23 hours ago, LouieD said:

Sorry, work and family......

1989/90

105mm HE = 665493 (NATO SPG = 1440000; BAS/RARS = 865995)

155mm HE & Bomblet = 265710  (NATO SPG = 675000; BAS/RARS = 504330)

No NATO SPG listed and no BAS/RARS listed (203mm)

175mm (all natures) = 30340 (BAS/RARS = 86400)

203mm (all natures) = 5193 

 

What does NATO and BAS/RARS numbers mean

[LouieD]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

What does NATO and BAS/RARS numbers mean

NATO Stock Planning Guidance …. What NATO thought you needed for a 30 day war

UK Battlefield Attrition Study/ Review of Ammunition Rates and Scales…. What the UK thought you needed for 8 days of war at 100% strength and a further 2 days at 40 % strength

Each used a different methodology but I know the UK one was based on expenditures during the Yom Kippur War.

[Darth Stalin]

On 4/18/2023 at 7:18 AM, LouieD said:

NATO Stock Planning Guidance …. What NATO thought you needed for a 30 day war

UK Battlefield Attrition Study/ Review of Ammunition Rates and Scales…. What the UK thought you needed for 8 days of war at 100% strength and a further 2 days at 40 % strength

Each used a different methodology but I know the UK one was based on expenditures during the Yom Kippur War.

So it seems that ACTUAL British Army stockpiles of ammo would be for some 10-days war as per NATO thinking or about 3 days of war as per own UK thinking...

It's fascinating that in the "Never ready" book the author calls for report of UK exercise in early 80s which concluded that in Day 8 all of the UK ammo is expended and BAOR has nothing to shoot with so they call for nukes... 

[Stuart Galbraith]

As I've pointed to before, the minutes of a 1973 meeting announced they had ammunition for 6 days of ' high intensity warfare' and 'further economies may have to be made '. The economic situation Britain was in was that bad. Track miles in Baor were so bad, one commanding officer was paying for extra fuel from his own funds.

In the 1970s this made sense. The Americans were in bad shape, there was detente. Unfortunately  they kept the policy up all through the 1980s, without apparently  recognising war would come quicker than they could gear up for it.

As one ex soldier I told on ARRSE once said, 'the Government really does run the country like a car without insurance at times'.

[Intrepid_Hants]

On 4/18/2023 at 2:56 AM, LouieD said:

Pat, I believe I saw it there also….. I going to have to find my copy!!!

On 4/18/2023 at 2:13 AM, PCallahan said:

I've seen that 570 number for Cents about before... I think IISS has it in the 1989 annual (though I've lost not one, but TWO copies of it in recent years)

 Military Balance 1989/1990 gives MBT 1290. "Some" 420 Challenger, 870 Cheftain (400 in-store).  

[LouieD]

9 hours ago, Intrepid_Hants said:

 Military Balance 1989/1990 gives MBT 1290. "Some" 420 Challenger, 870 Cheftain (400 in-store).  

From the 1990/91 edition

 

[LouieD]

I can give you exact numbers tonight, but the same Document I pulled the number of artillery rounds show 107 CENT ARV and 36 CENT AVRE in stock in 1990

[LouieD]

1 October 1989

CHIEFTAIN

UE = 360 (6x Type 57 Regts plus 18 with the Berlin Armd Sqn)

ITO, RP, UR, Etc. =160 (60 of these are double earmarked as WMR)

WMR = 338

Total Stock = 858

WMR Liability NATO SPG = 130 

WMR Liability 8+2@40 = 256

WMR Liability 6+2@40 = 143

 

CHALLENGER 1

UE = 357 (4x Type 57 Regts plus 3x Type 43 Regts)

ITO, RP, UR, Etc. = 33 (14 of these are double earmarked as WMR)

WMR = 14

In Production = 35 (89/90) 8 (90/91)

Total Stock = 390

WMR Liability NATO SPG = 129

WMR Liability 8+2@40 = 239

WMR Liability 6+2@40 = 134

 

[LouieD]

On 4/26/2023 at 1:53 PM, Darth Stalin said:

So it seems that ACTUAL British Army stockpiles of ammo would be for some 10-days war as per NATO thinking or about 3 days of war as per own UK thinking...

It's fascinating that in the "Never ready" book the author calls for report of UK exercise in early 80s which concluded that in Day 8 all of the UK ammo is expended and BAOR has nothing to shoot with so they call for nukes... 

I don't know the exact methodology of the NATO SPG but it was to be for 30 days of combat. UK was based on 8 days of combat with everyone being at 100% strength each of those days (so it factored in losses and making good those losses) The last two days it was assumed that attrition would bring all formations to 40% of their authorized strength and there would be enough to sustain them at that strength for two days.......then there was nothing except sunshine.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was, if my memory isnt totally shot, only about 427 Challenger 1's built. I would imagine the remainder are probably driver training tanks.

[LouieD]

@Intrepid_Hants

@Stuart Galbraith

@PCallahan

Centurion numbers revisited 

Spoke with a former People’s Cavalry Officer. He said that…..
“I cannot state any numbers , but when I was in Barker Barracks Paderborn 1979-1986 there was a Dryclad compound which had some Cents in it, I always presumed they were OP tanks and never intended to be used as gun tanks by the RAC. However, the RAC did NOT continue any form of Cent gunnery training during my service, which would have been necessary had there been gun tanks kept in storage with that in mind.

Written Off and Struck Off Strength (SOS) are two different concepts. Written off usually means that and equipment has been damaged beyond repair (or lost) and the write off process is the official means of removing it from the account following a Board of Enquiry. SOS is a more routine phrase which simply means that the equipment is no longer to be 

ccounted for, and therefore spares cannot be demanded, lubricants used, fuel drawn etc.”

After some head scratching with the aforementioned ex-People’s Cavalry Officer and a check on the WMR/Equipment files I have from Kew, the 570 should be read as ALL MBTs in store (ie Chieftain). So Cents in limited numbers (the 50 105mm OP tanks plus AVRE & ARRV) were indeed in Dryclad in BAOR in the 1980’s along with Chieftains that we have mentioned before.

[PCallahan]

Excellent information, Louie, thanks for digging it out.

Pat

[Stuart Galbraith]

IIRC, Simon Dunstans 1980 Centurion book suggested that the OP tanks were taken out of service in 1979, and later converted to supliment the 165mm AVRE's in service. There was a story told to me by one poster here some 20 years ago that in 1990 they got American Silver bullets, which would have given them better post penetration capability than the Challenger. OTOH, Ive not found a convincing record that they deployed to the gulf in 1990, so that may be a myth.

I guess my point is, these were almost certainly to be asigned to the Royal Engineers. Probably waiting funds for the conversion.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith