The basics don’t change of course wriggly tin revetment, driven pickets secured with windlassed steel wire, defensive wiring, sandbags, chainsaws and lots of earth, there is no need for any research and development programme from DSTL. Each technology should, therefore, be evaluated for its intended use, owning unit, likely location and training requirement. What might be suited to a light infantry unit may not be appropriate for an armoured infantry unit, and vice versa. The tools, techniques and technologies will change depending on this timeline, some will be applicable to a particular application and some will not. Field defences are constructed along a timeline, it may be a quick stop hasty defence as part of a wider manoeuvre operation or stop, or, a more substantial construction as part of a planned defensive position. These collective protection developments have contributed to reduced casualties from direct and indirect enemy fire but as the British Army moves to a ‘return to contingency’ stance, it strikes me that digging in, building field defences and making use of timber are essential skills. Force protection engineering has evolved to be mostly ‘above ground’, concrete blast walls, concrete culverts used as shelters, Hesco Bastion, Defencell and the Expeditionary Elevated Sangar for example.Īll these need substantial quantities of fill material and a not-insignificant amount of time. The past decade or more of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen the British Army largely operating from fixed locations against enemies with relatively limited indirect fire capabilities.
In the post-Afghanistan contemporary operating environment, we are likely to see the lost art of digging in, field defence building and using timber, rediscovered.