tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post3896407535556662598..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: The Infantry of Army 2020Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-52814411845627910412013-05-03T19:11:52.752+02:002013-05-03T19:11:52.752+02:00I agree that the cap badges/regimental pride seems...I agree that the cap badges/regimental pride seems to be getting in the way of effective force strength. If King's and Queen's Divisions would amalgamate into super regiments like the Royal Regiment of Scotland did there could be fewer but larger and more effective battalions. This is done in many countries. Here in Canada, the entire regular army consists of 3 infantry regiments, each of 3 battalions.<br /><br />The super regiments could simply be The Queen's Regiment and The King's Regiment. Both were regiments in the past. If each division/super regiment cut back to 3 or 4 fully manned battalions (except the Household Division would maintain 5 battalions) this would be an easy fit for the multi-role brigades.<br /><br />5 Multi-Role Brigade each based on a super regiment + 1 battalion of Guards. Each brigade would have one battalion on overseas garrison duty or public duty in the UK. This would rotate amongst the battalions in the brigade. So at any one time all 5 brigades would have 3 battalions + 1 tasked away on garrison or public duty. <br /><br />ie. 1 SG is on public duty in London for 2 years. When it returns to the 52nd Scottish Brigade 3 SCOTS deploys to Cypress for 2 years. There remains continuity with the battalions returning to the same brigade after their tasking is over. Fewer but fully manned infantry battalions.<br /><br />M.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18217702330877744261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-11384509454453605442012-07-31T18:01:43.467+02:002012-07-31T18:01:43.467+02:00As I pointed out, there are challenges and the wor...As I pointed out, there are challenges and the work is not finished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-40878365044580268352012-07-31T17:47:42.029+02:002012-07-31T17:47:42.029+02:00Oh, i think you are simplifying things a lot, inst...Oh, i think you are simplifying things a lot, instead. There's a whole range of issues that go from basing and bringing the "paired" regular and reserve battalions in contact within very tight budgets, to ensuring they can train together, and do so effectively, to completing the passage of up to date equipment into the TA in the needed quantities, to countless others. <br /><br />Cutting the platoons from the Regular battalions will be quick and easy. Integrate the reserve so that they are effectively replaced is a whole different story.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-24018504742329903102012-07-31T17:33:14.139+02:002012-07-31T17:33:14.139+02:00There's no over simplification about it. You e...There's no over simplification about it. You either integrate the TA or don't. If you don't integrate TA infantry then disband them all. <br /><br />I imagine that once the units mesh and personalities get to know one another things will work tolerably. <br /><br />To be honest a regular influence in the TA might bring done sense to some of the shittier and poorly led TA units. <br /><br />And the work on the reserves is not finished yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-41399020468640681272012-07-31T17:18:45.432+02:002012-07-31T17:18:45.432+02:00I still think you are oversimplifying it, but i ad...I still think you are oversimplifying it, but i admire your optimism.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-4095643566742632122012-07-31T17:16:52.089+02:002012-07-31T17:16:52.089+02:00I'd bet my salary that 5 SCOTS only asked for ...I'd bet my salary that 5 SCOTS only asked for 54 soldiers to uplift them. <br /><br />Nobody is saying that change in TA role will not be challenging or need a culture change. But just because a low readiness battalion has to call up three platoons of infantry every 5 years or not isn't a major risk. <br /><br />The RF units will be at higher strength. <br /><br />And to be frank the reality is a lot of battalions are short that number of deployable infanteers anyway. And again, they'll deploy as battlegroups or task organised units. <br /><br />It is a sensible idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-79995893345515972042012-07-31T16:36:05.599+02:002012-07-31T16:36:05.599+02:00As far as i am aware, the Army has for years opera...As far as i am aware, the Army has for years operated in the assumption that the Battalion on 3 Companies would be reinforced with a TA company, so to achieve the notional ratio of force for Assault, Support, Reserve, Echelon. <br />I think this level of reinforcement was never achieved. I might be missing something, but i don't think there ever was such TA output in practice. <br /><br />I remember the MOD website recently celebrating the successful reinforcement of 5th SCOTS with the grand total of 54 reserve soldiers. Not even two full platoons. <br /><br />Now 14 and very possibly 20 Army battalions (it seems the 6 battalions on Foxhound will be in largely the same situation) are effectively losing each the strenght of a company (a Platoon from each Rifle Coy, and some rumors even say the Machine Gun platoon will be lost), a further generational change from battalions capable of<br />Assault, Support, Reserve. <br />The TA is supposed to fill this new gap.<br /><br />So effectively in future 14 to 20 regular battalions will have to get the equivalent of a Company from the TA or from other regular battalions in order to reach just their baseline structure on 3 maneuver coys, not to be reinforced for war. Just to achieve what is considered to be the minimum fighting force and structure. <br /><br />And they will need it routinely. For the TA that's a much, much increased demand for deployment. <br /><br />Will it work? I hope so. I wrote about this approach being a possible outcome of Army 2020 quite some time ago. And i was in favor of it as concept, believe it or not. <br />But to say that there is no impact, no risks, or that we should not worry, is frankly impossible. No one can honestly say there are not reasons for worrying. <br /><br />Of course we should be worried. And focused. Because there's about a thousand things that could work against the TA plan in the future. <br />Funding is tight, and not ensured. In future the TA might again become neclected. <br />Doubling the TA strength won't be easy. Retaining personnel, and maintain a Phase 2-trained strength of 30.000 is not going to be easy. The TA has been understrength in forever. Now we want to double its trained force. Awesome target, but is it even possible? At which costs? In which times?<br />Get employers to support a plan which can see their personnel away for a year in five is not going to be challenge-free either.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-57881997650528560062012-07-31T16:13:28.311+02:002012-07-31T16:13:28.311+02:00I come up as anonymous because this thing won'...I come up as anonymous because this thing won't make my post otherwise. Once I have worked it out I'll post as my name. <br /><br />You'll note that in all the years you have been writing this thing I have commented on three threads and none of them to do with kit. <br /><br />The TA can provide platoons. The regs might not like the idea but it makes sense. It does not carry as much risk as you state because it's not bring asked to provide sub units, just platoons. Which once the personalities start to get to know one another will work just fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-51113376951922830002012-07-31T15:57:47.417+02:002012-07-31T15:57:47.417+02:00You are always the same annoying anonymous, who is...You are always the same annoying anonymous, who is actually Phil from Think Defence, and make it a mission to annoy me and present your points as Truth generously given from the Skies above, aren't you? <br />Have you nothing better to do in life?Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-23715254440153966842012-07-31T15:54:22.751+02:002012-07-31T15:54:22.751+02:00Rubbish. The TA is bring asked for platoons. It ha...Rubbish. The TA is bring asked for platoons. It has been generating platoons for years now with no massive dramas. <br /><br />If you want a pool of units that can rotate through activities you need plenty of HQs. This is playing to both forces strengths. But I'm sure you know better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-18170158494838762332012-07-31T15:50:37.675+02:002012-07-31T15:50:37.675+02:00It makes so much sense that the suggestion of the ...It makes so much sense that the suggestion of the Army chiefs was to cut more a few more battalions instead, but this was not possible due to political pressure for the preservation of names and capbadges. <br />While it might make sense at first sight, it remains a far from optimal solution, and it increases risk. <br /><br />The ability of the TA to supply formed reinforcements formations is not exactly that good, to say the least, and there is no telling if the uplift planned has any real chance of success.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-4459373387233702052012-07-31T14:09:59.867+02:002012-07-31T14:09:59.867+02:00The AF battalions will be on graduated readiness i...The AF battalions will be on graduated readiness it makes complete sense to thin out units that will deploy at notice in order to keep HQ frameworks and then uplift using small TA groupings which the TA could produce now. Doom and tedious gloom. What do you expect all battalions to be poised to spring into action? There's no need.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-28869725239261940842012-07-31T11:38:10.521+02:002012-07-31T11:38:10.521+02:00Well, it seems i was right to be worried, and on t...Well, it seems i was right to be worried, and on track with the reasoning that the pairing of regular and TA Light Role battalios would (hopefully) answer to this issue. Of course, not "official", but the way they talk they seem to refer to quite accurate internal army briefings. <br /><br />Many thanks for the link, very interesting.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-71829084316278594722012-07-31T11:34:21.550+02:002012-07-31T11:34:21.550+02:00Hi Gaby. You may gfind this post on arrse intreres...Hi Gaby. You may gfind this post on arrse intreresting <br /><br />http://www.arrse.co.uk/infantry/184888-did-anyone-notice.html<br /><br />Basically it says that Light Inf battalions will only have 6 platoons (2 per company) with the remainder now coming from the TA. <br /><br />Obviously not officially confirmed, but the guys posting seem to think its correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-61526230024088304912012-07-30T23:32:19.092+02:002012-07-30T23:32:19.092+02:00Go search a "proper analysis" elsewhere,...Go search a "proper analysis" elsewhere, if you are not satisfied. And if you get better info, share. I'll gladly listen. <br /><br />Until then, i'll keep thinking that you are just trolling on purpose, sincerely. <br />The article is NOT just about "criticizing" the reduction, not it does present it as a done thing. It is made very clear that it is a figure coming from collation of the current information available. It is an hypothesis. <br />It is also made very clear that it might be connected to the plan for the employment of the reserve. <br /><br />You are trying to present "flaws" that frankly exist only in your imagination, and inflate them like hot air balloons.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-56983487249694076952012-07-30T23:20:04.577+02:002012-07-30T23:20:04.577+02:00Where did I say that? I didn't. You've mad...Where did I say that? I didn't. You've made that argument up to detract from your flawed analysis.<br /><br />I have said you haven't done a proper analysis as you have missed out the key aspect of British infantry battalions: to whit they don't fight as per peacetime organisation. <br /><br />Yet your entire article is about criticising the number of men in said battalions, the number of men that won't be deploying on operations because the unit will be task organised.<br /><br />You can't criticise where the supposed shortfall comes from, if any, as you have no idea how it is meant to work, your article is quite clear on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-35952481063428226942012-07-30T23:09:34.127+02:002012-07-30T23:09:34.127+02:00Oh, really?
You think cutting battalion strenght ...Oh, really? <br />You think cutting battalion strenght while effectively cutting back on all the rest as well has no impact on the capabilities and sizes of battlegroups that could be formed in future? <br /><br />Aren't you being more than a tad naive?Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-39793804869885186392012-07-30T23:07:52.975+02:002012-07-30T23:07:52.975+02:00You simply gave no hint it was in your considerati...You simply gave no hint it was in your consideration. You just criticised half the information.<br /><br />Battlegroups are completely fundamental to how combat arms work in the British Army. <br /><br />It is odd to moan about manning when the number of men in a battalion is NOT the number of men who will go on operations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-38092214028231545382012-07-30T23:04:14.279+02:002012-07-30T23:04:14.279+02:00You should be careful in assuming what a person ig...You should be careful in assuming what a person ignores or knows. <br />One day it'll put you in trouble if you assume too much. <br /><br />The formation of battlegroups is a thing. The optimal structure and strenght of an infantry battalion is another. <br />And an introductive post of a series is all but a sliver of the considerations to come.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-30734036298261667162012-07-30T22:09:35.513+02:002012-07-30T22:09:35.513+02:00Oh but it does interest me. I just think you'v...Oh but it does interest me. I just think you've missed the point. <br /><br />Like talking about the chassis of a car (infantry battalion) and criticising it for not being able to move whilst ignoring that it is never intended to move anywhere without wheels and an engine (atts and dets).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-84300515565720853942012-07-30T22:01:10.733+02:002012-07-30T22:01:10.733+02:00This does not mean that there isn't a general ...This does not mean that there isn't a general CONOP and associated structure for the battalion. While variations are common in the British Army (and Army 2020 might actually want to reduce the differences in favor of modularity, on US model), the structure of the infantry battalion is definitely something the Army fusses about. <br /><br />Apart from that, if it does not interest you, you can always avoid reading.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-26407548832742140092012-07-30T21:54:07.518+02:002012-07-30T21:54:07.518+02:00"You almost make it sound like they could jus..."You almost make it sound like they could just have a big pot of men put together in semi-casual formations."<br /><br />That is exactly what happens.<br /><br />You do know that battalion COs organise their battalions as they see fit right? It is their train set. Your diagram proves it incase you doubted me. <br /><br />You say yourself you don't know what is being cut in the battalions. Perhaps the echelons are being centralised in certain units and battalions will draw what they need?<br /><br />Perhaps the reserves will make up the shortfall on operations? <br /><br />Perhaps the Army has new definitions for unit establishments?<br /><br />You don't know, you say this yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-42983805257772696362012-07-30T21:50:06.836+02:002012-07-30T21:50:06.836+02:00I actually haven't even made my analysis yet, ...I actually haven't even made my analysis yet, this is an introduction piece. <br /><br />Also, the base of the Battlegroup will pretty much always be an infantry battalion. You can add artillery, ECM, EOD, Dogs, Engineers, armor support, but if you start cutting back on infantry platoons, coys, or on mortars and support weapons inside the Battalions, how are you going to provide them? <br /><br />You need a solid core to build upon. <br /><br />Otherwise why would armies even bother studying, trying and validating structures for their battalions? <br />You almost make it sound like they could just have a big pot of men put together in semi-casual formations.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-6463885750377815742012-07-30T21:45:16.639+02:002012-07-30T21:45:16.639+02:00But, all that matters is the outputs out on the gr...But, all that matters is the outputs out on the ground - and to achieve those effects the infantry unit will be operating as part or as the core of a battlegroup.<br /><br />Your analysis misses this out completely. Which is like missing out that a tank has armour, or a Warrior can carry infantry or a rifle fires bullets - you've missed the most important aspect out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-49105178652420178442012-07-30T21:41:24.836+02:002012-07-30T21:41:24.836+02:00Not a good reason to cut back savagely on their ow...Not a good reason to cut back savagely on their own structure and capability, or for half-assing their composition. <br /><br />The organization of the infantry battalion is important, and totally worth the "fuss".Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.com