Army Reserve Restructuring

[Kirkhill]

I agree with those saying we have enough capbadges.

I would point out that a Regiment was a group of companies, batteries, squadrons or troops. A battalion was a tactical grouping of some of the companies in the Regiment.

There is no reason why a regiment couldn't have 20 companies at various states of readiness while only being tasked to produce one five company battalion for tactical employment.

Likewise for the RRCA and the RCAC.

One regiment can have many batteries, squadrons and troops scattered across their district or province.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I'd find more useful training. Almost any adult already has the skills/experience to do some of these.

The main effort should be to train them in things they don't already know. Presuming anyone with a driver licence can already operate any mil vehicle that only requires driver wheel - maybe 2 min intro at most (this is where the weird key goes if thats even still a thing).

Reflecting back more than half a century to when I did Driver Wheeled as an already licensed driver, there was not much repetition of the basics I learned in operating a civilian car. Besides the DDC and Safe Backing, most of the time was spent on "military driving" - those important lessons (and developing habits that some of us still use) like first, halt and final parade, vehicle maintenance and most of the actual driving was in organized road movement or on tracks that challenged you in actually getting vehicles out of there. Two minutes? Not likely. The same could be said about a lot of the skills/experience that it is assumed any adult has - they may know something about it, but do they do it the same way as everybody else does it as a team.

 

[FJAG]

I agree with those saying we have enough capbadges.

That I'll agree with. Not with what follows.

I would point out that a Regiment was a group of companies, batteries, squadrons or troops. A battalion was a tactical grouping of some of the companies in the Regiment.

So far okay but not really relevant and I should point out there was a period when a grouping of three or four artillery batteries was called a brigade.

There is no reason why a regiment couldn't have 20 companies at various states of readiness while only being tasked to produce one five company battalion for tactical employment.

Here's where you lose me. In effect we already have that. Each of the three regular force infantry "regiments" have some fifteen companies (more if you count their reserve force affiliates like the Loyal Eddies, 4th RCR and 4th and 6th R22eR) but that's not what you are suggesting. Your suggestion is more like a bridge between regimentally managing the personnel and mess silver and also taking over the role of the training of the various elements which is currently the job of the CMBGs.

It's a bit like proposing we go back to three battalion (or more) regiments vice brigades or alternatively the regiments just churn out deployable entities which are then assigned to a task force of some type for operational employment. This doesn't make anything better and begs the questions of what role do the brigade headquarters have that form the task forces? They too need training. Do they just train themselves and then get assigned some selection of battalions formed by others? To an extent that too has been tried before with divisions that had brigade headquarters or combat commands which were assigned battalions by the division as required.

Other than grouping cap badges I see no real advantages - and I'm not even sure that this is an advantage. Personally I'm all for breaking up the regimental infantry power blocks and having the corps of infantry built entirely out of single tactical battalion - each with their own unique regimental title - and which battalions can be assigned and shuffled around between tactical brigades and divisions for training and operations as required

Likewise for the RRCA and the RCAC.

One regiment can have many batteries, squadrons and troops scattered across their district or province.

I know that you think that these mega regiments can easily spin off regimental (i.e. battalion-sized) headquarters but that just ain't so. It's not like Custer saying "Reno. you take your battalion that way. Benteen. You go that way. And I'll take everyone else and head up this way." The gunners are still working in reestablishing regiments and regimental headquarters and now artillery brigades and brigade headquarters after the great Afghan single-battery battle group debacle. We've literally got a generation of gunners relearning how to do cold war. My guess is the RCAC is in the same shape. Both their equipment holdings are founded on the concept of having just enough crap to generate a single operational sub-unit.

Anyone who thinks of artillery batteries and tank squadrons as Lego pieces doesn't have a solid handle of how you create and use artillery and armoured regiments. It's a systemic problem we need to overcome. We need to think in terms of force generating tactically deployable formations and not sub-units that get cobbled together into . . . something.

 

[Kirkhill]

That I'll agree with. Not with what follows.

So far okay but not really relevant and I should point out there was a period when a grouping of three or four artillery batteries was called a brigade.

Here's where you lose me. In effect we already have that. Each of the three regular force infantry "regiments" have some fifteen companies (more if you count their reserve force affiliates like the Loyal Eddies, 4th RCR and 4th and 6th R22eR) but that's not what you are suggesting. Your suggestion is more like a bridge between regimentally managing the personnel and mess silver and also taking over the role of the training of the various elements which is currently the job of the CMBGs.

It's a bit like proposing we go back to three battalion (or more) regiments vice brigades or alternatively the regiments just churn out deployable entities which are then assigned to a task force of some type for operational employment. This doesn't make anything better and begs the questions of what role do the brigade headquarters have that form the task forces? They too need training. Do they just train themselves and then get assigned some selection of battalions formed by others? To an extent that too has been tried before with divisions that had brigade headquarters or combat commands which were assigned battalions by the division as required.

Other than grouping cap badges I see no real advantages - and I'm not even sure that this is an advantage. Personally I'm all for breaking up the regimental infantry power blocks and having the corps of infantry built entirely out of single tactical battalion - each with their own unique regimental title - and which battalions can be assigned and shuffled around between tactical brigades and divisions for training and operations as required

I know that you think that these mega regiments can easily spin off regimental (i.e. battalion-sized) headquarters but that just ain't so. It's not like Custer saying "Reno. you take your battalion that way. Benteen. You go that way. And I'll take everyone else and head up this way." The gunners are still working in reestablishing regiments and regimental headquarters and now artillery brigades and brigade headquarters after the great Afghan single-battery battle group debacle. We've literally got a generation of gunners relearning how to do cold war. My guess is the RCAC is in the same shape. Both their equipment holdings are founded on the concept of having just enough crap to generate a single operational sub-unit.

Anyone who thinks of artillery batteries and tank squadrons as Lego pieces doesn't have a solid handle of how you create and use artillery and armoured regiments. It's a systemic problem we need to overcome. We need to think in terms of force generating tactically deployable formations and not sub-units that get cobbled together into . . . something.

You need to train lots of gunners. You need to be able to do that locally. You need to keep that training as simple as possible.

To me that suggests creating single function troops and or batteries locally and then training them to operate under central control.

Additionally, when we get into CUAS LAA there is going to be a need for local control in any event.

...

WRT the infantry, on the Reg front I don't see why there is a problem with the French system of reserve companies within their battalions and regiments, or sometimes even a single large Replacement company that administers all members not actively engaged, both regular and reserve.

On the reserve front I continue to argue for the local regiment as a means for raising people. I expect that, as in WW2 regiments will raise multiple battalions or independent companies for various and often unforeseen and unforeseeable duties.

If the army needs a new battalion then it tasks a regiment with providing 5 companies of "volunteers" that the army will train to meet their needs. Or perhaps it tasks 5 regiments with providing one company each.

The regiment is not about tactical employment. It is about managing people.

 

[FJAG]

You need to train lots of gunners. You need to be able to do that locally. You need to keep that training as simple as possible.

To me that suggests creating single function troops and or batteries locally and then training them to operate under central control.

Additionally, when we get into CUAS LAA there is going to be a need for local control in any event.

None of those scenarios need a training headquarters (Big "R" Regiment with many batteries) as opposed to a tactical headquarters (small "r" regiment which includes the tactical/operational C2 functions)

WRT the infantry, on the Reg front I don't see why there is a problem with the French system of reserve companies within their battalions and regiments, or sometimes even a single large Replacement company that administers all members not actively engaged, both regular and reserve.

We don't disagree - I go a step further and want hybrid tactical regiments. I don't think that organic to the unit replacements work that well as my guess is that it breaks down very quickly so that instead a feeding an A replacement to unit A, you end up with replacements being fed forward from Canada and held in a generic pool in theatre until needed.

On the reserve front I continue to argue for the local regiment as a means for raising people. I expect that, as in WW2 regiments will raise multiple battalions or independent companies for various and often unforeseen and unforeseeable duties.

So do I - I call them "Urban battalions" because I expect that's where the vast majority need to be to keep being up to strength. My urban battalions are all 30/70 RegF to ARes. The full-timers will - in time - be locals as well.

If the army needs a new battalion then it tasks a regiment with providing 5 companies of "volunteers" that the army will train to meet their needs. Or perhaps it tasks 5 regiments with providing one company each.

Here we disagree entirely. A new battalion is formed by assembling a core of people with experience - both RegF and ARes - and providing them with new recruits and time to build a battalion. You can form those early on to have them ready when needed. In my model a 500 man 30/70 battalion, it is designed to be split into a brigade headquarters and three battalions with an infusion of 1,300 recruits or 1,300 people fresh from a DP 1 battle school.

The regiment is not about tactical employment. It is about managing people.

You have the brigade for that which concurrently is a deployable tactical headquarters.

Look. I'm not saying your system can't work, I'm just saying we already have a school and unit and formation structure that works and can be scaled up if properly resourced (which it isn't at the moment). The system needs more resources and not a change in how we deal with "regiments." We have enough "regiments," RegF and ARes, in the army's active inventory to scale up to a fully manned and equipped army of around 100,000-110,000 folks. After that we may need to dip into the Supp Ord of Battle and to reactivate retired units. We have a lot of those in the inventory as well.

You could end up with something as wonky as the Italian army which started with "regiments" each with several "battalions" each with several companies. These were downsized to single battalions. Then the regimental colours and traditions were transferred to the surviving battalion which thereafter was called a "regiment" but only had the one battalion. I've tried to track it down but my strong suspicion is it was to keep a herd of Colonels on the payroll. In all cases when you trace these regiments, they are single battalion regiments with three or four companies in total. Beware the scourge of the hat badge.