- Reaction score
- 7,949
- Points
- 1,160
Bump - I decided to resurrect this topic, at risk of opening old wounds, because of this British Army related article:
More at link ...
My point for discussion is this: Is it conceivable that this "unfortunate" state of affairs can be salvaged in some way, or potentially used to advantage?
What happens if the Infantry Regiments (Battalions), and for that matter the Armoured Regiments, had some of the support tasks down-loaded on to them?
For example, while recognizing that some infantry battalions will disappear to generate manpower, what happens if the remaining battalions are beefed up by:
Adding more Pioneers (trained in RCE schools)
Adding more Mortars and perhaps a SAM elm as well as taking the FOO/FAC teams (trained at RCA schools)
Adding more Transport/EME/Log elms.
All of them would be "permanently" attached to the battalions and "badged" to the battalions but could revert to their trades if and when openings became available.
That would seem to meet the requirement to "reduce" the support while at the same time saving badges but would not only "maintain" the support (yes I am aware of the contradiction - but I am talking about the world of politicians where perception is reality) but actually create a more functional, deployable infantry battalion. The support branches, both combat and service, could then concentrate their reduced numbers on higher roles and larger formations.
Standing by :warstory:
Edit: Further to this I am intrigued to note that the "Heavy" equipment will not be disposed of but put on to the Reserve books to be maintained - presumably along with trying to maintain some of the skill sets. I have long felt that the Artillery is well suited for this type of organization, with the Reserves supplying Firing batteries of various calibers and types while the Regs handled the field coordination (FOO/FACS - FSCCs - ISTAR and such other appropriate acronyms as well as a limited number of "ready' batteries). I don't know how this will work for the Armoured types - Mr. Wallace and his mates have convinced me that maintaining and operating fighting vehicles is a lot more work than just jumping in and turning the keys like they came from Hertz (and just as infanteering is a lot more than just being able to fire a rifle).
Units including the Parachute Regiment, the SAS and the Household Cavalry are understood to be among those unaffected as the Government dramatically reduces the size of the Army.
However, it comes at a price, as the axe will fall on support units, leading to concerns that it will leave the Services “unbalanced”. When the Army was deployed to Helmand in 2006 only a third of the 3,150 troops were infantry — the rest were combat support troops and engineers.
Among those facing steep reductions in numbers are the Corps of Royal Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Artillery.
Military planners say the reductions were forced on them because of David Cameron’s promise that “no infantry cap badges should be lost” when the Army is cut from 100,000 troops to 82,000 by 2020.....
More at link ...
My point for discussion is this: Is it conceivable that this "unfortunate" state of affairs can be salvaged in some way, or potentially used to advantage?
What happens if the Infantry Regiments (Battalions), and for that matter the Armoured Regiments, had some of the support tasks down-loaded on to them?
For example, while recognizing that some infantry battalions will disappear to generate manpower, what happens if the remaining battalions are beefed up by:
Adding more Pioneers (trained in RCE schools)
Adding more Mortars and perhaps a SAM elm as well as taking the FOO/FAC teams (trained at RCA schools)
Adding more Transport/EME/Log elms.
All of them would be "permanently" attached to the battalions and "badged" to the battalions but could revert to their trades if and when openings became available.
That would seem to meet the requirement to "reduce" the support while at the same time saving badges but would not only "maintain" the support (yes I am aware of the contradiction - but I am talking about the world of politicians where perception is reality) but actually create a more functional, deployable infantry battalion. The support branches, both combat and service, could then concentrate their reduced numbers on higher roles and larger formations.
Standing by :warstory:
Edit: Further to this I am intrigued to note that the "Heavy" equipment will not be disposed of but put on to the Reserve books to be maintained - presumably along with trying to maintain some of the skill sets. I have long felt that the Artillery is well suited for this type of organization, with the Reserves supplying Firing batteries of various calibers and types while the Regs handled the field coordination (FOO/FACS - FSCCs - ISTAR and such other appropriate acronyms as well as a limited number of "ready' batteries). I don't know how this will work for the Armoured types - Mr. Wallace and his mates have convinced me that maintaining and operating fighting vehicles is a lot more work than just jumping in and turning the keys like they came from Hertz (and just as infanteering is a lot more than just being able to fire a rifle).