Originally Posted by Sangreal

Sorry to piss on your fire alfred, but, the CLR has deployed to theatre on H14, as the CSLR, with more than 50% Army. It is augmented by 45 CS Sqn RLC, HET, Pnrs and a shit load of extra REMEs.

I fully acknowledge that CLR is not the only CSS unit in theatre. Especially as I said, it's a Div+ effort, with the biggest mixy-blob of units known to man-kind. More to the point, my brother is one of those REME types, I know full well what they are doing in theatre (well, in his PB at best!).

The pissing match over who forms what detracts from the wider issue - what are the future roles for the UK's land based forces, and how do we get the correct mix between light, mech, armoured, airborne and amphibious to ensure we can conduct as many tasks as possible.....

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

I fully acknowledge that CLR is not the only CSS unit in theatre. Especially as I said, it's a Div+ effort, with the biggest mixy-blob of units known to man-kind. More to the point, my brother is one of those REME types, I know full well what they are doing in theatre (well, in his PB at best!).

The pissing match over who forms what detracts from the wider issue - what are the future roles for the UK's land based forces, and how do we get the correct mix between light, mech, armoured, airborne and amphibious to ensure we can conduct as many tasks as possible.....

Agreed but I was only responding to your post stating:

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

r_f, your point is spoiled slightly by the fact 3 of those major units are part of the regular OrBat of 3X; Commando Logs Regiment is the organic CSS Regiment for 3X.

Originally Posted by Sangreal

Agreed but I was only responding to your post stating:

If we're getting in the quoting game, you didn't note the fact the CSS back fill is based around CLR ;)

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

If we're getting in the quoting game, you didn't note the fact the CSS back fill is based around CLR ;)

I refer the honorable gentleman to the 2010 3x/7x bun-fight....ie it could have all been about 2 LSR with CLR backfill. However the names are irrelevant, 3x would never have been able to meet the CS and CSS (and dare I say it the Cbt) bill without a wee bit of [green] help.

To add to the debate comparing numbers of personnel doesn't really help as the RN is not man power intensive but more platform/effects based.

Back to the original question - yes the Army does need to look at its role - any good organisation should always review and improve. I think the biggest issue for the Army is going to be balancing its people against the effects it needs to deliver. Within the Information Domain it needs less infantry more Networks and IX people. Questions like that could call in question the Regiment structure and how boots on the ground are trained/experience and deployed.

This is something we, the RN, are doing and it can lead to answers not everyone likes.

From work I have been doing on branch structures the biggest naysayers tend to be those outside the Navy who have very rose tinted glasses.

alfred.

I was respnding to Dai's 'God knows where we would be without 3x' - the Army would be able to cope without 3x on the plot at all.
The 9500 is politically not militarily driven, so the 10% is 'best effort' assertion by Dai is pump.
9500 is not Div+.
With the RM providing two major units (42 and 45) and 30 Cdo as the IX group, the Army contribution massively outweighs the RM.

I am not deriding the RM, merely pointing out that not having 3x on the HERRICK OCP would not affect the Army in a negative way. In fact, given what has been done to 7x to keep the Admiralty happy, the Army would be in a much better state if 7x were leading H14. Compare the 20x Fgen bill with the pain of getting Germany based units to train under a Plymouth based formation to see just how much harder 3x presence on the plot made things!

I have no issue with the need for an amphibious capability, but I do not think that 3x is vital to success on HERRICK. Please don't accusse me of running down RM, I have worked with them a lot and found them to be really good operators - if slightly fixed on issue kit.

I would have thought we have around 30% of manpower committed to Ops? Those 9500 deployed, those just returned and those about to go. Throw in all the other ods and sods (FI etc) and it adds up pretty quickly.

sc, I reckon you are broadly correct, but adding in a whole three commando units and a massive brigade HQ is not going to be decisive! As I said, 3x are essential to our (UK) amphibious aspirations, but let's not pretend they are essential to the UK sustaining 9500 on HERRICK.

In many ways the 7x/3x debacle showed just how much military output is damaged by inter service daftness - 3x now unavailable for anything cheeky in Middle East, 7x broken and unuseable for next three years. The correct decision would have seen 7x in the desert and 3x able to do some good in Yemen/ Libya/insert despotic hole here. All of these are next to the sea and thus right in the target set for amphibiosity...

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

sc, I reckon you are broadly correct, but adding in a whole three commando units and a massive brigade HQ is not going to be decisive! As I said, 3x are essential to our (UK) amphibious aspirations, but let's not pretend they are essential to the UK sustaining 9500 on HERRICK.

In many ways the 7x/3x debacle showed just how much military output is damaged by inter service daftness - 3x now unavailable for anything cheeky in Middle East, 7x broken and unuseable for next three years. The correct decision would have seen 7x in the desert and 3x able to do some good in Yemen/ Libya/insert despotic hole here. All of these are next to the sea and thus right in the target set for amphibiosity...

The correct solution to get around all this nonsense would have been to set up a permanent task force HQ, like in NI. The complete change around that happens every 6 months is the cprippling factor both to the task force and the rest of the services.

As to Generals finding a new role for the Army and comments regarding the static forces of BFG / BAOR, that was our role, we did not choose it, the threat was considered real enough that 75% manning of units was how it was done all the time. GW1 would not and could not have happened if the Warsaw Pact was still seen as a threat. All the post cold war operations are, it could be argued, a result of the disintergration of the the old balance.

No one has accurately predicted the future so the balancing of forces and equipment is crucial. But as ever the first stumbling block, as demontrated on this thread already, is inter regiment, inter arm and and inter service squabbling. Until we collectively grow up it is difficult to see how any lessons learned can be applied.

The army will revert to its old role of performing as a life support machine for people's social lives.