Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Armed forces will be cut by up to 50% after GE under Tories says Cable

Battlegroup/meu, call it what you will. Simply, it's putting all the relevant bits together, in barracks as on operations, and cutting out the unnecessary dead wood.
What operational benefit do we gain from garrison sergeants major, master drivers, garrison qm etc etc etc.
Looked at honestly, they're posts to provide jobs that are already done by someone else, or that provide a home for semi redundant personnel.

That suggested or at gets rid of an arty & engr hq sqn/bty for each inf bn group, gets rid of several support corps officers/sncos who are the more expensive ones in the overall costings, etc etc.

However, I suspect it will never happen if left to army heirarchy, but might work if imposed figorously by politicians.?
 
The idea has been discussed a zillion times on ARRSE. I was normally the only one defending the idea. Nice to see some others have seen the light too. :wink:

One other side benefit is that it does away with several supernumery LtCol in the operational Bde HQ who are left without a regiment to command. And that points you to the main reason why the concept is so disliked in some quarters. :wink:
 
Who said keep the same orbat?

The rifles and the merchants and to a lesser extent the RRS have led the way on this.

I wouldn't mind seeing infantry regiment cut further with additional companies added to those who survive.

That's saved the cost of a head shed or two.

What do you mean the Rifles and RRS have lead the way? Several regiments did the very same thing back in '68. All that got them was first place on the next round of cuts because, with 4 btns, the MoD could chop one, still have three, and not a cap badge lost!!!

The military (not just the Army) is structure for military effect; it is designed to provide a clear promotional path for career officers. It is of no coincidence that the rank structure for the soze of the force has several bloated levels as you go up the pole.
 
The idea has been discussed a zillion times on ARRSE. I was normally the only one defending the idea. Nice to see some others have seen the light too. :wink:

One other side benefit is that it does away with several supernumery LtCol in the operational Bde HQ who are left without a regiment to command. And that points you to the main reason why the concept is so disliked in some quarters. :wink:

Exactly. For the toms involved nothing changes. They still have section, platoon, company/equivalent ncos, a troop commander and OC they probably know reasonably well. They'd still have a CO who is someone best avoided if possible, irrespective of his cap badge. Bonus, they lose a lot of people who only cause them grief.

Solution then is not to cut willy nilly, but to have someone outside the system take an incisive look at the officer career path, decide which officers are actually necessary, then bin the rest.
 
Exactly. For the toms involved nothing changes. They still have section, platoon, company/equivalent ncos, a troop commander and OC they probably know reasonably well. They'd still have a CO who is someone best avoided if possible, irrespective of his cap badge. Bonus, they lose a lot of people who only cause them grief.

Solution then is not to cut willy nilly, but to have someone outside the system take an incisive look at the officer career path, decide which officers are actually necessary, then bin the rest.

Have you ever been in, or attached to, one of those wegiments where the CO (or the RSM) encourages the 'hangers-on' in HQ sqn/coy to find an excuse not to parade? And by hangers-on, he means those dressed differently who make his parade look all 'bohemian'.

:)
 
Have you ever been in, or attached to, one of those wegiments where the CO (or the RSM) encourages the 'hangers-on' in HQ sqn/coy to find an excuse not to parade? And by hangers-on, he means those dressed differently who make his parade look all 'bohemian'.

:)
Alternately, you might have , say, a Rifles major commanding an integrated all arms "regiment" including inf, arty, engr etc, all joined by, perhaps, the same colour beret/marching speed/whatever.

A kind of non para, non cdo, all arms group under a single commander.
Seems to work in many other countries.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
You could go farther and perhaps do as other armies, captain as coy command, major as battalion/equivalent command?
You could then make lt col/battlegroup command an appointment/acting paid rank, dispense with colonel altogether, and make the senior bod brigadier as and when necessary?

Look too at non infantry units. Do loggie regiments, for example, actually need an hq when they normally work as independent squadrons; that's a few co,adjt,rsm posts you can save on without affecting operational use.

Why not joint medical/provost/log etc units?

Merge all cavalry into RAC?

Etc.
Using that scenario, you are only getting rid of officers, and a few WOs so there is hee-haw chance of getting that through.

If, on the other hand, you can come up with a scheme which gets rids of large numbers of soldiers while maintaining, or even increasing, officer posts then your MBE will be in the next post.
 
I suspect that after the last few years of operations there may be several mps questioning the utility of so many headquarters, in comparison to "fighting" troops on the ground.
 
If, on the other hand, you can come up with a scheme which gets rids of large numbers of soldiers while maintaining, or even increasing, officer posts then your MBE will be in the next post.

Err - the scheme is called a Defence Review which we will get every 5 years. Stand-by for next year's....

Remember what I have said before, 'Army 2020' isn't a date - it is the manpower target the Treasury thinks they can afford
 

jim30

LE
"I have heard 62,000 bandied about from perfectly reputable sources"

Same here - I think no matter what the exam question is, the answer on an 'affordable army' is in the mid 60s, whether we like it or not. The only way round this is to look at reductions in pay and allowances.
 
"I have heard 62,000 bandied about from perfectly reputable sources"

Same here - I think no matter what the exam question is, the answer on an 'affordable army' is in the mid 60s, whether we like it or not. The only way round this is to look at reductions in pay and allowances.
Or both a reduced army and reductions in expenses while fighting hard to retain the funding to invest some of it in buying RN platforms and being able deploy both commando carriers.
 
Last edited:
Same here - I think no matter what the exam question is, the answer on an 'affordable army' is in the mid 60s, whether we like it or not. The only way round this is to look at reductions in pay and allowances.

Believe it or not, one of the justifications for a figure of 62,000 was 62,000 Regulars + 38,000 Reservists = 100,000 strong Army.
 
I have heard 62,000 bandied about from perfectly reputable sources.

"I have heard 62,000 bandied about from perfectly reputable sources"

Same here - I think no matter what the exam question is, the answer on an 'affordable army' is in the mid 60s, whether we like it or not. The only way round this is to look at reductions in pay and allowances.


Would that also allow for a modest uplift to the RN (and dare I say it Crab air)
 

New Posts

Top