Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

He musta said some very nice things about it - fvcking price of it has gone through the roof!!

Over a tenner for a Kindle edition!

I shall have to call my broker, and take out a mortgage on a copy.​

PM me, cover the postage I'll lend you mine.

...some of the pages are stuck together though. The bits about live take on the Argentine command net... ooooh. Yeah.
 
1. The Government has not mandated Land to generate an Armoured Division as they are not doing that.
Pretty sure the most recent reorganisation was to meet the requirement to field an armoured division.

Now I could be mistaken and thats something the army has decided to do - but its my understanding that the government states what it wants the army to do and the army structures itself to do that


Edit

The 2015 Strategic Defence Review (SDSR 2015) sets out an ambitious plan to restructure the British Army. It is the latest in a series of recent reforms which began with the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and the controversial reductions in Regular Army numbers. At the heart of SDSR 2015 is the creation of a warfighting division, which will be constructed to meet the resurgent threat of conflict with a peer adversary. It will consist of 40,000 troops comprised of two Armoured Infantry brigades and a Strike Brigade, together with associated combat and combat service support elements, which can deploy at speed.

That to me is a government mandated requirement - rather than a cap badge and sacred cow preserving exercise.

Which brings me back to the point I made that Photex threw the usual wont deploy to Estonia in time - no point in army having tanks etc, Lacking this that and the other.

An Armoured (inf) Division appears to be the centre piece of what lands intended to do as such regardless of where cuts fall Tanks and AI wont be chopped.

As i said previously chopping about 20K from land by looking back to sdsr 2010 and structuring it around the 3 mech brigades and 2 infantry brigades proposed therin and moving most everything else to the AR - would meet the 1 shot division requirement and allow an enduring operation of 1x infantry brigade playing brushfire war and thus free up additional resources for the RN and RAF.

Now i daresay you and plenty of others will disagree with this and point out several glaring flaws - om pretty sure however that you wont read the above and tell me my ( non existent) demands to increase the size of the army are not only doomed but stupid


2. The Government does not dictate minutiae such as units and basing.
You mean apart from no more than x many battalions from each regiment cut, no more than 1 whatsoever from this part of the isles and then over ruling and changing things such which airbases will be closed , handed to the Army in light of public moaning etc

I agree with you on a running basis - but political interference is only to evident during reviews and cuts as votes outweigh military sense
We may have been better off as a nation in many ways if the forces were allowed free reign in 2010 rather than facing political restrictions

And lets not forget the closing of ship building in Portsmouth because the launch method was too expensive, so that investment could be made to enable another yard to use that exact same method

The problem the Army faces is it doesn't have a clue what it is for. When asked the responses will be along the lines of 'to fight all comers, at all levels anywhere in the world and to do this we need lots of money, lots and lots of money'.
As i said previously its undisputable the army screwed up chasing the next best thing and has been only to willing to chase government whimsy, but its also rather the case that its easier to change the armys course when the governments ideas change* unfortunately that leaves them vulnerable to said ever changing whims.

Its not for the army to decide what the Armies for - That is the governments job - The armys job is to meet that. If the army has no idea what its supposed to be doing then either
A) someone at the top didnt listen to the briefing
B) The governments constantly shifting goal posts and being vague - probably to avoid being nailed down on something and having to commit to funding it.

None of which is going to change the fact that some of Photexs claimed sacred cows may not be at the armys discretion and ditching them even if possible may not generate his fantasy returns.







*eg We would be looking at a Navy of 19 escorts and no carriers if they werent such big projects
 
Last edited:
A) someone at the top didnt listen to the briefing
B) The governments constantly shifting goal posts and being vague - probably to avoid being nailed down on something and having to commit to funding it.
Or the elephant in the room, the leadership of the Army are simply not up to the job,
 
Pretty sure the most recent reorganisation was to meet the requirement to field an armoured division.
It is impossible to do and anyway it was a whimsical fantasy of Nick Carter before the door hit him on the arse on the way to his next job. A bit of a "it's not my fault" moment. Anyway he was only trying to make it sound as If the Div was the Army's equal contribution to the Aircraft Carriers.
You mean apart from no more than x many battalions from each regiment cut, no more than 1 whatsoever from this part of the isles and then over ruling and changing things such which airbases will be closed , handed to the Army in light of public moaning etc
There may have been lobbying from all quarters, after all the Queen dictated there would be no cap badge loss in the Foot Guards, but the Army proposed the cuts to meet budget.
As i said previously its undisputable the army screwed up chasing the next best thing and has been only to willing to chase government whimsy, but its also rather the case that its easier to change the armys course when the governments ideas change* unfortunately that leaves them vulnerable to said ever changing whim
One day you will accept the current mess is almost entirely the fault of the Army and MoD
 

Chimp

ADC
Or the elephant in the room, the leadership of the Army are simply not up to the job,
The senior Armed Forces leadership has dodged every bullet by blaming politicians. They have introduced policies to appease politicians and when things go wrong play all outraged - eg Corbyn targets - when it is a clear lack of officer leadership throughout. A few senior sackings or resignations are required to shake the whole thing up.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The problem the Army faces is it doesn't have a clue what it is for. When asked the responses will be along the lines of 'to fight all comers, at all levels anywhere in the world and to do this we need lots of money, lots and lots of money'.
That's why the IR is starting with an assessment of what the government actually wants and what the army needs to look like to achieve it. The interesting work is going to be how that fits with what the army currently has and the money available to buy new kit.
 
There may have been lobbying from all quarters, after all the Queen dictated there would be no cap badge loss in the Foot Guards, but the Army proposed the cuts to meet budget.
Cameron was widely reported as dictatating the no more than 1 scottish and no more than 1 from each regt

Other posters are on record as saying the army wanted to cut more battalions rather than the AF mess.

Nobodys claiming the armies blameless (for starters it doesnt stamp on cap badge lobbying) - but equally somethings its held accountable for are not its decision.
 
That's why the IR is starting with an assessment of what the government actually wants and what the army needs to look like to achieve it. The interesting work is going to be how that fits with what the army currently has and the money available to buy new kit.
Identification of the aim? How novel :)
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Identification of the aim? How novel :)
It certainly makes a nice change to starting with the funding and working backwards.

That's probably what we'll do eventually, of course, but we can enjoy the fiction for the moment.
 
Pretty sure the most recent reorganisation was to meet the requirement to field an armoured division.

Now I could be mistaken and thats something the army has decided to do - but its my understanding that the government states what it wants the army to do and the army structures itself to do that


Edit

The 2015 Strategic Defence Review (SDSR 2015) sets out an ambitious plan to restructure the British Army. It is the latest in a series of recent reforms which began with the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and the controversial reductions in Regular Army numbers. At the heart of SDSR 2015 is the creation of a warfighting division, which will be constructed to meet the resurgent threat of conflict with a peer adversary. It will consist of 40,000 troops comprised of two Armoured Infantry brigades and a Strike Brigade, together with associated combat and combat service support elements, which can deploy at speed.

That to me is a government mandated requirement - rather than a cap badge and sacred cow preserving exercise.

Which brings me back to the point I made that Photex threw the usual wont deploy to Estonia in time - no point in army having tanks etc, Lacking this that and the other.

An Armoured (inf) Division appears to be the centre piece of what lands intended to do as such regardless of where cuts fall Tanks and AI wont be chopped.
Additionally, the 'heavy' requirement is part of the defence targets set by NATO as part of the NATO Defence Planning Process. NDPP targets must be agreed at the national political level by HOSG; it then comes to the respective services to use their creative accounting skills to 'make it so'.
 
Last edited:
Identification of the aim? How novel :)
I’m sure, in between missives about how to eat sandwiches, some bright young blade will be drawing up a plan about how a Strike Brigade composed of surplus to UOR stuff can deter Chinese aggression in the Spratley Islands.
 
top tip: that’s the reason the Army disposed of its horses at the end of WWI as a lessons learned. Half the arnys logistics effort was being devolved to feeding and caring for horses. They’re not like a lorry, you can’t just park them and leave them.
The fabled German Army had more horses than Panzers right up to 8th May 1945. The Sixth Army found that they were better to eat than lorries as well when you are running out of rations, including fodder for the horses.

When lorries ran out of fuel, the Landser could not eat them unlike Dobbin. They just became a useless hunk of frozen metal.
 
The fabled German Army had more horses than Panzers right up to 8th May 1945. The Sixth Army found that they were better to eat than lorries as well when you are running out of rations, including fodder for the horses.

When lorries ran out of fuel, the Landser could not eat them unlike Dobbin. They just became a useless hunk of frozen metal.
indeed, the Heer turned in 1.5 million horses in 1945.
the sight of the few German trucks and buses being towed into captivity by horses was rather touching.
Of course, if the Heer wasn’t reliant on Dobbin for 90% of it’s logistics, they might have had some hope of fighting off the Allied armies mounted on trucks that didn’t need to stop to eat and sleep for half the day.
 
Notwithstanding horses / mules are still used in limited numbers on operations by many nations
Indeed. I would imagine that the Indian Mountain Divisions on the Mountain borders with China and Pakistan have far more mules than helicopters supporting them. With the weather closing in on the Mountains, helicopters will often be grounded but the mule companies will often get through.

The German Gebirgsjager brigade still makes use of its mules.
 
Last edited:
indeed, the Heer turned in 1.5 million horses in 1945.
the sight of the few German trucks and buses being towed into captivity by horses was rather touching.
Of course, if the Heer wasn’t reliant on Dobbin for 90% of it’s logistics, they might have had some hope of fighting off the Allied armies mounted on trucks that didn’t need to stop to eat and sleep for half the day.
I doubt it. Once the Red Army captured the Romanian oilfields the German army had no more petrol. Hence Dobbin towing the trucks. Its why the last major German offensive in the war: Operation Spring Awakening was launched by Sixth SS Panzer Army in March 1945 using the last supplies of fuel, to try to recapture them rather than defending Berlin.
 
Do you have a link to that?
In there somewhere


Although it may have been the then defence minister rather than cameron

In there is also the rather strident objection that the very under recruited scots lost a battalion and another turned into a PD company whilst several well recruited English battalions were cut .

Interesting statement

No single enemy = broad range of tasks The range of threats and risks the UK faces, as outlined in the SDSR and the National Security Strategy, means there is no single clear enemy the Army can be structured against. As such, the emphasis is on an Army that is adaptable and flexible. The focus on armoured infantry corps and air-assault means the size of the Armoured Corps is being reduced from 11 to 9 un

Is it therefore really surprising the army is trying to cover all bases - UK Gov wants that - the army is perhaps at fault for not saying cant be done - not unless its a lot bigger
 
The fabled German Army had more horses than Panzers right up to 8th May 1945. The Sixth Army found that they were better to eat than lorries as well when you are running out of rations, including fodder for the horses.

When lorries ran out of fuel, the Landser could not eat them unlike Dobbin. They just became a useless hunk of frozen metal.
On the other hand - the pulling back of the dobbins to winter quarters to alleviate the need to get supplies forward - meant that 6th army lost its mobility right at the point it needed it. So not only were there less dobbins to eat - they had no choice but to stay put and do so
 
Top