Army 2020 Refine

Royal Yeomanry seem to have been omitted from the ORBAT - A Hansard Answer for Wednesday 14th March 2018


THE LOCATION AND LIABILITY OF BRITISH ARMY UNITS, BY CORPS
Unit
Current Liability
Location (Including Army Reserve Centres (ARC))
Household Cavalry Regiment
527​
Combermere Barracks, Windsor
Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment
341​
Hyde Park Barracks, London
1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards
403​
Robertson Barracks, Swanton Morley
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)
403​
Leuchars, Fife
The Royal Dragoon Guards
527​
Alma Barracks, Catterick Garrison
The Queen's Royal Hussars (The Queen's Own and Royal Irish)
586​
Athlone Barracks, Sennelager
The Royal Lancers
527​
Cambrai Lines, Catterick Garrison
The King's Royal Hussars
586​
Aliwal Barracks, Tidworth
The Light Dragoons
403​
Marne Barracks, Catterick
The Royal Tank Regiment
586​
Aliwal Barracks, Tidworth
The Royal Wessex Yeomanry
430​
Allenby Barracks ARC, Bovington
The Queen's Own Yeomanry
373​
Fenham Barracks ARC, Newcastle
The Scottish And North Irish Yeomanry
369​
Redford Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh

Royal Yeomanry were not included in the list
For the record the HANSARD Source is as follows


Hansard House of Commons Written Answers Wednesday 14th March 2018 page 14
plus [attachment 6 pages]
Army
Mr Kevan Jones: [131578]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the Order of Battle is by (a) manpower and (b) basing locations for the
(i) Infantry, (ii) Royal Artillery, (iii) Royal Corps of Signals, (iv) Army Medical Services, (v) Adjutant General's Corps, (vi) Royal Armoured Corps, (vii) Army Air Corps, (viii) Royal Engineers, (ix) Royal Logistics Corps, (x) Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and (xi) Intelligence Corps.

Mark Lancaster:

[Holding answer 12 March 2018]: A breakdown of Army units by corps, with details of their current liability and location, is provided in the attached table. The units are listed in corps order of precedence and the table includes both reserve and regular units, but excludes training regiments.
As part of the Army 2020 (Refine) work announced by the then Secretary of State for Defence on 15 December 2016, the Army is currently reshaping its structures. This means that some details will change as Army 2020 (Refine) continues to be developed and implemented.
Attachments:
1. Location and Liability of Army Units by Corps [20180309-PQ03479_Jones_Table_ArmySec.pdf]

For example Infantry as follows


Infantry
1st Battalion Grenadier Guards
560
Keogh Barracks, Aldershot
1st Battalion Coldstream Guards
560
Victoria Barracks, Windsor
1st Battalion Scots Guards
708
Mons Barracks, Aldershot
1st Battalion Irish Guards
559
Mons Barracks, Aldershot
1st Battalion Welsh Guards
580
Elizabeth Barracks, Pirbright
The Royal Scots Borderers 1st Bn R Regt of Scotland
267
Palace Bks, Holywood
The Royal Highland Fusiliers 2nd Bn R Regt of Scotland
628
Glencorse Bks, Penicuik
The Black Watch 3rd Bn R Regt of Scotland
628
Fort George Bks, Inverness
The Highlanders 4th Bn R Regt of Scot
707
Bourlon Barracks, Catterick Garrison
52nd Lowland 6th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
472
Walcheren Barracks ARC, Glasgow
51st Highland 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
472
Queens Barracks ARC, Perth
1st Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
726​
Barker Barracks, Paderborn
2nd Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
551​
Alexander Barracks, Dhekelia Garrison, Cyprus
3rd Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
472​
Canterbury ARC
4th Battalion The Princess Of Wales’s Royal Regiment
459​
Redhill ARC
1st Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
560​
Salamanca Barracks, Episkopi Garrison
2nd Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
560​
Weeton Barracks, Preston
4th Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
581​
Preston ARC
1st Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Fusiliers
732​
Mooltan Barracks, Tidworth
5th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Fusiliers
537​
Anzio House, Newcastle Upon Tyne
1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
560​
Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich
2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
589​
Kendrew Barracks, Cottesmore
3rd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
582​
Bury St Edmunds ARC
1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th, 33rd/76th of Foot)
728​
Battlesbury Barracks, Warminster
2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment
580​
Somme Barracks, Catterick Garrison
4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th And 33rd/76th Foot)
580​
Worsley Barracks, York
1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment
732​
Picton Barracks, Bulford
2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters And Foresters)
560​
Dale Barracks, Chester
4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment
427​
Wolverhampton ARC
1st Battalion The Royal Welsh
732​
Lucknow Barracks, Tidworth
3rd Battalion The Royal Welsh
404​
Maindy Barracks, Cardiff
1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (27th [Inniskilling], 83rd, 87th And The Ulster Defence Regiment)
628​
Clive Barracks, Tern Hill
2nd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (27th [Inniskilling], 83rd, 87th And The Ulster Defence Regiment)
537​
Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn
2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment
662​
Merville Barracks, Colchester
3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment
662​
Merville Barracks, Colchester
4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment
562​
Thornbury Barracks ARC, Pudsey
1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
567​
Sir John Moore Barracks, Shorncliffe
2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
640​
Tuker Lines, Brunei
The London Regiment
450​
St Johns Hill ARC, Battersea
1st Battalion The Rifles
628​
Beachley Barracks, Chepstow
2nd Battalion The Rifles
628​
Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn
3rd Battalion The Rifles
744​
Redford Infantry Barracks, Edinburgh
4th Battalion The Rifles
267​
Lille Barracks, Aldershot
5th Battalion The Rifles
732​
Ward Barracks, Bulford
6th Battalion The Rifles
472​
Wyvern Barracks, Exeter
7th Battalion The Rifles
425​
Reading ARC
8th Battalion The Rifles
449​
Eden Armoury, Bishop Auckland
Maybe I'm misreading it, but there seems to be some confusion between what was asked ("manpower") and the answer given ("liability").

The two are far from synonymous.
 
Throwing ideas about, home basing not super basing County regimental systems, re ballancing the infantry after its hacking over the past 29 years since USSRs collapse in 89, and putting people in a sustainable base i.e. Fusiliers not in Tidworth but in the NE, this scribble also allows for the genaration Gen Mike Jacksons Rangers, enabaling three tier 2 SF units of selected soldiers not the SIG concept. All done with the same amount of Battalions we currantly hold in ORBAT.

Regiment Bn / Role Location

1 Grenadier Guards LR Wellington barracks
1 Coldstream Guards LR Elizabeth barracks Pirbright
1 Scots Guards STRIKE Marne barracks Catterick Garrison
1 Irish Guards LR Hounslow barracks London
1 Welsh Guards WARRIOR 2 Mooltan barracks Tidworth

1 Royal Regiment of Scotland STRIKE Bourlon barraks Catterick Garrison
2 Royal Regiment of Scotland LR Dreghorn barracks Edinborough

1 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment WARRIOR 2 Barker barracks Paderborn
2 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment LR Browning barracks Aldershot

1 Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment LR Wheeton barracks Lancashire
2 Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment LR Fulwood barracks Lancashire

1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers STRIKE Somme barracks Catterick
2 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers LR Newcastle Upon Tyne

1 Royal Anglian Regiment LR Colchester
2 Royal Anglian Regiment LR Tern hill barracks

1 Yorkshire Regiment STRIKE Catterick
2 Yorkshire Regiment LR York

1 Mercian Regiment WARRIOR 2 Ward barracks Bulford Camp
2 Mercian Regiment LR Dale barracks Chester

1 Royal Welsh Regiment WARRIOR 2 Lucknow barracks Tidworth
2 Royal Welsh Regiment LR Maindy barracks Cardif

1 Royal Irish Regiment LR Hollywood barracks
2 Royal Irish Regiment LR Lisburn barracks

1 Parachute Regiment PARA Marville barracks Colchester
2 Parachute Regiment PARA Marville barracks Colchester

1 Royal Gurkha Rifles ABN Folkstone
2 Royal Gurkha Rifles LR Brunei

1 Rifles ABN Colchester
2 Rifles LR Winchester

1 Ranger Regiment SFSG St Athen Wales
2 Ranger Regiment CT RPB
3 Ranger Regiment Foreign Engagement Hereford

TOTAL
18 Regiments 32Bn

Foot guards
GG1Bn
CG1Bn
SG1Bn Strike
IG1Bn
WG1Bn Warrior 2
TOTAL 5Bn

Queens Division
PWRR 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
RRF 2Bn x1 Strike
R ANG 2Bn
TOTAL 6Bn

Kings Division
LANCS 2Bn
YORKS 2Bn x1 Strike
MERC 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
TOTAL 6Bn

Scottish Welsh and Irish Division
SCOTS 2Bn x1 Strike
R IRISH 2Bn
R WELSH 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
TOTAL 6Bn

Light Division
RIFLES 2Bn x1Abn
RGR 2Bn x1Abn
TOTAL 4Bn

SF/Abn division
PARA 2Bn
RANGER 3Bn
TOTAL 5Bn
 
Last edited:
Throwing ideas about, home basing not super basing County regimental systems, re ballancing the infantry after its hacking over the past 29 years since USSRs collapse in 89, and putting people in a sustainable base i.e. Fusiliers not in Tidworth but in the NE, this scribble also allows for the genaration Gen Mike Jacksons Rangers, enabaling three tier 2 SF units of selected soldiers not the SIG concept. All done with the same amount of Battalions we currantly hold in ORBAT.

Regiment Bn / Role Location

1 Grenadier Guards LR Wellington barracks
1 Coldstream Guards LR Elizabeth barracks Pirbright
1 Scots Guards STRIKE Marne barracks Catterick Garrison
1 Irish Guards LR Hounslow barracks London
1 Welsh Guards WARRIOR 2 Mooltan barracks Tidworth

1 Royal Regiment of Scotland STRIKE Bourlon barraks Catterick Garrison
2 Royal Regiment of Scotland LR Dreghorn barracks Edinborough

1 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment WARRIOR 2 Barker barracks Paderborn
2 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment LR Browning barracks Aldershot

1 Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment LR Wheeton barracks Lancashire
2 Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment LR Fulwood barracks Lancashire

1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers STRIKE Somme barracks Catterick
2 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers LR Newcastle Upon Tyne

1 Royal Anglian Regiment LR Colchester
2 Royal Anglian Regiment LR Tern hill barracks

1 Yorkshire Regiment STRIKE Catterick
2 Yorkshire Regiment LR York

1 Mercian Regiment WARRIOR 2 Ward barracks Bulford Camp
2 Mercian Regiment LR Dale barracks Chester

1 Royal Welsh Regiment WARRIOR 2 Lucknow barracks Tidworth
2 Royal Welsh Regiment LR Maindy barracks Cardif

1 Royal Irish Regiment LR Hollywood barracks
2 Royal Irish Regiment LR Lisburn barracks

1 Parachute Regiment PARA Marville barracks Colchester
2 Parachute Regiment PARA Marville barracks Colchester

1 Royal Gurkha Rifles ABN Folkstone
2 Royal Gurkha Rifles LR Brunei

1 Rifles ABN Colchester
2 Rifles LR Winchester

1 Ranger Regiment SFSG St Athen Wales
2 Ranger Regiment CT RPB
3 Ranger Regiment Foreign Engagement Hereford

TOTAL
18 Regiments 32Bn

Foot guards
GG1Bn
CG1Bn
SG1Bn Strike
IG1Bn
WG1Bn Warrior 2
TOTAL 5Bn

Queens Division
PWRR 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
RRF 2Bn x1 Strike
R ANG 2Bn
TOTAL 6Bn

Kings Division
LANCS 2Bn
YORKS 2Bn x1 Strike
MERC 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
TOTAL 6Bn

Scottish Welsh and Irish Division
SCOTS 2Bn x1 Strike
R IRISH 2Bn
R WELSH 2Bn x1 Warrior 2
TOTAL 6Bn

Light Division
RIFLES 2Bn x1Abn
RGR 2Bn x1Abn
TOTAL 4Bn

SF/Abn division
PARA 2Bn
RANGER 3Bn
TOTAL 5Bn
Or we could disband all the LR and other pointless battalions [and their pals the light cavalry] and get to the point where we could field say 8 Warrior battalions and 8 MBT regiments in a division which might actually be useful in a major war.
 
All done with the same amount of Battalions we currantly hold in ORBAT.
Which seems to be the only reason behind the ideas you're throwing about - preserving bns / units / cap badges without presenting any justification. The total reverse of any rational plan for the Army which is to decide first what you need to do then what you need to do that - rather than look at what you've got then try to find them a job, which is all you've done.
Throwing ideas about, home basing not super basing County regimental systems, re ballancing the infantry
How about first explaining why the infantry needs a 'County based regimental system' when there are no longer any single-county based regts or even bns and all the evidence of the last three decades shows beyond any possible doubt that such a system is totally unnecessary and adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to operational and combat efficiency?

... and when you've failed to do that how about explaining why a far more rational and productive system wouldn't be basing regts around role (airborne, light, armd, mech, etc) instead?

This scribble also allows for the genaration Gen Mike Jacksons Rangers, enabaling three tier 2 SF units of selected soldiers not the SIG concept.
Gen Mike Jackson never proposed such a system, at least as CGS - and any VSO doing so at a time when the Army already can't remotely recruit and man it's inf bns, of whom 20% aren't fully deployable at any given time, would have his sanity questioned pretty quickly.

In simple terms, where are these "selected soldiers" going to come from? Not the Paras, who are already providing around 50% of SF manpower, so already leaving themselves undermanned at critical levels, particularly apparently for officers ... and if you simply re-name the three Para bns as "Rangers" and tier 2 SF (which they're not and would never claim to be) then you're short of three Para bns including 1 Para in SFSG. ... and if not the Paras, where else as the inf certainly couldn't just find three tier-2 SF bns, which would be more than one in 10 of the infantry in all ranks.

... and, sorry, but I'm guessing by "the SIG concept" you're referring to what 2020 calls SIBn's (Specialist Inf Bns). These are essentially large BMATTs, not SF, and the role is totally different; in no possible way are the two interchangeable, nor do SF necessarily make for good BMATT / LS-type personnel or vice-versa - in many ways the reverse could be seen to be the case. It's bad enough giving much credibility to the idea of the inf being able to find over 500 suitable BMATT / LS-type personnel, particularly primarily from only two regts (SCOTS and Rifles), but the idea that you could somehow conjure up over 1,500 tier 2 SF out of the blue in a dwindling Army just beggars belief.
 
Or we could disband all the LR and other pointless battalions [and their pals the light cavalry] and get to the point where we could field say 8 Warrior battalions and 8 MBT regiments in a division which might actually be useful in a major war.
Hate to do it to you, @bP, but I've got to agree with you. The Army needs massively reducing to a point where it has the type of personnel and eqpt capable of doing something constructive and identifiable, and then it can start to build itself up again.

Lurching on, sticking band-aid on band-aid on a system and personnel that are fatally flawed achieves nothing and just compounds the downward spiral.

That may not be what A2020's intended to do, but as no-one dares to admit that there's a real problem and that it's been created by those running things for the last four decades at least it could be a start.
 
Yes three battalions of Rangers, not the old Irish Rangers though.
Ah I thought I missed an announcement

Which seems to be the only reason behind the ideas you're throwing about - preserving bns / units / cap badges without presenting any justification. The total reverse of any rational plan for the Army which is to decide first what you need to do then what you need to do that - rather than look at what you've got then try to find them a job, which is all you've done.
How about first explaining why the infantry needs a 'County based regimental system' when there are no longer any single-county based regts or even bns and all the evidence of the last three decades shows beyond any possible doubt that such a system is totally unnecessary and adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to operational and combat efficiency?

... and when you've failed to do that how about explaining why a far more rational and productive system wouldn't be basing regts around role (airborne, light, armd, mech, etc) instead?

Gen Mike Jackson never proposed such a system, at least as CGS - and any VSO doing so at a time when the Army already can't remotely recruit and man it's inf bns, of whom 20% aren't fully deployable at any given time, would have his sanity questioned pretty quickly.

In simple terms, where are these "selected soldiers" going to come from? Not the Paras, who are already providing around 50% of SF manpower, so already leaving themselves undermanned at critical levels, particularly apparently for officers ... and if you simply re-name the three Para bns as "Rangers" and tier 2 SF (which they're not and would never claim to be) then you're short of three Para bns including 1 Para in SFSG. ... and if not the Paras, where else as the inf certainly couldn't just find three tier-2 SF bns, which would be more than one in 10 of the infantry in all ranks.

... and, sorry, but I'm guessing by "the SIG concept" you're referring to what 2020 calls SIBn's (Specialist Inf Bns). These are essentially large BMATTs, not SF, and the role is totally different; in no possible way are the two interchangeable, nor do SF necessarily make for good BMATT / LS-type personnel or vice-versa - in many ways the reverse could be seen to be the case. It's bad enough giving much credibility to the idea of the inf being able to find over 500 suitable BMATT / LS-type personnel, particularly primarily from only two regts (SCOTS and Rifles), but the idea that you could somehow conjure up over 1,500 tier 2 SF out of the blue in a dwindling Army just beggars belief.
+10000000

The SIB concept is not the worst idea in the world in some aspects, it is projecting soft power (influence etc), hopefully meaning that the weaker armed forces of some less more unstable countries will be able to combat extremists etc more effectively without the need to deploy large numbers of Western troops.

It’s essentially an formed OMLT. But it’s really all it can do, it can’t really perform other tasks, it most definitely isn’t SF and can’t be compared with US Army Rangers.

Existing infantry were doing the job long before Afghanistan.

It stinks of cap badge retention
 
Which seems to be the only reason behind the ideas you're throwing about - preserving bns / units / cap badges without presenting any justification. The total reverse of any rational plan for the Army which is to decide first what you need to do then what you need to do that - rather than look at what you've got then try to find them a job, which is all you've done.
How about first explaining why the infantry needs a 'County based regimental system' when there are no longer any single-county based regts or even bns and all the evidence of the last three decades shows beyond any possible doubt that such a system is totally unnecessary and adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to operational and combat efficiency?

... and when you've failed to do that how about explaining why a far more rational and productive system wouldn't be basing regts around role (airborne, light, armd, mech, etc) instead?

Gen Mike Jackson never proposed such a system, at least as CGS - and any VSO doing so at a time when the Army already can't remotely recruit and man it's inf bns, of whom 20% aren't fully deployable at any given time, would have his sanity questioned pretty quickly.

In simple terms, where are these "selected soldiers" going to come from? Not the Paras, who are already providing around 50% of SF manpower, so already leaving themselves undermanned at critical levels, particularly apparently for officers ... and if you simply re-name the three Para bns as "Rangers" and tier 2 SF (which they're not and would never claim to be) then you're short of three Para bns including 1 Para in SFSG. ... and if not the Paras, where else as the inf certainly couldn't just find three tier-2 SF bns, which would be more than one in 10 of the infantry in all ranks.

... and, sorry, but I'm guessing by "the SIG concept" you're referring to what 2020 calls SIBn's (Specialist Inf Bns). These are essentially large BMATTs, not SF, and the role is totally different; in no possible way are the two interchangeable, nor do SF necessarily make for good BMATT / LS-type personnel or vice-versa - in many ways the reverse could be seen to be the case. It's bad enough giving much credibility to the idea of the inf being able to find over 500 suitable BMATT / LS-type personnel, particularly primarily from only two regts (SCOTS and Rifles), but the idea that you could somehow conjure up over 1,500 tier 2 SF out of the blue in a dwindling Army just beggars belief.
Wow you get really excited there.
Which seems to be the only reason behind the ideas you're throwing about - preserving bns / units / cap badges without presenting any justification. The total reverse of any rational plan for the Army which is to decide first what you need to do then what you need to do that - rather than look at what you've got then try to find them a job, which is all you've done.
How about first explaining why the infantry needs a 'County based regimental system' when there are no longer any single-county based regts or even bns and all the evidence of the last three decades shows beyond any possible doubt that such a system is totally unnecessary and adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to operational and combat efficiency?

... and when you've failed to do that how about explaining why a far more rational and productive system wouldn't be basing regts around role (airborne, light, armd, mech, etc) instead?

Gen Mike Jackson never proposed such a system, at least as CGS - and any VSO doing so at a time when the Army already can't remotely recruit and man it's inf bns, of whom 20% aren't fully deployable at any given time, would have his sanity questioned pretty quickly.

In simple terms, where are these "selected soldiers" going to come from? Not the Paras, who are already providing around 50% of SF manpower, so already leaving themselves undermanned at critical levels, particularly apparently for officers ... and if you simply re-name the three Para bns as "Rangers" and tier 2 SF (which they're not and would never claim to be) then you're short of three Para bns including 1 Para in SFSG. ... and if not the Paras, where else as the inf certainly couldn't just find three tier-2 SF bns, which would be more than one in 10 of the infantry in all ranks.

... and, sorry, but I'm guessing by "the SIG concept" you're referring to what 2020 calls SIBn's (Specialist Inf Bns). These are essentially large BMATTs, not SF, and the role is totally different; in no possible way are the two interchangeable, nor do SF necessarily make for good BMATT / LS-type personnel or vice-versa - in many ways the reverse could be seen to be the case. It's bad enough giving much credibility to the idea of the inf being able to find over 500 suitable BMATT / LS-type personnel, particularly primarily from only two regts (SCOTS and Rifles), but the idea that you could somehow conjure up over 1,500 tier 2 SF out of the blue in a dwindling Army just beggars belief.
John G what are you on about? "find people a job" because we want to kep cap badges very funny. But you are right we dont have a R Surry Regt etc but if you want to join the YORKS you might come from Yorkshire, I take it your in the Infantry to understand why having pride in your cap badge means nothing?

Can you tell me all about this three dacades of evidence that " beyond all resonable doubt" Britains Regimental system has no foundation, I must of mist that piece of work.

Gen Jackson absalutly did propose that 1 PARA would take on the role of SFSG, which in time would be the basis of a Ranger type Unit that selects its soldiers tri service for that specific task. As for where they would come from, I would suggest the other 29 Battalions, were not talking about SAS that has a very low ratio for those getting through.

SIG SIB lets see how long that one lasts.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads