Army 2020 Refine

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.
I’m assuming “manpower” being bodies on the ground and “liability” being total there should be?
 
Royal Yeomanry seem to have been omitted from the ORBAT - A Hansard Answer for Wednesday 14th March 2018

Royal Yeomanry were not included in the list
I wouldn’t worry too much. An entire Air Corps Regiment was missed off the A2020 plan when it got released.

Still very much alive and operating though.
 
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:
John G what are you on about? "find people a job" because we want to kep cap badges very funny.
Sadly there's nothing remotely "funny" about the outdated county based regimental system which was the driving factor behind the start of the Army's downhill spiral in the 80's.
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?
If from Yorkshire you might indeed join the YORKS; alternately you might join the Rifles who also recruit from South and West Yorks, or you may join the YORKS if you were from the North East of England or from anywhere in the Commonwealth (the YORKS were one of the units who reached the cap of 15% Commonwealth recruits).

Would that make those not born in Yorkshire any less part of the Regt they joined, any less likely to progress, etc, or likely to have any less pride in their unit?

I think not, but obviously if you know better I'm open to your thoughts.
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.
No idea what you've "mist", but you've certainly "mist" what I wrote which was very clearly: "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?" I've put the relevant bit in bold for you this time. In summary, as it's been discussed at length elsewhere so I prefer not to be accused of taking this thread off track, the mix in deployed inf bns over the last three decades has shown that you don't need to come from the local area (or even the local country) to 'fit in' to an inf bn and the rest of the Army gets by just fine without everyone having to have a common accent, and the last two decades, particularly on Herrick where inf were reinforced by all sorts of cap badges and backgrounds, showed beyond any doubt that what counted towards operational and combat efficiency wasn't a common accent or even a common cap badge but common PDT. The old and bold may not like that, but that's how it is, and the examples are so widespread that it can only be the rule, not the exception.
Gen Jackson absalutly did propose that 1 PARA would take on the role of SFSG, which in time be the basis of a Ranger type Unit that selects its soldiers tri service for that specific task.
Yes, 1 Para to be SFSG as (in his words) "a dedicated infantry battalion", but the rest is purely your imagination as there was no such plan and he's very specific about that in his biography (page 433 to be precise). Your version of events directly contradicts his and, whatever I may think of him, under these circumstances I think I'll take his view of what he planned and proposed over yours.
. 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.
You can suggest whatever you want, but if you imagine that "29 Battalions" which are currently under strength and 20% of whom aren't even deployable as infantry at all let alone as Tier 2 SF can somehow provide over 1,500 troops (so well over the best 10% of their deployable tps) who are capable of being Tier 2 SF, and consequently better than 1 Para, without leaving those bns decimated (literally) and completely incapable of doing their job as infantry then I have to say that @FourZeroC summed you up pretty accurately.

John G, again very funny.
The SABC for was for posting it without any reference following a post which quoted another poster so clearly wasn't replying to you and was very clear. If, however, you think that Brit inf bns were roled as OMLTs (so doing the job the SIBns are planned to do) prior to Herrick, and even more importantly doing it successfully, then please feel free to give examples.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top