Army 2020 Refine

Do you think the geographical ties mean more than the Regimental identity?
Both tied together
HOW?
How can they possibly be "tied together", when in most cases 15% don't even come from the same country?

When on deployment in most cases at least a quarter are not just not from the same country but don't even come come from the same supposed geographical recruiting area or wear the same cap badge?

When it doesn't make a blind bit of difference in those inf units where it doesn't apply, from SAS to RM to Paras to RAF Regt.

When you yourself said that "I can confirm if your from Fiji your as much a Tiger as a man from Kent".

You'rE contradicting yourself with every post you make - YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
 
:rolleyes:

John, really ?

@LD17, were you by any chance involved in the appallingly flawed "Save our Scottish Regiments" campaigns of the 80's and 90's which used exactly the same irrelevant statistics to support their campaign which, while it failed to achieve its aim (which was impossible under the circumstances as they didn't understand what they were talking about, and the regiments were so badly recruited they were beyond saving as separate entities) effectively so screwed Mike Jackson's plans to drag the Army out of the 19th and into the 21st century that they turned what had been a mess into a total shambles?
Well no...... first off “SOS Regts" was early 90’s, just after Options for Change was announced in July 1990. So no campaign in 80's John. Though I am interested in your take on its effectiveness/lack of and opinion on how it eventually hurt the Army by not grasping the nettle of amalgamation sooner. (See John I'm not that bad !)

I appreciate that you (and they) did a great deal of research, but it was all flawed as you (and they) didn't understand what you (and they) were talking about.
How so John ? I have no idea if the campaigners used the same sources I did (the books and Hansard). Tell us how the apparently official MOD figures given in Hansard answers was flawed and why. I'm not being difficult but I'm stating that my limited research was based on that, so where am I going wrong ? Would a FOI request be more in order (I have made dozens to MOD, who have been surprisingly helpful)

Your books are at best skewed by and at worst based on TA stats which have no bearing on Regular Army recruitment demographics and manning. In simple terms, the reason reservists joined the TA had no connection with why regulars joined the Regular Army. Different age, career, motivation, interests, etc.
So Antony Beevor is skewed ? And as I highlighted in my previous post those Hansard figures are for the REGULAR ARMY !

Your Hansard references are based on unit strengths, and have nothing to do with whether they were under (or over) strength but are equally reflections of their different ORBATS. As you can see from the "liabilities" for A2020, inf bns vary in planned strength from over 730 down to under 270, but they're still inf bns. Similarly back in the 80's and 90's. A bn then with an actual strength of, say, 660 could be over strength (for a '650' bn) or it could be over 10% under strength (for a '720' bn). Without knowing what the planned strength was you simply have no way of knowing and your stats are completely meaningless apart from to muddy the waters - which the "Save Our Scottish Regiments" campaigns did, totally screwing the regiments they were trying to save in the process.
Again John, if you look at the Hansard nowhere do they talk about "unit" strengths, its recruitment to the Div as a whole and includes Staff Officers (Colonels and above) who wouldn't be anywhere near a Bn !
My purpose was to show that indeed, according to those numbers, the Scottish Div, even with just trained Other Ranks numbers could say that it was the best recruited at the time. (they had the most bodies averaged to 7 Bns). Now if you are saying that those numbers are skewed because it doesn't figure in Bn roles, the ERE, etc. I agree with you.( again John, see I'm rational ;)) The true numbers would have to be based getting info on each of the 7 Bns

So now John I know you are in a mood and you were thrown off with some numbers from official sources that you will have to dispute because, well, its you .........I do expect a brisk several hundred word reply to this post with the obligatory breakdown of each sentence I wrote and how wrong and deluded I am by obviously false MOD figures but possibly at the end of it I may no longer be a dolt in the world of John G.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the geographical ties mean more than the Regimental identity?
He didn't when he wrote: "I did however stand day one week one as a Tiger" when it was all about "Regimental identity".

Less than 350 "Tigers" from R HAMPS had joined over 3,000 Queensmen from the QUEEN's (reg and TA) but they somehow all became "Tigers" from day one - and , to be fair, they did and it was a successful amalgamation despite the lack of much common regt'l history and any common ancestry or geographical ties, while the QUEEN's had been a very unhappy amalgamation throughout it's twenty-five years of being dsepite a lot of common regt'l history and the clear geographical tie of the Home Counties.

Why? Because it was equal misery for all as the four founder regular bns (3 x QUEEN's, 1 x R HAMPS) were split equally between the two resulting reg bns and no one who was ex- 1QUEEN'S had anything more (or less) in common with someone from R HAMPS than they did someone from the second or third bns, or any combination. They'd learnt their lesson from the mistakes of the Queen's Regt when they'd unofficially kept their old identities with the 4th (Middx) bn as the poor relation when they were disbanded.

Tigers simply had a better ring to it rather than Dragons so that was what was accepted.
 
So now John I know you are in a mood and you were thrown off with some numbers from official sources that you will have to dispute because well, its you .........I do expect a brisk several hundred word reply to this post with the obligatory breakdown of each sentence I wrote and how wrong and deluded I am by obviously false MOD figures but possibly at the end of it I may no longer be a dolt in the world of John G.
I'm not suggesting you're "a dolt" because you didn't realise that there were different sized bns and one size doesn't fit all, so making all your assumptions concerning manning and strengths incorrect, although now going into denial and the inevitable childish ad homs now tends to make you one in my book.

...and I'm not "thrown off" at all, nor am I disputing the numbers or claiming that the obviously correct MoD figures are "obviously false" - just that they're simply totally irrelevant as they don't show or support what you're claiming - namely that "Also even though there was an North Sea oil boom in the late 80’s, The Scottish Division was the best recruited in the Infantry", at least as far as the regulars were concerned. That isn't what they show and the figures you're linking to simply don't support the conclusion you've reached for the reasons I gave and which you now seem to agree with.
 
I'm not suggesting you're "a dolt" because you didn't realise that there were different sized bns and one size doesn't fit all, so making all your assumptions concerning manning and strengths incorrect, although now going into denial and the inevitable childish ad homs now tends to make you one in my book.
John, first of all I was being facetious, secondly, trust me, I realise that there are/were different manning strengths for say Light Role or Armoured Inf Bns (I have several years worth of Staff Officer's Handbooks). I made NO assumptions about that, only the simple statement that in the late 1980's/early 1990's that the Scottish Div (based on Beevor's book and the Hansard figures which I did a quick and dirty average based on 7 Bns plus they seem to have the best inflow vs outflow numbers) was the best recruited of the Divs of Inf. Never said it was excellent, the creme de la creme, etc. YOU inserted the "excellent" as if I stated that.

...and I'm not "thrown off" at all, nor am I disputing the numbers or claiming that the obviously correct MoD figures are "obviously false" - just that they're simply totally irrelevant as they don't show or support what you're claiming - namely that "Also even though there was an North Sea oil boom in the late 80’s, The Scottish Division was the best recruited in the Infantry", at least as far as the regulars were concerned. That isn't what they show and the figures you're linking to simply don't support the conclusion you've reached for the reasons I gave and which you now seem to agree with.
Yeah I think you were, because you stated "you made the claim, so maybe you could support it....." which I thought I did by linking the Hansard figures and giving you the books I read. Also I paraphrased from "Life of a Regiment" regarding the North Sea oil boom, my bad, in the future I will be more precise on Planet John.........
well I'm off, I'm banging my head against the wall at this point.

So with all due credit to greyfergie (John you seemed to hit all the main points today)...........
1521352790402.png
 
I'm sure we started somewhere about the arguments for moving away from a County Regimental system.

YORKS is the only one the remains a 'one-county' based Regiment, and even that is only if you squint and only really focus on the name.

Non-Infantry cap badges manage to recruit from all over the country and beyond without the need for a specific geographic tie, and even where there is one it has changed over time - see Highland Gunners becoming the Scottish Gunners as one example of a brand changing that's linked to geographic area.

Add in that amalgamations are likely to continue as cost-saving pressures increase - and that when new Bn's are created they aren't new named cap badges but new Bn's of others (eg 8 RIFLES), and that we've learnt over time some good and some bad ways to amalgamate (re-jig of personnel, whether to maintain old names as suffixes etc...).

The Regtl system and cap badges are important morale/family pieces - but I remain unconvinced that these have to be tied to specific County's.
 
Really - now the nit-picking if it makes you happy.
Well no...... first off “SOS Regts" was early 90’s, just after Options for Change was announced in July 1990. So no campaign in 80's John.
If you want to be pedantic it was a number of campaigns, from the Argylls in the 60's through to the lead up to Options in the late 80's and after it in the 90's, then in 2004 and again in 2012.
Though I am interested in your take on its effectiveness/lack of and opinion on how it eventually hurt the Army by not grasping the nettle of amalgamation sooner.
It wasn't effective in that it didn't save them as intended, namely as five separate entities, but instead made them one regt of four bns plus an incremantal coy with subtitles, giving them the worst of both worlds (rather like the QUEEN'S) rather than the best of both (like PWRR). Recruiting and retention is still bad, the economies of scale are limited, and crucially cross-posting is minimal by comparison so losing all the flexibility the RIFLES, PWRR, etc have.

They now have all the disadvantages of the old system with none of the benefits of the new - it's not a question of "grasping the nettle of amalgamation sooner" but grasping it warts and all rather than just paying lip-service to it without effectively grasping it at all.

How so John ? I have no idea if the campaigners used the same sources I did (the books and Hansard). Tell us how the apparently official MOD figures given in Hansard answers was flawed and why. I'm not being difficult but I'm stating that my limited research was based on that, so where am I going wrong ? Would a FOI request be more in order (I have made dozens to MOD, who have been surprisingly helpful)
I know perfectly well you're not Jeff Duncan, as not only was he ex-RAF but he also died last year, but your arguments on statistics are similar as he either didn't understand them either or, more probably, deliberately mis-quoted them out of context.

The figures aren't flawed at all, they simply don't support your conclusion that the regular bns of the Scots Div were the best recruited in the Army. That's simply your take, and it's wrong for the reasons I gave (which you apparently now realise).
So Antony Beevor is skewed ? And as I highlighted in my previous post those Hansard figures are for the REGULAR ARMY !
I've no idea if "Antony Beevor is skewed" as I only have your word for what he says (no link), but I'm not doubting you so if he was including TA which you seem to be saying he was then his figures are skewed to the point of irrelevance as far as the Regular Army goes. ... and it's not the Hansard figures that are skewed but the conclusion you've drawn from them, and I've explained why (twice). Without the other detail they're useless as far as supporting your conclusion goes.
Never said it was excellent, the creme de la creme, etc. YOU inserted the "excellent" as if I stated that.
Well, you said "The Scottish Division was the best recruited in the Infantry." If that doesn't make it "the creme de la creme" given that some regular units were fully recruited I'm not sure what does.
Yeah I think you were, because you stated "you made the claim, so maybe you could support it....." which I thought I did by linking the Hansard figures and giving you the books I read.
Well, in this case you thought wrong - neither supports your conclusion as you obviously don't understand what they're saying.

Again John, if you look at the Hansard nowhere do they talk about "unit" strengths, its recruitment to the Div as a whole and includes Staff Officers (Colonels and above) who wouldn't be anywhere near a Bn !
Again, your whole argument is based on stats that don't support your conclusion unless your assumption over numbers being equal is correct, and it's not. Again, I'm not suggesting that makes you "a dolt", just that you don't understand the terminology or the detail, and there's no reason why you should. "Staff Officers", for example aren't "Colonels and above"; the latter are on the General Staff but not necessarily Staff Officers, most of whom are Capts to Lt Cols (SO3s to SO1s). I'm sorry, but you're tripping yourself up with the terminology and missing the entire point.

So with all due credit to greyfergie (John you seemed to hit all the main points today)...........
If that's the best you can come up with you really are a dolt.

If you want to discuss why the County-based Regimental system has had its day and has no place in today's Army and needs to be replaced by a Role-based Regimental system instead I'm quite happy to do that, as well as why it needs to be part of A2020 but won't be. If, on the other hand, all you want to do is repeat other people's rather childish ad-homs to cover up your own stupidity I really can't be bothered.
 
Commentator,

Totally agree, but the I’m curious do we go with say India’s The Mechanized Infantry Regiment as an example where all of its Bns were originally Bns of other (traditional) Regiments or say the RRF becomes the AI Regt for the Army (with added Bns of course !) ?
 
Commentator,

Totally agree, but the I’m curious do we go with say India’s The Mechanized Infantry Regiment as an example where all of its Bns were originally Bns of other (traditional) Regiments or say the RRF becomes the AI Regt for the Army (with added Bns of course !) ?
That's more interesting, let's go to that conversation!

I think we keep the names we have at the moment that don't restrict role (apart from ones like PARA). Preferably we have each Inf Regiment with at least 3 Bn's. Once Armoured, one mechanised, one mobility. Maybe a 4th that's Light Role and also does any cap badge courses they want running as almost a Support Bn?

That way members of that cap badge can cross-post to get experience of all roles rather than being stuck in one for their career.
 
I'm sure we started somewhere about the arguments for moving away from a County Regimental system.

YORKS is the only one the remains a 'one-county' based Regiment, and even that is only if you squint and only really focus on the name......

The Regtl system and cap badges are important morale/family pieces - but I remain unconvinced that these have to be tied to specific County's.
@Commentator, I don't think anyone here is likely to convince you otherwise with a coherent argument other than 'John G's in favour of it so it must be wrong'.

There are some valid arguments for the geographical tie, mainly concerning families, but none concern operational and combat efficiency. None here seem capable of making those arguments, sadly.

On the other hand there are plenty of very valid arguments for tying the Regtl system and cap badges to role, not only in terms of operational and combat efficiency but also in terms of unit cohesion, maximising potential and ability and minimising waste, minimising disruption to families, and career progression. None here seem capable of countering those arguments, equally sadly.
Non-Infantry cap badges manage to recruit from all over the country and beyond without the need for a specific geographic tie,
Infantry units that have specific roles but no specific geographic tie manage it too, pretty successfully: SAS, SF, RM, Paras, RAF Regt, etc ... but, of course, it's far easier to pretend that doesn't happen.
I think we keep the names we have at the moment that don't restrict role (apart from ones like PARA).
You mean like Fusiliers, Grenadiers, Rangers, Light Infantry, etc, etc?????
Preferably we have each Inf Regiment with at least 3 Bn's.
WHY? Surely the minimum should be one to at least maintain a cadre of skills that can be built on, not an arbitrary three? The whole point of an Army for the 21st century / A2020 is that it should match the requirement / threat, not just be organised to provide jobs. As the requirement / threat changes so you change the number of bns in each regt to suit. It could hardly be much simpler.
Maybe a 4th that's Light Role and also does any cap badge courses they want running as almost a Support Bn?
You mean like Sch Inf?
 
Last edited:
You mean like Fusiliers, Grenadiers, Rangers, Light Infantry, etc, etc?????
Fair! I can't see the PARAs going Armoured any time soon though.

WHY? Surely the minimum should be one to at least maintain a cadre of skills thta can be built on, not an arbitrary three?The whole point of an Army for the 21st century / A2020 is that it should match the requirement / threat, not just be organised to provide jobs. As the requirement / threat changes so you change the number of bns in each regt to suit. It could hardly be much simpler.
Well I said 3 for the career cross-pollination of capabilities etc.. as I explained. But we don't know the requirement/threat (A whole other thread I feel). So we arguably need to maintain flexibility by having Bns of each role. Overall that probably would mean less cap badges than we have now, with all the 1 Bn cap badges that exist.

You mean like Sch Inf?
Fair, Just a potential need for it to be kept more organic to maintain skills without needing to go on courses etc..
 
Fair! I can't see the PARAs going Armoured any time soon though.
Agreed! What I suggested earlier were Parachute Regiment (airborne); Light Infantry (air portable); Fusiliers (mech); and Grenadiers (arm'd); add in some such as a Guards (ceremonial) and Rangers (BMATT / OMLT) and you've got the bases pretty much covered and kept Regimental identities and messes secure.
Well I said 3 for the career cross-pollination of capabilities etc.. as I explained. But we don't know the requirement/threat (A whole other thread I feel). So we arguably need to maintain flexibility by having Bns of each role. Overall that probably would mean less cap badges than we have now, with all the 1 Bn cap badges that exist.
It's not just about economies of scale, which are a bonus and in comparative terms not a vast amount, or even making some sense of the utter mess that is the british infantry organisation, but about making best use of talents and abilities, maximising potential and minimising wastage by horses for courses, etc.
Fair, Just a potential need for it to be kept more organic to maintain skills without needing to go on courses etc..
Sch Inf is one of the things the inf has right as a centre of excellence, and all bns have their organic trg wings, expanded as necessary for JNCO cadres, sniper courses, etc.

The one argument against it which I can see having some validity is that the "A List"ers would gravitate to the Paras and Light Infantry more physical side while the B List Second XI would go towards the less physically demanding armoured side, but personally I just see that as being horses for courses with one not being so much 'better' but different, rather as happens at the moment with the older and more "steady" gravitating to Support and HQ Coy roles. That aside, I've yet to see any valid and rational arguments against it anywhere.
 
Indeed. I could understand that 'A stream light' 'B stream mech' and others armoured, so if you had people moving between the capabilities that might be mitigated against. Once thing some Para Soldiers do say is frustrating is not being able to experience a non-light role as even they reckon if they deployed these days it may well have to be with vehicles to keep up with the Battelgroup/Division (with us unlikely to deploy them forward by Air).
 
The regimental system made sense when there was a depot in the county, there was a chance of being based locally, chance to put roots down locally, when you had no other choice than to join your local regiment.

I get the history and nostalgia and it is admirable but a fully manned, efficient, fully properly equipped modern combat force it doesn’t make
 
He didn't when he wrote: "I did however stand day one week one as a Tiger" when it was all about "Regimental identity".

Less than 350 "Tigers" from R HAMPS had joined over 3,000 Queensmen from the QUEEN's (reg and TA) but they somehow all became "Tigers" from day one - and , to be fair, they did and it was a successful amalgamation despite the lack of much common regt'l history and any common ancestry or geographical ties, while the QUEEN's had been a very unhappy amalgamation throughout it's twenty-five years of being dsepite a lot of common regt'l history and the clear geographical tie of the Home Counties.

Why? Because it was equal misery for all as the four founder regular bns (3 x QUEEN's, 1 x R HAMPS) were split equally between the two resulting reg bns and no one who was ex- 1QUEEN'S had anything more (or less) in common with someone from R HAMPS than they did someone from the second or third bns, or any combination. They'd learnt their lesson from the mistakes of the Queen's Regt when they'd unofficially kept their old identities with the 4th (Middx) bn as the poor relation when they were disbanded.

Tigers simply had a better ring to it rather than Dragons so that was what was accepted.
What is the point you are trying to make?
 
Most psychologists will tell you that the 100 man unit is where a soldier's loyalty lies because anything bigger is outside human 'group concept'. Thus the actual impact of "The regiment" is debatable. On the modern battlefield they are also too far away to have any impact on your direct combat experience.

Maybe we could abolish the modern regiments with their fake amalgamated histories, make the unit between company and brigade a 'battle group' formed of tank and infantry companies and make the company a soldier's home. Some companies might even have meaningful 'local' names.
 
@beardyProf

1st half yes reference the '100-person family'

But Regiments are a useful administration unit if nothing else, and if you had to transfer cap badge/name whenever you posted it would surely not be as effective as wearing one cap badge for all/most of your career whilst posting around that cap badge/Division?
 
HOW?
How can they possibly be "tied together", when in most cases 15% don't even come from the same country?

When on deployment in most cases at least a quarter are not just not from the same country but don't even come come from the same supposed geographical recruiting area or wear the same cap badge?

When it doesn't make a blind bit of difference in those inf units where it doesn't apply, from SAS to RM to Paras to RAF Regt.

When you yourself said that "I can confirm if your from Fiji your as much a Tiger as a man from Kent".

You'rE contradicting yourself with every post you make - YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
John G

How often did you deploy with PWRR? your a real expert on this matter. I clearly do not know who was with me on eight deployments with 1 PWRR, your right though some TA lads in Kosovo were from other places because they were PARA or SCOTS etc. but mostly we were all from PWRRs 5 counties, Foreign and Commenwealth 100% right John not born in kent, infact I had an African prince in one of my Platoons from Ghana.

It matters not where you are from if you are in the regiment of your choice, if your from London and are in the MERCIANs then your all part of the "stand firm strike hard". But belive it or not John most people in that Regiment are from there recruting ground.

There is a team coheasion that comes from the tribalism of the regiment your form as I said "the reason that a Yorks Rifles Para Mercian Fusilier will all stand sholder to shoulder in war and hate each other in peace, being diffrent is Ok."

Smashing the existing Regimental system is not needed, it is working there are problems Scotland and the Guards seem to be strugaling but that is SWAG I have no facts and figures, that said
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top