Army 2020 Refine

What is the point you are trying to make?
I think @John G was making the point that you stood there as a member of the Regiment. Not as a group of people who grew up or live in the same area geographically.
Thank you - you took the words out of my mouth, with the addition that the whole acceptance / integration bit apparently took ONE DAY.

After the Queen's Regt amalgamations some were still wearing their old regt'l stable belts under HD sweaters over a decade later and resenting it, but with PWRR there were no "outsiders" so that never happened.
 
Last edited:
Thank you - you took the words out of my mouth, with the addition that the whole acceptance / integration bit took ONE DAY.

After the Queen's Regt amalgamations some were still wearing their old regt'l stable belts under HD sweaters over a decade later and resenting it, but with PWRR there were no "outsiders" so that never happened.
Maybe you did John? but like all I handed in my Queens Regiment beret and recived a PWRR Khaki berat back I never wore a QUEENS stable belt under my jumper or wore a QUEENS T shirt it was on part 1 orders not to do that, I belive thats whats called following orders.

Infact I went to London as part of Gallipoli Company for eight months, meeting for the first time soldiers from 1 and 2 QUEES and 1 R HAMPS, as now Pte not Qnsm, some of those people were friends until I left the new Regiment 22 years later one being a R HAMPS.
 
There is a team coheasion that comes from the tribalism of the regiment
I think that's what we've been saying....
Except he doesn't realise it ...
your a real expert on this matter.
I've never claimed to be, but I was privy to a lot of the debate prior to amalgamation and I served in enough different units to know that when deployed loyalty to my fellow soldiers I was with far outweighed loyalty to my cap badge, or theirs.

In my 29 years experiance they are in the main from the Regimental systems recruting area.
Except the 15% plus who aren't even from the same country. If it doesn't matter for them, then why does it matter so much for the rest?
It matters not where you are from if you are in the regiment of your choice,
So WHY are you still saying that it matters? ... and why does it apparently only matter for some but not others?

... and having formally interviewed a few hundred recruits and chatted to a similar number of soldiers under my command I can tell you that relatively few are in the unit / regiment of their initial choice, and that hasn't changed over the decades. Anecdotally, confirmed by many others, no more than a third of infantry recruits are in a regiment they chose - most are simply in what they were offered at the recruiting office. What matters is who they are with, as @bP has so accurately observed.

Maybe you did John?
It would have been difficult as I joined 2 QUEEN'S over a decade after amalgamation so I didn't have one to wear, although at that time despite a rearguard action from a very unpopular RHQ we were still very much '3rd, 50th and 97th'. If I'd continued to wear stable belts on changing units I'd have had half a dozen assorted buckles to strap and clip on under a sweater, so that wasn't really an option and my loyalty was to the soldiers I was with, not those I had never met.

Edit:
How often did you deploy with PWRR?
Sorry, missed that one. As I said, I never wore a PWRR cap badge as I was wearing others at and after amalgamation, so I thought that made it clear that I never served with PWRR.
 
Last edited:
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.
That indoctrination (and team cohesion is far from a bad think) do you think that anyone fight better because they have a glorious capbadge or they celebrate a certain day or because their grandfathers was in a certain regiment????

No team cohesion comes from working together and shared experience. The regiment is merely a team of teams.

In combat are they going to fight better because they all wear the same cap badge?

They are going to fight better because they are used to working together, because they want their buddy to survive and they want to survive.

that will happen no matter if there is a section with guys from Ireland, Fiji, London, Devon, Glasgow and Wales together or if they all come from Newcastle.

If the British Army cared more about the equipment and total manning they have and less about cap badges it would be in a much better place.
 
Except he doesn't realise it ...
I've never claimed to be, but I was privy to a lot of the debate prior to amalgamation and I served in enough different units to know that when deployed loyalty to my fellow soldiers I was with far outweighed loyalty to my cap badge, or theirs.

Except the 15% plus who aren't even from the same country. If it doesn't matter for them, then why does it matter so much for the rest?
So WHY are you still saying that it matters? ... and why does it apparently only matter for some but not others?

... and having formally interviewed a few hundred recruits and chatted to a similar number of soldiers under my command I can tell you that relatively few are in the unit / regiment of their initial choice, and that hasn't changed over the decades. Anecdotally, confirmed by many others, no more than a third of infantry recruits are in a regiment they chose - most are simply in what they were offered at the recruiting office. What matters is who they are with, as @bP has so accurately observed.

It would have been difficult as I joined 2 QUEEN'S over a decade after amalgamation so I didn't have one to wear, although at that time despite a rearguard action from a very unpopular RHQ we were still very much '3rd, 50th and 97th'. If I'd continued to wear stable belts on changing units I'd have had half a dozen assorted buckles to strap and clip on under a sweater, so that wasn't really an option and my loyalty was to the soldiers I was with, not those I had never met.

Edit:
Sorry, missed that one. As I said, I never wore a PWRR cap badge as I was wearing others at and after amalgamation, so I thought that made it clear that I never served with PWRR.
Yes very clear your not a Tiger John.
 
Yes very clear your not a Tiger John.
... and very clear you post with the consistency and rationality of a mad woman's period.

Edit: and in case you don't get my point, I'm tired of asking how you can repeatedly say it doesn't matter where they come from and just as repeatedly say how where they come from is what matters. Do you seriously not see the contradiction?
 
Last edited:
In combat are they going to fight better because they all wear the same cap badge?
100% agree I've worked in sections where out of 8 guys there was 4 capbadges, including a reservist. Cracked straight on, and always pushed to being the best section in the Plt.

After 7 weeks had a company sports days and everyone grafted and supported their own Plts including me who wasn't even from the same corps.

Capbadges pay a small part to a young soldier, there job is that ingrained they can easily fit into any team from section upwards.
 
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.
From my (limited) experiences, by far the biggest barrier to current infantry recruiting is the way that the Infantry currently recruit, based ‘mainly’ around the insistence that the (County) Regimental system is sacred.

Take the SWID as an example, we are currently asking for more from these Regts in proportion to size of the Infantry, for instance we are asking the Royal Scots to provide about 13% of the Infantry from about 8% of the UK population, even before the other Scots Regts (Guards, Cav, RA) and other arms come into the equation (very crude figures without even drilling down into actual eligibility). Same with Wales and Ireland.

Conversely, holding the Rifles as the ‘model’ method, account needs to be taken that they are recruiting country wide from areas that have been claimed from historic amalgamations, lots of these are in centres of population and inner City’s, traditional recruiting ground. It could be argued (with some justification) that their success, compared to others, is due to their access to a higher proportion of the ‘low hanging fruit’.

What is obvious, is that Regiments fighting over soldiers in the same town due to a particular postcode because “it’s our patch” is not an efficient or effective way to do buiseness.

There is absoloutly no (rational) argument against the Infantry, in the main, ‘vanilla’ loading into basic training (stand fast para). And without going into the roles, size and composition of the army, infantry recruites can complete the first part of basic training together. The infantry could then be loaded on a combination of requirement (sent where the need is greatest) and choice (nationality, regional identity, 5th generation Tiger, etc).

We are doing this to an extent anyway in reverse, with the creation of the SPIB’s, these will be multi capbadge (although from the same Div initially), otherwise, due to their structure, they will be unsustainable. Therefore, why not grasp the nettle, accept, County Recruiting was ‘of its time’ and has had its day. The Infantry could throw all of its recruiting resource in recruiting for the infantry.

I won’t hold my breath though :)
 
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)...........
View attachment 326846
Thread drift:
That flow chart is genius - which thread did it originally appear in?
 
In my 29 years experiance they are in the main from the Regimental systems recruting area.
Serious question, how has that recruiting area changed in those 29 years. Has it grown, shrunk, shifted or is it exactly as it was?
 
Last edited:
From my (limited) experiences, by far the biggest barrier to current infantry recruiting is the way that the Infantry currently recruit, based ‘mainly’ around the insistence that the (County) Regimental system is sacred.

Take the SWID as an example, we are currently asking for more from these Regts in proportion to size of the Infantry, for instance we are asking the Royal Scots to provide about 13% of the Infantry from about 8% of the UK population, even before the other Scots Regts (Guards, Cav, RA) and other arms come into the equation (very crude figures without even drilling down into actual eligibility). Same with Wales and Ireland.

Conversely, holding the Rifles as the ‘model’ method, account needs to be taken that they are recruiting country wide from areas that have been claimed from historic amalgamations, lots of these are in centres of population and inner City’s, traditional recruiting ground. It could be argued (with some justification) that their success, compared to others, is due to their access to a higher proportion of the ‘low hanging fruit’.

What is obvious, is that Regiments fighting over soldiers in the same town due to a particular postcode because “it’s our patch” is not an efficient or effective way to do buiseness.

There is absoloutly no (rational) argument against the Infantry, in the main, ‘vanilla’ loading into basic training (stand fast para). And without going into the roles, size and composition of the army, infantry recruites can complete the first part of basic training together. The infantry could then be loaded on a combination of requirement (sent where the need is greatest) and choice (nationality, regional identity, 5th generation Tiger, etc).

We are doing this to an extent anyway in reverse, with the creation of the SPIB’s, these will be multi capbadge (although from the same Div initially), otherwise, due to their structure, they will be unsustainable. Therefore, why not grasp the nettle, accept, County Recruiting was ‘of its time’ and has had its day. The Infantry could throw all of its recruiting resource in recruiting for the infantry.

I won’t hold my breath though :)
Break out the listerine, @CAARPS, I could kiss you (nearly).
 
@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?
If you're S/Sgt or below I wouldn't move you. If you're an officer you'd wear the 'Army' cap badge. WO's can live with a bit of change. As for administration, I strongly suspect we have too many administrators. In the computer age these things can be done electronically, even HMRC is on board that boat.
 
Roughly how many years would you stay in the same Company then? I'm not completely sure how it works in the Infantry but currently how often do soldiers post around?
 
Thread drift:
That flow chart is genius - which thread did it originally appear in?
Quick thread drift : I can’t remember, if you contact @greyfergie he originally made it. Suffice it to say it was another thread that @John G hijacked.

Don’t get me wrong, again even at the beginning of this very thread, @John G and I have had reasonable discussions. However if you use the chart and look back at our current back and forth, along with @Andre, you can see why it was made............

Now back to Army 2020 Refine !
 
I think the question needs to be 'how many armoured, mechanised. mobility and light' do we need?
Exactly

So depending on the ORBAT of the Bdes:
4-6 Armd Inf Bns
4-6 Strike/Mech Inf Bns
4 Specialist (Light) Inf Bn (minus)
3? Public Duties (Light) Inf Bns (reinforced)
1 Brunei (Light) Inf Bn
3 Cyprus (Light) Inf Bn - 1 UNFICYP & 2 SBA
 

Similar threads

Top