Army 2020 Refine

Ok let’s say, 1 Strike Bde is tasked with providing a full Bn based BG with all the bells and whistles (eg a Arty Bty and Engr Sqn).
You're missing the whole point. They may not need those bells and whistles and someone else may need more.

That doesn't apply to a Cdo or AA Bde as they've got all the Cdo and AA bells and whistles there are.
 
You're missing the whole point. They may not need those bells and whistles and someone else may need more.

That doesn't apply to a Cdo or AA Bde as they've got all the Cdo and AA bells and whistles there are.
John, at last count the proposal was for 9 other Bde formations ranging from 2 Armd Bdes to a Bde consisting of a single light role Infantry Bn.

AA and Cdo Bdes have 50% of all regular 105mm Artillery and there are mutterings the Strike Bde may have a Regiment allocated to it. That leaves 2 Btys of 105mm Artillery to support the remaining 8 Bdes. Care to explain how that works while you are also coming up with an answer to my previous question regarding artillery in the Cdo an AA Bdes?
 
OK John, tell me the units that carried out this specific role prior to lets say 2012? I mean a bunch of soldiers charging around the battle space with GPMG, LAW and Grenade Launchers in Jackal and Coyote (not CVRT which is pretty much the role of Ajax).

Which formations will they support? When and how?

You are having a sulk but not coming up with any facts.
The post seems to have disappeared so maybe you realised how nonsensical you were being (guess, not fact)

Facts are that it was done by inf and is now done by lt cav; that inf are 25% under strength and 20% not fully deployable so they can't do it; that cav are also undermanned / non-deployable so these pax aren't "surplus".

Guess is lt cav would prefer to be cav than inf so all you're doing is encouraging more to leave. Well done.
 
We're in agreement - all inf tasks.

Problem is there aren't enough inf to do them.

Fine, re-badge lt cav pax to inf - but the cav don't have enough pax either so the obvious issue is what about re-badging lt cav to cav instead, which I'm sure they'd prefer and which consequently just might have a better effect on retaining them.

It's la-la land and ignore reality time again.
No reason why Cav (be it Ajax or Jackal mounted) can’t do it.
 
The post seems to have disappeared so maybe you realised how nonsensical you were being (guess, not fact)

Facts are that it was done by inf and is now done by lt cav; that inf are 25% under strength and 20% not fully deployable so they can't do it; that cav are also undermanned / non-deployable so these pax aren't "surplus".

Guess is lt cav would prefer to be cav than inf so all you're doing is encouraging more to leave. Well done.
Not removed by me and I stick to every word of it.

No it wasn't done by one then the other there is no one doing anything as a formation at the moment as the entire Army is in limbo awaiting the results of the review this to be published this summer. That will result in another version of the plan hopefully this time based on the realities of planet earth.

It seems every none Inf unit pushed down the 'light' road wants to become SAS/LRDG light with recce being the order of the day. None of these units seems able to provide context for their role or even identify a formation in which to operate.

Prior to the announcement of the Security Review there were strong rumours and even announcements that 4 Light Cavalry Regiments were for the chop.
 
You're missing the whole point. They may not need those bells and whistles and someone else may need more.

That doesn't apply to a Cdo or AA Bde as they've got all the Cdo and AA bells and whistles there are.
?????

Which is why I say have an Arty Regt, Engr Regt etc per Bde (not BG).

With enough Btys/Sqns to provide a task org’ed Bty/Sqn per BG, then the Bde has more assets to distribute as required (a BG could still have an Engr Sqn one day and a Tp the next).

A Engr Bde etc per Div is overkill and making a job for a 1*.

If a Bde within the Div needs more Engr etc assets for a task (more than a Regt) then the 2* task orgs them.
 
Not removed by me and I stick to every word of it.

No it wasn't done by one then the other there is no one doing anything as a formation at the moment as the entire Army is in limbo awaiting the results of the review this to be published this summer. That will result in another version of the plan hopefully this time based on the realities of planet earth.

It seems every none Inf unit pushed down the 'light' road wants to become SAS/LRDG light with recce being the order of the day. None of these units seems able to provide context for their role or even identify a formation in which to operate.

Prior to the announcement of the Security Review there were strong rumours and even announcements that 4 Light Cavalry Regiments were for the chop.
That is possibly a higher up political decision.

Is it because the UK wants a smaller fighting footprint, use of softer power, use of influence (rather than kinetic)?

ie no enduring ops of Bde sized forces with large numbers of potential casualties?
 
... Care to explain how that works while you are also coming up with an answer to my previous question regarding artillery in the Cdo an AA Bdes?
It DOESN'T work, which is precisely the point I was making, which IS the answer to your previous question.

You're living in la-la land. We've got what we've got, not the weapons and recruited and trained personnel we need and would like to have. To go back to your previous post:
There are two ways you can do this:

Make a consideration of threats, risks and tasks, identify adequate responses, create formations and units that can deliver responses

or,

Have two fields, one with 82,000 bods and the other with a huge pile of broken, worn out and unnecessary equipment. Planning for the future starts with a VSO meeting that starts along the lines of:

"OK, tell me how many Brigadiers we would like"
With Option 1 you've left out the most important FACT: you don't have a magic wand to create those 'formations and units' out of thin air. You can't 'deliver responses' with something that only exists on paper.

With Option 2 you've left out the @John G plan: look at the FACT of what you've got in those two fields (bods & eqpt), bin what you don't need (dross bods and broken, worn out and unnecessary eqpt) and make the most of what responses you can deliver now (FACT) and what you can build on to deliver the other responses you need in the future.

Stop dreaming about how you'd like things to be in la-la land and accept how things are and make the most of them.
 
It DOESN'T work, which is precisely the point I was making, which IS the answer to your previous question.

You're living in la-la land. We've got what we've got, not the weapons and recruited and trained personnel we need and would like to have. To go back to your previous post:
Hoorah, the penny is beginning to finally drop with you. My point is we can, as an Army probably only field three or four partly supported Bdes. So why the mass of HQs and hierarchy?

With Option 1 you've left out the most important FACT: you don't have a magic wand to create those 'formations and units' out of thin air. You can't 'deliver responses' with something that only exists on paper.
Then why do we kid ourselves that we can? Far too much of this about
1521724265661.png


With Option 2 you've left out the @John G plan: look at the FACT of what you've got in those two fields (bods & eqpt), bin what you don't need (dross bods and broken, worn out and unnecessary eqpt) and make the most of what responses you can deliver now (FACT) and what you can build on to deliver the other responses you need in the future.

Stop dreaming about how you'd like things to be in la-la land and accept how things are and make the most of them.
You are having issues with comprehension today aren't you John? Option 1 is what should have been done (similar to your plan) Option 2 is what was done.
 
With enough Btys/Sqns to provide a task org’ed Bty/Sqn per BG, then the Bde has more assets to distribute as required (a BG could still have an Engr Sqn one day and a Tp the next).
FFS, you're still missing the point!

You're basing your Bde ORBAT on a task org of one Bty/Sqn per BG.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH! WE DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND! WHAT'S THE POINT OF UNITS THAT ONLY EXIST ON PAPER OR IN YOUR (or @21st's) DREAMS???

WHY BEGGAR PEOPLE ABOUT PRETENDING THESE PEOPLE EXIST AND TASKING THOSE WHO DO EXIST AS IF THE DREAM'S REALITY???
 
FFS, you're still missing the point!

You're basing your Bde ORBAT on a task org of one Bty/Sqn per BG.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH! WE DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND! WHAT'S THE POINT OF UNITS THAT ONLY EXIST ON PAPER OR IN YOUR (or @21st's) DREAMS???

WHY BEGGAR PEOPLE ABOUT PRETENDING THESE PEOPLE EXIST AND TASKING THOSE WHO DO EXIST AS IF THE DREAM'S REALITY???
FFS John, take your meds.

Oh no a SABC from @John G.
 
Last edited:
Option 1 is what should have been done (similar to your plan) Option 2 is what was done.
If you're somehow able to reconcile that something "similar to (my) plan" was "what should have been done" with repeatedly accusing me of being 350 years out of date, unable to use facts, unable to plan as I went to the wrong school, etc, then I think you and @Andre must be on the same consistency meds (hence the SABC).
 
If you're somehow able to reconcile that something "similar to (my) plan" was "what should have been done" with repeatedly accusing me of being 350 years out of date, unable to use facts, unable to plan as I went to the wrong school, etc, then I think you and @Andre must be on the same consistency meds (hence the SABC).
My you are on form today aren't you?

Your education is a social impediment in the modern world but let's move on from that?

What I have suggested is your education makes you a rigid conformist.

I did not accuse you of being 350 years out of date.

You are struggling to use facts effectively
 
FFS, you're still missing the point!

You're basing your Bde ORBAT on a task org of one Bty/Sqn per BG.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH! WE DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND! WHAT'S THE POINT OF UNITS THAT ONLY EXIST ON PAPER OR IN YOUR (or @21st's) DREAMS???

WHY BEGGAR PEOPLE ABOUT PRETENDING THESE PEOPLE EXIST AND TASKING THOSE WHO DO EXIST AS IF THE DREAM'S REALITY???
If the army stops playing with the train set long enough they may be able to organise it properly.

There is too many HQs, too many units, too many scared cows.

I agree to a point but if the units aren’t there you can’t fill them either
 
If the army stops playing with the train set long enough they may be able to organise it properly.

There is too many HQs, too many units, too many scared cows.

I agree to a point but if the units aren’t there you can’t fill them either
How is the Train set being played with right now? At an operational level, we have trainers in the Middle East and an Arnd BG on EFP in rotation, that is not exactly a huge commitment.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top