Army 2020 Refine

Apologies for bringing up an old part of the thread but a good reason for not basing recruitment on geography, the spread of the UK population in 2020.

View attachment 327394
Any idea if we could see this by population aged 10-30? Current and future recruiting age groups?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638686/2017-06065.pdf

MARILYN says whatever you are looking at will be less.

The Population Pyramid article in BAR 171 says things will also get..... interesting!
https://akxonline.defencegateway.mo...71/12 BAR 171 Articles Population Pyramid.pdf
 
?????

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.
For the past 30 years we’ve had a Close Support Engr Regt per Brigade and a General Support Regiment per Division. The rest of the Engineer capability has been a theatre asset.

The Bde CS Regiment has only ever had two Field Squadrons and an HQ Sqn. The HQ Sqn has significant capability; Engineer recce, bridging and plant.

Engineers have always task orged, taking whatever assets are necessary from across the whole capability under command for a specific task. At times that means a BG has the best part of a Regiment TACON, at others nothing.

There’s no logic to a Fd Sqn per BG. Its too close support heavy. Nor is there any reason why an Engr Bde needs to be commanded by a 1*. The Div CRE has always been a Colonel and we’ve had three Regiment Groups for decades.
 
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:


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
Thats rather defeatist; why can’t we grow capability? Admittedly it’s a very long time since we grew infantry capability but others have formed new regiments from scratch in serving memory.

The missing link is a clear vision and a strategic delivery plan. I do wonder whether it’s realistic to expect a board which has to focus on near term management of the organisation to set a coherent vision for 10 years plus, let alone implement it.
 
Thats rather defeatist; why can’t we grow capability? Admittedly it’s a very long time since we grew infantry capability but others have formed new regiments from scratch in serving memory.
I'd suggest those regiments would have come from a pool of recruits that were going to join the army anyway and so were diverted into that regiment.
Currently the British army is fucked when it comes to recruiting and retention, but its got its head in the sand (or up its arse) when it comes to grand plans in the future.
 
I'd suggest those regiments would have come from a pool of recruits that were going to join the army anyway and so were diverted into that regiment.
No, the Sappers grew three Regiments after SDR. Many of those recruits were of a quality that did not and does not exist in the wider pool. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a corps that actually manages projects and delivers tangible products, thise units were built out against a properly developed delivery plan across all lines of develoment.

Funnily enough, the Sappers remain well recruited and have retention rates well above the Army average.
 
No, the Sappers grew three Regiments after SDR. Many of those recruits were of a quality that did not and does not exist in the wider pool. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a corps that actually manages projects and delivers tangible products, thise units were built out against a properly developed delivery plan across all lines of develoment.

Funnily enough, the Sappers remain well recruited and have retention rates well above the Army average.
The army average is so low that being above it doesnt mean its good.
 
Thats rather defeatist; why can’t we grow capability? Admittedly it’s a very long time since we grew infantry capability but others have formed new regiments from scratch in serving memory.
Of course we can grow capability, in the infantry just as elsewhere, but only if you stop the exodus, not when all you're doing by keeping units going where only 50% are there / deployable (as it's now obvious many are) is playing a game with retention as the stakes and the inevitable loser.

Sorry, but I don't believe any regts have been formed from scratch as in solely from new recruits. If it's happened, name them. Even cyber have had the command and admin element moved across from elsewhere and they're only at 50% strength and so far all too obviously ineffective. All you're doing is playing a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul and Paul gets p'd off and leaves and so the downward trend continues.

That's not defeatist so much as guaranteeing defeat - what's the point in that?
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest those regiments would have come from a pool of recruits that were going to join the army anyway and so were diverted into that regiment.
No, the Sappers grew three Regiments after SDR. Many of those recruits were of a quality that did not and does not exist in the wider pool,
So you're saying that those recruits joined specifically to fill vacancies in those units, and were guaranteed that was going to happen and they couldn't be farmed out elsewhere? ... and they wouldn't have joined otherwise?

Really?

... and apart from these sainted recruits, the rest of the regts (Ptes, NCOs, WOs and Offrs) came from where? ... a secret pool? ... direct recruiting?
 
Last edited:
If the army stops playing with the train set long enough they may be able to organise it properly.
It may come as a shock if you pay any attention to @21st, but that just happens to be EXACTLY what I've been proposing - make units dormant instead of pretending they can be used and abused.
Is there any (open) source for all British Army units and there role under A2020R?
Try the opening post on page 1 of this thread, from @Caecilius IIRC.
 
So you're sayingthat those recruits joined specifically to fill vacancies in those units, and were guaranteed that was going to happen and they couldn't be farmed out elsewhere? ... and they wouldn't have joined otherwise?

Really?

... and apart from these sainted recruits, the rest of the regts (Ptes, NCOs, WOs and Offrs) came from where? ... a secret pool? ... direct recruiting?
IIRC the Corps grew by something like 2500 all up to achieve SDR FOC,

Ultimately they were all new recruits. Very few were lateral transfers from arms and services that lost manpower. So there was a very significant effort made to recruit and train the necessary manning.

Of course there was a period of pain across the board to form the start up teams and get to IOC; Peter was definitely robbed to pay Paul early on. There was also pain providing addtional resources to the training system to enable it to happen; an extra training squadrons worth of instructors IIRC. To some, of course, that pain was gain because it created promotion opportunities, command and Sgt Maj slots etc etc.

Some of the capability took years to grow; at the extreme, you don’t recruit a Clk Wks off the street. There were also quite a lot additional EOD, Cdo and Para subunits which can’t be found from the general recruit pool and has a limited internal recruiting pool.

But I stand by my assertion; capability was grown from scratch. I’d also stand by my assertion that there was a clear vision, a proper implementation plan and decent project management. In short, has been done in relatively recent years.
 
Last edited:
But I stand by my assertion; capability was grown from scratch. I’d also stand by my assertion that there was a clear vision, a proper implementation plan and decent project management.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes here - when I'm talking about "from scratch" and "new recruits" I'm talking about from new recruits to the Army - not from those 'recruited' from other RE units or from EDO, Cdo and Para sub units.

Technically, yes, of course they're 'recruits' to a new unit but not in any normal military use of the word or as I'd guess 99% of the Army (including @stacker1 and I) understood it where "recruits" mean ... well ... recruits to the military from civilian life.

You can stand by it as much as you want, but the simple and unavoidable fact, as you yourself have explained in the self-same post, is that it wasn't "from scratch" at all - it was 'recruited' from existing resources plus 'recruits' (in the military sense) both direct to the formed units and to the units those were formed from.

That seems to be exactly what you're saying here:

Some of the capability took years to grow; at the extreme, you don’t recruit a Clk Wks off the street. There were also quite a lot additional EOD, Cdo and Para subunits which can’t be found from the general recruit pool and has a limited internal recruiting pool.
None of that applies to the infantry - RE, EOD, Cdo and Para sub units are highly likely to be brimming with volunteers ready and willing to give up their trade to become infantry, and we can't recruit to fill current vacancies in the infantry as it stands let alone more to do the same job ... so in short nothing like it's been done.
 
@John we’re not talking at cross purposes. The total new establishment was somewhere near 2500 IIRC. Any internal recruit to fill, for example, a Cdo post created a vacancy somewhere else. Let’s not get into a debate about what scratch means; for the purposes of what I am describing, on “SDR Day” the units were a blank sheet; no establishment, no manpower, no kit. By FOC the entire uplift had been recruited from outside; not all into the new units of course, but across the Corps.

I think you are wrong to say this isn’t relevant to the infantry. Where I agree entirely is your concept of making units dormant (isn’t the correct term suspended animation?). Draw back to a deliverable and sustainable baseline and stop the misrepresentation of the true situation.

Where I think we disagree is what happens next. You seem to be proposing that the future infantry should be based on what we can achieve now; I think that is defeatist. I can’t see why with a properly developed plan it isn’t possible to build back out from what is currently achievable to what is actually needed. Doing so will require some serious slaying of sacred cows though.

That map of UK population density is a pretty good place to start; there’s stuff all point trying to retain a heritage capability in Wales when there’s no one there.......yet binning well recruited London unit’s. That demographic shift isn’t going to go away; persist in trying to recruit locally country wide and you can only fail.

Chances of it happening; zero. In ten years time we’ll be having the same debate.
 
@John we’re not talking at cross purposes. The total new establishment was somewhere near 2500 IIRC. Any internal recruit to fill, for example, a Cdo post created a vacancy somewhere else. Let’s not get into a debate about what scratch means; for the purposes of what I am describing, on “SDR Day” the units were a blank sheet; no establishment, no manpower, no kit. By FOC the entire uplift had been recruited from outside; not all into the new units of course, but across the Corps.

I think you are wrong to say this isn’t relevant to the infantry. Where I agree entirely is your concept of making units dormant (isn’t the correct term suspended animation?). Draw back to a deliverable and sustainable baseline and stop the misrepresentation of the true situation.

Where I think we disagree is what happens next. You seem to be proposing that the future infantry should be based on what we can achieve now; I think that is defeatist. I can’t see why with a properly developed plan it isn’t possible to build back out from what is currently achievable to what is actually needed. Doing so will require some serious slaying of sacred cows though.

That map of UK population density is a pretty good place to start; there’s stuff all point trying to retain a heritage capability in Wales when there’s no one there.......yet binning well recruited London unit’s. That demographic shift isn’t going to go away; persist in trying to recruit locally country wide and you can only fail.

Chances of it happening; zero. In ten years time we’ll be having the same debate.
Generally I think we're in agreement and arguing about the minutiae / terminology for old times sake, @bob. And yes, the correct term is suspended animation but I wanted to avoid confusion with those already in suspended animation (Gds?) hence 'dormant'.
 
Chances of it happening; zero. In ten years time we’ll be having the same debate.
If unchanged I think things will be that much worse in ten years as the spiral seems to be an exponential one, so they'll be a lot worse, comparatively, than the difference between a decade ago and now. At some stage it just has to stop.
 
If unchanged I think things will be that much worse in ten years as the spiral seems to be an exponential one, so they'll be a lot worse, comparatively, than the difference between a decade ago and now. At some stage it just has to stop.
Exactly. The only real question is who or what stops it? What being a war; not a a COIN operation in which it’s possible to bluff at the highest leve, but a real one of national importance. Or who; a genuine leader, not someone from the school of bluff.

I only raised the Suspended Animation thing because IIRC there are already units on SA that have no chance of ever being brought back in an effective way. What price ever recruiting a fully manned Battalion from Argyle?

I prefer your dormant term. Maybe a better answer when you really think about that population map is to disband and start again. Or resurrect long lost names....
 
Last edited:
Or maybe go through with some things that have already happened but nobody likes. If London is going to be a much bigger recruiting area, it kind of makes sense that a lot of the army would be Rifles or Guards...
 
Or maybe go through with some things that have already happened but nobody likes. If London is going to be a much bigger recruiting area, it kind of makes sense that a lot of the army would be Rifles or Guards...
One is doing quite well in regards recruiting & retention and the other isn't though, perhaps that would be an area to look at?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads