Home Counties Brigade, are we about to go down this path again?

I believe it’s more like this now….

View attachment 597297

probably the best way to preserve names/CapBadges IMHO…
Correct - I posted the earlier TOE by mistake. They quickly figured out that, among other things, the brigade needed additional engineers.
 
Last edited:
That might not be a bad thing.

The army is currently unbalanced and has too many infantry for the size and nature of the formations it purports to want.*

If making it easier to cut battalions means it becomes easier to make the army make sense**, that could actually be a positive.



*Although with Warrior and (arguably) the Mech Inf role effectively gone, and Strike effectively now dead, can anyone actually define what the army is setting out to look like?

**See last comment. The army as is does not make sense.

too many of the wrong type of infantry and too few of those actually required
 
Well... yes, but not but yes but no.

It is quite rare for a full battalion to be tasked as is - typically battle groups deploy as a battalion(-) with attached companies (squadrons/batteries etc) [see Operation Cabrit as a current example]. Even our armoured brigades are intended to form mixed battle groups and not deploy as standalone battalions.

We clearly do not like the concept of garrison as you train, train as you will fight... we like to task organise on the hoof rather than organise as formed battle-groups.
Because they are under strength?
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
Because they are under strength?
No, because a formed battalion does not have all the necessary capabilities.

Cabrit has armour, infantry, engineers, artillery and all the supporting stuff - under a single battalion/regiment HQ.

Even in BAOR days, a Brigade of armoured and infantry battalions reformed into combined-arms battle groups (including engineers and artillery)

If the peace-time ORBAT doesn't translate to the operational ORBAT, then the ORBAT is wrong.
 

itchy300

Old-Salt
No, because a formed battalion does not have all the necessary capabilities.

Cabrit has armour, infantry, engineers, artillery and all the supporting stuff - under a single battalion/regiment HQ.

Even in BAOR days, a Brigade of armoured and infantry battalions reformed into combined-arms battle groups (including engineers and artillery)

If the peace-time ORBAT doesn't translate to the operational ORBAT, then the ORBAT is wrong.
Behind you 100% but you run into the problem of 'which operation' the Herrick was different to early Telics which was different to later Telics
 
No, because a formed battalion does not have all the necessary capabilities.

Cabrit has armour, infantry, engineers, artillery and all the supporting stuff - under a single battalion/regiment HQ.

Even in BAOR days, a Brigade of armoured and infantry battalions reformed into combined-arms battle groups (including engineers and artillery)

If the peace-time ORBAT doesn't translate to the operational ORBAT, then the ORBAT is wrong.
And often a formed battalion doesn’t have the personnel it is supposed to have under peacetime circumstances (never mind wartime)
 

olafthered

LE
Book Reviewer
I agree, it's easier to train and orbat for a high intensity conventional war then scale down for operations than vice versa but (devils advocate mode) then you're back round to the peacetime orbat not reflecting the operational one
You also have the issue of training efficiency.

Take engineering bridging. Work out how much we need to support your operational combine arms BG. Repeat for each BG. Add a bit for bde and div support. Let us say that is x bridging assets of y type

Do you now have them all training separately on different areas needing x/2 instructors, x/2 sets of kit etc. Or do you roll them together so you can rotate them through that bit of the specialist training and now need x/4 or x/8 instructors and sets of kit for training?

In peacetime we have to find these efficiencies as budgets are limited so we need to money we free up to be able to buy x sets of kit, otherwise we end up with x/4 sets of kit and can only support x/4 BGs...

So what do the other 3x/4 of them do now?
 

FEASG

LE
100 percent.

And even if they have a preference, it's of the "I'd like to join the mob that my father's was absorbed into" variety because, with few exceptions, most have now gone.

Guards and Paras aside, there are only two regiments listed in the current order of battle which predate the 1990s - the Anglians and the RRF. Both of those only date to the 1960s.
And ironically both of these wear the cap badge that was used in the Bde cap badge system, that this thread started with, as do the RRS and Mercians, There really is nothing new, we just go round, in ever diminishing circles.
But the whole system is underpinned (on under mined) by the way we select our officers. You with see it re iterated a thousand times on this site, with the polite statement of "Will they fit in and feel comfortable" (in the mess). Nothing will change until we can get over Elitism in Regiments (a very different thing to Elite Regiments).

But I doubt it will change in our life times, so the regiments will just keep playing musical chairs, until they run out of chairs. Right or wrong, its in our culture, and will not change.
 
Last edited:
And ironically both of these wear the cap badge that was used in the Bde cap badge system, that this thread started with, as do the RRS and Mercians, There really is nothing new, we just go round, in ever diminishing circles.
But the whole system is underpinned (on under mined) by the way we select our officers. You with see it re iterated a thousand times on this site, with the polite statement of "Will they fit in and feel comfortable" (in the mess). Nothing will change until we can get over Elitism in Regiments (a very different thing to Elite Regiments).

But I doubt it will change in our life times, so the regiments will just keep playing musical chairs, until they run out of chairs. Right or wrong, its in our culture, and will not change.
Group think
 
At which time the Bn was 2 Commando which was renamed 11th Special Air Service Bn it was only on 31st May 1941 it was decided to form a larger force to be known as the Parachute Regiment :)

Also no direct lineage between the original 1,2 and 3 PARA and the present day ones as there was a huge renumbering and disbandment exercise in 1945/6

I agree with you a so called 350 year unbroken golden thread which is actually little more than 80 years old and even then cut and tied back together.
The Parachute Regiment wasn't formed until 1942 wearing the red beret with Army Air Corp cap badge. The Parachute Regiment cap badge was issued in 1943.

During the war Airborne infantry battalions were designated 1 Parachute battalion, 2 Parachute battalion, 3 Parachute battalion etc. 1 Para, 2 Para, 3 Para unit designation wasn't introduced until 1948.

The Parachute Regiment/National Army Museum.
 
Ok I am geting it wrong Just_plain_you and being far too me.... My Mrs will vouch for that. The Army is moving towards when a soldier joins the Army he/she joins the Infantry. They may well be from Devon normally RIFLES or Newcastle normally FUSILIERS unless they join the Parachute Regiment which is UK wide.

It means that in the future they our young people will be told what to join to fill gaps i.e. 1 YORKS may well a person from Scotland or Wales, which I am suggesting does not work.

Cardwell in the 1900's when he went through his many reforms to better the Army, identified that we did this system known as "General Service" you were assigned to where you were told not what you wanted, so a Yorkshireman could not say he would be in the equivalent of the YORKS.

It was unpopular and was reformed, the new system is removing over a centuries method of doing things, do not get me wrong a lot of soldiers do not care who they join, however I had a young lad who joined the Prince of Wales's Own (PWO) from Yorkshire, not his intended Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (PWRR) the PWO did not let him transfer after he was press ganged into service with that Unit, he hated it and left, he then re joined the PWRR, I say that to demonstrate that some not all young people still care what they join.

I hope that helps.

The thing about the Home Counties Brigade was that in the 1960's a lot of older Regiments (BUFFS, QUEENS) where told to wear the Home Counties Brigade cap badge was a different story, but is linked as it is about simplification of the Army, a move that people have a feeling that we are moving towards, again something revoked when tried in the past as was "General Service".
The Cardwell / Childers Reforms included localised recruiting. This concept was failing by 1900 and most county regiments were unofficially recruiting regionally. It was completely on its arse by 1916, and at that point infantry enlistment was General Service initially and people were sent where the needs of the service dictated.
 
Taff's in an English cap badged Regiment, same for Jocks and paddies.

Wouldn't work. The UK is made up of 4 separate nations each with its own identity. Royal Welsh, Royal Scots, Royal Irish.. Lads join these units because of the national identity.

Larger Corps such as REME etc being merged I can understand, but infantry battalions being stripped of their identity just won't work.
Worked very well in the latter stages of WW1, where that is exactly what happened. The army of 1918 was the best (and the largest) that this country has ever put into the field.
 
Last edited:

Andre

Old-Salt
The Cardwell / Childers Reforms included localised recruiting. This concept was failing by 1900 and most county regiments were unofficially recruiting regionally. It was completely on its arse by 1916, and at that point infantry enlistment was General Service initially and people were sent where the needs of the service dictat



Great memory you have, how was No 5 Battle dress in the trenches was their chafing? So long as you can verify what you said I will believe you know about British Army recruiting for County Regiments in the 1900s (thanks).

Fact it was identified that soldiers did not want to join a Regiment that they felt unwelcome in, i.e. we are about to throw our young people into badly manned Guards or Jock Battalions because they cannot recruit there full strength, as a week solution to a complex problem.
 

QRK2

LE
Great memory you have, how was No 5 Battle dress in the trenches was their chafing? So long as you can verify what you said I will believe you know about British Army recruiting for County Regiments in the 1900s (thanks).

Fact it was identified that soldiers did not want to join a Regiment that they felt unwelcome in, i.e. we are about to throw our young people into badly manned Guards or Jock Battalions because they cannot recruit there full strength, as a week solution to a complex problem.

It's quite simple to verify, just read any number of memoirs from the First and Second World Wars, perhaps start with Jary or Mcdonald Fraser. For some more formal policy detail a good place to start is to look at the training and selection system brought in by Adam.
 
Last edited:
Great memory you have, how was No 5 Battle dress in the trenches was their chafing? So long as you can verify what you said I will believe you know about British Army recruiting for County Regiments in the 1900s (thanks).

Fact it was identified that soldiers did not want to join a Regiment that they felt unwelcome in, i.e. we are about to throw our young people into badly manned Guards or Jock Battalions because they cannot recruit there full strength, as a week solution to a complex problem.
Notwithstanding the chippiness of your first sentence, have a look at this book:

Military Identities: The Regimental System, the British Army and the British People c.1870-2000

Battle Dress was not worn in WW1 btw... ;)

 
No trenches in the Second World War? you must add value wherever you walk in life...
You've been drinking, haven't you? Anyway, I provided an evidenced-based answer to your question and got chippy responses back. You can jog on, now.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top