Infantry reductions vs overstretch


Some crackers in this that will raise an eyebrow or two. Am sick to death of the line people are taking on the relationship between a lower commitment in NI (where 2 year residentials aren't even counted as being on operations) and infantry reductions. Especially as we weren't even in Iraq when the relationship was made.

If it frees up the Inf over there, then it must be freeing up related supporting arms, but you don't see reductions there - quite the opposite. Also, if we are reducing Inf and Armr, then why do we need more Engrs, Logs, and Sigs to support them?

A naive view I know, but having spent 4 years out of 6 actually on ops (incl a 2 yr residential admittedly), not including 4 months on spearhead, 6 months playing Hugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, and just about the whole of the remainder on RAAT, I just fail to see how reducing the Inf by 4 Bns will ease 'overstretch'.

Don't get me wrong - I love being on ops - but don't tell a squaddie he's having a good time when he's not.

Will FRES/BOWMAN/Watchkeeper, etc, ease the burden? Get real.
DPM said:
.......................................I just fail to see how reducing the Inf by 4 Bns will ease 'overstretch'.
It won't.

It will reshape the Army in a "new" bland genereic image free of the past, and time honoured traditions, and prepare it to become a part of the "EU Army"

It will also in the short term allow for (in their minds) soldiers from those cut Bns to be remustered as Int, Engr, Craftsmen, etc, where apparently there are shortages, without spending more money to fill those slots.

Similar threads

Latest Threads