Reorganisation for the British Army?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chocolate_frog, Jun 13, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Reading hte Orbat of BAOR thread, I was struck.

    Whilst we have had cut backs of various degrees over the years, and many changes in doctrine, equipment and requirments... we still seem to be operating under the same sort of set up as we did many years ago.

    Is there any way of "streamlineing" the Army? Not in managerial/treasurey speak where we just get bumfcuked, but genuinely streamline the Army to ensure maximum front line capablity?
     
  2. How about we just leave things alone for a bit? It's the one COA that doesn't seem to have been tried in a while.
     
  3. Isn't that what the demise of the Arms plot was supposed to achieve?
     
  4. Wrote my diss on this.

    Brigade centric force seems to be the answer, as opposed to the divisional centric force we have now (so used so we can expand rapidly in time of major strategic threat to NATO), with each Brigade being equipped and trained in much the same way.

    Ha, and a lot of people will get very annoyed with this suggestion, but an enlargement of infantry battalions to 1000 and follow the new Royal Marines organisation - see here - with 'support' arms like Artillery, Engineers, being made smaller, but more numerous - say many 300 man battalions as opposed to fewer 650. Means that each battalion can train with the same group.

    Size wise, to be more effective, we need around 20 Brigades - (IMHO the majority based around FRES) which would allow to keep a 12000 strong force in a theatre indefinately, with enough time for rest.


    Yes, I know, its a lot like the US Army's new force structure, but having an in depth look around, and assessing all possibilities it seems they've hit the best idea. It'll never happen though, because of 'tradition' - which is needed - just look at the trooping of the colour, or capbadges etc. Too much though can cause stagnation.


    What's that Sgt? A helmet? why thank you, shall we get into the bunker? After you...
     
  5. The late Duke of Wellington had it right. No feckin Remfs, everyone fixed bayonets.
    Chocolate Frog, I think it may have been us Royal Signals that started the rot when we discovered that concentrating on comms allowed us to find a little spot in the bushes and pretend that we had something important to do. :wink:
     
  6. Yeoman_Dai, I was thinking something along hte lines of Brigade based force.

    In particular,

    The Brigading of 1 Cav and 3 Inf units in one brigade. Two of these brigades and a TA bde (designed to send forward IAs or at the VERY most a Coy of augmentees). Cav Regt to have 4 Sqns (2 Hy, 1 med, 1 light) to match the 3 inf bns, (1 hy, 1 med and 1 light ops). (a Guards Bde to be based near London (say Aldershot) (with HCR, Guards).

    In total 6 regs, and 3 TA bdes, Divisioned in to 3 Divisions, under a Corps HQ (deployable).

    A further Corps HQ (non deployable) holding a TA Divsion of 3 Home Defence Bdes (one of which would the Household Bde ( would include HCMR, Guards, Londons, Kings Tp))

    And the "Light" Division of 3 Cdo, 16 AirAsslt and one more regular bde, and a reserve bde.

    That would give 3 Regular Light/medium formations, 6 medium/heavy formations backed up by their own (four) reservists.

    3 more HD Bdes in UK for HD/IA and PDs. (2 TA Bdes and one half and half).

    We might need to generate a few extra Bns of TA Inf.

    The Artillery & Signals Regiments would be required to dual trade as Defensive Inf (FP) and Arty.

    Embed RAF types in the BDe and Div HQs.
    Navy types in to the Light Bdes, Div HQ as well.
     
  7. IMHO we don't need Corps formations anymore. The entire Army is only one corp sized formation - in the event of a strategic threat to NATO, and the advent of a high intensity conflict, out entire economy will have to be thrown behind any war effort, we certainly couldn't really contribute too much in our current form, so why keep them?

    I'd also argue we don't need to support so many heavy formations - two brigades of dedicated heavy formations for jobs like Gulf War 1 + 2 etc should be sufficient. a FRES based formation, using modern technology to gain the firepower needed should be sufficient against a medium capability enemy, like every enemy we have faced since WWII (yes i'm including the Chinese in Korea there ;) )
     
  8. I'd disagree with the Corps size formation.

    If nothing else they can hold and command, the various support groups and HQs such as the Sig, Recce, Arty Bde HQs and the Log Bdes.
     
  9. DGH....

    People win wars for 2 reasons. Who makes the least f**k ups and who keeps shooting the longest. Since we can't plan to make the the least f**k ups as we can never know just how dumb the big cheese in charge is going to be we have to plan on being able to keep shooting longer.

    Anything else is arguing about the colour of the desk chairs on the sun deck of the SS Titanic as 300 tons of ice turned up for the Pimm's No.1's
     
  10. I'm not an expert of on this sort of thing, but wouldn't it be more efficient to divide the armed forces into pre-packaged "battlegroup" formations - incorporating all of their support services into one group that could then be deployed as a unit. These could be relatively small, and for large operations several of these battlegroups could be sent off....or for smaller operations only one or two battlegroups could be sent off. The generic needs of a battlegroup (sigs/sappers/logistics and so on) would exist in each formation.

    Very specialised units could (perhaps air power, artillery &c.) could then be "bolted on" when they are needed.

    And even more specialised units (special forces) would be deployed independantly.

    It wouldn't necessarily mean getting rid of the regimental tradition - the support services would just be absorbed into the infantry/cavalry - with specialists under the same capbadge. Much like regiments in the armies before the Victorian Era provided all of their logistical support.


    (isn't this effectively what someone posting above me said more or less?)
     
  11. Possibly Bensonby, I was toying with the idea of having the Bdes capable of spliting in to two "Regiments".

    With 8 sub-units worth of cav and inf (as the need is) each commanded by elements from the Bde HQ.

    Each Regt would have it's own support from RA/Engrs etc.

    A BG might be too small.