Restructuring - a good idea

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Acid_Tin, Dec 16, 2004.

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. Am I alone in thinking that the restructuring of the Army is a good thing, on balance? Yes, it's gobsmackingly naive of anyone to think they are anything other than a god-given opportunity for Gordon Brown to scavenge more money from Defence (and Hoon, his old enemy), but let's consider what we're getting in return:

    1. An Army far better organised internally to deal with tour after tour after tour.

    2. An end to the formal Arms Plot fiasco.

    3. A far more robust recruiting structure, allowing young men and women to be better informed about their chosen career paths and Regimental home.

    4. Far better support structures at the home base to support the wider Regimental family, by way of closer links with the communities they draw on.

    5. A streamlined Divisional system, allowing our people to be posted around the depth and breadth of the Service without the traumas and career 'black marks' that traditionally accompany such moves.

    6. The opportunity for individual Battalions to become (and remain!) as experts in their specific roles (AI, Mech, Air Assault etc).

    7. A badly needed opportunity to drag the Army (with all it's sacred cows and shibboleths) into the 21st Century, without necessarily destroying centuries of history. No-one has suggested the removal of the vast majority of connections and affiliations with Counties and Region.

    Over to you - I suspect that I am in for a rough time! Can I just say, however, that I will regard your comments (both good and bad) with disdain if you are not a serving or former member of the Army. If you aren't, and you wish to comment on today's events, send an email to Question Time. :)
  2. Generally I agree with you. The restructuring is not a bad thing, but I do think we will suffer from the cuts in infantry numbers at an uncertain time.
  3. I'd say these are the biggest benefits, although they will be bad for the regimental system in the long term. with people moving from battalion to battalion to try new roles, it will gradually remove regimental identity, especially from officers and senior ranks. imho ofcourse
  4. it may have been nice to also consult with the people on the 'ground'

    it is always nice to have the 'big picture' but a lot of people never get to see it, and it does concern them!

    bringing in 'new' technology is fine, but they do have to speed up the procurement process..Bowman was doing the rounds of being implimented when i was still serving and i have been out over 10 years!

    Also about time they bought kit that was going to do the job, not where the politicians hope to get their directorship of companies etc...

    A lot of things i see these days is about getiing feet back on the ground and out the offices..e.g. police..As far as I can see the police service has a lot of gucci kit, but they say they can't do it all because not enough grunts on the ground, why should it be different for HMF?

    As the HMF are committed to more op's than ever before, are seemingly going the way of technology as a priority, reducing the front end fighting force.going to help any?
    technology should be implimented as an addition, not an instead of.

    yeh I know that was a ramble of words rather than a statement
  5. Sir MJ basically spelt out that he wanted larger brigades that were more deployable. Maybe lessons can be learned from 3 Cdo here...
  6. If they had got rid of the infantry arms plot back in the early 1990s when almost every infantry regiment had at least one battalion, it may have worked without the hassles that are going to be caused this time.

    You would have had the same effect; keeping the battalions in their specialized roles, while at the same time retaining the options of posting soldiers within the regiment to different locations, but still retaining the regimental family. All of the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

    Now it's all too late. The infantry is too small (comparativley) and all this re-organization will be pushed through with a possible detrimental effect on recruitment for the county battalions.

    The question still has to be answered how it can be good for the infantry to be reduced by 4 battalions at the same time as deployments are so high, while the man at the top also thinks that the TA infantry, who've been providing valuable support on deployments for their regular counterparts, can be cut at the same time?

    If you cut the army by 2500 and cut the TA.... then you have to cut operational deployments. Where's the difficult maths in that?!!
  7. I pretty much agree with FAS. However, TCH stated that restructuring would be backed up by new capabilities. This is a lie. All the capabilities he mentioned either don't work or will be very, very late into service. If at all. :x
  8. Buffhoon said in his speech that he had already (in July) made announcements about SF re-org - but I can't see any reference to that on the MOD site. I don't think he was referring to the Power Rangers battalion.

    Does anyone have/recall details?
  9. i too am in favour of the changes... one thing i don't understand though... the arms plot meant about 8 out of 40 battalions, about 20%, were unavailable because they are in the process of re-roling.... but from now on individuals are gonna move... so does that mean that about 20% of the individuals in a unit are not effective in their job because they have only just arrived?... will this affect the overall effectiveness of units or have i missed something?

    oh... and i'm not in the army and never was... but i don't give a shi*te if you'd like to treat my comments with disdain... all british taxpayers get to comment on the army... but then again, I'm not a british taxpayer either!
  10. This was in an article from the Torygraph a while ago about a fifth sabre sqn for Hereford "The expansion has been made possible by the announcement last July by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, of a £1.5 billion funding increase for the special forces".
    This is probably what he was refering to? .......maybe he was expecting DSF to rustle up a 24 SAS for him for his cash downpayment. You can just see it....DSF telling him to f off and that he might be able to have another Squadron ready for him in 3 to 4 years.
  11. Tricam pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is not really on.

    Changes were and are necessary, whether or not those offered up are either right or sensible is another matter. TCB and his mates have been running things for a few years now, they have invested huge amounts in education and we have gone from 4th to 11th in world tables (strangely whilst doing this more people have good grades than ever before), collossal amounts in the health service (ask any nurse or doctor if things have improved there) and it is very nice to know that the poorest 10% of pensioners are now better off (at the expense of every other pensioner).

    It seems to me that the only changes that this pack have effected competantly are the changes to the English language. Blunkett, a man who has not only been having an affair with a married, (and previously had one with a creature in his food chain) but pulled a few strings for her and organised rail trips at the public expense is when he resigns a man of great integrity.

    Are the changes to the Army going to benefit the Defence of this country, the individuals within the army or the wives and families of those who serve. I would like to think so but I'm not holding my breath.
  12. hmmm... ok, try suspending reality for a moment... /reality_disengaged

    I wonder is there any way the CGS or someone like that would come on here and answer some of these questions... in a kinda similar way that the MP forums were going to work (whatever happened to them anyway?)... i presume he often gives interviews in Soldier magazine etc so ARRSE could be just another medium for getting his message out?... obviously, there would have to be rules - the internet does amplify the voices of whingers and moaners and so sometimes internet debates can be pointless, but it might work?...

    ok that's it... /reality_engaged
  13. The TA infantry used to be trained for specific role but they don't anymore(?) but they are being employed in regular units that have spent months re-rolling.
    I don't think the changes were sold very well but I could see what they were getting at - and that made a lot of sense.
  14. Yes you are getting an Army structured much more like that of the US, and Canada.
    A British Army that will fit much better in the new European common Army.
  15. irony on\ Thanks for that cheering thought, RCSignals!! /irony off