UK Army Austerity Changes (From: The Optimal Battle Group vs. the Affiliated Battle Group)

[Kirkhill]

Bump - I decided to resurrect this topic, at risk of opening old wounds, because of this British Army related article:

Units including the Parachute Regiment, the SAS and the Household Cavalry are understood to be among those unaffected as the Government dramatically reduces the size of the Army.


However, it comes at a price, as the axe will fall on support units, leading to concerns that it will leave the Services “unbalanced”. When the Army was deployed to Helmand in 2006 only a third of the 3,150 troops were infantry — the rest were combat support troops and engineers.


Among those facing steep reductions in numbers are the Corps of Royal Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Artillery.


Military planners say the reductions were forced on them because of David Cameron’s promise that “no infantry cap badges should be lost” when the Army is cut from 100,000 troops to 82,000 by 2020.....

More at link ...

My point for discussion is this:  Is it conceivable that this "unfortunate" state of affairs can be salvaged in some way, or potentially used to advantage?

What happens if the Infantry Regiments (Battalions), and for that matter the Armoured Regiments, had some of the support tasks down-loaded on to them?

For example, while recognizing that some infantry battalions will disappear to generate manpower, what happens if the remaining battalions are beefed up by:

Adding more Pioneers (trained in RCE schools)
Adding more Mortars and perhaps a SAM elm as well as taking the FOO/FAC teams (trained at RCA schools)
Adding more Transport/EME/Log elms.

All of them would be "permanently" attached to the battalions and "badged" to the battalions but could revert to their trades if and when openings became available.

That would seem to meet the requirement to "reduce" the support while at the same time saving badges but would not only "maintain" the support (yes I am aware of the contradiction - but I am talking about the world of politicians where perception is reality) but actually create a more functional, deployable infantry battalion.  The support branches, both combat and service, could then concentrate their reduced numbers on higher roles and larger formations.

Standing by  :warstory:


Edit: Further to this I am intrigued to note that the "Heavy" equipment will not be disposed of but put on to the Reserve books to be maintained - presumably along with trying to maintain some of the skill sets.  I have long felt that the Artillery is well suited for this type of organization, with the Reserves supplying Firing batteries of various calibers and types while the Regs handled the field coordination (FOO/FACS - FSCCs - ISTAR and such other appropriate acronyms as well as a limited number of "ready' batteries).  I don't know how this will work for the Armoured types - Mr. Wallace and his mates have convinced me that maintaining and operating fighting vehicles is a lot more work than just jumping in and turning the keys like they came from Hertz (and just as infanteering is a lot more than just being able to fire a rifle).

 

[Old Sweat]

I know you are talking about the British Army, which is a very different beast than is ours. However, what is moot, and I am not trying to dodge your points, is that the Brits are reducing to 25 battalions in six brigades. Presumably, the battalion posted to support the school and the public duties world are not in this mix. I am a little concerned about the putting all the eggs in the short, little war basket.

If I read the story correctly, the British Army will not be much more than 2.5 times bigger than us in units, and perhaps less in boots on the ground, considering their recruiting woes. I also am of the opinion that it is driven by the number of troops the treasury is willing to pay and equip, and the law of unexpected consequences may play merry heck with any plugging other arms into infantry battalions.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed on all points OS.

Especially the difference between "them" and "us".

I'm just wondering how, if push comes to shove as it has to the Brits in a big way, and us in a lesser way, it might be possible to come up with a 90% solution, or even an 80% solution. 

It's not as if the Brits haven't absorbed major changes in the past.  For example even the Fusiliers were originally raised for your mob.  Maybe they should revert to "artillery-ie fire support" roles and be declared and be converted to MG/MOR battalions with the added task of FOO/FACs - FSCC.  Arty roles off loaded.  Infantry roles off loaded.  Infantry cap badge saved.

For the Canucks - probably not a workable solution.  Not enough of anybody doing anything just now.

 

[Old Sweat]

Being a parochial gunner for a bit, I checked the organization of the Brit gunner regiments, 15 regular and 7 TA. The Brits have 5 AS 90 regiments (which are supposed to become TA,) 4 regular and 3 TA light gun regiments, 1 regular and 1 TA Rapier regiments, 1 regular and 1 TA Manpads regiments, 1 regular and 1 TA MLRS regiments and 3 regular STA/UAV and 1 TA UAV regiments. How this will fall out escapes me, but I don't think fiddling with infantillery units will add much. I am convinced there is going to be a manpower hit. Whether much can be saved by changing from AS 90 to something with smaller gun detachments and logisitics tail remains to be seen.

 

[Kirkhill]

If nothing else it is going to be fascinating to watch.

Edit to add PS - Love the "Infantillery" cognomen.  Where do I join?