It's all about flexibility BRoger. It's not like the old days when battalions, brigades, and divisions more or less kept to their organisations - these days army units organise themselves according to need. Formal orbats as shown on the MoD website, are only peacetime administrative formations (used for training, staff reports etc). In war it all changes.

 

As for why the army didn't make it clear, I suppose it was partly a mixture of keeping formations secret, partly they had other things to think about, and probably not that many people are interested!

My understanding is that as in all matters involving the UK Armed Forces money is at the heart of it.  Up until a few years ago the peacetime establishment of the three armoured brigades - 4th, 7th and 20th - that comprised 1st UK Armoured Division were "square" brigades each composed of two type 58 armoured regiments and two battalions of armoured infantry.  Thus in war the divison could theoretically field twelve battle groups.  For about ten years Brits could rightly boast that 1 UK  Armd Div was the strongest in NATO's Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps with over 300 MBTs.  Then the Ministry of Defence beancounters got involved.... The Germany based division was all that remained of that marvellous formation that used to be the British Army of the Rhine.  First to get its marching orders was the division's air defence regiment which was returned to the UK in 1996, with the word that in war it would be available to the division in war.  More salami slicing followed.  In the late 90's the Blair Government announced that each of the three brigades would lose one of its armoured regiment from its peacetime establishment.  One had its Challengers taken off them and merged with a squadron of Royal Air Force Regiment to form an Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment equipped with Fuchs wheeled armoured vehicles.  As an aside how do you sell a military career to a young Royal Tank Regiment trooper that he can look forward to 22 years of "Blot bang rub?"  The other two armoured regiments were sent to the UK and yes would be available to 1 UK Armd Div in time of war.  Moving on from that I see that 4 Armd Bde is also  having its MBTs removed and is being reroled into a Future Rapid Effects 

Brigade to be equipped with FRES vehicles that have yet to be built.  It has recently been anounced that 4 Bde is also to return to the UK where its remaining armoured regiment will rerole onto 30 yearold Scimitar - CVR(T) - where they're going to come from heaven only know - pending delivery of FRES.  No doubt 4 Armd Bde will also be available to 1 UK Armd Div in the event of war.  So in answer to your question that 7th Armd Bde was able to field two armoured regiments during the 2003 war was the realisation of UK Defence policy.  I also understand that each of the field artillery regiments was to lose a battery of AS90 self propelled guns, this may have already happened.  At the end of the day it all comes down to money.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, prior to the Labour Government's Strategic Defence Review, armoured brigades did have two armoured regiments each, but these contained signficantly fewer tanks than 58 (not sure what the exact number was - think it was thirty something). So the reduction in the number of armoured regiments was in part (but not wholly) offset by their increase in size.

 

The point is, I suppose, that if it takes a doubling of the size of an established brigade to make it ready for combat then does that mean that in effect, the UK has half the number of brigades it claims are operationally deployable?

 

On a counter point, in the Gulf War, the UK deployed two armoured brigades but roughly the same amount of tanks, although the overall infantry content was higher I believe. Furthermore, in the war of 2003, the number of tanks deployed by the British amounted to almost a third of the total number the UK and US fielded between them, although the Americans deployed significantly more than 3 brigades. This surely suggests that the UK fielded an extraordinarily and unusually powerful single brigade in the invasion of Iraq.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say Exemplo, but it's not true that 4 Mech Bde is losing its tanks. The armoured regiment in each mechanised brigade will have 3 armoured squadrons (rather than 4) totalling 44 tanks, plus a light armoured sqaudron with Scimitar or Sabre. In addition to this, each Mech Bde also has a Recce regiment.

 

 

After Options for Change each armoured regiment had 38 tanks. 3 x Sqns of 12 plus two in Reg't HQ.

7 Armoured Brigade in Gulf War 2 was indeed an extremely powerful unit.

 

In think its unfair to say that only half the army's brigades are deployable. All 5 armoured/mech brigades (1, 4, 7, 12, 20) are operational. The problem is that the army doesn't always have the units it needs in one brigade at any one time so it has to chop and change as necessary.

 

Having said that the army clearly no longer has the resources it needs to fulfill what is being asked of it. The government is cutting 4 light battalions due to the peace in Northern Ireland. Trouble is, that you only have to watch the news to see that there are ever more problems in the world requiring some form of armed intervention. I can't see this ending.

 

Our army is at full stretch ("stretched but not over-stretched" according to General Dannatt) and thats without contributing to problems such as Bosnia, Lebanon, Darfur, and going on bended knees to our "allies" and begging for more support in Afghanistan. It is only because 3 Para are so good that they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth in Sangin. When the Canadians resupplied them a few weeks ago they were starving. And the government's response - send one extra Harrier (yes....one!). We may have some troops leaving Iraq soon (after failing miserably there - anyone see today's Independent?), but expect the demands on them to remain the same.

 

I'm a lefty, but I don't see how this can continue.

Actually 7 Bde on Telic was 'super squared', not only was a second armd regt added (and a 4th AS90 bty) but both regts had a 4th sabre sqn and both armd inf bns had a 4th rifle coy.  Brit bns haven't had 4 rifle coys since national service ended.  Since the end of the Cold War armd sqns have been stable at 14 tks, incl 2 in sqn HQ.

 

 I still keep laughing over the 'starving paras', rations are always the first thing to stop.  I learnt this early from my father, in late 1944 he was in a division in Burma on 100% air supply (actually unique for a formation of this size), rations were getting a bit tight so he visited the div supply unit, total rations held one bag of flour!  However, the ammo was flowing.  I've also operated for months where we took 4 days rats every 5th day in the dry season or 5 days rats every 6th day in the wet, even then the crappy stuff got slashed and buried (well they were US C rats).  I've also been on a fighting patrol planned for 6 days but stayed out for 9, we decided to go onto half rats on day 4.  This is what happens in professional armies where the job comes first.  However, in the paras' case I understand it was some weak excuse like flying conditions were too bad to fly in.

As a serving soldier (you come across as an officer with many years experience, but I'm not sure), can you answer the following questions in a balanced fashion? The problem civvies such as I have is that when you read Arsse or the papers you tend to get a very negative view, whereas senior officers and the MoD give a very positive view, so its hard to work out the truth.

 

1. How bad are the resource problems in the forces?

 

2. Are the Iraq and Afghanistan operations under-resourced and thus likely to fail because of this?

 

3. Is this resourcing issue effecting morale (and thus retention)?

 

4. Is Gen Dannatt correct when he states that the army is "stretched but not over-stretched"?

 

Thanks if you choose to answer these.

 

 

Thanks Neutraliser - a nicely balanced and surprisingly positive reply I thought. The impression comes across that they are working at their limit and so long as no more is asked of the army in particular, things should be OK.

 

I can see the difficulty faced by the government - armed forces are ultimately a black hole (rather than producing benefits that everyone can see such as schools or hospitals) and, with the exception of France, we already spend more than other European countries. When you think that Italy gets away with 1% of GDP on defence, you could be forgiven for wondering why we don't do the same. 

 

My concern I guess, is that the resources being placed in Afghanistan in particular (which I personally think is a conflict that needs to be won), are simply inadequate to the job. Perhaps as Iraq winds down, more resources can be put into this, and the tempo will slow down.

 

Lets hope so anyway. 

Not if you take the time to read into Italian military history!