General Discussion thread.

[Eaglenine2]

Eh in this American option is that the increasing funding that the Army got for increasing manning and equipment to full strength for the regulars and funding for the TA?

[Louie]

The TA is a whole different animal which I will get into tonight. Basically the TA man for man was a whole lot cheaper than the regular army, additionally IRL the TA ORBAT Review suggested a new category of TA, Limited Liability TA. This would be a reduced drill commitment because you had certain specialized training and skills that you did everyday which could directly be transferred over to your military job. For instance you worked construction, you could be in a RE unit, or you had a HGV license and you were a truck driver, RCT unit.

I will get into this more later but the increase in the TA units were possible both manpower wise and money wise.

Also the equipment such as Chally 2 & Warrior, remember a TA unit would not have them parked at the Drill Hall for a Saturday night en masse. There may be a couple for monthly familiarization but the full Monty would be at Catterick or Salisbury Plain and drawn by the unit for yearly training.

For instance IRL, 223 Sqn RCT had WE of 99 Tippers, for the most part they were all in storage in BAOR and maybe had between 5 and 10 of them at the Drill Halls.

[Simon Darkshade]

You may need to rework that question in order for it to be answerable, M. Eaglenine.

The issue with the TA increases isn’t the cost, although that all adds up, but the sheer scale of increase - 11 tank, 14 artillery, 20 infantry and 20 HSF battalions. All of that for an arm of service which might not even make it to the battlefield, according to prevailing perceptions of the nature of a Third World War.

There was a demonstrable shortage in @ 1989/90, but this is not binding upon the entirety of the next 15 years, nor does it necessarily follow that there would be directly analogous circumstances when there is no analogous 1989.

My original point was that, even with this substantive boost to the TA and specific Home Defence forces, there remained 8 regular battalions on dedicated Home Defence missions 100 days deep into World War Three, with new theatres sprouting up like weeds after rain.

I don’t dispute that the first priority would be filling out existing Bttns to PE, and the second to add 4th rifle companies et al. But that isn’t necessarily going to take all of the 16 years.

If there is a demonstrable shortage on the Arms Plot, then in the light of the general increase to every other arm of defence, an argument can be made for at least one ‘new’ infantry battalion.

In any event, the larger part of my original dive was intended to be on what can be done now, at D+100, with a new manpower pipeline in place.

[Eaglenine2]

So the increased funding is for TA , modern kit and manning. With regimental politics preventing which regiment getting additional battalions?

[Louie]

You may need to rework that question in order for it to be answerable, M. Eaglenine.

The issue with the TA increases isn’t the cost, although that all adds up, but the sheer scale of increase - 11 tank, 14 artillery, 20 infantry and 20 HSF battalions. All of that for an arm of service which might not even make it to the battlefield, according to prevailing perceptions of the nature of a Third World War.

There was a demonstrable shortage in @ 1989/90, but this is not binding upon the entirety of the next 15 years, nor does it necessarily follow that there would be directly analogous circumstances when there is no analogous 1989.

My original point was that, even with this substantive boost to the TA and specific Home Defence forces, there remained 8 regular battalions on dedicated Home Defence missions 100 days deep into World War Three, with new theatres sprouting up like weeds after rain.

I don’t dispute that the first priority would be filling out existing Bttns to PE, and the second to add 4th rifle companies et al. But that isn’t necessarily going to take all of the 16 years.

If there is a demonstrable shortage on the Arms Plot, then in the light of the general increase to every other arm of defence, an argument can be made for at least one ‘new’ infantry battalion.

In any event, the larger part of my original dive was intended to be on what can be done now, at D+100, with a new manpower pipeline in place.

Simon,

I see what you’re saying, two Bns (my aforementioned 1 Cameronians and 1 Y&L) are doable but that’s up to Bernard. The easiest move would be additional Gurkhas. I programmed in 57 Bns as I can use them in the FEBA as Mech Bns with 24 ATGWs. One to the Water Sandwich in 1AD’s TAOR (refurbishment area for 7AB after the CF battle) and one in the Sibesse Gap in 4AD’s TAOR.