A 1 Bde army?

[DeV]

So what would a 1 Bde army look like (using publicly available info only):

A much reduced DFHQ (with no Corps Directorates - all bar one corps (infantry) having only 1 unit).
Obviously 1 of the 2 Bdes disestablished
3 or 4 infantry battalions in the remaining Bde
1 Mech Coy merged into 1 of the Inf Bns
1 ACS disestablished

In the cases of the Corps, there would be a small School element integral to the Bde unit (but detached to DFTC) and where necessary 1/2 extra plns (for detachment to DFHQ and DFTC (eg MP & CIS Plns for DFHQ & DFTC, etc). Where there are Wksps (eg Ord, Tpt etc) then maybe a Group HQ at Bde level may be required (possibly detached to DFTC). Basically the unit in the Bde would command all units from that Corps as a Corps Directorate (eg the CO of the Ord Wksps would report to the OC Bde Ord Coy/Gp).

Inf Sch retained (but I'd probably add a recruit and 2* training plns/coy), same with C&S Sch and Cadet Sch. UNTSI expanded. Corps Schs all under Mil Col.

The SSU would support all DFTC located (and commanded) units.

[na grohmiti]

Ignore all that went before regarding ORBAT. Our brigade structure made no sense. Instead follow established military doctrine for a single brigade army.
So do you want a single Irish Brigade, or a single NATO standard brigade?
Do you want a Light infantry Brigade, or a mechanised brigade?

The whole question is a joke unless you actually define a role to which you expect this ridiculous concept to defend.

Stupid thread. Giving the beancounters ideas when the opposite is clearly what is required and desired, namely a return to three brigades, with proper manning.

[jack08]

Jesus, How do you maintain an all arms conventional army with the above shit. How do you train people to do anything, CIS, ORD, Engrs, Medic, Even Inf. How could you provide a Bn overseas. Why do we do this to ourselves. We turn on each other at every change, Navel V Army V Aer Corps, DF V Res, Corps V Corps. We are willing to cut ourselves instead of expanding.

[SwiftandSure]

It's all fun and games until a war breaks out.

[DeV]

Well others have suggested it, I'm just ORBATing it

What part of our Bde structure made no sense?

[DeV]

How do you train people to do anything, CIS, ORD, Engrs, Medic, Even Inf. How could you provide a Bn overseas. Why do we do this to ourselves. We turn on each other at every change, Navel V Army V Aer Corps, DF V Res, Corps V Corps. We are willing to cut ourselves instead of expanding.

Absolutely (as I say above I didn't suggest it)

Realistically, it would probably mean all the below having to do their training in the UK:
- Officers seeking promotion to Lt Col
- All non-infantry (and possibly arty) corps officers courses (eg YO, Std Offr)
- Possibly all SNCOs courses
- probably a lot of tech cses for other ranks

[hptmurphy]

From the top down!

[hptmurphy]

It's all fun and games until a war breaks out.

And then they'll just disband the lot in case we might be obliged to attend

[jack08]

It coat a fortune to send lads on courses to england.

[ropebag]

depends what you want your Army to be able to do...

in combat terms you already have a 1 Bde Army - Artillery, Mech, Logs etc.. are all at a level to support a single Bde. the answer, from my persective, is to amend the structure to reflect the reality - an operations element and a support element. operations is the crunchy units, and support is the training, the public duties/security units, and the endless number of unseen stuff that acts as the grease for the wheels of operations.

you could have formed all-arms units within operations, or you could just assemble composite formations according to task.

i personally take the view that having a two Bde structure - however hollow and fantasy-based it might be - is low hanging fruit for any future resource envelope consolidation, and the halving of manpower would be spectacularly damaging. it would be far better for the Army to grip that particular batton under a government that is interested in defence and sympathetic to organisational/doctrinal change, and do it in a measured, logical way than as a back-of-a-fag-packet exercise when an incoming government looks at defence and says 'two Bdes, you don't use one - we'll have that for the parish pump...'

[jack08]

Which Arty Reg are you getting rid of?
What current Bn are gone?
Which Transport Unit?
Which CIS Coy
Which Bde HQ?
Which MP Coy?
Which Engr Coy

I'm just interested? Or are you planning on setting up a new HQ some where.

[jack08]

Oh I forgot, what Bks are you closing?

[DeV]

Which Arty Reg are you getting rid of?
What current Bn are gone?
Which Transport Unit?
Which CIS Coy
Which Bde HQ?
Which MP Coy?
Which Engr Coy

I'm just interested? Or are you planning on setting up a new HQ some where.

Well giving that your getting rid of probably 1/4 of the DF you will close barracks

I would say Renmore, Kilkenny, Dundalk and Finner could all close (it could be more if they centralised - which if they were to do it would be the thing to do with max 3/4 barracks.

[DeV]

Someone else suggested this by the way I'm trying to show the implications

[DeV]

It coat a fortune to send lads on courses to england.

Say for example the 20-30 Comdts who go on the C&S course every year, you aren't going to have that requirement when you have 1/3 of the current Lt Cols. So you either run the course every 2-3 years or you send 2-4 to the UK/Germany/France/the USA annually