six battalions

bath handle

I see in the paper today there are plans being drawn up to reduce the army to six battalions. Presumably one will be taken from each brigade.

L.Jenkins

Do you have a source, just for a read.

gizmo555

It's in the Sunday Business Post, they don't put the paper online on Sundays, they wait till Monday so cheapskates like me will still buy it!

aindriu80

Originally Posted by Sunday Business Post 21/08/2011

Army considers cutting battalion numbers
21 August 2011 By John Burke Public Affairs Correspondent

Army bosses are examining the possibility of reducing the number of battalions in the Irish Army from nine to six and closing further barracks, informed sources have said.

The proposals, which have yet to be finalised, are among a range of money-saving options being considered by the defence forces.

They have arisen following negotiations between the departments of defence and finance over future budget allocations.

Barracks which currently cater for small numbers of troops, which are located close to other similar facilities or which are used to train army reservists are considered most at risk of closure, military sources said.

Among other cost-reduction measures which have been discussed is a requirement for all other government departments to cover costs associated with the use of defence forces personnel when they are called to act as an aid to civil powers.

In such a scenario, the departments of environment and transport would have been asked to cover the cost of using troops to assist with the response to severe frost and snow at the end of 2010 and earlier this year.

The government declined a request made by Pdforra - the soldiers representative body - seeking a so called ‘‘decency payment’’ to be paid to soldiers who came to the rescue of snowbound communities and public servants during the ongoing weather crisis.

While members of the permanent defence forces played a key role in transporting nurses and other essential service workers to and from their jobs during the icy spell, they are not entitled to claim overtime, unlike gardaí or other emergency services workers.

However, the defence forces do bear significant operational costs, including fuel and logistical ones, when thousands of soldiers are requested to take part in such activity.

Military sources said that the proposal was motivated by the costs associated with the large-scale deployment of defence force personnel over the past winter, all of which was carried by the defence forces and department of defence budget.

A department of defence spokesperson said that they would not be discussing any cost-saving measures tabled at this time.

‘‘As with all departments, the Department of Defence will submit proposals under the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure in due course and cannot comment on possible outcomes’’

There you have it. An army of 3 regiments More barracks to be cut as well. Pretty drastic in the last few decades.

Poccington

aindriu80 wrote: »

There you have it. An army of 3 regiments More barracks to be cut as well. Pretty drastic in the last few decades.

Well, it was nuts to think we could ever maintain 9 operational Battalions.

Units simply didn't have the manpower. It's better to go with 6 operational Battalions and the 3 training establishments.

Same goes for barracks. We've too many, spread too far, for an Army of our size.

goldie fish

To be fair, it was time we moved away from the ORBAT based around a WW2 defence scenario, with separate units of combat support and combat service support units.
Keeping small barracks because its in the ministers constituency is hardly the best way to develop a defence policy either.

bath handle

The problem with only having six battalions is that very few individuals get experience in the key operational roles.

OS119

bath handle wrote: »

The problem with only having six battalions is that very few individuals get experience in the key operational roles.

on the other hand, with nine fantasy Bn's the people occupying the roles within those Bn's aren't really getting realistic experience.

the Bn commander who never gets to play with 3 full rifle Coys, a heavy weapons Coy and an HQ Coy, the Coy Commander who never gets to play with a full Coy, the Bn Operations Officer who never gets to see whether the Bn plan he worked out actually works, the Bn Training Officer who never gets to manage the training of a full Bn.

far better to have a smaller number of fully qualified and experienced officers, than a larger number of officers who may or may not be able to handle their duties when a nasty, horrible, dire operational role comes up.

it's also far better for the politicians and senior civil servants to twig that the IA has 6 operational infantry Bn's, not nine operational Bn's - if you say you've got nine Bn's, you'll get tasked for nine Bn's.

Milk & Honey

Why would the tasking change? what do the Civil Powers know about battalions? The General Staff are requested to do something. Either they can or they can't. No one tasking the force knows or cares how many battalions there are.
I also think there is more learned trying to work with smaller numbers rather than "playing" with full complements. Most of the key personnel such as CQMS, COY Sgt, BQMS & BSM adjutant, QM, Coy Cmdrs, 2ic & Co do the same job irrespective of how many are in the Battalion. Having people prepared and ready who can operate without any training period in key operation roles when called upon is crucial.
Units sometimes have to form at very short notice. The 32 Bn Onuc was formed in 4 days. The last thing needed is to discover that some key person hasn't enough training or experience to do their job.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

on the other hand, with nine fantasy Bn's the people occupying the roles within those Bn's aren't really getting realistic experience.

Exactly.

I'm just glad that the DF has decided to go with 6 Bn's instead of continuing to pretend that we could ever field 9 Bn's or anything close to it.

OS119

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The 32 Bn Onuc was formed in 4 days. The last thing needed is to discover that some key person hasn't enough training or experience to do their job.

thats my point - when you send a scratch Bn to some dusty hellhole, you need to be very sure that the bloke in charge is used to commanding the 600+ soldiers he's responsible for in a formed, operational Bn, not the 350 of a 'paper' Bn.

commanding soldiers on operations is a steep enough learning curve all on its own, suddenly finding yourself commanding 90-100% more people than you're used to in such circumstances is begging for chaos with your bowl out.

Kosseegan

OS119 wrote: »

thats my point - when you send a scratch Bn to some dusty hellhole, you need to be very sure that the bloke in charge is used to commanding the 600+ soldiers he's responsible for in a formed, operational Bn, not the 350 of a 'paper' Bn.

commanding soldiers on operations is a steep enough learning curve all on its own, suddenly finding yourself commanding 90-100% more people than you're used to in such circumstances is begging for chaos with your bowl out.

If a battalion is sent somewhere, how many battalion level exercises are carried out? Most exercises are at platoon level or company level, at a push.
Administration is often the biggest task which needs most experience.

aindriu80

The most the Irish defence forces ever sent overseas was 1 battalion. That means the D.F. could really deal with anything bigger than 500 soldiers at any one time.

Shrinking the army might be a good idea to make what they have already work better but wont help much if they ever have to do larger sized exercises

Milk & Honey

aindriu80 wrote: »

The most the Irish defence forces ever sent overseas was 1 battalion. That means the D.F. could really deal with anything bigger than 500 soldiers at any one time.

Shrinking the army might be a good idea to make what they have already work better but wont help much if they ever have to do larger sized exercises

There were 2 battalions in the Congo simultaneously in 1960.

laoch na mona

bath handle wrote: »

The problem with only having six battalions is that very few individuals get experience in the key operational roles.

maybe they could rotate roles a bit

reducing the army makes sense (recession and all) but like everything in ireland they'll make a balls of it

Evade

Will the Army be spreading it's 8,500ish personnel across the six battalions or will there be a reduction of personnel too?

OS119

Evade wrote: »

Will the Army be spreading it's 8,500ish personnel across the six battalions or will there be a reduction of personnel too?

my understanding - open to correction of course - is that its primarily an adminstrative change.

so instead of nine infantry Bn's, all to some degree undermanned and under supported (CS/CSS), the idea to have six fully manned, fully supported (apart from Artillery...) Bn's that can actually do the job.

there will be job losses - you'll need 3 less adjutants, 3 less CO's etc... but with more young, junior officers than Bn postings you could use them to breathe new blood into the RDF Cadre, as well as sending some Coy OC's on exchange tours to sandy places to learn some tricks.

aindriu80

well if they do cut another 3 battalions they should deploy the reserve as units including overseas.

OS119

aindriu80 wrote: »

well if they do cut another 3 battalions they should deploy the reserve as units including overseas.

why?

the DF only sends a maximum of one Bn group overseas at any one time - with 6 month tours that means that each Bn has 30 months between the end of one tour and the start of the next.

not exactly unsustainable is it?

now i'm a big fan of reserve forces, they have proved time and time again that they can do the most technically demanding roles in the hardest fighting in the hardest environment and generate forces consistantly over an extented period - but a 1Bn commitment for a 6Bn force is by no stretch of the imagination a reason to dig out the reserves.

concussion

The AR as it stands is in no way capable of replacing the PDF at home, let alone overseas.

Kosseegan

OS119 wrote: »

why?

the DF only sends a maximum of one Bn group overseas at any one time - with 6 month tours that means that each Bn has 30 months between the end of one tour and the start of the next.

.

That is complete rubbish. There have been many occasions when more than one battalion has been abroad. Single battalions are never sent abroad as one unit so your 30 months is nonsense. With 9 battalions it does not go out to 48 months. All battalions sent abroad are composite units drawn from the entire army. Of recent times each Brigade has taken it in turn to act as the lead formation with the bulk of troops drawn from each brigade in turn. Each brigade does every third turn and it will make no difference if each brigade has three battalions or two battalions.

I expect the 1st will reverse takeover the 28th, The 2nd will take over the 27th and the 3rd and 4th will absorb the 12th. That will leave the numbering at 1 to 6, with 1 and 6 in the West. 3 and 4 in the South and 2 and 5 in the East.

OS119

Kosseegan wrote: »

That is complete rubbish...

sorry, i forget the complete twattery which exists within the DF and its mental arms plot.

ok, so each soldier gets 30 months between tours - happy now?

c0ck.

Kosseegan

OS119 wrote: »

sorry, i forget the complete twattery which exists within the DF and its mental arms plot.

ok, so each soldier gets 30 months between tours - happy now?

c0ck.

You don't appear to know much about the Defence forces at all. The number of standing battalions has absolutely no effect on the frequency with which soldiers will be deployed abroad. Three battalions of 300 will contribute the same number of men as two battalions of 450.
Battalions going overseas will have members of service corps other than infantry. The frequency of which any soldier serves on overseas missions depends on the numbers required for each mission, the duration of the tours of duty and the number of volunteers seeking to be included.

Milk & Honey

Kosseegan wrote: »

I expect the 1st will reverse takeover the 28th, The 2nd will take over the 27th and the 3rd and 4th will absorb the 12th. That will leave the numbering at 1 to 6, with 1 and 6 in the West. 3 and 4 in the South and 2 and 5 in the East.

The 3rd has cannibalised a few battalions in its time. The Irish speaking battalion will probably be based in Donegal alright, if Galway closes, given that it is a county with a Gaeltacht area. If the 1st Bn is amalgamated out of Galway, will USAC be retained?

Poccington

aindriu80 wrote: »

well if they do cut another 3 battalions they should deploy the reserve as units including overseas.

Why?

Lads are falling over themselves trying to get Overseas.

Kosseegan wrote: »

I expect the 1st will reverse takeover the 28th, The 2nd will take over the 27th and the 3rd and 4th will absorb the 12th. That will leave the numbering at 1 to 6, with 1 and 6 in the West. 3 and 4 in the South and 2 and 5 in the East.

The 27th isn't going anywhere. 2 Bn will be gone.There's a good chance 3 Bn will be gone too.

galwaycyclist

Poccington wrote: »

Why?

Lads are falling over themselves trying to get Overseas.

For the same justifications given for switching to to full strength batallions - to give them realistic experience. Just sending the same same pdf people overseas again and again is a waste of a badly needed training opportunity.

OS119

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...Just sending the same same pdf people overseas again and again is a waste of a badly needed training opportunity.

slightly self-deating argument - a Bn commander who has done regular operational tours as a Pln Cdr, Bn Ops Off, Coy Cdr, and Brigade Staff Officer is going to be a vastly better Bn CO on an operational tour than his colleague who last did a tour as a Pln Cdr 15 years ago, he's also going to be a vastly better teacher and mentor to those YO's and soldiers coming up behind him.

two problems with the current set-up: firstly that there aren't enough tours to keep everyone up to speed, secondly that while there are undoubtedly some superb soldiers in the RDF, the general standard and the gaping holes in the organisation mean that the experience and learning that deploying RDF personnel in a overseas tours would provide are going to be pretty much wasted and thrown down a black hole.

a reformed RDF would need operational tours in order to be an effective reserve force, but the current RDF as an organisation would gain little from it, and its quite likely - imv - that he go-getters within the RDF who got on a tour would return full of knowledge and ideas, take one look at the structure and attitudes around them and leave at the first opportunity.

Milk & Honey

Poccington wrote: »

Why?



The 27th isn't going anywhere. 2 Bn will be gone.There's a good chance 3 Bn will be gone too.

3 Bn is the senior unit in the Army. It has already taken over the 35th, the 14th, the 13th and the 8th Battalions. It will take over the 12th as well.

There will be 2 battalions on the border. Whether they are called the 1st and 2nd or the 28th and 27th doesn't make much difference.

odin_ie

Milk & Honey wrote: »

3 Bn is the senior unit in the Army. It has already taken over the 35th, the 14th, the 13th and the 8th Battalions. It will take over the 12th as well.

There will be 2 battalions on the border. Whether they are called the 1st and 2nd or the 28th and 27th doesn't make much difference.

30th Bn I think, not the 35th..

Poccington

Milk & Honey wrote: »

3 Bn is the senior unit in the Army. It has already taken over the 35th, the 14th, the 13th and the 8th Battalions. It will take over the 12th as well.

There will be 2 battalions on the border. Whether they are called the 1st and 2nd or the 28th and 27th doesn't make much difference.

I can't see 3 Bn overtaking 12 Bn at all. Being a senior unit has nothing to do with it. Pretty much all the talk is that 3 Bn will be becoming a Training Unit, especially since B Coy pretty much solely exists to run courses with the Mowags.

They won't be called 1 or 2 Bn at all. The only Units who's names will be changing will be the Units becoming Training Units. Even then, they'll keep their number designations.

Milk & Honey

odin_ie wrote: »

30th Bn I think, not the 35th..

It was both. The 35th was the first take-over and the 30th was the last.

Milk & Honey

Poccington wrote: »

I can't see 3 Bn overtaking 12 Bn at all. Being a senior unit has nothing to do with it. Pretty much all the talk is that 3 Bn will be becoming a Training Unit, especially since B Coy pretty much solely exists to run courses with the Mowags.

They won't be called 1 or 2 Bn at all. The only Units who's names will be changing will be the Units becoming Training Units. Even then, they'll keep their number designations.

There will be reductions with barrack closures. 2 battalions per Brigade. B Coy of the 3rd will probably be absorbed into the Military College. Clonmel will be closed and absorbed into Kilkenny. The 4th Bn will take over Limerick.
The 1st Bn was formed in 1924 as An Chead cath. There will be a desire to retain An Chead Cath as an Irish speaking unit, while at the same time closing Galway. Accordingly it will move to the border and absorb the 28th Bn, with some of it going to Athlone.In order to make this seem a rational move the same will be done with the 2nd. The 3rd will be retained in the interests of uniformity.

OS119

Milk & Honey wrote: »

...2 battalions per Brigade....

is it not obvious that the three Brigade structure will go?

not next week perhaps, but in three years who believes there will be the pretence of 3 combat Brigades? far more likely a 'two Brigade+' structure - two operational Brigades, and a Support Command responsible for Training, deep Maintainence, Adminstration etc...

maybe even a one Bde+ structure, possibly with four ingegral Inf Bn groups, a support command and an alternating MACP Inf Bn to do the CIT's, prison Guards etc...

Milk & Honey

OS119 wrote: »

is it not obvious that the three Brigade structure will go?

not next week perhaps, but in three years who believes there will be the pretence of 3 combat Brigades? far more likely a 'two Brigade+' structure - two operational Brigades, and a Support Command responsible for Training, deep Maintainence, Adminstration etc...

maybe even a one Bde+ structure, possibly with four ingegral Inf Bn groups, a support command and an alternating MACP Inf Bn to do the CIT's, prison Guards etc...

The current proposal is for a 6 battalion army. There is no proposal to reduce the number of brigades again. The situation is complicated by the border. It would be very unwieldy having a single Brigade covering the entire border.
There has been a long tradition of having run down anaemic formations. In the 1930s there were only 5 Infantry battalions. In the 1950s and 1960s there were battalions with a strength of about 150. less than a third of establishment strength.
The stop start nature of the induction process has the knock on effect of creating an undesirable age structure from time to time.
What happens is not always rational and is usually a mish-mash created by civil servants trying to balance a budget, not trying to create an effective military. Added to this the political influences in maintaining too many installations.
As shown in 1939 and 1969 run down too far and there is immense difficulty in expanding again. Expansion takes time which may not be available.