Was it something like this?

Support Section:
Cpl. <>, Section/Fire Team Leader & Grenadier
Pte. <>, Machinegun Gunner
Pte. <>, Rifleman / Assistant Machinegun Gunner
Pte. <>, Rifleman / Ammo Bearer
LCpl. <>, Fire Team Leader & Grenadier
Pte. <>, Machinegun Gunner
Pte. <>, Rifleman / Assistant Machinegun Gunner
Pte. <>, Rifleman / Ammo Bearer

Would he rank of the Singaller and Mortar Man be Cpl. or Sgt?

It's a possibility...

Do you have a rough idea of how many Divisions you want to end up with or how many locations you want to deploy British troops in?

So far my notes have this...

British Forces Europe
- 1st UK Army (British Army of the Danube): Southern Europe/Balkans
- 2nd UK Army (British Army of the Rhine): Northern Europe
British Forces Americas
- 6th UK Army (British Army of the Amazon): Central & South America
British Forces Africa
- 5th UK Army (British Army of the <>): Africa
British Forces Far East
- 7th UK Army (British Army of the <>): Asia & the Pacific Rim
British Forces Near East
- 8th UK Army (British Army of the Euphrates): The Middle East
British Forces Gibraltar
British Forces Hong Kong
British Forces Brunei
British Forces Cyprus
Sovereign Base Area Akrotiri
Sovereign Base Area Dhekelia
British Forces Falkland Islands
British Forces Caribbean

Wow...that's...big...

Yes... they look very big.

The British Army of the Rhine is the largest single concentration of British Armed Forces outside of the UK.

The British Army of the Thames is the parent organization of all British Army units assigned to the British Isles. They are working at trying to keep the peace and rebuild the country and keep the British Forces out in the field supplied.

The British Army of the Danube is a single Corps that had been sent to reinforce Yugoslavia after they had declared to support NATO, but after Yugoslavia was dismantled by Med Alliance and Warsaw Pact... they are now going to push into Austria and Slovenia (their governments have already unified in all but name) so they can cut off the Italians and link up with the British Army of the Rhine.

The British Army formation in Africa is a single Corps that is built around a British Division supported by several brigades/divisions that are drawn from a coalition of African Commonwealth nations. They started the war in Kenya... trying to reinforce it from being surrounded on all sides by hostile forces.

The British Army of the Amazon is focused heavily on working alongside the US Southern Command fighting in Central and South America... and doing the island fighting campiaign in the Caribbean. They were assigned to reinforce the British Overseas Territories and Dependencies, but brought under a single unified command after the Havana Pact declared war on the UK.

The British Army of the Euphrates is a single Corps level formation that was centered around British Forces in the Middle East supporting USCENTCOM Operations. it's units from the British Army of the Euphrates that recovers evience of the incident that sparked the Sino-Soviet War, and the reason why the Beijing Pact launching a massive offensive against their Western Allies.

The British Army formation in Asia and the Pacific Rim has alot of Aussies and New Zealanders... in fact the bulk of the force is drawn from the Australian Army. Debated with the commander of the 7th UK Army having been a senior Australian officer.

The other forces are the same size as the garrisons that exist IRL, possibly with some reinforcements to account for the fighting... like British Forces Gibraltar (due to Spain being part of the Med Alliance), British Forces Hong Kong (after the Beijing Pact turns against it's western allies) and British Forces Cyprus (thanks to Greece pushing the Med Alliacne into War with NATO over their issues with Turkey)...

British Forces Europe
- 1st UK Army (British Army of the Danube): Southern Europe/Balkans
- 2nd UK Army (British Army of the Rhine): Northern Europe
- 3rd UK Army (British Army of the Thames): British Isles
British Forces Americas
- 6th UK Army (British Army of the Amazon): Central & South America
British Forces Africa
- 5th UK Army (British Army of the <>): Africa
British Forces Far East
- 7th UK Army (British Army of the <>): Asia & the Pacific Rim
British Forces Near East
- 8th UK Army (British Army of the Euphrates): The Middle East
British Forces Gibraltar
British Forces Hong Kong
British Forces Brunei
British Forces Cyprus
- Sovereign Base Area Akrotiri
- Sovereign Base Area Dhekelia
British Forces Falkland Islands
British Forces Caribbean

I am sure Leg can comment better on this but... Australian and NZ armed forces would be involved allies, not subordinates. This is engrained after the experiences of WWII.

Even with my limited knowledge, I would feel 99% confident in saying "regular Aus and NZ forces would not join a shooting war in Europe". (Specialist units like SAS might be different.) Regulars might replace British units in the Far East so that those units can go elsewhere, though.

My 2c,
Andrew

Thanks - I wrote that!

Any questions regarding kit please ask.

Support section would only be present in light role infantry units. Mechanised units add a second sergeant to the mix to command the vehicles when the infantry dismount.

NCOs above would not be grenadiers.

Rifle grenades were on issue prior to the GL being issued.

Also being short of numbers the sergeant often had to carry the 51mm.

Signaller and mortar man were usually privates.

it's not likely but in Korea they did form part of the Commonwealth Division (which also included Belgians under its command!). The 7th COULD become a Commonwealth Division.

As I recall, from the last time I saw an official orbat of one, a Manoeuvre Support Section should be five men strong. Of course, last time I deployed we didn't use a separate MS Section, instead the Sergeant had the 60mm mortar (replacing the 51) and every section had a GPMG in the delta fireteam if they were patrolling dismounted.

Section Commander with rifle and 51mm mortar
Gunner with GPMG
No.2 with rifle
Gunner with GPMG
No.2 with rifle

Oh, and the British forces tend not to use the term Fireteam/Section/Platoon Leader, but prefer the term Fireteam/Section/Platoon Commander.

HSF
 

Nate,

the HSF were formed as an extra Coy for TA units. They were distinct in their role however, being home defence only regardless of attached unit role. It would be easy to expand these to full Bns relatively easily (e.g. HSF Coy 3 WFR becomes 6WFR - 4 is reserved for TA [and has probably reformed] and the 5th Bn was a cadet unit). As all members in the Coy pre-expansion were ready trained it should be easy to expand provided you don't mind lower standards across the unit. Where you will suffer is logistically with the need for kit (as basic as uniforms but especially heavier weapons). For basing you can use the existing TA centres (supplemented by local cadet huts which are more widespread).

Regarding reforming units, I can't think of a modern example, instead you are more likely to add extra Bns to existing units.

In fact, digging out some old notes, the orbat for an infantry platoon was as follows:

Platoon HQ
Platoon Commander with L85
Platoon Sergeant with L85 and 51mm mortar
Signaller with L85

Rifle Section x3
Section Commander with L85
Rifleman with L85
LSW Gunner with L86
Rifleman with L85
Fireteam Commander/Section 2iC with L85
Rifleman with L85
LSW Gunner with L86
Rifleman with L85

Some units had an MS Section as previously outlined, others had GPMGs in the rifle sections. Officially, however, platoon weapons were L85, L86 and LAW80 only. The LMG (Minimi) and UGL didn't start to come in seriously until the early 2000s.

Oh, and Corporals and Lance-Corporals shouldn't be acting as grenadiers where the UGL is present. They have other things to focus on.

The Commonwealth is not a military organisation in any shape or form, just as (to make a comparison) neither is OPEC or Francophonie.

Absolutely agree.

I seem to remember the subject of troops from Commonwealth countries taking part in the Twilight War under UK command coming up a couple of times before...

With the exception of a handful of British overseas territories, none of whom - with all due respect - have significant military forces, Commonwealth countries are Independent States who would decide for themselves whether to go to War or not. The days of Empire, when the Dominions would send their troops to fight - and die - for the mother country are long, long gone. Australia, New Zealand, etc, would be under no obligation to declare War on anyone just because the UK has.

ANZAC troops backfilling for British troops to allow the British to be deployed elsewhere is a possibility. During the Falklands War the Royal New Zealand Navy deployed a Frigate to the Caribbean to allow the Royal Navy warship usually stationed there to join the Task Force.

Wasn't Korea under UN auspices? That might make a difference...

Also, one has to bear in mind that the Canadian and ANZAC regular militaries are, relatively speaking, not that large. For example, Canada, which had its own commitments as a NATO member, had I think (going from memory) somewhere in the region of twelve Regular Infantry Battalions at the end of the Cold War, while I seem to recall a recent discussion about Australian troops in Korea where it was suggested that the most the Australians would be able to send overseas without compromising their own security would be a Brigade Group?

In the lead up to WW2 "conscription" started in March 1939. The Compulsory Military Service Act was passed on 7 February 1939, it basically was based on the old Militia concept and eventually 30,000 men, called Militiamen, were called up for training. In September 1939 the Armed Forces (Conditions of Service) Act came into effect which merged the regular army, the army reserve, the TA, & the Militiamen into one organization, the British Army. This was needed because of the chaotic recruiting situation during WW1 where the regular army, the TF, & the New Armies all had seperate recruiting entities.

Rainbow is absolutely correct, the British Armed Forces of the late '80's early '90's were struggling to man all the units that they had, nevermind expanding. I will get into it further when I get home as I'm on my mobile with such issues as the MARILYN Report & Options for Change.
Hey Nate you might also want to check out our earlier discussion and links on the forum its a good head start

British TO&E info (split from British Army Equipment...

Thank you for all the info! it's helping alot.

Australians and New Zealand troops taking over the majority of the positions in the Far East and Near East formations would be possible then... While their special operations and other specialists COULD provide support for the British Forces Europe. My original idea was that Austrialians had provided peace keeping troops in Cyprus... and when the Greeks launched an attack on them. Thus triggering their declaration of war, and being part of the British Army of the Danube (the force enaged against the Med Alliance in the Balkans).

The Australians and New Zealand troops in Africa was going to have been Peacekeepers trying to help with the situation in Botswana (sp) where the Congo Pact was sponsoring a rebellion that really distablized the country. And deal with the large numbers of Africans of European descent fleeing from Congo Pact countries.

With the recruitment of Gurkhas would allow for a quick influx of personnel.. and with the fact that post-Black Winter there was a growing fear of the Soviets for several years among the population. Especial when pundits were talking about the fact that NATO just didn't have the manpower to have interviened on short notice.

The US Army built up as well... the addition of the 11th (Air Assault) Infantry Division and 17th (Airborne) Infantry Division are examples of rapid response forces.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22561111/Home-Guard-Manual

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28652417/B...ome-Guard-1941

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37190816/T...-POCKET-MANUAL

Thank you ArmySGT!

Even factoring these possibilities in - and they are only possibilities - remember the Australians are going to want to retain some (probably the majority) of their troops for home defence and the entire regular New Zealand Army is currently a reinforced Brigade Group (it may have been larger in 1990) - I still think finding the numbers that you're looking for to meet all of those deployments would be a big challenge. Whether we like it or not, the UK is not a Global Superpower and hasn't been for a number of years.

The two biggest problems with an expansion of the Uk armed forces are money and men.

After WW2 Britain stopped being a dominant power, we steadily lost our empire and our industry and by the 90's had sod all left. Building new factories costs money that the treasury doesn't have, training and equiping new regiments costs money, upgrading the RAF costs shedload and don't get me started on the costs of rebuilding the Royal navy.

Britain is a democracy, how are you going to sell all this to the British people? We where not scared of the reds the way Americans where back in the cold war. We had our own problems with the IRA and public opinion was pretty much along the lines of let the rest of the UN deal with things, why should we get dragged into it?

Manpower is an issue aswell, the 90's where a relatively good time for the UK. The job market was on the up and we'd come out of the recession of the 80's.

Completely agree with the above. IMO if you want to get a substantially expanded Army (i.e. more than than a few Battalions) you're going to have to look at some seriously out of the box thinking and / or some significant divergences from the Real World timeline to make it work. Some form of conscription in the early 90's would probably do the job from the point of view of the manpower, but I'm not sure that would be a particularly plausible option without some sort of major World event happening to justify it. Also that wouldn't address the financial issues.

When adding Gurkhas to the ORBAT, it would be useful to remember that they are a finite resource. According to my incomplete research, during the 1990s, the following armies had this sort of number of Gurkhas:

UK: c5000
India: c50000
Nepal: c 5000

That's 60000 troops from an ethnic population of 3,500,000 at best. Whilst there is great competition for places in the British Army, about 60 applicants for every position, the supply might run out if there was a massive recruitment drive, even assuming that all 60 applicants were suitable anyway.

Several battalions, maybe even a division's worth of troops, would be possible maybe but after that the recruitment might start dropping off, especially if India was increasing its forces too.

As for finding manpower for other regiments, the UK has a quota of troops from overseas used to fill its ranks. This is about 10%, if this was waived in the early Nineties and the UK had a sort of "Squaddy Windrush", you might find the manpower from the Caribbean, Fiji and several African nations. Again, there are limits to how many would join but it could fill the ranks.

If you went this route, you'd need to skew UK character creation somewhat as between 10 and 20 per cent (maybe more) would have a more exotic background language than a Celtic Fringe one. Other issues could arise depending on where these foreign troops were stationed. In Europe they might be classed as mercenaries by the Soviets and treated badly. In Africa, it might lead to more desertions when the war ground down as African born troops could decide to go home and look after their families.

Elsewhere, foreign troops could be among the most loyal as their unit would be the only home they had left.

For reference about NZ overseas commitments:

In 1991, we contributed very little manpower to the Coalition

In 1994, we contributed one company group to UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia (actually placed under British command)

In 2000-2002, we contributed heavily to the mission in East Timor. At peak, there were over 1,000 NZ servicemen and women in East Timor, our largest deployment since Korea. We were with our good Aussie buddies. I remember at the time in NZ it felt like everyone was going and it really stretched resources; many Territorials got called up and sent. This was of course essentially in our own back yard.

Currently, all arms, I think we have about 8,000 active personnel, with around 2,000 reserves. The army has about 4,500 active and almost all of the reserves.

It comes down to it now and is it did back then and has done since the end of the second world war: Money. Or Rather Britain's lack of it. Attempting to create further forces in the gap of 1989-1995 which the normal twilight timeline allows is to play with, is quite hard to do.

The suppression of eastern Europe uprising's and the Gulf war might get you a few battalions from a political stand point. But financial reasoning is harder to find. General Hackett in his The Third world war justifies the creation of Britain's II corps by the government not supporting the creation of channel 4.:D

The Sino-Soviet war probably drums up quite a few sales in the arms and aerospace industries and perhaps some more from the middle east from the Israelis and friendly Arabs but would that be enough?

Going with the Canon take on things. A Second Corps for Europe (Thereby a creating an army group) A division for the Far East (Mostly infantry), A brigade for the middle east and then a smattering of a Battalion or lower garrisons in the few remain colonial outposts is about it :(

What was this Louie?

In 1988/89 the MOD came out with the MARILYN Report "Manning And Recruitment In The Lean Years of the Nineties" forecaste the forthcoming decline in the 18-22 male demographic in the UK. Between 1990-2000 it was estimated that this demographic group would fall from 2,229,000 in 1990 to 1,788,000 in 2000, about a 19.8 % reduction if my math is correct. The report discussed how the British Army would cope with this and apparently gave some suggestions. I tried to contact the MOD, the NAM, & the PRO for a copy but apparently it's still under the 30 year rule.

Interesting, I think its mentioned in Antony Beevors Inside the British army. Of course two things happened. The Cold war ended and this reduced the size of the army. and also it turned out that the fears over the lack of baby making in the '70's did not materialise. How much of this was down to immigration or not improving fact checking of birth statistics, I am not sure.

What's Next on the Agenda Louie? You were working on an ORBAT?

Bear in mind the Commonwealth SOldier Programme probably helped - 10% of the British ARmy now come from this.

I've been tardy posting the ORBAT. Hopefully this weekend since I'll be riding out Hurricane Irene I'll have time to send the draft out. I have to thank Rainbow for all his ideas, insight, and overall outstanding help as it fleshed itself out. I am also working on the IRL ORBAT of BAOR for June 1989, with all attached TA units. I've pretty much have everything down just a matter of typing it in. The only part that might still be "in progress" is the RE section. The official history of the RE vol. XII was supposed to be out this year covering 1980-2000 but it was put back to 2012. Also planning on (in the long term) doing a lineage book on TA units from 1908-2008.

Does the British Armed Forces still recruit from the Commonwealth nations? not recuirt troops to the Canadian Army, or Austrialian Army or Kenyan Army... but recruit them for the British Army itself?

the reason I am asking, is that we know that the British recruits the Ghurkhas... couldn't the British also be using a similar program to recruit from the Commonwealth states?

Recruits would gain dual citizenship status (Citizenship from their home country and British Citizenship) for their service?

Rainbowsix wrote:

"Perhaps HSF troops could be issued DPM jackets with OG trousers?"

Peradua wrote:

"and puttees?"

I say bring back puttees they are the shit....They look hard core especially with the DPM uniform. They are way cooler than the gaitors the Royal marines wore during the falklands.

(Sorry thats all I have to add to this thread.)

The recruiting numbers are capped at 10%. Raising that would be difficult.

How so? what caused the capping the number at 10%?

So far this is the outline of the OOB of the British Army for what i'm doing. Divisions aren't completely manned... some might only have 2 Brigades and divisional support personnel.

I British Corps (British Army of the Rhine)
- 1st Armoured Division
- 2rd Infantry Division
- 3nd Armoured Division
II British Corps (British Army of the Rhine)
- 4th Armoured Division
- 5th Infantry Division
- 6th Division
III British Corps (British Army of the Thames)
- Home Guard Division (England)
- Home Guard Division (Scotland)
- Home Guard Division (Wales)
- Home Guard Division (Northern Ireland)
IV British Corps (British Army of the Euphrates)
- 7th Division
- 8th Division
V British Corps (British Army of the <>) Asia & Pacific Rim
- 9th Division
VI British Corps (British Army of the Nile) Africa
- 10th Division
VII British Corps (British Army of the Amazon)
- 11th Division
VIII British Corps (British Army of the Danube)
- 12th Division

That reminded me of something:
(Since were having several british-themed threads right now)

http://www.blackwinter.freeservers.com/

(Did not check the archives on this). I liked that novel, and had some alternate stuff about BAOR, a british recongroup, and so on.
Did any of you read this, and maybe used it for a game somehow ?

I liked the notion of parts of BAOR planning their own "Going Home" from the city of Hamburg in early 2001, and expecting a hostile reception by the british army in southern england, because BAOR didnt retreat early, as ordered before.

I loved it. It gave me the inspiration to star myown T2k novella. :)

Agree with Fusilier, not likely to raise the cap in peacetime. I believe the main reasons are that it would seem to be an army of "mercenaries" & it would let the government be more inclined to use the army when the troops & their families are not voters !!!
However once the balloon goes up all bets are off. If you read any of Patrick Delaforce's books you see that the British Army had many other nationalities. IIRC some that spring to mind are an American who enlisted in 1940 that was an Officer in the Hant's by '44. A number of Belgians in Bn.'S of the KRRC & RB. What really struck me was what seemed a whole Recce Plt. Of Eastern Europeans (I forgot which regiment).
As for the Commonwealth Rhodesian, South African, Australian, & New Zealanders served in RAF squadrons. While Irish from the Republic enlisted in their thousands for all 3 services.
Besides remember a couple of years ago when the POW suggested a Sikh regiment but was shot down by the PC crowd.

Thats cool Nate. When is it done ? Come on man, show it - and bring some of your
art along, as well! (Wanna read more good T2k stuff!)

Quick answer: No
The Ghurkas are a special case, it's a hold-over from the days of the British East India Company and just as much a reward for Ghurka loyalty as it is for any military benefit to the UK.

As I understand it, the UK does not actively seek recruits from former British Commonwealth nations but they are not discouraged from applying.
Any personnel recruited from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Fiji, Kenya, Hong Kong or any other former British Empire nation/protectorate for the British military would join as a member of the British forces but as individuals joining the British military, not as large groups and certainly not as distinct units like the Ghurkas do.

Like New Zealand, Australia would be very unlikely to take over from British Far East and Near East formations. We simply do not have the manpower.
We had less than 20 million people as of 2006 for a standing army of approximately 30,000 personnel with approximately 17,000 reservists. So from that 47,000 you're probably realistically looking at approximately 12,000 actual combat personnel.

Unless there was a direct (and directly Australian) military/political need for Australian forces to relieve British forces in the Far East/Near East, it would be highly unlikely to occur no matter what else was happening on the world stage - we have too small a military with too large a country and too small a population for raising the taxes required for such an expansion.

Recruiting to enlarge the military would face all the problems that are being discussed for the British military in this thread but Australia faces a worse situation because we have a far larger country to cover and one of the longest coastlines of any nation on the planet (we're ranked 7th in the world being beaten by Japan, the Philippines, Russia, Greenland, Indonesia and Canada in the number one position).

A lot of our revenue is raised from exports. Once worldwide trade is impacted by a global war and we can no longer safely make money from shipping goods to other countries, we would have drastically less money available for enlarging our military.

The military could be enlarged by aggressive recruiting but like any Western nation, there are too many needs for personnel in civilian occupations and so the recruit base is going to be very small to start with and funding would have to come from elsewhere in the budget, something certain to make it unpopular with the civilian population. And with less money available we would have even less chance to build up the higher tech side of the military e.g. armoured, air defence and so on.

In addition to the good answers given above, I think it also has to do with foreign employment. All governments are like this. I mean just the other day I was reading how people were upset that Obama was driving around in custom bus that was manufactured in Canada. Why employ foreigners when people at home live on welfare and can't get a job? I think some criticism would come from that angle.

Checking into it, another reason seems to be people worried about diluting the military, and thus potentially endangering the customs and traditions of the service. It can also be see as embarrassing - "We need foreigners to man our ranks" kinda deal.

And finally, in my experience, the idea of arming foreigners is the last thing a government allows (impossible for people without citizenship to own firearms for example). This mostly applies to civilians, but I think it can extend to the military as well.

I guess my point is, it would be a hard sell by politicians who want to be reelected to deal with the many criticisms of opening up the military to foreigners.

I plan to include a large number of Irish nationals that travel north to join the British Army who are in a huge moral dilemma when the South invades the North... Those in the UK are likely to be interred but those in Germany (or further afield) may have the option of still fighting.