The principal features of the restructuring programme for the British Army carried out under the Defence Review for 1974, to which reference has already been made, were as follows: divisions would be made smaller and one level of command, the brigade, would be eliminated. The span of divisional and unit command would be increased, with the result that there would be fewer HQ and fewer but larger combat units. The fighting capacity of the British Army of the Rhine, it was claimed, would be maintained and in some respects enhanced — though if anyone believed this to begin with no one did for long, not even the politicians who made the claim. Certain specialist functions (such as the flying of army aircraft, the manning of the larger anti-tank missiles and the driving of supply vehicles) would be concentrated in the hands of a single branch of the army.
For the army as a whole, the aim was said to be to reduce manpower while maintaining combat effectiveness. It was true that the numbers of equipments in service were kept at about the same level, which was dangerously low. What was described as ‘cutting the tail and keeping the teeth’, however, only meant that even in the inadequate numbers to which these equipments had been reduced, there were insufficient men to man, maintain and move them. The real purpose, of course, was economy at almost any price. Within three years of the 1974 Defence Review BAOR was at its lowest level of operational efficiency ever.
Not everything that was done was wholly bad, however. The regular army logistic reinforcement which the army at home (United Kingdom Land Forces — UKLF) was to provide for BAOR was drastically reduced, but to help fill this gap units of the Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve (TAVR) were integrated into newly created regular combat formations. These, though brigades in all but name, could not be called brigades without contravening one of the declared principles of the exercise. They were therefore given the imprecise but otherwise inoffensive title of ‘field forces’ instead. This was at least one step towards a much needed improvement, the better use of reserves.
The effect of the restructuring plan on NATO reinforcement plans was one of nomenclature and source rather than of numbers. Before it, UKLF had undertaken to despatch to BAOR in support of NATO a total of some 60,000 to 70,000 troops, consisting of complete formations — 3 Division and 16 Parachute Brigade, for example — and a whole series of unit and individual reinforcements of great variety. Sortie were TAVR Signal Groups to activate the NATO and BAOR communications systems; some were so-called Yeomanry Regiments, fully equipped with armoured reconnaissance vehicles, to thicken the covering force troops available to I British Corps; others were units or individuals to strengthen either the structure or total numbers of BAOR formations, regiments, companies and squadrons. Leaving aside those who might be sent to the so-called flanks of NATO (Scandinavia, Italy, Greece, Turkey), the operation was designed to bring BAOR on to a war footing, which involved more than doubling its peacetime establishment. It was essentially a reinforcement which combined regular units, regular reservists and units of the TAVR.
After the army’s restructuring programme had been completed in 1978, the plans for reinforcement were substantially the same, but it was of course a reinforcement of a BAOR which had itself been restructured. By then I British Corps contained four armoured divisions (which were little more than large brigades) and one light infantry formation, called 5 Field Force. Two other field forces, 6 Field Force from Aldershot and 7 Field Force from Colchester, were part of UKLF reinforcements for BAOR and were themselves composed partly of regular units and partly of TAVR, the latter providing the bulk of the logistic support. Otherwise the reinforcement plan conformed to the previous pattern. As far as equipment was concerned BAOR remained as poorly provided as ever, though some new ATGW were promised soon.