View Full Version : Next step on the way to the decimation of the Regiments...
Duke Malcolm
11-26-2005, 17:41
Her Majesty the Queen (God bless Her) has given Assent to the proposed Army changes in structure and names. This was, of course, a formality, but she could always haev refused Assent... ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:
This will cut the Army down from a great many regiments to about 11, and from 40 battalions to 36. No Infantry Regiment of the Line will be left un-amalgameted. meaning the end of such illustrious names as the 1st of Foot, the Royal Regiment, The Royal Scots; 42nd of Foot, the Royal Highland Regiment, the Black Watch; and countless others. They will be left as 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland and 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland, with a common uniform and a meaningless badge of the Royal Lion Rampant on the Saltire...
Mod Link (http://www.news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3788#table1)
Just when we need more soldiers too... Well they can always be reformed. Shame though. Won't benefit us one bit either.
I think this goes under the classification of "stupid politicians not thinking things through".
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-26-2005, 18:19
This was, of course, a formality, but she could always haev refused Assent...
Seems a pretty trivial issue to cause a constitutional crisis over. Still, I suppose she would have been gotten rid of at last, which is something.
Seems a pretty trivial issue to cause a constitutional crisis over. Still, I suppose she would have been gotten rid of at last, which is something.
You really think having Blair around for even longer as president is a good idea? At least she does what she's told to and eats the sheep's eyeballs and stuff at banquets.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-26-2005, 18:27
President, Prime Minister, what's the difference, really? It's not as if Liz is currently hamstringing Ton's authority.
Back to the army stuff-it's only a few names. Perhaps some nice new traditions will spring up as a result.
master of the puppets
11-26-2005, 18:32
Back to the army stuff-it's only a few names. Perhaps some nice new traditions will spring up as a result.
i can only hope so,nothing real;ly gives a group a true identity than a name they can call there very own, its just that the "Royal regiment of Scotland" loses some of the power and identifiable prestige of "The Royal Scots". its just sounds more rugged and familiar.
What any sensible Labour govt should always do, slowly but surely decrease the insane amounts spent on the military and put it into areas in which it is worthwhile.
We do not need as many soldiers as we have at the moment and the new regiments are sensible as well. The only people who have problems with them are people who wish we still had an empire.
solypsist
11-26-2005, 19:27
i suppose the money could always go to buying more closed circuit cameras
Ianofsmeg16
11-26-2005, 19:37
oh God!
Tribesman
11-26-2005, 21:58
This will cut the Army down from a great many regiments to about 11, and from 40 battalions to 36. No Infantry Regiment of the Line will be left un-amalgameted. meaning the end of such illustrious names as the 1st of Foot, the Royal Regiment, The Royal Scots; 42nd of Foot, the Royal Highland Regiment, the Black Watch; and countless others.
Sorry Malcolm , but what are you on about ??????
The end of what names ?
Do you mean the Royal Scots also known as the Royal Regiment of foot , the 1st regiment of foot , the 1st royal regiment of foot ????many name changes and many amalgamations , should the regiment still have 35 battalions as it once had or should the 1st and 2nd battalions never have been remade after they were lost in France and the Far East , though of course the 2nd wasn't remade they just renamed the 12th .
How about the Black watch , would that be the independant companies , the 43rd Highland regiment of foot , the 42nd foot , the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment ,the Royal Highlanders , the Royal Highland regiment , the Mangalore regiment , the 73rd Highland regiment of foot , the 73rd foot , the 73rd Perthshire .
Military formations change throughout history , as each of the British armies regiments have changed name so many times whats the big deal ?
Stuff comes and goes - the minor details are irrelevant to all but antiquarians.
Tribesman
11-26-2005, 22:39
Stuff comes and goes - the minor details are irrelevant to all but antiquarians.
Yep like the old British army regiment that has its museum at the bottom of the road , Its an Irish regiment , oh but it was a Highland regiment , no it was a English regiment , a welsh regiment , a lowland regiment , a scottish corps , an Irish corps , a Dutch regiment of mercenaries ....but we must preserve the continuity of its name and tradition eh ?
As it happens one of my neighbours is writing a book on the regiments history , he has recently released one on Ceant and is about to launch his latest one on Galwaymen in the royal navy in WW I
i suppose the money could always go to buying more closed circuit cameras
Yup, maybe they could start putting them in the homes. ~D
Yup, maybe they could start putting them in the homes. ~D
We do - check out my wecam:
My webcam highlights (http://www.kitten-x.com/pics/webcam/arse2.jpg)
The armed forces have to change - to stay in touch and ahead of modern warfare techniques.
Sadly changes to the forces made by the current British government are likely to be in completely the wrong direction.
This is how I see it, for the army anyway:
There should be no holy cows where defence is concerned. Regiments have to change, merge and become more flexible, possibly smaller too. Personally I'd like to see the member states of the UK have their own forces, but all train together as allies.
We have to adapt to modern warfare whilst retaining a convincing defence against large threats.
In terms of land army I'd like to see half; fast deploying, flexible armoured assault, supported by a strengthened special forces. The other half should have the emphasis on rescue, medical, construction and police teams.
Above all I'd like to never see them fight.
King Henry V
11-27-2005, 22:38
Well, it seems that Bliar is once again defecating from on high on the memory of those fallen servicemen in that stupid Iraqi war. Defence should and can only be made in a time of peace.
Adrian II
11-27-2005, 22:45
This thread is weird.
Adrian II
11-27-2005, 22:47
This thread is weird.
Adrian II
11-27-2005, 22:47
This thread is weird.
The armed forces have to change - to stay in touch and ahead of modern warfare techniques.
Sadly changes to the forces made by the current British government are likely to be in completely the wrong direction.
This is how I see it, for the army anyway:
There should be no holy cows where defence is concerned. Regiments have to change, merge and become more flexible, possibly smaller too. Personally I'd like to see the member states of the UK have their own forces, but all train together as allies.
We have to adapt to modern warfare whilst retaining a convincing defence against large threats.
In terms of land army I'd like to see half; fast deploying, flexible armoured assault, supported by a strengthened special forces. The other half should have the emphasis on rescue, medical, construction and police teams.
Above all I'd like to never see them fight.
We don't have member states.
Well maybe we should have.
Papewaio
11-28-2005, 04:39
Ohhhhh... shiny badges.
Tribesman
11-28-2005, 09:24
Ohhhhh... shiny badges.
But it is very important , the badges are an unchanged element that makes the British army what it is , just like the unchanged names .
Oh , but the badges and names have changed all through history .
Therein lies the nonsense of traditionalists. They hark back to some past constant that never existed.
Duke Malcolm
11-28-2005, 17:14
This will cut the Army down from a great many regiments to about 11, and from 40 battalions to 36. No Infantry Regiment of the Line will be left un-amalgameted. meaning the end of such illustrious names as the 1st of Foot, the Royal Regiment, The Royal Scots; 42nd of Foot, the Royal Highland Regiment, the Black Watch; and countless others.
Sorry Malcolm , but what are you on about ??????
The end of what names ?
Do you mean the Royal Scots also known as the Royal Regiment of foot , the 1st regiment of foot , the 1st royal regiment of foot ????many name changes and many amalgamations , should the regiment still have 35 battalions as it once had or should the 1st and 2nd battalions never have been remade after they were lost in France and the Far East , though of course the 2nd wasn't remade they just renamed the 12th .
How about the Black watch , would that be the independant companies , the 43rd Highland regiment of foot , the 42nd foot , the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment ,the Royal Highlanders , the Royal Highland regiment , the Mangalore regiment , the 73rd Highland regiment of foot , the 73rd foot , the 73rd Perthshire .
Military formations change throughout history , as each of the British armies regiments have changed name so many times whats the big deal ?
But they are just name changes. This is the end of the regiments. I don't mind the names so much. As you said above, it is much easier to get rid of battalions than regiments, so then the regiment can fall down to less battalions, perhaps even one.
Papewaio
11-29-2005, 01:51
Modern times and weaponry requires adjusting the size of fighting forces.
Australia only has about 8 or 9 battalion sized units if that.
They are looking at changing the battalions to "battle groups" each of which is equipped as a combined arms unit.
Revamp to create deadlier army (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17395938-2,00.html)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.