ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Balkanexpress** · 12-03-2005, 10:46

Originally Posted by Busterdog

Whatever. It's still a sad day losing those fine old County Regiments.

It is a sad day to lose these Regiments. No matter what people say - it is all down to money. The Army is overstretched, I know that single battalion Regiments are not the way ahead; however, we need more battalions not less! When have you ever heard of the police or nurses being cut back to "improve the efficienct of the Service"?

Fortunately for the D&D and RGBW they are to become Light Infantry. Historically this is very easy to swallow, compared with becoming the 1st Bn the Loamshires or Wessex Regiment. The tradition was always for heavy Infantry Regiments, as a mark of their achievements in conflicts, to (on the order of Queen Victoria - bless her) become trained and equipped as Light Infantry. Hence why the 13th (after Jellalabad) and 32nd (after Lucknow) became Light Infantry Regiments. At least the brass have got something right - promote Regiments to Light Infantry rather than destroy their heritage.

What is to become of the Gloucesters' Back Badge and the Presidential Citation? This is an argument that will go on and on....

**Readyfourzero** · 16-03-2005, 14:13

We've been told we'll get 150 of them.

**ugly** · 18-03-2005, 19:32

To be honest apart from splitting a working Bn and sending some to the Bullet Magnets AKA PWRR there is very little changed from plan A. Must be Plan A(a)1 vers2. The D&D must have been stretching the manning records slightly to have got away with what they did or perhaps the MOD MAFFIA has heard sense about breaking up a Bn!

**Joker** · 23-03-2005, 22:28

Originally Posted by ugly

...... and sending some to the Bullet Magnets AKA PWRR

Harsh Ugly, very harsh but ultimately fair I suppose..

**Invictus_88** · 23-03-2005, 22:48

Right.

As politicians can get away with cutting out bits of the constitutional working of the country, waging illegal wars and eliminating whatever freedom they please...are they able to, at some point in the future, break apart the amalgamations into their former units?

If the recruitment were hypothetically available, that is.

**RCSignals** · 24-03-2005, 06:06

Originally Posted by Balkanexpress

.................................... I know that single battalion Regiments are not the way ahead; however, we need more battalions not less! .

There is nothing that says Inf Regts must be single Bn. By their nature they can be (and historically have been) multi Bn.
"Super Regiments" is just more smoke and mirror buzz words for destruction of the historic structure. Some seem to think "Super Regiments" are the only structure that can be multi Bn.

**dogmonkey** · 24-03-2005, 07:55

Originally Posted by RCSignals

Originally Posted by Balkanexpress

.................................... I know that single battalion Regiments are not the way ahead; however, we need more battalions not less! .

There is nothing that says Inf Regts must be single Bn. By their nature they can be (and historically have been) multi Bn.
"Super Regiments" is just more smoke and mirror buzz words for destruction of the historic structure. Some seem to think "Super Regiments" are the only structure that can be multi Bn.

OK RC,

How would one go about forming multi-Bn regiments from the smaller ones who cannot man themselves at present? Smoke and mirrors notwithstanding, suggest we are still talking about amalgemations and 'loss of capbadge'in any case.

Coming from an amalgemated Regt, we still maintain links with our antecedents some decades after they were merged. Suggest it's now time for you to move on as the rest of the Army has pretty much had to over the years, and concentrate on making the inevitable work. We'll be in a Corps of Inf before too long anyhow!!

**Birdie_Numnums** · 24-03-2005, 09:02

Yes Dogmonkey however if the Government severely limits recruiting then undermanning is not a surprise.

Does anyone want to take bets that within 12 months of being restructured many regiments will again have manning issues the result of further cuts to recruiting and greater overstretch because there are less units to do too many tasks.

This has nothing to do with emotional Regimental History and everything to do with a major disconnect between troops to task and commitments.

**dogmonkey** · 24-03-2005, 10:10

Birdie,

Agree with what you say, but the fact remains that those regiments that were selected for amalgemation / disbandment have been unable, over a protracted period of time and not just because of recent recruiting suspensions etc, to recruit full strength Bns.

I agree, for us bayonet weilders, things will get continually difficult as we are asked to do increasingly more with less. But this is not the issue in debate here.

The Inf is facing a reduction, no matter how much we hate the idea of swallowing the sh!t sandwich this is. What remains now is to ensure that these hideous cuts are managed properly so as to avoid further haemorrhaging once thay are implemented. The stamping of feet and gnashing of teeth about losing some of the past, which I agree is sad, is unfortunately only going to make things worse, and will not aid our collective futures.

Apologies for erring slightly off-thead.

DM

**ugly** · 29-03-2005, 14:22

Trickle posting in the big regiment is normally a snco/wo and above thing. It has proved very useful to have volunteer platoons/companies of mates from the same depot on op tours loaned in from Bns in non op roles as BAOR used to be (well was meant to be!). This proved the big regiment idea as all the ruperts, sncos and crow had trained together at the same depot and could blend in as complete platoons or replacement crow!