ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Isodet** · 03-07-2012, 09:59

Originally Posted by ugly

How long before RRF are absorbed, history looks unkindly on single bn regiments outside of Londist.

This is a quote from a letter dated 13 September 1991, just under a year before the merger occured, from CGS to Major General Mike Reynolds, the last Colonel of the Queen's Regiment, in response to protests at the merger with the Hampshires. If you recall, the 1966 mergers of county regiments then was done 'in good faith' and with encouragement of the Army Council at the time, to protect them from future amalgamations. Some promise...

As Col Mike writes - the final comment in this tragic affair is stated thus: 'It is not in the interests of the army that further explanations of the reasons behind the choices should be made, and I regret therefore that I shall not be giving you an answer.'

Thus, as in happened in 1992, the make up of the Executive Committee of the Army Board will probably indicate where the cuts will fall - or not...

No doubt the same letter will be cut and pasted to various Hon Colonels etc in the months to come.

**Gassing_Badgers** · 03-07-2012, 10:00

Originally Posted by thegimp

That sounds very much like man the fuck up, life in a green suit, if you don't like it there's the door.

Which a lot of experienced soldiers will probably do....

About 20,000 of them is the plan...

**dogmonkey** · 03-07-2012, 10:27

Jim30,

You are spot on. I cannot believe that this was leaked by folk in the RRF - as you and others point out - this was a private letter articulating (dispassionately using empircal Army produced data) concerns over the justification. It does not dig into emotive and proud regimental history, which we all have. It is a great shame it was leaked - for whatever reason, as from the RRF point of view, surely being out in the open is self-defeating and can only serve to ensure heels are dug in further. I wonder, therefore, where the leak came from given the very likely LIMDIS nature of a letter like this......?

**benjaminw1** · 03-07-2012, 10:31

Has all the marks of a Black Operation to me.

**Counter-Bluffer-Ops** · 03-07-2012, 10:33

Capbadge v capability? Surely there's only one rational outcome - isn't there?

**GoodIdeaAtTheTime** · 03-07-2012, 10:39

Originally Posted by Charm_City

I wonder if leaking this letter was the best move by those seeking to save 2RRF? Surely CGS cannot be seen to back down?

It was said at the time that XV para's campaign to survive was so loud and so high profile that the powers that be had no option but to close them in order to prevent future problems. The CO at the time had direct access to Number 10 and there was an official letter writing campaign ordering every soldier to write to his MP and the MOD whilst encouraging every man and his dog to do the same. That it was allegedly better organised and generated many more column inches than some of the regular Bn campaigns served to put a few more noses out of joint.

X Para hunkered down and survived a bit longer.

**orgASMic** · 03-07-2012, 10:44

"Does anyone else find it odd that this letter has to decode TLAs for the CGS?"

Since the letter would have been a formal one, no, I do not find it surprising. One does not use abbreviations in formal correspondance.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, etc, etc...

**Stonker** · 03-07-2012, 10:51

Originally Posted by Busterdog

Very, very, sad. Who cares who leaked the Brigadier's letter, his pain, frustration, and anger, not to mention logic, are manifestly apparent. Sadly his plea will fall on deaf ears - ask General Cooper and Brigadier Jackson of the KOSB when they presented a similar argument back in 2004.

'Stretch' Paterson took over from me, when I relinquished company command in 1991. He's a very good man. Sadly, he is only
a Brigadier, and comes from a Regiment that has not produced a single 2-Star since I was in my 20s, a generation ago.

IMHO, it is that weakness - a shortage of senior officers with the clout needed to succeed in the kind of behind-the-arras knife-fights that inevitably accompany budget-driven military reorgs - which has led to one the Fusiliers (whose recruiting figures are right up in the Top Ten of the infantry) being shafted, again, just as they were in '91, straight after GW1, while 3RRF still had the dust of Kuwait in the welts of their boots.

**postman_twit** · 03-07-2012, 11:03

Originally Posted by barbs

unless the plan is for a single battalion to garrison both ends of the island and fulfill the TRB role?

I don't think a single Battalion is capable of meeting the commitments currently covered by the two.

**Stonker** · 03-07-2012, 11:13

Originally Posted by postman_twit

So if 2 RRF are disbanded and made redundant whilst in Cyprus, suppose they all claim squatters rights and remain in their quarters and SLA? Hmmm.

Can't: MQs are occupied under a similar system of 'licence to occupy' that pertains for hotel guests. Thus, when the management says 'You are no longer welcome', then management has the final say. Singlies, living in? Even more tenuous, I imagine: I never heard of a singly ever signing any kind of contract with the landlord . . . .