Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by britbeagle, Nov 10, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. At a recent dinner of a certain Battalion of The Yorkshire Regiment the new CO announced that he had been part of a working group at the MOD looking into the form and future of the British Army. He informed the assembled group that one of the current ideas among the "blue sky" thinkers was that the old Regimental names were an anachronism and that in future re-organisations regiments should be designated merely as either Infantry, Artillery or Armoured e.g. 23rd Infantry etc. He seemed somewhat surprised as multiple jaws hit table. My question? Is he right?

    sadly this is not a wind up or wah
  2. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I have no idea whether it's being discussed seriously or not but it's hardly 'blue sky' thinking. It's oft been discussed over the years. There are advantages to the idea. It's easier to post people about to fill manning gaps and easier to move sub-units to create mission oriented groupings and it has appeal to the the accountants and those who pride themselves on being forward looking.

    Mind you I think it's a crap idea.
  3. This idea's not completely without precedent. Weren't regiments originally designated by their position in the line e.g 1st of Foot (Grenadier Guards); 22nd of Foot (Cheshire Regiment) etc It was only post Haldane in late C19th that regiments became geographically based and was at its peak during WW1 to encourage esprit de corps and camraderie. The names of county regiments only now live on almost as an afterthought e.g. 1 MERCIAN (The Cheshire Regiment). Calling them 22 INF BN certainly saves on stationery and all those expensive regimental accoutrements!!
  4. Change for change's sake is always a shit deal.

    However, it's also true that whilst the Regimental system has been one of the British Army's consistent strengths in some instances, it has also very often been the root of many weaknesses...

    Personally, I think there is much to be gained by moving to Combined Arms Battalions - not least because it encourages people out of the 'single capbadge' mentality that plagues our senior leadership when they move onto supposedly capbadge-agnostic staff posts.
  5. It'll just end up like the crabs or their septic equivalent. One capbadge, multitude of tedious shoulder flashes
  6. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    We already have the childish brownie badges aplenty.
  7. I thought "Blue Sky Thinking" involved "off the wall ideas" and thinking "outside the box".

    Much easier starting the working group with the statement, "why don't we just copy the Yanks!"
  8. Fuck me!!! What will they think of next??? I suppose that returning to the Brigade system has encouraged this idea, but it doesn't make any sense to change regimental titles back to the numbering system of yore. There have been that many amalgamations since the County/City naming system was adopted, that it would be unclear who was entitled to verifiable seniority. A moot point some might say, but one that will kick up a real fuss nonetheless, and probably cost a packet to boot. As an example, I can't see the Grens giving up their name to be titled solely as the First Regiment of Foot Guards again. I also wonder if the Bty's in the Artillery will drop their honour titles, in favour of naming them after their incumbant BC's, as was the style many moons ago...Hopefully not says I, because i would lose my handle on here, and could potentially be retitled as "The BrownBottleTom"!!...Hang on, that's not too bad?
  9. sitting on the fence and all that,
    the current regimental system was and is based geographical, particulally the infanty for recruiting reason. the numbered system seems to work for the septics.
    Would it be a shame to loose the geographical link? yes of course it would, But then would it make it easier for blokes to get promoted and end the dead mens shoes situation some people find themselves in now. Hopefully.
    The debate continues.
  10. I can only assume that the blue sky thinking was presented in powerpoint with lots of eager young graduates salivating at the next input to their MBA.

    Infantry has and always will be numbered. The rest of the teeth arms is the same, that is why if you look beyond your dick you will see that all teeth arm regiment have numbers buried deep within thier DNA.

    Even the RLC and the other odd bits have numbers in their battalion names. I assume your powerpointed CO might have believed that 1 -100 might work but in reality the US (as quoted above) nor any other Army does it that way. Opsec has always decreed an unjoined up numbering system.
  11. The Grenadier Guards were never the 1st of Foot, that distinction fell to The Royal Scots; the Grenadier Guards were known as the 1st Foot Guards. The practice of linking infantry regiments in pairs fell out of the Cardwell Reforms of 1881, which established the county depots and the practice of maintaining a full strength battalion abroad and an under strength one at home. The Haldane Reforms of c1907 rationalised those of Cardwell, abolished the Volunteer/Militia organisations to create the Territorial Force and established the organisation of the British Expeditionary Force for deployment to Europe.

    Fcuk - just noticed this is in the NAAFI :)

    I think its a wank idea btw.

  12. The accountants will win eventually. Civil Servants will push forward with this. Near future or not so near future for the implementation is the question, not if.

    I don't like the idea but what will that matter ?
  13. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    And yet the great Regiment known as the The Civil Service Corps goes from strength to strength, or is that pension to pension.

    Are the CS taking 'hits' commensurate with those the armed forces are being forced to make? If they are then why is the government not shouting this great success from the rooftops in the same way that the services cuts are.

    Or is it closer to the truth that the CS are not being made redundant but just moved sideways into the next Department? There will be some CS redundancies and I am sure we will have a member of the CS come on to remind us of that. My question remains "Are they commensurate with Service cuts?"
  14. Short answer - yes.

    In the MoD alone 25,000 CS to go, and I believe the total is around 100,000 CS across all of government.

    And why is the CS pension any more 'special' than AFPS?