One of us is up for it, let's face it, it's you...

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by dogmonkey, Nov 25, 2004.

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. First, we should not be losing any Infantry over the forseeable future.

    Right,now that we are back in the real world, there's no easy way of saying this, so:

    Anyone explain to me why it looks like only 1 Scottish Battalion is going (according to recent articles in the broadsheets) when they have the majority of the worst recruited (and predicted to continue in to the future) battalions within the Inf orbat?

    We've already debated the Paras / Guards not being in the pot at length here (operational / ceremonial reasons, in case you missed CGS' reasoning).

    But why all the faff about it being 'unfair' to axe 2 out of 6 battalions which cannot recruit now, nor do they look like they will in the future. Just how is possible to justify them as being more important than any of the better recruited regiments from south of the border (including Wales)?

    Yes, of course there are traditional links to recruiting areas, but then so there are with everybody else. Yes, they have battle honours and have done magnificent things in the past (and present), but so has everybody else.

    If this is a military decision (as our beloved leader keeps reminding us) then surely the answer is clear. Unless someone has been telling us porkies?

    Before you start shaking your sporrans at me, all I want is a rational explanation.

    ....and box...
     
  2. If you thought STSR was a pain in the Arrse, believe me, you have seen nothing yet TCH. And I know you read this board.

    ...and that hoary old chestnut , it's the decision of the Army... Really?

    OK, let's see what mealy mouthed doublespeak we get in the next few days.

    Or threats for that matter.
     
  3. <big flag for the hard of thinking - the following is light-hearted>

    Simple. It's that cultural affinity for infantry work, and while the Scots are fewer, they're just better, and you don't lose your best battalions :twisted: :twisted:

    Admit it, a Somerset accent just doesn't work on a Sch Inf instructor going for aggression..... roight moi laahhhhds, owver the tawwwwp!

    Others may argue it's the Ali-G "Is it because I is Scots" chippy mentality? Either that, or we've maintained really good blackmail on ECAB against this eventuality.
     
  4. there are only 6 Scottish regiments, and what, 5 or 6 times as many "south of the border"? is even one less Scottish Bn proportionate to the whole?

    "Recruiting" has been used as an argument to reduce Scottish Regiments since the 18th century.
     
  5. You miss the point completely. It's not about how many Bns there are wherever. It is however about the ability to man / recruit for them.

    The simple fact remains that if the Jock Bns go down to 5, they can still only man 4 1/3 of them.
     
  6. Couldn't agree more dogmonkey.

    Fact: over the last 15 years, 4 of the 6 worst recruited Inf Bns are Scots Div. If we do this on demographics then 2 Scots Bns must go.

    I however, do live in the real world and it is politics that have driven this and not pure military logic. As as result my own Bn may end up getting axed! :( :evil:
     
  7. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    It is good to see our neighbours down south starting to make some noise. About time too.

    I wish you success.
     
  8. Believe that we are in the same boat. And this is my point. It must be made clear to all (we are not allowed to write to our MPs, so someone else will have to) that far from being a 'military' decision, this is driven politically to save votes north of the border. An issue for any MP with a local regiment south of the border, and under threat, I would argue.

    This is not what has been stated by Sec State, or the PM. Another case of the judicious use of the truth?
     
  9. Not quite as clear-cut as that. Remember that under Options, RS and KOSB were due to merge; but were reprieved at the last minute. At that time, ISTR Scottish Division were only 3 under strength.....

    Unfortunately, Army Manning had already swung into action with the brown envelopes and posting orders, in view of putting two Bns worth of NCOs/officers into one Bn. A chunk of good people went as a result, IIRC. Didn't help that straight after the original announcement, KINGS had to ask RS for a platoon of reinforcements for their next NI tour :(

    Now, if you chop away at the NCO structure of a single battalion regiment, you affect its ability to recruit and retain; and that hole in the manning can affect things for a decade at least. I'd be interested to see whether the other reprieved battalions suffered in a similar way. After all, this is the same 1RS that went to GRANBY fully manned to PE in the AI role, claiming that if it had called back extra-regimental personnel it could meet WFE....

    Remember also that amalgamating two battalions is a good way to end up with an undermanned single battalion; happened with HLDRS, happened with the TA inf battalions. By and large, you don't suddenly switch loyalties from one regiment to another one. After all, when we had seven Scottish regiments, we certainly didn't only have 5 battalions of manpower, not even with a demographic trough.

    There used to be six battalions of TA infantry in Scotland; you'd be hard-pushed to call the remaining two "fully manned".
     
  10. were not CHESHIRES and STAFFORDS in the same boat? Whats their recruiting and retention like?
     
  11. I don't think I am. You are looking at a very small, overly simplistic, window only.

    Your objective should not be to complain that only one Scottish Regiment is now "for the chop" and cry politics, it should be that NO Bns should be cut.
     
  12. RC Signals. To paraphrase Dogmonkey stated in his fisrt post that there should be no axe at all, but if it is to be how should the losers be selected.

    Personally I think the whole thing is a total cluster fukc by our pollies and PoD. Sure it is logical but only if you chose not to consider:

    1. The World situation.
    2. Commitments and deployments
    3. Availability of reserves to cope with unforseen events, right now. (How much warning did we get on The Ivory Coast and what is happening in the Ukraine)
    4. Budget cuts when being asked to do more.


    All recruiting is hard when recruiting budgets are cut and a freeze is placed on recruiting. We also get this constant bullsh*t that cuts now will lead to fuller better equipped Bns immediately. LIARS. All that happens is the treasury sniff more savings and within 6 months all remaining units are back to the same position but with more over-stretch.

    We are doing our masters foreign policy bidding and in reward we are being shafted. It is a disgrace that our masters abuse our trust, honour and loyalty. They will not stop until they weaken the morale of the greatest Army in the world and humiliate the Nation.
     
  13. The Scotsman again, claiming
    (1) the cost of so-called "surplus officers" is more than enough to pay for one battalion.
    (2) Larger regiments including POD's Parachute Regt are more reliant on Commonwealth personnel than are the combined Scottish regiments.

    As we have seen recently The Scotsman is as capable as other "qualities" of misinterpreting the facts. I can't say whether they have got it riight this time, or not. All credit to them for taking a sustained interest in these issues, which should concern us all, whether or not you support the infantry cuts and the "PoD reforms".

    full story on http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1363362004
     
  14. Good post Birdie.

    and yes, I realise that Dogmonkey begins the first post stating there should be no cuts. It's what he follows with that is his point. He seems to be resigned that there will be cuts, and harangues about the "politics" of there now only being one Scottish Bn to be cut.

    By Dand!
     
  15. Unfortunately RC, that's because the Bns are going to be cut. Fact.

    The only debate now is which ones. The ones which should go, are the ones which do not meet the criteria, wheresoever they originate. My gripe is that the critrion of recruiting, which appears to be the key driver, is not being applied equally so as not to offend sensibilities in the north. If this were the case anywhere else it would be just as unfair. but to simply bow down to tartan pressure bacause of a fear of losing votes is neither equitable, nor is it a military decision. Which was the point I made.