Ranger Brigade(s)

babyjocks

Clanker
For those unaware the RHF >2 Scots regained kilts and full spats after carrying on the HLI trews n HLI drills n habits....

2006
In their wisdom kilties won out over trews…to the dismay of the lowland serving and veteran associations

@Busterdog states it more eloquently above, I forgot to post this much earlier
'Regained'?- that's a bit confusing. The [21st] Royal Scots Fuzileers had nothing to do with kilts not ever and were hardly impressed to be put in trews and the rest in 1881 along with the other "Lowland regiments" (as for the look on the faces of the Cameronians...).

When the 71s Hldrs became Light infantry in 1809 they lost their kilts but had gained the quaint title of 'Glasgow Highland.' In 1881 they became trewsered when joined with the 74th demi-Highland regiment, also de-kilted in 1807 due to shortage of 'Rory' recruits, to form the HLI. (NOT repeat NOT "Lowland," see?)

Only after WW2 did this rebooted 'HLI' persuade someone that it was only proper for the 'Highland' light infantry to regain the kilt, which only lasted until they became Royal 'Highland' Fusiliers (see above) ten years later and they were back in trews to keep the old '21st' happy. Any surviving 'fuzileer' element in that chimaera cannot have been dancing reels on being obliged to assume the pseudo-Highland bling of RRoS on becoming 2 SCOTS in 2006.
 
Last edited:

babyjocks

Clanker
Used to be said that you could get a decent fight going in Perth pub by ordering a pint of "Broken Square". The BW are a bit touchy.
That's an old chestnut recorded in the memoirs of an old sweat from the Royal Welch Fusiliers back in the 1920s. He didn't mention the Black Watch but it's since been assumed.

For the record, the square was not broken. It was slightly bent.

PS. 'Surrey Highlanders.' That's Her Majesty's Royal Scots Guards, that is.
 
'Regained?-' that's bit confusing. The [21st] Royal Scots Fuzileers had nothing to do with kilts not ever and were hardly impressed to be put in trews and the rest in 1881 along with the other "Lowland regiments" (as for the look on the faces of the Cameronians...).

When the 71s Hldrs became Light infantry in 1809 they lost their kilts but had gained the quaint title of 'Glasgow Highland.' In 1881 they became trewsered when joined with the 74th demi-Highland regiment, also de-kilted in 1807 due to shortage of 'Rory,' to form the HLI. (NOT repeat NOT "Lowland," see?)

Only after WW2 did this rebooted 'HLI' persuade someone that it was only proper for the 'Highland' light infantry to regain the kilt, which only lasted until they became Royal'Highland' Fusiliers (see above) ten years later and they were back in trews to keep the old '21st' happy. Any surviving 'fuzileer' element in that chimaera cannot have been dancing reels on being obliged to assume the pseudo-Highland bling of RRoS on becoming 2 SCOTS in 2006.
Correct
 
Paywalled.
Try this:

Defence policy is based on 'over-simplified' hype about cyber warfare, experts warn​

There is an 'institutional blindness' at the heart of UK defence policy, experts Dr Jack Watling and Justin Bronk claim in a new book.

Britain's defence policy is based on "over-simplified" hype about cyber warfare, experts have claimed in a new book.

Defence experts Dr Jack Watling and Justin Bronk say “damaging narratives” are too easily accepted as fact by many in military and government circles.

Such assumptions quickly come to “dominate thinking at the highest levels of UK defence policy”, they have said.

In a new book launched on Monday, called Necessary Heresies, the experts warn there is an “institutional blindness” at the heart of UK defence policy.

Specialist advice is often overlooked or misinterpreted as senior decision-makers shape policy based on their own understanding, the book argues, of briefings given by subject matter experts.

“Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably lost in translation.

“This tendency is exacerbated by a natural inclination to over-hype the potential for novel technologies or strategies to provide transformative effects.”

'Grey zone' attacks​

The authors argue future war is unlikely to be dominated by “grey zone” attacks short of out and out armed conflict.

The dangers of so-called “grey zone” operations, characterised by cyber attacks, assassinations, political interference and disinformation, were regularly cited by the former Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), General Sir Nick Carter, as being the likely shape of future warfare.

The authors say such woolly thinking is an “intellectual dustbin” that confuses the true nature of conflict.

They cited Gen Carter’s comments during the annual CDS Rusi lecture, delivered in December 2020, that “our rivals seek to win without resorting to war”.

He said that “arms length” tools like drones and mercenaries would be used more often as they provide “deniability and strategic ambiguity - thus enabling intervention without the risk of entanglement”.

The authors say Gen Carter’s ideas “not only lack crucial nuance and are unsound, but also produce "potentially harmful distortionary effects throughout Defence.”

Book challenges 'misleading narratives'​

The new book attempts to challenge some of these “misleading narratives before they drive acquisition and force-design decisions that undermine the British Armed Forces”.

The book argues that “through years of repetition, narratives about the rapidly changing character of warfare and the transformative effects of novel technologies have become akin to gospel truths, enshrined in policy documents.”

Senior defence policy planning is hampered by “received wisdom” the authors suggest.

In many areas of Defence policy, such as cyber warfare, space or novel weapons systems, deep subject matter expertise is required to understand the potential benefits and limitations."

Incompatible demands for efficiency savings and equipment modernisation lead to senior defence planners seeking “silver bullet solutions”.

“Once policy has been stated on an issue, further nuances and important caveats are often lost as the wider policy community try to tailor their own outputs to align with what they perceive as the new high-level consensus.

“As such, the narratives that end up shaping much of the ‘coal face’ work in Defence are not...(usually) nuanced.

“Instead, they are often mantras or collective ‘received wisdom’ that in practice has been oversimplified or distorted by repeated translation, repetition, and transmission.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “With £24 billion investment over the next four years, the Armed Forces will be modernised to meet future threats. The Integrated Review, backed by the largest investment in Defence since the Cold War, is delivering a force fit to meet the challenges posed by a more uncertain world, not battles of the past.”
 

Alamo

LE
Try this:

Defence policy is based on 'over-simplified' hype about cyber warfare, experts warn​

There is an 'institutional blindness' at the heart of UK defence policy, experts Dr Jack Watling and Justin Bronk claim in a new book.

Britain's defence policy is based on "over-simplified" hype about cyber warfare, experts have claimed in a new book.

Defence experts Dr Jack Watling and Justin Bronk say “damaging narratives” are too easily accepted as fact by many in military and government circles.

Such assumptions quickly come to “dominate thinking at the highest levels of UK defence policy”, they have said.

In a new book launched on Monday, called Necessary Heresies, the experts warn there is an “institutional blindness” at the heart of UK defence policy.

Specialist advice is often overlooked or misinterpreted as senior decision-makers shape policy based on their own understanding, the book argues, of briefings given by subject matter experts.

“Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably lost in translation.

“This tendency is exacerbated by a natural inclination to over-hype the potential for novel technologies or strategies to provide transformative effects.”

'Grey zone' attacks​

The authors argue future war is unlikely to be dominated by “grey zone” attacks short of out and out armed conflict.

The dangers of so-called “grey zone” operations, characterised by cyber attacks, assassinations, political interference and disinformation, were regularly cited by the former Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), General Sir Nick Carter, as being the likely shape of future warfare.

The authors say such woolly thinking is an “intellectual dustbin” that confuses the true nature of conflict.

They cited Gen Carter’s comments during the annual CDS Rusi lecture, delivered in December 2020, that “our rivals seek to win without resorting to war”.

He said that “arms length” tools like drones and mercenaries would be used more often as they provide “deniability and strategic ambiguity - thus enabling intervention without the risk of entanglement”.

The authors say Gen Carter’s ideas “not only lack crucial nuance and are unsound, but also produce "potentially harmful distortionary effects throughout Defence.”

Book challenges 'misleading narratives'​

The new book attempts to challenge some of these “misleading narratives before they drive acquisition and force-design decisions that undermine the British Armed Forces”.

The book argues that “through years of repetition, narratives about the rapidly changing character of warfare and the transformative effects of novel technologies have become akin to gospel truths, enshrined in policy documents.”

Senior defence policy planning is hampered by “received wisdom” the authors suggest.

In many areas of Defence policy, such as cyber warfare, space or novel weapons systems, deep subject matter expertise is required to understand the potential benefits and limitations."

Incompatible demands for efficiency savings and equipment modernisation lead to senior defence planners seeking “silver bullet solutions”.

“Once policy has been stated on an issue, further nuances and important caveats are often lost as the wider policy community try to tailor their own outputs to align with what they perceive as the new high-level consensus.

“As such, the narratives that end up shaping much of the ‘coal face’ work in Defence are not...(usually) nuanced.

“Instead, they are often mantras or collective ‘received wisdom’ that in practice has been oversimplified or distorted by repeated translation, repetition, and transmission.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “With £24 billion investment over the next four years, the Armed Forces will be modernised to meet future threats. The Integrated Review, backed by the largest investment in Defence since the Cold War, is delivering a force fit to meet the challenges posed by a more uncertain world, not battles of the past.”
Nail. Hammer. Hit.
 
4 pm to-day


I just bloody love this quote

"Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably ‘lost in translation’ as senior decision-makers shape policy and generalists rewrite doctrine and strategy documents based on their own understanding of briefings given by specialist practitioners and subject-matter experts."

In other words bluffers in the military pretending they understand how things work
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Yeah but we have Cyber Regt's and stuff. And we have little drones that can fit in your hand and can show awesome views of the SPTA and Copehill Down village. These experts need to shut up and leave it to the MOD "cyber warfare fighting and hacking stuff" Officers who I hasten to add also have a Fortnite login shared with their kids whilst they are in CEA funded Boarding School dont yer know!
 
Back to the make-up of the old county regiments. The Maiwand memorial in Reading lists 354 all ranks of the 66th Foot who died in the battle. Local soldiers place of enlistment has been researched. There are 48 from Berkshire, 4 from Wiltshire and 2 from Oxfordshire . 37 other names are typically Irish. 5 officers, including the CO, were born in Ireland. I always understood that a significant proportion of the other names listed were also Irish.
Iirc 66th Foot recruiters in Ireland emphasised the colour of the gosling green facings to attract recruits.
 
I have just been corrected, there is still one lad at the ASBM&HD who was posted in before the P&D’s disbandment that is still wearing Leslie trews. Once he goes to his next posting in one of the other RRS P&D’s that will be the end, he will have the honour of being the last to officially wear the tartan as a serving soldier.
We had one of the last few Cameronian officers (they survived in the TA until 1997) who was posted out of the battalion into staff roles, and carried on wearing Douglas tartan, a black hackle, and a suspenders-style Sam Browne well into the next century...
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
We had one of the last few Cameronian officers (they survived in the TA until 1997) who was posted out of the battalion into staff roles, and carried on wearing Douglas tartan, a black hackle, and a suspenders-style Sam Browne well into the next century...
Good man! I wonder what he spent his uniform grant on, given for buying new articles of uniform. :)
 
We had one of the last few Cameronian officers (they survived in the TA until 1997) who was posted out of the battalion into staff roles, and carried on wearing Douglas tartan, a black hackle, and a suspenders-style Sam Browne well into the next century...
No duff question: What does/did a suspenders style Sam Browne look like?
 

TamH70

MIA

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
And as worn.

the-cameronians-scottish-rifles-0757.jpeg
 
No duff question: What does/did a suspenders style Sam Browne look like?
Given that the original was designed by its namesake, Sam Browne, to accommodate the traumatic amputation of just one of his arms, am I correct to deduce that the Cameronians were unrecognised pioneers and field leaders in the rehabilitation of bilateral amputees, or am I misconstruing something here?:-?:-?
 
Top