Ranger Brigade(s)

I do wonder what has changed "North Of The Border".

The Scottish Regiments have a lot of history/tradition behind them, but they have been seriously understrength for sometime.

The SNP are simultaneously anti-military, everything from opposing Trident all the way to opposing the Cadets, but pro-military in the sense that they take personal affront to cuts to any Scottish battalions and are keen for warships to be built in Scotland. Bizarre as it sounds, the Scottish voters love it as you can see from how many SNP MPs they voted in.

Truth is that the Scots Guards cannot do a job that you would send a battalion to do, neither can the others. So what are they for? Not for any reason that people want to join them to do, that much is clear.
 

Wee Hawken

Old-Salt
This is where they messed up. 250-500... Maybe????
This is probably the aim - ultimately to fold the four existing Bns into one or maybe two, with the existing regimental affiliations swiftly disappearing - thereby neatly removing two or three Bns from the Inf ORBAT without anybody noticing - let alone any loss of capbadges. I would expect this to happen within a year or two at most.

My equally confident prediction is that the poorly-thought-out "Ranger" name will last for about as long as the "columns" did in 77 Brigade i.e. not very.

You heard it here first :)
 
Storming of Berlin 1945.... hear the comment "We have too many soldiers"....... nope.

"We don't have enough soldiers"...... that will be a catastrophe, a pandemic, a national disaster...... or.... heaven forbid.... a f,king war.
 
Last edited:
My equally confident prediction is that the poorly-thought-out "Ranger" name will last for about as long as the "columns" did in 77 Brigade i.e. not very.

The IR makes reference to the Army Special Operations Brigade and the Security Force Assistance Brigade and 77 is the template for a unit to be called a Brigade but be much smaller than the formation traditionally referred to as such.
 
No shyt Sherlock.... Only time you see a British unit at 100% is when the Queens involved.
 

Mölders 1

Old-Salt
The SNP are simultaneously anti-military, everything from opposing Trident all the way to opposing the Cadets, but pro-military in the sense that they take personal affront to cuts to any Scottish battalions and are keen for warships to be built in Scotland. Bizarre as it sounds, the Scottish voters love it as you can see from how many SNP MPs they voted in.

Truth is that the Scots Guards cannot do a job that you would send a battalion to do, neither can the others. So what are they for? Not for any reason that people want to join them to do, that much is clear.

Could you explain the very last line of your comment to me please? I didn't quite understand what it meant.
 
Could you explain the very last line of your comment to me please? I didn't quite understand what it meant.

I mean that Scottish patriotism or nationalism or whatever it is doesn't translate into people actually wanting to join the Scots Guards, yet it does seemingly translate into very strong feelings that a unit so under strength that it cannot do an equivalent unit's job, should continue to exist. I don't understand this paradox and wonder if anyone does.
 
In Peninsular times, (Sean Bean for you uneducated louts) regular battalions would form line in 3 ranks.... but due to a 1000 man Battalion (10 companies of 100...Yes, the British Army had gone metric way before Napoleon.... a French Regiment was 1600...strangely a function of base 2) was only 400 strong they did a naughty and deployed, like the Guards, in only 2 ranks to extend their front and fill the gap between them and the next Battalion (It's on TV every year.... 2 ranks)

So, the Army are use to making very good with what we got..... but if we don't have the troops, we can't fill the gaps.
 
Last edited:

Mölders 1

Old-Salt
I mean that Scottish patriotism or nationalism or whatever it is doesn't translate into people actually wanting to join the Scots Guards, yet it does seemingly translate into very strong feelings that a unit so under strength that it cannot do an equivalent unit's job, should continue to exist. I don't understand this paradox and wonder if anyone does.

I understand what you mean now.

I don't understand this either.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.
 
Why not just turn the Green machine all into evil bastards?
 
Just planning ahead...

 
Last edited:

SignalFire

Clanker
This is probably the aim - ultimately to fold the four existing Bns into one or maybe two, with the existing regimental affiliations swiftly disappearing - thereby neatly removing two or three Bns from the Inf ORBAT without anybody noticing - let alone any loss of capbadges. I would expect this to happen within a year or two at most.

My equally confident prediction is that the poorly-thought-out "Ranger" name will last for about as long as the "columns" did in 77 Brigade i.e. not very.

You heard it here first :)

Small battalions make sense, the future of warfare is manoeuvring small unconventional units from country to country, proxy wars. Long gone are the days of Brigade deployments, Small units allow the MOD to operate in areas without the fallout from the media/public.

is 77 even an army unit? it's not a fair comparison, 77 is a small Psy Ops group mostly manned by reservists and non military civilians, It's not an infantry unit.

I dunno, looks like they're quite keen on the name even claiming that regiment of ''Rangers'' is of British origins. Ironically the UK Rangers will operate nothing like the US Rangers, completely different mission set.
 
Small battalions make sense, the future of warfare is manoeuvring small unconventional units from country to country, proxy wars.

Small units might make sense for some operations, but rebranding a reinforced company as a battalion just to preserve a capbadge smacks of desperation on the part of the Army. And all these mini-battalions will have a Lt Col commanding still where by formation size it really ought to be a Major or even a Captain...
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And all these mini-battalions will have a Lt Col commanding still where by formation size it really ought to be a Major or even a Captain...

You should look at span of command rather than formation size. Lots of specialist/specalised units out there have much smaller numbers under command than is normal for an infantry battalion. The US special mission units have Lieutenant Colonels as squadron commanders and the units are treated as brigade-level command slots.

That's not to say that reducing numbers of troops without reducing command rank is always a good idea, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
You should look at span of command rather than formation size. Lots of specialist/specalised units out there have much smaller numbers under command than is normal for an infantry battalion. The US tier 1 units have Lieutenant Colonels as squadron commanders and the units are treated as brigade-level command slots.

That's not to say that reducing numbers of troops without reducing command rank is always a good idea, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But is that not the same for US Army Cav/Aviation? Lt Cols Command the “Squadron”, which is actually their name for a Battalion?

Or are they literally Commanding 60(ish) blokes and gals?
 

Latest Threads

Top