Super Regiments pro and cons

I suspect this has been done to death and debated to infinity but I found myself chatting with a mate about this regarding the Royal Scots, Rifles etc.

To paraphrase him; (he's an army brat but never served) "Why would super regiments work today when it didn't work the last time it was tried - with the Royal Anglians, who have been buggered about by cutbacks ever since?"

TBH, I was buggered to come up with a good argument beyond it making deployments and manpower allocation more straight forward. In fact, I'm not convinced entirely myself.


[Edited for shite grammar]
dont know about the pro's but being a cynical person I reckon the creation of the super regt are a two phase thing,

Stage 1. amalgamate alot of already amalgamated regts into 1 big regt. then wait a couple of years for everyone to stop wingeing and get used to the idea.

Stage 2. trim a few more battalions of the super regts and be able to say with a straight face "but the regt is still in exsistance all we've done is down sized it"

Hope I'm wrong but.....
Somewhere back in the 1960's they tried super regiments based on their Divisions and certain units were reduced to Companies, the Argylls for one. Then NI kicked off and they had to go back to the start getting rid of the big Regiments and bringing the units back to full strength. You never know it could happen again.


War Hero
Well the arms plot meant that at any one time a large proportion of battalions were not available to deploy, so getting rid of it and leaving each battalion in the same location forever means there are more units available to deploy.

With no arms plot a bloke joining a one battalion regiment would get to spend the rest of his life in one place and in one role, not great for retention or personal development. Unless that battalion could swap people with other similar battalions of course. But then if two or more battalions were trading blokes regularly they might just as well join together formally as a larger regiment.

The Large regiment takes this to its logical conclusion. By having at least three battalions you can have a battalion in the light, mechanised and armoured roles. In the Rifles case also one in the commando role. The more battalions you have the more choices of postings the guys get.

So the end of the arms plot makes larger regiments more attractive for recruitment, since they will get more variety.
GwaiLo said:
With no arms plot a bloke joining a one battalion regiment would get to spend the rest of his life in one place and in one role, not great for retention or personal development.

OK so they have three Battalions but until recently only one Role, but it doesn't seem to have done the Parachute Regiment much harm to stay in the same role in the same place for the past ten years.
Never under strength for operational tours
Regiments can "buy up" training programmes and fill them regardless of commitment.
Easier administration and spread of skills.
Less top heavy affiliated associations.

Well that is just it. this is all one BIG con to apply future spending cuts.


Cons - BIG Scottish regiment, but first amalgamate the Royal Scots and the KOSB so we lose one old Regiment, make them 1st Bn of a 5 Bn Regiment.

The Rifles, BIG Regiment, but again amalgamate the D&D with RGBW so that once more we lose 5 old Regiments that were, make them 1st Bn of a 5 Bn Regiment.

Some time down the track----- OH we don't need 5 Bns, disband one and let's have 4 in each SUPER Regiment. Further down the track. Who needs 4 Bns?? Let's have 3 per Regiment, makes sense and saves money. Even further down the track, Hey, the Royal Anglians only have 2 Bns let's get rid of all the 3rd Bns so that everybody is equal. All that money saved , isn't it marvellous shout the bean counters..

Pros - still thinking about that one.

Latest Threads