Why do regiments matter?


This from the BBC. I cant beleive the Glosters are up for the chop 8O . When I joined and swore my oath of allegiance, there was me, of to join the RLC, and 20 other lads of to join the Glosters (wonder where they are now). Even i could see that there was already a bond between them at even that early stage.

For those reading this that like football could you imagine the outcry if Arsenal were to be amalgamated with Totenham Hotspur.
Or Man City and Man Utd 8O

Stinks of Treason :evil:
SKJOLD, Am afraid you have it wrong, the Glosters are not up for the chop as they don't exist, well not the way you see it. The Glosters were amalgamated with the DERR a few years back and are now known as the M4 Rifles :D , or the RGBW. I think the regiment is for the chop because the name is toooooooo long and uses up toooooo much space on Pc's in MOD. I would like to say more on this subject but after seen so many fine regiments and their histories thrown on the scrapheap over the years I just want to bury my head in the sand and forget, it is so disheartening.
Depressing quote from the Today piece this morning: apparently Gordon Brown is prepared to spend £150m on teaching chavs to use bank accounts but he can't spare £100m to maintain the four battalions threatened with the axe.

But even that pales into complete insignificance compared to Blunkett's Billions and the Great ID Card Swindle.
:oops: silly me! :) Most people around my old haunts still call them the Glosters even if they are the RGBW, the nicknames and some of the traditions are still surviving(just).

So we get a Large-Large regiment, after that in 5 years years time a Large-Large-Large Regiment and then in 10 years time The Corps of Royal Infantry (CRI\cry)
It's the advent of SMART munitions that has done for the infantry...the 2 are just mutually exclusive!
now maybe i'm just being downright stupid here, but i can't see what difference it makes to the government whether or not they keep the regiments.
if they want men to be deployed more easily then why do they have to lose years of history and insult towns/ex servicemen & women?

surely they can allow the regiments to continue as they are, just allow men and women to move between diff areas/tours/regions etc.. but allow them to retain their regimental pride

as i say, perhaps i just can't see it.. just seems like the government giving themselves a headache for no reason. it appears to me, that to be a good soldier you MUST be adaptable, therefore keeping things as they are and allowing freer movement will be less offensive?

someone care to explain to me just what i'm missing please?
Of the Inf battalions I lived with in my 23 years service, I considered the Glims to be the best. Excellent regimental spirt. All of the Gaurds where good to serve along side.
The Cheshire's where an apology for a decent regiment not very hospitable just a bunch of jocks (sporting sense), full of the own self importance.
The worst well take your pick, Argyll and Bolton Wanderers,The Dukes and The Kings.

Similar threads

Latest Threads