# HM The Queen Approves New Regimental Titles



## Bill Smy (25 Nov 2005)

http://www.news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3788


----------



## TCBF (25 Nov 2005)

It makes you wonder why we all didn't stay with numbered Regiments.

(Tom ducks, puts on helmet, retreats into bunker and locks door, turns on overpressure system..)

Tom


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> It makes you wonder why we all didn't stay with numbered Regiments.
> 
> (Tom ducks, puts on helmet, retreats into bunker and locks door, turns on overpressure system..)
> 
> Tom



We changed the numbered system? When did that happen?

(As I reach the phone and give the BOR a wring....with my helmet on backwards)

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Nov 2005)

If the comments in the latest Thin Red Line magazine are any indication, the British regular army seems to be taking this all very calmly.  Kudos to them for their professionalism.


----------



## TCBF (26 Nov 2005)

"and give the BOR a wring...."

Hey, Tess, I'd like to give my BOR a wring too! ;D

Tom


----------



## TheNomad (2 Dec 2005)

The British Army is taking this calmly because it is a done deal and going to happen no matter what the troops think.  The only element that is still making a fuss (and fighting a lost cause IMO) are the Scots.

The only good thing about any of this is the removal of the daft multi-badged inf battalions in the TA (except for the LONDONS).


----------



## Pencil Tech (2 Dec 2005)

I'm sad to see the name of the Royal Green Jackets not being kept.


----------



## DG-41 (2 Dec 2005)

Yeah, that one caught me by suprise too. And the composite name "The Rifles" seems, well, uninsprired.

*shrug* It's their army.

DG


----------



## xFusilier (2 Dec 2005)

While the name "The Rifles" mat seem uninspried personllay "The Rifle Brigade" would have been a better choice, lets not forget that this is the same people that came up with the name "The Highlanders".  What I find interesting is the Brits can amalgamate regiments with hundreds of years of service to the crown at the bat of an eye, yet in Canada if someone suggests amalgamating the Royal Moose Jaw Fusiliers and the Weybrun Fencibles, syncope and aneurysm become pandemic.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Dec 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> While the name "The Rifles" mat seem uninspried personllay "The Rifle Brigade" would have been a better choice, lets not forget that this is the same people that came up with the name "The Highlanders".   What I find interesting is the Brits can amalgamate regiments with hundreds of years of service to the crown at the bat of an eye, yet in Canada if someone suggests amalgamating the Royal Moose Jaw Fusiliers and the Weybrun Fencibles, syncope and aneurysm become pandemic.



I think Canada has amalgamated or disbanded more regiments than the British have in the 20th Century, so I'm not sure where this comes from.  We just haven't done it in a while.  The CAR was disbanded recently but aside from some minor name changes (Tor Scot, RRR, etc.) our stable of infantry regiments has been remarkably...stable...since the 1950s, and even that was child's play compared to the reforms in 1936 and the early 1920s).


----------



## enfield (2 Dec 2005)

We still 48-odd Militia "Regiments" masqerading as "Battalions" that are more like Companies. 
That could easily become 10-15 Regiments.


----------



## R031button (6 Dec 2005)

I'd go a step further and follow the brits and have Reserve Battalions wearing the catbrass of a "parent" regular force regiments. Even if that means expanding the count of regular force regiments.


----------



## MoRat (19 Dec 2005)

R031button said:
			
		

> I'd go a step further and follow the brits and have Reserve Battalions wearing the catbrass of a "parent" regular force regiments. Even if that means expanding the count of regular force regiments.



I can certainly see the cost savings to such a move, but I disagree with the idea.

Such an arrangement would create a major league (parent unit) vs. farm team (reserve unit) dichotomy. This would make unit pride, recruiting, & retention extremely difficult for the reserve unit. In order for reserve units to effectively train, they need to overcome a variety of challenges. The best way to do this is to have a unique and treasured regimental identity, coupled with a firm team spirit. Reservists need to believe that what they are doing matters as individuals, and as part of a regimental tradition they control.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Dec 2005)

MoRat said:
			
		

> I can certainly see the cost savings to such a move, but I disagree with the idea.
> 
> Such an arrangement would create a major league (parent unit) vs. farm team (reserve unit) dichotomy. This would make unit pride, recruiting, & retention extremely difficult for the reserve unit. In order for reserve units to effectively train, they need to overcome a variety of challenges. The best way to do this is to have a unique and treasured regimental identity, coupled with a firm team spirit. Reservists need to believe that what they are doing matters as individuals, and as part of a regimental tradition they control.



I can't think of anyone putting this any better.  Well said.

And it certainly makes sense.  Our Calgary Highlanders are gung ho as all get out about getting overseas on the next roto to Afghanistan; one was scrounging for a camp flag to take, others were getting extra cap badges in case theirs break.

I don't see that kind of pride in being the 11th (South Alberta) Battalion, PPCLI.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2005)

The amalgamation of units into super regiments is almost absurd. No one has the stones to just case the unit colors and consign them to Army history until such time that the unit may be restored. As the BA continues to get smaller more cuts will occur and creating super regiments wont be an option. The highland regiments bitterly fought the amalgamtion as they took the brunt of the amalgamation. After that4 home battalions in NI were to be deactivated so the OPTEMPO continues but now there are fewer units to share the burden with. The Royal Navy is in even worse shape than the Army. The only chance for reversal is a return of the conservative party and that isnt likely, which means that MoD will take more hits. In fact if it werent for Iraq the BA would probably
have lost even more battalions.


----------



## enfield (19 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Our Calgary Highlanders are gung ho as all get out about getting overseas on the next roto to Afghanistan; one was scrounging for a camp flag to take, others were getting extra cap badges in case theirs break.
> 
> I don't see that kind of pride in being the 11th (South Alberta) Battalion, PPCLI.



Cal High's wouldn't be 11th Battalion. They would be B Coy, 4th Battalion, PPCLI - Eddies could be A Coy. Or, even better, Cal High's could be D Coy 1VP, and Eddies D Coy 3VP. 

We've bashed this horse before though. 

Tomahawk6 - is it really a matter of making "super regiments"? I understood the amalgamations as an official recognition of the reality of manpower shortages. Rather than have two understrength regiments, they make one full strength regiment out of the two.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2005)

I am a member of arrse and belive me they are still not happy with the amalgamations. If there are understrength units because they cant recruit then they need to case the unit's colors.


----------



## MoRat (20 Dec 2005)

In Canada's case, would such a scheme really save much money? I've made my argument to preserve the regimental system. I believe that many others here could make an even better one. The regular force has already lost half of their post-war regiments. How much money would be saved by amalgamating the three survivors into the RCR, or a new creation altogether? Would that small amount of money compensate for the lowered morale and preformance? As for the reserve, we would save even less money and inflict greater damage. 

I think we would be more sucessful looking for cost savings in lowering our tooth-to-tail ratio, cleaning up our procurement system, tightening up our scale of clothing issue. These and other similar approaches are preferable to attacking a regimental system which has survived for centuries for one reason: it works.


----------



## Kev T (14 Jan 2006)

I am a strong advocate of the regimental system. It's proven, effective, it works, and it makes you feel like you're a part of something special and larger. Plus it just seems to sound much better when someone asks what unit you're from and you reply e.g. 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment instead of 2nd Platoon, C Coy, 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment, 5th Brigade.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jan 2006)

I think that rather than try to continue a regiment's lineage as a company in another regiment, it is far better to allow that regiment to pass into history. If in the future there is the need for a new regiment then one can be reactivated. We in the US Army do this.

Canada has handled this alot better than the Brits. Canada still has 3 infantry regiments each with 3 battalions. British regiments, there are a few exceptions, have become single battalions. In some cases battalions just might have a lone infantry company or maybe 2. If a regiment cannot maintain its strength then it should be deactivated. In the US the Army handles all recruiting and assignment of soldiers. In the UK, regiments recruit rather than the Army. If the Army acted as recruiting agent then maybe they wouldnt have had to amalgamate units.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Jan 2006)

Kev T said:
			
		

> I am a strong advocate of the regimental system. It's proven, effective, it works, and it makes you feel like you're a part of something special and larger. Plus it just seems to sound much better when someone asks what unit you're from and you reply e.g. 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment instead of 2nd Platoon, C Coy, 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment, 5th Brigade.....



You can just as easily say that a non-regimental system is proven, effective, and works also.  Take the Canadian Expeditionary Force.  Battalions in most cases were amalgams of several prewar Militia regiments - often with very little or no history - and yet they did exceedingly well.  The 16th Battalion were drawn from at least four pre-war Highland Regiments, none of whom had any battle honours, and yet fought in every major Canadian battle of the war and won a large number of VCs and other awards despite only having "Canadian Scottish" for a name and absolutely none of the trappings of the 50th Gordon Highlanders, 79th Cameron Highlanders or 93rd Canadian Highlanders from which they were recruited.  That title is very significant to Princess Mary's boys in Victoria today, but it was fairly meaningless in 1915.

At its worst, the Regimental system reinforces the idea of promoting from within - Terry Copp points out that regimental officers during WW II, for example, tended to be drawn from within the same regiment; the Black Watch were, IIRC, sending new officers to the general reinforcement stream already badged as Black Watch.  I don't think it was a huge issue in WW II as officers did tend to move around - the CO of the South Saskatchewans at Dieppe (who won the VC) was actually a Seaforth Highlander, for example, and in late 1944 they got a new CO from the Calgary Highlanders.  

I am for the regimental system, don't get me wrong, but why use non-sensical arguments to defend it?  Soldiers of the Tenth Battalion, CEF didn't feel the need to refer to themselves as anything more grandiose than "Tenth Canadians" and yet managed to win massive laurels for themselves.  And again, not one single uniform distinction or tradition was carried over from the 103rd Calgary Rifles or 106th Winnipeg Light Infantry from which they were formed.  It was the same for most of the numbered battalions of the CEF.

The problem with defending the regimental system is that most of the arguments in favour are purely sentimental - which in my books is still ok.  We shouldn't be scared of sentiment.  But let's not fool ourselves into pretending its scientific fact because those outside the regimental system don't buy it for a second.


----------

