• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cheers Mr Hoon

I presume the alternative would be to maintain precisely the same regiments and structures indefinitely. Let's get rid of all that troublesome modern weaponry and stick to horses and pikes in the interests of tradition.
 
Shaun from Scotland said:
Thanks to the Black Watch. By the way your history........

300 years down the toilet............
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

" The other four battalions of the so-called super-regiment would be the Black Watch, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the Highlanders.
Click to expand...

I think it would be the height of Christian charity if someone were to donate a synonym for "highlander" to the good people of Scotland. :D

BTW, which ones are the unexploded Scotsmen?
 
No, the alternative would be to fund the Army properly. At the very least it may help not to base most Scottish regiments outside Scotland to save money, breaking local links to the community and then use that as an excuse to get rid of them because they cant recruit enough locals........
 
The Don said:
I presume the alternative would be to maintain precisely the same regiments and structures indefinitely. Let's get rid of all that troublesome modern weaponry and stick to horses and pikes in the interests of tradition.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, the Black Watch are one of the most modern, well-equipped units in the British Army. We may find it better getting rid of the numerous "show battalions" that infest the SE of England. They are more likely to be the ones with pikes and horses............
 
Would the additional spending on the army be at the expense of the other services ? If not, how much additional spending do you recommend ? Which budget(s) would you cut ?

Please don't use "by reducing waste" as the way of funding, waste is inherent in any large organisation.

By all means get rid of the southern regiments as well. Why IS it important to have regiments tied to specific parts of the country ?

Are you suggesting that our servicemen are so unprofessional that they would be less brave, effective or committed if they were in a regiment with a different name ?
 
The Don said:
Would the additional spending on the army be at the expense of the other services ? If not, how much additional spending do you recommend ? Which budget(s) would you cut ?

Please don't use "by reducing waste" as the way of funding, waste is inherent in any large organisation.

By all means get rid of the southern regiments as well. Why IS it important to have regiments tied to specific parts of the country ?

Are you suggesting that our servicemen are so unprofessional that they would be less brave, effective or committed if they were in a regiment with a different name ?
Click to expand...

Because it is more than simply a name. It is the bedrock of the British Army and has been for over 300 years. Dont take my word for it, veterans put it better than I could.

Why regiments matter

And I hardly think the Black Watch guys were enthused to know they were for the chop:

Quote: from Scotsman on Saturday:(NB where all the guys come from)

Private Wayne Mackie, 25, from Dundee: “This is a kick in the teeth, considering we have lost six men out here” “We can’t understand why they want to disband us”

Private Ian Porteous, 20, from Dundee “People appreciate what we are doing – the Government obviously doesn’t. I can’t see why Hoon wants to get rid of us”

Private Lee Beaton, 23, from Dundee “The decision is particularly hard to take when you see the amount of taxpayers money the Defence Secretary and other MPS spend on themselves. They should all come and spend some time out here with us. Then they would see why we are worth keeping”

As regards funding, perhaps if we hadn't wasted billions on eurofighter and FRES we might be able to fund front-line fighting strength from the defence budget without cutting other services. But if we want an effective army, it costs money. If we don't want to spend it, admit it and stop pretending its designed to make the Army more efficient and more effective. These cuts are to save cash, nothing more, nothing less....

And if you want to get specific, Major Michael hamilton has a few good ideas
 
I (probably because I have no military background what-so-ever) don’t understand this need to keep a name, as for the problem of local recruitment are that many of the recruits “local” to the historic “home” of the regiment these days?

Just as an interesting to know fact, according to the General I heard on TV tonight (didn’t catch his name), having names for the regiments is a fairly modern tradition - they used to be just known by numbers. (Wasn't the black watch actually the 42d?) And when it was decided to name the regiments to counties etc. it was ridiculed and many objections were raised.
 
I'm not a military man either, Darat, but there was (and is) a certain pride taken in being part of unit, especially one with a long history.

For example, in the American Civil War there was a group of regiments from Ohio, Indiana and Michigan known as "The Iron Brigade". The 2nd Brigade of the 1st US Armored Division today is known as..wait for it..the Iron Brigade. Unit history and tradition are important to soldiers--then and now.

And while I would agree that the regiments were known by numbers (the Iron Brigade was technically the 1st Brigade of the First Division of the First Corps of the Army of the Potomac), they were also informally known by those names.

I'm with the Scots on this one...Hoon could have found a better way without rubbing military tradition and history in the dirt.
 
Hutch said:
...snip....

And while I would agree that the regiments were known by numbers (the Iron Brigade was technically the 1st Brigade of the First Division of the First Corps of the Army of the Potomac), they were also informally known by those names.

I'm with the Scots on this one...Hoon could have found a better way without rubbing military tradition and history in the dirt.
Click to expand...

Just been reading up a bit more on the proposals and this is exactly what they are proposing to do. The names will be retained however rather then being a complete separate battalion they will become part of a bigger unit. So there will still be a "Black Watch", (see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102013.stm).

And reading further into these claims of 300 year histories it appears that many of the regiments with this long history have already gone through many re-organisations, renaming and merging during those 300 years.

The only difference with the latest proposals appears to be one of scale (number of changes) happening over a relatively short period.
 
Darat said:
I (probably because I have no military background what-so-ever) don’t understand this need to keep a name, as for the problem of local recruitment are that many of the recruits “local” to the historic “home” of the regiment these days?
Click to expand...

Look at the quotes above...........

Scottish regiments in particular, despite severe problems, still recruit from local areas to a huge degree. Its what gives them their "espirit de corps".
 
Darat said:
Just been reading up a bit more on the proposals and this is exactly what they are proposing to do. The names will be retained however rather then being a complete separate battalion they will become part of a bigger unit. So there will still be a "Black Watch", (see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102013.stm).

And reading further into these claims of 300 year histories it appears that many of the regiments with this long history have already gone through many re-organisations, renaming and merging during those 300 years.

The only difference with the latest proposals appears to be one of scale (number of changes) happening over a relatively short period.
Click to expand...

Famous regiments like the cameronians have come and gone. But this is by far the most drastic shake-up ever. And it will lead to further recruitment problems. The Highlanders for example, incorporate the regiments names that formed them, but they struggle to attract recruits because they lack local identity in Sutherland/ Inverness area. No local identity means recruitment shortfalls, paricularly in Scotland, where regional identity has always been important.

The Army also has more than recruitment problems. It has retention problems, mainly because the soldiers are over-deployed. Putting them into faceless units is not going to help this
 
Shaun from Scotland said:
Famous regiments like the cameronians have come and gone. But this is by far the most drastic shake-up ever. And it will lead to further recruitment problems. The Highlanders for example, incorporate the regiments names that formed them, but they struggle to attract recruits because they lack local identity in Sutherland/ Inverness area. No local identity means recruitment shortfalls, paricularly in Scotland, where regional identity has always been important.
Click to expand...

Been trying to find some official figures etc. about the recruitment issues the army faces but haven't had much success (but then again not been that diligent!) - have you anything?

The Army also has more than recruitment problems. It has retention problems, mainly because the soldiers are over-deployed. Putting them into faceless units is not going to help this
Click to expand...

According to the army (i.e. not what the minister says) this change will actually help this type of issue, because it will result in having not 32 battalions ready for deployment at any time but more like 36. Also the units will not be rotated the same way, families wont have to decide whether to follow their breadwinner every few years (with all the attendant problems - lack of community support, kids being uprooted from schools every couple of years) or to face long, stressful separations.

From the Chief of the General Staff press statement (http://www.army.mod.uk/linked_files/fas/CGS_Press_Statement_16_Dec_04___FAS.doc)

...snip...
The inherent re-roling was inefficient and costly in terms of time, hard-won capability and money. It also adversely affected family stability – always a compromise in a mobile profession such as ours, but an area that we, for the sake of our soldiers and their families, have to improve. In simple terms, the Arms Plot rendered some 7 to 8 battalions unavailable at any one time: we did not have, therefore, 40 battalions in the effective Order of Battle, but rather some 32. In the future, the 36 battalions will all be available. By fixing infantry battalions by role and largely by location, we will have a new Infantry structure that will involve individual postings rather than unit moves – an approach that is already widely used across the Army to good effect and will provide challenge, variety and experience whilst improving continuity of role, operational capability and family stability.
...snip...
Click to expand...

The more I read the detail of these changes the more they seem not only to be sensible (given the changes in the way the army is now used and its modern purpose) but long overdue. (From a couple of the "experts" I've read it seems the army has been considering this type of re-structuring for decades.)

Yes there are some "traditions" being changed or scrapped - but the world changes and the army has to change to reflect that.

(Edited to correct my silly figures.)
 
From the original link:

"But in this reorganisation, each battalion has retained strong links to its local community, to specific items of uniform, and most importantly it has provided the link between the past, present and future.

"I am particularly pleased that our famous battalion names and traditions will live on because that is what I have been fighting for."
Click to expand...

So while I would agree that the loss of a whole bunch of history and tradition would be a real loss indeed, is that what is actually being proposed? From what I can see the shakeup seems largely an administrative change, and not a fundamental rooting out as has been suggested.
 
richardm said:
From the original link:



So while I would agree that the loss of a whole bunch of history and tradition would be a real loss indeed, is that what is actually being proposed? From what I can see the shakeup seems largely an administrative change, and not a fundamental rooting out as has been suggested.
Click to expand...

I agree with the Brigadier
 
SHAUN:


I agree with you about maintaining tradition and the regimental name. Soldiers dont fight for Queen and Country. They fight for their mates and their regiment. All this almalgamating regiment sh!t is ruining the tradition of the army. It would be better to just chop a regiment than to amalgamate 2 into 1.

I also agree that it is a traversty to cut the infantry when they are needed more than ever- as evidenced bythe fact that a record number of reservists and TA have been called up to serve.

However- Scotland was quite lucky to only lose one battlion in all. Given that the Scottish regiments and the most under-recruited in a massively under-recruited army.......

I also think that the rhetoric abounding about the Black Watch is a tad OTT. Every regiment is famous and illustrious and has a list of battle-honours longer than my cock, so no matter who you chop, you are going to chop a huge chunk of someone's history...
 
Jon_in_london said:
SHAUN:
However- Scotland was quite lucky to only lose one battlion in all. Given that the Scottish regiments and the most under-recruited in a massively under-recruited army.......
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence that Scottish regiments are performing much worse at recruiting than any other regiment. Still if you remove the regiments from their local areas and base them outside Scotland what do you expect? It is also a relatively recent phenomena. Making these local links even weaker is not going to address this.

And 8.6% of the population still contributes 13% of armed forces recruits.............

The bottom line is this is this is to save money. The regimental system is expensive. This is the first step in dismantling it altogether. There are alternatives to what Hoon has done. See here.

But they dont want that. They want to save money and pretend they aren't. Defence spending as a % of GDP is at its lowest since the 1930's. In the current international climate, this is insanity.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom