Topic: please help us to SAVE OUR REGIMENTS 2

savetheregiments · February 5th, 2005

IRAQ (potential for years)
DAFUR (imminent)
IRELAND (potential)
IRAN (who knows when that may kick off)
TERRORISM (any time)

oh sure we live in a peaceful time

the_13th_redneck · February 5th, 2005

How many of these actually affect the national security of the United Kingdom?
And even if the UK deploys troops, how many would be sent anyways?

savetheregiments · February 5th, 2005

You are joking?

None of these affect National Security?? All of these affect our national security or do we only need troops for wars in the UK - strange logic?!

I can hear the cries 'why do we not have enough troops' when there is a terrorist strike and then there is another far off civil war that our government committ thousands of troops to.

Meanwhile, our existing troops are on continual tour of duty - Royal Scots for example have not been home for the past 4 years at Christmas.
There Colonel says it is an intolerable situation ...

The say that people get the press they deserve ..
perhaps we deserve the Army we are going to end up with

r031Button · February 5th, 2005

Cutting the remginets doesn't mean their getting rid of the troops. My understanding is that several regiments are being cut, and reformed into mulit battalion regiemnts. No loss of troops, just a loss of Colonoals and RSMs.

the_13th_redneck · February 5th, 2005

Reorganization then.
Everyone's moving to smaller, more rapidly mobile units. Everyone that's involved in long distance operations like the US, UK and Australia who are unlikely to see a massive war on their own doorstep.

savetheregiments · February 5th, 2005

and as usual it is the Generals and the likes who actually do bugger all (most of them went to Sandhurst and got promotion off their daddies names) - your regular squaddies get shafted whilst int he service and shafter when the government want to save a few pounds!

Let's wait and see anyway ..

the_13th_redneck · February 5th, 2005

That's how it always works everywhere. Welcome to Earth.

r031Button · February 5th, 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by savetheregiments

and as usual it is the Generals and the likes who actually do bugger all (most of them went to Sandhurst and got promotion off their daddies names) - your regular squaddies get shafted whilst int he service and shafter when the government want to save a few pounds!

Let's wait and see anyway ..

But your not cutting the number of battalions, just the number of regiments. That actually works out to less command positions, as in less Colonels.

I thought the immature "I hate officers" thing was usually over by the time you joined the military in most people.

the_13th_redneck · February 5th, 2005

And less Colonels means less fat (litterally too

). Colonels are expensive as well.

savetheregiments · February 5th, 2005

2,000 less ground troops, regular soldiers - the army is losing 4 regiments - not being amalgamated but DISBANDED - let me say that once more for those who have difficulty ..

2,000 LESS SOLDIERS AS A RESULT OF THE DISBANDMENT OF 4 REGIMENTS

The amalgamations of the regiments will make it much harder to recruit.

February 5th, 2005	Post 12
the_13th_redneck No Chance Outside Gear	How many of these actually affect the national security of the United Kingdom? And even if the UK deploys troops, how many would be sent anyways? __________________ I don't exist. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSTITUTED Next time you travel http://www.epictrip.com

February 5th, 2005	Post 14
r031Button Centurion	Cutting the remginets doesn't mean their getting rid of the troops. My understanding is that several regiments are being cut, and reformed into mulit battalion regiemnts. No loss of troops, just a loss of Colonoals and RSMs. __________________ Ducimus: we lead The difference between bravery and stupidity is timining.

February 5th, 2005	Post 11
savetheregiments Tirones	IRAQ (potential for years) DAFUR (imminent) IRELAND (potential) IRAN (who knows when that may kick off) TERRORISM (any time) oh sure we live in a peaceful time

February 5th, 2005	Post 13
savetheregiments Tirones	You are joking? None of these affect National Security?? All of these affect our national security or do we only need troops for wars in the UK - strange logic?! I can hear the cries 'why do we not have enough troops' when there is a terrorist strike and then there is another far off civil war that our government committ thousands of troops to. Meanwhile, our existing troops are on continual tour of duty - Royal Scots for example have not been home for the past 4 years at Christmas. There Colonel says it is an intolerable situation ... The say that people get the press they deserve .. perhaps we deserve the Army we are going to end up with

February 5th, 2005	Post 15
the_13th_redneck No Chance Outside Gear	Reorganization then. Everyone's moving to smaller, more rapidly mobile units. Everyone that's involved in long distance operations like the US, UK and Australia who are unlikely to see a massive war on their own doorstep.

February 5th, 2005	Post 16
savetheregiments Tirones	and as usual it is the Generals and the likes who actually do bugger all (most of them went to Sandhurst and got promotion off their daddies names) - your regular squaddies get shafted whilst int he service and shafter when the government want to save a few pounds! Let's wait and see anyway ..

February 5th, 2005	Post 17
the_13th_redneck No Chance Outside Gear	That's how it always works everywhere. Welcome to Earth.

February 5th, 2005	Post 19
the_13th_redneck No Chance Outside Gear	And less Colonels means less fat (litterally too ). Colonels are expensive as well.

February 5th, 2005	Post 20
savetheregiments Tirones	2,000 less ground troops, regular soldiers - the army is losing 4 regiments - not being amalgamated but DISBANDED - let me say that once more for those who have difficulty .. 2,000 LESS SOLDIERS AS A RESULT OF THE DISBANDMENT OF 4 REGIMENTS The amalgamations of the regiments will make it much harder to recruit.