please help us to SAVE OUR REGIMENTS

Its more than painful and certainly in times of global terrorism and the IRA refusing to give up its arm we should NOT be cutting troops - because this LABOUR government are cutting troops by over 2,000 for BUDGET REASONS - nothing to do with army reorganisation.

Most people fail to understand why at a time of global overstretch for our troops with ever increasing lengthy and more frequent tours of duties we are slashing soldiers numbers.

Even Alistair Irwin admitted (head of Scottish Division) has admitted publicly that he would prefer the 'budget cuts' not to be happening.

Lord Guthrie who used to be head of defence and who recently Tony Blair asked for his help and advice on the Iraq war said the plans for reorganisation were folly and made no sense whatsoever.

So why are they needed?
 
another few facts

The Army sold off hundreds of recruiting offices in the UK a few years back - now we have combined service centres where if a school-leaver walks in has a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the army because the desks are only manned in intervals between army/navy and raf.

It was done to save a few million quid. It means that someone say from Inverness or Devon has to travel a considerble distance to an office join the army.

Fact is that the army want less recruits whilst the reconfigure the army to have more hi-tech toys and less boots on the ground.

Interesting that the UK is following the American model for hi-tech - but in a turnaround both thr USA and Australia have late last year announced they are increasing their number of ground forces personnel - yes - boots on the grounds soldiers. Not logisticians and Eurofighters (which were designed for coldwar activity!)
 
ai, sad thing it is

but cutting of the military units is normal during peacefull times, especially when their uses are dimishing as one country gains stability and the need is just not there
 
The face of warfare seems to be changing... though we won't understand modern warfare until a few years into the future (after all you need to LOOK BACK and figure it out).
But the truth is, the large number of men once needed is no longer around. That's just how it is everywhere.
 
sad thing is, the speactular thousand gun bomabrdments has dimished as a useful tool in battlefield, our new artilleries nowadays could bombard with ease and accracy, no longer is entire acres dredged with craters and smoke
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ..
 
savetheregiments said:
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 ..
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top