Talk:Green Howards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Green Howards is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


It's not clear what the Government and MOD expect to gain from amalgamating all the single battalions, with the most pride and history, and creating huge regional Tesco regiments. Anyways, the rebadging took place last week; may the memory live on. Hopefully Hammersfan will have something to say on this... haz (user talk) 14:18, 13 June 2006

Hammersfan's Opinions - stand back, onslaught approaching[edit]

As it happens I do have opinions on this, opinions that formed over a significant amount of time from the announcement of December 2004 (mighty mighty anger, frustration and damning the Government) to the autumn of last year. While it may be uncomfortable for people to hear, it must be said that amalgamations have happened before - I point people to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Royal Anglian Regiment, Royal Gurkha Rifles, Royal Green Jackets, Light Infantry et al. Ending the arms plot is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, as it stops infantry battalions being taken out of circulation while they retrain. This then leads to two possibilities:

  • Single battalion regiments maintain fixed roles - you can argue the example of the Dutch Army. But, Dutch infantry battalions adopt regimental names. If, at such time the Dutch Army decide to re-role a battalion, they will leave the regimental name and adopt a new one. This is not likely to be popular, given the tradition of maintaining recruting areas. This though means that soldiers will not be able to have job variety through undertaking a number of roles
  • Multi-Battalion regiments, with each battalion given a fixed role - soldiers can move between battalions to gain variety while remaining within the same regiment. The armies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand all do this, as do the multi-battalion regiments of the British Army.

As a consequence, I do believe that amalgamation is the way to go, if the arms plot is discontinued. However, I am extremely unhappy about how the government has gone about it - it is my belief that the government has sought all regiments to become very large (i.e. five battalion) regiments. This makes it that much easier for them to get rid of a few when it suits them. After all, who is going to miss the 5th Battalion, when there are four others? It's my belief that the Scottish have been completely suckered in forming their five battalion regiment, because they will no doubt lose at least one within the next decade if Chairman Gordon has his way. The same can be said of the regiments of the Light Division - some officer with ambition has said "this would get us in with our political masaters", so they've gone the same route without really needing to. It's my belief that there have been people with "special interests" behind the entire future infantry structure proposal. For example, what is the point of retaining five single battalion Guards regiments? Why should they be treated as a special case? It would be fairly simple to do with the foot guards the same as has been done with the Household Cavalry; amalgamate the regiments together into one two and one three battalion, with each battalion maintaining the uniform and insignia of its former regiment. What is the point of maintaining two full battalions of paratroops, when the British Army has not conducted a major parachute operation since Suez? To maintain parachute capability, it would be better to adopt the Canadian model, of having a company of paratroops in a light infantry battalion. This would then free up two battalions in the structure, which would then allow the Royal Irish Regiment and the Royal Gurkha Rifles to each raise another battalion, giving them both the opportunity to do other things besides what they already do.

Getting back to the question of the amalgamations, I think that the majority is the best that could be hoped for under the circumstances. At least most of the regiments are not over large and still retain a fairly regional outlook (Yorkshire, the North-West, Wales etc), while being small enough to maintain something of a true 'regimental family' outlook. In my opinion, the Light Infantry and Royal Green Jackets should not have come to a decision to amalgamate, as it makes them vulnerable; the Scots also should not have gone the way they have, because it brings bland uniformity to the most joyful and colourful of all the infantry. They should have gone down the "2-3" route, with a two battalion regiment of lowlanders and a three battalion regiment of highlanders. The guards should have been amalgamated into a two and a three. The Paras should have been disbanded completely, and the two extra battalions allocated to the Royal Irish Regiment and the Gurkhas. Future Infantry Structure as it stands is unfinished, due to special interests and political manouvering. It's a hash of a farce. If you want to see how I would do it, see here. Thanks for valuing my opinion though. Hammersfan 13/06/06, 23.15 BST

Colonel in Chief[edit]

Am very curious as to how this came about to be the Danish King (at least it seems to be the current king who would previously be holding this each time). Could somebody how knows about this add it? 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The CiC link and the tie with the Danske Livregiment is probably about 300 years old... although I notice that 2YORKS failed to appoint the King as deputy Colonel(2YORKS), as every battalion is entitled to a deputy colonel, although there is one Colonel-in-Chief for the whole regiment. haz (talk) e

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Green Howards. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)