British Army amalgamations?

[BurkeanLibCon]

I’ve been researching the British Army and it’s regimental units for some of my work and I’ve got a question; who’s were the amalgamations of units chosen? Why were the Norfolk and Suffolk regiments amalgamated whilst the Gloucestershire and Cheshire regiments survived until the 2000s (as examples)?

If anyone could explain how and why the amalgamations took place the way they did I would be very grateful.

Anything on the Territorial Army/Army Reserve is also helpful.

 

[yulzari1]

Tangential, but the whole issue of territorial attachment would not arise were the regiments not given county connection but retained the old numbering system.

 

[Nick P]

I think a lot of it comes down to the role of each regiment and what their neighbouring regiments do. The Norfolk and Suffolk Regiments were both line infantry and their recruiting areas overlapped. They became the 1st East Anglian Regiment. Shortly after that they merged again with the 2nd and 3rd East Anglian Regiments, who were also based on merging neighbouring counties with similar roles. Today the Royal Anglian Regiment covers 10 counties.
It's one way to shrink an army step by step without majorly upsetting everyone in one go.

Then again there were the Cameronians who had a 300 year history of being a line infantry regiment and in 1968 decided to disband rather than lose their identity in a merger. Something to do with being the only Lowland Scot rifle unit IIRC.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some mergers were held back because of political connections and election seasons. I know that the Argyll and Sutherlands had their disbandment delayed because they were on active service in Aden at the time, and then the Troubles started which meant they were needed.

 

[BurkeanLibCon]

Do you think it may have had something to do with geography? During OTL's Cold War, the southern English coast wasn't under any real threat of invasion.
If that situation had been different and either the Soviets (somehow) came into control of continental Europe or the Nazis in something like Kaiser K's "Valkyrie Rises over Europe", would the choice of units to amalgamate have been different? If all of Europe is controlled by a hostile power, would Britain keep the Kent, Sussex, Hampshire etc regiments alive to increase concentrate troop numbers in that region?

 

[Mike D]

Do you think it may have had something to do with geography? During OTL's Cold War, the southern English coast wasn't under any real threat of invasion.
If that situation had been different and either the Soviets (somehow) came into control of continental Europe or the Nazis in something like Kaiser K's "Valkyrie Rises over Europe", would the choice of units to amalgamate have been different? If all of Europe is controlled by a hostile power, would Britain keep the Kent, Sussex, Hampshire etc regiments alive to increase concentrate troop numbers in that region?

No, 20th Century basing of British Army units was very rarely anything to do with where they were (nominally at least) raised. The post WW2 Royal Hampshires, for example, could be based in Catterick, Paderborn, Belfast or Belize almost entirely at random. Their Regimental HQ would still be local (usually in a barracks or castle within the county they were named for - the Royal Hamps were headquartered in Winchester for example) but the regular Army battalions of the regiment were part of the Arms Plot and moved to wherever the Army needed them.

The amalgamations through the years have generally been between neighbouring/local regiments (the RGBW was an amalgamation of the Glostershire Regiment and the Duke of Edinburgh's Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire) for example) or between regiments in the same role (The Light Infantry came about from an amalgamation of the King's Own Yorkshire, Somerset and Cornwall, King's Shropshire and Durham Light Infantry regiments). Well recruited regiments usually had more chance of being kept independant than regiments that were undermanned while other regiments had powerful backers on the General Staff or among Royalty - the Black Mafia was infamous for looking after the Royal Green Jackets after they were formed from the Green Jackets, KRRC and Rifle Brigade while the Guards have their Royal protectors.

 

[BurkeanLibCon]

No, 20th Century basing of British Army units was very rarely anything to do with where they were (nominally at least) raised. The post WW2 Royal Hampshires, for example, could be based in Catterick, Paderborn, Belfast or Belize almost entirely at random. Their Regimental HQ would still be local (usually in a barracks or castle within the county they were named for - the Royal Hamps were headquartered in Winchester for example) but the regular Army battalions of the regiment were part of the Arms Plot and moved to wherever the Army needed them.

The amalgamations through the years have generally been between neighbouring/local regiments (the RGBW was an amalgamation of the Glostershire Regiment and the Duke of Edinburgh's Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire) for example) or between regiments in the same role (The Light Infantry came about from an amalgamation of the King's Own Yorkshire, Somerset and Cornwall, King's Shropshire and Durham Light Infantry regiments). Well recruited regiments usually had more chance of being kept independant than regiments that were undermanned while other regiments had powerful backers on the General Staff or among Royalty - the Black Mafia was infamous for looking after the Royal Green Jackets after they were formed from the Green Jackets, KRRC and Rifle Brigade while the Guards have their Royal protectors.

Thank you, this is very useful.