Presumably the 1st Bn were deemed to be the least efficient of the three battalions and so they were disbanded hence the renumbering.
I don't know if that was the approach early on in the amalgamations processes of the 50's - 60's when, say, four regiments would combine to form one and the 4th Bns would be disbanded - was it always the actual 4th Battalion that "went" or was it a case of losing the least efficient of the four and renumbering?
I suspect that it was a case of the junior regiments in the new amalgamations being run down in the run up to amalgamation with their disbandment scheduled within a couple of years.
I may be wrong.
|