All of the Pals Battalions died in world war 1 but 1 of them survived called Mr T.Akins
liverpool
because they fought in the war
Pals battalions were specially constituted units of the British army. General Sir Henry Rawlinson suggested that men would be more willing to enlist in the Army if they knew that they were going to serve alongside their friends. He appealed to London stockbrokers to raise a battalion of men from workers in the City of London to set an example. 1600 men enlisted in the 10th (Service) Bn Royal Fusiliers, the so-called "Stockbrokers' Battalion", within a week in late August 1914. Lots of people went on to make pals battalions like Liverpool and Kitchener promoted the idea of organizing similar recruitment campaign. By the end of September 1914, over fifty towns had formed Pals battalions, whilst the larger towns and cities were able to form several battalions. Several battalions suffered heavy casualties during the Somme offensives of 1916. With the introduction of conscription in January 1916, further Pals battalions were not sought. Most pal battalions were decimated by the end of 1917/ start of 1918
Ping Pals happened in 2004.
Purr Pals happened in 2007.
Ping Pals happened in 2004.
Baby Pals happened in 2007.
We are all familiar with the view that the idea of 'Pals' Battalions was a badly conceived idea which ultimately resulted in tragedies where men joined together, served together and died together and whole communities had their menfolk wiped out on a single day. This is, it seems, all wrapped up in the same folk memory of incompetent generals, 'lions led by donkeys' etc etc Is there a counterargument to this? Without wishing in any way to ignore the loss to local communities, wasn't the idea of locally raised Pals battalions just an extension of the tradition of 'county regiments' supplemented by local territorial groups and, at the time, was there an alternative when the army had to be expanded so quickly? Would there have been the facilities to train men away from their local area and then organise battalions in a different way? The logistics sound horrendous. So was there an alternative, given the circumstances in 1914? Would the British Army have been able to expand so quickly using another, better method? And is there any evidence to suggest the 'Pals' Battalions were more or less efficient fighting units by, say, 1st July 1916 than other non-regular units. Or that the tactics used by the generals differed depending on whether the units to be used were 'Pals' or not?
When men from a small area decided to enlist, it was difficult not to enlist too, without being ridiculed or called a coward. The main disadvantage was that whole boys battalions could be wiped out on the battlefield. Many villages and city areas suddenly found that a whole generation was no longer there.
Pal's Battalions were units in the British Army during the first world war. It's basic idea was that people could be enlisted in local recruiting drives in order to fight with their family, friends, etc. The word "pal" meaning friend in British English (:
They were replaced by Dash and Dot on the PBS Kids channel in 1999.