Army soldiers are to formally join forces with the Royal Marines for the first time, the government has said.
The move is an attempt to increase the specialist force's capability and ability to respond to urgent threats.
By April 2008 the new 1 Rifles infantry battalion will become a fourth unit of 3 Commando Brigade which is currently fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan.
The government insists the impact of major ongoing operations has not left the military "overstretched".
The Ministry of Defence said it wants a fourth unit in 3 Commando Brigade to give more flexibility in taking part in ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 3 Commando Brigade is an amphibious rapid reaction force that can operate anywhere in the world.
The brigade took over the fight against the Taleban from the Paras in the Helmand province of Afghanistan last October.
The 1 Rifles battalion will form on 1 February, as part of a new super-regiment called The Rifles. The batallion will be made up of what was the Devon and Dorset Regiment.
Members of the 1 Rifles battalion will not have to undergo the training required to become a commando and will technically remain part of the Army.
Share This Page:
Army and Marines to join forces
Re: Army and Marines to join forces
I thought they were going to have to do the AACCMembers of the 1 Rifles battalion will not have to undergo the training required to become a commando and will technically remain part of the Army.
-
AJtothemax
- Member
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Mon 20 Nov, 2006 8:37 pm
- Location: U.K
Im not serving but please correct me if im wrong here. Surely they are doing it so we can actually hold of more places in Afghan?druadan wrote:Devon and Donuts? Bootnecks? That'll never work...
What's the point?
At least give us a reg Infantry battalion and get them through the AACC.
Or just take an RLC Regiment, Commando train them, and then you can shift all the threaders bootnecks out of Logs and form another Cdo...
Aren't you guys doing search and destroy missions (just like the U.S in Vietnam) but because you dont have the numbers to hold every objective you take back, when you move out the enemy come right back in? Am i right in saying that? Same thing happened in Vietnam with the U.S with their search and destroy missions. Which is effective, but if you cant hold the position you've captured because you have to move on, whats the point?
I saw that on a report on BBC News 24 on Christmas Day.
Any truth to that guys?
AJ, in answer to your question, I haven't got broad enough knowledge of the whole situation to comment, but you're missing the point.
If numbers in Afghan were a problem, we could happily attatch a regiment to Brigade for operational purposes. That's not what's being suggested. What seems to be the idea is that regular Army infantry ranks, without any extra training, are to be attatched to 3 Cdo Bde. Although it is still unclear whether it will be in a supporting role (doing our shit jobs) or on equal terms (in which case they might as well wrap on training Bootnecks at all and just put us through regular Perce training).
If numbers in Afghan were a problem, we could happily attatch a regiment to Brigade for operational purposes. That's not what's being suggested. What seems to be the idea is that regular Army infantry ranks, without any extra training, are to be attatched to 3 Cdo Bde. Although it is still unclear whether it will be in a supporting role (doing our shit jobs) or on equal terms (in which case they might as well wrap on training Bootnecks at all and just put us through regular Perce training).
druadan I think you will find Reg Army Units have just got back from Afghanistan doing the same job the RM's are doing now. And they did a very good job and lost alot of blokes. So comments like "they can do our sh*t jobs" are out of order. Show some respect, do your own bloody sh*t jobs. It did'nt bother 3Para that none Para trained Infantry units were attached to them.
Anyway why is it you have to be AAC trained to serve in Afghan. And theres loads of none Commando trained front line Army Soldiers serving with 3CDO. Light Dragoons for one
Anyway why is it you have to be AAC trained to serve in Afghan. And theres loads of none Commando trained front line Army Soldiers serving with 3CDO. Light Dragoons for one
Wow, chill out, that's not what I'm saying.
My point is that you cannot permanently attach an army unit to 3 Bde with no extra training, and expect them to be able to do all the same jobs to the same standard. I agree completely that in recent operations in Afghan and Iraq they have performed admirably; all I'm saying is that in specialist operations (the whole point in having Royal and Paras etc) they would not have the same skills and training.
If you re-read my original post, I was picking holes in the government's proposals: you can either attach Army ranks to support us - ie. do the menial tasks to free up our manpower, which would piss Perce off no end and no-one would want to do it; or you can attach them on equal terms, as in they have exactly the same job as us - in which case Bootneck (or in your argument, Para) training becomes irrelevant cos they're saying any regular Infantry unit can do the same thing. Normal operations fine, but anything remotely specialist, which is what we have the Marines (and Para Regt.) for, how can you expect an Infantry unit with no extra training to perform on equal terms?
You don't have to be AACC trained to serve in Afghanistan, but to serve permanently with Bde it would be just slightly useful, don't you think? Along the same lines as 29 Arty and 59 Engineers? Again, Light Dragoons are doing an excellent job, but we're still talking about conventional operations.
My point is that you cannot permanently attach an army unit to 3 Bde with no extra training, and expect them to be able to do all the same jobs to the same standard. I agree completely that in recent operations in Afghan and Iraq they have performed admirably; all I'm saying is that in specialist operations (the whole point in having Royal and Paras etc) they would not have the same skills and training.
If you re-read my original post, I was picking holes in the government's proposals: you can either attach Army ranks to support us - ie. do the menial tasks to free up our manpower, which would piss Perce off no end and no-one would want to do it; or you can attach them on equal terms, as in they have exactly the same job as us - in which case Bootneck (or in your argument, Para) training becomes irrelevant cos they're saying any regular Infantry unit can do the same thing. Normal operations fine, but anything remotely specialist, which is what we have the Marines (and Para Regt.) for, how can you expect an Infantry unit with no extra training to perform on equal terms?
You don't have to be AACC trained to serve in Afghanistan, but to serve permanently with Bde it would be just slightly useful, don't you think? Along the same lines as 29 Arty and 59 Engineers? Again, Light Dragoons are doing an excellent job, but we're still talking about conventional operations.
-
AJtothemax
- Member
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Mon 20 Nov, 2006 8:37 pm
- Location: U.K
Hmm...ok, i understood already but i was asking a different question which you answered, doesn't matter.druadan wrote:AJ, in answer to your question, I haven't got broad enough knowledge of the whole situation to comment, but you're missing the point.
If numbers in Afghan were a problem, we could happily attatch a regiment to Brigade for operational purposes. That's not what's being suggested. What seems to be the idea is that regular Army infantry ranks, without any extra training, are to be attatched to 3 Cdo Bde. Although it is still unclear whether it will be in a supporting role (doing our shit jobs) or on equal terms (in which case they might as well wrap on training Bootnecks at all and just put us through regular Perce training).
duradan, are you with 42???
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Pay attention at the back there 
This topic has been done to death on here. Once it was pointed out that the D&D
A)would not be able, en masse, to pass AACC and
B)may not want to do so,
it seems the AACC requirement has now been down graded.
As far as I can see, it`s the thin end of the wedge
The way to increase numbers in 3 Cdo Bde is to reform one of the Units(Four One or Four Three even) and not to attach the likes of the Devon and Doughnuts(fine soldiers that they are)
andduradan, are you with 42
So, Duradan, are you any relation to duracell btw?Location.Cdo Logs
This topic has been done to death on here. Once it was pointed out that the D&D
A)would not be able, en masse, to pass AACC and
B)may not want to do so,
it seems the AACC requirement has now been down graded.
As far as I can see, it`s the thin end of the wedge
The way to increase numbers in 3 Cdo Bde is to reform one of the Units(Four One or Four Three even) and not to attach the likes of the Devon and Doughnuts(fine soldiers that they are)
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
-
AJtothemax
- Member
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Mon 20 Nov, 2006 8:37 pm
- Location: U.K
My real location now is sitting in me missus' house slightly threaders, cos having phoned CrabAir to confirm my flight back to 'Ghanners turns out I should've been on a plane this morning. Now the dates I wrote down, put in my phone, e-mailed everybody, all said the 6th, but Movements reckon it's the 5th, so I'm just praying there is actually a mis-print on the paperwork in theatre, cos if not I'm gonna get charged to high heaven 
Get four days extra in the UK tho
Just slightly more expensive than intended 
Get four days extra in the UK tho
Just slightly more expensive than intended 