MilitaryForums.co.uk

Its a good point pezmond...

The media are more likely to pick up on the pressence of Marines or Paras due to there so called 'Elite' status, which in the news would show that maybe the status is worse than expected, thats why these guys are there....it is all about the task in hand and how best to complete the mission safely. If this is dropping in paras to oil fields it is because this is what they are there fore, the same with the Royal's in the FI's, they had a long yomp with heavy bergans...which played into the Royals hands as this is what they are there for as well as the amphbious land capabilites which was used to get many of them ashore.
If a job was needed where a regular line infantry was needed due to the role they play, they will be in there ahead of Royals and Paras, its all about the situation in hand....With the use of air power and the lack of large masses of soliders in large open spaces confronting each other the regular infantry are cast back due to the tactics used by our enemys such as Gorilla tactics etc...

The time will come soon enough, maybe when GWB invades korea or somwhere else and the Regular infantry will be called upon as there will be demand for them for the job they can do...

There is no doubt in my mind that we have the best armed forces in the world, maybe under funded and under equipted but we still show people the world over how good we are everytime! This stems from the hard training all trades, specialisations and careers require...we teach our service men to be the best...literally and this includes the infantry!

I feel it is all about the situations we have been involved in recently and that is why the infantry have not been involved...

cheers, dave

The latest revelations from the MoD is that they are going to disband 6 line regiments or amalgamate them, example of what they are looking at

The Royal Scots 1st of Foot and
The Kings Own Scottish Borderers

Two of the finest Regiments in the Army with great history's.I wonder what they would call them:

The Kings Own Royal Scots or:

The Kings Own Royal Scots Borderers:

I can't see the Regimental Colonels agreeing to that!!!!!!!!!!

Going back to Feb 1961, Singapore, the almalgamation of the Seaforth Highlanders and the Queens own Cameron Highlanders took place at Selerang barracks,the change over of Cap badges to the Queens own Highlanders took place on the main parade,most of the Jocks allegiance was to their parent Regiment the old cap badges of their old regiment where placed in the inside of the glengarry,many a punch up in the Brit club between the jocks was caused by one or the other flashing the parent regimental badge,but of course time will tell,many a good regiment has gone down the shute?.Even the Argyll's at one time in 1970 was threatened with disbandment but public outcry was such that it was permitted to survive in the form of one Company and in April 1972 the regiment was reformed with one regular battalion.(Sans Peur).Aye JR

JR,Being an ex Argyll myself I was very much involved in 1970/71 change over and rebadging.The Battalion was reduced to company strength called Balaclava Company with postings to Barnard Castle and Gibraltar.This reduction was carried out by the LABOUR PARTY and subsequently overturned due to a massive public campaign and the Conservative Party getting into power.The battalion was reformed at Ritchie Camp Kirknewton,Mid Lothian in 1972.A lot of the older guys in the regiment just stayed with the regiments that they rebadged with therefore, a lot of good experienced men could not be bothered with the upheaval to their families again.We had a good few battles and banter when we first went to our new regiments but soon settled in.One thing that the MoD and it's government headbangers seem to forget and that is the tradition and family connections that exist in the British Army.

GOD SAVE THE ARGYLLS!

WHY ALWAYS THE MARINES

When God said " First in Last out" he was talking about the Marines not the Army and NAAFI bar . God is of course a Para, He failed the Commando course.

The Regimental system was set up in away to create rivalry or competition between the army Regiments. This, I think, is a very good system.

Booties are a little bit different, as we can, as a Corp, go anywhere,any time in less than 24 Hours, even the Paras struggle to keep up with the Marines on that one, We also have ships and taxi drivers (thanks Jack) to move us to places that there is no other way of getting to other than sea. We train with Jack and we like Jack.

This is not me being Big Headed ; When you train a new recriut for nearlly 9 months basic training he has to be one of the best, if anyone from the Army or RAF Reg. do not believe me you will find all the relevent forms in the ROYAL NAVY & ROYAL MARINES recriuting office , have ago then we can talk about it.

The papers they like the word COMMANDO much better than the word Army So we do attracked the press a little more than the others.

PLUS Marines are better looking , and we have bigger C**Ks

LOAD , READY F!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RUN ROYAL RUN

An idea here folks, why don't we train the Paras up to SAS standard and training that way we will have a better Para Regiment capable of supporting the SAS in operations,like wise the Marines up to SBS standard capable of supporting the SBS on operations.After all the way things are going in the world it is the specialists that get the job done against the terror groups and the crap that threaten the Western World.

What do you think folks,please no stupid ideas like employing the Salvation Army or Security Guards.

It would be an idea but then who would do the Royals and the Paras work? the Regular Infantry? who would do there work?

We Quite simply need a bigger Armed Force!!! Sod the cut backs, get advertising, and do it properly! Within a couple of years we could have a 2000 strong SAS team etc if it was approached right and Regular Regiments could send people on a course to get them to SAS/SBS standards before attempting selection?

cheers, dave

Exactly Davo,With all the world wide commitments that the services do with very little manpower and equipment,it is time that the BIG chiefs at the MoD sang a tune to the liking of the guys on the ground.They need more men/women,they need more equipment to do the jobs.Oh and by the way, I hear that Tessa Jowel is likely to become the new Defence Minister taking over from Hoon the Goon aparently he is the fall guy for the Kelly investigation.

Do you think Tessa's policys will be? Decreasing, increasing, sercuring the Armed forces role etc?

I think it will be the same course unfortunetly...

When we are fighting enemies such as Al Queda and Gorillas in Iraq expensive hightech bombs are no good! Soldiers on the street, talking to people following leads etc trying to catch these guys the proper way!

Our armed forces will continue to down-size making us yet weaker and less able to do the job required!

cheers, dave

I haven't mentioned it before Davo, but it's guerilla, not gorilla .

I've only skimmed over what's been said so if I drop one then I apologise in advance.
In reference to a comment Joe made that the Corps is "only" self sufficient because of the attached Army units, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there mate as I suspect every other bootneck would. The Army units are there in support not there because the Corps is completely reliant on them. We have our own Logistics unit with TQ's who do all that the REME boys can plus they are first abnd foremost Royal Marine Commando's and drivers, VM's etc second. Although the Corps no longer has it's own big guns, if they needed to the Heavy Weapons anti tanks mortars and air defence blokes could most certainly hold their own.

From a tactical point of view it would be irresponsible to have the Corps commanded by the Army, the Army has a different role and always has done. My point being that the Corps would begin to lose its edge if it were commanded by people who had no experience in their field

The transition would be hell, if you've ever done a course with a mix of Perce and Royal you'll know that the two don't mix well on an admin basis if nothing else!
The Corps would lose it's edge

Twenty One wrote:An idea here folks, why don't we train the Paras up to SAS standard and training that way we will have a better Para Regiment capable of supporting the SAS in operations,like wise the Marines up to SBS standard capable of supporting the SBS on operations.After all the way things are going in the world it is the specialists that get the job done against the terror groups and the crap that threaten the Western World.

What do you think folks,please no stupid ideas like employing the Salvation Army or Security Guards.

Just as an aside. this already happens - when a combined sas/sbs force went into sierra leone to get those TA fellas out they were directly supported by 1 para, also recently in the gulf elements of 45 cdo were attached to sbs.

Ive only just noticed this discussion and not being a Torygraph reader I didn't see the initial report. But reading some of the comments I think that most of you agree this proposal is Nonsense. We ain't Pongos and never will be (as long as the Navy doesn't cut us off) Do they want to? Has there been any Naval comment?
In my opinion it is a No No. We Are The Best. The nearest the Paras have ever got to us was the sight of our arses as we screamed ahead of them.
By all means increase the training, finance and equipment to improve both forces, but Keep Us Seperate.
Once A Marine, Always A Marine . Navy NOT aRMY .
To those who want us to be pongies - Wash your mouth out - and now sign for your shower!.

Twenty One wrote:An idea here folks, why don't we train the Paras up to SAS standard and training that way we will have a better Para Regiment capable of supporting the SAS in operations,like wise the Marines up to SBS standard capable of supporting the SBS on operations.After all the way things are going in the world it is the specialists that get the job done against the terror groups and the crap that threaten the Western World.

What do you think folks,please no stupid ideas like employing the Salvation Army or Security Guards.

21, I think this was mentioned on a thread a while back ... not sure though. Anyway ...

Is one of the strengths of these small units the fact that they are small units? Would making the changes you suggest mean they would become large, and therefore less effective?

We could go the way of the Yanks where you have a unit that is so specialised it does just one role (e.g. their Army Special Forces mainly do Foreign Internal Defence, Delta mainly do CT). But! Is that the best way to go? With the UKs current setup, both Regt and SB have a very varied role. FID, Direct Action, CT, traditional small unit tactics, behind the lines, counter insurgency, etc. If we were to get too large and split off into more specialised units, woudn't we lose something? I'm sure one of the reasons that UKSF is so good is that are well rounded in their roles, they compliment each other.

Any thoughts?

Oakers wrote:I've only skimmed over what's been said so if I drop one then I apologise in advance.
In reference to a comment Joe made that the Corps is "only" self sufficient because of the attached Army units, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there mate as I suspect every other bootneck would. ......

Oakers I think the point I was making was that the Royal Marines are not self-sufficent in the same way as, say, the Yanks Marines are. ie. I know that the Marines have their own logistics etc ... I think I must have been refering to heavy armour (I cant remember now, it's a while since I wrote the message )