Page 1 of 1

Falklands was Royal there at all

Posted: Thu 21 Mar, 2002 12:16 am
by ratso
I have just watched the latest offering on Sky....
The only Marine interviewed was JulianT everything centred around the Paras. Not even a green lid in sight till the capture of Stanley.
The way they put over 8901 was that they folded and had to surrender.
Lots of re-enactments all Para and Scots Guards....
All the attacks made by RM were only successful due to the support fire from ship and shore, not down to guts and determination.
PARA PARA PARA
I have the greatest respect for them but not at the disrespect being shown to RM for their part in the War.
Was I there I think I was, Im begining to think that it might have been a dream. :evil:
I am fed up with this we are good today for cannon fodder but will we be remembered when TV gets its hands on it.

TOTAL BO****KS TV

Posted: Thu 21 Mar, 2002 1:20 pm
by TaffBoz
Ratso, I agree with everything you say and it would be nice to receive a little credit now and then. But then again, when all is said and done, we know the truth of the matter. I wonder how many mentions the lads will get when Bin Laden's lot are sorted.

Posted: Sun 24 Mar, 2002 8:08 am
by ratso
Yep saw that one, some of the F/U's in the Falklands that we who were there know all about but are still under the 30 year rule were quite monumental and cost lives. Some of the reasoning is to save face some to protect others and some is just downright liying.
The thing with Sam Salt is the interview the emotion in the mans face nearly has me in tears every time, yet you see the other officer has the no wasn't me look and I'm not here approach.
The program did show how the mess was created, with one ship managing to turn that was in the path of the missile and that would have cut down responce times. We will never see the truth now, after all the TV now thinks the only people who win wars must be those who sustain the most casualties in achieving their objective.
I know one thing no matter who's falt it was, I would never want the responsibility of so many lives in a tin box quite a responsibility.
The one thing I can't get over was the way the TV described the assaults by the Marines as though they had had heavy gun cover from the off, I cannot remember that part of the attacks.
SORRY I am so pissed about the way we have been portrayed I feel as though we lost men for nothing, was the producer of this program a PARA?

Posted: Sun 24 Mar, 2002 4:42 pm
by Yorkie Malone
I wan't there either. If anyone did see me then it was just to make up the numbers, and be part of the crowd scene. Although that bit was cut from the film, and is on the cutting room floor.

We know what happened, we know who did the job etc etc.

Go back to Aden. 45 were there just in passing??!!?? when who saved the day Mitch from the Argiles and Suffering Highlanders. But Royal never been near the place.

It must be something in the PR.

SyY

Posted: Sun 24 Mar, 2002 6:05 pm
by ratso
A bit like the SB relation to the SAS I think.
Keep them out of the news then we can use them to plug the leak next time as well.
It will be the Yanks turn this time Royal will mop up the Yanks will take the credit....
Nothing ever changes..

Posted: Sun 24 Mar, 2002 6:56 pm
by Yorkie Malone
Oh! I see what you meen?? Like in WW2 how now they are making more films about it Hollywood are winning everything and the Brits and everyone else weren't there???

Got ya!

Thoughts are the yanks going to make a film of:- Zeebrugge, St Nazaire, Borneo, Aden, Cyprus, etc etc

Soapbox Malone

SyY

Posted: Sun 24 Mar, 2002 9:21 pm
by ratso
One good thing though Yorkie they will still have to use Brit actors, the yanks are too scared to get on planes still.
They also cant do very good american accents like our boys in Band of Brothers.
Who needs historical accuracy when you can watch a bullet spinning through the air on cellulite, funny how they make cinema on left over fatty parts from women, still enough of that in hollywood.

RM PR

Posted: Fri 12 Apr, 2002 1:00 am
by Bootneck Officer
Yorkie,

You have hit the nail on the head. The problem is the Corps' PR.
We have always been too modest. I saw the programme you guys are discussing, and it was disgusting.
It is exactly the same as 40 Cdo RM in Kabul since December. A couple of mentions about them on the news, and the odd snippet in the papers. However as soon as 2 PARA turn up, de-stabilise the situation by unnecessarily shooting a local, the media produce reams of bullshit about them.
The answer is the Army's relationship with the media.
They have a massive PR staff dedicated to boosting their exposure in front of the general public. The Corps? We have an RMR Officer with nil PR experience, and therefore do rapport with the TV companies, the Press, or their agents, and therefore we are suffocated.
This means that our public profile suffers, having serious consequences morale, recruiting etc.
The programmes and coverage of the Falklands so far have been noticeably Army-centred - even though 5 Brigade was an absolute abortion from its deployment.
The Corps needs to sort this out.

Posted: Fri 12 Apr, 2002 9:29 am
by Yorkie Malone
I agree BUT a very big word what are they going to do about it???

And This goes all the way through the system of PR

We (the Royal WE) only play at it

The army have got thier act together and are a big machine that can afford to have a whole dept doing some good.

We who come under the navy are sort of left by the wayside when it comes to PR.

Jacks idea of PR is to get the ships company to go and visit the adopted town/city ... oh and navy days. I mean even the bloke on the Barbican (Plymouth) has changed his cry to Trip round the dockyard see the ship (no S) see the sailor (noS) cos we have nothing left.

So if young sir you are still serving what will be the chances of putting a staff suggestion forward that the RM's get thier act together and kick arse in the PR world ........... don't bother it has already fallen on deaf ears.

Which is the same as the "offical site" and this one Throwing good money after bad when there is already a site fully opperational and doing a good job.... "We'll do our own" BUT you can't air your views etc

Another example RMA spend something like £300 per annum on advertising the RNA £15,000

Get off the soapbox

SyY

Posted: Fri 12 Apr, 2002 10:24 pm
by ratso
I think that we have to have an official site BUT, it should be run by people who do care about the corps. The other side would be to allow it to be a bit more open like the PARA's site (bloody hell even they get it half wright) and at least have an open message board and a links area. Better still use this message board.......

BUT alas we all know what the message will be 'From The Cradle To The Grave' bollocks you old farts this is OFFICIAL!