MilitaryForums.co.uk

Im not sure if this has been posted before, I havent seen it on this site so I thought I would post a link for anybody that wants to have a look.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... =p+company

The US doesn't have that kind of training in the BAC course. The obstacle course is a lot like the "Darby Queen" at Ranger School. This looks like SFAS which is the Pre-selection for the Special Forces Qualification Course. I don't think that all of that is necessary to weed people out of becoming parachute qualified.

P-coy is the hardest thing I have ever seen or read about. The para's are awesome.

Suggest you read a bit more

Colmurph, it's not just to weed out those who aren't suitable for parachuting, it's to weed out those unsuitable for the Parachute Regiment, who do consider themselves the best of the Army infantry.

colmurph wrote:The US doesn't have that kind of training in the BAC course. The obstacle course is a lot like the "Darby Queen" at Ranger School. This looks like SFAS which is the Pre-selection for the Special Forces Qualification Course. I don't think that all of that is necessary to weed people out of becoming parachute qualified.

fair point, however the BRITISH paras are considered elite for very good reason, p company seperates the men who can handle physical and mental stress from those who cant, its not all just about parachuting as druadan pointed, its about the airbourne mind set!
may i ask what the yanks must do to become airbourne? is there anything similiar to p company for your paratroopers? ive always been curious

paraprep1 wrote:

colmurph wrote:The US doesn't have that kind of training in the BAC course. The obstacle course is a lot like the "Darby Queen" at Ranger School. This looks like SFAS which is the Pre-selection for the Special Forces Qualification Course. I don't think that all of that is necessary to weed people out of becoming parachute qualified.

fair point, however the BRITISH paras are considered elite for very good reason, p company seperates the men who can handle physical and mental stress from those who cant, its not all just about parachuting as druadan pointed, its about the airbourne mind set!
may i ask what the yanks must do to become airbourne? is there anything similiar to p company for your paratroopers? ive always been curious

Nothing like it at all. We consider a parachute as just another means of getting to work. Most classes that go through Ft. Benning have women in them. Civil Affairs units and Quartermaster Rigging Units have women in them who need to be jump qualified. (Women who are riggers for HALO parachutes must also become HALO qualified as riggers have to periodically jump chutes they have packed) We don't consider Airborne Troops to be elite. The 82d Airborne Division is just a light infantry division that uses parachutes to get there. Once on the ground thay are just infantry. On the other hand we do consider Rangers and Special Forces to be "Elite" and the SFAS and RIP (not to be confused with Ranger School which is a 9 week course for for teaching small unit tactics and only awards a Ranger Tab and not a "Scroll" which indicates membership in the 75th Ranger Regiment) programs for entry into SF or the Ranger Regiment is the same as P Week except it lasts a bit longer.

its not all just about parachuting

In fact it's very rarely about the parachuting nowadays - when was the last operational jump?!

In fact there's a question colmurph, when did the Americans last make an operational jump? Do you still use it as a 'means of getting to work?' Current theatres don't necessitate it. Genuine question.

Without knowing a great deal about American training, I would suggest that our Paras and Marines are akin to your Rangers, in that the selection and training procedures for each are harder than 'regular' units and the standards required are higher (not to say that 'regular' units do not deliver very good soldiers, perhaps some on a par with the above as far as regular infanteering goes). Our SF selection procedure seems to be a little simpler than yours, with one course for SAS or SBS with slightly different specialisations afterwards, whereas of course yours are entirely separate, I believe depending on the role they are to fulfil and the service from which they're drawn? Selection for SF is a completely separate 6 month course, unlike much else you do in the Forces.

druadan wrote:

its not all just about parachuting

In fact it's very rarely about the parachuting nowadays - when was the last operational jump?!

In fact there's a question colmurph, when did the Americans last make an operational jump? Do you still use it as a 'means of getting to work?' Current theatres don't necessitate it. Genuine question.

Without knowing a great deal about American training, I would suggest that our Paras and Marines are akin to your Rangers, in that the selection and training procedures for each are harder than 'regular' units and the standards required are higher (not to say that 'regular' units do not deliver very good soldiers, perhaps some on a par with the above as far as regular infanteering goes). Our SF selection procedure seems to be a little simpler than yours, with one course for SAS or SBS with slightly different specialisations afterwards, whereas of course yours are entirely separate, I believe depending on the role they are to fulfil and the service from which they're drawn? Selection for SF is a completely separate 6 month course, unlike much else you do in the Forces.

The 173d made a mass jump into Iraq during the present unpleasantness and various SF teams have made HALO insertions in Iraq and in Afghanastan.

I agree, your Parachute Regiment is more like our Ranger Regiment. The 82d Airborne Division is nothing like the Parachute Regiment.

druadan wrote:

its not all just about parachuting

In fact it's very rarely about the parachuting nowadays - when was the last operational jump?!

In fact there's a question colmurph, when did the Americans last make an operational jump? Do you still use it as a 'means of getting to work?' Current theatres don't necessitate it. Genuine question.

Without knowing a great deal about American training, I would suggest that our Paras and Marines are akin to your Rangers, in that the selection and training procedures for each are harder than 'regular' units and the standards required are higher (not to say that 'regular' units do not deliver very good soldiers, perhaps some on a par with the above as far as regular infanteering goes). Our SF selection procedure seems to be a little simpler than yours, with one course for SAS or SBS with slightly different specialisations afterwards, whereas of course yours are entirely separate, I believe depending on the role they are to fulfil and the service from which they're drawn? Selection for SF is a completely separate 6 month course, unlike much else you do in the Forces.

i find it interesting just how different sas selection phase is compared to say the SEALS, sas do loads of tabbing over the hills, whereas the SEALS prefer to beast the crap out of their recruits with lots of shouting and pressups! also the emphasis seems to be different, the seals are always being pressurd to carry on and work as a team, whereas the sas instructors seem to encourage them to drop out, interesting phycology .

druadan wrote:In fact it's very rarely about the parachuting nowadays - when was the last operational jump?!

Im sure it was in the Suez crisis, Operation Musketeer, 5th November 1956.

I stand to be corrected though.....

To me it doesn't matter if the Airborne are now considered 'Air Assault', i don't think P-Coy has changed much if at all to the training the Para's went through during the war, it's there to test the individual and see if he is of the required standard to wear the maroon and also the right to earn jump wings. And long may it continue!

I'm not sure if Glider-borne troops during the war also went through a form of P-Coy or whatever it was called then??, but they must be considered on the same level as regular para's, especially the pilots who doubled up as infantry. The Regiment was all but destroyed at Arnhem, suffering very heavy casualties.

Colmurph, I was referring to mass drops, SF drops in small teams are a different kettle of fish, and a tactic which I believe we still use when required.

I'm surprised by the drop into Iraq, as I said I don't see the need for it in that climate; however, I'm no 5-start general As GPW points out, there hasn't been a British operational jump for a long while. However, I agree with Dixie's sentiments; it's not about the parachuting, it's about the course. It's similar for us; although we do do some amphibious or Commandoey stuff still, the vast majority of work is conventional - the Commando Course is about the end product. I think your summary is correct - your Airborne troops are not the equivalent of our Parachute Regiment, and that is where your original point - of 'all that' not being required for airborne troops - falls down.

Here's a more up to date p-coy video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVM1142RGKM

_Mark_ wrote:Here's a more up to date p-coy video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVM1142RGKM

That video i reckon is about 8-9 years old

colmurph wrote:The US doesn't have that kind of training in the BAC course. The obstacle course is a lot like the "Darby Queen" at Ranger School. This looks like SFAS which is the Pre-selection for the Special Forces Qualification Course. I don't think that all of that is necessary to weed people out of becoming parachute qualified.

this is the reason the uk forces are the best, the training is thorough and you need to be really fit to even apply the sucess rate for marines here is 20%....

wasnt it the u.s army which coined the term 'friendly fire'? as you were the first to have that problem dispite being the most technically advanced force on theplanet?