This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Both these forces claim to have the toughest training in the world, both claim to be the toughest fighting force in the world etc etc.
Any way or has thier ever been a way of finding out who does have the toughest training and who actually are the best fighting force.
u.s. seem to f*ck up quite a bit but do seem to be pretty good at destoying the sh*t out of things and people.
Any way or has thier ever been a way of finding out who does have the toughest training and who actually are the best fighting force.
u.s. seem to f*ck up quite a bit but do seem to be pretty good at destoying the sh*t out of things and people.
In reply to scrubmunched: the SAS has the hardest training and is better than both.... end of
In reply to levene: im going to say SBS or RM mountain leader training which is apparently harder than both SAS and SBS although i may be brought up on that.
In reply to scrubmunched: and the royal marines are far better. american training is regarded as pretty poor. also look at the numbers of US marines compared to ours.
RM is also the longest basic training in the world. they are the best and hopefully one day i will be among them.
RM is also the longest basic training in the world. they are the best and hopefully one day i will be among them.
In reply to scrubmunched: mountain leader is just (but only just) below the level of SAS, i know this because i know two mountain leaders
In reply to scrubmunched: Knowing a few Royal Marines and former SBS member, I got the impression that the US Marines were no better than canon fodder pongos but the Navy Seals were the equivalent to Royal Marines and SBS was far more bad arse again!
In reply to billy.granty:
One of my friends is an ex RM, and I've climbed with a couple of RMs. All good company and solid climbers.
I met a group of US marines at Fort Bill wall once. They were a bunch of fannies, were far too big, and couldn't climb for shite.
(I didn't point that out to them at the time like).
One of my friends is an ex RM, and I've climbed with a couple of RMs. All good company and solid climbers.
I met a group of US marines at Fort Bill wall once. They were a bunch of fannies, were far too big, and couldn't climb for shite.
(I didn't point that out to them at the time like).
In reply to scrubmunched:
Pah! USMC and Royal Marines training is like a girls school outing compared to what Captain Manwaring and the members of Wilmington-on-Sea Home Guard went through in 1940.
Why do you think Hitler called off the invasion of Britain?
They scared the sh*t out of him.
Pah! USMC and Royal Marines training is like a girls school outing compared to what Captain Manwaring and the members of Wilmington-on-Sea Home Guard went through in 1940.
Why do you think Hitler called off the invasion of Britain?
They scared the sh*t out of him.
In reply to billy.granty:
Thankyou. Was just about to post the same. RM Mountain leader training makes the SAS look like boy scouts.
> (In reply to levene) im going to say SBS or RM mountain leader training which is apparently harder than both SAS and SBS although i may be brought up on that.
Thankyou. Was just about to post the same. RM Mountain leader training makes the SAS look like boy scouts.
In reply to scrubmunched: Interesting. Having worked with both in a pretty nasty war envirnoment, I'm impressed with both.
US Army are to be avoided even if you are on the same side, US Marine Corps however are highly professional and about as similar to Brtish Army Infantry as could be. Not a patch on UK Royal Marines. Royal Marines are excellent; they're not as overly self-impressed as the Paras.
Royals are good honest straight forward committed folk. handy in a tight situation.
US Army are to be avoided even if you are on the same side, US Marine Corps however are highly professional and about as similar to Brtish Army Infantry as could be. Not a patch on UK Royal Marines. Royal Marines are excellent; they're not as overly self-impressed as the Paras.
Royals are good honest straight forward committed folk. handy in a tight situation.
In reply to JIMBO: sbs? sorry, maybe being thick!
In reply to Removed User:
Chicken
> (In reply to Removed Userbilly.granty)
>
>> >
> (I didn't point that out to them at the time like).
Chicken
In reply to levene: amen to that1
In reply to Benglog: Altho to be fair, so has the British Army!
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Been watching the commando front line series. I dunno if I'm just feeling my age or they are as young as they, well, are. Can't quite get my head around how a 21year old laddy can handle so much pressure, being in charge of however many men in a violent situation. A bit frightening to think how we would have dealt with that at that age. Kids with bombs n guns killing people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thier all one of 2, either off thier head and out for a mental time, or very brave, tough young men.
Thier all one of 2, either off thier head and out for a mental time, or very brave, tough young men.
In reply to scrubmunched: Well I'd say it's pretty obvious which they are - committed, prepared to do stuff others just gobb off about, prepared to risk them selves for the people around them. In my time I've seen younger men than 21 year olds rising to horrible challenges in a way that more people in this country should be proud of and less critical of!
In reply to JIMBO: You just about hit the nail on the head. A US Marine can be justifiably proud of what he is but it is true to say that they are more the equivelant of our pongos (love it, havent seen or read that for ages). But in my experience nobody has ever considered that the Royal Marines were the equivelant of a US Marine.
Apart from a wee bit of piss taking banter, this thread is purile, its the type of thread that would be started by someone whos read Bravo two Zero.
Id be happy enough to share a pint with a member of the pioneer corp.
Apart from a wee bit of piss taking banter, this thread is purile, its the type of thread that would be started by someone whos read Bravo two Zero.
Id be happy enough to share a pint with a member of the pioneer corp.
In reply to scrubmunched:
Special Boat Squadron.
'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
Special Boat Squadron.
'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
In reply to scrubmunched: Oh my god I'm back in the height of the planetfeat forum again. Does it matter who the feck is toughest, best trained, gayest, most sad?
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: I entirely agree, the lads who fight don't get to choose the war they fight in. The political side has nothing to do with them.
In reply to scrubmunched:
Does this assume their standard issue resource/equipment/vehicles and weaponry?
Does this assume their standard issue resource/equipment/vehicles and weaponry?
In reply to Frank4short:
Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...
Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...
In reply to Duane:
Thankyou!
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
> Special Boat Squadron.
> 'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
> Special Boat Squadron.
> 'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
Thankyou!
In reply to Fawksey:
its the type of thread that would be started by someone whos read Bravo two Zero.
its the type of thread that would be started by someone whos read Bravo two Zero.
>
Nah mate, I just been watching alot of documentaries about war lately. Never quite get the real picture from them though. And I'm sure the yanks will be saying, the brits don't have a mark on the u.s. so...........In reply to Frank4short:
Yes!
> (In reply to scrubmunched) Oh my god I'm back in the height of the planetfeat forum again. Does it matter who the feck is toughest, best trained, gayest, most sad?
Yes!
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
I'd agree with most of the above Nick. The major difference between US Marines and ours however, is equipment and resources - This impacts on training, deployment, planning and Ops, across the board really.
I did 25 years in the British Army and served two of them in the US Army on exchange. My recollection FWIW is that The Rangers, were on the whole better than the Paras, (with who they are usually compared)and better than our RM AKA a thinking Para ) individually Rangers were just as good as our lads, but better equipped, better trained and better resourced and often more qualified in a range of useful skills.
This inevitably leads to a debate and comparison about their and our 'Special Forces' Tier 1, through to 3. I long ago came to the conclusion that it's best not to compare chalk with cheese....... They are every bit as good as our lads, but better resourced and equipped. This can lead to an over reliance on stuff rather than the individual, but if we had it (the kit) we'd be the same, believe me!
What our forces achieve in spite of a lack of resources is little short of a miracle. Because of these shortfalls we are more reliant on the 'individual'. We are probably more operationally agile than our US counterparts, but then our train set is much smaller. It isn't that the US ops don't want to be agile, it's just a big slow machine - even with digitisation and the like.
Regards,
Steve
> (In reply to scrubmunched) Interesting. Having worked with both in a pretty nasty war envirnoment, I'm impressed with both.
>
> US Army are to be avoided even if you are on the same side, US Marine Corps however are highly professional and about as similar to Brtish Army Infantry as could be. Not a patch on UK Royal Marines. Royal Marines are excellent; they're not as overly self-impressed as the Paras.
>
> Royals are good honest straight forward committed folk. handy in a tight situation.
>
> US Army are to be avoided even if you are on the same side, US Marine Corps however are highly professional and about as similar to Brtish Army Infantry as could be. Not a patch on UK Royal Marines. Royal Marines are excellent; they're not as overly self-impressed as the Paras.
>
> Royals are good honest straight forward committed folk. handy in a tight situation.
I'd agree with most of the above Nick. The major difference between US Marines and ours however, is equipment and resources - This impacts on training, deployment, planning and Ops, across the board really.
I did 25 years in the British Army and served two of them in the US Army on exchange. My recollection FWIW is that The Rangers, were on the whole better than the Paras, (with who they are usually compared)and better than our RM AKA a thinking Para ) individually Rangers were just as good as our lads, but better equipped, better trained and better resourced and often more qualified in a range of useful skills.
This inevitably leads to a debate and comparison about their and our 'Special Forces' Tier 1, through to 3. I long ago came to the conclusion that it's best not to compare chalk with cheese....... They are every bit as good as our lads, but better resourced and equipped. This can lead to an over reliance on stuff rather than the individual, but if we had it (the kit) we'd be the same, believe me!
What our forces achieve in spite of a lack of resources is little short of a miracle. Because of these shortfalls we are more reliant on the 'individual'. We are probably more operationally agile than our US counterparts, but then our train set is much smaller. It isn't that the US ops don't want to be agile, it's just a big slow machine - even with digitisation and the like.
Regards,
Steve
In reply to scrubmunched: It wasnt really directed at you but at all of us.
Ive purposefully not watched this series of Commando even though i believe it to be very good.
Piece of irrelevant info for you, did you know Jimmy Saville has his green beret?
Ive purposefully not watched this series of Commando even though i believe it to be very good.
Piece of irrelevant info for you, did you know Jimmy Saville has his green beret?
In reply to SteveSBlake:
so in actual fact we are better soldiers because we have shite gear?
(25 years is a long time, must have liked it?)
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
> [...]
>
They are every bit as good as our lads, but better resourced and equipped. This can lead to an over reliance on stuff rather than the individual, but if we had it (the kit) we'd be the same, believe me!> [...]
>
>
so in actual fact we are better soldiers because we have shite gear?
(25 years is a long time, must have liked it?)
In reply to scrubmunched: The USMC are on a par with a chippy county infantry Regt. No comparison to RM.
In reply to billy.granty:
Not quite accurate. You have to look at the overall picture. The Cadre probably still have better climbers than mountain troop, however this doesn't mean to say they are better soldiers.
> (In reply to levene) im going to say SBS or RM mountain leader training which is apparently harder than both SAS and SBS although i may be brought up on that.
Not quite accurate. You have to look at the overall picture. The Cadre probably still have better climbers than mountain troop, however this doesn't mean to say they are better soldiers.
In reply to SteveSBlake:
Maybe why they keep them tough then, don't want to get all donuts and nice boots if its going to make men soft.
I've never heard of a soldier swap before, how and why on earth does that work?
Not as if they need to borrow a few men from us is it?
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> Yes, once we are properly resourced it will all go horribly wrong!
>
> Steve
>
> Yes, once we are properly resourced it will all go horribly wrong!
>
> Steve
Maybe why they keep them tough then, don't want to get all donuts and nice boots if its going to make men soft.
I've never heard of a soldier swap before, how and why on earth does that work?
Not as if they need to borrow a few men from us is it?
In reply to SteveSBlake: Yes, I agree. Also, they simply couldn't understand how I as a Captain could take large BG level decisions on behalf of the LT Col CO; for them, Captains aren't even aloud to make the tea without asking permission from the Major who them has to ask the Lt Col...
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
BG????????
> (In reply to SteveSBlake) Yes, I agree. Also, they simply couldn't understand how I as a Captain could take large BG level decisions
BG????????
In reply to scrubmunched: Because we're allies and increasingly work together and so it makes sense for there to be exchange programmes. Shared experience, learn new ways to look at things etc. There are plenty of jobs for UK forces in armies of Europe, Canada, US etc.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
Yep, the reason methinks is you volunteer for the Cadre do you not, thus usually have an have an interest or background. While you are usually told you're going to Mountain Troop regardless of any predisposition :-o
Steve
Yep, the reason methinks is you volunteer for the Cadre do you not, thus usually have an have an interest or background. While you are usually told you're going to Mountain Troop regardless of any predisposition :-o
Steve
In reply to scrubmunched: just ignore that, it's just a lingo way of saying the boss was in charge of a regiment, I was 2 ranks junior to him but because of the job I was in, we worked v closely and so I could take decisions on his behalf.
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
At the operational level most UK SNCO's work at a level of responsibility similar to a US Capt - and comfortably.
Steve
At the operational level most UK SNCO's work at a level of responsibility similar to a US Capt - and comfortably.
Steve
In reply to SteveSBlake: Yes. Yet paradoxically they have Captains as Coy Comds. Weird.
In reply to SteveSBlake:
Exactly. Promotion can also bring cross deployment to other troops within the Regt regardless of experience in that role
> (In reply to Twinkletoes)
>
> Yep, the reason methinks is you volunteer for the Cadre do you not, thus usually have an have an interest or background. While you are usually told you're going to Mountain Troop regardless of any predisposition :-o
>
> Steve
>
> Yep, the reason methinks is you volunteer for the Cadre do you not, thus usually have an have an interest or background. While you are usually told you're going to Mountain Troop regardless of any predisposition :-o
>
> Steve
Exactly. Promotion can also bring cross deployment to other troops within the Regt regardless of experience in that role
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
And Comd at that level is a big deal with lots of ceremony on appointment, families travel accross the country to attend, speaches made etc, when some of my colleagues got their Majority the hoohah was big time.
Good fun though!
Steve
And Comd at that level is a big deal with lots of ceremony on appointment, families travel accross the country to attend, speaches made etc, when some of my colleagues got their Majority the hoohah was big time.
Good fun though!
Steve
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: I've got 2 friends about your age left the army a few year ago, one was a driver, now driving a skip truck. The other an engineer, now selling mobile phones. They live up north and simply can't get a better job. I think they thought they may get more in return from the army than they did.
Its a shame after what they may have needed to give.
Its a shame after what they may have needed to give.
In reply to SteveSBlake: Indeed. I'm glad I did it for 10 years.
In reply to scrubmunched: Well, without knowing these people, it's tricky to say. Yes, it;'s a shame. But I would say that a lot of people sell themselves short on leaving and can't see how to market their soft skills (dedication, teamwork, willingness to learn, strong work ethos, discipline, excellent attendance (= we don't take "sickies")) so just end up using a qualification from the army in the civilian world, which is'nt necessarily onwards and upwards. I hope it works out for them. Leaving is not easy and not everyone appreciates that!
In reply to SteveSBlake:
Would be interesting to see how many US Officers could hack senior Brecon.
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
>
>
>
> At the operational level most UK SNCO's work at a level of responsibility similar to a US Capt - and comfortably.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> At the operational level most UK SNCO's work at a level of responsibility similar to a US Capt - and comfortably.
>
> Steve
Would be interesting to see how many US Officers could hack senior Brecon.
In reply to Benglog:
The English are becoming quite good at it aswell.
More danish troops have been killed in Afghanistan, not by Americans but by English troops.
The English are becoming quite good at it aswell.
More danish troops have been killed in Afghanistan, not by Americans but by English troops.
In reply to Twinkletoes: Or how many US officers hack PCD? We had one on our final exercise, couldn't even look after himself in field for a day let alone take charge of a FT.
In reply to Twinkletoes: to be accepted theyve gone through the hardest basic training in the world though.
In reply to Fawksey:
well he do the 30 miler
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
> Piece of irrelevant info for you, did you know Jimmy Saville has his green beret?
well he do the 30 miler
In reply to scrubmunched:
IMHO the WRENs can piss further and with greater accuracy than the US marines... and those guys have a 2 inch advantage!
IMHO the WRENs can piss further and with greater accuracy than the US marines... and those guys have a 2 inch advantage!
In reply to Twinkletoes:
Well of course you could find many that would fare badly, but there's a bizillion of them and plenty out of that bizillion would do just fine. Individually they are little different to us.
It's the machine they are in that in our eyes 'dumbs them down' cos it has to work to the lowest common denominator, and makes them look worse than they really are.
Steve
Well of course you could find many that would fare badly, but there's a bizillion of them and plenty out of that bizillion would do just fine. Individually they are little different to us.
It's the machine they are in that in our eyes 'dumbs them down' cos it has to work to the lowest common denominator, and makes them look worse than they really are.
Steve
In reply to scrubmunched: Its unfortunate about your mates re: jobs. It is difficult employment wise when you come out, unless they have a good techy trade. There are always jobs on the circuit, but these have their drawbacks especially if your mates are family men, and most of the good CP jobs are down to who you know.
In reply to SteveSBlake: Agreed. We've got more than our share of wankers too.
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: I know, the driver (nick)reminds me of Tom cruise in the 12th of july movie. 'Why are you disrespecting me like this, I was prepared to put my life on the line for this country, now you won't even employ me?' kinda thing. Always after a few pints mind, lol. Poor sod, reckons he wished he'd never left.
The engineer is a very clever lad and I suppose doing as you say and using his people skills, in a way. I reckon he deserves more, but he's a proper bloke, never complains, never has a bad word, works rediculous hours, keeps his family going, head down and on with it. Thing with gary is, he was probably the complete oposite, irresponsible nutter you'd ever met before he went away. Probably the most solid lad I know now.
The engineer is a very clever lad and I suppose doing as you say and using his people skills, in a way. I reckon he deserves more, but he's a proper bloke, never complains, never has a bad word, works rediculous hours, keeps his family going, head down and on with it. Thing with gary is, he was probably the complete oposite, irresponsible nutter you'd ever met before he went away. Probably the most solid lad I know now.
In reply to scrubmunched: ok I spot it, sod off!! ;0
In reply to scrubmunched: I've only just spotted it!!
In reply to scrubmunched:
Was that not King Billy?
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains) I know, the driver (nick)reminds me of Tom cruise in the 12th of july movie.
Was that not King Billy?
In reply to Mokkel:
Have they? I spent quite a lot of time talking with a Danish soldier recently when we were on a trip together, he had been in Afghanistan and he didn't mention that although he did tell me about the Canadians who had got shot up by an A10. He said that all the allies were scared of A10 pilots because as he put it "they're all f*cking reservist".
He did tell me about the famous disastrous patrol the Danes ran to try and relieve a British outpost I think it was - where the skirmished with the Taliban for three days and in the final fight, one of the driver managed to run over his own commanding officer or something. It all sounded pretty hellish, and clearly they were getting stretched far to thin.
> More danish troops have been killed in Afghanistan, not by Americans but by English troops.
Have they? I spent quite a lot of time talking with a Danish soldier recently when we were on a trip together, he had been in Afghanistan and he didn't mention that although he did tell me about the Canadians who had got shot up by an A10. He said that all the allies were scared of A10 pilots because as he put it "they're all f*cking reservist".
He did tell me about the famous disastrous patrol the Danes ran to try and relieve a British outpost I think it was - where the skirmished with the Taliban for three days and in the final fight, one of the driver managed to run over his own commanding officer or something. It all sounded pretty hellish, and clearly they were getting stretched far to thin.
In reply to scrubmunched:
As an ex Royal Marine,-- as ever most of the people on here saying "who's the best etc" don't know what they're on about!
As an ex Royal Marine,-- as ever most of the people on here saying "who's the best etc" don't know what they're on about!
In reply to TobyA:
A couple of weeks ago 2 soldiers got killed in a fight where the British where also Involved.
They are still looking into it but sources have told that they have proof it was British fire that killed them.(should have found part of British Rockets where they got hit)
Nothing officiel yet, i have just waited for a chance to post it. As i have often seen people moan about the Americans friendly fire.
A couple of weeks ago 2 soldiers got killed in a fight where the British where also Involved.
They are still looking into it but sources have told that they have proof it was British fire that killed them.(should have found part of British Rockets where they got hit)
Nothing officiel yet, i have just waited for a chance to post it. As i have often seen people moan about the Americans friendly fire.
In reply to abr1966:
Care to give your opinion?
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> As an ex Royal Marine,-- as ever most of the people on here saying "who's the best etc" don't know what they're on about!
>
> As an ex Royal Marine,-- as ever most of the people on here saying "who's the best etc" don't know what they're on about!
Care to give your opinion?
In reply to TobyA:
Despite the Friendly Fire incidents I doubt you'd find a soldier who didn't want close air support and who didn't accept that when it's that close, the margin of error is tiny and the blast radius large. You may be aware of the criticism, made by Paras, of the RAF during the same period who often couldn't aquire the target and so no CAS.....
When you call in real close air support it's because if you don't you're probably screwed anyway.
Steve
> (In reply to Mokkel)
>
> [...]
>
> Have they? I spent quite a lot of time talking with a Danish soldier recently when we were on a trip together, he had been in Afghanistan and he didn't mention that although he did tell me about the Canadians who had got shot up by an A10. He said that all the allies were scared of A10 pilots because as he put it "they're all f*cking reservist".
>
> He did tell me about the famous disastrous patrol the Danes ran to try and relieve a British outpost I think it was - where the skirmished with the Taliban for three days and in the final fight, one of the driver managed to run over his own commanding officer or something. It all sounded pretty hellish, and clearly they were getting stretched far to thin.
>
> [...]
>
> Have they? I spent quite a lot of time talking with a Danish soldier recently when we were on a trip together, he had been in Afghanistan and he didn't mention that although he did tell me about the Canadians who had got shot up by an A10. He said that all the allies were scared of A10 pilots because as he put it "they're all f*cking reservist".
>
> He did tell me about the famous disastrous patrol the Danes ran to try and relieve a British outpost I think it was - where the skirmished with the Taliban for three days and in the final fight, one of the driver managed to run over his own commanding officer or something. It all sounded pretty hellish, and clearly they were getting stretched far to thin.
Despite the Friendly Fire incidents I doubt you'd find a soldier who didn't want close air support and who didn't accept that when it's that close, the margin of error is tiny and the blast radius large. You may be aware of the criticism, made by Paras, of the RAF during the same period who often couldn't aquire the target and so no CAS.....
When you call in real close air support it's because if you don't you're probably screwed anyway.
Steve
In reply to SteveSBlake: Well said.
In reply to SteveSBlake: Sure - I don't think that was his point, rather that when air support does come, people rather that it isn't US guardsmen in A10s.
I have a friend whose brother has a been a whatdyacallit - forward air controller (?) for one of the other allies in S. Afghanistan. It sounds absolutely terrifying as they are calling in air support on targets so close - 100 mtr or whatever - from where they are.
I have a friend whose brother has a been a whatdyacallit - forward air controller (?) for one of the other allies in S. Afghanistan. It sounds absolutely terrifying as they are calling in air support on targets so close - 100 mtr or whatever - from where they are.
In reply to Mokkel: Thanks - I'll ask my friend what he's heard.
In reply to TobyA:
sorry to revert back to the documentary of the marines on tv now but it does look terrifying. These young lads are standing in the desert with bullets hitting the groud mtrs from thier feet, and although a bit flustered are not jumping around like rabbits hot in the arse with an air gun. Its all very controlled, chilled and in a few instances the leader guy(dunno what but only about 21) doesn't even flinch, only concerned his mate with the radio hasn't come back over the hill.
Thats why I wonder, different breed out for a mental time, or hard as nails young men? I find it hard to understand how a young man can behave so chilled with the thought of bullets maybe hitting him any moment.
Drugs?
> I have a friend whose brother has a been a whatdyacallit - forward air controller (?) for one of the other allies in S. Afghanistan. It sounds absolutely terrifying as they are calling in air support on targets so close - 100 mtr or whatever - from where they are.
sorry to revert back to the documentary of the marines on tv now but it does look terrifying. These young lads are standing in the desert with bullets hitting the groud mtrs from thier feet, and although a bit flustered are not jumping around like rabbits hot in the arse with an air gun. Its all very controlled, chilled and in a few instances the leader guy(dunno what but only about 21) doesn't even flinch, only concerned his mate with the radio hasn't come back over the hill.
Thats why I wonder, different breed out for a mental time, or hard as nails young men? I find it hard to understand how a young man can behave so chilled with the thought of bullets maybe hitting him any moment.
Drugs?
In reply to TobyA:
My point Toby, was that you get what you get, be it US, Belgian, Brit, Italian or whatever and generally you'll be thanking god you've got it.
My unit was inadvertantly sent a Maverick by an A10 National Guardsman, thankfully no one was hurt, nor were the lads that bothered, The pilot was later presented with the rocket motor stub; it's another battlefield risk. They were more than gratefull for the support and protection provided.
Steve
My point Toby, was that you get what you get, be it US, Belgian, Brit, Italian or whatever and generally you'll be thanking god you've got it.
My unit was inadvertantly sent a Maverick by an A10 National Guardsman, thankfully no one was hurt, nor were the lads that bothered, The pilot was later presented with the rocket motor stub; it's another battlefield risk. They were more than gratefull for the support and protection provided.
Steve
In reply to scrubmunched: oo oo heres a little known fact. The french forigen legion have a jungle assault course, its 10 miles long and a respectable completion time is 2 hrs. Froggie record is 69 mins, royal marines 1hr 49. USMC..... 6hrs 57*. whatcha think:P
*as stated in this really old book 'Elite military forces of the world.'
*as stated in this really old book 'Elite military forces of the world.'
In reply to Duane:
SBS - toughest of the lot (but we didn't talk about it, unlike the SAS) and we got wet...But the best fighters - the Ghurkas hands down.
However the Royal Marines 'had' to be tough (in pubs)...when you consider the tune they 'march' to.
As for the US Marines/Navy Seals - it was atruism that when they opened fire the safest place to be was right beside the 'enemy'.
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
> Special Boat Squadron.
> 'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
> Special Boat Squadron.
> 'near' SAS equivalent, from the navy point of view. Yet no-where near from SAS point.
SBS - toughest of the lot (but we didn't talk about it, unlike the SAS) and we got wet...But the best fighters - the Ghurkas hands down.
However the Royal Marines 'had' to be tough (in pubs)...when you consider the tune they 'march' to.
As for the US Marines/Navy Seals - it was atruism that when they opened fire the safest place to be was right beside the 'enemy'.
In reply to Chris Tan Ver. L @ GCHQ:
PMSL - Ten gold stars Chris.....
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> IMHO the WRENs can piss further and with greater accuracy than the US marines... and those guys have a 2 inch advantage!
>
> IMHO the WRENs can piss further and with greater accuracy than the US marines... and those guys have a 2 inch advantage!
PMSL - Ten gold stars Chris.....
In reply to bergalia: Interesting. Were you a member of the SBS then?
In reply to lewis1973:
He doesnt talk about it ;0
> (In reply to bergalia) Interesting. Were you a member of the SBS then?
He doesnt talk about it ;0
In reply to Gaz lord:
There was a documentary about that a few years ago, impressive stuff. A joint bash with US marines and the FFL. The course was in French Guiana, most of it was in waist deep mud with slippery logs and suchlike. I don't recall the times, but the difference you quote rings a bell. I recall the american member of the FFL was very pleased at stuffing it up his former countymen.
There was a documentary about that a few years ago, impressive stuff. A joint bash with US marines and the FFL. The course was in French Guiana, most of it was in waist deep mud with slippery logs and suchlike. I don't recall the times, but the difference you quote rings a bell. I recall the american member of the FFL was very pleased at stuffing it up his former countymen.
In reply to scrubmunched:
Fair enough. TBH, full respect to the bloke if he was. Lets face it, you and I both know that 99% of people posting on here, wouldn't last two seconds with the Royal Marines, me included.
> (In reply to lewis1973)
> [...]
>
> He doesnt talk about it ;0
> [...]
>
> He doesnt talk about it ;0
Fair enough. TBH, full respect to the bloke if he was. Lets face it, you and I both know that 99% of people posting on here, wouldn't last two seconds with the Royal Marines, me included.
In reply to lewis1973:
Nah, I'd kick ass. ;0
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
> [...]
>
> Fair enough. TBH, full respect to the bloke if he was. Lets face it, you and I both know that 99% of people posting on here, wouldn't last two seconds with the Royal Marines, me included.
> [...]
>
> Fair enough. TBH, full respect to the bloke if he was. Lets face it, you and I both know that 99% of people posting on here, wouldn't last two seconds with the Royal Marines, me included.
Nah, I'd kick ass. ;0
In reply to lewis1973: Joking aside these guys are a diffent breed of people. My son wants to join the RM and I'm not for it, he's got too much of an opinion. I hate the idea!
In reply to scrubmunched:
Bloody hell, what is this, Planetmildtrepidation?
Take it elsewhere. There's special forums for fantasists like you.
jcm
Bloody hell, what is this, Planetmildtrepidation?
Take it elsewhere. There's special forums for fantasists like you.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Can I not have an opinion?
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> Bloody hell, what is this, Planetmildtrepidation?
>
> Take it elsewhere. There's special forums for fantasists like you.
>
> jcm
>
> Bloody hell, what is this, Planetmildtrepidation?
>
> Take it elsewhere. There's special forums for fantasists like you.
>
> jcm
Can I not have an opinion?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Where exactly? 'Planet knowing what your children' Would that make you happy?
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> Take it elsewhere.
> Take it elsewhere.
Where exactly? 'Planet knowing what your children' Would that make you happy?
In reply to scrubmunched:
Thank you Scrub. But Falkland fiasco - before and briefly after.
> (In reply to lewis1973)
> [...]
>
> He doesnt talk about it ;0
> [...]
>
> He doesnt talk about it ;0
Thank you Scrub. But Falkland fiasco - before and briefly after.
In reply to Removed User:
Yeah I saw that as well!
I seem to remember that the US marines set the slowest course time ever - although full credit for keeping at it for so long!
As far as I know the course record is still held by a team of Royal Engineers who handled the high walls and rope obstacles with their usual creativity!
> There was a documentary about that a few years ago, impressive stuff. A joint bash with US marines and the FFL.
Yeah I saw that as well!
I seem to remember that the US marines set the slowest course time ever - although full credit for keeping at it for so long!
As far as I know the course record is still held by a team of Royal Engineers who handled the high walls and rope obstacles with their usual creativity!
In reply to scrubmunched: in case you're forgotten, in this country, we've been brought up with the history and propoganda of wars, 3 commando brigade isn't that big, around 10,000, compared to the usmc which is around the size of the bitish army. The lad wants to see if he's capible of joining a corp with a very good set of standards, maybe he's not fully aware of the realities of the job, maybe he feels this is the time in his life, when he should do something for the greater good; whatever the outcome, he'll devevlop a set of skills and a personality that can't be found in the 9-5.
Our armed forces are very over strecthed and as always need few good more men
He could make a lot worse choices, good for him
Our armed forces are very over strecthed and as always need few good more men
He could make a lot worse choices, good for him
In reply to scrubmunched:
I look forward to your next thread "Royal Marine Commando vs Alien or Predator?"...
I look forward to your next thread "Royal Marine Commando vs Alien or Predator?"...
In reply to scrubmunched:
neither JTF2 is way more bad ass!
http://www.jtf2.forces.gc.ca/en/about_e.asp
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/jtf2.html
neither JTF2 is way more bad ass!
http://www.jtf2.forces.gc.ca/en/about_e.asp
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/jtf2.html
In reply to Flatlander:
Could a JTF2 wrestle a grizzly bear and win? Could they headbutt a moose? Would they dare destroy a beavers dam?
Don't come on here with your half-baked opinions. We demand FACTS!
Could a JTF2 wrestle a grizzly bear and win? Could they headbutt a moose? Would they dare destroy a beavers dam?
Don't come on here with your half-baked opinions. We demand FACTS!
In reply to Clauso:
JTF2 don't wast thier time on Grizzly bears they wrestle with polar bears and make them cry.
JTF2 are the only organisation Chuck Noris is scared of!
JTF2 don't wast thier time on Grizzly bears they wrestle with polar bears and make them cry.
JTF2 are the only organisation Chuck Noris is scared of!
In reply to Flatlander: whats this joint business? are they a bunch of stoners
In reply to Flatlander:
So...what happened to JTF1?
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> neither JTF2 is way more bad ass!
>
> neither JTF2 is way more bad ass!
So...what happened to JTF1?
In reply to wilding:
they called my last work squad the "A TEAM" because no-one could find us either
> (In reply to Frank4short)
>
> Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...
>
> Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...
they called my last work squad the "A TEAM" because no-one could find us either
In reply to scrubmunched:
Until you understand that the job of a soldier is to bring wars to an end, this is a contender for the stupid thread of the month award.
> .. seem to be pretty good at destoying the sh*t out of things and people.
Until you understand that the job of a soldier is to bring wars to an end, this is a contender for the stupid thread of the month award.
In reply to Jim Fraser: Two of them were ex army, logistics and reme
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I agree with your sentiment Jim about this thread, but I don't think you statement is technically true. Unless of course you mean it in the sense that as we rolled across the Iraqi border in 2003 we were saying "We need to start this war in order to end it!"
> Until you understand that the job of a soldier is to bring wars to an end,
I agree with your sentiment Jim about this thread, but I don't think you statement is technically true. Unless of course you mean it in the sense that as we rolled across the Iraqi border in 2003 we were saying "We need to start this war in order to end it!"
In reply to Mick Ward:
Mick may not know it - but I'm sure he does - the word 'respect' sums up what all of us (and there are, I'm sure, many more ex-squaddies on this forum) feel for fellow servicemen/women. There is an almost traditional cynicism about each other's worth as a 'fighting' unit. Each 'arm' belittles the other - but as the cliche goes - each proves their own value under fire. There is no man/woman braver, or tougher, than the one who watches your back - no matter what colour their uniform - or their accent.
> (In reply to bergalia)
>
> Respect.
>
> Mick
>
> Respect.
>
> Mick
Mick may not know it - but I'm sure he does - the word 'respect' sums up what all of us (and there are, I'm sure, many more ex-squaddies on this forum) feel for fellow servicemen/women. There is an almost traditional cynicism about each other's worth as a 'fighting' unit. Each 'arm' belittles the other - but as the cliche goes - each proves their own value under fire. There is no man/woman braver, or tougher, than the one who watches your back - no matter what colour their uniform - or their accent.
In reply to TobyA:
The last british serviceman who started a war was the general who started the Zulu War of 1879. He was sacked as soon as he got home, in spite of the support of the Queen.
It is a political task to start wars and traditionally the Prime Minister holds the Royal Perogative for this task. Through him and parliament and the ballot box we are all responsible for this task.
When we f4ck it up, it is the job of the armed services to bring it to an end: clear up our mess.
(Max Hastings: "US Army has a war ethos and the British Army has a peace ethos". That's about our constitutional arrangements and the resulting political culture rather than the individual servicemen.)
[War occurs upon the failure of diplomacy and consumes the lives of young men.]
The last british serviceman who started a war was the general who started the Zulu War of 1879. He was sacked as soon as he got home, in spite of the support of the Queen.
It is a political task to start wars and traditionally the Prime Minister holds the Royal Perogative for this task. Through him and parliament and the ballot box we are all responsible for this task.
When we f4ck it up, it is the job of the armed services to bring it to an end: clear up our mess.
(Max Hastings: "US Army has a war ethos and the British Army has a peace ethos". That's about our constitutional arrangements and the resulting political culture rather than the individual servicemen.)
[War occurs upon the failure of diplomacy and consumes the lives of young men.]
In reply to scrubmunched: ok getting back to the point (but changing it slightly) who is rely better, SAS or the Navy Seals? i would say that the SAS do more anti-terror work and a bit more urban things now-a-days? where as navy seas are more capturing suspects that are hard to get hold of.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nTip_-qZ5Bk
interesting
interesting
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Errr, no Jim. The man who started the Zulu War of 1879 was a career Civil Servant Sir Bartle Frere. Frere was colonial governor of South Africa at the time with the task of grouping South Africa's British colonies, Boer republics and independent black states into a Confederation of South Africa. He believed the region could only be unified under British rule when the Zulu kingdom - with its army of 40,000 warriors had been suppressed.
So he greatly exaggerated the threat posed by the Zulus, and, when the London government refused to sanction war, he took matters into his own hands in December 1878 by presenting the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, with an unacceptable ultimatum. The war was inevitable.
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> The last british serviceman who started a war was the general who started the Zulu War of 1879.
>
> The last british serviceman who started a war was the general who started the Zulu War of 1879.
Errr, no Jim. The man who started the Zulu War of 1879 was a career Civil Servant Sir Bartle Frere. Frere was colonial governor of South Africa at the time with the task of grouping South Africa's British colonies, Boer republics and independent black states into a Confederation of South Africa. He believed the region could only be unified under British rule when the Zulu kingdom - with its army of 40,000 warriors had been suppressed.
So he greatly exaggerated the threat posed by the Zulus, and, when the London government refused to sanction war, he took matters into his own hands in December 1878 by presenting the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, with an unacceptable ultimatum. The war was inevitable.
In reply to chrisw88: Well, those are both snapshots from the very full range of activities they both undertake.
In reply to bergalia:
Versions. Versions of history.
Did Chelmsford lacked the constitutional authority to start a war by marching into Zululand? Yes.
Civil servant redrawing maps without asking the inhabitants? Well, that sounds familiar: Iraq 3 times, Afghanistan 4 times.
Versions. Versions of history.
Did Chelmsford lacked the constitutional authority to start a war by marching into Zululand? Yes.
Civil servant redrawing maps without asking the inhabitants? Well, that sounds familiar: Iraq 3 times, Afghanistan 4 times.
In reply to scrubmunched:
No details or photo on his profile: in case the big boys catch up with after school!
> (In reply to lewis1973)
> [...]
>
> Nah, I'd kick ass. ;0
> [...]
>
> Nah, I'd kick ass. ;0
No details or photo on his profile: in case the big boys catch up with after school!
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
Was that trait hard to spot?
This is not about punches. This level of soldiering is largely about intelligence and how to apply it. Forget all this break 'em down and build 'em up bullsh1t: that's for taking a dummy and turning him into an efficient automaton.
> .... they're not as overly self-impressed as the Paras.
Was that trait hard to spot?
This is not about punches. This level of soldiering is largely about intelligence and how to apply it. Forget all this break 'em down and build 'em up bullsh1t: that's for taking a dummy and turning him into an efficient automaton.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Hi Jim, I don't understand your post, could you explain? Thanks.
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
> [...]
>
> Was that trait hard to spot?
>
>
> This is not about punches. This level of soldiering is largely about intelligence and how to apply it. Forget all this break 'em down and build 'em up bullsh1t: that's for taking a dummy and turning him into an efficient automaton.
> [...]
>
> Was that trait hard to spot?
>
>
> This is not about punches. This level of soldiering is largely about intelligence and how to apply it. Forget all this break 'em down and build 'em up bullsh1t: that's for taking a dummy and turning him into an efficient automaton.
Hi Jim, I don't understand your post, could you explain? Thanks.
In reply to TobyA:
Well, saying they're social workers, policemen, doctors, construction workers, taxi drivers and mediators might be more true, but it doesn't make you sound like a hard man like "the job of a soldier is to bring wars to an end" and it's not a quote from Saving Private Ryan either, so you can see why Jim didn't say it!
> I agree with your sentiment Jim about this thread, but I don't think you statement is technically true.
Well, saying they're social workers, policemen, doctors, construction workers, taxi drivers and mediators might be more true, but it doesn't make you sound like a hard man like "the job of a soldier is to bring wars to an end" and it's not a quote from Saving Private Ryan either, so you can see why Jim didn't say it!
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Chelmsford lacked the constitutional authority to start a war by marching into Zululand? Yes.
Vaguely right on your first answer Jim. He lacked authority from London - but certain had the blessing of Frere.
As to civil servants redrawing maps...look no further than the UK 'Cumbria', 'Greater Clydeside', 'Grampian' etc...
> (In reply to bergalia)
Chelmsford lacked the constitutional authority to start a war by marching into Zululand? Yes.
>
> Civil servant redrawing maps without asking the inhabitants?
> Civil servant redrawing maps without asking the inhabitants?
Vaguely right on your first answer Jim. He lacked authority from London - but certain had the blessing of Frere.
As to civil servants redrawing maps...look no further than the UK 'Cumbria', 'Greater Clydeside', 'Grampian' etc...
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
There was a basic theory, common to many territories (paras, legionnaires, ...), that to produce an effective soldier, particularly an infantry soldier, he must be broken and reconstructed. This was much more true just a few decades ago. It might be effective for 'cannon fodder' in theoretical 'general warfare' but who is doing that anyway: the age of 'conventional warfare' of the WW2 type may be over for good. In a modern educated society with outstanding communications available to all, that kind of programming of people is a very hard trick to pull off anyway.
In the corps that have been discussed here this approach is definitely not an option. In these organisations more than any other, each man must be an "effective executive" (Peter Drucker). Quote of a quote, from Drucker's Effective Executive, attributed to a US Army officer in Vietman (from memory, so not exact words): "When these guys are on patrol and they come upon an enemy in the jungle, I am too far away to make the decision. It is my job to make sure that they know what do."
These military 'effective executives' have been around for a while: Lovat Scouts, Dec 1899, would be my favourite example. In more recent decades, it has started to become the norm.
In my experience, Royal Marine NCOs and Officers are quite keen to discuss their concepts of intelligent and high quality soldiering. That seems like a good indicator.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> [...]
>
> Hi Jim, I don't understand your post, could you explain? Thanks.
> [...]
>
> Hi Jim, I don't understand your post, could you explain? Thanks.
There was a basic theory, common to many territories (paras, legionnaires, ...), that to produce an effective soldier, particularly an infantry soldier, he must be broken and reconstructed. This was much more true just a few decades ago. It might be effective for 'cannon fodder' in theoretical 'general warfare' but who is doing that anyway: the age of 'conventional warfare' of the WW2 type may be over for good. In a modern educated society with outstanding communications available to all, that kind of programming of people is a very hard trick to pull off anyway.
In the corps that have been discussed here this approach is definitely not an option. In these organisations more than any other, each man must be an "effective executive" (Peter Drucker). Quote of a quote, from Drucker's Effective Executive, attributed to a US Army officer in Vietman (from memory, so not exact words): "When these guys are on patrol and they come upon an enemy in the jungle, I am too far away to make the decision. It is my job to make sure that they know what do."
These military 'effective executives' have been around for a while: Lovat Scouts, Dec 1899, would be my favourite example. In more recent decades, it has started to become the norm.
In my experience, Royal Marine NCOs and Officers are quite keen to discuss their concepts of intelligent and high quality soldiering. That seems like a good indicator.
In reply to bergalia:
Absolute nonesense! SBS are good at what they do. I've worked with them and do rate them, once did a 22' SSL course and we had half a dozen SBS on the course, three of them were pricks. As for the Ghurka, I'd back a good British soldier to come out on top nine times out of ten. They lack leadership qualities and have to rely on British officers. They are slightly better than a infantry unit.
> (In reply to Duane)
> [...]
>
> SBS - toughest of the lot (but we didn't talk about it, unlike the SAS) and we got wet...But the best fighters - the Ghurkas hands down.
> [...]
>
> SBS - toughest of the lot (but we didn't talk about it, unlike the SAS) and we got wet...But the best fighters - the Ghurkas hands down.
Absolute nonesense! SBS are good at what they do. I've worked with them and do rate them, once did a 22' SSL course and we had half a dozen SBS on the course, three of them were pricks. As for the Ghurka, I'd back a good British soldier to come out on top nine times out of ten. They lack leadership qualities and have to rely on British officers. They are slightly better than a infantry unit.
In reply to niggle:
It is not a sentiment. It describes the constitutional position. It encompasses Hastings' idea about the "peace ethos".
Imagine the PM gives ACM Stirrup a mission. Stirrup doesn't have to decide the end-state of the operation: just as at every level, it have been given to him by his superior. Whether the operation is to defend against an aggressor or to attack, the MISSION will have an end-state that brings war to an end. This is likely to be true even for a megalomaniac seeking world domination.
[Anyway, the Brits have to bring war to an end ASAP, cos we havent enough kit!]
It is not a sentiment. It describes the constitutional position. It encompasses Hastings' idea about the "peace ethos".
Imagine the PM gives ACM Stirrup a mission. Stirrup doesn't have to decide the end-state of the operation: just as at every level, it have been given to him by his superior. Whether the operation is to defend against an aggressor or to attack, the MISSION will have an end-state that brings war to an end. This is likely to be true even for a megalomaniac seeking world domination.
[Anyway, the Brits have to bring war to an end ASAP, cos we havent enough kit!]
In reply to Jim Fraser:
'Broken and Reconstructed' is a poor and dramatic choice of words for taking an 'individual' and turning him into a team player, seeing him bond with his peers and comrades unto the point of death. All that small unit coheasion stuff, once it's down and dirty soldiers fight principally for each other rather than a 'noble concept'. Methinks it is the shared experience of hardship, fear and hopefully success that makes soldiers bond and function as a team.
There has always been very good, good, bad and very bad military training, but I think you'd be lucky to find any kind of formal doctrinal reference (if any) to 'B & R' in any surviving Army publication (the national army museum would probably know though)
I was trained over 20 years ago and was never broken, it was very tough and demanding, but there was always a clear (to me) reason behined the process. Nor were there any indications that I was going through some new process, just the good old Common Military Syllabus.
As for Drucker, he's stating the bleeding obivous - and hence the nessercarily repetitive nature of drills, be they stoppage IAs, Ambush drills, ERV procedures and so on.
Soldiers have always needed to know what to do, and good commanders have always tried to make sure they know what they have to do - exemplified by the doctrine of Mission Command which is little more than a new name for an old process.
Also, it may be premature to assume the age of conventional warfare is over.
Regards,
Steve
'Broken and Reconstructed' is a poor and dramatic choice of words for taking an 'individual' and turning him into a team player, seeing him bond with his peers and comrades unto the point of death. All that small unit coheasion stuff, once it's down and dirty soldiers fight principally for each other rather than a 'noble concept'. Methinks it is the shared experience of hardship, fear and hopefully success that makes soldiers bond and function as a team.
There has always been very good, good, bad and very bad military training, but I think you'd be lucky to find any kind of formal doctrinal reference (if any) to 'B & R' in any surviving Army publication (the national army museum would probably know though)
I was trained over 20 years ago and was never broken, it was very tough and demanding, but there was always a clear (to me) reason behined the process. Nor were there any indications that I was going through some new process, just the good old Common Military Syllabus.
As for Drucker, he's stating the bleeding obivous - and hence the nessercarily repetitive nature of drills, be they stoppage IAs, Ambush drills, ERV procedures and so on.
Soldiers have always needed to know what to do, and good commanders have always tried to make sure they know what they have to do - exemplified by the doctrine of Mission Command which is little more than a new name for an old process.
Also, it may be premature to assume the age of conventional warfare is over.
Regards,
Steve
In reply to scrubmunched:
think you are all going to get assasinated by some scary looking men in balaclavas up some dingy alley....
think you are all going to get assasinated by some scary looking men in balaclavas up some dingy alley....
In reply to SteveSBlake: & Jim Fraser, I was never broken but I was certainly beasted, taught discipline, and we were often punished en mass as a result of the weaker platoon members. This helps you pull together and work as a team. I would never have questioned the reason behind orders during this period. This would have been a taboo, and would not turn out good infantry soldiers. IMHO. However when soldiers move on and specialise, the days of 'ours are not to reason why' are over. A SF unit believe its healthy to question and discuss the reasoning behind orders, and this is encouraged. Self discipline is then the most important thing, something I believe the majority of raw recruits would be lacking until they become trained soldiers.
In reply to scrubmunched:
Haven't really read the thread so may be not with it but a couple of points:
Training is only one part of the picture, some of the most professional and hardest soldiers i met were not marines etc. A couple were from guards regiments and one from greenjackets.
Marine training is very good for fitness levels etc and is longer than most army equivalents because of the nature of the job ie rapid response orientated including amphibious assault.
Being on the ground on operation is an altogether different scenario and depends on many factors as to how any one person responds and performs. Exposure within a good and experieced troop is key.
A good combatant is able and adaptable in a number of situations and environments, however mostly it comes down to kit, support, logistics, intelligence and speed etc. being 10% fitter for example than someone else is a smaller part of the picture when in operation etc.
Haven't really read the thread so may be not with it but a couple of points:
Training is only one part of the picture, some of the most professional and hardest soldiers i met were not marines etc. A couple were from guards regiments and one from greenjackets.
Marine training is very good for fitness levels etc and is longer than most army equivalents because of the nature of the job ie rapid response orientated including amphibious assault.
Being on the ground on operation is an altogether different scenario and depends on many factors as to how any one person responds and performs. Exposure within a good and experieced troop is key.
A good combatant is able and adaptable in a number of situations and environments, however mostly it comes down to kit, support, logistics, intelligence and speed etc. being 10% fitter for example than someone else is a smaller part of the picture when in operation etc.
In reply to scrubmunched:
I would add though that my experience of US marines was pretty good.....compared to some of the USarmy units that is...
> (In reply to abr1966)
> [...]
>
> Care to give your opinion?
> [...]
>
> Care to give your opinion?
I would add though that my experience of US marines was pretty good.....compared to some of the USarmy units that is...
In reply to Twinkletoes:
I think if you look again, you might see that I have described it as a thing of the past.
> (In reply to SteveSBlake) & Jim Fraser,
> I was never broken but I was certainly beasted, ...
> I was never broken but I was certainly beasted, ...
I think if you look again, you might see that I have described it as a thing of the past.
In reply to Jim Fraser: I think it was about week 14. This is 1979. It just finished off the odd recruit that was wavering. Im not sure about the mind games of it all if it benefited or not, it just was.
Knocking the ice off the static tank before doing a couple of lengths of it before dawn in January, doing a mud run or coping witha dose of Woodbury rash I dont think made me a better or worse person.
People however being made to run in dry suits in hot weather however is criminal.
Knocking the ice off the static tank before doing a couple of lengths of it before dawn in January, doing a mud run or coping witha dose of Woodbury rash I dont think made me a better or worse person.
People however being made to run in dry suits in hot weather however is criminal.
In reply to scrubmunched:
I live in the southern California desert where the largest US Marine base in the world may be found.
I've never lived in the UK.
I've met Marines.
I've not yet to my knowledge met Royal Marines, only seen pictures of em and if I had to choose which I'd want to beat the snot outa me I'd say the Royal Marines.
I'd survive the experience because they wanted me to and might even get a free drink and some laughs.
I live in the southern California desert where the largest US Marine base in the world may be found.
I've never lived in the UK.
I've met Marines.
I've not yet to my knowledge met Royal Marines, only seen pictures of em and if I had to choose which I'd want to beat the snot outa me I'd say the Royal Marines.
I'd survive the experience because they wanted me to and might even get a free drink and some laughs.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
It most certainly is in todays tree hugging, PC , world of today. Where its fashionable to shock, be weak and different.
> (In reply to Twinkletoes)
> [...]
>
> I think if you look again, you might see that I have described it as a thing of the past.
> [...]
>
> I think if you look again, you might see that I have described it as a thing of the past.
It most certainly is in todays tree hugging, PC , world of today. Where its fashionable to shock, be weak and different.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
We prefer the term "leaf people" thank you.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
>
> tree hugging
>
> tree hugging
We prefer the term "leaf people" thank you.
In reply to Jim Fraser: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0128.html
What do you reckon about this SFSG. This is due to the less strenuous basic training, and the modern Infantryman being unable to pass selection. They are struggling to get lads into the Regt, unless of course the standard is lowered, which it undoubtedly will.
What do you reckon about this SFSG. This is due to the less strenuous basic training, and the modern Infantryman being unable to pass selection. They are struggling to get lads into the Regt, unless of course the standard is lowered, which it undoubtedly will.
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
What made this obvious to the whole world was in Iraq 2003 when officers of various provenance were interviewed in-theatre by TV journalists. British subalterns were seen displaying great skills in military and political analysis than American generals.
> (In reply to SteveSBlake) Yes, I agree. Also, they simply couldn't understand how I as a Captain could take large BG level decisions on behalf of the LT Col CO; for them, Captains aren't even aloud to make the tea without asking permission from the Major who them has to ask the Lt Col...
What made this obvious to the whole world was in Iraq 2003 when officers of various provenance were interviewed in-theatre by TV journalists. British subalterns were seen displaying great skills in military and political analysis than American generals.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The same could be said for the RAF aircrew when interviewed after a mission, not in the slightest bit gung ho.
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
> [...]
>
> British subalterns were seen displaying great skills in military and political analysis than American generals.
> [...]
>
> British subalterns were seen displaying great skills in military and political analysis than American generals.
The same could be said for the RAF aircrew when interviewed after a mission, not in the slightest bit gung ho.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
Surely the Support Group is about integration and support rather than soft options. Although no doubt there will be a civil servant somewhere dreaming of how much money he can save, I see the whole SAS-SBS-SRS-SFSG thing as a sound post-cold-war, post-NI integration that will preserve an incredibly valuable set of skills.
The stuff I have seen recently about courses asks for the same standards that they were asking for 20+ years ago.
Surely the Support Group is about integration and support rather than soft options. Although no doubt there will be a civil servant somewhere dreaming of how much money he can save, I see the whole SAS-SBS-SRS-SFSG thing as a sound post-cold-war, post-NI integration that will preserve an incredibly valuable set of skills.
The stuff I have seen recently about courses asks for the same standards that they were asking for 20+ years ago.
In reply to Jim Fraser: I don't mean to sound hyper-critical of the lads serving today, whilst the training is different from what we endured, when it comes to theatres of war they're being kept very active, and are doing a great job in difficult political times.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
You gained this insight while on cookhouse/clerking duties did you Twinkle ?
> (In reply to bergalia)
> [...]
>
. As for the Ghurka, I'd back a good British soldier to come out on top nine times out of ten. They lack leadership qualities and have to rely on British officers. They are slightly better than a infantry unit.> [...]
>
You gained this insight while on cookhouse/clerking duties did you Twinkle ?
In reply to bergalia:
I have experience of the Ghurka rifles. I was wrong to refer to your post as nonesense, as this was only your opinion. Just as my post was only my opinion through experiences. I certainly don't want an argument or a bitch about my Regt being better than yours, mentality. I probably did my fair share of cookhouse duties.
> (In reply to Twinkletoes)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> You gained this insight while on cookhouse/clerking duties did you Twinkle ?
> You gained this insight while on cookhouse/clerking duties did you Twinkle ?
I have experience of the Ghurka rifles. I was wrong to refer to your post as nonesense, as this was only your opinion. Just as my post was only my opinion through experiences. I certainly don't want an argument or a bitch about my Regt being better than yours, mentality. I probably did my fair share of cookhouse duties.
In reply to Twinkletoes: SFSG was set up, not because people were not good enough to pass selection, but because UKSF have more than enough to do as it is. They have pretty much trained the guys on SFSG to their level anyway.
In reply to drunken monkey: I don't doubt these SFSG lads are trained to a high standard, but I'm still in touch with mates still serving, and its a fact that people are being given the benefit of doubt on selection, where as at one time they would have been RTUd. The recruit of today is different, they have been brought up with TVs and computers in their rooms etc: We were outdoor kids and very active. This isn't a criticism, its a sign of the times, and as I've stated before on here, I think the lads are doing a great job. I hope you have a safe tour.
In reply to Twinkletoes: I dont think that the standards have dropped as such, but times certainly have changed.
In reply to drunken monkey:
Aye, its a very diverse and PC society we live in. One thing that never changes is the politicians, and I hope you don't get dragged out of yer bed after a patrol to meet some secretary for defense or one of his side kicks.
> (In reply to Twinkletoes) I dont think that the standards have dropped as such, but times certainly have changed.
Aye, its a very diverse and PC society we live in. One thing that never changes is the politicians, and I hope you don't get dragged out of yer bed after a patrol to meet some secretary for defense or one of his side kicks.
In reply to Twinkletoes: Luckily no polititions on the cards, but they usually just turn up. (For obvious reasons), so you never know.
Plenty of (Ye cannae polish a turd) going on nevertheless.
Plenty of (Ye cannae polish a turd) going on nevertheless.
In reply to scrubmunched: Just wondering if any of the girls have an opinion?
In reply to chris wyatt:
No takers on that one by the look of it.
Which means that all those thousands of Bootnecks who have lied about being in the SBS just to get their leg over have been wasting their time! What a shame.
> (In reply to scrubmunched) Just wondering if any of the girls have an opinion?
No takers on that one by the look of it.
Which means that all those thousands of Bootnecks who have lied about being in the SBS just to get their leg over have been wasting their time! What a shame.
In reply to Jim Fraser: you'd think the cloak and dagger boys in their frog suits would be in the girls panties and out again without them knowing anything about it!
In reply to Fawksey:
Yes, I'd heard about all those virgin births in Devon.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser) you'd think the cloak and dagger boys in their frog suits would be in the girls panties and out again without them knowing anything about it!
Yes, I'd heard about all those virgin births in Devon.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
Truce then Twinkle...But you should try digging latrines in permafrost....(grins)
> (In reply to bergalia)
> [...]
>
I probably did my fair share of cookhouse duties.> [...]
>
Truce then Twinkle...But you should try digging latrines in permafrost....(grins)
In reply to bergalia:
Yeah? Is that why I'm in here alone with a collosal stack of dirty dishes?
(throws towel at your head)
.....get drying yoo.
> (In reply to Twinkletoes)
> [...]
> I probably did my fair share of cookhouse duties.
>
> [...]
> I probably did my fair share of cookhouse duties.
>
Yeah? Is that why I'm in here alone with a collosal stack of dirty dishes?
(throws towel at your head)
.....get drying yoo.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
> (In reply to Fawksey)
> [...]
>
> Yes, I'd heard about all those virgin births in Devon.
> [...]
>
> Yes, I'd heard about all those virgin births in Devon.
And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
In reply to bergalia:
Aye, thats where we used to do our water descents, and not a ladle or pen in sight
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> [...]
>
>
> And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
> [...]
>
>
> And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
Aye, thats where we used to do our water descents, and not a ladle or pen in sight
In reply to bergalia:
Sorry, my geography of Englandshire kind of runs out anywhere SW of Salisbury Plain.
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> [...]
>
>
> And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
> [...]
>
>
> And I thought Poole was in Dorset...
Sorry, my geography of Englandshire kind of runs out anywhere SW of Salisbury Plain.
In reply to scrubmunched: You have my empathy - my son has wanted to join the RM for some time, and has recently passed his PRMC (3-day selection); I guess he'll join early in the New Year. My take on it (and I have 27 years of military experience, albeit somewhat 'softer' than the RM) is that he'll learn invaluable life skills and he'll be doing something he really (and I mean really) wants to do - so why the hell should I try and stop him (wish I had the balls/determination at his age..). What's more, I rate the NCOs and the Officers as THE best, so if my son wants to put himself in harms way I'd rather he did it with the RM than anyone else. You say they are a 'different breed of people' - yep I suppose so, but what's wrong with being unselfish, courageous, determined? You say your son has 'got too much of an opinion', well if your son isn't 'right' for it I'm sure that either he or the RM will find that out. But if he is 'right' then I think your support is really important. Like I say, I empathise....
In reply to pbradbeer:
You make a good point.
Wanting to join and joining are two different things.
And no.... just wanting it badly enough won't get you through.
You make a good point.
Wanting to join and joining are two different things.
And no.... just wanting it badly enough won't get you through.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
SFSG is simply 1 PARA with some all-arms add ons. They are not semi-SF, just a support element. They will almost all have done P-Coy and the jumps course. ALL of the Para Reg capbadged guys have done a tour with either 2 or 3 Para before they goto SFSG. They can provide cordons and i/d fire etc on a larger scale in support of a SF op, whic 22 perhaps can't spare the manpower for. Think the diversionary attack in Sierra Leone which A Coy, 1 Para did whilst 22 recovered the hostages from 1 R IRISH that were held by the West Side Boys. That's the idea behind SFSG.
The RECRUIT of today may be very different indeed. They have wider options as far as prospective employment is concerned and on the whole a much bette life pre-army.
Thats why the training today is much more about train-in, not select-out. We have to make use of modern techniques and knowledge and minimise the wastage that goes with just thrashing crows until they break - which will happen to anyone if you push them too hard.
However the SOLDIER of today is every bit as physically and mentally robust as his (and now even her) predecessor. Someone recently pointed out that 98% of soldiers in WW2 didn't fire their weapons. Ask any member of 3 PARA about last years deployment to Afghanistan and they will tell you that the CO, the Clerks and even the Chefs managed to get some rounds down. Guys were living in trenches for weeks on end, getting water from wells and being subjected to effective indirect enemy fire. Not unlike life in a WW1 trench.
> (In reply to drunken monkey) I don't doubt these SFSG lads are trained to a high standard
SFSG is simply 1 PARA with some all-arms add ons. They are not semi-SF, just a support element. They will almost all have done P-Coy and the jumps course. ALL of the Para Reg capbadged guys have done a tour with either 2 or 3 Para before they goto SFSG. They can provide cordons and i/d fire etc on a larger scale in support of a SF op, whic 22 perhaps can't spare the manpower for. Think the diversionary attack in Sierra Leone which A Coy, 1 Para did whilst 22 recovered the hostages from 1 R IRISH that were held by the West Side Boys. That's the idea behind SFSG.
> The recruit of today is different, they have been brought up with TVs and computers in their rooms etc: We were outdoor kids and very active. This isn't a criticism, its a sign of the times
The RECRUIT of today may be very different indeed. They have wider options as far as prospective employment is concerned and on the whole a much bette life pre-army.
Thats why the training today is much more about train-in, not select-out. We have to make use of modern techniques and knowledge and minimise the wastage that goes with just thrashing crows until they break - which will happen to anyone if you push them too hard.
However the SOLDIER of today is every bit as physically and mentally robust as his (and now even her) predecessor. Someone recently pointed out that 98% of soldiers in WW2 didn't fire their weapons. Ask any member of 3 PARA about last years deployment to Afghanistan and they will tell you that the CO, the Clerks and even the Chefs managed to get some rounds down. Guys were living in trenches for weeks on end, getting water from wells and being subjected to effective indirect enemy fire. Not unlike life in a WW1 trench.
In reply to Twinkletoes:
No, No Twinkle - I'm talking about the town...not the 'Kiddies Pool'....
> (In reply to bergalia)
> [...]
>
> Aye, thats where we used to do our water descents, and not a ladle or pen in sight
> [...]
>
> Aye, thats where we used to do our water descents, and not a ladle or pen in sight
No, No Twinkle - I'm talking about the town...not the 'Kiddies Pool'....
In reply to bergalia:
Ha, I've always found you ex Navy types very amusing
> (In reply to Twinkletoes)
> [...]
>
>
> No, No Twinkle - I'm talking about the town...not the 'Kiddies Pool'....
> [...]
>
>
> No, No Twinkle - I'm talking about the town...not the 'Kiddies Pool'....
Ha, I've always found you ex Navy types very amusing
In reply to scrubmunched:
Wow, even for UKC there is a alot of shit being chatted on this thread.
Basically you lot need to stop listening to "my mate Gary who was the first in through the window at the Iranian Embassy" and accept that unless you've been in and served with these units you don't know shit...
Wow, even for UKC there is a alot of shit being chatted on this thread.
Basically you lot need to stop listening to "my mate Gary who was the first in through the window at the Iranian Embassy" and accept that unless you've been in and served with these units you don't know shit...
In reply to Lord Flasheart:
I worked hard for my green lid - 6 mile hike, needlework badge and a bit of whittling. I even rose to the rank of Patrol Leader, but I don't like to talk about it.
Anyway, I bought my first rack off a Marine and he said................
I worked hard for my green lid - 6 mile hike, needlework badge and a bit of whittling. I even rose to the rank of Patrol Leader, but I don't like to talk about it.
Anyway, I bought my first rack off a Marine and he said................
In reply to Wibble Wibble:
> (In reply to Lord Flasheart)
>
> I worked hard for my green lid - 6 mile hike, needlework badge and a bit of whittling. I even rose to the rank of Patrol Leader, but I don't like to talk about it.
>
Classic response Wibble. A touch of sanity...Can't stop chuckling....>
> I worked hard for my green lid - 6 mile hike, needlework badge and a bit of whittling. I even rose to the rank of Patrol Leader, but I don't like to talk about it.
>
In reply to Lord Flasheart: These two story tellers are worse than any UKC poster.http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=203522&v=1#2979566
In reply to Lord Flasheart:
Actually, some of the posters HAVE served with these units. I am first to admit that I am not one of those.
Actually, some of the posters HAVE served with these units. I am first to admit that I am not one of those.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...