Rum Ration
the Navy Network

I've taken my eye off the ball recently:

Royal Navy personnel train for Afghanistan

Originally Posted by MoD website 23 Mar 2010

The Royal Navy deploys some 1,000 personnel every year to support UK operations in Afghanistan in a variety of roles. Though many will not leave their bases during a tour, all must be fully prepared for any eventuality. Shell Daruwala reports.

Royal Navy staff serve in Afghanistan across a range of medical, administrative, logistical and tactical roles, both at the main operating bases, such as those at Camp Bastion and Kandahar, and the smaller forward operating bases. The Royal Navy ensures that every naval serviceman or woman preparing to deploy to Afghanistan receives the same rigorous package of individual pre-deployment training (also known as OpTAG) as that undertaken by the Army...

857 Naval Air Squadron Receive Royal Medal Parade

Originally Posted by RN website 30 Ap 2010

77 Royal Navy Sea King crew members from 857 Naval Air Squadron have been presented with their Afghanistan Operational Service Medals by The Prince of Wales.

Naval Officers and Ratings from the Squadron marched from Wellington Barracks past Buckingham Palace and up the Mall to receive the Operational Service Medal at a Royal medal presentation ceremony at Clarence House London. The Squadron was deployed to Afghanistan to conduct Air Operations between October 2009 and March 2010.

The "eye-in-the-sky" capability of the Mark 7 Sea King provides vital information to forces tackling the insurgency in the region and this capability is key to achieving security and stability for those living in the area. Originally designed to identify potential aerial targets and provide early warning to the Fleet at sea, the Searchwater 2000 radar and system operators have proved highly effective at tracking both maritime and land targets over a wide area and in many different environments...

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

Originally Posted by Comm.

In our inter service way of doing things I guess there are a lot of RN unheard of personnel here and there showing the others how it's done!

Don't get too excited fellas - a couple of salient points to bear in mind. Bear in mind that I've served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Only one person seems to be getting excited here but I will certainly bear in mind that you have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My own experience is restricted to Iraq.

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

The much vaunted 50% refers to a specific point in time. The RM and army work on a six-month tour basis when on operations, meaning that the lead fighting Brigade changes every six months. At one point, 3 Commando Brigade was the lead formation and a dispropotionate number of matelots were deployed in supporting roles to temporarily relieve the pressure on army units who had done more than their fair share of time in Afghanistan thanks to the specialist nature of their roles.

No one is disputing the leading roles played by the Army and Royal Marines. What does irk is the general impression that the Army is the ONLY service on the ground (more often than not, Royal Marines are viewed as part of the Army too) and that everything in the air is manned by the RAF. Naval Service personnel constituted 50% of UK forces in Afghanistan during the winter of 2006-7 (link) and over 30 per cent in Helmand during the winter of 2008-9 (link). A thousand RN (not RM) personnel are deployed to Afghanistan each year (link), normally for 6-month tours. When you consider that the Naval Service is by far the smallest numerically, i.e. 27,660 RN + 6,740 RM = 34,400 (RN stats 1 Mar 2010) vs 101,500 Army vs 39,680 RAF (DASA stats 1 Jan 2010) and still has a fleet of ships, submarines and aircraft to operate worldwide, I trust you will agree that it punches well above its weight in both frontline and support roles in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

Furthermore, before you get too excited about the RN on land operations, take a look at the casualty figures, which pretty much tell you all you need to know. 284 British service personnel have died in Afghanistan - 34 Royal Marines, 233 from the army, 17 from the RAF and none from the RN. In Iraq: 8 RN, 11 Royal Marines, 137 Army, 22 RAF and 1 MOD civilian. Figures for those wounded in action are even more skewed towards the RM and army.

That gives you a combined total of 463 for both campaigns, only 8 of whom have been matelots (about 1.75% of the total). All 8 were FAA, 7 of whom died in helicopter crashes at the very start of the Iraq invasion. Only 1 matelot has been killed in action (in Basra in 2005). This is due to the fact that the majority of matelots deployed are in rear-based roles and even then are more limited in what they can do than their army equivalents, who have received much more training in basic land fighting skills and therefore 'go outside the wire' far more often and for a greater variety of reasons.

Again, the only one getting excited here appears to be you. Moreover, I find the comparison of 'butcher's bills' as a measure of military worth somewhat distasteful; not everyone should be judged in terms of cannon-fodder. However, since you raise the subject, remember that the total regular RM strength is only 6,740 vs 101,500 for the Army (DASA statistics). This is a ratio of 1:15 whereas the RM/Army casualty ratio (34 vs 233 according to your figures) is 1:7.

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

The majority of the fighting in Afghanistan goes on out on the ground, around PBs (Patrol Bases) and FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) - places that the vast majority of deployed matelots never see. The senior service deserves credit for our role in Afghanistan but don't imagine that what most of us do is in any way comparable to what the RM and army do out on the ground. The vast majority of stores personnel, medics, engineers etc who are working in 'front-line' positions are from the RM and army; their RN counterparts are overwhelming located in the relative safety of large bases like Kandahar Airport and Camp Bastion. The proportion of bravery awards reflects this fact.

As the age of Naval Brigades is long past, do you seriously expect to see sailors involved in bayonet charges? However, that doesn't mean they don't apply their wide ranging skill sets in vital roles elsewhere. Read back through the thread.

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

Be proud of what the RN is doing out there. But dispense with the arrogance about 'showing others how it's done'. There are 18 year-old army infantrymen who have more combat experience than the entire fleet put together (a few remaining Corporate veterans aside).

Comm's post above, with its accompanying emoticon, can hardly be construed as arrogant. However, some might take a different view about the tenor of your own post, particularly the final paragraph.

I know of at least one matelot serving with 148, who are deployed fairly regularly.

prop_shaft - You are pushing against an open door and I am finding it difficult to understand your argument. No one is suggesting that the non-RM element of the Naval Service has "...carried perhaps a heavier burden than anyone else". They are simply pointing out the public's general lack of awareness of the RN's presence in Afghanistan and the significant contribution it makes to operations, whether fulfilling supporting roles or engaged in frontline action. Granted that RN personnel are not usually employed for their 'field skills' (standfast EOD/IED operators) but they bring a bevy of other specialist expertise to the party as illustrated in the previous posts.

In contrasting the proportion of RN force levels committed to Afghanistan with those of the Army, you fail to acknowledge that the much smaller RN also has around 80 hulls and their supporting infrastructure to man, maintain and operate worldwide while the Army is, in the main, fulfilling its primary role. That said, a fairer comparison would be between the entire Naval Service and the Army when 3 Cdo Bde is deployed.

I have already expressed my views about equating casualties, tragic as they are, with 'military worth'. An experienced naval combat pilot can bring a lot more grief to the enemy than a company of riflemen. Does the fact that he doesn't suffer the same degree of hazard from IEDs make his contribution any less significant? The same applies to those in theatre in less glamorous supporting roles.

Originally Posted by prop_shaft

In addition to usually providing the bulk of troops for Afghanistan, the army also has to maintain around a third of it's troops at a 'ready state' i.e available for very short notice deployment to a new theatre and therefore at a much higher and more restricted training tempo than usual. Given that there are around 50,000 army personnel who are either in Afghanistan, have returned from a tour within the last six months or who will be deploying within the next six months in any one year, the strain on the army is more than it may at first appear. Ditto (to an admittedly lesser extent) for the RAF.

Of course everyone makes a contribution, but there is a massive difference between being at a PB or a FOB (or doing things like logistics convoys) and doing your job inside the relative safety of a large rear base. A few mortars every now and then is in now way comparable to coming under attack on an almost daily basis. I have no problem with us being recongnised for what we do but suggesting that the RN is somehow doing the army (or marines) job for them is ridiculous. To rephrase what I said before, you could get an army storeman doing an SA's job onboard but we all know that there is far more to being a crew member than just doing your trade. The soldier in question would be less effective as his other skills would limit how he could be employed. The same goes for our lads and lasses deployed in ground roles.

Jesus christ. How much of the point of this thread are you ready to miss? No one is saying that the RN are marauding through Sangin brassing up enormous hordes of EF. The thread is simply pointing out the role the RN plays on Herrick, something the RN should be very proud of. If you listen to the media, we aren't even there. (Unless Jack or Jenny wins an MC).

And your argument is flawed. I too have been on Herrick twice and know of a few matelots who have got more rounds down than fellow remfing Army personnel during their tours.

Horses for courses.

I think we must go back to being a secret navy as announcing we do stuff is not allowed

Meanwhile back in the grown up world of justifying the RN to the wider world I think we can agree that we are punching above our weight and our commitment to a predominately Land War is weighing heavily on our manpower as we also have all our other commitments.

When people talk of the Army maintain x amount of troops at certain notice to move it really means been able to go home at night and hug the wife and kids. When the Navy talks about being away it means at sea not hugging the wife and kids.

When explain to Army types what the Navy actually does and how much of our life is away, at sea, they are normally astonished. Even with the old NI plot they didn't spend that much of their careers away from home.

Prop-Shaft - be under no illusion that the RN/RM is in a battle within Whitehall. If you want the Navy to exist in its current form let alone grow and develop for the future we need to fight bloody battles and one way of doing that is explain how much value for money we are. Comparing causality figures to prove how we are not really supporting Ops is dangerous and will make us look foolish. Without key RN personnel much of the effort (away from the public eye) would not be possible. For OPSEC reasons I am not going to detail them here but be under no illusion that we have been lucky not to have Matelot causalities. Our people are on the front line - a Combat Logistics Resupply fights its way to the FOBs and dark blue has a part to play - but (thank God) we are lucky so far.

As MLP has said we have youngsters who have real and scary combat time.