Commando tank regiment

Discussion in 'The Corps' started by soon_to_be_bootneck, Dec 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The RM has there own infantry-commandos, there own artillery, and there own engineers. Why dont they have a tank regiment? That way they wouldnt have to rely on the army sending them. I think 5 squadrons would do the trick.
     
  2. Thats because they are main role is not on land its just to secure foot holds on beachs etc and they are a infantry role.
     
  3. I think lol
     
  4. They fight anywhere not just on beaches. Tanks would be great for the corps, especially in Afghanistan.
     
  5. That's an whizzo! idea.
    How about their own ships, and some of their own war-planes aswell?
    Stick it on some paper and post to:

    Dez Browne
    i/c Warry Stuff
    London.
     
  6. Tanks don't do Mountains, but if they did, they would probably whoop the Taliban's arse.

    I would say the reason there is no Commando Trained Tank Regiments is basically do you need to have Commando fitness if you are sat (albeit uncomfortably) in a small enclosed space for Hours at a time? On the basis that there is a high loss rate for injuries in commando training would it be worth losing troops for something they do not need?

    Not saying that the Tank Regiments are pointless, far from it, but for what they do, very well, Commando training is not really needed.
     
  7. IIRC theres an armoured recce unit already roled to provide armoured support to royal. Ask Deeps.
     
  8. Many moons ago Lympstone was called ITCRM now called CTCRM. I rest my case!!!
     
  9. The RM used to have it's own armour in WW2, heavy bunker busting mortars mounted etc, the members of these RM units didn't (As far as I'm aware) do the Commando course.
    But it really wouldn't make sense to train someone up to current RM standards and then have to train them for operating tanks.
    Queens Dragoon Guards do it at the mo, I believe.
    Both the Engineers and the Artillery units are British Army units whose members have completed the All Arms Commando Course, at Lympstone.
    NZB

    Edited to add last sentence :thumright:
     
  10. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The Marines are configured in the Light Role, and like the Light Role infantry units do not have organic armour. If there is need for armour then Army units are attached, as they were during Telic. The sheer impracticality of getting organic armour ashore in meaningful numbers is a problem, even though the new LCU is capable of carrying a CR2.
     
  11. This is why I never understood the USMC, they have their own helicopters, assault ships, artillery, tanks, logistics, chefs... What's the point? It's just like another US Army. Don't they already have an army? Marines, imho, should only be kept for amphibious infantry assault & a commando role- i.e. the RM. Claiming to be a marine & then sitting in armour defeats the object, join the cavalry instead.

    I remain &tc,

    ~Vesper
     
  12. Vesper, when you look at the size of the USMC and its role in Expeditionary warfare it doesn't need/want to rely on anyone else...

    The way we do it is ideal, leave the Armour to the Cavalry, but give us back our own Attack helicopters...


    Shaun
     
  13. I know i said what there main role is.
     
  14.  
  15. Like the Russians managed?

    Armour is of limited value against that threat, light role meets the needs for responsiveness and mobility much more.

    It's probably worth drawing out that the Commando role is more than just the training delivered to the individual. The style of operating, and the structure of a commando, is different from army infantry.

    As already highlighted, there are elements of both armoured recce and armour which have worked with commando forces, very successfully, in the recent past, but it's not a core requirement.
     
  16. I don't see why marines should be in helicopters, helicopters fly, ergo that is the airforces role is it not? The same goes for tanks etc, not wanting to rely on any other force is a rather superficial excuse, imho. If it floats it's the navy, if it flies it's the airforce, if it drives it's the army.

    &tc.

    ~Vesper
     
  17. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Yup, well that was the logic that wrecked the Fleet Air Arm in the 1930s, and cut out our AEW with disastrous results ensuing in 1982. However in the present case the idea of 3 Cdo Bde having its own permanent organic tanks conflicts with its mission whereas the Loggies and gunners are needed for that. I sense some argument by analogy here.
     
  18. Absolutely hilarious mate!!! ''Whizzo'' Reminds me of a cnut of a rupert i once had.
     
  19. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    "I don't see why marines should be in helicopters, helicopters fly, ergo that is the airforces role is it not? The same goes for tanks etc, not wanting to rely on any other force is a rather superficial excuse, imho. If it floats it's the navy, if it flies it's the airforce, if it drives it's the army.

    &tc.

    ~Vesper " Quote.

    I take it you have never had to yomp back to base because Crab air didn't fancy flying because there was a cloud in the sky?

    The Navy helicopters picked us up everytime, bless them.
     
  20. Good post, please realise that as soon as I have finished typing I will fall to my knees and pray that you are neither a budgeteer or PJHQ staff officer!!

    IMD

    edited to add:

    WB you beat me to it, I knew I shouldn't have answered the phone!!
     

Share This Page