Commando tank regiment

#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.
 

Winsk

Lantern Swinger
#5
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
They fight anywhere not just on beaches. Tanks would be great for the corps, especially in Afghanistan.
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.
 
#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:
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
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.
 

Vesper

Lantern Swinger
#11
Winsk said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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.
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
 

timex

Lantern Swinger
#12
Vesper said:
Winsk said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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.
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
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
 
#14
Vesper said:
Winsk said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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.
It would just be like haveing a other army because it would have everything the army has got just the army has no ships.
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
 
#15
Potential_Officer said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
They fight anywhere not just on beaches. Tanks would be great for the corps, especially in Afghanistan.
Tanks don't do Mountains, but if they did, they would probably whoop the Taliban's arse.
Like the Russians managed?

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

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?
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.
 

Vesper

Lantern Swinger
#16
timex said:
Vesper said:
Winsk said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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.
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
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
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
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#17
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
Winsk said:
soon_to_be_bootneck said:
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.
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.
Absolutely hilarious mate!!! ''Whizzo'' Reminds me of a cnut of a rupert i once had.
 

wet_blobby

War Hero
Moderator
#19
"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.
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#20
Vesper said:
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
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!!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
DozyBint Current Affairs 0
I The Corps 0
andym The Corps 11

Similar threads