HMS Monmouth homecoming

tommo

War Hero
silverfox said:
Bawsack said:
Funny thing is a 32 year old Nuclear submarine did near as damn it the same running, leaving in January 07 and getting back late October, I dont remember the press coverage for that.

better sack the PRO then...

Makes a change they made it past GIB lol The Sub that came on NTG 2k didn't make it past GIB not alone go around the world and sent the deployment alongside lol

BTW I'm mearly gesting before anyone gets the hump
 

danny

War Hero
flymo said:
clanky said:
Bawsack said:
Funny thing is a 32 year old Nuclear submarine did near as damn it the same running, leaving in January 07 and getting back late October, I dont remember the press coverage for that.

Don't worry, we can all look forward to doing more 9 monthers in the future.

A shipmate of mine who is still in mentioned that JRs get flown home\replaced half way through deployments. So would that make it 4.5 month deployments instead?

Yeah if top mast worked thats what would happen. top mast dosent work. When sutherland went downt the gulf for 10 months. A lot of people did the full 10 months.
 
danny said:
Yeah if top mast worked thats what would happen. top mast dosent work. When sutherland went downt the gulf for 10 months. A lot of people did the full 10 months.

And?
You say that like its a BAD thing!
9 month deployments used to be the norm. Its only because of the pampered generation that deployments have had to be cut. Otherwise the rate of PVR would be immense.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Lamri said:
danny said:
Yeah if top mast worked thats what would happen. top mast dosent work. When sutherland went downt the gulf for 10 months. A lot of people did the full 10 months.

And?
You say that like its a BAD thing!
9 month deployments used to be the norm. Its only because of the pampered generation that deployments have had to be cut. Otherwise the rate of PVR would be immense.

So wrong. Most Ship's Companies have no problem with deploying for this long, but because the sea/shore ratio is different to how you remember it, personnel often go for much longer without having taken any leave or time ashore to complete courses (unlike the old days when people could go from JS to LH on the same ship just by completing a Task Book, nowadays professional courses have to be taken ashore to qualify people for the next higer rate).
Therefore harmony time ashore now includes time on qualification course (rather than 'Buffer's Party in HMS Nelson' et al), so a rating could effectively have a 5-6 year draft on the same ship with no chance to 'harmonise' ashore other than on a long and intensive course - that is the more likely cause of personnel submitting their notice, rather than time on deployment.
 

21_Man

War Hero
Bawsack said:
Funny thing is a 32 year old Nuclear submarine did near as damn it the same running, leaving in January 07 and getting back late October, I dont remember the press coverage for that.



Silent Service? :thumright:
 

danny

War Hero
Lamri said:
danny said:
Yeah if top mast worked thats what would happen. top mast dosent work. When sutherland went downt the gulf for 10 months. A lot of people did the full 10 months.

And?
You say that like its a BAD thing!
9 month deployments used to be the norm. Its only because of the pampered generation that deployments have had to be cut. Otherwise the rate of PVR would be immense.

Yeah i want to go on a 9 month trip up the NAG in defence watches for probably 7 months of those 9.
The navy isnt what it used to be. And the good perks have all but gone.
All this pampered generation gets is shit.
Not like the hard done to oldies. Must have been hard getting to do all those things things we all joined for. But very rarely get to do these days. Like getting to actually see the world. Getting a nice shore draft out in hong kong or gib. Or some other nice sunny place. Now if you want a shore draft somewhere warm, you have to expect sand and IEDs.
Yeah i deffinatly dont envy the oldies they had it so hard.
If we had the chance of half the perks you used to get i would gladly go on a 9 month tour. But to just stay on the same ship for 6 years bouncing between here and the NAG no thanks i would rather have a life at home.
 
Perks?

I was talking about 7-8-9 month deployments with three days A MONTH alongside in some shithole West African stenchpit.

Perks?

Where?

This is what we did. We didn't expect perks like you lot do. Internet? Taken for granted. Phone calls home when you feel like it? Taken for granted. Emails? Taken for granted.

When I ran aground, I was GRATEFUL to be able to send a VERY SHORT telegram home telling my mum and dad that I was alive!
 

danny

War Hero
Lamri said:
Perks?

I was talking about 7-8-9 month deployments with three days A MONTH alongside in some shithole West African stenchpit.

Perks?

Where?

This is what we did. We didn't expect perks like you lot do. Internet? Taken for granted. Phone calls home when you feel like it? Taken for granted. Emails? Taken for granted.

When I ran aground, I was GRATEFUL to be able to send a VERY SHORT telegram home telling my mum and dad that I was alive!

Yeah an im sure the crew of the Victory would call sending telegrams perks. Emails are part of life. The ship has the technology to allow it why not use it. Or should we just live in the dark ages for the sake of it?
And beleve it or not emails are not always available to ships company for use. Comunication blackouts are reguarly imposed by command if nessicery for operational security.
 
danny said:
Yeah an im sure the crew of the Victory would call sending telegrams perks. Emails are part of life. The ship has the technology to allow it why not use it. Or should we just live in the dark ages for the sake of it?
And beleve it or not emails are not always available to ships company for use. Comunication blackouts are reguarly imposed by command if nessicery for operational security.

Yeah cheers for that, I'm still in you know :roll:
 

New Posts

Top