New 4th Manoeuvre Unit announced

I

In_my_day

Guest
Wessex_Man said:
I would add that whilst it is not the fault of the individual soldier that he has been employed on PD; there is obviously a systemic failure in the trg system that allows a unit's OC to degrade to such an extent that it is incapable of its primary function.

IMD

Couldn't agree more! Indeed this is the most common criticism of the Guards voiced in the Army. That stated, you do, I take it, concede that 1 SG did actually, despite all shortcomings etc, fight and win a hard battle on Tumbledown?! Or, is there now on Planet RM systematic denial of any reality that does not concur with the view that "Royal" is the be all and end all of all things military?[/quote]
No I do agree with this but had they come from PD? I do not deny the capabilities of the various Inf regts, I do have a realistic view of them though. As I have stated elsewhere, whilst some or even many may be capable of what the Bde does it is a simple statement of fact that bar 16 AA no other formation or individual unit has anywhere near the Op experience of the RM.

IMD
 

safewalrus

War Hero
Far beit for me to mention it but there appears to be certain items missing from the account of 1SG in the malvenas/falklands escapade which are probably not good to mention - I refer to reports of certain radio signals to strengthen resolve, and then there was the gentleman who went 'walkabout'..... now what was his regiment? I know it was probably all heresay of course, but..................
 

Wessex_Man

Midshipman
safewalrus said:
Far beit for me to mention it but there appears to be certain items missing from the account of 1SG in the malvenas/falklands escapade which are probably not good to mention - I refer to reports of certain radio signals to strengthen resolve, and then there was the gentleman who went 'walkabout'..... now what was his regiment? I know it was probably all heresay of course, but..................

In fact, it was 2SG in the Falklands - my mistake; careless of me; apologies etc, and have corrected my error in an earlier post.

No denial that I'm aware of - one soldier went "walkabout" - fact. Some people find themselves at war, and just can't take it, simple as...! Not the first time this, or similar, has happened, and one thing's for certain - it will not be the last, either.

For obvious reasons, combat motivation, morale etc have been subjects of considerable interest to armed forces, historians, military psychologists et al, and there's been a lot of research into what makes soldiers fight/ stick it in war etc (see, for example, J Baynes, "Morale", 1967; E Dinter, "Hero or Coward", 1982; A Du Picq, "Battle Studies", 1921; J Keegan, "The Face of Battle", 1976; SLA Marshall, "Men Against Fire", 1947; H McManners (ex 3 Cdo Bde/ 148 Bty, as I'm sure you know!), "The Scars of War", 1993; Lord Moran, "The Anatomy of Courage", 1945). What all of this concludes, above all, is that no matter how well trained, outwardly motivated in peacetime, some people will not be able to function in a war environment, and - the blindingly obvious "unsuitable cases" aside - it is very hard, in fact virtually impossible, to tell who they are until the horrible reality kicks off. You know perfectly well that there were some marines & paras who didn't function too well "down South" either. I'm not making any judgements here - it's a reality of war.

"Slam" Marshall's study revealed that in any firefight at least half the troops involved never actually fired their weapons. Even allowing for the fact that his study was conducted with non regulars (war service only; largely conscripts), the conclusions (despite some of the methodology being a bit dodgy) were so alarming to the "powers that be" that there was a fundamental review of how soldiers are trained to cope with the "shock of contact". That said, no-one would claim that modern training methods are 100% effective, even with all volunteer/ professionals. Of course, it is true - without doubt - that highly motivated, thoroughly trained units such as RM Commandos, Para Reg etc are much less likely to experience such difficulties, but it is foolish in the extreme to imagine that they're all immune to such problems: despite the brainwashing, they are only human, after all.

Elmar Dinter's study demonstrates pretty convincingly the truth of the old adage that the line between "hero" & "coward" is a fine one. Depending on general circumstances, & complex interplays of psychological factors - individual & group - there is compelling evidence to suggest that soldiers who fail to perform on a given occasion are often quite capable of behaving in an exemplary manner, heroically even, on another. Sometimes everything turns on the tiniest of seemingly insignificant factors.

In short, your unseemly crowing & crass generalisation means jack...

Ref "radio signals to strengthen resolve" - well, yes, I imagine that such might sometimes be necessary, especially in a poorly prepared unit in battle for the first time! Are not "motivational imperatives" the stock in trade of all military leaders? If you're telling us that you've never had the experience of a bit of "inertia" when troops come under fire, I can only conclude that one of the following must apply:
1. You're lucky,
or,
2. You're deluded.

Wessex_Man.
 
wessex man, your argument comes across very well, you are obviously a very articulate and well read bloke. The simple fact is the Guards where shite, I had the displeasure of taking over from them in South Armagh in 88. as I walked into the Naafi in Bessbrook Mill there was a patrol of Scots Guards sending a sitrep whilst dinking a cup of coffee! We then had a very hard 6 weeks re dominating the ground that these fcukers should of dominated, there was alot of fresh IED's in our area because of the lack of basic soldiering skills shown by the gaurds. I still cannot fathom why the Guards went down south, the RGJ was in line to be deployed but the powers that be sent the Guards instead, I'm sure the booties and Para's who where already down there would of appriciated a Regt like the RGJ more than the guards. I make no apologie, of what I've seen of the Guards they are fcuking shite soldiers, I do not say this out of arrogance, but out of experiance.
 

Bergen

ADC
Wessex_Man said:
safewalrus said:
Far beit for me to mention it but there appears to be certain items missing from the account of 1SG in the malvenas/falklands escapade which are probably not good to mention - I refer to reports of certain radio signals to strengthen resolve, and then there was the gentleman who went 'walkabout'..... now what was his regiment? I know it was probably all heresay of course, but..................

In fact, it was 2SG in the Falklands - my mistake; careless of me; apologies etc, and have corrected my error in an earlier post.

No denial that I'm aware of - one soldier went "walkabout" - fact. Some people find themselves at war, and just can't take it, simple as...! Not the first time this, or similar, has happened, and one thing's for certain - it will not be the last, either.

For obvious reasons, combat motivation, morale etc have been subjects of considerable interest to armed forces, historians, military psychologists et al, and there's been a lot of research into what makes soldiers fight/ stick it in war etc (see, for example, J Baynes, "Morale", 1967; E Dinter, "Hero or Coward", 1982; A Du Picq, "Battle Studies", 1921; J Keegan, "The Face of Battle", 1976; SLA Marshall, "Men Against Fire", 1947; H McManners (ex 3 Cdo Bde/ 148 Bty, as I'm sure you know!), "The Scars of War", 1993; Lord Moran, "The Anatomy of Courage", 1945). What all of this concludes, above all, is that no matter how well trained, outwardly motivated in peacetime, some people will not be able to function in a war environment, and - the blindingly obvious "unsuitable cases" aside - it is very hard, in fact virtually impossible, to tell who they are until the horrible reality kicks off. You know perfectly well that there were some marines & paras who didn't function too well "down South" either. I'm not making any judgements here - it's a reality of war.

"Slam" Marshall's study revealed that in any firefight at least half the troops involved never actually fired their weapons. Even allowing for the fact that his study was conducted with non regulars (war service only; largely conscripts), the conclusions (despite some of the methodology being a bit dodgy) were so alarming to the "powers that be" that there was a fundamental review of how soldiers are trained to cope with the "shock of contact". That said, no-one would claim that modern training methods are 100% effective, even with all volunteer/ professionals. Of course, it is true - without doubt - that highly motivated, thoroughly trained units such as RM Commandos, Para Reg etc are much less likely to experience such difficulties, but it is foolish in the extreme to imagine that they're all immune to such problems: despite the brainwashing, they are only human, after all.

Elmar Dinter's study demonstrates pretty convincingly the truth of the old adage that the line between "hero" & "coward" is a fine one. Depending on general circumstances, & complex interplays of psychological factors - individual & group - there is compelling evidence to suggest that soldiers who fail to perform on a given occasion are often quite capable of behaving in an exemplary manner, heroically even, on another. Sometimes everything turns on the tiniest of seemingly insignificant factors.

In short, your unseemly crowing & crass generalisation means jack...

Ref "radio signals to strengthen resolve" - well, yes, I imagine that such might sometimes be necessary, especially in a poorly prepared unit in battle for the first time! Are not "motivational imperatives" the stock in trade of all military leaders? If you're telling us that you've never had the experience of a bit of "inertia" when troops come under fire, I can only conclude that one of the following must apply:
1. You're lucky,
or,
2. You're deluded.

Wessex_Man.

You are very successfully clouding the issue here. There is a world of difference between the reaction of individuals in combat situations, especially under sustained fire and the endemic failure of entire battalion sized units [or in the case of the Falkland Islands an entire army brigade].

There has been little argument from any RM on this site that individual army soldiers can be motivated and professional. It is the larger army infantry units that are, and will remain suspect.

There is another infrequent poster on this site; 'Hoot'. He was my sniper partner for several years and between us we did 16 tours of NI. In the process we were frequently entirely detached from RM on soft shoe shuffles and detachment to various 'entities'. Over the course of years we worked with just about every Perce Unit known to man, sometimes in RM rig, sometimes in civvies and sometimes dressed as percies. Some units were a pleasure to work with and ultra professional. Felix and various Int. units spring to mind immediately. Some were just nuts and did everything right and were a great help...17th/21st Lancers were typical of this breed. Various REME LAD's couldn't have been more helpful and professional when we needed them. We also worked with other units that were understandably dire. We had been warned about them and tried to help and understand their predicament. It is no joke to be an RA, BAOR based missile regiment detached to infantry duties in NI. They struggled and were a soft target for the bad boys.

Where we had a real problem was with army infantry units. I never worked with a unit that wasn't shite. The amazing thing was that some sections within these battalions were as good as anything we had worked with in any RM Commando. Switched-on sergeants and corporals who really knew their trade. Soldiers who patrolled well and did things right; and yet the units themselves were fragmented and full of dross. It's an eye opener to lie in a covert OP for days and watch an area being patrolled by different sub-sections of the same battalion. It's a phenomenon that to this day I don't understand but the bottom line is that if any Perce considers a line infantry battalion to be even close to a RM Commando Unit in terms of basic soldiering skills, cohesion, morale and esprit de corps then they are away with the faeries.


RM
 

Wessex_Man

Midshipman
Bergen,

Your comments are well made, and I wouldn't dispute their essential truth.

Hardly surprising that Infantry units contain troops of variable quality/ aptitude: recruiting baseline is not quite the same as RM; quite a few are not that bright; motivation will be variable (including officers!), and there has always been a problem of producing sufficient "warm bodies" from the training "pipeline" - inevitably a fair few get processed through who, in the ideal world, would not be sent to battalions. For example, in the late 1980s the infantry training depot for the Queens Div had real problems retaining even 50% of recruits for the basic phase of training, and I'm damned sure that the situation is little better today! Bottom line is, in a larger organisation like the Army, you can't be too choosy, and you have to work with what you've got! It's a common complaint in most Infantry units that "too many tossers are getting through the training system".

I have no argument with the view that RM Commandos are in a different league from the typical "line" Infantry unit - self evidently true. However, as you acknowledge, there are plenty of soldiers who know their business and do it well. It's notable that you single out REME, Int Corps and other elements for praise: by and large such groups attract a different calibre of recruit than the "poor bloody infantry" who always have to contend with a significant "muppet factor".

My only "issue" is with those arrogant RMs who subscribe to the view that all "Pongoes" are useless, can never compete with RM, and should never be allowed to sully the glorious Corps with their presence. I have no doubt that the Rifles (with 5 battalions) will be able to produce 5-600 soldiers capable of passing AACC and integrating effectively into 3 Cdo Bde. Then, no doubt, we'll be back to the old WW2 complaint about commandos leaching away all the best troops - grrr!

Best wishes,

Wessex_Man.
 

Bergen

ADC
Wessex_Man said:
Bergen,

Your comments are well made, and I wouldn't dispute their essential truth.

Hardly surprising that Infantry units contain troops of variable quality/ aptitude: recruiting baseline is not quite the same as RM; quite a few are not that bright; motivation will be variable (including officers!), and there has always been a problem of producing sufficient "warm bodies" from the training "pipeline" - inevitably a fair few get processed through who, in the ideal world, would not be sent to battalions. For example, in the late 1980s the infantry training depot for the Queens Div had real problems retaining even 50% of recruits for the basic phase of training, and I'm damned sure that the situation is little better today! Bottom line is, in a larger organisation like the Army, you can't be too choosy, and you have to work with what you've got! It's a common complaint in most Infantry units that "too many tossers are getting through the training system".

I have no argument with the view that RM Commandos are in a different league from the typical "line" Infantry unit - self evidently true. However, as you acknowledge, there are plenty of soldiers who know their business and do it well. It's notable that you single out REME, Int Corps and other elements for praise: by and large such groups attract a different calibre of recruit than the "poor bloody infantry" who always have to contend with a significant "muppet factor".

My only "issue" is with those arrogant RMs who subscribe to the view that all "Pongoes" are useless, can never compete with RM, and should never be allowed to sully the glorious Corps with their presence. I have no doubt that the Rifles (with 5 battalions) will be able to produce 5-600 soldiers capable of passing AACC and integrating effectively into 3 Cdo Bde. Then, no doubt, we'll be back to the old WW2 complaint about commandos leaching away all the best troops - grrr!

Best wishes,

Wessex_Man.

I was only ever a dumb Booty but I always played the game by Big Boy's Rules. One day if you ever get to pour enough rum down Hoot's throat he may tell you about being first on scene at the massacre of the Army NCO's who were honey-trapped out of Lisburn. I might tell you about an OP that PIRA vittled-up with an M-60 and killed young Infantrymen who had no business being there. These are the things that shape our perceptions.

We never speak badly of our dead and if The Rifles can do the business and play the game by the same Big Boy's Rules then welcome.

RM
 
What a load of bollocks. The pongos wont have to do the AACC because it is not compulsory, so a few fit sprogs will have a crack and that will be it. The army have neen gagging to get blokes on our shipping since the birth of the corps and now its come to this. A lack of morale fibre up top is the cancer in the corps, ******* political correctness load of bollocks making those pigs up top all yes men to the mad ideas club, Argghhhh!
Breathe in Breathe out.
Once we get the ******* onboard we wont get them off. **** it let them have the shipping they stink anyway, full of fat matlows and blobby jennies. The corps would have been better off with the ghurkas at least they cook a nice curry and look quite cute in the shower in their nicks cleaning the large kukris!
 

Jimmy_Green

War Hero
higthepig said:
Oh dear, not another Walt?

Seems like it higgy.

I also usually wait until a newbie has settled in before I make any judgement about what they are like, but this guy seems to be a proper twat. I've got a lot of time for Royal and the RMs I've met so far are nothing like him. Maybe I've been lucky by meeting the good ones or it might just be that he's a one of a kind tosser.

Maybe, just maybe he'll think about what he's writing and start to post well thought out, constructive comments, but I don't really believe he will.
 

andym

War Hero
Mad_Mental_Bootneck said:
What a load of bollocks. The pongos wont have to do the AACC because it is not compulsory, so a few fit sprogs will have a crack and that will be it. The army have neen gagging to get blokes on our shipping since the birth of the corps and now its come to this. A lack of morale fibre up top is the cancer in the corps, ******* political correctness load of bollocks making those pigs up top all yes men to the mad ideas club, Argghhhh!
Breathe in Breathe out.
Once we get the ******* onboard we wont get them off. **** it let them have the shipping they stink anyway, full of fat matlows and blobby jennies. The corps would have been better off with the ghurkas at least they cook a nice curry and look quite cute in the shower in their nicks cleaning the large kukris!

Youve been reading too many Commando comics!I suggest you try the Beano for a change and **** OFF"!
 
Youve been reading too many Commando comics!I suggest you try the Beano for a change and **** OFF"![/quote]

Why dont you **** off you useless ******* matlow twat with knobs on, i can say what i want on here free speech and all that if you dont like it **** off on to utube you prick.
 
Top