PDA

View Full Version : Para training to be stopped for 4 yrs


Mr C Hinecap
17th Dec 2006, 00:49
Blimey crikey!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SD0KKVM4FOOHRQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/17/nparas17.xml
Are things getting bad? 16 Assault Brigade has less of a ring to it.
"Instead of flying to meetings around the world, senior officers should "encourage staff to consider video conferencing, e-mail or the telephone". WOW - really? Do you think the Taliban would mind a cheeky on-line skirmish or something? Save deploying the troops!
It has gone feckin mad!

Talk Wrench
17th Dec 2006, 01:30
Unfortunately, this is another example of the way HM Forces have been treated by the fiscal policy of the destructive ruling Labour party.


Quote and interpretation taken from 2 pus,

In an effort to stay within budget, he proposes measures including a "moratorium on recruitment" of civilian manpower and that all "existing contracts for agency or casual staff be terminated".

Does this mean that the removal of all the "Agencies" and "Casual" staff will improve frontline services? I think not.

During Labour's crucifying cutbacks in uniformed and professional posts, who do you think took up the Agency and casual staff positions?

Forces personnel simply hung up their boots and took these positions.

Okay, a lot of non ex mil work for the agencies but you can see where I'm going.

Getting shot of Agencies can only be remedied by inreasing the number of people in uniforms.

And we all know that will never happen.

Regards

TW

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
17th Dec 2006, 02:32
Do you think the Taliban would mind a cheeky on-line skirmish or something?On line Doom?



Wait a minute, that's exactly what they had in Star Trek episode 23 (Season 1, Production Number 023, Airdate 23feb1967) A taste of Armageddon. The famous TOS episode :8

SASless
17th Dec 2006, 02:49
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May1999/9905144e.jpg


One half of an Airborne Infantry Battalion...of Three Infantry Battalions in one of three Brigades of one Airborne Division doing a training drop.

Perhaps your Para's could tag along....they would be welcome I am sure!

Perhaps the feckers at the top never heard of the concept of practice makes perfect....and the more you sweat in training...the less you bleed in combat!

tucumseh
17th Dec 2006, 07:47
Perhaps MoD don't envisage having serviceable aircraft to leap out of?

The Helpful Stacker
17th Dec 2006, 07:53
To quote the Telegraph story,

Senior officers were aghast last night at the latest round of cuts. One said: "It is extraordinary that at a time when the Armed Forces are fighting two wars and are stretched to the very limit, defence spending is being pared back in this way."

To be fair, how many of those troops on operations use their parachute ability?

I understand that the 'esprit de corps' of the Parachute Regiment revolves around jumping out of planes for a living but it is very expensive to train and keep people current in this role, which is very under-used. Can the MoD hand on heart say they are providing the very best for 'ordinary' infantry regiments whilst spending a vast amount of money training a different regiment to do something they haven't done on-mass since Suez?

I would rather we in the Armed Forces had more money so that we could afford exuberances such as three battalions of Para-trained infantry plus the many squadrons of personnel from the Corp's also trained but we don't have the luxury of a bottomless budget and with our overseas exploits proving very expensive the realities of providing money for what is actually needed rather than what would be nice to have must be followed. I would prefer that our normal line infantry were better equipped and supported.

Of course there may be an effect on recruitment but the Para's have suffered from quite bad retention/recruitment of late even with parachute training being (reasonably) available so perhaps the problem lies mainly elsewhere.

Impiger
17th Dec 2006, 08:32
First up - Talk Wrench: when 2PUS talks about getting rid of 'agency staff' he isn't talking about defence agencies he's talking about casual labour provided by employment agencies to make up for our undermanning. These bods are v.useful but also v.expensive.

Now the main thread - This is realism guys. We haven't been properly training paras as air delivered light infantry for ages; we've been giving them training jumps so they can wear wings and feel good about themselves. The argument that we need a para capability is tenuous to say the least, but what is very clear is that this is a hugely expensive capability - IIRC it takes 21 C130s (16 in a stream with 5 more making second runs) to deliver the equivalent of a light infantry company which can only sustain itself for 3 days before it has to be relieved or resupplied by those 21 x C130s. I don't think this is remotely cost effective and can understand why it is being put on the shelf for the moment.

I expect even the Paras would prefer more Chinook hours, on time Tristar service and more CAS from Harriers on operations to practising for a company drop that will almost certainly never be needed on operations.

gijoe
17th Dec 2006, 09:05
They most definitely would...

ancientaviator62
17th Dec 2006, 09:05
Once the expertise has gone it will be almost impossible to get it back. Practically, and politically (' well you have managed without it all this time' ). What else will be sacrificed to President Blairs' desire to strut the world stage 'like a colossus'.
In c1400 Christine de Pizan wrote :
'What will the wise Prince do when he must undertake wars and fight battles ? First of all, he will consider how much strength he has or can obtain , how many men are available and how much money. For unless he is well supplied with these basic elements , it is folly to wage war, for they are necessary to have above all else, especially money.'
Oh that WE had such a wise Prince. The British Armed Forces ( the ONE part of the UK that commands world wide respect ) are being destroyed from within.

Jimlad1
17th Dec 2006, 09:08
I got the impression from reading that, that this is the Para's salvo in the current whitehall spending round. We all know the budget is under pressure, and most units are making statements on the impacts of cuts. The paras have almost certainly drawn up their "worst case scenario" option and leaked it to the press, particularly in light of the VC announcement this week. The RN's done the same with the slip escorts to 20 paper and I'm sure the RAF will do something similar (lower standards of hotels to 3*? :E )

BEagle
17th Dec 2006, 09:19
That last post was going quite well - until that stupid crap about hotels.

No, the Army and Navy will kick up a fuss - but the RAF will, as usual, roll over and take it just as long as no-one threatens the single seat cold war fighters.

Can you really imagine the fast jet-centric Airships accepting that updated AT/AAR and RW fleets are of more urgency than more little jets going whoosh at RIAT and Farnborough?

StbdD
17th Dec 2006, 09:21
No worries, send them to Ft Benning to train. They still speak and undertand Airborne.

The Regiment is welcome here.

airborne_artist
17th Dec 2006, 09:36
IIRC it takes 21 C130s (16 in a stream with 5 more making second runs) to deliver the equivalent of a light infantry company which can only sustain itself for 3 days

Did you really mean a company? At 60+ paras in a 130 you are looking at a min of 1200 pax (clearly fewer with light arty etc.). I think you mean a battalion?

SamCaine
17th Dec 2006, 09:53
That last post was going quite well - until that stupid crap about hotels.

Snap. "We got us a live one". :E

haltonapp
17th Dec 2006, 10:59
Will this signal the end of PTS at the famous Oxfordshire airbase? How the RAF has managed, or wanted, to hang on to this role makes no sense.
On a positive note the pubs of Carterton will not have to endure testosterone fuelled paras trying to convince the locals how hard they are.
The downside will be that there will be less SNCO's for orderly dog, and loss of a wingco post for a PEdO!
As the SAS prefer their free fall training to be done by the americans will the Falcons wither on the vine?

Melchett01
17th Dec 2006, 11:05
I'm not normally one to be lost for words, but this government leaves me unspeakably appopleptic with the general disregard shown to the armed forces as a whole.

So Commanders in Afghanistan can have anything they want can they Tony? Would that be anything as long as it isn't more helicopters or an airborne capability??? Because I guarantee you we will be in country longer than the moratorium on Para trg.

And whilst the arguments about how expensive it is and how troops would rather get more CAS, helos etc, there is one flaw in that argument - the money cut sorry saved won't be re-directed to fund extra assets elsewhere! Probably go to fund some new disabled African single-parent lesbian drop in centre in Tower Hamlets.

And as I type, the news is on and Tony is as usual leading from the front with a stirling example of using email and video conferencing by commencing his pre-Christmas middle east jolly. But then again, it always was one rule for senior civil serpents and politicians and another for the rest of us.

Jimlad1
17th Dec 2006, 11:54
"That last post was going quite well - until that stupid crap about hotels."

Sorry Beags, cheap shot but nice to see it got someone reeled in :)

In all seriousness, it will be interesting to see what the RAF begins to leak about threatened cuts. My guess is that there would be limited sympathy for any rumours about losing more Typhoons, and there is no chance of losing any multi engine assets. I wouldnt be surprised to see moves in place to threaten JSF (can't afford it etc) as this then leaves people questioning its role, and losing JSF could also write off the carriers - cue nice resolution of finance black hole.

Widger
17th Dec 2006, 14:43
Whilst I agree with a lot of the argument here, the bottom line is the financial black hole. Not able to reach recruiting targets, getting rid of civilian staff, moratoriums on promotions, PVR on the up. We are witnessing the total meltdown of our Armed Forces. This has been a terrible year and next year is going to be worse. That PVR button is looking attractive!

nigegilb
17th Dec 2006, 15:32
As ever the Chiefs of Staff are out of kilter on this and completely failing to grasp the real problem. For the record, military operational parachuting has taken place in very recent operations and there continues to be a real need for this skill in future operations. To remove the ability of paras to qualify in this discipline will harm recruitment of personnel wishing to become part of the regiment and also part of UK special forces.

Even worse for the wider UK Armed Forces we are witnessing a meltdown in personnel. The PVRs winging their way in at the moment will not bite for another 12 to 18 months. Chiefs of Staff are fooling themselves if they seek to ignore this fact. The Parachute Regiment has just been honoured with awards for incredible gallantry, what on earth do they think this will do to morale? Why risk the hit to retention? Typhoon is a white elephant in all this, by retaining Typhoon one almost gets the impression RAF Chiefs have been bought off. Well Sirs, the unpalatable fact is that for the last 10 years, with the odd exception Ops have been carried out by less fashionable sections of the RAF. Saving Typhoon will not save the RAF, just as acquiring a replacement for Trident will not save the military. Your people are your greatest asset and they are walking away in disgust and who can blame them for the shoddy way they have been treated.

airborne_artist
17th Dec 2006, 16:13
Of course, there's quite a lot of other capabilities we've not used in anger, and so could be mothballed/disposed of:

Nuclear weapons for start - what else?

Impiger
17th Dec 2006, 16:38
Airborne_Artist

The Company strength bit was from what I recall of the Airborne Task Force paper about 3 years ago. It isn't just a question of numbers of men per C130 its the rest of the kit and kaboodle that go with them. The support requirement was quite horrendous and even the Paras weren't that keen on the idea. Heaven only knows what C130 strength would be needed to get a battalion battlegroup dropped into even a benign environment. Any current experts out there like to hazard a figure?

airborne_artist
17th Dec 2006, 16:54
Impiger - I bow etc. - perhaps I'm just used to life as an SF grunt; we left the a/c with what we needed for 5+ days, and then carried it off the DZ on our backs. We didn't have mortars, heavy MG etc. which needed feeding.

MReyn24050
17th Dec 2006, 18:37
Excellent Post. I totally agree absolutely no thought has gone into this decision at all, as you so rightly say "To remove the ability of paras to qualify in this discipline will harm recruitment of personnel wishing to become part of the regiment and also part of UK special forces". . What incentive will there be for a young lad to join the Regiment, complete the "P" Course win the coveted "red beret" but then be unable to win his wings. Just imagine how he would feel belonging to the Parachute Regiment but unqualified to take his place alongside those who have qualified.

SPIT
17th Dec 2006, 18:46
Hi
What I can't get is WHY WOULD ANYONE JUMP OUT OF A PERFECTLY GOOD AEROPLANE ???:confused: :confused:

Grimweasel
17th Dec 2006, 19:05
I for one am a great defender of the PARA capability, as it has kept me in a job for the past 15 years! I can however see both sides of the argument and it looks as if this is the Army's time to bear some cuts etc. The Navy and Army were only too happy to gang up on the RAF and steal the GBAD role from the RAF Regt, the army shoring up the Navy bid for carriers or some other ship. It now looks as if the Army needs to cut back and what better place than a capability seldom used. How far does this go though? Does this include supply drops, as aerial re-supply is being used in two theatres as we speak?

The article does also mention that the last batch of Typhoon may also be under threat, so the next Chief of Service Staffs meeting will be a right old knees up!! Current CAS is transfixed on Typhoon and his ‘Blue-sky thinking’ is often out of kilter with most other serving RAF personnel, bar pilots!

I fail to see why the MoD should bear the costs of international intervention sanctioned by the Foreign Office. If we need to act on behalf of the UK's interests all the time, then why should conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan come out of the Defence Budget??

A paper reported last week that out of the 6 million inhabitants of Scotland (with it's own Parliament etc) some 120,000 were Taxpayer's, the rest all being parasites of the state on benefits etc. Looks like HMG should look at saving money by axing social programs that allow vermin to sponge from the UK Taxpayer instead of cutting VITAL military spending...

Jerry Can
17th Dec 2006, 19:21
SPIT

I wouldn't jump out of a perfectly good aeroplane. But I was always happy to get out of a Herc :)

Speed Twelve
17th Dec 2006, 19:24
Apologies for going off-thread but,

Grimweasel,

Are you saying you read that only 2% of the Scottish population pay tax?

I, err, think not....

Sources please chap?

Two's in
17th Dec 2006, 20:49
'tis but a short leap from Paras being removed from the Para role (and accompanying Jump pay, if real savings are to be realized) and all those senior Desk Johnnies being liberated from the burden of having to spend all that Flying Pay. Retention is no longer an issue, everyone is leaving. Watch this space.

22/7 Master
17th Dec 2006, 21:12
Very strange times we are living in at the moment. No (realistic) foreseeable reduction in commitments and certain sectors of all three services are being bled dry. OK if the rumours are true then increased targetted FRIs are about to appear (SO2 pilots? on PC/FTC) but there is also news on the streets of a manpower reduction in the dark blue. This is touted as a readjustment of the 'teeth to tail' ratio. When I completed staff course 'teeth to tail' was considered a non-starter and a dirty word - last time we did it (1990) left us with a near useless secondary medical service and massive delays in acquisition amongst many other problems.
The numbers I have heard floating around are 10,000 for the dark blue alone, very nearly a third of all uniformed manpower. There will be no redundancies, just a near moratorium in SNCO and Officer promotion until we realise there is no chance of a career and PVR. Thus saving a bundle on redundancy payments.
So will a 60k (post tax FRI payment at pension point compensate for the loss of career prospects and increased time in the front line?
So in essence, thanks for working so hard chaps but if you would be so kind as to bugger off quietly and shut the door on the way out.
Perhaps we could bring in the FAREPAK management team to manage the decline.

fin1012
18th Dec 2006, 08:40
So, if we have to save £1bn, cutting para training is only going to provide a tiny fraction of the amount required - what else (besides most of the RN it seems) is going to go?

serf
18th Dec 2006, 09:36
An AAC Regiment ?

diginagain
18th Dec 2006, 10:00
The RAF Regiment?

Or has that been done already?

TMJ
18th Dec 2006, 10:08
As ever the Chiefs of Staff are out of kilter on this and completely failing to grasp the real problem. For the record, military operational parachuting has taken place in very recent operations

II Sqn RAF Regt into Sierra Leone is the only example that springs to mind. If the Para Regt aren't going to be jumping will there be more ac time for falling rocks or are they going to be hit as well?

Been There...
18th Dec 2006, 10:19
II Sqn RAF Regt into Sierra Leone is the only example that springs to mind.
Nige didn't say Para Reg parachuting, he said operational military parachuting...

Lazer-Hound
18th Dec 2006, 10:22
Hasn't the US Army actually been expanding its para capability? IIRC, as well as the 82nd (now 4 brigades?), there's the 173rd Airborne in Italy (which jumped into northern Iraq in 2003) and another Airborne Bde in Alaska, as well as 3 para-qualified Ranger battallions.

MReyn24050
18th Dec 2006, 10:32
"So, if we have to save £1bn, cutting para training is only going to provide a tiny fraction of the amount required - what else......?"

A start would be to stop the publication all the internal glossy magazines and papers currently in vogue within the MoD, like Focus, DLO News etc. By all means keep people informed of what is happening outside of their area but does it have to be done in such an expensive manner. The November 2006 DLO News (Issue 50) consists of 44 pages printed on high quality paper and and is I believe issued to every member of the DLO as well as being available on the internet. Whilst I see the benefit of keeping people advised of what is happening I am sure it could be done in a far, far cheaper manner than it is currently. I can appreciate commercial organisations such as Rolls Royce publishing such a magazine but not an organisation that relies upon funding from the public purse.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DLO/OurPublications/DLONews/DloNews50November2006

diginagain
18th Dec 2006, 10:40
...particularly since most of them are not really absorbant enough for field use.

TMJ
18th Dec 2006, 10:57
Nige didn't say Para Reg parachuting, he said operational military parachuting...

I know, I was just curious whether there was anything I'd missed...

Razor61
18th Dec 2006, 11:57
Here is what the MoD have to say about said issue:-

Allegations army parachute training is to be cut

Various newspapers report that leaked MOD documents outline that parachute training in the Army is to be halted for four years as part of a £1 billion cost-cutting programme by the MOD. The MOD does not comment on leaked documents. What we can say is that the MOD does not expect to overspend in the current financial year and, as we do not yet have a budget set for the Financial Year 07/08, it is bizarre to claim a predicted overspend. The future Defence budget will be set in the Comprehensive Spending Review next year and we are currently developing plans to ensure that next year's programme is affordable and allocated in line with defence priorities.

nigegilb
18th Dec 2006, 11:59
TMJ, I also said very recent, Sierra Leone was a way back and more a display of power for the locals to get the message we can do it any time we like, support from the UK in a matter of hours. Some stuff is not advertised which really makes me wonder if some Chiefs of Staff have the faintest idea about operational aspects of UK AF that they supposedly head up. Paras and Marines are 2nd tier SF with a direct feed into Hereford and Poole. We will lose our hard earned cutting edge because of people like Des Browne, well meaning but politically allied to Gordon Brown and certain Chiefs of Staff who do not know how to street fight New Labour. I believe it is time for General Dannatt to be heard again or maybe his work is already in process!!??

Roadster280
18th Dec 2006, 12:00
I agree with AA, in as much as certain capabilites have not been used for a while, but should be retained, for one simple reason:

They have proved themselves an effective deterrent. Not using nuclear weapons has been a great success, I think most would agree (though I wavered a little on that one when I actually visited Moscow). The Parachute Regiment acquitted itself well on Op Corporate. No similar incidents since.

If the Army has to take a cut, why not look at the cold war assets, like AS90 tracked artillery? Or 400 MBTs, of which we never deploy more than 100 or so.

IMHO though, the real solution is to increase the funding to the MoD in real terms, in line with the increased commitments placed on the MoD in very real terms. If that costs some reduction in the welfare state, then a) that is the choice of the government in order to finance its worldly ambitions and b) a more appropriate use of taxation; spending the money to defend onesself, not rewarding the idle. I'm not talking about stopping 75 year old Mrs Jones' winter fuel payment, just can the prescription methadone, the aforementioned drop-in centres and such worthless social detritus.

Maybe we could then have some more military training appropriate to force requirements.

PTC REMF
18th Dec 2006, 12:50
[QUOTE=Roadster280;3025644]I The Parachute Regiment acquitted itself well on Op Corporate. No similar incidents since.

The VC and GC awarded last week count for nothing then?

PTC REMF
18th Dec 2006, 12:52
IThe Parachute Regiment acquitted itself well on Op Corporate. No similar incidents since.
.

So, the Victoria Cross and George Cross awarded to the Parachute Regiment last week count for nothing then?

SASless
18th Dec 2006, 13:10
Parachuting is merely a means of getting to work.

The spirit and training required by Para's exceed that of ground borne light infantry. Para's knowingly start their fight by being surrounded by enemy forces and go from there. It takes a "different" breed to do that.

There is more to being a Para than merely jumping from an airplane in the middle of the night.....after all that is the easy part of the job. The hard part starts upon hitting the ground.

What happens to the military when there is no Cadre upon which to build should another war time expansion become necessary?

fin1012
18th Dec 2006, 13:34
Just for once, wouldn't it be nice if rather than the usual deny everything and appear stupid, an MOD spokesman said something along the lines of 'Financially, things are pretty tough and inevitably we are having to consider a number of options that will save money in the short term. Clearly, since we are required to maintain operational output, we are focusing on which support areas could be reduced to provide the appropriate savings. Once we have agreed a balanced programme, it will be announce by Ministers in the appropriate way.'

Using a phrase like 'it is bizarre to claim a predicted overspend' is just nonsensical, given that 2nd PUS has already publicly said the books aren't balancing at the moment.

Archimedes
18th Dec 2006, 16:30
Originally Posted by Roadster280
IThe Parachute Regiment acquitted itself well on Op Corporate. No similar incidents since.
So, the Victoria Cross and George Cross awarded to the Parachute Regiment last week count for nothing then?
I think Roadster meant that there've been no similar instances of the Para chaps being sent to invite unwelcome guests to depart British sovereign territory, thanks to the message sent last time they were required to do this, not that they haven't done anything since. :confused:

Wensleydale
18th Dec 2006, 19:40
The airborne divisions of WWII consisted of 2 brigades of parachute troops and an Air-Landing Brigade delivered by glider. The mass delivery of paratroops was a tricky business. Witness the lack of concentration and high casualties experienced in Op Husky (Sicily). Add to this the scattering of paratroops in Normandy when compared with the Coup de Main of glider troops at Pegasus Bridge. At Arnhem the initial drop was successful, but only because the paratroops were dropped too far from their objectives - the follow-up drops were disasters (even with Flt Lt Lord's VC). There were also big losses in Op Varsity (crossing the Rhine). The only really successful drops were by Glider (discounting Sicily where inexperienced American pilots released early into a headwind and 600 members of the air landing brigade died in the sea, unable to reach land). Add to these examples the huge losses of Fallschirmjager in Crete when compared to the successes of glider-borne troops at Eben-Emael, and the failure of the original SAS missions when they used parachutes. Parachute operations are risky and prone to problems - glider troops were more effective. The Glider Pilot Regt disbanded soon after the war - the reason was that helicopters were found to be even more effective.

So, in my humble opinion (and based upon the US Airborne cavalry in Vietnam), the way ahead for large drops is NOT with the paratrooper, but with light mobile forces ferried by helicopter (and re-supplied from the air). Large numbers of low flying transport aircraft at paradrop height are too vulnerable. We need "Airborne" rather than "Paratrooper", and the helicopter equivalent of the Air Landing Brigade is the best way forward.

Now - where do we get the helicopters from............

I stand by for further discussion.

Compressorstall
18th Dec 2006, 20:47
This is just another erosion of a military capability, although I am sure we are being gloomier than it actually may be. However, this is a valid capability and it is also a capability that attracts the sort of individual who is able to fight with the determination shown day after day in Helmand this Summer. Whilst we quibble about the capability and whether airborne intervention is currently valid, remember that we should prepare for the next war, not the one we are fighting now.

If you are in any doubt about the quality of these individuals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vNHkHFAVc

The Helpful Stacker
18th Dec 2006, 21:46
This is just another erosion of a military capability, although I am sure we are being gloomier than it actually may be. However, this is a valid capability and it is also a capability that attracts the sort of individual who is able to fight with the determination shown day after day in Helmand this Summer. Whilst we quibble about the capability and whether airborne intervention is currently valid, remember that we should prepare for the next war, not the one we are fighting now.
If you are in any doubt about the quality of these individuals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vNHkHFAVc

Although I don't doubt the courage shown by 3 Para in Afghanistan this year and aware that I spent the summer safe at North Hampshire's premier noise producer rather than somewhere dusty are you suggesting that members of 'hat' regiments wouldn't have shown the same courage as the Para's if they had been in the same position?

Being an ex-Black Mafia rifleman I resent the assertion that the means of transport a unit uses to get to the battlefield somehow makes them more courageous. Yes Para's have a certain 'esprit de corps' and aggression bred from their sense of belonging to the airborne brotherhood and anyone who has spent time with Para's will no doubt tell of their fanaticism for being what they are but in my ever-so-humble opinion courage is in the person, not the training.

MReyn24050
18th Dec 2006, 22:55
Yes Para's have a certain 'esprit de corps' and aggression bred from their sense of belonging to the airborne brotherhood and anyone who has spent time with Para's will no doubt tell of their fanaticism for being what they are but in my ever-so-humble opinion courage is in the person, not the training.

So The Helpful Stacker what are you suggesting that the Parachute Regiment should be disbanded and the present members be transferred to other infantry regiments? If so, then you know s** all about what makes the the British Army so special. Nobody is suggesting that the other Regiments are not just as brave and proud of their heritage and traditions but when you have something special lets keep it.

Archimedes
18th Dec 2006, 23:18
I think that he's reacting to a perceived inferrence that the Parachute Regiment has a monopoly on courage and determination from Compressorstall's ...it is also a capability that attracts the sort of individual who is able to fight with the determination shown day after day in Helmand this Summer... although I must say that didn't infer that from the post.

The press, on the other hand, do get terribly excited about the Paras, and can convey exactly the sentiment to which THS was responding. I found myself fielding a question of a similar nature a while ago from some 'enthusiast' at a seminar, with the questioner suggesting that the Parachute Regiment had far, far superior reserves of courage over the [quote] 'humble cannon fodder of the line infantry' [unquote].

As it was just after the March 05 Operational Honours and Awards had been announced, I suggested that unless the PWRR had become part of the Parachute Regiment, its recent acquisition of 1 x VC, 2 x DSO, 2 x CGC, 7 x MC & 15 x MiD perhaps demonstrated that his perception was incorrect...

The Helpful Stacker
18th Dec 2006, 23:29
So The Helpful Stacker what are you suggesting that the Parachute Regiment should be disbanded and the present members be transferred to other infantry regiments?

Re-reading my post I can't spot anything that suggests that at all, but please point it out if you can. I was responding to this,

However, this is a valid capability and it is also a capability that attracts the sort of individual who is able to fight with the determination shown day after day in Helmand this Summer.

To me that seems to say that 'hat' regiments don't attract determinined personnel or at least fewer than the Parachute Regiment. I was mearly suggesting it is the person not the system that makes courageous, determined people.

MReyn24050
19th Dec 2006, 08:58
My apologies for misunderstanding you, please put it down to emotions and disgust at the way this government is treating the Armed Forces.
I do take your point. My feelings are, having built units which have that esprit de corps and elan to remove the main factor that helped make the unit what it is, just doesnt bare thinking about.

GPMG
19th Dec 2006, 09:18
To me that seems to say that 'hat' regiments don't attract determinined personnel or at least fewer than the Parachute Regiment. I was mearly suggesting it is the person not the system that makes courageous, determined people.


I would say that standard army regiments attract a higher proprotion of standard people. It takes a certain amount of guts and determination just to walk into the recruiting office and say "I want to be a Para or I want to be a Marine" and it just gets a hell of a lot harder from there, from running every night to get fit to getting off the train at Lympstone to signing the papers and then going on to complete all of the training. It takes a huge amount of grit and determination and intelligence to pass out. There is a huge failure rate and many don't achieve their dreams.

It is a mixture of personality and system that makes a maroon or green beret. A few years ago the MOD stopped the Paras from proudly wearing Pegasus on their arms. That was a huge blow for them, a real kick in the teeth, it would have been like us having to give up the commando dagger as a symbol.
And now they are going to have baby Paras running around without wings? Can you imagine what it will be like for these guys to join a unit and to be seen as a "Plastic Para"? The amount of ribbing these young lads will get amongst a testosterone heavy atmosphere?

Traditions, battle honours, extreme training and esprit de corps make an elite fighting force, do not mess with something that works, and the Para's work bloody well.

GeeRam
19th Dec 2006, 10:33
The airborne divisions of WWII consisted of 2 brigades of parachute troops and an Air-Landing Brigade delivered by glider. The mass delivery of paratroops was a tricky business.

So was going in by Glider. ;) Most of the 1st AB veterans that I’ve met that were jump qualified said they were lucky to have got jump training, as it was far safer than an insertion in one of those wooden coffins with wings…..
And on the subject of fighting spirit/esprit de corps etc., the Air-Landing troops were no less brave or committed than their Parachute Regt. colleagues at Arnhem, 2 of the 4 ground won Arnhem VC’s were awarded to members of the South Staff’s, and Airborne was Airborne.

At Arnhem the initial drop was successful, but only because the paratroops were dropped too far from their objectives - the follow-up drops were disasters (even with Flt Lt Lord's VC).

To be pendantic Lord was flying a supply drop rather than a later troop drop.

Parachute operations are risky and prone to problems - glider troops were more effective.


Mostly in those scenario’s mentioned because the Glider’s by nature had a virtually silent approach and there wasn’t the scattering of troops situation as with a para insertion, provided of course the Glider landed OK, and you didn't loose all of them in one go:= .
It was a good way to get a small concentration of troops in the same place with the element of surprise, such as at Pegasus Bridge, Eben-Emael and the audacious Otto Skorzeny/Count Otto Von Berlepsch led capture of Mussolini at Gran Sasso.

The Glider Pilot Regt disbanded soon after the war - the reason was that helicopters were found to be even more effective.

Unless the noise helo's make is going to compromise the element of surprise as in above.


So, in my humble opinion (and based upon the US Airborne cavalry in Vietnam), the way ahead for large drops is NOT with the paratrooper, but with light mobile forces ferried by helicopter (and re-supplied from the air). Large numbers of low flying transport aircraft at paradrop height are too vulnerable. We need "Airborne" rather than "Paratrooper", and the helicopter equivalent of the Air Landing Brigade is the best way forward.

Now - where do we get the helicopters from............

Err…..don’t you mean lets build some more gliders?
If only we had something to tow them with of course…..:ugh:

herkman
19th Dec 2006, 23:15
On a lighter note, having as a Loadie, qualified many a first jump troop out of a C130, using my right boot.

But the training I suspect is never totally forgotten.

Recently was in hospital, and shared a room with a WW2 para, great guy, but at 84 years had broken his hip. The medics wanted him to stand up and walk with with the aid of a frame, but he just lacked the confidence to stand up.

Watching the antics of three staff, to who getting no where, I went over and said "you want him to stand". I can get him to stand for you, the reply was other patients cannot assist.

The non sense went on, no result, I went over again. "I did not explain myself fully, I will only talk to him, I will not touch him". By this time the director of nursing was involved, and I heard her say, "This I have got to see".

I walk over again, "You two one on either side, but you are only there to catch him if he looses balance".

I stand in front of him and say "Digger can you hear me" yes was the reply.

In my best NCO voice I say "Stand up, followed by hook up". With that he slowly stood up straight, and the r/h arm came up to hook to the static line.

Answer from the director of nursing was "well I'll be buggered". How did you know she said that he would do it. Well said I he may not remember what he did last week, but my experience is that take a veteran back to his early years, and it is all so very real.

Patients notes read like an army instruction.

Get attention, make sure he can hear you.

When you want him to stand say

"Stand up, followed by hook up"

Worked every time, when I went home, he sat there with tears streaming down his face and said. "If you have not been there, then how can you understand".

I have a lot of time for the para's, the training we have all recieved will never be forgotten completely.

Regards

Col

Roadster280
20th Dec 2006, 12:41
Archimedes - Thank you. Exactly what I meant.

PTC REMF - No offence intended to the efforts of the last 24 years, nor the recipients of gallantry awards. I was simply pointing out the successful deterrent nature of the sovereignty protection operation 24 years ago.

Herkman - Bravo.

time expired
2nd Jan 2007, 14:46
SPIT
90% of aircraft accidents happen on takeoff or landing so jumping out
of the damb thing decreases your risk by 50%
AIRBORNE