AAC - Today's Telegraph
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAC - Today's Telegraph
AAC / 16 Air Assault got a bit of a kicking in today's Torygraph, any thoughts?
For some reason 'told you so' and 'cutting off nose to spite face' seem to be phrases springing to mind in at the mo!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html
For some reason 'told you so' and 'cutting off nose to spite face' seem to be phrases springing to mind in at the mo!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html
Well, I'd hardly call the Telegraph the font of all knowledge when it comes to military analysis.
The same could be said of the Typhoon and the attempts to make it a multi-role platform. I think everyone knows that it ain't what you got, but how you use it that's important, and once that is figured out Apache will prove its worth.
My opinion is that using Apache as part of the all-arms battle is the way forward, just like any other new equipment . Attempting to wield it as a force in its own right, as was once attempted with the tank, will lead to problems as the US has found out.
So. Is the problem the kit or the operator? A bad workman will always blame his tools, and the only thing under consideration is the American tactics, not how the Brits will use it.
The Telegraph should stick to what its good at: printing pictures of Liz Hurley and a first-rate Court and Social.
And Crabs should stick to what they're good at -
...none of which springs to mind right now.
The same could be said of the Typhoon and the attempts to make it a multi-role platform. I think everyone knows that it ain't what you got, but how you use it that's important, and once that is figured out Apache will prove its worth.
My opinion is that using Apache as part of the all-arms battle is the way forward, just like any other new equipment . Attempting to wield it as a force in its own right, as was once attempted with the tank, will lead to problems as the US has found out.
So. Is the problem the kit or the operator? A bad workman will always blame his tools, and the only thing under consideration is the American tactics, not how the Brits will use it.
The Telegraph should stick to what its good at: printing pictures of Liz Hurley and a first-rate Court and Social.
And Crabs should stick to what they're good at -
...none of which springs to mind right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Robin,
That's a bit rich coming from the AAC. For me the oil painting in the mess at RAF Aldergrove sums you lot up. For the uninitiated, the painting depicts a number of battered and smashed AAC gliders in a field in the 40's, the small plaque below proudly states:
"Above all, soldiers first."
Enough said.........
That's a bit rich coming from the AAC. For me the oil painting in the mess at RAF Aldergrove sums you lot up. For the uninitiated, the painting depicts a number of battered and smashed AAC gliders in a field in the 40's, the small plaque below proudly states:
"Above all, soldiers first."
Enough said.........
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to get back to the thread................
Surely the golf bag approach is the one to adopt! Aside from the Marines issue having Apache in 16 AABde was/is a good idea as long as it has Aviation in mind. The Bde has been tied up in operations with its infantry Battalions and therefore unable to progress with AH stuff that is ‘beyond the immediate horizon’.
Apache is a fantastic tool and can do an awful lot more than has been done by Aviation in the past although it does have its limitations. It is not invulnerable and has situations where it may not be a good idea to employ it as has every other piece of kit we have. This comes down to the chain of command understanding how and when to use it. A principle that has existed with every piece of equipment we have although this new machine has its own set of unique circumstances.
16 AABde appears to concentrate on current ops as is quite right but to go back to supporting formations would also be a step backwards for Apache as that would restrict its ability to support Air Ops etc. What would be more logical would be to Brigade Aviation separate to an Airborne Bde thereby retaining the ability to support formations in Land Warfare and also to develop its ability to support Air Ops. This would allow full mission capability whilst restricting the infrastructure required in order to support the beast both digitally and logistically.
Views??????
Surely the golf bag approach is the one to adopt! Aside from the Marines issue having Apache in 16 AABde was/is a good idea as long as it has Aviation in mind. The Bde has been tied up in operations with its infantry Battalions and therefore unable to progress with AH stuff that is ‘beyond the immediate horizon’.
Apache is a fantastic tool and can do an awful lot more than has been done by Aviation in the past although it does have its limitations. It is not invulnerable and has situations where it may not be a good idea to employ it as has every other piece of kit we have. This comes down to the chain of command understanding how and when to use it. A principle that has existed with every piece of equipment we have although this new machine has its own set of unique circumstances.
16 AABde appears to concentrate on current ops as is quite right but to go back to supporting formations would also be a step backwards for Apache as that would restrict its ability to support Air Ops etc. What would be more logical would be to Brigade Aviation separate to an Airborne Bde thereby retaining the ability to support formations in Land Warfare and also to develop its ability to support Air Ops. This would allow full mission capability whilst restricting the infrastructure required in order to support the beast both digitally and logistically.
Views??????
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the desert!
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Children, stop the quibbling! Everyone knows that the Army Air Corps are more professional than the Crabs, but only at whinging and when operating south of Loch Neigh and east of Ballygawley.........
The average AAC pilot will always be better on the ground because he is a soldier first, wasn't the plan for the latest desert push to deploy the boys on foot with a SA-80; more potent than a Gazelle at least!
As for the Apache disaster, blame the system and not the AAC; it would have been better to buy a Lego version.
The average AAC pilot will always be better on the ground because he is a soldier first, wasn't the plan for the latest desert push to deploy the boys on foot with a SA-80; more potent than a Gazelle at least!
As for the Apache disaster, blame the system and not the AAC; it would have been better to buy a Lego version.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30mm, you make some good sense. Unfortunately, there are those of us who think the following will happen:
a. Split 16 and call the 2 new elements 24 and 5 .
b. Bolster to Bde strength with a few Marines.
c. Wax lyrical about parachuting and it's vital contribution to modern warfare.
c. Keep both 24 and 5 under the C2 of 3 Div.
If so, in one fell swoop you've done nothing but expand the size of the Army; no real change to capability. However, if, as implied, you convince someone that a few dozen Apache are a great tool that can be used either as part of a Land op or as a supported/supporting element of a COMAO or equivalent, well then you're talking.
The cynics amongst us believe that, as long as ownership is an issue, Apache is nothing more than a General's play-thing. I'm not normally one for being purple, but IMHO Apache really should be a Joint asset.
Fly Safely
a. Split 16 and call the 2 new elements 24 and 5 .
b. Bolster to Bde strength with a few Marines.
c. Wax lyrical about parachuting and it's vital contribution to modern warfare.
c. Keep both 24 and 5 under the C2 of 3 Div.
If so, in one fell swoop you've done nothing but expand the size of the Army; no real change to capability. However, if, as implied, you convince someone that a few dozen Apache are a great tool that can be used either as part of a Land op or as a supported/supporting element of a COMAO or equivalent, well then you're talking.
The cynics amongst us believe that, as long as ownership is an issue, Apache is nothing more than a General's play-thing. I'm not normally one for being purple, but IMHO Apache really should be a Joint asset.
Fly Safely
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dansaff
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CrabIncab
I read your posts here a few times just to make sure where you are coming from. The anti AAC banter is par for the course and the Apache is always good for a cheap shot, especially as you dont get to sit in one. What isn't ok though and far less than cheap, is the sneery, sarcastic and derogatory remark about the Gliders and Pilots from WW2. It pretty much breaks the golden rule of Military flying to slag off our predecessors regardless of service. The Glider Pilots of WW2 were a skilled lot not lacking in bravery, just imagine having one chance to make a paricular field next to key bridge under heavy fire.
The soldiers first thing was part of the ethos, the Pilot after landing integrated into the fighting force and in some cases was the senior in charge. Good and efficient use of manpower in war.
So Crab in my opinion you're either young and stupid or a slimeball with no respect. Keep to the topics.
Whipping boy - Guess you've got it about right there!
I read your posts here a few times just to make sure where you are coming from. The anti AAC banter is par for the course and the Apache is always good for a cheap shot, especially as you dont get to sit in one. What isn't ok though and far less than cheap, is the sneery, sarcastic and derogatory remark about the Gliders and Pilots from WW2. It pretty much breaks the golden rule of Military flying to slag off our predecessors regardless of service. The Glider Pilots of WW2 were a skilled lot not lacking in bravery, just imagine having one chance to make a paricular field next to key bridge under heavy fire.
The soldiers first thing was part of the ethos, the Pilot after landing integrated into the fighting force and in some cases was the senior in charge. Good and efficient use of manpower in war.
So Crab in my opinion you're either young and stupid or a slimeball with no respect. Keep to the topics.
Whipping boy - Guess you've got it about right there!
Crab in Cab - that "number of battered and smashed AAC gliders in a field in the 40's" very probably held a number of battered and smashed and very dead GPR pilots in them.
So if you must sneer at anyone, sneer at me, not them. And as for the GPR being soldiers first, if you'd taken the time to look more closely at the painting you'd notice that gliders don't have any engines, so being a soldier first was probably a very clever thing to be.
As opposed to a very brave RAF chap like you so clearly are, sweeping aside the sacrifices of history from the safety of the Aldergrove Mess.
So if you must sneer at anyone, sneer at me, not them. And as for the GPR being soldiers first, if you'd taken the time to look more closely at the painting you'd notice that gliders don't have any engines, so being a soldier first was probably a very clever thing to be.
As opposed to a very brave RAF chap like you so clearly are, sweeping aside the sacrifices of history from the safety of the Aldergrove Mess.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like most of the above have just hijacked this thread to do a bit of inter service mud-slinging. Fair enough if thats what you want. The Crabs are just threaders that they don't have Apache, and the Pongo's are desperately wondering how to employ it.
How many of you have actually served within 16 Air Asslt Bde?
I have and the REAL problem is that the men up top don't really have an appreciation of what aviation (in the broader sense) can do for them. It's not about one service being more professional than another, it's just a complete lack of understanding about the needs and capability of aviation within the broader field Army.
By the way, the Royal Marines are integral to the Royal Navy, carry Royal Navy ID and we are bloody proud of them so 'a few marines' to bolster an Army brigade aint going to happen.
Right i'm off my box now...
How many of you have actually served within 16 Air Asslt Bde?
I have and the REAL problem is that the men up top don't really have an appreciation of what aviation (in the broader sense) can do for them. It's not about one service being more professional than another, it's just a complete lack of understanding about the needs and capability of aviation within the broader field Army.
By the way, the Royal Marines are integral to the Royal Navy, carry Royal Navy ID and we are bloody proud of them so 'a few marines' to bolster an Army brigade aint going to happen.
Right i'm off my box now...
16 AAB. A fine concept if you have the same funding that the US Forces have. Unluckily for us we just can't afford to fully impliment the necessary infrastructre and training needed to realise the full potential of an Air Assualt Brigade.
Why revert back to a Para. Bdge? When was the last time the 'Meat'n'veg' were used in battle? More importantly does the UK have the correct aircraft in service to be able to offer the Para's something to drop from?
For expiditionary warfare we need to look at gaining a few specialist units that can be trained in disciplines much akin to those employed by SF. To dilute the SF units with larger numbers or even sub-standard numbers would be wrong, but the time has come to earmark UK units to train in much the same way that the US Rangers do. Specialist Forces as apposed to Special Forces.
As a serving member of 16AAB I can confirm that the Bdge. has hardly had time to breathe since it's inception. The Bdge has gone from one Op to the next. This is not a bad thing as the units have gained valuable Op experience. Questions still need to asked about how the Apache can be supplied when it has the ablility to push the FLOT forward by 30 miles a day. The Logistical chain would have trouble keeping up!!
By axing the Bdge we would farm out units with valuable Op experience to other Bdge's that have stayed at home. Good cross polination. If the Army wants the Marines back then surely this wouild give the RAF the ammo. it needed for getting the Apache over to its ranks???
Why revert back to a Para. Bdge? When was the last time the 'Meat'n'veg' were used in battle? More importantly does the UK have the correct aircraft in service to be able to offer the Para's something to drop from?
For expiditionary warfare we need to look at gaining a few specialist units that can be trained in disciplines much akin to those employed by SF. To dilute the SF units with larger numbers or even sub-standard numbers would be wrong, but the time has come to earmark UK units to train in much the same way that the US Rangers do. Specialist Forces as apposed to Special Forces.
As a serving member of 16AAB I can confirm that the Bdge. has hardly had time to breathe since it's inception. The Bdge has gone from one Op to the next. This is not a bad thing as the units have gained valuable Op experience. Questions still need to asked about how the Apache can be supplied when it has the ablility to push the FLOT forward by 30 miles a day. The Logistical chain would have trouble keeping up!!
By axing the Bdge we would farm out units with valuable Op experience to other Bdge's that have stayed at home. Good cross polination. If the Army wants the Marines back then surely this wouild give the RAF the ammo. it needed for getting the Apache over to its ranks???
Gentleman Aviator
You know I hate to:
a. Go off thread
b. Spoil an argument with facts
but I'm about to do both. Crab-in-Cab should not mock glider pilots - and anyway many were RAF. The Glider Pilot Regiment lost 90% of its strength at Arnhem, and was bolstered for the Rhine crossing operation by 1500 (not a misprint - one thousand five hundred) RAF pilots.
See the Assault Glider Project Website for more gen on these amazing people. Just imagine: every landing's an EOL, and then (if you survive) you're an instant pongo. And they did engine-off take-offs too, sometimes from tactical locations!
And just to quell further familiar banter, the RAF pilots attached to the GPR were of all ranks from Sgt to Sqn Ldr ......
Respect!!
a. Go off thread
b. Spoil an argument with facts
but I'm about to do both. Crab-in-Cab should not mock glider pilots - and anyway many were RAF. The Glider Pilot Regiment lost 90% of its strength at Arnhem, and was bolstered for the Rhine crossing operation by 1500 (not a misprint - one thousand five hundred) RAF pilots.
See the Assault Glider Project Website for more gen on these amazing people. Just imagine: every landing's an EOL, and then (if you survive) you're an instant pongo. And they did engine-off take-offs too, sometimes from tactical locations!
And just to quell further familiar banter, the RAF pilots attached to the GPR were of all ranks from Sgt to Sqn Ldr ......
Respect!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Berkshire.
Age: 83
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flygunz and ChristopherRobin,
Well done,Sirs. Many thanks for your excellent reponses to CrabInCab's derogatory comments about the GPR.
CrabInCab, I believe an apology is required.
Sabredog
Well done,Sirs. Many thanks for your excellent reponses to CrabInCab's derogatory comments about the GPR.
CrabInCab, I believe an apology is required.
Sabredog