Ask a Soldier

[storealex]

are the gurkhas as good as their reputation suggests? and would their be many if any of them in the SAS

The Gurkhas are indeed very good. They'll sleep around their mortar, being able to receive a coordinate and have rounds in the air in no time. They'll change the engine in your vehicle faster than any mechanics, and they'll go up against any enemy position with no complaints.

But don't try to eat their food - it's spicy

 

[caketastydelish]

I understand that you a soldier. But do you have soul?

 

[Flying Pig]

Thanks for the post, Flying Pig. I enjoyed reading through it. Canadian infantry here. Just returned from my second tour in Afghanistan. Current rank of Master Corporal. I hope to reach the rank for RSM some day. We'll see how it all works out. I've still got around 17 years left.

Ah, a Canuck! Met a few of your cadets at Bisley this year (one of my older ones is in the GB cadets team and there was an international match). Good people; shame they can't shoot

Flying Pig, thank you for a very informative reply. I served in the U.S. Navy and crawled up through the hawse pipe - I started out as a Seaman Recruit and retired as a Lieutenant Commander. For that reason I have always been interested in the experiences of ORs in other armed forces who become officers.

You and I must be the oldest Civfanatics around here.

Probably.

you said your demotion was a good story, is it a story you'd be willing to share?

It's a very good story and it's done the rounds a few times of the army. Basically what happened was that we were in Aldershot (our home, at one time there was an entire division there which is about the same as every soldier in Scotland) at the same time as a Welsh battalion, and one night at the pub one of our guys got into a fight with three of theirs and came off pretty badly. This got around the regiment pretty quickly and we were Not Best Pleased.

The next day the RSM comes to me (having been in my throne about three weeks and still a CSM at heart (RSM only smaller) and informs that the regiment is 'parading at 2000 tonight sir - only don't tell the ruperts [DE officers]; we've got some business to do (or words to that effect). At 8 o'clock he has the whole of 2 PARA on this square, with no officers except for myself (apparently, all the other LE officers were old and wise enough to know better) and explains that since these Taffs had roughed up one of our guys, we were going to go and settle the score. So we did.

It was war. By three o'clock maroon T-shirts were banned in every pub in Aldershot because we went around looking for Welsh soldiers and, put bluntly, getting into huge brawls with them. Being paras, and noted among the army for our aggression (not to mention having one of the better boxing teams in the infantry, which at the time included yours truly), we generally won.

Needless to say, this got back to camp and when we got up the next morning the CO had us in his office. I was the first to walk through the door (having discussed our stories with the RSM, who was a great bloke and I think made CO eventually); the boss spat out his six-sugars coffee and said quite confusedly 'what, you, Captain FP?' I told him that it had been my plan (he was broadly sympathetic to what we'd done, but it wasn't exactly military discipline at its finest although it happens fairly often)

You really should know better... model to the men... *thinking: what the hell do I do with him?* (it's probably not boasting to point out that I had a name with the CO for being one of those people that for all their faults in peace makes up for it when there's a war) - right - lose a pip get the feck out of my officer CAPTAIN - FALL OUT!. Took bloody ages to get that back as well.

are the gurkhas as good as their reputation suggests? and would their be many if any of them in the SAS

We have rules with the Ghurkas like the yanks had with us during the second world war - don't drink, gamble, or fight with them - you will lose.

They have a mixed name to be honest. Their men are great light infantry because like us paras it's all they've ever done. There's a story that during the Falklands (which provided a textbook example of how not to work with the media), BBC news reported that the Ghurkas were advancing on an Argentine position similar to Mount Tumbledown. The Argentines heard this and by the time the Ghurkas got there they had decided not to bother standing and fighting. Officers have a name for being very good at eating and very good at drinking and sod-all else. Although probably now Hong Kong is not a posting that will change.

The Gurkhas are indeed very good. They'll sleep around their mortar, being able to receive a coordinate and have rounds in the air in no time. They'll change the engine in your vehicle faster than any mechanics, and they'll go up against any enemy position with no complaints.

But don't try to eat their food - it's spicy

It's also the best thing in the world halfway through an exercise in the GEFA [for civvies: Great English Fallow Area]. But yeah; their selection is incredibly tight so we only get the best.

 

[Perfection]

Do commandos go commando?

What about other soldiers?

 

[Mad Man]

How hard is it really to get in to the military?

 

[GamezRule]

What is the breakdown of units in military organization?

I mean like Division > Brigade > Squad only with more detail.

What is larger and what is organized into what?

 

[JollyRoger]

Is there anything being done to mitigate the damage caused by incoming email?

 

[Flying Pig]

Do commandos go commando?

What about other soldiers?

You're asking a paratrooper about the marines and expecting a mockery-free answer? I'll advance naked-roll-mat-jousting and say no more.

Serious note: I've heard of it being done, but I haven't myself and don't know anyone who has.

How hard is it really to get in to the military?

It depends on your branch of choice, but I'd say that anyone who isn't a liability intellectually or physically (there are no qualifications required for a teeth arms soldier, but you don't want to be platoon mong), has determination and a sense of humour will get on well enough. Specifically on the fitness side it varies, but entry is primarily done off the time it takes you to run a mile and a half (a touch under 2 and a half kilometers) - a paratrooper needs 9 minutes 14 seconds, infantry are 10:30 although they sometimes accept up to 12, and this rises to about 15 minutes for 'backroom' jobs such as intelligence and HR. If you've got the determination, however, you can train to this level whoever you are - you don't have to be an athlete although there will be the one annoying little thing who can do his run in 7 minutes while chatting to the PTI.

What is the breakdown of units in military organization?

I mean like Division > Brigade > Squad only with more detail.

What is larger and what is organized into what?

It generally goes in threes:

In order:

The British Army - commanded by Her Majesty the Queen
Theatre (1 or more Army Groups; eg British Forces Europe) - commanded by a Field Marshal
Army Group (multiple armies; eg Army Group North) - commanded by a Field Marshal
Army (multiple corps, eg British Army of the Rhine) - commanded by a General
Corps (about three divisions, eg I (BR) Corps) - commanded by a Lieutenant-General
Division (about three brigades, eg 1 (UK) Armoured Division) - commanded by a Major-General
Brigade (about three battalions, plus supporting assets); eg 16 (Air Assault) Brigade) - commanded by a brigadier
[Regiment (1-4 battalions): ceremonial only; eg The Parachute Regiment]
[Battlegroup (1 battalion with supporting assets); eg Coldstream Guards Battlegroup]
Battalion/Commando (5 companies/squadrons; eg 2 PARA [equivalent to a US Regiment]) - commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel
Company/Squadron (3 platoons/troops; eg B Coy) - commanded by a Major
Platoon/Troop (3 sections; eg 18 Platoon) - commanded by a Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant or Captain
Section (10 men; eg 2 Section) - commanded by a Corporal
Fire Team (5 men; eg C Fire Team) - commanded by a Lance-Corporal

Is there anything being done to mitigate the damage caused by incoming email?

You mean that incident with the SDSR sackings? I should imagine that the (relatively junior) officer whose fault that was will recieve a severe interview without coffee; however the problem was not a systematic one and so I doubt that any large-scale action will take place

 

[Cutlass]

IIRC, you've said in the past that the US Army isn't as professional or skilled as the British. What changes would the US have to make to be as professional and skilled as the best armies anywhere?

 

[Flying Pig]

IIRC, you've said in the past that the US Army isn't as professional or skilled as the British. What changes would the US have to make to be as professional and skilled as the best armies anywhere?

They'd probably, to be honest, have to have higher standards for entry (the stereotype - don't know how true this is - is taht they'll take almost anyone and try and train them, Full-Metal-Jacket style, into something that they can work with), the British level of operational experience (few British NCOs or Field Officers have never seen an operational tour; until recently the opposite was almost true in America) and (dare I say it?) I think our own ethos and regimental system plays a big part. That, and the fact that we spend (to foreigners) a ridiculous amount of money keeping a ridiculously small army in the field. However what we have to remember is that they are as professional and skilled as most of the best armies anywhere and can give almost anyone a run for their money - it's just that being individually trained (and our methods of training and values are different, but that's another point), skilled and having 'vision' to use a rugby term is the British speciality.

 

[innonimatu]

It generally goes in threes:

In order:

The British Army - commanded by Her Majesty the Queen
Theatre (1 or more Army Groups; eg British Forces Europe) - commanded by a Field Marshal
Army Group (multiple armies; eg Army Group North) - commanded by a Field Marshal
Army (multiple corps, eg British Army of the Rhine) - commanded by a General
Corps (about three divisions, eg I (BR) Corps) - commanded by a Lieutenant-General
Division (about three brigades, eg 1 (UK) Armoured Division) - commanded by a Major-General
Brigade (about three battalions, plus supporting assets); eg 16 (Air Assault) Brigade) - commanded by a brigadier
[Regiment (1-4 battalions): ceremonial only; eg The Parachute Regiment]
[Battlegroup (1 battalion with supporting assets); eg Coldstream Guards Battlegroup]
Battalion/Commando (5 companies/squadrons; eg 2 PARA [equivalent to a US Regiment]) - commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel
Company/Squadron (3 platoons/troops; eg B Coy) - commanded by a Major
Platoon/Troop (3 sections; eg 18 Platoon) - commanded by a Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant or Captain
Section (10 men; eg 2 Section) - commanded by a Corporal
Fire Team (5 men; eg C Fire Team) - commanded by a Lance-Corporal

This list got me curious about one thing: has the British Army often changed the numbers above over the last century or so? Is the military organization quickly changed due to some need to adapt to new theaters or technologies, or does it hardly change (hardly needs to?) at all?
If it doesn't change, is its present distribution regarded as an "optimum", or a result of tradition?

 

[GamezRule]

I think that now an American division is about 35,000 men. It was double that during WW2.

Is that the kind if question you were asking?

 

[Maimonides]

I think that now an American division is about 35,000 men. It was double that during WW2.

No it's not & no it wasn't.

 

[Flying Pig]

This list got me curious about one thing: has the British Army often changed the numbers above over the last century or so? Is the military organization quickly changed due to some need to adapt to new theaters or technologies, or does it hardly change (hardly needs to?) at all?
If it doesn't change, is its present distribution regarded as an "optimum", or a result of tradition?

That organisation has been the same since about 1850. It doesn't need to change - we think it's the best, but it's pretty much the same as the French or American system (just about every army in the world is based on one of the three) in practise except for a few minor points like we don't have a unit between company and battalion (we just send 2 companies, the Americans would call it a battalion and give it its own commander) and our companies are commanded by a major, not a captain (there is a good reason for this, which I think I've already said). I can't think of any situation which would merit a change in that organisation, can you?

Numbers have changed, however, and the current British Army is one army in size, with the capacity to field 2 corps in times of war but normally a division is the largest force that we assemble. They're almost always roughly the same size; we just have more of them in wartime.

 

[Dachs]

It's also important to note that the schematized ORBAT that Flying Pig put up really isn't all that rigid. There's lots of "about"s, for instance. Historically, in wartime, the ratio of, say, five companies to a battalion would not be static at all, of course, as formations were juggled to account for losses and whatnot, especially in the two World Wars.

 

[Masada]

For the unintiated an ORBAT is an Order of Battle.

 

[Uncle Anton]

This list got me curious about one thing: has the British Army often changed the numbers above over the last century or so? Is the military organization quickly changed due to some need to adapt to new theaters or technologies, or does it hardly change (hardly needs to?) at all?
If it doesn't change, is its present distribution regarded as an "optimum", or a result of tradition?

Only a minor change in that British and Commonwealth armies had a fourth Brigade typically during the 1914-1918 war... generally they got rid of that fourth Brigade to try and preserve the Orbat in the face of the horrendous casualties.

The breakdown FP's put forward is pretty much the same across the board as most other countries, although there are some confusing ways which the word "Regiment" gets bandied about, as the designation isn't always ceremonial and has in the 20th Century been used by the Americans to designate a Brigade sized formation, and is been used by the Brits (and Canadians/us Aussies etc) to designate a Battalion sized formation in certain Corps (e.g. Armoured, Signals etc)

These days most manuever (sp) units are based around an augmented Battalion or Brigade sized battlegroup with integrated logistics, armour and fire support dependant on the tasking of course.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No it's not & no it wasn't.

Incidentially, there is a bit of "truth" to the spirit of his statement. American divisions were notoriously larger than their European counterparts, save for the Soviets, during the World Wars, presumably for a lack of flag officers.

 

[MobBoss]

They'd probably, to be honest, have to have higher standards for entry (the stereotype - don't know how true this is - is taht they'll take almost anyone and try and train them, Full-Metal-Jacket style, into something that they can work with), the British level of operational experience (few British NCOs or Field Officers have never seen an operational tour; until recently the opposite was almost true in America) and (dare I say it?) I think our own ethos and regimental system plays a big part. That, and the fact that we spend (to foreigners) a ridiculous amount of money keeping a ridiculously small army in the field. However what we have to remember is that they are as professional and skilled as most of the best armies anywhere and can give almost anyone a run for their money - it's just that being individually trained (and our methods of training and values are different, but that's another point), skilled and having 'vision' to use a rugby term is the British speciality.

Havent seen this thread in awhile so I just now read this. From a career US soldier standpoint:

1. Well, our 'standard' fluctuates a bit in consideration for our manpower needs. And I point out that even a largly uneducated man can still turn out to be a tremendously talented soldier...i.e. SGT York. We typically emphasize training over breeding or social circumstance as it were.

2. I'm not sure how you can claim more operational experience than the US military, given the fact that we've deployed more people in the field all over the world than the brits have for decades.

3. As to ethos, well, the NCO Creed begins 'No one is more professional than I..." The US military has a regimental system as well, not to mention its extremely competitive amongst its commands.

4. I wont even mention the money thing as the answer to that is obvious.

Given all that, I wont make the claim that I know if the Brit army is more 'skilled' or 'professional' and any such claims generally come from a nice little sense of nationalism. I do know that in international professional soldier competitions, teams from the US military always either win or place right in the very top of their respective categories. Given thats probably the only way to measure such claims, I think we do better than just alright.

 

[GinandTonic]

Given all that, I wont make the claim that I know if the Brit army is more 'skilled' or 'professional' and any such claims generally come from a nice little sense of nationalism. I do know that in international professional soldier competitions, teams from the US military always either win or place right in the very top of their respective categories. Given thats probably the only way to measure such claims, I think we do better than just alright.

Odd.

I enter into evidence the list of winners of the international cadets competition held at West Point for the last seventeen years - since Sandhurst started competing.

2010 - Sandhurst A
2009 - Royal Military College of Canada
2008 - Sandhurst Red
2007 - Royal Military College of Canada
2006 - Royal Military College of Canada
2005 - Royal Military College of Canada
2004 - Sandhurst Red
2003 - Sandhurst Blue
2002 - Sandhurst Red
2001 - Sandhurst Blue
2000 - Sandhurst 2
1999 - Sandhurst 1
1998 - Sandhurst 2
1997 - Sandhurst 1
1996 - Sandhurst 1
1995 - Sandhurst 1
1994 - Sandhurst 1

In this time Sandhurst has beaten every US team sixteen of seventeen years. During this time no US team has won at all. The only time West Point beat Sandhurst RMC Canada took first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhurst_Competition