Defence forces : A wider ceremonial role ?

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

Annoying because my point of view is different ?

No, because you have this habit of knocking down non-British militaries, and upping the Brits in a constant trend which seems a little agenda-driven.

You all seem to be missing the point. In the British Army, the personnel that you see performing public duties are also full-time soldiers who spend 'some' of their time performing public duties. ALL the Household Division have spent time in Iraq and 'stan, and recently too. In 2009 the CO of the Welsh Guards was killed by an IED.

I think you missed mine, as well. I'm not saying that a troop does nothing but drill and ceremony for the duration of his career. A soldier assigned to The Old Guard will PCS to another unit just as often as any other US soldier will PCS to a new unit. Neither am I saying that a ceremonial unit doesn't have battle dress in the corner and isn't expected, if necessary, to be capable of going on operation. The Old Guard has fifty combat streamers, which isn't bad by US Army standards, and its combat record has resulted in its earning the right to be the only US Army unit to pass in review with bayonets fixed. But there is no getting around the fact that when you're assigned for X many months to a ceremonial duty, you are strongly emphasising ceremonial skills at the cost of combat skills which are perishable. You won't find the eight hours drill a day boasted by Crusader above on the training schedule of any field unit in any army excluding punishment, unexpected cancellations, or budget cuts, there are many more more useful things to be reviewed in that time.

Now, I'm not denying Crusader's point that the Irish ceremonial events that I've seen up close seemed a little... well.. ragged, even by the standards of a non-dedicated unit and could be improved, but I really don't think the Irish military can afford to dedicate a portion of its small force to full-time ceremonial duties.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

No, that's precisely what pomp and ceremony is. The Brits can do what they like but quite frankly we have no need for such frivolities, especially at a time when out forces are so chronically underfunded. Perhaps when we have a DF that matches the requirements of the nation's defence and security needs we can come back to this. But right now we have more important things to deal with in our military.....like beefing up our air and naval assets. You know, actual military stuff.

The ceremonial side of things 'ties' the Defence Forces to civic society - it also increases their visibility - which it makes it easier (or at least not as hard) to get funding from the government.

I'm sure someone knowledgeable in such matters could conceive something around the handing over of Dublin Castle in 1922 or Mulcahy raising the flag over the National Army's HQ.

or, stick gates on the bridge at Lifford / Strabane and do a variation of Wagah

tac foley

'Neither am I saying that a ceremonial unit doesn't have battle dress in the corner and isn't expected, if necessary, to be capable of going on operation.'

The British Army does not have 'ceremonial units', as you so disparagingly note. Overall, a soldier in the Household Division can expect to spend about 25% of his career on ceremonial duties.

The Household Division of the British Army is required to carry out duties in defence of the Sovereign, hence their title, as are other parts of the Armed Forces of The Commonwealth.

You'll note that I have made no comment about the Irish Armed Forces and their drill - that is outside my remit to do so. These young men and women have volunteered to take up the profession of soldiering in the defence of their country, and that's good enough for me.

tac

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

The ceremonial side of things 'ties' the Defence Forces to civic society - it also increases their visibility - which it makes it easier (or at least not as hard) to get funding from the government.

I'm sure someone knowledgeable in such matters could conceive something around the handing over of Dublin Castle in 1922 or Mulcahy raising the flag over the National Army's HQ.

or, stick gates on the bridge at Lifford / Strabane and do a variation of Wagah

It would have to be at the GPO imo, it's probably the most high profile spot in Dublin and it would really capture the imagination of local and tourist alike.

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

It would have to be at the GPO imo, it's probably the most high profile spot in Dublin and it would really capture the imagination of local and tourist alike.

There or Dublin Castle (or both!)

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, because you have this habit of knocking down non-British militaries, and upping the Brits in a constant trend which seems a little agenda-driven.



I think you missed mine, as well. I'm not saying that a troop does nothing but drill and ceremony for the duration of his career. A soldier assigned to The Old Guard will PCS to another unit just as often as any other US soldier will PCS to a new unit. Neither am I saying that a ceremonial unit doesn't have battle dress in the corner and isn't expected, if necessary, to be capable of going on operation. The Old Guard has fifty combat streamers, which isn't bad by US Army standards, and its combat record has resulted in its earning the right to be the only US Army unit to pass in review with bayonets fixed. But there is no getting around the fact that when you're assigned for X many months to a ceremonial duty, you are strongly emphasising ceremonial skills at the cost of combat skills which are perishable. You won't find the eight hours drill a day boasted by Crusader above on the training schedule of any field unit in any army excluding punishment, unexpected cancellations, or budget cuts, there are many more more useful things to be reviewed in that time.

Now, I'm not denying Crusader's point that the Irish ceremonial events that I've seen up close seemed a little... well.. ragged, even by the standards of a non-dedicated unit and could be improved, but I really don't think the Irish military can afford to dedicate a portion of its small force to full-time ceremonial duties.

Firstly I dont have any agenda, I have been critical of various BA infantry units on here. But being even constructively critical of the defence forces is another matter on here. I would say some posters on here are over sensitive.

In regards to ceremonial duties taking from combat training, as Tac stated its rotated, infantiers are not always training for combat the are often wasting time on mundane duties. To prove the point of ceremonial not taking from combat abilities, the RAF regiment provide the premier drill unit in the British armed forces yet also provide the most members to successfully pass of UK special forces selection per head.

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

There or Dublin Castle (or both!)

Why not, the more visibility the better. #for the GPO I think it would be a nice idea as part of the upcoming 1916 centenary and I would like to see something a bit more commemorative/appreciative at the GPO considering it's place in Irish history and psyche. I mentioned them before but I really think something similar to the Czech castle guard would be appropriate, no need for the pomp as Ireland (or perhaps more correctly the Defense Forces) don't really have a history of it

Edit: maybe a uniform with a tastefully done gaelic twist :pac:

cruasder777

riffmongous wrote: »

Why not, the more visibility the better. #for the GPO I think it would be a nice idea as part of the upcoming 1916 centenary and I would like to see something a bit more commemorative/appreciative at the GPO considering it's place in Irish history and psyche. I mentioned them before but I really think something similar to the Czech castle guard would be appropriate, no need for the pomp as Ireland (or perhaps more correctly the Defense Forces) don't really have a history of it

Edit: maybe a uniform with a tastefully done gaelic twist :pac:

Make more use of Ireland's heritage : pipers, Irish tartan etc, use it to create distinctive unit identity, I find military units simply referred to by numbers a bit dull.

tac foley

cruasder777 wrote: »

Make more use of Ireland's heritage : pipers, Irish tartan etc, use it to create distinctive unit identity, I find military units simply referred to by numbers a bit dull.

...just like the British Army does with the Irish Guards, you mean?

tac

cruasder777

tac foley wrote: »

...just like the British Army does with the Irish Guards, you mean?

tac

No reason both armies cant use Irish culture. Its actually a bit odd that its only the BA that uses such aspects of Irish culture.

I remember as a kid I first heard of the Wolfhound because the Irish Guards were parading one on tv.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Make more use of Ireland's heritage : pipers, Irish tartan etc, use it to create distinctive unit identity, I find military units simply referred to by numbers a bit dull.

Irish soldiery have worn saffron for over four hundred years - why would they start wearing tartan?

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Irish soldiery have worn saffron for over four hundred years - why would they start wearing tartan?

Never had you down as an expert on skirts

There is Irish tartan too.

tac foley

I've got a photo somewhere of me sat astride the then mascot of the Irish Guards at an open day at Windsor. I was only ten or eleven at the time....

There are some great videos on Youtube of 'The Micks' on duty at Windsor - they never fail to stir the senses of everybody who watches them marching by.

tac

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Never had you down as an expert on skirts

There is Irish tartan too.

There are at least 43 Irish tartans - not one of them was traditionally worn by Irish soldiers. Even in ancient mythology, the Fianna wore saffron.

The reason certain pipers associated with Irish regiments wear saffron and cloaks is because that was the traditional get up of the Celtic warrior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJaw514Wt3E

tac foley

Anybody notice anything odd about this parade?

tac

riffmongous

cruasder777 wrote: »

Make more use of Ireland's heritage : pipers, Irish tartan etc, use it to create distinctive unit identity, I find military units simply referred to by numbers a bit dull.

Not just dull but a bit anonymous I think. I grew up near Kilkenny and didn't have a clue what the name/number of the local battalion was, or if I looked it up I forgot it quickly, which was a pity.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

There are at least 43 Irish tartans - not one of them was traditionally worn by Irish soldiers. Even in ancient mythology, the Fianna wore saffron.

The reason certain pipers associated with Irish regiments wear saffron and cloaks is because that was the traditional get up of the Celtic warrior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJaw514Wt3E

Saffron is classed as a single colour tartan.

I know one side of my family fought at the side of Brian Boru and have their own Irish tartan. We helped Charles II found the Tangier Regiment uniting Royalists and Parliamentarians after the civil war and serving in North Africa and we wore tartan and were Irish soldiers.

tac foley

...and now for something completely different - La garde montante. The Royal 22nd Regiment of Canada on ceremonial duty at Buckingham Palace last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGPg0LDkRA

Makes a change to hear French words of command being given there...

Regard well the many battle honours on the sash worn by the ensign. Not toy soldiers, them, eh?

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

Anybody notice anything odd about this parade?

tac

There's an Englishman playing the pipes without making a mess of it?

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Saffron is classed as a single colour tartan.

I know one side of my family fought at the side of Brian Boru and have their own Irish tartan. We helped Charles II found the Tangier Regiment uniting Royalists and Parliamentarians after the civil war and serving in North Africa and we wore tartan and were Irish soldiers.

Well, I think you've already proven your noble blood by having an uncle as head of the Royal Mews, so no need to labour it. Was it him who was related to Dermot McMurrough, the King of Leinster?

Incidentally, the Scottish Register of Tartans Act 2008 states "a tartan is a design which is capable of being woven consisting of two or more alternating coloured stripes which combine vertically and horizontally to form a repeated chequered pattern."

Ah sure what would the Jocks know about it anyway.

And if you search the Register of Tartans, you'll find no single colour saffron tartan. This is saffron tartan

tac foley

Mrs tac likes that colour combination. Me, I'll stick to saffron, like I wore for my Bar Mitzvah.

tac

Pat Dunne

Jawgap wrote: »

There are at least 43 Irish tartans - not one of them was traditionally worn by Irish soldiers.

Could you provide a scource for this as I am very interested in establishing the origins of so called "Irish Tartan".
My own understanding is that the "Gaelic Revival" of the late 19th Century, establish a number of ideas such as Irish Kilts etc, which have almost no reliable historic references except for Ulster Scots, before that time period.

Jawgap

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Could you provide a scource for this as I am very interested in establishing the origins of so called "Irish Tartan".
My own understanding is that the "Gaelic Revival" of the late 19th Century, establish a number of ideas such as Irish Kilts etc, which have almost no reliable historic references except for Ulster Scots, before that time period.

Here's a link to the Register of Tartans

www.tartanregister.gov.uk

The figure of '43' came from here

www.scotchcorner.com/tartan-irish-index.html

The idea of kilt-wearing Paddies seems to have started with the book - The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish - copy available here......

https://archive.org/details/onmannerscustoms03ocur

It seems now that perhaps the Irish did not wear recognisable kilts, as such - but long padded, quilted or pleated shirts which were died saffron (using crocuses) - these 'shirts' were a form of soft cheap armour (in comparison to plate armour).

The Gallowglass on the left in this print is probably wearing a saffron long shirt

Pat Dunne

Many Thanks Jawgap, I am aware of the Register of Tartans, which some would say is run on a purely commercial basis to enable American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Irish individuals, clans/groups, who are so inclined to register a "new or original" Tartan, for a "wee fee". I know I just couldn't resist

My understanding and I am open to correction, is the that the fashion for "Irish Tartans", started as recently as the mid 1960's and early 1970's and can be traced back to the "Ulster Tartan" which appeared in the late 1950's.

Your example of the Gallowglass also underlines the confusion that exists. My understanding is that Gallowglasses were a group of Scottish Mercenary's, of which a number settled in Ulster.

I could be be even more controversial and say that Kilts were not the norm in Ireland prior to the late 19th and early 20th century and were popularlised by individuals and groups connected to Gaelic Revival, such as Douglas Hyde, Padraig Pearse and WB Yeats etc.

My own thoughts are that Irish Kilts and Tartans are a relative recent phenomenon and as such can lay very little claim to Irish heritage and are perhaps a quirk of Irish Social and British Military history from the turn of the 20th century.

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

'Neither am I saying that a ceremonial unit doesn't have battle dress in the corner and isn't expected, if necessary, to be capable of going on operation.'

The British Army does not have 'ceremonial units', as you so disparagingly note. Overall, a soldier in the Household Division can expect to spend about 25% of his career on ceremonial duties.

You have misunderstood me, and it is perhaps my fault for not making myself clear. I am well aware that the Household units are categorised as combat troops (As is the Old Guard, incidentally), but when a unit is assigned to sit out front of Buck House for six months, or however long it is, their primary duties for the duration of that rotation are ceremonial, not operational, and the same problems of perishable skills apply. (As well as the minor issue of not performing other tasks). It's not a disparaging comment, it's a reality that you only have so many hours in the day to not only retain those perishable skills, but to also do those 'mundane duties' Crusader mentions which exists no matter what you do with your 'available' hours. To say that you could take the Grenadier Guards after six months of standing public duties and expect them to perform with the proficiency of, say, the Irish Guards who have just been 'off-cycle' from public duties for those same six months, is a willful suspension of reality. They just won't be as sharp.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have misunderstood me, and it is perhaps my fault for not making myself clear. I am well aware that the Household units are categorised as combat troops (As is the Old Guard, incidentally), but when a unit is assigned to sit out front of Buck House for six months, or however long it is, their primary duties for the duration of that rotation are ceremonial, not operational, and the same problems of perishable skills apply. (As well as the minor issue of not performing other tasks). It's not a disparaging comment, it's a reality that you only have so many hours in the day to not only retain those perishable skills, but to also do those 'mundane duties' Crusader mentions which exists no matter what you do with your 'available' hours. To say that you could take the Grenadier Guards after six months of standing public duties and expect them to perform with the proficiency of, say, the Irish Guards who have just been 'off-cycle' from public duties for those same six months, is a willful suspension of reality. They just won't be as sharp.

Only one company deploys from each regiment at at time, its not like the whole regiment deploys. And you only deploy on ceremonial every 2.5 years.So its minimal.

And they are not just deployed for the next operational tour, they will spend three months on pre-deployment training for overseas deployments with the rest of their regiment. The training depends on their operational role. If they are deployed in a holding role it might include cascade training, patrol skills, compound clearance, linguistics, Ied threat training, legal responsibilities, live fire exercises, etc, etc.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

And they are not just deployed for the next operational tour, they will spend three months on pre-deployment training for overseas deployments with the rest of their regiment. The training depends on their operational role. If they are deployed in a holding role it might include cascade training, patrol skills, compound clearance, linguistics, Ied threat training, legal responsibilities, live fire exercises, etc, etc.

Forgive me, but in 1982, were not Scots Guards yanked from ceremonial duties and sent to go fight a war without the benefit of three months of pre-deployment training to knock the rust off? It seems unreasonable to expect that all future opponents will be as unmotivated and unskilled as Argentine conscripts, or that three months' notice will always be provided in the case of tougher opposition.

Now, don't get me wrong, the US is running a similar risk Army-wide with its current ARFORGEN cycle system, which works nicely for the ten-year stability ops role it's had, but everyone knows that in the case of "Everyone go -NOW-" it is unfeasible to reach expected capabilties across units in certain parts of the cycle.

tac foley

Just what type of pre-deployment training would you expect to 'enjoy' prior to going to a sudden 'going-to-war' situation?

When your dependencies are suddenly invaded, and your assets are low, you use what you have. Not every country is large enough or rich enough to have half a million in its Army and another half a million in the equivalent of the Territorial Army.

I'm detecting a little needle match developing here, stap me vittles if I'm wrong, but the claws are starting to show.

As for 'unskilled Argentinian conscripts', I respectfully suggest that you do a bit more reading on the subject. They did a lot of good hard fighting, and caused many casualties among the British forces on the ground. They also had a lot of kit that the British Army/Navy could only dream about, and their failure to use it to best advantage was because the British Armed Forces are actually USED to going to sudden wars, and the Argentinians were not.

tac

Manic Moran

Just what type of pre-deployment training would you expect to 'enjoy' prior to going to a sudden 'going-to-war' situation?

When your dependencies are suddenly invaded, and your assets are low, you use what you have. Not every country is large enough or rich enough to have half a million in its Army and another half a million in the equivalent of the Territorial Army.

No, you managed to miss my point entirely. I said that it is unreasonable to expect that one can always assume there will be pre-deployment training to knock the rust off, and I also pointed out that even in the US's half-million-man Army, we will have difficulty in a surge since we developed a force structure system which relies upon a significant portion of units (about a third) not being ready to go. There are in-built deficiencies in the system. I assume that the system accounted for them when the system was designed, but that doesn't deny that they are there.

tac foley wrote: »

As for 'unskilled Argentinian conscripts', I respectfully suggest that you do a bit more reading on the subject. They did a lot of good hard fighting, and caused many casualties among the British forces on the ground. They also had a lot of kit that the British Army/Navy could only dream about, and their failure to use it to best advantage was because the British Armed Forces are actually USED to going to sudden wars, and the Argentinians were not.

tac

Hard fighting and competent fighting are not necessarily the same thing, especially in the defense. Are you suggesting that the Argentine conscripts were trained to a level even approximating that of a professional British soldier of the time, even one yanked out of ceremonial duties? Or have I been constantly overrating British soldiers all this time? Could the Argentinians have made the fight inland from San Carlos to Stanley against British defense? These seem to me to be rhetorical questions but I'll accept correction if my opinion is wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482321/Is-this-the-worst-job-in-the-British-Army.html

I'm going to go on a limb here, but I presume that the requirements for ceremonial duties have not changed much in the ten years since this article was published.

"More than 2,000 troops from the Household Division and the regular Infantry are employed on public duties at any time.

<snip>

Soldiers spend several hours each day cleaning and pressing their uniforms and polishing their boots in preparation for one of the many kit inspections that they are likely to face before taking up their positions outside one of the royal palaces.

Any soldier whose turn-out is less than immaculate is likely to face a variety of punishments, such as extra guard duty. Soldiers spend between two and three years carrying out public duties."

I find it a little difficult to believe that the requirement for public duties has dropped from 2,000 to a couple of companies in the time since that article was written. (Wiki says "At any one time, three infantry battalions are posted for public duties; two of these are Guards battalions (one based at Wellington Barracks next to Buckingham Palace and one at Victoria Barracks in Windsor), while the third is a line infantry unit (based at Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich))" I submit that that's a fairly substantial hole in the orbat of ready troops.

Jawgap

Having been yanked from their ceremonial duties didn't the Scots Guards (and the Welsh Guards) take Mount Tumbledown.....

......against opposition provided by the non-conscript, US trained, Argentinian 5th Marines? In a close-quarter night battle.....

EDIT: Apologies, just checked 5th Marines was a conscript outfit comprising of long service conscripts.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

No reason both armies cant use Irish culture. Its actually a bit odd that its only the BA that uses such aspects of Irish culture.

The Irish army has it's own pipe bands 007 :rolleyes: Coincidentally enough, here's an Irish army pipe band drowning out a Brit regiment at a ceremony in France Pipe band v brass band - bagpipes win hands down !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeWhDd8Ia88

I remember as a kid I first heard of the Wolfhound because the Irish Guards were parading one on tv.

Ah well you wouldn't know much about what happens outside little Britain would you :rolleyes: The Irish Wolfhound has been used as a mascot by the Irish DF's, rugby and soccer teams, boxers etc multiple times down the years. Here's the 69th New York Fighting Irish Regiment on St Paddy's complete with Irish Wolfhound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTnnKzIF7dI


(They seem casual enough in their marching I have to say, probably looking forward to getting into civies and getting hammered on green beer in some Irish pub )

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Ah well you wouldn't know much about what happens outside little Britain would you :rolleyes: The Irish Wolfhoundhttp://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/icons/icon13.png has been used as a mascot by the Irish DF's, rugby and soccer teams, boxers etc multiple times down the years. Here's the 69th New York Fighting Irish Regiment on St Paddy's complete with Irish Wolfhound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTnnKzIF7dI


.......

The use of the Irish Wolfhound as a military mascot pre-dates the establishment of the Irish Defence Forces.

Here's a picture of a drummer boy escorting an Irish Guards wolfhound in Waterford Barracks in 1917



'Garry' (as in short for Garryowen) was the famous mascot of the Munsters.

The breed was saved from 'extinction' by a Scottish breeder in the mid 19th century who crossed the few remaining pure-bred wolfhounds with deerhounds to get the breed we see today.

The reason you sometimes see the Irish Guards mascot wearing a 'coat' goes back to WW1 when some Guardsmen discovered a wolfhound injured and freezing in a trench. They used a greatcoat to help warm the dog which had been brought to France as a working animal rather than as a mascot where he helped rescue wounded soldiers and assisted wire parties by carrying kit.

The dog in question was a former DMP wolfhound called Bally Shannon.

Here's the current Irish Guards mascot - Domhnall - with his new coat (courtesy of Uachtarán na hÉireann)

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

a. Are you suggesting that the Argentine conscripts were trained to a level even approximating that of a professional British soldier of the time, even one yanked out of ceremonial duties? b. Or have I been constantly overrating British soldiers all this time?

a. No, of course not, but having overwhelming firepower from a dug-in position needs a lot of fighting to beat. Ma deuces with nightsights make a lasting impression, especially when they are being used on you.

b. Your opinion of British soldiers is not cogent to this thread. I feel, having been one, that British soldiers in general do quite well, bearing in mind that the US Air Force alone likely has has more Majors/Lt Cols than the the British Army has soldiers who take part in the more famous of the ceremonial roles.

The point you made that those British troops engaged in ceremonial duties spend between 'two and three years on ceremonial duties' [where did that come from, I wonder?] does not take into account that the average British infantry soldier usually serves around sixteen to twenty-two years in the colours, especially in the Household Division, with a great many carrying on to the 22-year point.

So he is hardly hopping on and off ceremonial duties like changing his shorts.

tac

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but in 1982, were not Scots Guards yanked from ceremonial duties and sent to go fight a war without the benefit of three months of pre-deployment training to knock the rust off? It seems unreasonable to expect that all future opponents will be as unmotivated and unskilled as Argentine conscripts, or that three months' notice will always be provided in the case of tougher opposition.

Now, don't get me wrong, the US is running a similar risk Army-wide with its current ARFORGEN cycle system, which works nicely for the ten-year stability ops role it's had, but everyone knows that in the case of "Everyone go -NOW-" it is unfeasible to reach expected capabilties across units in certain parts of the cycle.

In 1982 Guards company's did not rotate, after the Falklands this was introduced.

Argentine NCOs were professional soldiers as were various marine and SF units.

The Falklands war was caused by an intel. failure, its the onlytime UK forces have been deployed in such numbers at such short notice since WW2. Even Suez did not compare.

The rapid deployment role is served by 16 Air Asslt Bded and 3 commando bde.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, you managed to miss my point entirely. I said that it is unreasonable to expect that one can always assume there will be pre-deployment training to knock the rust off, and I also pointed out that even in the US's half-million-man Army, we will have difficulty in a surge since we developed a force structure system which relies upon a significant portion of units (about a third) not being ready to go. There are in-built deficiencies in the system. I assume that the system accounted for them when the system was designed, but that doesn't deny that they are there.



Hard fighting and competent fighting are not necessarily the same thing, especially in the defense. Are you suggesting that the Argentine conscripts were trained to a level even approximating that of a professional British soldier of the time, even one yanked out of ceremonial duties? Or have I been constantly overrating British soldiers all this time? Could the Argentinians have made the fight inland from San Carlos to Stanley against British defense? These seem to me to be rhetorical questions but I'll accept correction if my opinion is wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482321/Is-this-the-worst-job-in-the-British-Army.html

I'm going to go on a limb here, but I presume that the requirements for ceremonial duties have not changed much in the ten years since this article was published.

"More than 2,000 troops from the Household Division and the regular Infantry are employed on public duties at any time.

<snip>

Soldiers spend several hours each day cleaning and pressing their uniforms and polishing their boots in preparation for one of the many kit inspections that they are likely to face before taking up their positions outside one of the royal palaces.

Any soldier whose turn-out is less than immaculate is likely to face a variety of punishments, such as extra guard duty. Soldiers spend between two and three years carrying out public duties."

I find it a little difficult to believe that the requirement for public duties has dropped from 2,000 to a couple of companies in the time since that article was written. (Wiki says "At any one time, three infantry battalions are posted for public duties; two of these are Guards battalions (one based at Wellington Barracks next to Buckingham Palace and one at Victoria Barracks in Windsor), while the third is a line infantry unit (based at Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich))" I submit that that's a fairly substantial hole in the orbat of ready troops.

Highly inaccurate article, Knigtsbridge/Hyde pk and Wellington barracks is a popular posting, its a modern barracks in the center of London. The 4 hours getting kit ready refers to mounted cavalry inc horses, which is correct.

60 soldiers made up of Guards and inc other units are deployed at the Tower of London.

1 company covers, (not inc the Guards band, Blues and Royals and Lifeguards) Buckingham Palace, st James Palace.

Most manpower is taken up with the changing of the Guard.


Argentina lost the Falklands war due to poor tactics and leadership not to having conscripts, as Tac said they had better gear then the Brits, fully auto FN rifles, decent boots, night vision sights, they also held the high ground, their officers deserted them. Saying that what the Brit infantry inc marines did was pretty exceptional, the odds were against them.

Some fought, mostly professional marines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Guard

The Queen's Guard is the name given to the contingent of infantry responsible for guarding Buckingham Palace and St James's Palace (including Clarence House) in London. The guard is made up of a company of soldiers from a single regiment, which is split in two, providing a detachment for Buckingham Palace and a detachment for St James's Palace. Because the Sovereign's official residence is still St James's, the guard commander (called the 'Captain of the Guard') is based there, as are the regiment's colours. When the Sovereign is in residence, the Queen's Guard numbers three officers and 40 other ranks, with four sentries each posted at Buckingham Palace (on the forecourt) and St James's Palace (two at the main entrance in Pall Mall, two in Friary Court). This reduces to three officers and 31 ORs, with two sentries each when the Sovereign is not in residence.[1]

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

In 1982 Guards company's did not rotate, after the Falklands this was introduced.

Argentine NCOs were professional soldiers as were various marine and SF units.

The Falklands war was caused by an intel. failure, its the onlytime UK forces have been deployed in such numbers at such short notice since WW2. Even Suez did not compare.

The rapid deployment role is served by 16 Air Asslt Bded and 3 commando bged.

A lot of the heavy lifting in the ground war during Suez was done by the IDF.

Both the Aden and Malay Emergencies involved more British troops than the Falklands campaign.

The more correct view is that it came about because of a failure of diplomacy, not intelligence - the Argentinians were led to believe HM Government didn't really care about the islands.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

A lot of the heavy lifting in the ground war during Suez was done by the IDF.

Both the Aden and Malay Emergencies involved more British troops than the Falklands campaign.

The more correct view is that it came about because of a failure of diplomacy, not intelligence - the Argentinians were led to believe HM Government didn't really care about the islands.

Yes, but they never deployed in such numbers from the UK at such short notice.

In those days the RN also had a far east fleet.


Its possibly the longest journey by any army or armada by sea from one point to another in history. Vulcan bombers flew the most complex air sorties ever undertaken.


Check out the re-fuelling strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eox5ePddzyQ

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes, but they never deployed in such numbers from the UK at such short notice.

In those days the RN also had a far east fleet.


Its possibly the longest journey by any army or armada by sea from one point to another in history. Vulcan bombers flew the most complex air sorties ever undertaken.


Check out the re-fuelling strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eox5ePddzyQ

Again, you really miss the subtleties of the campaign - the distance travelled isn't most militarily impressive aspect of the campaign as a feat-of-arms. The most impressive aspect is the way the RN, the British Army and the RAF were able to 'pivot' from training to fight a war against the Soviet Union to mounting an oceanic amphibious operation on a large scale - bearing in mind that barely four months beforehand the RN had begun to question whether there would ever be a need for such a operation on anything other than a raid scale.

The RN was, at that point, focused very much on ASW and preventing Soviet subs from gaining the Atlantic - they'd not really looked at amphibious warfare for sometime.

EDIT: Thanks, but I'm quite aware of Black Buck

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

The use of the Irish Wolfhound as a military mascot pre-dates the establishment of the Irish Defence Forces.

Here's a picture of a drummer boy escorting an Irish Guards wolfhound in Waterford Barracks in 1917

:rolleyes: Yes and the Irish Wolfhound predates the British army by at least a 1,000 years as it, like other breed of dog, was used as a guard dog, attack dog, carrying dispatches and a mascot in ancient Ireland.

'Garry' (as in short for Garryowen) was the famous mascot of the Munsters.

The breed was saved from 'extinction' by a Scottish breeder in the mid 19th century who crossed the few remaining pure-bred wolfhounds with deerhounds to get the breed we see today.

The reason you sometimes see the Irish Guards mascot wearing a 'coat' goes back to WW1 when some Guardsmen discovered a wolfhound injured and freezing in a trench. They used a greatcoat to help warm the dog which had been brought to France as a working animal rather than as a mascot where he helped rescue wounded soldiers and assisted wire parties by carrying kit.

The dog in question was a former DMP wolfhound called Bally Shannon.

Here's the current Irish Guards mascot - Domhnall - with his new coat (courtesy of Uachtarán na hÉireann)

" wearing a 'coat' go" :rolleyes: Proof of the silly, pompous, pedantic d!cks the Brits are :rolleyes:

tac foley

Whereas you, Sir, would have left the animal to die, right?

That's the difference between folks who care and folks who don't give a hoot.

You DID notice, did you not, that the Guardsmen responsible were Irish Guards, or had that somehow escaped your notice?

tac

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yes and the Irish Wolfhound predates the British army by at least a 1,000 years as it, like other breed of dog, was used as a guard dog, attack dog, carrying dispatches and a mascot in ancient Ireland.

......

I think you'll find the 'Wolfhound' from the medieval period and before was a noticeably smaller creature and not distinctly Irish. Wolfhounds were often given as gifts between sovereigns because they were prized for hunting - people were also not so precious about breeding them so breeds were often mixed - wolfhounds, deerhounds, greyhounds even elkhounds were bred, cross-bred and re-bred, at whim of the owner.

The idea of dogs as more identifiable, standard 'breeds' is a Victorian invention. Up until then lords, farmers etc just tried to breed animals to suit their local circumstances.

....and the Hound of Culann that Setanta knocked on the head was most likely a Scottish rough hound.

Yours etc

Jawgap
(happy owner of two fine Newfs )

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you'll find the 'Wolfhound' from the medieval period and before was a noticeably smaller creature and not distinctly Irish. Wolfhounds were often given as gifts between sovereigns because they were prized for hunting - people were also not so precious about breeding them so breeds were often mixed - wolfhounds, deerhounds, greyhounds even elkhounds were bred, cross-bred and re-bred, at whim of the owner.

The idea of dogs as more identifiable, standard 'breeds' is a Victorian invention. Up until then lords, farmers etc just tried to breed animals to suit their local circumstances.

....and the Hound of Culann that Setanta knocked on the head was most likely a Scottish rough hound.

Yours etc

Jawgap
(happy owner of two fine Newfs )

I suppose you were there when it happened in the SAS's secret time travelling machine eh Walt ? :rolleyes:

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

I suppose you were there when it happened in the SAS's secret time travelling machine eh Walt ? :rolleyes:

No, I just like to read and among my diverse interests are large dog breeds. I looked at getting a couple of Wolfhounds, but in the end went with a pair of Newfies - Sulla and Lir - because they're less of land dog than the Wolfhounds.

You can find plenty if articles on line discussing the origin of various breeds along with stories / accounts of notable members of those breeds.

Boreas

Going back to the original post. If the DF did more ceremonial/changing of the guard type things do you think it would look better if they used Lee Enfields? Not disparaging bullpups but there is something about the look of more traditional rifles.

Savage93

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yes and the Irish Wolfhound predates the British army by at least a 1,000 years as it, like other breed of dog, was used as a guard dog, attack dog, carrying dispatches and a mascot in ancient Ireland.




" wearing a 'coat' go" :rolleyes: Proof of the silly, pompous, pedantic d!cks the Brits are :rolleyes:

I'll take a ban , F**k off to whatever cave you shinnerbots lurk in these days.

neilled

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yes and the Irish Wolfhound predates the British army by at least a 1,000 years as it, like other breed of dog, was used as a guard dog, attack dog, carrying dispatches and a mascot in ancient Ireland.




" wearing a 'coat' go" :rolleyes: Proof of the silly, pompous, pedantic d!cks the Brits are :rolleyes:

Hmmmmmm

tac foley

Well, well, who'd-a-thought it, eh? A fine-looking group of Irishmen and a lady with a very impressive Irish Wolfhound in 'coat' uniform. What a great photograph that is, to be sure.

Thanks for posting a timely reminder of Irish military history and tradition.

tac

tac foley

Mr Joe seems to gone all kinda quiet, doncha think?

First he called me a Walt, and then Mr Jawgap posted a photo of me surrounded by Soviet troops in a British Military Mission tour car in East Germany. That got no response from Mr Joe.

Then he called people who had military animal mascots a bunch of 'silly, pompous pedantic dicks', only to have that great photograph above of the President of the Republic, two OR handlers and a senior officer of the Irish Permanent Defence Forces, and a fine-looking lady [Mrs President, perhaps?], making a fuss of THEIR Irish Wolfhound, wearing the coat he so derided.

Still no response from Mr Joe.

Me, I'm not counting points, but I think we've won THESE two games quite comprehensively.

I much prefer his lack of posts to his otherwise frequent ones, very few of which seem to have anything positive to say about anybody or anything.

tac

Savage93

Savage93 wrote: »

I'll take a ban , F**k off to whatever cave you shinnerbots lurk in these days.

I hate to speak too soon but I should have said it a long time ago:D:D:D

Jawgap

Savage93 wrote: »

I hate to speak too soon but I should have said it a long time ago:D:D:D

He obviously heeded your request

Tac, I think the officer with the brolly is the President's ADC, rather than a general. The rank insignia for an Irish commandant is not dissimilar to that of a British brigadier. Apparently it's been known to cause all kinds of 'trouble' on NATO missions on dark evenings when an Irish commandant with his crossed swords goes for a stroll!