89 (AB) MI Section

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by eye_spy, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. A bunch of unprofessional cowboys, who think they are Paras and are destroying the good name of thei

  2. A collective of war heroes who are misunderstood

  3. Well above us mere mortals, tried and tested collation methods are not for them, anyway, who needs t


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Comments please.

    And does anybody think the decision to keep their name post FAS name changes has just played to their egos?
  2. I sense a disturbance in the Force! Do tell more. In the defence of the Sect title, it's the only one we have with any sort of history. There is a picture (complete with issue labrador if memory serves) of 89 FSS in the airborne museum in Arnhem.

    I do seem to recall issues from TELIC 1 where 16X G2 couldn't grasp the concept that they are a smaller formation than a Div. I believe they whined about it in that years R&L.
  3. It is a bit of a cheek given that certain line regiments with a vague bit of history have not been able to keep their name when you compare it to a section in a Corps that only really kicked off in 1940.

    However this was not part of the FAS plan - somebody has changed their mind and somebody will again.

    We could all just get over it/ignore it.

    Personally I cannot wait for Star Trek to become reality - then I'm sure we'll be the first in 'beam me up padlock checking'. 89 (or whatever they call it) will be so last year after that.
  4. 89 is the only Section in the Corps with proper tracable history. We are too quick to change our names and lose our history - Then the logic of the moment gets lost - eg 7 Coy to 12 Coy, what happens when the ARRC goes to UK and 12 Coy becomes part of 2 or 4 MI - another name change - why?? I vote for keep 89 for ever !!
  5. Ahh, the sweet sound of 89 getting abused by other sections...again. I could rise to this and start spouting off but i think i will take the higher ground here and just like a bit of justification on all the kit we have lost, and when was the last time we were big timing it?
  6. Above all else (excuse the pun) I am with The Editor on this. I read the posts on here and read the Unit designations and I have not got a clue what is being talked about. For OpSec reasons this is perhaps a good thing, and yes, if I really put my mind to it I could probably work a load of the orbat out.

    At least when people refer to 89 (AB) Int Sect I know exactly what is being talked about, and the type of people invloved.

    Personally, unless it has changed significantly in a decade, I have a great deal of respect for the individuals who, for whatever reason, wish to attempt P Company. I always felt that having passed out of Corps training, going on to complete a very physically arduous course for no other reason than personal development and increasingly dubious kudos should be commended, not derided.

    I have no doubt that had I bothered to shift my arrse from a bar stool and found the personal strength to complete the course I would have been a preening, cowboy, bore. I would have earned that right, and would have the opportunity to join a unit with at least some lasting history.

    If things have really changed so much in a decade then I apologise for the rant.

    If they are as they were then I salute 89 and all that fly in her!

    Sour gropes I reckon.

  7. Oh yes! Like Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeches they whined!!!!!!
  8. There is a very good reason behind my attack. I will not go into it here for obvious reasons. However, needless to say, yes I commend those who attempt P Coy. However, I can not defend those that:

    a. Think they are airborne when they haven't even attempt P Coy

    b. Think they are special because they are in a unit which is slightly out of the ordinary

    c. Neglect the more mundane part of our jobs in the Int Sect because it is not interesting or can't be bothered.

    BA, i feel things may have changed somewhat in the last decade.
  9. Yes, a posting to 89 does not one a para make! In fact, more often than not, the people sent there have not and will not do P Coy.

    Anyone posted to 16 Bde, no matter how fat (CR it could be you) gets to wear the maroon beret. You do get more credibility if you pass, or even attempt the course though.

    It is, however, very bad form to slag a section off and not spill the beans ES!!!!
  10. Oh how we laughed when the security hats from the SW went over to HQ 5 Bde to do the lost docs investigation. ( In uniform as well, no keeni-meeni stuff here!!)

    Of course the section had its operational and training priorities to look to, mere piffles such as MoD form 102s were not for these johnny rocks :wink: Needless to say as a result of the investigation, the Bde comd had to pop round for a chat with the GoC.

    Surprisingly similar to an investigation some years before in another "special" int section, where this time, the CO was invited up to see the GoC 5XX as a result of my friend's report.

    Both cases were tied together by a body of "chosen men" who could only serve in "elite" or "special " units. Full personality details were at annex A.

    Subbsonic's tip for today: " Posted to 89 Section? why not cut out the middle man and simply fill out a blank Annex A on yourself. Mail it to the local security section so it's on file before you arrive at 89 :wink: "
  11. :D:D:D:D:D
  12. Is it?

    Looked in the National Archive then?
  13. It seems sad that they no longer HAVE to pass P Coy before being posted to the Sect.

    How can you have an airborne unti that is not airborne? Does that not make it just a normal Int Sect?

    Sounds just like another case of over inflated egos which should be checked by the sect seniors.

    Maintain the Airborne status by passing P coy or change the name to 89(hats) Int Sect

  14. Just a few weeks ahead of Armistice day, I rather think it plays to the memory of the members of our Corps who jumped at Arnhem. Sad we were not able to retain other historic section numbers. I believe there was also an Abn FSS who went on to serve in Palestine with 6 Div?

    My suggestion to re-designate the MI section supporting 43 Bde, to the nomenclature of the Section that landed at Normandy with 43 Wessex Div as part of 30 Corps, fell on predicatably deaf ears.

    IMHO constant rebranding exercises may help budding SO1's and SO2's OJARS, they add little substance. Bring back CI Coy East Rhine and CI Coy West Rhine. Don't forget CI Det Taunton.