Best Regular Unit served with?

#1
Just to turn the tables, and out of interest!
 
#2
Oh, and worst as well.....
 
#3
Ok - you seem to have an interest in it, so why don't you kick it off.

However, when you do this I think it would be good to give examples of what constitutes good and bad!!

Let's see what your vast experience can bring to this entertaing thread!!
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
HCR
I had a great time on Telic 4 with them
If I didn't have such a good civ - div number I would have applied to stay on
 
#5
I was asking, so that those more endowed with operational experience might impart their knowledge upon someone like myself, who has none. I think I can see where this is leading and rather than starting off with a bitch fight as to whether I am worthy to ask such a question, it might be an idea to respond sensibly!
 
#6
Just wondering what their officers were like, t_b_s?
 
#7
40 and 45 Commando RM were brilliant. Commando Helecopter Force (indeed the whole of HMS heron RNAS Yeovilton) were outstanding and the Blues and Royals rather odd but in an interesting rather quaint way.

QDG's Welsh Cavalry were OK, nce enough but there is a serious problem with cavalry officers, I think there is something wrong with their breeding (not to mention dress sense) their mothers either have sex with horses or their mothers are horses. At very least someone should remind them not to marry siblings.

HQ Land Command, is a very irregular, regular place full of some very strange characters most of whom seem obsessed with brightly coloured cravats and sex with close family members, mothers, sisters, fathers???

RGR was by far the best organised unit I visited in 05, its kit excellent, well maintained and organised. The guys were switched on, helpful and worked hard to make our jobs easier.

Coldstream and Grenadier Guards and 1 Para were very similar, they gave a good impression.

The two Scottish infantry Bn's I visited last year were just rude, arrogant and their kit was in poor order. They seemed, here in the UK, to be pretty hopeless. The RTR sqdn co located with one of them was much better.

16 Air Assault Logistics Bn (13??) deployed its kit to Herrick in such a rag order, haphazard way that I would not volunteer to work with them.

Cardinal
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
future_rupert said:
Just wondering what their officers were like, t_b_s?

They were very good I thought
There was one officer who treated us like mongs on build up training but the Cpl Major put him right
He thought that we got the kit when the regulars had finished with it and we knew nothing about CVR(T)
However when we were away the officers were spot on I found that they would sit with us and chat away and have a laugh and would accept suggestions from the lads about things
One troopy answerd to 'boy' when his own troop 3 bar shouted
You must remember the HCR seem to do things very much their way for exampl in Iraq we had to keep our shirts tucked in evn though it was the middle of summer and we could omnly wear issue sunglass's but if you kept your head down and got on with it it was ok
 
#9
the_boy_syrup said:
future_rupert said:
Just wondering what their officers were like, t_b_s?

They were very good I thought
There was one officer who treated us like mongs on build up training but the Cpl Major put him right
He thought that we got the kit when the regulars had finished with it and we knew nothing about CVR(T)
However when we were away the officers were spot on I found that they would sit with us and chat away and have a laugh and would accept suggestions from the lads about things
One troopy answerd to 'boy' when his own troop 3 bar shouted
You must remember the HCR seem to do things very much their way for exampl in Iraq we had to keep our shirts tucked in evn though it was the middle of summer and we could omnly wear issue sunglass's but if you kept your head down and got on with it it was ok
I was attached to HCR in the 90's, C Sqdn Blues and Royals, for a short time training to deploy to Bosnia. Your experience is exactly like mine. All of my preconcieved ideas were transformed, they left a very positive impression on me.

Working with the HCR was far more enjoyable than the QDG's, the unit I eventually deployed with, where the soldiers were good but the officers very poor.

Given the chance to go with HCR again I would jump without a moments hesitation.

Cardinal
 
#11
1RRW great blokes and happy to put up with stabs .
200 signals some ok blokes but the head shed screwed us royally again and again from what I hear the head shed fucked the signallers around as well but still :thumbdown:
 
#13
Cardinal said:
QDG's Welsh Cavalry were OK, nce enough but there is a serious problem with cavalry officers, I think there is something wrong with their breeding (not to mention dress sense) their mothers either have sex with horses or their mothers are horses. At very least someone should remind them not to marry siblings.

HQ Land Command, is a very irregular, regular place full of some very strange characters most of whom seem obsessed with brightly coloured cravats and sex with close family members, mothers, sisters, fathers???

The two Scottish infantry Bn's I visited last year were just rude, arrogant and their kit was in poor order ...

16 Air Assault Logistics Bn (13??) deployed its kit to Herrick in such a rag order, haphazard way that I would not volunteer to work with them.

Cardinal
Right. I've had enough. Who the f*ck do you think you are?

Every post I see of yours is slagging off some corps/regt/bn for some crime against your rather large and over-inflated expectations. If you hate or despise the Army so much, do us all a favour and remove yourself from our environment. I'm sure we won't mourn your passing.
 
#14
Phillip-Kotler said:
Cardinal said:
QDG's Welsh Cavalry were OK, nce enough but there is a serious problem with cavalry officers, I think there is something wrong with their breeding (not to mention dress sense) their mothers either have sex with horses or their mothers are horses. At very least someone should remind them not to marry siblings.

HQ Land Command, is a very irregular, regular place full of some very strange characters most of whom seem obsessed with brightly coloured cravats and sex with close family members, mothers, sisters, fathers???

The two Scottish infantry Bn's I visited last year were just rude, arrogant and their kit was in poor order ...

16 Air Assault Logistics Bn (13??) deployed its kit to Herrick in such a rag order, haphazard way that I would not volunteer to work with them.

Cardinal
Right. I've had enough. Who the f*ck do you think you are?

Every post I see of yours is slagging off some corps/regt/bn for some crime against your rather large and over-inflated expectations. If you hate or despise the Army so much, do us all a favour and remove yourself from our environment. I'm sure we won't mourn your passing.
I notice you didn't quote the good things I said about the other units, including HCR.

I found the QDGs to be as I described them, that was my experience, I got on well with the soldiers but not the officers. Later a QDG officer was posted to another unit I belonged to and this re-enforced my opinion. I also found that the CO of SUOTC, a cavalry officer from a different Regiment, was very similar to those of the QDG's.

If you disbelieve what I say about HQ Land, go and work there yourself! It will take you about seven minutes to witnes some very strange dres sense and seven days to discover some very strange working practices.

In the summer of 05 I visited two Scottish infantry Bn's, one in Warminster and one in Edinbrough. They were both unhelpful and when we eventually found what we were searching for it was very obviously not well cared for.

I worked closely with all the units of 16 Air Assault Bde who were deploying kit to Herrick by sea. It was a very busy time for all the units and instructions changed regularly and at short notice. Only one unit had difficulty in meeting those demands and that was the Log Bn. Everyone else managed, to their credit, but they did not. Some units had to send people down to our location and with our help sort things out, no one had a problem with that but the Log Bn would not play, some arrogant twerp of a Lt turned up demanding we make good what his unit had been unable to do and eventualy I had to get a Major from Land to f**k him off.

So its not being judgemental but saying how, from my experience how I found units to be when I worked with them.

What about the units I said good things about? The units who were helpful and well organised? I mentioned more good units than bad ones

Or perhaps its because I had a little dig at Ruperts that has got you all flustered and hormonal.

Cardinal
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#15
Int & Sy Gp (G) :thumright:
5 RA :thumright:
A Guards Bn - Chelsea Bks - early 80's :thumbdown:
A South of England Inf Bn which has since been amalgamated - Windsor Vickies Bks - also early 80's :thumbdown:
 
#16
Anyone prepared to take me seriously as a soldier is fine & dandy in my books. Given the justified cliche that respect is earned rather than demanded, that can take a little time. I cannot think of any unit or formation where, given time, there has been any issue whatsoever. Some individuals I didn't get on with, for sure; but that's life.

Furthermore, I would hesitate to pass judgement on a unit of several hundred people with various functions, personalities and experience simply on the basis of my limited personal dealings with their MTO or whoever.

I don't know what work you have been doing Cardinal but, it sounds like some sort of staff/support role. Assuming this, your job is to support units whatever it takes. Their job isn't to make your life easier - they have more important things to do. Recognise that and you will get on a lot better with them.

As Montgomery said:

“The staff must be the servant of the troops, and that a good staff officer must serve his commander and the troops but must himself be anonymous”
 
#17
Dilfor said:
Anyone prepared to take me seriously as a soldier is fine & dandy in my books. Given the justified cliche that respect is earned rather than demanded, that can take a little time. I cannot think of any unit or formation where, given time, there has been any issue whatsoever. Some individuals I didn't get on with, for sure; but that's life.

Furthermore, I would hesitate to pass judgement on a unit of several hundred people with various functions, personalities and experience simply on the basis of my limited personal dealings with their MTO or whoever.

I don't know what work you have been doing Cardinal but, it sounds like some sort of staff/support role. Assuming this, your job is to support units whatever it takes. Their job isn't to make your life easier - they have more important things to do. Recognise that and you will get on a lot better with them.

As Montgomery said:

“The staff must be the servant of the troops, and that a good staff officer must serve his commander and the troops but must himself be anonymous”
You are quite right.

I would say, however, that units were given a massive challenge to overcome in the deployment with rapidly changing criteria, some units managed to deal with those problems very well, in all manner of ways, some highly imaginative. So that, to me, is an indication of a unit being good, if they apply that level of flexability to everything they can do almost anything.

The one unit I said didn't cope, Logs Bn at 16 Air Assault Bde couldn't cope with rapid changes in instruction, not a good indicator.

While I dont expect any unit to exist purely to make my job easier I would say that those units which were helpful found my team and I helpful to them, we would go that extra mile to fit in with their requirements etc. That has to be a better way of conducting business.

When we visited the Gurkhas, the way they worked enabled us to be gone from their location within a couple of hours, so we were no longer getting in their way asking questions and looking for things. Better for them better for us. AGSH in Canterbury were the same, their efficiency made it possible for us to come in do our job with the minimum of fuss and disruption to them.

The other two Scottish Bn's were so obstructive, the visits lasted days and must have caused them some disruption.

Is this not a small indication of how good a unit might be?

Cardinal
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#18
Cardinal said:
Dilfor said:
Anyone prepared to take me seriously as a soldier is fine & dandy in my books. Given the justified cliche that respect is earned rather than demanded, that can take a little time. I cannot think of any unit or formation where, given time, there has been any issue whatsoever. Some individuals I didn't get on with, for sure; but that's life.

Furthermore, I would hesitate to pass judgement on a unit of several hundred people with various functions, personalities and experience simply on the basis of my limited personal dealings with their MTO or whoever.

I don't know what work you have been doing Cardinal but, it sounds like some sort of staff/support role. Assuming this, your job is to support units whatever it takes. Their job isn't to make your life easier - they have more important things to do. Recognise that and you will get on a lot better with them.

As Montgomery said:

“The staff must be the servant of the troops, and that a good staff officer must serve his commander and the troops but must himself be anonymous”
You are quite right.

I would say, however, that units were given a massive challenge to overcome in the deployment with rapidly changing criteria, some units managed to deal with those problems very well, in all manner of ways, some highly imaginative. So that, to me, is an indication of a unit being good, if they apply that level of flexability to everything they can do almost anything.

The one unit I said didn't cope, Logs Bn at 16 Air Assault Bde couldn't cope with rapid changes in instruction, not a good indicator.

While I dont expect any unit to exist purely to make my job easier I would say that those units which were helpful found my team and I helpful to them, we would go that extra mile to fit in with their requirements etc. That has to be a better way of conducting business.

When we visited the Gurkhas, the way they worked enabled us to be gone from their location within a couple of hours, so we were no longer getting in their way asking questions and looking for things. Better for them better for us. AGSH in Canterbury were the same, their efficiency made it possible for us to come in do our job with the minimum of fuss and disruption to them.

The other two Scottish Bn's were so obstructive, the visits lasted days and must have caused them some disruption.

Is this not a small indication of how good a unit might be?

Cardinal
Possibly a very small indication, based on limited experience directly related to whatever task it was that you were doing.

Personally, I would measure 13 Air Asslt Regt RLC (to use your example) by their ability to provide logistic support to 16 Air Asslt Bde on operations and exercise. For a TA soldier on their strength (not visiting for a short task) he/she would probably measure them on their reception, how well they were integrated into the unit, and the experience they had there.

Conversely, the A&SH could have great admin in the bit that you checked, but be absolutely shit at their job, or be totally unwelcoming to TA SCOTS soldiers going to them, and not helping them to integrate into their unit. I am sure that they are not on both counts, but this is for the sake of the example.

On the basis of a visit only taking a few hours, you assume that the unit is good. Conversely, if you had to be there for slightly longer, you assume them to be bad. Hardly a way to judge units where the question asks about units you served with (as opposed to units you happened to visit in the course of a job).

By the way, I worked alongside both of the units quoted above for a considerable period of time, and found them both to be very good, professional units.
 
#19
Cardinal said:
Dilfor said:
Anyone prepared to take me seriously as a soldier is fine & dandy in my books. Given the justified cliche that respect is earned rather than demanded, that can take a little time. I cannot think of any unit or formation where, given time, there has been any issue whatsoever. Some individuals I didn't get on with, for sure; but that's life.

Furthermore, I would hesitate to pass judgement on a unit of several hundred people with various functions, personalities and experience simply on the basis of my limited personal dealings with their MTO or whoever.

I don't know what work you have been doing Cardinal but, it sounds like some sort of staff/support role. Assuming this, your job is to support units whatever it takes. Their job isn't to make your life easier - they have more important things to do. Recognise that and you will get on a lot better with them.

As Montgomery said:

“The staff must be the servant of the troops, and that a good staff officer must serve his commander and the troops but must himself be anonymous”
You are quite right.

I would say, however, that units were given a massive challenge to overcome in the deployment with rapidly changing criteria, some units managed to deal with those problems very well, in all manner of ways, some highly imaginative. So that, to me, is an indication of a unit being good, if they apply that level of flexability to everything they can do almost anything.

The one unit I said didn't cope, Logs Bn at 16 Air Assault Bde couldn't cope with rapid changes in instruction, not a good indicator.

While I dont expect any unit to exist purely to make my job easier I would say that those units which were helpful found my team and I helpful to them, we would go that extra mile to fit in with their requirements etc. That has to be a better way of conducting business.

When we visited the Gurkhas, the way they worked enabled us to be gone from their location within a couple of hours, so we were no longer getting in their way asking questions and looking for things. Better for them better for us. AGSH in Canterbury were the same, their efficiency made it possible for us to come in do our job with the minimum of fuss and disruption to them.

The other two Scottish Bn's were so obstructive, the visits lasted days and must have caused them some disruption.

Is this not a small indication of how good a unit might be?

Cardinal
Indeed - but potentially quite a small one. The obstructiveness or lack of flexibility may have resulted from previous bad experiences with your predecessors; it may have only stemmed from a few individuals; it may be because they had multiple other issues to deal with that you were not aware of.

I suppose it is only natural (in fact, only possible) to judge a unit on one's particular experiences, but I think it is both polite and sensible to be a little careful about what wider conclusions one draws from these experiences. The real judge of how good a unit is, is how it performs on operations in pursuit of the commander's mission. It is possible to be a bit weak in barracks/on mounting but fantastic when sh*t hits the fan.
 
#20
Point taken. In that case all of the units I have been a part of, attached to or worked alongside rather than just visited have been good.

HCR was enjoyable, the men of the QDG's easy to get along with. Both appeared to be good at their jobs.

40 and 45 Commando, CHOSC and HMS Heron were likewise easy to settle in with, appeared to work well.

The units I only visited, left an impression but is as you say not fair to judge on such a short period.

Cardinal
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top