Line Infantry Synopsis! the cheek of it!

#1
Unfair synopsis?



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


In the United Kingdom, Infantry of the Line or Line Infantry refers to the soldiers forming the bulk of any dismounted force, as distinct from Guards, light infantry and more recently, special operations forces.

Infantry of the Line are so called because they fought in rigid formations, unlike light troops, who fought in loose order. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw expansion of the roles of the infantry, specialist grenadiers appeared and the role of skirmishers expanded. The Line Infantry was the remaining body of musket-armed foot soldiers.

The tactical distinctions between infantry regiments disappeared in the late nineteenth century, but remain in tradition. Most infantry units in the British Army are regarded as line infantry, including the regiments historically classed as light infantry.

Modern day British Line Infantry Regiment recruits undertake 24 weeks of training (CIC) at the School of Infantry Catterick; whereas superior counterparts in respect to fitness and infantry/soldiering skills undertake longer and more arduous training:

Parachute Regiment: 28 weeks
Royal Marine Commandos: 32 weeks
RAF Regiment: 29 weeks


Despite Line Infantry being highly capable combat soldiers they are still referred to as 'Crap Hats' by the Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines and members of II Squadron RAF Regiment.

The term 'crap hat' is derogatory slang for the reason that Line Infantry soldiers have not completed one of the followig arduous courses:

P-Company
Commando Tests
RAF Pre Para


Thus, Line Infantry are deemed inferior with respects to the dynamics of an effective combat soldier compared to that of the Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines and RAF Regiment.
 
#5
Royal Marines don't refer to infantry as "crap hats", they are members of the army so they're "pongos".
Royal Marines don't refer to members of the RAF as infantry.

Obviously written by some RAF regt type with usual chip on shoulder trying to "big" themselves up.
 
#6
is the standard difference thing correct though? due to the extended amount of weeks??

Im a civvy (hence my username) but I have 2 friends in the forces at the moment, one who is in the Royal Engineers said something along the lines that the RAF Reg are a load of crap, and Army combat support units have better soldiering skills than the RAF Reg!

The other one has just come out of 1 PARA, and said the RAF Reg he worked with whilst in SFSG were "fu##ing top notch" especially the FAC boys! and would rather work with them as opposed to the Royal Marines who he didnt have a high opinion of!

Not sure if this was because of the age old rivalry between Para and RM, but he seemed quite passionate with his negative views of the Marines.

I'm more inclined to believe my para mate as his synopsis of the RAF reg was more constructive as opposed to my RE mate who just put them down straight away without even had the chance of working with the RAF Reg
 
#7
log in and change it.........
 
#8
The only Infantry inferior to RAF Regt:



(and that's only because they are on R+R.)
 
#9
boredcivvy said:
is the standard difference thing correct though? due to the extended amount of weeks??

Im a civvy (hence my username) but I have 2 friends in the forces at the moment, one who is in the Royal Engineers said something along the lines that the RAF Reg are a load of crap, and Army combat support units have better soldiering skills than the RAF Reg!

The other one has just come out of 1 PARA, and said the RAF Reg he worked with whilst in SFSG were "fu##ing top notch" especially the FAC boys! and would rather work with them as opposed to the Royal Marines who he didnt have a high opinion of!

Not sure if this was because of the age old rivalry between Para and RM, but he seemed quite passionate with his negative views of the Marines.

I'm more inclined to believe my para mate as his synopsis of the RAF reg was more constructive as opposed to my RE mate who just put them down straight away without even had the chance of working with the RAF Reg
That'll make a change then..... :roll:

The only people I've met who constantly use the words "Craphat, hat" etc all seem to be airborne or airborne wanna bees.
 
#10
The offending article should really come under the heading of this pre-existing one:

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

Clearly it has been written with the sole purpose of distinguishing the Royal Marines, Paras, and RAF Reg from the rest of the Armed Forces. FFS, the article mentions these 3 units more then it covers the Line Infantry themsleves :evil:
 
#11
It's obviously been altered but this line got me:

"RAF Regiment: 29 weeks - at RAF Honiton; this course differs in certain respects from standard Infantry training reflecting the RAF Regt's primary role of Airfield Defence/ Force Protection."

Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.

Vaguely sensible please, it's not the NAAFI.
 
#12
Cpt_Darling said:
It's obviously been altered but this line got me:

"RAF Regiment: 29 weeks - at RAF Honiton; this course differs in certain respects from standard Infantry training reflecting the RAF Regt's primary role of Airfield Defence/ Force Protection."

Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.

Vaguely sensible please, it's not the NAAFI.
Errr... what's wrong with the comment: RAF Regt Field Formations (Squadrons) differ somewhat in size/ structure/ focus from Army Infantry Companies/ Battalions, and their training reflects this.
 
#13
Wessex_Man said:
Cpt_Darling said:
It's obviously been altered but this line got me:

"RAF Regiment: 29 weeks - at RAF Honiton; this course differs in certain respects from standard Infantry training reflecting the RAF Regt's primary role of Airfield Defence/ Force Protection."

Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.

Vaguely sensible please, it's not the NAAFI.
Errr... what's wrong with the comment: RAF Regt Field Formations (Squadrons) differ somewhat in size/ structure/ focus from Army Infantry Companies/ Battalions, and their training reflects this.
Ive heard the argument that the RAF Regt can't do Inf tasks so many times, and that was how I read that.I may have been wrong.

However at least to Plt/Flt level, we are configured the same and use the same TAMs.
 
#14
Cpt_Darling said:
Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.
He probably knows not to spend the rest of his life feeling slightly inadequate. He also probably knows he doesn't need to try and "big it up".
 
#15
wet_blobby said:
Cpt_Darling said:
Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.
He probably knows not to spend the rest of his life feeling slightly inadequate. He also probably knows he doesn't need to try and "big it up".
Can't think of any then?
 
#16
Cpt_Darling said:
Wessex_Man said:
Cpt_Darling said:
It's obviously been altered but this line got me:

"RAF Regiment: 29 weeks - at RAF Honiton; this course differs in certain respects from standard Infantry training reflecting the RAF Regt's primary role of Airfield Defence/ Force Protection."

Im interested to know what you think your recruit out of Catterick knows that the lad out of Honington doesn't.Barring Coy+ level Ops.

Vaguely sensible please, it's not the NAAFI.
Errr... what's wrong with the comment: RAF Regt Field Formations (Squadrons) differ somewhat in size/ structure/ focus from Army Infantry Companies/ Battalions, and their training reflects this.
Ive heard the argument that the RAF Regt can't do Inf tasks so many times, and that was how I read that.I may have been wrong.

However at least to Plt/Flt level, we are configured the same and use the same TAMs.
I don't think the alterations in any way intended to cast aspersions on the capabilities of the RAF Regt... IMO the alterations were balanced and pretty accurate. Sadly, someone has seen fit to reinstate the original, ill founded & juvenile comments.

Was privileged to know well, and as a schoolboy was taught by, two Para Reg/ Airborne Forces veterans of WW2 (one jumped into Normandy on D Day, & on the Rhine Crossing; the other survived Arnhem) - sadly both recently deceased. They were totally bemused by this whole "cult of The Para" business that seems to pervade certain sections of the modern British Army; couldn't understand all this "Craphat" nonsense, finding it embarrassing & distasteful - as one commented, "Just the sort of braggadocios we didn't want in our units!". And after all, what did they know having only fought in a total war against a first class enemy?!

IMO, recent operations in Afghanistan in particular have rather given the lie to the notion that the humble "Line Infantry" don't/ can't cut it compared with the supposedly super dooper "elites". I have great respect for Para Reg, RM & Co., but the notion that there is a two tier Infantry force just doesn't wash. Serious war fighting requires high quality Infantry, and the BA has them, but in insufficient quantity.

A former pupil of mine - currently a serving RM officer of notable achievement (successful company OC in Afghanistan; SBS service) spent some time on attachment to an Army Inf Battalion: the experience confounded his prejudices, and he admitted the differentials in soldiering skills between his Marines & the much derided "Pongo" line Infantry were minimal. He was particularly surprised by their fitness; despite his best efforts, most - the overwhelming majority - more than held their own. He also commented on the quality of the NCOs - very far from the "promoted on time served basis" mediocrities that the RM commonly believe them to be. It was an invaluable experience that broadened his military horizons significantly ("To be honest, I learned far more from them than I'd care to admit to them!"), and enabled him to appreciate that "At times we're (RM) somewhat parochial in outlook.".

Proper armies require a range of capabilities, and particularly different types of Infantry: just as a decent health service requires different types of doctors (the empathetic, caring GPs; the detached, analytical pathologists/ medical scientists; the terribly clever neurologists & oncologists; the calm but sometimes ruthless surgeons; the think fast on your feet emergency specialists etc etc) so too with armies & infanteers. Each has a role to play - it's not a matter of better than... more capable than..., but rather a matter of complementary roles, each being as invaluable as the others.

Fact is, the British Armed Forces have very good Infantry - all of them. With the possible exception of some Commonwealth Armies, no other army has comparable breadth of quality in its Infantry, and I think it pathetic that someone with an axe to grind finds it necessary to denigrate the majority of them in this way.
 
#17
WM - Well said. One of the unusual strengths of the Armed Forces of this great land is the ability to rib each other mercilessly, whether it be pongo, hat or line jibes. For the grown-ups amongst us, this is nothing more than idle banter, for the younger ones it is a source of fierce Regimental/Service pride - and rightly so.

Only the daft, inexperienced and chippy could lay charges of inadequacy against any of our forces who have seen combat in recent years. Who can rightly sneer at the Line Infantry after the performances of 1 R Anglian in AFG or the Rifles in Iraq, as just two examples? Furthermore who could rightly criticize the importance and the bravery of the Combat Logistic Patrols again in AFG?

Those that do have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to these units have either never seen combat or need to grow up and gain a little real life perspective. And frankly why pick on each other when we can all have a dig at the RAF Regt!
 
#18
hairymonster1006 said:
And frankly why pick on each other when we can all have a dig at the RAF Regt!

Hear Hear. So when are the rockapes going to take over the TLZ patrol* at Bastion anyway? Thus freeing up a platoon of real infantry to take part in ops in the Green Zone.

*Perfect tasking really for our brothers in light blue with chips on both shoulders- Short Range Desert Group covers it nicely. Plus it'll give them plenty of opportunity for poncing about in tricked out WMIKs and posing with loggie chicks for photos.
 
#19
i know clerks with better soldiering skills than the RAF regiment.

having said that, it was 1PWRR who had to teach members of the highly supirior RAF Regiment how to put webbing together and show them the contents of a ration pack in the Falklands last year.

As i said....Clerks that are better...
 
#20
zubrzycki said:
i know clerks with better soldiering skills than the RAF regiment.

having said that, it was 1PWRR who had to teach members of the highly supirior RAF Regiment how to put webbing together and show them the contents of a ration pack in the Falklands last year.

As i said....Clerks that are better...
Of course they did, because that isn't covered in week 1 at all. :roll:

And we have never, not nce had to eat a rat pack when on exercise in the UK, ever. :roll:

You may find they were 'blue' RAF and not RAF Regiment.If it is true.

As to the others, I agree with the Army performance over the last few years has rubbished the '2 tier' claim.Also I would be quite happy to take over the tasking at Bastion, or wherever else in Afghanistan they would wish to send us.
 

Latest Threads

Top