Nice Airborne Photo

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by tomahawk6, Oct 30, 2004.

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. And if you think that being Airborne and Para is in the least bit either warry or clever, get your hands into your very big pockets and throw money here

    If you are foreign or American and doubt how good these guys were, look here

    They were part of the original Airborne Forces, landed and fought with hardly any kit and upheld the traditions that we as Brit squaddies hold to heart. The GPR Association is dying (mainly due to the fact that it was a short lived WW2 regiment and therefore has no young members) and needs you lot to cough up. It wishes to maintain its independency and therefore will not go begging to the AACA or the Para A, which is fair enough, they have an identity and it is up to us to let them keep it.

    So cough up you c****


  2. I was taught to keep my feet together.

    As for the Glider Pilot Regiment, I have always thought of them as the intellectual's branch of airborne soldiering.

    Try to get hold of a copy of 'The Wooden Sword' by I forget who. An inspiring story.
  3. only single stick, at 1200 ft :wink:
  4. Yes, nice photo, and that is all it is. Its what you do on the ground that counts. Those of us in the Regiment lose the "thrill" of Parachuting pretty rapidly once you leave the Depot and hit Brigade/Battalion size drops and the hassle that goes along with it. Its just a means of transport which is why after 30 years of Military Parachuting I have gone to war in a Landing Craft, on a Motorbike, and in a landrover during the last 3 major conflicts.

    Stella, fact of life mate that these brave old lads of the GPR are dying off and although their association will not go begging they are well supported by the Para Regt Assn and many are members. They are held in high esteem by those of us in the present generation of ABF as are the Glider Borne Troops. As a "Citizen Army" of conscripts in for the duration only and fighting a war of national survival and all they achieved doing so it makes me wonder why we make such a fuss over buckshee tours in Iraq when we are a "Volunteer" Army and enlisted to fight our countrys wars.
  5. Yes, I had to get the local library to find it - I think it eventually came from the county stack.
  7. Its too bad you have lost the thrill of parachuting. We in the US love all things related to military parachuting. I dont know how often you jump the BA but our paratroopers get at least one jump a month. While I agree its just a means to get to the action, airborne forces are the ultimate rapid response force. Paratroopers can seize an airport to open the way for follow on forces. Paratroopers can be inserted anywhere in the world there is an open field, something the other types of infantry cannot perform.
  8. like being sitting targets between exiting aircraft and landing and then trying to dump the canopy, unsheath your weapon and return fire?
  9. Looks 'clean fatigues' to me. Is that 'military parachuting' or throwing yourself out of an aircraft? :roll:
  10. And just what happens if your SEAD hasn't quite paid off, and the DAS on your C130 / whatever doesn't quite catch the passive missile aiming to spoil your day? Godbye Coy.....
  11. We may have had this debate before, but I would say that the parachute is now as obsolete as the glider as a form of military transport. Yes, parachute troops can be inserted at huge distances, complete with lots of heavy equipment. But can they be sustained? Reliably?

    If the answer is anything but a very definite and properly justified 'yes', it is clear that the parachute operation can only ever be undertaken over a short period of time and, if ground-based support is to arrive, over a fairly short distance. So, what advantage does the fixed wing/parachute combination have over the helicopter? Especially when the helicopter provides an extraction as well as an insertion capability.

    If you look at the full costs of maintaining a parachute capability (the aircrew training costs in particular), I think it will become apparent that it is a white elephant. The way ahead for the UK is more helos and C-17s and fewer Hercs. The Parachute Regiment can argue its own case for retention in the infantry order of battle.
  12. Im going to agree with Filbert_Fox on this one. As awesome as parachuting is, it has always been an extremely dangerous method of inserting troops into the battlefield. I live next door to a veteran of Arnhem and DDay, who thinks that military parachuting is one of the dumbest ideas possible. True, you may seize the airfield (hurrah!) but will most likely lose 50% of your forces during insertion back in the day of the Dakota and Lee Enfield (hmmm...) and certainly more like 70% in the modern day of the ZSU, Stinger etc. (oh dear!) What is more, you are then facing an enemy who is most likely armed to the teeth with armour, heli support, artillery etc. which, to be frank, parachutists are slightly next to * all use against. Would the human cost of a combat jump in the modern age really be worth the extra time it took to drive the IFVs etc. to the same airfield at fewer losses. Heli borne ops is definately the future in this respect - its insertion and extraction and, what is more, can provide some form of close air support/resupply to back up the troops - so long as the rest of your troops aren't more than half a day behind you. Again, having said that, within about two days on the modern battlefield (if they were still alive), i can guarantee that most troops, whether they be parachute or heli borne, would be begging to hear that "squeaksqueaksqueaksqueaksqueakclunksqueak" that accompanies the arrival of friendly armour and reinforcements. [/quote]
  13. We dropped Rangers into Kandahar without difficulty and then extracted them after the raid. No casualties.