Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Op Banner photos - some memories for the old and bold

That's chaff :)

A lot of the time it's pure p!sh :)
Often true, though sometimes it is almost indelible belief originating from ill informed sources. We military people are somewhat invested with the view that anyone who is either in authority and/or respected, will convey 'truthful' information. Usually because they too believe it is truthful. Sometimes it isn't. I shall provide an example for the disbelievers:

Back around '71 in Nordirland - a 'teeth arms' regiment made a very significant find of weaponry - significant enough to be relayed to Brigade who logged the matter into its records. Jump forward forty years or so and the said records are released into the public domain via the national archives.

The record states that 'Acting on information received from the RUC.... etc' and proceeds to list the items recovered (this included a very significant item). In an effort to collate additional confirmatory information I discovered, from other documents at the archives, that relations between the military and the RUC were regarded as strained by the upper echelons of the MOD and the body politic. It was also stated that irrespective of the impact on relations with the minority community, every effort was to be made to maintain relationships between the Army and the RUC.

Digging a little further I found that the unit concerned (above) published an end of tour commemorative booklet of their tour for issue to soldiers and their families. This document also and unsurprisingly mentions the 'major find' referred to above. Now, with the exception of a few individuals, the rank and file would have no access to the NIREP that went, daily, from TAC HQ to Brigade. However, if there was something clearly incorrect back in the day, it would not be possible to hide the facts from the wider body of men who would be aware of exactly what happened at the coal face. Consequently, the 'regiment's commemorative booklet describes the circumstances leading to the same major find (evident because it includes the one off find of a virtually unique weapon on the same day at the same location) - the find occurred not because of information received from the RUC, but because of an alert junior NCO who made a 'chance' observation as he was passing an empty building during a routine foot patrol.

Which version is correct? My vote goes to the booklet - unlikely to lie to face of those who knew better. Looks like a politically motivated back-slap to the civilian police - nothing wrong with that in principle, but the question remains, which version is correct?

ETA Doubtless it could be argued that the RUC 'tasked' the unit to carry out the patrol - but there again, that was the point of the exercise (MACP). There are many more examples of deliberate propaganda by both sides - another time.
 
When I lived near Hull I was told that in the news Hull was never named in wartime news broadcasts, it was just 'a city in the north east'.
Really? I would have thought it was you couldn't notice the difference after a raid other than a slight improvement.
 
First of several Zeppelin raids on Hartlepool knocked out Hartlepool United FC (1916)

The club never recovered..................................=D
Hartlepool-United-Victoria-Ground-1916-Zeppelin-Raid.jpg
 
Often true, though sometimes it is almost indelible belief originating from ill informed sources. We military people are somewhat invested with the view that anyone who is either in authority and/or respected, will convey 'truthful' information. Usually because they too believe it is truthful. Sometimes it isn't. I shall provide an example for the disbelievers:

Back around '71 in Nordirland - a 'teeth arms' regiment made a very significant find of weaponry - significant enough to be relayed to Brigade who logged the matter into its records. Jump forward forty years or so and the said records are released into the public domain via the national archives.

The record states that 'Acting on information received from the RUC.... etc' and proceeds to list the items recovered (this included a very significant item). In an effort to collate additional confirmatory information I discovered, from other documents at the archives, that relations between the military and the RUC were regarded as strained by the upper echelons of the MOD and the body politic. It was also stated that irrespective of the impact on relations with the minority community, every effort was to be made to maintain relationships between the Army and the RUC.

Digging a little further I found that the unit concerned (above) published an end of tour commemorative booklet of their tour for issue to soldiers and their families. This document also and unsurprisingly mentions the 'major find' referred to above. Now, with the exception of a few individuals, the rank and file would have no access to the NIREP that went, daily, from TAC HQ to Brigade. However, if there was something clearly incorrect back in the day, it would not be possible to hide the facts from the wider body of men who would be aware of exactly what happened at the coal face. Consequently, the 'regiment's commemorative booklet describes the circumstances leading to the same major find (evident because it includes the one off find of a virtually unique weapon on the same day at the same location) - the find occurred not because of information received from the RUC, but because of an alert junior NCO who made a 'chance' observation as he was passing an empty building during a routine foot patrol.

Which version is correct? My vote goes to the booklet - unlikely to lie to face of those who knew better. Looks like a politically motivated back-slap to the civilian police - nothing wrong with that in principle, but the question remains, which version is correct?

ETA Doubtless it could be argued that the RUC 'tasked' the unit to carry out the patrol - but there again, that was the point of the exercise (MACP). There are many more examples of deliberate propaganda by both sides - another time.

There has always been deliberate propaganda - an obvious example being that the French were part of the war winning allies of WW2.

They were conquered, occupied and collaborated with ze Germans, before being liberated by the US - UK.

The propaganda was so powerful that the French still believe it.
 
Often true, though sometimes it is almost indelible belief originating from ill informed sources. We military people are somewhat invested with the view that anyone who is either in authority and/or respected, will convey 'truthful' information. Usually because they too believe it is truthful. Sometimes it isn't. I shall provide an example for the disbelievers:

Back around '71 in Nordirland - a 'teeth arms' regiment made a very significant find of weaponry - significant enough to be relayed to Brigade who logged the matter into its records. Jump forward forty years or so and the said records are released into the public domain via the national archives.

The record states that 'Acting on information received from the RUC.... etc' and proceeds to list the items recovered (this included a very significant item). In an effort to collate additional confirmatory information I discovered, from other documents at the archives, that relations between the military and the RUC were regarded as strained by the upper echelons of the MOD and the body politic. It was also stated that irrespective of the impact on relations with the minority community, every effort was to be made to maintain relationships between the Army and the RUC.

Digging a little further I found that the unit concerned (above) published an end of tour commemorative booklet of their tour for issue to soldiers and their families. This document also and unsurprisingly mentions the 'major find' referred to above. Now, with the exception of a few individuals, the rank and file would have no access to the NIREP that went, daily, from TAC HQ to Brigade. However, if there was something clearly incorrect back in the day, it would not be possible to hide the facts from the wider body of men who would be aware of exactly what happened at the coal face. Consequently, the 'regiment's commemorative booklet describes the circumstances leading to the same major find (evident because it includes the one off find of a virtually unique weapon on the same day at the same location) - the find occurred not because of information received from the RUC, but because of an alert junior NCO who made a 'chance' observation as he was passing an empty building during a routine foot patrol.

Which version is correct? My vote goes to the booklet - unlikely to lie to face of those who knew better. Looks like a politically motivated back-slap to the civilian police - nothing wrong with that in principle, but the question remains, which version is correct?

ETA Doubtless it could be argued that the RUC 'tasked' the unit to carry out the patrol - but there again, that was the point of the exercise (MACP). There are many more examples of deliberate propaganda by both sides - another time.
and the significant weapon was what?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
There has always been deliberate propaganda - an obvious example being that the French were part of the war winning allies of WW2.

They were conquered, occupied and collaborated with ze Germans, before being liberated by the US - UK.

The propaganda was so powerful that the French still believe it.
One of the German generals who was signing the surrender (Keitel?), apparently walked into the room, looked around, and in a disgusted voice said "what, even the French?"
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
One of the German generals who was signing the surrender (Keitel?), apparently walked into the room, looked around, and in a disgusted voice said "what, even the French?"
 
Top