Parachute Vs Amphibious Capability

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
If I were in government, I would be looking to make cuts to benefits/overseas aid/MPs expenses, anything non productive, rather than lose good quality capabilities from our defence structure.

The opening question IMO is stupid, therefore very possible considering the twats in the HoC, both parties.
 
#3
Airborne is probably better for short/medium entry, you need AAR / friendly bases.

There are relatively fewer landlocked countries and the amphibious troops bring their own base (the ships).
 
#6
Here's a question. How do you inculcate the ethos of the Parachute Regiment into the British line regiments? As they slim down, you probably just need a lot PARA type blokes with their nails ethos sans parachutes; but as regards capability, I would support the Marines.
 
#14
Bungabunga has been at it on RR too with questions about Naval Surface Combat, Royal Marines role after Afghan and ....... The STC branch.

Me smells journo. And a rubbish one a that.


Sent via Heliograph from the Jebel Birkenhead
 
#15
Or just special needs troll..... Not sure there is much difference there however.


Sent via Heliograph from the Jebel Birkenhead
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
Bungabunga has been at it on RR too with questions about Naval Surface Combat, Royal Marines role after Afghan and ....... The STC branch.

Me smells journo. And a rubbish one a that.


Sent via Heliograph from the Jebel Birkenhead
OPSEC, honestly is nothing secret anymore.
 
#18
Here's a question. How do you inculcate the ethos of the Parachute Regiment into the British line regiments? As they slim down, you probably just need a lot PARA type blokes with their nails ethos sans parachutes; but as regards capability, I would support the Marines.
Why? Once you've stopped reading the Para propaganda, British Line Infantry are just as good.
 
#19
Fuck, yeah, sorry - get rid of the pigeons.
 

Latest Threads