Sensible Debate- The Parachute Regiment

#1
Given that this Regiment have not been utilised in role since Suez and puuting the need for a feeder stream for SF, is there a continuing need to retain this Regiment?

What are the alternatives?

Play nice boys!
 
#2
Try the search feature - this has been done a death many a time.

They're still going and are likely to for a while - as for the parachute role - might come in useful - who knows what's round the corner?

CC_TA
 
#3
This should be a topic for continuing debate.

If I were Sec of State I should need to hear some very convincing arguments as to why we still need, effectively, a parachute brigade. I can just about see a rapid intervention role for a single bn, but I should need to know in detail how an operation beyond rotary wing range would be supported.

The 'SF feeder' idea is a horse that won't run. Is anyone seriously suggesting that potential SF soldiers will refuse to join the army because they can't start off in a parachute unit?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#4
Vasco said:
This should be a topic for continuing debate.

If I were Sec of State I should need to hear some very convincing arguments as to why we still need, effectively, a parachute brigade. I can just about see a rapid intervention role for a single bn, but I should need to know in detail how an operation beyond rotary wing range would be supported.

The 'SF feeder' idea is a horse that won't run. Is anyone seriously suggesting that potential SF soldiers will refuse to join the army because they can't start off in a parachute unit?
Vasco, if you follow that argument, we would only need the exact numbers required for Iraq/Afghanistan in the army, with no need for any additional manpower to allow for training, rest, a home life etc.

The LABTF contains sub units (including the HQ) on very short notice to move times. If we only had "just enough", there would be no chance for these short notice commitments to be rotated, allowing for rest and training.

Arguing for cutting units at a time of such overstretch is the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas scenario. I somehow doubt that any cuts in Para Regt will be balanced by creation of any new units.
 
#5
If you use the "What If" argument then they have to stay. Current capabilities and operations do not determine future conflicts and how we are going to effectively react to them.
 
#6
Every other reg or corps needs something to aspire to and admire

EEFOS an all that gubbins etc
 
#7
A couple of Brigades of highly motivated, rapidly deployable "shock" troops "Booties and Paras) is definately a useful tool to keep in the box. Some form of selection is a must to ensure the quality of personnel, but I agree with Vasco's views on the need for parachute training, we simply do not have the infrastructure to support that kind of operation any more. I have heard tell that the amount spent per annum on Para pay could fund ordinary two light role infantry battalions, given that there has not been an operation under silk since Suez and it is increasingly unlikely that there ever will be, could this money be better spent elsewhere?
 
#8
Evilgoblin said:
I have heard tell that the amount spent per annum on Para pay could fund ordinary two light role infantry battalions?
I'm not calling you a liar or even suggest that YOU are exaggerating, but where did you hear this? I think someone has grossly over-estimated the amount of Parachute pay and grossly under-estimated the cost of equipping, staffing and deploying two light role inf battallions.

I think that the Airborne forces, even with what little jump training, or the need for it be, represent great value for money for the MOD.
 
#9
Just because they have not been dropped into combat since Suez there is nothing to stop them being dropped in future. It is still a very quick way of putting a load of boots on the ground.
 
#10
Its not whether they have or have not been used since whenever but it is having the ability to use something that is important.

If we loose the airbourne facility within modern forces then the only way to get a large number of troops on the ground is to use aircraft that have to fly in to unknown areas, land and then get the troops off before trying to get off the ground again without being destroyed on the ground.

The ability to deploy airbourne forces allows a force to be deployed and to secure an area so that more troops and heavy equipment can then be bought into an area safely. It also allows, and this maybe seen as a more important role in some areas, for air resupply/re-inforcements to be deployed in theater.

It is sods law that they will be disbanded and within months a need will arise but too late for the skills and knowledge will be lost.
 
#11
The Royal Hussars haven't ridden horses into the battle for years..... they are still around

Same with the Lancers.....

Just because thier means of transport onto the battlefield has changed doesn't mean they should have a name change. What are you suggesting.... 'The arrive up the road in a VC-10 Regiment'
 
#12
I have been resupplied by airdrop for an extended period of time and believe me - for serious soldiering - it is feckin hopeless. Broken boxes / kit all over the DZ, duff chutes, etc. CIVPOP
used to wait for days - scavenging thieves............................
 
#13
The_Duke said:
Vasco said:
This should be a topic for continuing debate.

If I were Sec of State I should need to hear some very convincing arguments as to why we still need, effectively, a parachute brigade. I can just about see a rapid intervention role for a single bn, but I should need to know in detail how an operation beyond rotary wing range would be supported.

The 'SF feeder' idea is a horse that won't run. Is anyone seriously suggesting that potential SF soldiers will refuse to join the army because they can't start off in a parachute unit?
Vasco, if you follow that argument, we would only need the exact numbers required for Iraq/Afghanistan in the army, with no need for any additional manpower to allow for training, rest, a home life etc.

The LABTF contains sub units (including the HQ) on very short notice to move times. If we only had "just enough", there would be no chance for these short notice commitments to be rotated, allowing for rest and training.

Arguing for cutting units at a time of such overstretch is the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas scenario. I somehow doubt that any cuts in Para Regt will be balanced by creation of any new units.
Let me make myself clear. I do not suggest that we don't need the manpower. It is the specific capability (and concomitant cost) of parachute insertion on that scale that I question.
 
#14
The Russians are investing heavily in their four, fully recruited, airborne divisions - new IFVs, new SP Arty, new AD, new small arms. They clearly perceive a need to keep this option in their train set.
 
#15
Vasco said:
The_Duke said:
Vasco said:
This should be a topic for continuing debate.

If I were Sec of State I should need to hear some very convincing arguments as to why we still need, effectively, a parachute brigade. I can just about see a rapid intervention role for a single bn, but I should need to know in detail how an operation beyond rotary wing range would be supported.

The 'SF feeder' idea is a horse that won't run. Is anyone seriously suggesting that potential SF soldiers will refuse to join the army because they can't start off in a parachute unit?
Vasco, if you follow that argument, we would only need the exact numbers required for Iraq/Afghanistan in the army, with no need for any additional manpower to allow for training, rest, a home life etc.

The LABTF contains sub units (including the HQ) on very short notice to move times. If we only had "just enough", there would be no chance for these short notice commitments to be rotated, allowing for rest and training.

Arguing for cutting units at a time of such overstretch is the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas scenario. I somehow doubt that any cuts in Para Regt will be balanced by creation of any new units.
Let me make myself clear. I do not suggest that we don't need the manpower. It is the specific capability (and concomitant cost) of parachute insertion on that scale that I question.
Sounds painful too
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#16
Vasco said:
The_Duke said:
Vasco said:
This should be a topic for continuing debate.

If I were Sec of State I should need to hear some very convincing arguments as to why we still need, effectively, a parachute brigade. I can just about see a rapid intervention role for a single bn, but I should need to know in detail how an operation beyond rotary wing range would be supported.

The 'SF feeder' idea is a horse that won't run. Is anyone seriously suggesting that potential SF soldiers will refuse to join the army because they can't start off in a parachute unit?
Vasco, if you follow that argument, we would only need the exact numbers required for Iraq/Afghanistan in the army, with no need for any additional manpower to allow for training, rest, a home life etc.

The LABTF contains sub units (including the HQ) on very short notice to move times. If we only had "just enough", there would be no chance for these short notice commitments to be rotated, allowing for rest and training.

Arguing for cutting units at a time of such overstretch is the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas scenario. I somehow doubt that any cuts in Para Regt will be balanced by creation of any new units.
Let me make myself clear. I do not suggest that we don't need the manpower. It is the specific capability (and concomitant cost) of parachute insertion on that scale that I question.
If we want to maintain the capability for the rapid insertion of an all arms battlegroup beyond SH range, then we need to maintain an airborne capable brigade. Yes, there are additional costs involved, but I do not believe that the costs outweigh the benefits of having that capability.

Personally, I think it is better to have it and not need it than the other way around. I have no doubt others will disagree.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#17
The 'not been used since Suez' has been bandied about by many over the years (A great way to wind up sooperdooperparatoopers) but is not really an argument that can hold up to debate.

Britain has never used a nuclear device yet we keep them for a very good reason. Similarly the ariborne elements are kept for a very good reason.

In the current atmosphere of senior officers publicly asking for better pay and conditions for soldiers, I don't see any good reason to reduce anyone's pay (jump pay).

If it ain't broke why fix it?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
Auld-Yin said:
The 'not been used since Suez' has been bandied about by many over the years (A great way to wind up sooperdooperparatoopers) but is not really an argument that can hold up to debate.

Britain has never used a nuclear device yet we keep them for a very good reason. Similarly the ariborne elements are kept for a very good reason.

In the current atmosphere of senior officers publicly asking for better pay and conditions for soldiers, I don't see any good reason to reduce anyone's pay (jump pay).

If it ain't broke why fix it?[/quote]
My bold, if only that had applied when mergers started! :x
 
#19
A lot of the argument depends on whether you think you could maintain the esprit de corps, motivation, unit pride without the distinct capability.

We are where we are. For historical reasons our elite infantry have the "shape" they have. Could you keep everything you want to keep and change the shape? The answer you give to that question is, I think, the key question.
 
#20
I'm neither pro or anti Para, they are what they are. I would question the reasoning behind keeping parachute troops if all they could do was parachute. The Paras are a light role infantry with all the skills and deployability that any infantry regimentb has. The para role is a bonus, if the need ever arose we would have an air drop facility. The anti para argument could be applied to any special skill in any regiment do we need AAregiments , snipers, etc, the list is endless.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top