Sensible Debate- The Parachute Regiment

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by The-Goose, Nov 19, 2007.

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. 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?
     
  4. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    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. 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. 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. Sounds painful too