Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Jul 12, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Surprised this hasn't already been posted:
A crucial radio log had gone missing, he said.
Presumably it is in the same cupboard as the weapon issue sheets from the Deepcut armoury.
Another glorious day for the MoD. I wonder if SoS will make a statement-or is today a "Scotland" day for him.
Someone help me out here, give me an Army insight:
The beeb report: "The inquest heard that the pair, who were serving with the Queen's Royal Lancers, had been fired on by a British Black Watch tank crew."
Last time I checked (and I am very ready to be proven wrong on this, being a jolly jack tar matelot dark blue type) the Black Watch were an infantry regiment? And the tank was RTR? Did they mean Black Watch battlegroup? The Times had a similar one: "The Black Watch tank fired on the Fusiliers tank near the Shatt al-Basra canal in southern Iraq in March 2003, four days into the invasion".
To me this looks like sloppy, misleading, inaccurate reporting, but I wanted to check if I've missed something - is it common language in the Army to refer to battlegroups as though they were regiments (e.g. would someone in the QRL say 'I was in Telic 1 with the RRF' or would they say 'I was in Telic 1 with the RRF BG'?) - or is this just shoddy journalism?
If the latter, give me the facts and I'll change the world by writing a stiff angry from Manchester to the Times
The Tank was 2RTR not Black Watch, already talked about in the RAC Forum.
'If it's got tracks, and a turney thing on top with a long pointy bit sticking out, it's a T-A-N-K.'
I found that in a BBC training manual for journo's to be embedded on Telic 37, hope it helps.
thanks for the steer scarletto
Separate names with a comma.