BB and Taffd take it to PMs and off the thread. Last warning or posts will be removed and ROPs issued.
Thread Title- "RN being f* weak", I think it would be on topic to discuss how knowledge of RN history might benefit, so I shall continue if you would permit me.
My comment was based on personal experience.Dashing_Chap - take a little time to look at your proposition and my line of argument:
your intial post (#9 on p1) was superficial, factually wrong and offered unqualified praise without any substance.
hence my reply (#51 on p6) which poked fun at you because there was nothing concrete in your offering that could be seriously discussed.
Your reply (#59 on p6) still confused/merged 2 separate issues, which I tried to address in turn. Read it and you might notice that I took a position on Service history, but declined to deviate towards discussing the influence of American culture in HM Forces. You might wish to start a thread to discuss that?
Your post in reply (#64 on p7) noted my point about Service knowledge but missed on US influence. It was clear, though, that you were continuing to offer unqualified and unrequited love to matelots and that your position probably did not have any substance, other than emotion. Thereafter you descended into rant mode where you challenged me to post my opinion. This I did with a precis of some analysis that I had submitted earlier to a different organisation (post #69 on p7).
Evidently buoyed by support offered from Bravo-Bravo your lengthy reply (post #79 on page eight) attempted (but failed) to respond to my points, but regurgitated ideas on which you had obviously become fixated.
Just to be clear:
1. The RN has benefitted from a degree of luck or good fortune in the past (during the sail era in particular and strategically since the industrial revolution). The 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century history is particularly carefully spun to large up its achievements and to ignore (sometimes to the mortal misfortune of the sailors) its organisational & technical failings.
2. Regardless of that upon which you are fixated, I have not proposed the adoption of US culture (hats, war cries) nor even taken a position (I refer you to #59 a 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] time). However, there have been some notable technical advances that HMF would have done well to copy in the RN as here in the Army.
Your inability to respond to a serious post, to analysis and to meet it all speaks volumes, in which case, as suggested earlier: Stick to the mucky photos and the fantasies.
I am happy to continue this: via PM might be more appropriate and reduce the risk of deviating the thread away from shoeing Von Paulus.
Listen you cock, let's get things straight. Your initial post was insulting and offered nothing towards the thread, it was nothing more than an infantile attack against me. Most of your other posts appeared to agree with my premise and then in a desperate attempt to back paddle you resort to criticising the composition of my post. What the **** has that got to do with the debate? Absolutely nothing. It's just a straw man argument to try and restore your credibility.
Take your ad-hominen arguments and stuff them up your arse you sad bastard. I've no desire to continue communicating with you because clearly you're incapable of engaging in an adult debate.
I've got time for you Taff because you raise some appropriate points, I shall elaborate.I think you're talking shite. I can see no benefit, apart from a knowledge of history for its own sake, that any sailor would gain from a greater knowledge of RN history. Have you considered that they may be comfortable enough in their own skin to not need your definition of esprit de corps.
Look at the Army and RM - most of their esprit/ethos is an invention. Not the actual events or the specific histories of regiments, but the way it's cobbled together to invent an ethos.
Take The Rifles; only a part has historical connections to previous Rifle brigades/regiments. They are now an amalgam of all the regiments that have joined together, taking bits from the histories of each, in order to form a new ethos. The constant changes across the Army require them to do this to generate their own specific esprit. And so allegiance is to the regiment, rather than the Army.
Similarly with the RM. The present Commandos can only really trace their ethos back to the inception of commandos during WW2, but choose as well to incorporate the Marines history, in order to magnify their esprit. Their allegiance is to the Corps, not to the RN.
With the RN, allegiance is to the ship, which can be a good ship or a bad ship, depending upon the crew and its interactions. No amount of historical knowledge is of help here. And ships' crews change, there is much less continuity. A ship and its crew, is of its time.
But Naval history is kept alive in all the little traditions, the terminology, Jackspeak etc. Knowledge of what some admiral or other might have done, is an irrelevance.
I don't expect the average matelot to be able to recite all RN history from Alfred the Great up to GW2, but a basic understanding of the major events and major players should certainly be a part of their training, imho, as it may help with esprit de corps and service identity. The USMC are taught about Dan Daly, Chosin Reservoir, Chesty Puller and the basic history of their corps, why can't the RN do the same?
What I'm about to say may make me appear like an antiquated twit, but I still believe that concepts such as 'honour' and 'duty' are important aspects to instil in the modern military, I don't know about the others, but personally my brief service was because I wanted to serve Queen and Country.
Now if you were to take a trainee and teach them the basic history of events and then remind them that the whole glory of the service now lies on their shoulders, and that whenever they wear the uniform they are part of it, would that not give them a sense of pride and duty? Such an inheritance would improve their zeal. What's the point of ironing the uniform and polishing shoes in basic because some bloke in a funny hat says so? They should do it because they are proud, not because they fear extras.
Major characters from history such as Nelson could also offer excellent examples of leadership and management. Fact often merges with fiction when it comes to the great men and Nelson was a liability as a junior officer until he went into action and became a natural predator.
Crepello was right in his view that the RN suffered from leadership failures and bad decisions, especially in the inter-war years. But his myopic post completely overlooks what I was trying to say. Nelson was one of the few men, if not the only man in the 18thC to understand that good planning, communication, training and confidence in the man on the spot to adapt to the situation was the key to winning. This kind of leadership wasn't seen again until the Wehrmacht stormed over Europe in their 1940 Blitzkreig and now it comprises most modern military doctrines.
Would this knowledge not be of benefit to the service? It would be the work of a moment to throw together a Powerpoint presentation or practical to explain, there's countless others too, Captain Walker, Admiral Cunningham, HMS Campbeltown etc.
I hope this clears up what I was trying to address in my OP.