the qoy is by far the best t.a. unit about

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by mikeebraid, Dec 8, 2005.

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. they train hard have a job equal to the regulars and in fact had men up front in iraq with the regular recce battalions. subsiquently they have had men deployed on all telics upto date and still they are calling the guys from the qoy up. i myslef am in c sqn qoy after a lenghty regular service and think that they are an excellent t.a. unit. the job they do is very underestimated and at the end of the day the qoy are being taught by the regulars so if the t.a. are so shit like everybody has the opinion of, then i think they should look at the regular psi's who are being posted to these batallions and ask why?

    i have indeed tried other units like 4 para whos nco's are not intrested in teaching on their pcoy course just telling war stories and how good they are at fieldcraft and shooting and what medals and stuff like that they have won.

    i must admit i used to be one of the regulars that used to miscry the t.a. as "stabs" but boy did my opinion change when i joined the t.a.
  2. Enough to make you sick. Shame You didnt ask for a hoohah sergeant. Maybe you would have been fcuked off more politley.
  3. i seriously disagree after service with 4 para(well 15 para) and a step up the ladder i have to say from what i have seen and the units i have worked with it comes down to the indavidual 4 para is populated by some very dedicated and some very skilled soldiers there basic training package ( differnt from the rest of the TA ) is very difficult and quite intensive they guys that get through are very switched on, yes there are some that are just "fit" and they get passed p coy but they never last and end up leaving 4 paras companys have a hard core of blokes very few in numbers that make the grade no doubts qoy although good are in my opinion officer heavy to the extreme i rember we had a guy from c sqn on selection total waste of space never even made it to the hills phaze very poor reprazentitive of his unit (then we had another fromhis unit got to test week and came of with brocken anckle and still wanted to carry on) as i said its the indavidual that counts
  4. I found the HAC a very professional unit..
  5. And my dick's bigger than yours too!!
  6. Well you may think so. But that's only your opinion. You should ask yourself why, if the unit is so good, why wasn't it deployed as a unit on Telic 1? Some TA units were. Or do you consider that sending a few soldiers on each Telic is more of a sign of a units ability than being deployed as a self contained unit with it's command structure in place?

    Surely the ability of the unit should be measured by the deployability of the unit as a whole, and it's ability to do the job it is supposed to do, and do it well, not by the fact that it has some good, skilled soldiers that can be deployed and 'back fill' regular or other TA units?
  7. Out of interest is it even possible to deploy a whole (Cavalry) Yeomanry unit barring the RY's NBC capable chaps?

    After all the nature of the Yeomanry is that it's somewhat difficult for troops to get trained in their specialisations, availablility of courses and times taken, also I'd imagine it isn't quite as easy to deploy a sqn requiring vehicles (unless of course you deployed them as infantry fillers) as it is an infantry TA sqn whose members needed to do CIC and are then trained for deployability.

    And that's just Recce.

    Then you have the MBT Yeomanry, they're only trained as gunner replacements I believe. Not exactly a deployable as a full sqn unless you're digging the MBT's in...

    So it would be probably best to say that replacements and indivdual fillers is the way to go.

    I'm by no means saying X unit is the best unit. Just that your template for determining success may be slightly off.
  8. the title of this thread should have raised a bit more of a response.

    londons, don't bother... :lol:
  9. no don't mention the london's all the dyslexic's come out of the woodwork
  10. If we are talking about unit deployablility then my unit "EER" has so far deployed the most infantry types to date (so we are told) and on two occasions coy strength unit and operated extremely well as an independant unit.
  11. Yeah, and I went to Elevenerife on my holidays.
  12. Oh yes EER were so good when we relieved them at BIA - we didn't have to sort out all the admin they had left behind at all.
  13. If that was quite recent I think you'll find they were RRV old boy - As far as I know EER have only sent IR's there
  14. Sorry my mistake it was a EER plt in a Tyne Tees Coy on telic 2
  15. Surely if you can't deploy a unit as a 'unit', just replacements, you can't say that they are the best 'unit' as they'll never be 'proved' as a unit, just as a bunch of individuals. So you may think that my "template for determining success may be slightly off", but the thread is asking if "the qoy is by far the best t.a. unit about", not "Do they provide the best individuals as replacements".

    There are TA units out there that train and are equipped as units which were deployed as individual units or sub-units on Telic 1. They have proved themselves effective as units, not as sorces of BCR or back-fill manpower. If a unit can work as a unit then it should mean that the individuals in that unit can be deployed as individuals if needed. It doesn't necessarily work the other way round as the 'Unit' command and support structure may not work even if some of the individuals are of exceptional quality.

    So how can the QOY claim to be the 'best unit' in the TA when the 'Unit' hasn't been proved and when you quote the difficulties in obtaining training for sufficient numbers in the job they are actually supposed to be there for?

    And remember, the calim wasn't just 'the best' but 'the best by far'. Well as far as units go, I'm not convinced.