Smooth Operator 10 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Would be gutted if I was in this regiment knowing Prince Harry is gonna be the prime target! Here they are sending them all out there without Harry first so they can assess the inevitable attacks on him. Apparently they only want to catch Harry as hold him as prisoner so you can imagine they'll slaughter the rest to get to him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 This is the problem. If he wants to go out there: fine, good on him. But it draws more danger and attention to those around him. I'm sure I'd have mixed feelings about it if I was in his 'group' (can't think of the right military word, is it corp?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted May 3, 2007 Author Share Posted May 3, 2007 "squadron"? It's a ridiculous situation really, he's supposed to be leading his men and yet they feel the need to send his men over before him so they are ready to deal with any attacks better! There's a real chance he'll get killed and therefore inevitably his men will too, but then again if they didn't go then some other poor fuckers will have to do it and he no more important than anyone else really - plus he's ginger so if it really much of a loss if he does get killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 "squadron"? No, that's for the air force isn't it? Battalion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 He's not really a royal, but if he did get killed I expect James Hewitt would be gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted May 3, 2007 Author Share Posted May 3, 2007 "squadron"? No, that's for the air force isn't it? Battalion? "Sitting ducks"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 If i was in his 'platoon' I wouldn't be to happy about having him with me. Not because he's high risk, it would be purely for the fact he's a ginger, they can't be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted May 3, 2007 Author Share Posted May 3, 2007 If i was in his 'platoon' I wouldn't be to happy about having him with me. Not because he's high risk, it would be purely for the fact he's a ginger, they can't be trusted. And I thought it was standard procedure to keep the gingers out the sun? Does that mean he'll only be allowed out on night missions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 If i was in his 'platoon' I wouldn't be to happy about having him with me. Not because he's high risk, it would be purely for the fact he's a ginger, they can't be trusted. And I thought it was standard procedure to keep the gingers out the sun? Does that mean he'll only be allowed out on night missions? Might as well send a flair up and let everyone know there location if their carting that silverspooner around, he looks like he's had 12 min utes on a snow bed, top that off with his carrot top and you'll probably be able to see him from space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 He's not really a royal, but if he did get killed I expect James Hewitt would be gutted. Conspiracy alert! Royals have bastard son sent to Iraq to get him killed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Its his butler I feel sorry for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 The Queen is off on a state visit to America today, and will stop and pay her respects on behalf of the nation to the Virginia University. How anyone can even consider preferring a president over the Queen is beyond me. And to top it all off, her grandson is off to fight in Iraq, and as Micheal Moore pointed out to us, neither George Bush nor a single US senator has had a child sent to Iraq to serve their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Its his butler I feel sorry for. Those white gloves and the silver tray are going to make him stick out like a sore thumb to insurgent snipers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 How anyone can even consider preferring a president over the Queen is beyond me. Who should America make Queen then? Oprah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 How anyone can even consider preferring a president over the Queen is beyond me. Who should America make Queen then? Oprah? Well she is technically still in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 How anyone can even consider preferring a president over the Queen is beyond me. Who should America make Queen then? Oprah? Oprah's minge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16467 Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Its a fucking joke letting any of the Royals in the forces for this exact reason. The lass that passed out with Wills, she goes to Iraq and dies whilst he gets pissed here, so why fucking join? They get paid to do fuck all because they are such a high security risk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Its a fucking joke letting any of the Royals in the forces for this exact reason. The lass that passed out with Wills, she goes to Iraq and dies whilst he gets pissed here, so why fucking join? They get paid to do fuck all because they are such a high security risk! That wasnt the case with Andy boy, he served in the Falklands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 4795 Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 If i was in his 'platoon' I wouldn't be to happy about having him with me. Not because he's high risk, it would be purely for the fact he's a ginger, they can't be trusted. I always have you looking like Billy Askew in my mind.......not a ginger then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 If i was in his 'platoon' I wouldn't be to happy about having him with me. Not because he's high risk, it would be purely for the fact he's a ginger, they can't be trusted. I always have you looking like Billy Askew in my mind.......not a ginger then? He's borderline, strawberry blonde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 It's Troop by the way. Harry is a Troop Commander in the Household Cavalry. wiki: In the British Army the definition of a troop varies by corps. Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps: Three or four armoured fighting vehicles commanded by a subaltern, or the equivalent of a platoon in headquarters elements. The troop commander commands one vehicle himself, the troop sergeant a second, and the others are commanded by corporals. Special Air Service: Sixteen men, organised into four four-man patrols, and commanded by a captain (who also commands one of the patrols himself, the troop sergeant commanding another). Royal Artillery: A unit of two to four guns or launchers, or an equivalent headquarters unit. In the Royal Horse Artillery, a troop used to be the equivalent to a battery in other artillery units. Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals and Royal Logistic Corps: A unit equivalent in size to a platoon in other corps, divided into sections. Other corps do not use the term. In the Royal Marines, a troop is the equivalent to an army platoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 One of those ridiculous historical hangovers - each regiment tries to show how different it is (and therefore better) than the others. Also a bit of "boys club" with secret language and signs so newcomers look stupid other Armies seem to manage without all this sort of thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 One of those ridiculous historical hangovers - each regiment tries to show how different it is (and therefore better) than the others. Also a bit of "boys club" with secret language and signs so newcomers look stupid other Armies seem to manage without all this sort of thing What other armies? I think you'll find this historical naming convention in all armies, and the names do have sensible meanings, it's not some bizarre ritualistic masonry at work. I fail to see how it is 'ridiculous' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 One of those ridiculous historical hangovers - each regiment tries to show how different it is (and therefore better) than the others. Also a bit of "boys club" with secret language and signs so newcomers look stupid other Armies seem to manage without all this sort of thing What other armies? I think you'll find this historical naming convention in all armies, and the names do have sensible meanings, it's not some bizarre ritualistic masonry at work. I fail to see how it is 'ridiculous' we still get hung up on the old Regimental titles (e.g the DLI) - but they're only a late Victorian invention Most modern armies (outside the old White Commonwealth) standardise their organisation and nomenclature - a soldier is a soldier not a "trooper" in one place see below Quote In the British Army, a Private (Pte) equates to both OR-1 and OR-2 on the NATO scale, although there is no difference in rank. Privates wear no insignia. Many regiments and corps use other distinctive (and descriptive) names instead of Private: * Air Trooper (ATpr) - Army Air Corps * Bugler - Buglers in rifle and light infantry regiments * Craftsman (Cfn) - Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (women as well as men use this rank) * Drummer (Dmr) * Fusilier (Fus) - Fusilier regiments * Gunner (Gnr) - Royal Artillery * Guardsman (Gdm) - Foot Guards * Highlander - The Highlanders * Kingsman - Duke of Lancaster's Regiment * Musician (Mus) - Military bands (formerly, Bandsman) * Piper (Ppr) - Bagpipers in Scottish and Irish regiments * Rifleman (Rfm) - Rifle regiments * Sapper (Spr) - Royal Engineers * Signaller (Sig) - Royal Corps of Signals (formerly called Signalman) * Trooper (Tpr) - Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps, Special Air Service * Trumpeter (Tptr) - Trumpeters in the Household Cavalry (and formerly in all cavalry regiments) * Ranger - Private Soldiers in the General Service Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers (TA) In the Royal Marines, the equivalent rank is Marine. Unquote FSS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I fail to see your point, each of those titles is functional or proudly historical. What is their possibly to gain from calling them all 'private'? And I still think you're wrong about other armies, but I can't be bothered to go look. US Army 'specialist' springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now