The Ranger Wing and other units

tac foley

The SAS had long and distinguished history behind them since their inception in the Western Desert in 1942/3.

The Iranian embassy siege was the first time, however, that they were seen in public peforming their duties in their usual fashion.

Read 'The Mirbat Gun' to see what they did in Oman in the 60's, as an example, and earlier in Malaya in the early 1950s during the emergency there.

tac

Edit - also Brunei/Borneo in the 70's and Belize/Guatemala, too.

knucklehead6

i know badass of the week is somewhat tongue in cheek but here you go anyway, has a few (humorous) links about the SAS
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/takavesi.html

FWIW, some of Snakedoc'c points are valid. Sometimes I see posts on here that are a little bit condescending, and dismissive of genuine questions. You lads who serve (and have served, just to make sure you don't feel left out Tac) have a wealth of knowledge but run the danger of making this forum a no go area for civilians with interest, like myself

rgds KH6 (non-member of the RAF Regiment love in)

Local-womanizer

knucklehead6 wrote: »

i know badass of the week is somewhat tongue in cheek but here you go anyway, has a few (humorous) links about the SAS
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/takavesi.html

FWIW, some of Snakedoc'c points are valid. Sometimes I see posts on here that are a little bit condescending, and dismissive of genuine questions. You lads who serve (and have served, just to make sure you don't feel left out Tac) have a wealth of knowledge but run the danger of making this forum a no go area for civilians with interest, like myself

rgds KH6 (non-member of the RAF Regiment love in)

I think people are more irked here when non serving folk pop up claiming this and that without any knowledge of such things beyond what they read in a book and hearsay. Also when those throw the Walt accusations around that just tips it over the edge.

You can serve in the military and can get a good insight to a SOF unit from being a regular solider, for the simple fact you will come into contact with people who are of that elite bunch or who were previously. I was trained by an exer with around 12 years in the wing. He naturally would be telling us bits and pieces of his experiences there.

Just last week I was talking with a corporal who passed selection a number of years ago, he was telling me some bits and pieces of his experience of the process that you won't find online.

I'm sure tac's extensive military service has resulted in such exposures to SOF units in a similar fashion.

cruasder777

discus wrote: »

Oh my god what is the point? You have serving soldiers, and retired soldiers of 2+ modern armies answering you, yet you continue to spout on, telling us that while we have examples, you have your beliefs. Fine. Believe all you want. Obviously we haven't read as much wikipedia and fora as you have.

AFSOC is a very different thing to RAF Regiment. And on top of that, AFSOC don't have their prime mission aim as securing airfields behind enemy lines. You seem to think that the RAF Regiment are some sort of elite, HALO dropping, behind enemy lines unit, who take over airfields and wait for Chinooks and C130 to start rolling in. They do nothing of the sort. They have done nothing of the sort, and if you think that the RAF Regiment will be called for such a job before the SAS, SBS, Pathfinders, or Royal Irish, you need to just give up.

Royal Irish, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Eat your words

2 Sqn RAF Regiment Paras have previously taken part in ops alongside the Pathinders, UKSF etc, inc live drops into enemy theatres.

OPERATION MAIDENLY - SIERRA LEONE 2001

On the 10 June 01, OC II was tasked to conduct an estimate of the defensive requirements in Serria Leone for a Special Air Operations detachment, deployed at Lunghi airfield, as part of Op MAIDENLY. Subsequently a Flight sized group was deployed relieving in place an RM detachment.


OPERATION SILKMAN - SIERRA LEONE 2001

Op SILKMAN was the ongoing public information and capability demonstration within Sierra Leone. It was designed to reassure the law abiding locals of the continuing UK commitment to ensuring the stability within the region; whilst also providing an aggressive reminder to the rebels of the UK’s over-the-horizon military capabilities. This demonstration was to take the form of a strategic parachute insertion, live armed, into theatre



2 Sqn RAF regiment put more men into the SAS (man for man) then any other unit, inc the Parachute Regiment.

discus

"Members of II Sqn are required to pass the arduous Pre-Para Selection course, in order to attend a military parachuting course at RAF Brize Norton"

Oh wow, pre-para! Fock me sideways. Cool, so I should have been given my green beret when I passed Beat-Up for the All Arms Commando Course? Sweet, that could have saved me 14 weeks of commando training! Let's all do pre-para, sure we can all be airborne! RAF Regt, where everyone is a winner.

Another good quote: 'Op SILKMAN was the ongoing public information and capability demonstration within Sierra Leone' also from the RAF website. Hardcore PR!

knucklehead6

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I think people are more irked here when non serving folk pop up claiming this and that without any knowledge of such things beyond what they read in a book and hearsay. Also when those throw the Walt accusations around that just tips it over the edge.

You can serve in the military and can get a good insight to a SOF unit from being a regular solider, for the simple fact you will come into contact with people who are of that elite bunch or who were previously. I was trained by an exer with around 12 years in the wing. He naturally would be telling us bits and pieces of his experiences there.

Just last week I was talking with a corporal who passed selection a number of years ago, he was telling me some bits and pieces of his experience of the process that you won't find online.

I'm sure tac's extensive military service has resulted in such exposures to SOF units in a similar fashion.

i agree with every single bit of your post,and can easily see how posters sticking to a point that has been discussed and refuted can be annoying.

BUT, there is a tendency on here to also dismiss genuine posters.

Posts like this , this and this are smart arsed and condescending. And make people like me, who have an interest in big green things that drive on the ground, big grey things that sail the seas, and big multicoloured things that drill holes in the sky feel like it's bad form to ask a question. It's a CHAT forum.

chopper6

cruasder777 wrote: »

Royal Irish, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Eat your words

2 Sqn RAF Regiment Paras have previously taken part in ops alongside the Pathinders, UKSF etc, inc live drops into enemy theatres.

OPERATION MAIDENLY - SIERRA LEONE 2001

On the 10 June 01, OC II was tasked to conduct an estimate of the defensive requirements in Serria Leone for a Special Air Operations detachment, deployed at Lunghi airfield, as part of Op MAIDENLY. Subsequently a Flight sized group was deployed relieving in place an RM detachment.


OPERATION SILKMAN - SIERRA LEONE 2001

Op SILKMAN was the ongoing public information and capability demonstration within Sierra Leone. It was designed to reassure the law abiding locals of the continuing UK commitment to ensuring the stability within the region; whilst also providing an aggressive reminder to the rebels of the UK’s over-the-horizon military capabilities. This demonstration was to take the form of a strategic parachute insertion, live armed, into theatre



2 Sqn RAF regiment put more men into the SAS (man for man) then any other unit, inc the Parachute Regiment.

Still waiting on those pics of you doing P Coy,Tabbing up Pen Y Fen and engaging in the "croatian civil war".

tac foley

knucklehead6 wrote: »

i agree with every single bit of your post,and can easily see how posters sticking to a point that has been discussed and refuted can be annoying.

Yes.

BUT, there is a tendency on here to also dismiss genuine posters.

Until proven otherwise, we are ALL genuine posters here.

Posts like this , this and this are smart arsed and condescending. And make people like me, who have an interest in big green things that drive on the ground, big grey things that sail the seas, and big multicoloured things that drill holes in the sky feel like it's bad form to ask a question. It's a CHAT forum.

Two of those posts are mine. The first is nothing less than the truth, and as one of the posters here has reminded us many times, you can find out ANYTHING on the internet. As for the second, I still do not know who Jerry Cronin is. I live in Canada and Oregon, for goodness sake - do you know anybody there?

At the risk of you banning me, let's just put our cards on the table here for a moment. I have provided proof of who I am, what I used to be, and even provided proof in the form of photographic evidence. My name in the side-bar IS my name - I'm not hiding under a pseudonym of any kind. I have, nevertheless, been insulted and called a walt by somebody who does not believe anything I've said, and who has said so. You are the moderator, and have done nothing about it. I have provided chapter and verse, as far as I am prepared to do, of my former life in the British Army, something I feel uncomfortable about, given the attitude of a few who post on these fora. However, I've also tried to answer questions that are patently ludicrous in the extreme, and responded in what, to anybody in the British Army are ridiculous claims in a polite manner.

This hasn't worked.

I've admitted that I left a good while back, and that my information, based on that past experience, is out of date.

This hasn't worked either.

tac

chopper6

Here's me as a Special Forces Sniper in a location i'm not allowed to talk about using a Classified weapon etc etc etc

knucklehead6

tac foley wrote: »

Yes.

Until proven otherwise, we are ALL genuine posters here.

me wrote:

Posts like this , this and this are smart arsed and condescending. And make people like me, who have an interest in big green things that drive on the ground, big grey things that sail the seas, and big multicoloured things that drill holes in the sky feel like it's bad form to ask a question. It's a CHAT forum.

tac foley wrote: »

Two of those posts are mine. The first is nothing less than the truth, and as one of the posters here has reminded us many times, you can find out ANYTHING on the internet. As for the second, I still do not know who Jerry Cronin is. I live in Canada and Oregon, for goodness sake - do you know anybody there?

Yes, the first IS the truth, but it was posted in a condescending tone... hell, the only thing it was missing was mr rolleyes smiley after it.

As for Jerry Cronin, may I ask you a question before answering who he is... Why do you want to know? Is it that you think he might take offence to The Syco using his images?

As it happens, i do know people living in Canada. That's not really that unusual for Irish people now days though, Canada is the new Australia!

tac foley wrote: »

At the risk of you banning me, let's just put our cards on the table here for a moment. I have provided proof of who I am, what I used to be, and even provided proof in the form of photographic evidence. I have, nevertheless, been insulted and called a walt by somebody who does not believe anything I've said, and who has said so. You are the moderator, and have done nothing about it. I have provided chapter and verse, as far as I am prepared to do, of my former life in the British Army, something I feel uncomfortable about, given the attitude of a few who post on these fora. However, I've also tried to answer questions that are patently ludicrous in the extreme, and responded in what, to anybody in the British Army are ridiculous claims in a polite manner.

This hasn't worked.

I've admitted that I left a good while back, and that my information, based on that past experience, is out of date.

This hasn't worked either.

Do what you like - you are the moderator after all.

tac

I have nothing to do with the moderation of this forum. If you want to talk about online dating, then I'm your man... here, I'm just a Joe Soap regular poster.

FWIW I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just saying that sometimes some of the posts on this forum are unnecessarily belittling. Like that guy who asked who uses the PC-9 you could have said something like "according to wiki it's #" . Instead you took the opportunity to have a little internet dig at the guy.

tac foley

Here's one of me in ........................... with my .................. and ......... using the ................ to ........... the ............. on the ................

Of course, when we got to ........... and found .............. and ........... had been .............. the ............. with the ................, the ......... really ............ the .............. and we all had to be .................. pretty smartly.

All ended up well, though, as ........... and the .............. team joined us in ........... and together we completed the ................, and not only came in ......... but were the ................ ever!

Great, eh?

tac

PS - edited for PERSEC.

Horse84

....and above is one of the reasons why this forum is going to hell. I agree with knucklehead 100% and I've got zero axe to grind with anyone no matter what their background is on here.
I've posted on it before but there is a lack of respect given towards other posters on here at times.

Lemming

Horse84 wrote: »

....and above is one of the reasons why this forum is going to hell. I agree with knucklehead 100% and I've got zero axe to grind with anyone no matter what their background is on here.
I've posted on it before but there is a lack of respect given towards other posters on here at times.

That users may disagree - sometimes strongly - does not indicate a forum going to hell

tac foley

1. Sorry about the lack of emoticons. My Japanese keyboard at that time did not support them as it uses a different OS than Western computers.

2. I recall, vaguely, that the name of Mr Cronin was mentioned as though we all knew who he was. I didn't then, and still don't. How on earth could could somebody - not you - be thought to take offence at my question?

3. The sidebar indicates that you are 'Hosted moderator', hence my coment about you exercising your moderator controls. Perhaps you'll expalin to me what that actually means.

4. With respect, you need to lighten up a mite - me advising somebody to look at the internet, and you telling me that I was 'having a little internet dig' are not connective. How on earth could you know whether I was having an 'internet dig'? IF I had been doing that - which, incidentally I was not - there would not be any doubt about it.

As we are constantly reminded, the internet does not allow for the interpretation of emotion, hence the use of emoticons. Without them, we all have to rely on the apparent good will of the responder to the question, or else we would all be at each other's throats every time we posted anything. As such, my responses were well-intended and, IMO, reasonable, as, indeed, all my responses have been so far.

If you look, you'll see that I have even offered to apologise to the person who claims to have 'done' P Coy at the age of 17, done what many millions of peple must have done, and climbed Pen-y-Fan, and also to have taken part in the Croation civil war, as he puts it - IF he can provide evidence to support it.

You'll notice that as yet, we have seen evidence in, er evidence.

tac

tac foley

Horse84 wrote: »

....and above is one of the reasons why this forum is going to hell. I agree with knucklehead 100% and I've got zero axe to grind with anyone no matter what their background is on here.
I've posted on it before but there is a lack of respect given towards other posters on here at times.

Well, I thought it was quite amusing, and, IMO, well within the bounds of a robust military-interested forum. It was at least as funny as the gentleman with the 'top secret' crossbow.

It's not all pussy-footing around the glens and shiney boots, y'now. It's often quite serious and nasty, and those of us who have experience of the nasty bits tend to have a somewhat more robust sense of humour than those who have not.

Try looking in on arrse.co.uk some time - it might come as a bit of a shock.

Best wishes

tac

cruasder777

discus wrote: »

"Members of II Sqn are required to pass the arduous Pre-Para Selection course, in order to attend a military parachuting course at RAF Brize Norton"

Oh wow, pre-para! Fock me sideways. Cool, so I should have been given my green beret when I passed Beat-Up for the All Arms Commando Course? Sweet, that could have saved me 14 weeks of commando training! Let's all do pre-para, sure we can all be airborne! RAF Regt, where everyone is a winner.

Another good quote: 'Op SILKMAN was the ongoing public information and capability demonstration within Sierra Leone' also from the RAF website. Hardcore PR!

Its the same pre-para course some potential SAS members do, the same as P company, just the RAF version. All the same events, but it also has swimming tests.

Commando lite which you claim to have done is very different then doing 32 weeks which RMs do.



RAF Pre Para

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKRtNyg4Yp0

Horse84

Lemming wrote: »

That users may disagree - sometimes strongly - does not indicate a forum going to hell

Where did I say there was something wrong with people disagreeing on a forum?

cruasder777

Horse84 wrote: »

Where did I say there was something wrong with people disagreeing on a forum?

Unfortunately there is an unhealthy "clique, " on this forum who dont like people with a different opinion or new posters.

Horse84

tac foley wrote: »

Well, I thought it was quite amusing, and, IMO, well within the bounds of a robust military-interested forum. It was at least as funny as the gentleman with the 'top secret' crossbow.

It's not all pussy-footing around the glens and shiney boots, y'now. It's often quite serious and nasty, and those of us who have experience of the nasty bits tend to have a somewhat more robust sense of humour than those who have not.

Try looking in on arrse.co.uk some time - it might come as a bit of a shock.

Best wishes

tac

Zero interest in looking at arrse.co.uk but thanks.

chopper6

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its the same pre-para course some potential SAS members do, the same as P company, just the RAF version. All the same events, but it also has swimming tests.

Commando lite which you claim to have done is very different then doing 32 weeks which RMs do.



RAF Pre Para

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKRtNyg4Yp0

Still waiting on the pics of your undertaking P Coy.

Maybe in the interim you can answer my questions.....what year were you there and who was your CO?

discus

That video is probably the only impressive thing I've ever seen from RAF Regt.

Commando lite? Ah yes, of course, an easy mistake to make. Take into account that RM recruits do their basic training, before they become Royal Marines, and then further training to become Royal Marine Commandos. Of course, the Army Commandos aren't training to be Royal Marine Commandos, are they? RMC are the fighting companies - the riflemen, the pointiest end of the stick. You have the Army Commandos, who provide the Combat Support and Combat Service Support - the engineers, gunners, medics, naval gunfire assistants, and so on. None of which claim to be Royal Marine Commandos!

So, if the RAF regiment do their own pre-para selection, why did you do P-Company?

knucklehead6

tac foley wrote: »

1. Sorry about the lack of emoticons. My Japanese keyboard at that time did not support them as it uses a different OS than Western computers.

No need to apologise Tac, I couldn't give a monkeys about whether or not you used them. I was just pointing out that the tone of that post was "go away you annoying little civilian, don't you know that instead of asking someone who might be able to give you a knowledgeable and detailed answer, you should go and find out for yourself"

tac foley wrote: »

2. I recall, vaguely, that the name of Mr Cronin was mentioned as though we all knew who he was. I didn't then, and still don't. How on earth could could somebody - not you - be thought to take offence at my question?

No one is taking offence at your question. You are the one who asked it, you are the one who brought Jerry Cronin into that conversation, and the only reason you asked it (IMO) is because his name was on the images that The Syco used, and you (again IMO) were using that to get a little dig at The Syco for having the audacity to use someone's images while asking a question about a military movement on a military forum. And again I ask you, WHY did you want to know who Jerry Cronin is?

tac foley wrote: »

3. The sidebar indicates that you are 'Hosted moderator', hence my coment about you exercising your moderator controls. Perhaps you'll expalin to me what that actually means.

I'm moderator on a different forum, ODG, which stands for Online Dating. That forum is not a boards forum, but is hosted by boards.

tac foley wrote: »

4. With respect, you need to lighten up a mite - me advising somebody to look at the internet, and you telling me that I was 'having a little internet dig' are not connective. How on earth could you know whether I was having an 'internet dig'? IF I had been doing that - which, incidentally I was not - there would not be any doubt about it.

That's the way it looked Tac, and that's the way a number of the posts on this forum look, as I addressed in point 1. You might think i need to lighten up, maybe I do. BUT each time I look at your posts I need to ask myself are you being snotty or genuine. Mostly you are giving genuine, informative and knowledgeable answers. Sometimes you are being snotty

tac foley wrote: »

As we are constantly reminded, the internet does not allow for the interpretation of emotion, hence the use of emoticons. Without them, we all have to rely on the apparent good will of the responder to the question, or else we would all be at each other's throats every time we posted anything. As such, my responses were well-intended and, IMO, reasonable, as, indeed, all my responses have been so far.

And that's my point entirely. Sometimes your posts don't exhibit that much good will. Whatever about posters like crusader777, who by all appearances deserves to be treated with a wee bit of disdain, because he is not accepting reasoned and well thought out arguments, sometimes your posts, are a little as I mentioned, snotty!

tac foley wrote: »

If you look, you'll see that I have even offered to apologise to the person who claims to have 'done' P Coy at the age of 17, done what many millions of people must have done, and climbed Pen-y-Fan, and also to have taken part in the Croatian civil war, as he puts it - IF he can provide evidence to support it.

You'll notice that as yet, we have seen evidence in, er evidence.

tac

I'm not at all bothered about whether or not you apologise. I suspect, as you do, that there will be no evidence produced, and there no need for an apology.

Like I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just point out that sometimes posters on here are less than knowledgeable, and come on here to increase that knowledge. Hell, there was a poster over on the World War 2 section of this forum that asked if all the worlds navies were present at Pearl Harbour on 7-12-41 because of the war in Europe and that the RN (and other navies) assisted in the American efforts at Pearl, and that the US joined the war in Europe as a thank you.... If he/she had posted that here I shudder to think what the responses would have been

tac foley

Thanks, knucklehead6, for the reasoned tone in your response. It IS appreciated.

I don't know who Syco is, but he DID name somebody, so I naturally thought that there was some significance to it - that's all.

Let's not argue, eh?

If I had a pc that had emoticons right now, I'd put a 'pax' sign here.

tac