Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Defence forces : A wider ceremonial role ?

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,101 ✭✭✭Kalimah


    Have to agree. My son was one of those there. He's devastated. Rehearsing for weeks. The wrong order was given. No wonder they were confused.


  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭hiddenmongoose


    That is embarrassing.
    Really really bad.

    Thats rdf
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    The wrong order? You listen to the call and you perform the move. Even if the CO gets it wrong you dont flippin well second guess them.

    No you dont, wrong order issued you stand fast. the order he issued is also impossible to preform from their current position!


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    Reggie. wrote: »
    The wrong order was given at that time that's why the troops were hesitant.

    The drill movements were perfect upto and after that.

    Exactly. My son was also one of those privileged to be there today but was horrified watching the video back. Everything was going smoothly until the wrong command was given and threw several of the participants off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    Thats rdf



    No you dont, wrong order issued you stand fast.

    That is a disgraceful comment - there were PDF in that ceremony also, fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭hiddenmongoose


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    That is a disgraceful comment - there were PDF in that ceremony also, fact.

    not in that particular part


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    not in that particular part

    Actually yes there were. This is not the point - if the officer issuing the commands who has practised as much as the troops themselves gets it wrong on the day then questions should be asked as to whether he/she no matter who it is, should be there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭hiddenmongoose


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    Actually yes there were. This is not the point - if the officer issuing the commands who has practised as much as the troops themselves gets it wrong on the day then questions should be asked as to whether he/she no matter who it is, should be there.

    no therse isnt trust me. even a quick eyed glance at the troops under his command gives it away if you werent in the know.none of them have overseas medals.trust me that part ,on camera in that clip is rdf,.


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    no therse isnt trust me. even a quick eyed glance at the troops under his command gives it away if you werent in the know.none of them have overseas medals.trust me that part ,on camera in that clip is rdf,.

    No, sorry i won't agree on this - I know for a fact that several in the front row of that clip were PDF and it's disgracful and ignorant of you to pin the error solely on RDF members - the real issue should be with the officer in charge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭hiddenmongoose


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    No, sorry i won't agree on this - I know for a fact that several in the front row of that clip were PDF and it's disgracful and ignorant of you to pin the error solely on RDF members - the real issue should be with the officer in charge.

    dont agree i couldnt care less.

    he is rdf , so by your drfinition its still rdfs fault., however the troops messed up as much as he did by moving so its their fault a much as his for looking like ****e.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,363 ✭✭✭✭Reggie.


    no therse isnt trust me. even a quick eyed glance at the troops under his command gives it away if you werent in the know.none of them have overseas medals.trust me that part ,on camera in that clip is rdf,.

    I'm afraid it was a 50.50 PDF and RDF components as they couldn't fill the company with solely RDF for the first time ever.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    dont agree i couldnt care less.

    he is rdf , so by your drfinition its still rdfs fault., however the troops messed up as much as he did by moving so its their fault a much as his for looking like ****e.

    Such a biased poster as all can see from reading your comments. Yes, he is RDF but that does not mean that the PDF were not just as confused as the RDF troops - they were.


  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭hiddenmongoose


    not biased,its simply a terrible display.no confusion as i said already, wrong order stand still,they couldnt even carry out the order that was given as its impossible.
    wont be posting on this topic again as its going to turn into a rdf/pdf thing which is not the op's theme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    Exactly. My son was also one of those privileged to be there today but was horrified watching the video back. Everything was going smoothly until the wrong command was given and threw several of the participants off.

    Your post history would give the impression that perhaps it was in fact you on the GOH hence the anger at how it played out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    Negative_G wrote: »
    Your post history would give the impression that perhaps it was in fact you on the GOH hence the anger at how it played out?

    Actually, no, I'm a 45 year old woman, hardly a candidate myself!! As I have already said, my son was on parade today and has in the past used my account to post - and yes, as his mother I am extremely angry at the implications expressed by several posters here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    Actually, no, I'm a 45 year old woman, hardly a candidate myself!! As I have already said, my son was on parade today and has in the past used my account to post - and yes, as his mother I am extremely angry at the implications expressed by several posters here.

    From you two months ago:
    I phoned the recruitment and competitions section last week and they said that the barracks I applied to (the Curragh) hadn't issued their emails yet about the panel and are expected to do so in the next week or two.

    Hence the confusion. Rather strange.

    The RDF officer made a balls of it. With any hope next years cermony will be left to the full time soldiers who can devote the appropriate amount of time required, hopefully negating any repeat of today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13 Dudeguy


    Negative_G wrote: »
    Your post history would give the impression that perhaps it was in fact you on the GOH hence the anger at how it played out?

    Just to clear things up, half of the GoH was comprised of PDF and the rest were RDF. The PDF were in fact 2 or 3 star privates that I presume had only finished their training/are still in training and so, have not had a chance to go overseas. The order seems to have thrown everyone off and the head of the GoH was in fact a PDF C.S. as well I believe. Yes of course, the blame partly relies with the officer but does that does mean you are damning both the RDF AND the PDF that were present as both parties were caught unawares. I know in a past ceremony outside Kilmainham Gaol ( think it was at least) an officer gave a wrong order but the troops had rehearsed to the point they knew what he actually meant and did that instead. Perhaps this is the way the members in the GoH were taught as well?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,793 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    On the up side, there will be so many dogs arses kicked raw over today's shambles, it will be eradicated by the time of the big show next year.

    In fairness though, i always tune into this event and the kilmainham commemoration each year, and its the first such succession of errors i can recall.

    And i didnt catch the name of the officer who read the proclamation, but she read it with perfect emphasis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    Negative_G wrote: »
    From you two months ago:



    Hence the confusion. Rather strange.

    Not strange at all but you seem to be getting rather off topic by personally questioning my posts - as I have already stated in my previous post, my son has posted under this account as well as myself - I doubt that he would have any interest in stoves or other such topics!

    Back on topic then, I agree Dudeguy that it is not just the RDF that were caught unawares as was implied previously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Dudeguy wrote: »
    Just to clear things up, half of the GoH was comprised of PDF and the rest were RDF. The PDF were in fact 2 or 3 star privates that I presume had only finished their training/are still in training and so, have not had a chance to go overseas. The order seems to have thrown everyone off and the head of the GoH was in fact a PDF C.S. as well I believe. Yes of course, the blame partly relies with the officer but does that does mean you are damning both the RDF AND the PDF that were present as both parties were caught unawares. I know in a past ceremony outside Kilmainham Gaol ( think it was at least) an officer gave a wrong order but the troops had rehearsed to the point they knew what he actually meant and did that instead. Perhaps this is the way the members in the GoH were taught as well?

    Not sure why you are quoting me. I'm well aware of the fact it consisted of both PDF and RDF.

    To the best of my knowledge there is no 'head of the guard of honour' so I'm not sure why you are trying to partly shoulder the blame on a CS. The officer is the OIC, blame rests solely on his door I'm afraid. As you referred to a very simple 'actions in the event of: incorrect command' brief would have sufficed. Perhaps it was done, who knows.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Señor Fancy Pants


    I know from experience of past various GOH that you can be told any of the following 3 things if a wrong command is given. It should have been agreed which action to carry out before hand.

    1. Carry out the move as rehearsed.
    2. Carry out the move that was ordered.
    3. Stand fast on the wrong command, wait for the officer to cop on and give the correct command.

    This most likely (well should have been) said to all troops that were part of the parade today. PDF / RDF it's irrelevant, bad drill is bad drill. Murphys Law and all that but feck.

    I feel sorry for the troops on parade. It's not a nice thing to have been part of.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Kirm2 wrote: »
    Not strange at all but you seem to be getting rather off topic by personally questioning my posts - as I have already stated in my previous post, my son has posted under this account as well as myself - I doubt that he would have any interest in stoves or other such topics!

    Fair enough.

    I wouldn't know too many grown up children who share an account with their mother.

    Horses for courses etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Kirm2


    Negative_G wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    I wouldn't know too many grown up children who share an account with their mother.

    Horses for courses etc.

    Another snide comment, all too common on this forum.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Larbre34 wrote: »

    And i didnt catch the name of the officer who read the proclamation, but she read it with perfect emphasis.
    Yeah she did a great job alright, very well spoken


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,984 ✭✭✭mikeym


    I have a solution why dont all the officers get trained up on the new arms drill like all the nco's and privates did a few years ago.

    That would cut out the mistakes.

    Btw I hate the drill since it was revised a few years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,363 ✭✭✭✭Reggie.


    mikeym wrote: »
    I have a solution why dont all the officers get trained up on the new arms drill like all the nco's and privates did a few years ago.

    That would cut out the mistakes.

    Btw I hate the drill since it was revised a few years ago.
    That was so we were more in line with the brits believe it or not. Should have stayed the way it was


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Reggie. wrote: »
    That was so we were more in line with the brits believe it or not. Should have stayed the way it was

    That's an interesting comment, and one that I've never heard before. I don't recall troops from the PDF AND British troops being on the same parade at any time, and thus being expected to perform the same drill movements from the same WoC. I recall that in the PDF all drill movements' WoC are given in Irish. That would pose an insurmountable problem for the Brits on the same parade..

    True that the British Armed Forces and the PDF use a similarly-configured shoulder arm, and that the drill movements involving it are similar in many respects - after all, there can be very few different ways of shouldering or changing arms with a firearm of that kind, but why would the PDF use the British form of foot drill?

    You may or may not know that the Canadian Defence Forces on ceremonial duties - changing of the guard on Parliament Hill/Trooping the Colour/ Buckingham Palace guard and so on, actually use the longer and older C1 rifle [99% identical to the Irish FAL], as it is much more impressive to watch, and makes a nice clank when you strike the receiver/magazine in the 'present', due, in no small way, to the couple of cents we usually put in the magazines to enhance the rattle...

    tac


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Señor Fancy Pants


    Reggie. wrote: »
    That was so we were more in line with the brits believe it or not. Should have stayed the way it was

    Not quite sure how true that is....or in fact why it would need to be done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,363 ✭✭✭✭Reggie.


    Not quite sure how true that is....or in fact why it would need to be done.

    That's the main rumour throughout the forces. Not to be in line so that we could be on the same parade but someone in a place of power that shall remain nameless decided that our drill was sloppy compared to the brits and thats why it looks very very similar.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,363 ✭✭✭✭Reggie.


    tac foley wrote: »
    That's an interesting comment, and one that I've never heard before. I don't recall troops from the PDF AND British troops being on the same parade at any time, and thus being expected to perform the same drill movements from the same WoC. I recall that in the PDF all drill movements' WoC are given in Irish. That would pose an insurmountable problem for the Brits on the same parade..

    True that the British Armed Forces and the PDF use a similarly-configured shoulder arm, and that the drill movements involving it are similar in many respects - after all, there can be very few different ways of shouldering or changing arms with a firearm of that kind, but why would the PDF use the British form of foot drill?

    You may or may not know that the Canadian Defence Forces on ceremonial duties - changing of the guard on Parliament Hill/Trooping the Colour/ Buckingham Palace guard and so on, actually use the longer and older C1 rifle [99% identical to the Irish FAL], as it is much more impressive to watch, and makes a nice clank when you strike the receiver/magazine in the 'present', due, in no small way, to the couple of cents we usually put in the magazines to enhance the rattle...

    tac
    Irish and British troops were on the same parade at the unveiling of the WW1 memorial in glasnevin cemetery last year


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,628 ✭✭✭Señor Fancy Pants


    Reggie. wrote: »
    That's the main rumour throughout the forces. Not to be in line so that we could be on the same parade but someone in a place of power that shall remain nameless decided that our drill was sloppy compared to the brits and thats why it looks very very similar.

    Another rumour I heard was the sling fcuks around with the collar on the No.1's and made the tunic ride up.

    They have been looking to change the drill for a long time. I was briefly involved with it in 2004. Different colour body sash's and peeker cap bands were considered too.

    The hope was to adopt the old F.N drill. They may have looked at the UK drill and adapted it to our needs rather than looked to bring us in line with the UK.

    I know the people involved with this stuff so will get an official answer tomorrow.


Advertisement