Navy havin' a pop

[duffman]

Check out some of these n0bbers

http://www.navy-net.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=14451/highlight=crab.html

[chiefy]

Check out some of these n0bbers

http://www.navy-net.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=14451/highlight=crab.html

And you did a search on "crab" because? Are you paranoid?

Interesting reading though, problem is you've just justified the mod "Chieftiff"'s comments, well done.

[Dave-exfairy]

Just remind the @rse bandits about who exactly it was who got captured not so long ago and one of their fine upstanding members whineing like a dog for his IPoD.

[duffman]

no because it's a well known nick name.

[psycho-fluffy]

Duffman,

It takes at least two to argue - though I do know some who could start a fight in an empty room. Some of what they are saying is neither inflamatory nor untrue (or is that just my WRNS roots showing.

As an ex-Wren and a current PM (RAF Nurse) I have seen both sides of the fence. I probably met fewer Knobbers while in the WRNS than I have in the RAF but i spent less time as a Wren.

The forces reflect society as a whole and are bound to recruit job's worths, village idiots, and every other subsection going.

I still work with the RN on a regular basis both in the "day job" and teaching an RN/RM led course and have no problems with anyone I meet.

:wav:


BUT, do please remember such men as Bomber Command in WW2 who lost 50,000 dead; and the few who could not take the constant fear and said so were made LMF (Lack of Moral Fibre) reduced to the ranks (publicly) if a Sergeant and cashiered if an officer.

Those "identified" as LMF in the morning were usually removed, not only from the camp, but from the Service by tea-time. They would be Pilots/Air Crew on Monday and miners or infanteers on Tuesday. Those who are still around still live with the consequences.

Not meaning to imply that the RAF in WWII handled post traumatic stress as bad as the Army did in WWI but no picnic either.

[3wheeledtechie]

Agreed, but this comment has some resonance.

I think they engender most antipathy for their corporate ethos where they seem to put their sevice above even the nation. One of my engineers once asked not to be billeted in an RAF officers mess again because he found that once they discovered he was but a contractor he was ignored as there was no way he could assist any of the resident officers in the quest for promotion. On the other hand he was happy to be billeted in other service messes because he was treated as a guest.

[T55]

I have more than a few negative opinions about the Army, not so many, if any about the Navy. However, having seen a thread today about some civvie having a go at an old soldier, I am of the opinion that I would take the side of almost any serviceman against any civvie.

Inter-service fighting is especially welcomed and encouraged by the MOD to cover up the ineptidude of the civil servants who cock up most things military!

[CodeMonkey]

I remember years ago explaining to some navy radiographers what the Nimrod could do and they were shocked, to be honest they are just as ignorant of what we do as we(as a whole) are about them and the army.

[Talk Wrench]

As one of the groundcrew to accept the first Harrier GR7 on board an aircraft carrier, I can honestly say that, despite the initial shock of being at sea, it wasn't that bad. The RN were proffessional in the way they sail ships.


Think that says enough.



TW

[R_Squared]

Yawn, what a surprise. A few old Navy hacks having a whinge about the RAF.

Anyone checked out if the Scouting association forums are having a pop too?

Does it make one iota of difference whatsoever?

We're RAF, they're Navy, the only real difference between us all when we walked through the doors at an AFCO is that RAF lads don't like mano e mano 'tossed salad'.
Whereas to be in the Navy, you either love it, or will do soon.:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[ICATQ]

RN were proffessional in the way they sail ships.


I would like to think so, they have been doing it for hundreds of years :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[Talk Wrench]

I would like to think so, they have been doing it for hundreds of years :PDT_Xtremez_30:



Hmmmmm. I think I might have stated the blindingly obvious there. :PDT_Xtremez_31: :PDT_Xtremez_42: :PDT_Xtremez_06:


TW

[planesailing]

Senior Service is just a small box of Fags!

[8:15fromOdium]

The Navy should also remember they are not really the 'Senior Service'. They only got that tag because when we had an empire the East India Company had more ships than the RN so the RN used the tag 'Senior Service' to differentiate them, nothing to do with actually being senior to the Army.

Also Churchill said during WWII:

"In any future conflict it must be recognised that the RAF is the senior service."

A fact I like reminding my 2 RN bosses about. (I'd like to see the Matelots slag him off, seeing as he had been First Lord of the Admirality)

[chiefy]

The Navy should also remember they are not really the 'Senior Service'. They only got that tag because when we had an empire the East India Company had more ships than the RN so the RN used the tag 'Senior Service' to differentiate them, nothing to do with actually being senior to the Army.

Also Churchill said during WWII:

"In any future conflict it must be recognised that the RAF is the senior service."

A fact I like reminding my 2 RN bosses about. (I'd like to see the Matelots slag him off, seeing as he had been First Lord of the Admirality)

What do they teach you kids at school nowaday's?

The Royal Navy is known as the Senior Service for no other reason than it is the oldest of the formed Armed Forces, it can trace it's history back to Alfred the Great c850 AD as a formed service representing the crown. I appreciate that if your history is that poor your arithmetic is likely to be worse so: Battle of Plassey 1757 (British East India Company and all that twaddle) Alfred the Great c850, you are about 900 years out. There really is no need to get paranoid about their "status" as the Senior Service it is merely a statement of fact and representative of their long history.

Incidentally, despite a sense of national pride in what Churchill stood for I don't think you will find many historically aware matelots with a good word for him. In the political position of First Lord of the Admiralty he did them few favours and contributed significantly to their pre- war dessimation and subsequent rebuild at the onset of WW1, he also lost significant face by attempting to take tactical decisons from a political position leading to the disaster of Galipoli which forced his departure from government. Despite his fondness for the RN in his early days he fell strongly out of favour and was frustrated by resistance from the Admiralty who refused to reorganise for his political aims, they insisted that strategic motives should be the primary influence. Hence his favours turned to the RAF, his young mouldable tool of political influence.

School, a wonderful thing, fairly unbiased too.

[MAINJAFAD]

What do they teach you kids at school nowaday's?

The Royal Navy is known as the Senior Service for no other reason than it is the oldest of the formed Armed Forces, it can trace it's history back to Alfred the Great c850 AD as a formed service representing the crown. I appreciate that if your history is that poor your arithmetic is likely to be worse so: Battle of Plassey 1757 (British East India Company and all that twaddle) Alfred the Great c850, you are about 900 years out. There really is no need to get paranoid about their "status" as the Senior Service it is merely a statement of fact and representative of their long history.

Incidentally, despite a sense of national pride in what Churchill stood for I don't think you will find many historically aware matelots with a good word for him. In the political position of First Lord of the Admiralty he did them few favours and contributed significantly to their pre- war dessimation and subsequent rebuild at the onset of WW1, he also lost significant face by attempting to take tactical decisons from a political position leading to the disaster of Galipoli which forced his departure from government. Despite his fondness for the RN in his early days he fell strongly out of favour and was frustrated by resistance from the Admiralty who refused to reorganise for his political aims, they insisted that strategic motives should be the primary influence. Hence his favours turned to the RAF, his young mouldable tool of political influence.

School, a wonderful thing, fairly unbiased too.

A standing English Navy as a permanent service did not exist until the mid 17th century, after the English Civil War (before that it was a mix of a few ships owned by the Crown and called up armed merchantmen/Privateers (i.e. Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Jack Hawkins, Etc)).

As for the Royal Navy, as it is called now, 1707 was when the Royal Scots Navy and the English Navy were combined to become what is in existance now. There are current Army Regiments that are older than that (Life Guards, Coldstream Guards, etc).

As for Churchill, a difficult man to judge. The man was a powerhouse of ideas, however for every totally brilliant one he had (and he had a few), the other 99% of them had major flaws. The two big ones that people knock him for were Galipoli (which forced him out of government) and Norway in 1940 (which actually got him the top job). In both cases, on paper the idea was sound, but were let down by poor planning and execution by the military.

As for 1908 – 1914, Churchill and Fisher made a lot of enemies with the Admiralty, because they were trying to bring the Navy into the 20th Century, which was needed.

As for Churchill’s view of the Air Power v Sea Power, proved right in the end if you remember what happened to the Navy in Crete and other places, right up to the Falklands.

If you want a good view about the how bad some of the RAF though of the Navy as near back to the Falklands, read Jerry Pook’s (A Flight Commander on 1 Sqn) book on the Harrier GR3 Ops off Hermes in the 1982 war (His view of the Navy is not high at all, with the exception of the FAA guys). One comment in his book stands out though. Two Vulcan Raids from ASI got 42 bombs within close proximity of Stanley’s runway from 10,000 feet (including a direct hit). Sea Harriers dropped more throughout the campaign on the same target and missed by hundreds of yards with everything except stuff dropped at low level, which couldn’t damage the runway that much.

[chiefy]

A standing English Navy as a permanent service did not exist until the mid 17th century, after the English Civil War (before that it was a mix of a few ships owned by the Crown and called up armed merchantmen/Privateers (i.e. Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Jack Hawkins, Etc)).

As for the Royal Navy, as it is called now, 1707 was when the Royal Scots Navy and the English Navy were combined to become what is in existance now. There are current Army Regiments that are older than that (Life Guards, Coldstream Guards, etc).

As for Churchill, a difficult man to judge. The man was a powerhouse of ideas, however for every totally brilliant one he had (and he had a few), the other 99% of them had major flaws. The two big ones that people knock him for were Galipoli (which forced him out of government) and Norway in 1940 (which actually got him the top job). In both cases, on paper the idea was sound, but were let down by poor planning and execution by the military.

As for 1908 – 1914, Churchill and Fisher made a lot of enemies with the Admiralty, because they were trying to bring the Navy into the 20th Century, which was needed.

As for Churchill’s view of the Air Power v Sea Power, proved right in the end if you remember what happened to the Navy in Crete and other places, right up to the Falklands.

If you want a good view about the how bad some of the RAF though of the Navy as near back to the Falklands, read Jerry Pook’s (A Flight Commander on 1 Sqn) book on the Harrier GR3 Ops off Hermes in the 1982 war (His view of the Navy is not high at all, with the exception of the FAA guys). One comment in his book stands out though. Two Vulcan Raids from ASI got 42 bombs within close proximity of Stanley’s runway from 10,000 feet (including a direct hit). Sea Harriers dropped more throughout the campaign on the same target and missed by hundreds of yards with everything except stuff dropped at low level, which couldn’t damage the runway that much.

Oh please God no, another amateur historian with selective memory.

Whilst there was undoubtedly a period between about 990 and 1400 when much of the Royal Navy was nothing more than a bunch of privateers and armed merchantman there are records to show that the navy of Athelstan at the Battle of Brunanburh numbered over 400 ships, it was crown owned, funded and managed navy fully formed, trained and tactically operated as one navy.

As for Black Buck, funny you should mention it, I was only talking about this with my Flight Sergeant a few weeks ago. You choose your words very carefully but what you are saying is that Stanley runway wasn't damaged enough by anyone to prevent flying, isn't it? In fact only one Vulcan bomb landed within 100 yds of the runway, what of the other Black Buck missions did any of them succeed? Don't bother googling it, the answer is no. Black Buck was an heroic attempt by a lot of very devoted and highly motivated RAF personnel (none more than the techies who used scrapyard challenge ingenuity to get knackered jets to fulfil a politically motivated mission on track) to fulfill the political aims of CAS..

Thatcher era, huge military cuts, RAF set to suffer more than most. A war breaks out, no surprises, RAF are really struggling to have any real involvement as this is essentially a maritime/ land war. Bright ideas's club decide they need some PR, let's send some knackered old jets 8000 miles to drop some bombs, the jets have no realistic refuel capability and the weapons are totally unsuitable by today's standards for the planned sortie. Hard work (guys didn't go home for days, robbed scrapyards and slept in the tea bar), bravery and some balls got the jets there but it was a complete waste of logistics and always doomed to failure. Then it was blown out of all operational context.

Any more you would like to add, just to round it off in a balanced way?

By the way I've chatted with Jerry Pook, a few years ago now but he was a really nice bloke, Dave Morgan used to be my boss: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/NewsArticle.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BE5254E60-4E6F-4A5C-B759-49FB9D6D9A87%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FDefenceInternet%2FDefenceNews%2FH istoryAndHonour%2FFalklandsPilotsReunitedAtCottesm ore.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest

[Ex-Bay]

Oh please God no, another amateur historian with selective memory.

As for Black Buck, funny you should mention it, I was only talking about this with my Flight Sergeant a few weeks ago. You choose your words very carefully but what you are saying is that Stanley runway wasn't damaged enough by anyone to prevent flying, isn't it? In fact only one Vulcan bomb landed within 100 yds of the runway, what of the other Black Buck missions did any of them succeed? Don't bother googling it, the answer is no. Black Buck was an heroic attempt by a lot of very devoted and highly motivated RAF personnel (none more than the techies who used scrapyard challenge ingenuity to get knackered jets to fulfil a politically motivated mission on track) to fulfill the political aims of CAS..

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/NewsArticle.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BE5254E60-4E6F-4A5C-B759-49FB9D6D9A87%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FDefenceInternet%2FDefenceNews%2FH istoryAndHonour%2FFalklandsPilotsReunitedAtCottesm ore.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest


I must have missed something in the book "Vulcan 607", then.
There's a photo in there taken after raid 1 showing a bloody great hole in the middle of the strip towards one end. IOt was big enough and tough enough to prevent anything but lighter airplanes to fly thereafter.

As a demonstration of the Projection of Air Power, it was brilliant.
Sad that we could not do it now. . . .
A better case for a new long range Bomber Force is difficult to contrive.


:raf:

[chiefy]

I must have missed something in the book "Vulcan 607", then.
There's a photo in there taken after raid 1 showing a bloody great hole in the middle of the strip towards one end. IOt was big enough and tough enough to prevent anything but lighter airplanes to fly thereafter.

As a demonstration of the Projection of Air Power, it was brilliant.
Sad that we could not do it now. . . .
A better case for a new long range Bomber Force is difficult to contrive.


:raf:

You are referring to this picture of earth piled up by the Argentine's to fool our intelligence people, I can't be arsed to search so here is the first pic I found: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/vulcan.htm

My jaded view above was inspired by the biased representation of the previous poster, it was meant to be inflammatory (as no doubt was his) but is never the less the truth. The mission was a succes but not in the way it was intended, it forced the Argie's to pull the Mirage's from the runway and stretched their capability, it also made them wonder if we could bomb their homeland, something they had considered inconceivable in their planning assumptions. The runway was never actually put out of action for any aircraft, some shrapnell damage occured that may have made it difficult for perhaps a hoover to operate from.

[stingray888]

I thought this thread was about the ar*e b*ggerin b*astards in the navy not about how many bombs hit Stanley runway.
I admired the bravery of the ships company when the Iranians captured them! And didn't they look smart in their new suits specialy made for them by President Ahmadinnerjacket or whoever. They,ve got a cheek taking the p*ss out of the RAF, but I suppose its always been the way between the services and always will be. A bit of harmless fun never hurt. (Not unless your're a bell bottom wearing pervert!

[Reformed Scribbly]

Agreed, but this comment has some resonance.

And what resonance might that be? Just out of interest.

[R_Squared]

Chiefy, I didn't think banter had to be balanced, that's the whole point isn't it? To play up to the stereotype?
I didn't realise this was going to turn into a history lesson (however interesting).
I thought it was a great chance to have a pop at the fish heads, their pointlessness on current ops and the fact that they touch each other's bums.
All this senior service stuff means fcuk all, The fact that they've been around so long means that they're stuck in the past, all Bell bottoms, beards and man love.

[chiefy]

Chiefy, I didn't think banter had to be balanced, that's the whole point isn't it? To play up to the stereotype?
I didn't realise this was going to turn into a history lesson (however interesting).
I thought it was a great chance to have a pop at the fish heads, their pointlessness on current ops and the fact that they touch each other's bums.
All this senior service stuff means fcuk all, The fact that they've been around so long means that they're stuck in the past, all Bell bottoms, beards and man love.

Now you see that is banter and completely acceptable, you made no attempt to distort history and leave our younger audience walking around spouting total bollox at their fishhead comrades.

[3wheeledtechie]

And what resonance might that be? Just out of interest.

Oh I think you know. Maybe the relentless quest for promotion by some members of our officer corps, which leads to disregard for the well informed advice of seasoned senior NCOs, ill advised selection of various initiatives caused by short termism, and general re-inventing of the wheel under the guise of "progress".

However apparently there are a few good ones about:PDT_Xtremez_31:

[Ex-Bay]

Off Topic

Originally Posted by chiefy http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/ambience/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=253775#post253775)

As for Black Buck, . . . . In fact only one Vulcan bomb landed within 100 yds of the runway, what of the other Black Buck missions did any of them succeed? Don't bother googling it, the answer is no. Black Buck was an heroic attempt by a lot of very devoted and highly motivated RAF personnel (none more than the techies who used scrapyard challenge ingenuity to get knackered jets to fulfil a politically motivated mission on track) to fulfill the political aims of CAS..

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...ACHEHINT=Guest (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/NewsArticle.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BE5254E60-4E6F-4A5C-B759-49FB9D6D9A87%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FDefenceInternet%2FDefenceNews%2FH istoryAndHonour%2FFalklandsPilotsReunitedAtCottesm ore.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest)

I must have missed something in the book "Vulcan 607", then.
There's a photo in there taken after raid 1 showing a bloody great hole in the middle of the strip towards one end. It was big enough and tough enough to prevent anything but lighter airplanes to fly thereafter.

[:quote]
-------------------------------------

Without going and looking it up, why would the book get it wrong? It was written long enough after Black Buck to get the whole story (or am I being too innocent ?)

My comment was not intended to be controversial or inflammatory; merely quoting what I believed was the truth. If I have been misinformed, I appologise.

But it was a damned good show by ALL particiants.

Off Topic

[chiefy]

Off Topic

Originally Posted by chiefy http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/ambience/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=253775#post253775)

As for Black Buck, . . . . In fact only one Vulcan bomb landed within 100 yds of the runway, what of the other Black Buck missions did any of them succeed? Don't bother googling it, the answer is no. Black Buck was an heroic attempt by a lot of very devoted and highly motivated RAF personnel (none more than the techies who used scrapyard challenge ingenuity to get knackered jets to fulfil a politically motivated mission on track) to fulfill the political aims of CAS..

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...ACHEHINT=Guest (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/NewsArticle.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BE5254E60-4E6F-4A5C-B759-49FB9D6D9A87%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FDefenceInternet%2FDefenceNews%2FH istoryAndHonour%2FFalklandsPilotsReunitedAtCottesm ore.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest)

I must have missed something in the book "Vulcan 607", then.
There's a photo in there taken after raid 1 showing a bloody great hole in the middle of the strip towards one end. It was big enough and tough enough to prevent anything but lighter airplanes to fly thereafter.

[:quote]
-------------------------------------

Without going and looking it up, why would the book get it wrong? It was written long enough after Black Buck to get the whole story (or am I being too innocent ?)

My comment was not intended to be controversial or inflammatory; merely quoting what I believed was the truth. If I have been misinformed, I appologise.

But it was a damned good show by ALL particiants.

Off Topic

I'm not so sure the book actually lies, more skirts around the issue. Like everything in history it's subjective. They used to say that history is written by the winners and that is still true to an extent, although popular history is now written by ex-servicemen out to make a few quid by sensationalising events in order to sell a book, reality is often a little boring if told strictly as events occur. You need to have read the books of Jerry Pook, Sharkie Ward, 607 and Dave Morgan's poetry to realise that none of them tell the truest story, they each tell a story from their perspective, I'm not suggesting that they lied, far from it. They tell what they believed from their experience (and the publisher then added with a little editorial license no doubt), in order to get a true perspective you probably need to read a few books written from the Argie perspective too. I haven't so you could argue that my view is biased, I have however read all of the above.

Edited: I understand (actually I've just been told) that Dave Morgan has also written a book about his Falklands experience although I haven't read it. As far as inter service argument goes it is probably the least biased as he was an RAF pilot in the war transferring to the navy a few years later. Having read a couple of his poems I expect the book to be more about his emotional experience as he suffered with PTSD for some time using poetry to express his feelings. Don't know that for certain but am now off to Amazon to find it.

[PingDit]

Just as an 'aside' here, did we actually want to damage the runway so that our forces wouldn't be able to land on it once we'd recaptured the Islands, or was it merely a show of capability?

[Reformed Scribbly]

Oh I think you know. Maybe the relentless quest for promotion by some members of our officer corps, which leads to disregard for the well informed advice of seasoned senior NCOs, ill advised selection of various initiatives caused by short termism, and general re-inventing of the wheel under the guise of "progress".

However apparently there are a few good ones about:PDT_Xtremez_31:

Apparently? Nice of you to say so. In a few cases I would agree with you, however not for the vast majority.

It's certainly not an approach I take, fixing something that already works is far too much effort.

[FOMz]

You know what, that as usual, is the sort of uninformed sh1te I have come to expect. Mrs FOMz is an ex-wren and that is the usual sh1te I put up with from the matelots on her ship for a while, until they got off their high horses and actually spoke to me and in one case even worked along side me.
I've worked with the matelots in various theaters and roles and to be honest, would NEVER have spoken so much uniformed b0ll0cks as has been spouted on RR. Thing is, as usual, the overly vocal ones have met 1 possibly 2 RAF guys in their short careers.

[Stroppyjock]

Well you know the saying, the RAF is all wine ,women and song. The Navy is rum, bum and gramaphone records.:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[mad_collie]

The Navy are no different to us. I grew up very close to Culdrose, so a lot of my mates are matelots, they were horrified when I joined up as a crab, but we are still mates. Their version of the other services are the same as us. I have worked with the Navy on a few occassions, and met some very good, and some very bad - both as tradsemen and individuals.

HMS York was a brilliant example, their techs were spot on, but the XO had spent the night on the sat phone and forgotten to recharge it. I had to use my £30 Nokia to arrange the satellite footprint to get the kit working. The PO's mess couldn't have been more embarrased. The collie didn't have to put his hand in his pocket all night (as is the tradition) and were very apologitic for the bad light that one of their shipmates had put them in front of a crab.

I've worked with very good, and very bad Army units - I've also worked with some top RAF blokes, and some I wouldn't p1ss on if they were on fire.

[andym]

Bell bottoms???They havent been issued in years!And as for rum,likewise!:PDT_Xtremez_14:


Ermmm you do know our ships are no longer made from wood and are no longer also coal fired dont you?:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[Shugster]

The Navy are no different to us. I grew up very close to Culdrose, so a lot of my mates are matelots, they were horrified when I joined up as a crab, but we are still mates. Their version of the other services are the same as us. I have worked with the Navy on a few occassions, and met some very good, and some very bad - both as tradsemen and individuals.

HMS York was a brilliant example, their techs were spot on, but the XO had spent the night on the sat phone and forgotten to recharge it. I had to use my £30 Nokia to arrange the satellite footprint to get the kit working. The PO's mess couldn't have been more embarrased. The collie didn't have to put his hand in his pocket all night (as is the tradition) and were very apologitic for the bad light that one of their shipmates had put them in front of a crab.

I've worked with very good, and very bad Army units - I've also worked with some top RAF blokes, and some I wouldn't p1ss on if they were on fire.

That's true of all jobs, both Mob and civvy.

The Germans have a nice saying about work / responsability...

"The people who never make a mistake, are the people who never do anything".
:PDT_Xtremez_27:

[Tashy_Man]

Bell bottoms???They havent been issued in years!And as for rum,likewise!:PDT_Xtremez_14:


Ermmm you do know our ships are no longer made from wood and are no longer also coal fired dont you?:PDT_Xtremez_30:

Yeah well most us do, like we all know they are still rife with homosexual bummers.

Crack on (or should it be Crack open for u lot)........................:PDT_Xtremez_09:

[Talk Wrench]

And going to sea is Fcuking weird.

Nobody understood when I asked where the pointy end was, where the bar was, where the bogs were, and three tins a night was sh1te.


The Navy can't run an aircraft operation when they're sober so it's a good job they took the RAF on board to sort modern warfare out whilst still being half cut.


Navy Can't drink either :PDT_Xtremez_14:


TW

[Tashy_Man]

And going to sea is Fcuking weird.

Nobody understood when I asked where the pointy end was, where the bar was, where the bogs were, and three tins a night was sh1te.


The Navy can't run an aircraft operation when they're sober so it's a good job they took the RAF on board to sort modern warfare out whilst still being half cut.


Navy Can't drink either :PDT_Xtremez_14:


TW

TW...Going to sea is fine.......it's the drinking rum all the time that turned them into bummers so thats why it's been reduced....probably a tot or
two still allowed because of bummers rights these days.

Crack on....................:PDT_Xtremez_09:

[Ex-Bay]

From Rum Ration:-

With a few exceptions like the Rockies (RAF Regt), a wide gap seems to exist in the RAF between the frontline minority of aircrew and the vital yet 'rear echelon' ground staff who support them - sort of a knight and squire approach.
In the RN we are all potentially 'frontline', sinking or swimming in the same ship or submarine. The same sort of thing applies to most Army units. The RAF also seems to breed an overly administrative, procedural attitude, often more civilian-like than military in approach. However, this also means they are masters of staffwork and PR.

Bearing in mind some of the comments made on the goat in other threads, I suspect there's more commonality than suspected.

[Tashy_Man]

Bearing in mind some of the comments made on the goat in other threads, I suspect there's more commonality than suspected.

Agreed...the fecking bummers have got everywhere these days.

Crack on.......................:PDT_Xtremez_09:

[MontyPlumbs]

Who cares what a few bitter old Matelots think? We've got the same problem in the RAF.

As long as they don't "force it down my throat" so to speak, I think the Navy are a good bunch (bar a few grade A knobbers).

Still, it is still funny to remind them of that well known Village People track, or the Iranian and the iPod story! :PDT_Xtremez_17::PDT_Xtremez_17:

[Mustang]

Having read the thread I can only say that that some of the RRs are just gobbing off, no real constructive criticism. Good natured banter etc is no problem, whingers just get ignored. I know from past experience that the RAF has its share of oxygen thieves and so does the Army, as I have very little experience of the RN I can only assume that they too have their problem children. None of this makes the relevant Service bad, because the rest of us just get on with the job as best we can.

[FOMz]

The only experience I can claim is that Mrs FOMz is an ex-wren and we all know that WRENs are even filthier than WRAFs. It used to really p1ss the matelots off that she was getting a large RAF portion instead of a whithered offering from some fish-head.

[Vim_Fuego]

The only experience I can claim is that Mrs FOMz is an ex-wren and we all know that WRENs are even filthier than WRAFs. It used to really p1ss the matelots off that she was getting a large RAF portion instead of a whithered offering from some fish-head.

Still delusional then?

[pie sandwich]

He must be referring to his gut rather than his girth :PDT_Xtremez_14:

[danny]

I thought this thread was about the ar*e b*ggerin b*astards in the navy not about how many bombs hit Stanley runway.
I admired the bravery of the ships company when the Iranians captured them! And didn't they look smart in their new suits specialy made for them by President Ahmadinnerjacket or whoever. They,ve got a cheek taking the p*ss out of the RAF, but I suppose its always been the way between the services and always will be. A bit of harmless fun never hurt. (Not unless your're a bell bottom wearing pervert!


Well we have no idea how the RAF would look in Borat suits as the crabs never get that close to the enemy, stand fast the rocks (who in my experience have an even lower opinion of the mainstream raf than either the army or the navy)
Bell bottoms, man love and gash ipod dits aside the RAF are still the gay service.

[Weebl]

Bell bottoms, man love and gash ipod dits aside the RAF are still the gay service.

Oh my god you are right!

If we ignore the fact you all shag each other up the arse while surrendering your Ipods and wearing rather fetching sailor suits, we are the gayest!

If we don't ignore that however.......

[danny]

Oh my god you are right!

If we ignore the fact you all shag each other up the arse while surrendering your Ipods and wearing rather fetching sailor suits, we are the gayest!

If we don't ignore that however.......

When was the last time normal RAF were in a situation to surrender?

And the sailor suits are history something the raf dont know anything about. Better than those security guard uniforms you lot mince around in.

[Weebl]

When was the last time normal RAF were in a situation to surrender?

And the sailor suits are history something the raf dont know anything about. Better than those security guard uniforms you lot mince around in.

Sorry, did not realise that the competition was to see who could surrender to the most people?

If you had any idea about what the 'normal' RAF did and where we were you would know that we could take many opportunities to surrender but we generally resist the urge. You still look stupid dressed in your sailor suits, regardless of how it looked cool years ago.

[banter mode off] all 3 services do their job, and a bloody good job they do too, most of us understand that the booties and sailors were in an untenable situation and surrender was the sensible option [/banter mode off]

That one guy still sounded like a girl whinging about his Ipod while dressed in 1920's chic.

[danny]

Sorry, did not realise that the competition was to see who could surrender to the most people?

If you had any idea about what the 'normal' RAF did and where we were you would know that we could take many opportunities to surrender but we generally resist the urge. You still look stupid dressed in your sailor suits, regardless of how it looked cool years ago.

[banter mode off] all 3 services do their job, and a bloody good job they do too, most of us understand that the booties and sailors were in an untenable situation and surrender was the sensible option [/banter mode off]

That one guy still sounded like a girl whinging about his Ipod while dressed in 1920's chic.

And from what i have heard around the fleet know one was suprised that guy was whinging.

Well i have a few mates in the 'normal' raf and all they seem to do is lord it up in hotels. Not one of them has a medal. At least one has never left the UK with the RAF

[Weebl]

Well i have a few mates in the 'normal' raf and all they seem to do is lord it up in hotels. Not one of them has a medal. At least one has never left the UK with the RAF

That's conclusive then, you know 2 or 3 blokes in the RAF and none of them has a medal and they all live in hotels. That means that logically, nobody in the RAF has a medal and all of us live in hotels.

I know some blokes in the Navy too, one has also never left the UK on duty and never had a posting to a HMS that actually floats. You bunch of idle barstewards, wasting my good taxpayers money.

[chiefy]

That's conclusive then, you know 2 or 3 blokes in the RAF and none of them has a medal and they all live in hotels. That means that logically, nobody in the RAF has a medal and all of us live in hotels.

I know some blokes in the Navy too, one has also never left the UK on duty and never had a posting to a HMS that actually floats. You bunch of idle barstewards, wasting my good taxpayers money.

I know hundreds of blokes in the RAF and not one of then is normal! I also know lots of "some blokes" in the RN who are allergic to the S in HMS and I was in the Navy....................... just off to count medals and reassure myself I wasn't one of them!

[danny]

Not saying that i have any myself just that i find it strange that 5 guys that have been in for between 2 and 7 years. Have not done one operational tour in the times we live in thats all.

[Weebl]

Not saying that i have any myself just that i find it strange that 5 guys that have been in for between 2 and 7 years. Have not done one operational tour in the times we live in thats all.

Nobody would be expecting a tour in 2 years. In the RAF he is basically just about trained at that point, although saying that we have a few young lads on my Sqn who have Herrick medals and they have only been in about 2.

And from what you say, you have not done a tour either, that therefore follows that nobody in the Navy has done a tour. Think about what you are saying.

What trades are your 'mates'?

[stacker4ever]

Well the danny why no enlighten us with how long you have served for then just so we can judge you?

Anyway its all sh1te navy are bummers enough said!

[Moz_Magister]

I have had the fortune to work and socialise with various trades from all three services and can catogorically say that the navy is 100% gay.

Being straight I would certainly never drink with them without wearing at least 2 belts.

:PDT_Xtremez_11:

[Jamie.]

having 2 uncles(on my mothers side) and a god father, all ex navy, infact all 3 weirdly ended up doing the same tours on the same ships, antrim namebly in the falklands then hms eagle, the day i informed my family i intended to enter the RAF there was somewhat unrest in the family. i have nothing against the navy i just prefer planes :P

lets face it, slating the navy is liek the english slating the welsh isnt it. " you appear to have a dragon on your shirt and talk funny" but hell is it fun, banter between forces is great especially wen the other one fcuks up. and wen it comes to the rugby matches too.

but we all know they drop the soap on purpose eh?:PDT_Xtremez_06:

[Pikeman]

The Navy like their history but perhaps would rather forget this..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/27/worse_things_happen_at_sea/

[shoutingwind]

Not saying that i have any myself just that i find it strange that 5 guys that have been in for between 2 and 7 years. Have not done one operational tour in the times we live in thats all.
lucky sods! tell where they are posted so i can go there too!!! I've been in 6 years and done 9 desert dets so i must be doing something wrong...

i personally don't care if someone is navy or army or airforce, at least they aren't civvies!!!

[jack brew]

I remember years ago explaining to some navy radiographers what the Nimrod could do and they were shocked, to be honest they are just as ignorant of what we do as we(as a whole) are about them and the army.

Off Topic
In my (limited!) experience, I have found that the RAF are a lot more knowledgeable about the army, than vice versa. Having not really had much to do with the fish heads, I can't comment, but would be interested to know if that still holds true? Who is more informed, them or us?

[CodeMonkey]

Off Topic
In my (limited!) experience, I have found that the RAF are a lot more knowledgeable about the army, than vice versa. Having not really had much to do with the fish heads, I can't comment, but would be interested to know if that still holds true? Who is more informed, them or us?

Who knows. I'd say that it depends on service + trade to be honest.

[Scaley brat]

l

i personally don't care if someone is navy or army or airforce, at least they aren't civvies!!!

Oy !! :PDT_Xtremez_17: What have I ever done to you ..... :PDT_Xtremez_21:








:PDT_Xtremez_15:

[GimpyBoy]

Oy !! :PDT_Xtremez_17: What have I ever done to you ..... :PDT_Xtremez_21:








:PDT_Xtremez_15:


Breathe possibly:PDT_Xtremez_30:





Worked with a few fish heads over the years and the majority have been very good, professional and have a basic understanding of how the Air Force works. Only one or 2 that I would call real fking useless cnuts professionally and personally. Always had good humored banter nothing nasty a mutual respect if you like of each others service.

The Army on the other hand..............:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[Pikeman]

Have worked with the Army and Navy and on the whole they are alright, after a few pints the f***wits appear and it's worse if they are in a group (especially Army)

The Gurhkas are the best, always polite and one hell of a wicked sense of humour.

Also, has any one else noticed that a lot of the squaddies all claim that they tried joining the RAF first!::P:

[welshjpc]

Was in an effing big tent with navy on FRESCO training, I learnt two things:

1. They don't like you calling their craft a "boat"

2. They spend so much time on their boat they're excellent card players / tricksters

Other than that they were a good bunch. Don't fancy a stint on illustrious though.......

[DE Scumbag]

lucky sods! tell where they are posted so i can go there too!!! I've been in 6 years and done 9 desert dets so i must be doing something wrong...

i personally don't care if someone is navy or army or airforce, at least they aren't civvies!!!


You must be on a Sqn. I did 4 4 month tours in 4 years to the desert in tents with the RAF, and then 6 2 month dets in 6 years to the US sometimes in Hotels, where I worked alongsidea Sqn from the FAA staying in the same hotels!

But am now a "civvie" so dont count.

[Jenny_Dabber]

Was in an effing big tent with navy on FRESCO training, I learnt two things:

1. They don't like you calling their craft a "boat"

2. They spend so much time on their boat they're excellent card players / tricksters

Other than that they were a good bunch. Don't fancy a stint on illustrious though.......

Yup, a ship is a ship, a boat is a sub........................now, try saying 'wall' to a senior rate or salty, a bloody good wind up!

[Pikeman]

I had enough problems trying to understand how I could close a porthole in the head:PDT_Xtremez_35:

[spike7451]

So are the Brown Jobs on yet another 'let's bin the RAF' thread!...

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/p=2874915.html#2874915

[MontyPlumbs]

So are the Brown Jobs on yet another 'let's bin the RAF' thread!...

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/p=2874915.html#2874915


Bar a few reasonably intelligent individuals, most contributors to that and every other thread on ARRSE about disbanding the RAF have an IQ somewhere in the region of 60 - 70. The same old tired, and frankly boring arguments get brought out. If any Pongo or Matelot had something new to say on the subject rather than the usual "100 year experiment" p1ss then it would indeed be a turnup for the books.

If I were a betting man, I'd go for the smaller aviation arms (AAC and FAA) being 'downsized' or disbanded rather than the RAF.

It's a terrible idea, but given the bunch of lying, corrupt, incompetent, two-faced meglomaniacs currently sitting in Parliament, anything is possible

[Jenny_Dabber]

Lets face it, pongos not the most intelligent of the bunch.................

[Rambling Sid]

Worked with the matelots on HMS Jufair, along with some Royal Signals as well. Somehow the pongos never really mixed with either the RAF or the RN. Guys on my watch were great, got invited along for half a tot of the navy rum, and got invited along to the funeral of the tot barrel when the Navy stopped the tot. Bahrain wasn't the most exiting of places for entertainment, but the Navy was always willing to show us around their minesweepers and even allowed us to hire out their work boats. They had their own bar, which was far better than the army run NAAFI, so we used to drink there all the time. The guys I worked with were always ready to have a joke, or knuckle down for a work detail. They had great sandals to go with their uniforms, we used to swap them for the John Lennon sun glasses we got issued with. After reading some of the other threads about how the army is dictating how the RAF dress, I must say in the RAF run commcen we never insisted that the other services wore anything but their regular working dress.