Talk:RAF Regiment

Nothing here about press gang activities in WWII. Spike Milligan claimed that this danger was well known to army regulars of the period and many were "recruited" this way. I'm sure there must be other sources too. (82.43.189.130 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

XenonTheMegablast (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)'press gang activities' ? Highly unlikely that was still going on in WW2 - would have been highly illegal and counterproductive. Still, if you have verifiable evidence....

Spike Milligan was hardly a reliable source; mad as a hatter, and please put new sections at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.--Charles (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

TRF

I have converted the TRF to SVG format, but I wonder about the discrepancy between the flash displayed on this page and the flash displayed on the RAF article. I'm quite ignorant of RAF designs -- if they stand for two different things, please let me know; the RAF article should probably show both. Otherwise, the two files should be merged. Thanks! MithrandirMageT 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I think I've figured it out; they're for two different parts of the RAF, correct? The image's name (RAF TRF) does not give any indication that it belongs to the RAF Regiment and not the RAF. MithrandirMageT 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that right about the 'trinity' thing? Surely that would be RAF police (Snowdrops) rather than Raf Reg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.41.66 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The TRF shown is that of the RAF and, generally speaking, is only worn by members of the RAF Regiment until they complete initial training and are posted to a unit. For an article on the RAF Regiment it would probably be best to show the RAF Regiment's own general TRF (crossed rifles and crown in black on green background), making the point that each squadron and Force Protection wing has its own distinctive TRF. Within the RAF Regiment the term "DZ" (drop zone) [badge/flash] is often used in preference to "TRF" (tactical recognition flash). AcornZero (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Basic Training

removed an unreferenced sentence claiming RAF Regiment Basic Training to be "amongst the longest and most demanding in the military" because I doubt anybody outside the RAF would agree. (Sapperhutch (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

86.156.53.157 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion arena only. Removing other peoples contributions should only be consequencial to the most unacceptable behaviour, not just unqualified opinion about the provenence of the assertions of others. I don't know how the RAF Regiments basic training compares with other elite units except to assert that the regiment is an elite unit within the most accepted usage of the term and whose combat ability is regarded as comparable to the Royal Marines or the British Army's Paratroop Regiment (not to be confused with other units elsewhere around the world who use similar nomclemature). For such a small force their contribution of men capable of attachement to the UK's 'Special Forces' (SAS etc.) is disproportionatly high. I'm not in the military per se but I have somewhat to do with them. I live not a million miles from Hereford and the Mid Wales training grounds that have helped UK Special Forces achive the peerless reputation recognised by military commanders throughout the world who are not disorientated by mere jingoistic wishfullness or other political restraints. But with regard to the apparent 'sapper', a British term for an army engineer, I have the greatest respect for the Royal Engineers who's combat capability is equal or better than many of the so called elite front line units fielded by other nations. It's something of a profound moment to see a rather ordinary sized Royal Engineer corporal knock a much larger muscle bound US trooper to the ground for mistreating a a wounded Iraqi warrent officer. A single Combat Engineer from the same unit then successfully 'beat up' a whole American Army convoy (sic) for opening up a .50 caliber mg on his units confiscated but clearly marked Toyota Land Cruiser. To use a cringe worthy Americanism, "Go Figure"82.3.88.225 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody outside of he RAF Regiment would consider them to be an elite unit, that argument is completely laughable. They guard airfields and are not frontline shock troops. We should be very wary of contributions from people who talk about the "the British Army's Paratroop Regiment" because they quite clearly do not have a clue about what they are talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.158.200 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

RAF Regiment undergo similar training and must meet the same fitness levels as the RM or Parachute Regiment - and members of the RAF Regiment who choose to join the regiment's parachute squadron must go through P Company. The role is considerably different from 'guarding airfields' and I suspect that it is the previous poster who does not 'have a clue about what [they are] talking about'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonTheMegablast (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoever thinks the RAF Regiment just guards airfields obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, they defend them, not guard, huge difference. The Regiment protect the GDA (Ground Defence Area) around an airfield which, depending on the air assets using it, can be a very large an area indeed. I have served in both the RAF Regiment, and a County Infantry Regiment, and the training is not comparable. The RAF Regiment's is much tougher, intensive and with a much higher standard expected to pass. Indeed the current selection, just to be accepted for training, for the Regiment is extremely tough.

The RAF Regiment was formed because time after time overseas during WW II the RAF had had to abandon perfectly-usable airfields because the ground troops tasked with defending them withdrew, leaving the airfields defenceless to invading forces. Due to this the RAF was then unable to continue to give air cover, and was often blamed for this by the army. So the Regiment is (or was) capable of fighting on the ground in the defence of its airfields as any army equivalent unit would be. And more to the point, they could be relied upon to do so.

One of the first occurrences showing the need for this was during the Fall of France when the AASF and fighter squadrons had to be withdrawn back to the UK because the ground forces charged with defending the RAF's forward airfields in France had been taken away for other 'more pressing' duties. Once a forward airfield is undefended by ground troops it becomes untenable as no commanding officer is going to risk leaving his aircraft on the ground to be destroyed or captured in a sudden attack, or arrival of enemy ground forces. The RAF was then blamed by some troops for a 'lack of air cover' during the Dunkirk evacuation, being seemingly unaware that it was because the airfields had had to be abandoned that they had no air cover in the first place.

The RAF Regiment was formed to ensure this no longer happened, the RAF view being that the only people they could rely on to defend their airfields were their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It was following the debacle of Crete that Churchill ordered the formation of the RAF Regiment. What happened was that NAZI forces landed on Crete, a Brigadier (Army) panicked and ordered a withdrawal in spite of the allied forces being superior in numbers and the airfield on Crete was abandoned. The RAF Regiment was formally raised on Gibraltar in 1942 - which is actually why they are called "Rock Apes" and the nick name stuck. To date the reason the RAf Regiment exists is to defend RAF and NATO airfields externally by sterilising as much of the external area as possible. An aeroplane does not suddenly drop out of the sky and land on the runway - it needs to make a controlled descent along a known track - which makes it an ideal target for some idiot to use it for target practice. As an ex-Crab and a part time Rock Ape I admire the "Rocks" how many times I managed to land safely because of them I will never know but as many a crab will say - "Anyone who protects my ass as I come into land has got to be a good bloke." Tough mentally and physically there is many a pongo who could not even pass the first days training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.253 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

About some of the above comments, it is probably better and more accurate to refer to the RAF Regiment as a specialist corps: the term "elite" is somewhat subjective and is cause for arguments unless one is referring to special forces proper or to the Parachute Regiment's Pathfinder Platoon and other such special teams. That said the RAF Regiment initial training is tough and longer than the Army's combat infantryman course but it is neither as demanding as the Parachute Regiment's P Company nor RM commando training. The RAF Regiment has its own version of P Company for those posted to their parachute unit (II Squadron) and others needed or wishing to become military parachutists within the RAF Regiment. The consequences of the modern RAF Regiment's role are often much misunderstood by many in the Army and elsewhere and incudes, for example, extensive patrolling and operations 'outside the wire' of an airbase and protection for medical emergency response team (MERT) missions in addition to staffing part of the Special Forces Support Group. AcornZero (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Removed this unreferenced statement "The Regiment are a very capable and adaptable fighting force allowing them to be deployed anywhere in the world". Lets keep personal opinions out of the article please, anything that sounds like it was copy/pasted from the RAF Careers website will be removed unless reliably referenced. (81.156.39.125 (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Removing posts from this page

Please don't remove posts from this page (unless they are your own), what's being removed doesn't appear to be vandalism, and is the view of an individual, even if you don't agree with it. See WP:TALK. David Underdown (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

David, a few passages have been removed because A) They did not reflect the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and B) were entirely unreferenced. If entries are accompanied by a reliable citation then they shouldn't be deleted without prior agreement on this page. (217.42.161.37 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, I was referring to things that have been blanked from this talk page, not from the article. David Underdown (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Army Hatred POV

David, you beat me to that edit about the Army hatred. Very POV and unsupported Boooooom (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually a lot of transfer between the Regiment and Paras. Personal observation though, so feel free to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonTheMegablast (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SRDG

I've restore this as it is obiously a nickname in use, is referenced, has been there for some time and there is no consensus for removal. It doesn't relly matter wheither it is complementary or not See Royal Marine for instance. 92.0.133.121 (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because its on an spoof wikipedia page does not make it a renowned nickname, that is an Army POV - not a well known nickname for a particular organisation. Just because the RMs have derogatory names on their page does in it self make the use of it correct. There are many nicknames of British Army units listed on the arrse website that are not listed on wiki. The Army are known as Pongos to the rest of the British Military, goggle it if you like! I would however, have the respect not to update their wiki page to read it. Tangosixzero however, has done a very good job of tiding up the RAF Regiment page and I give him/her credit for this. Regards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.72.225 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rock Apes - FLTLT Mason

FLTLT Percry Henry Mason was my grandfather. It is the first I have heard of the term 'rock apes', but I'll remember to ask my grandmother the next time I see her. I'm not sure if it is accurate when the article mentions a fellow RAF officer shot him. I was under the impression it was an Iraqi soldier who was hunting with them. FLTLT Mason was not only shot, the wound pearced his heart (left ventical I believe). One of the soldiers (an Iraqi) plugged the wound with his finger and then proceeded on an 8 hour journey to the closest hospital before being flown back to Aden. His men lined up in droves to offer donor blood. The RAF Doctor then peformed a new form(at the time) of blood transfusionon on him that saved his life. He was at the time only the second person to survive being shot through the heart. FLTLT Mason(RTD)passed away in Feb of 2004 at Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand. I have an uncle also in Christchurch who wrote a family edition book on him and his wife Pauline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.124.50 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge all Force Protection Wing HQs here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge to new article RAF Force Protection Force Headquarters

---

I propose to redirect all Force Protection Wing HQs to this article, as the existing articles are mere stubs without significant chance of growth. Only two of them have articles, both of which are a single line replicating the entry here, with infoboxes whose info could be contained in a table here. While we are at it some of the information at "RAF FP Force Headquarters" could be translated into lay terms here and improve this article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Or at best create the RAF Force Protection Force Headquarters article and put them there. --Bejnar (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree and i believe it will be best if someone creates the RAF Force Protection Force Headquarters article. Gavbadger (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Merger completed by Gavbadger. Reviewed by --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alma House and Park

The Regiment's first depot was Belton Park, near Grantham. There was no such place as Alma House. The camp was established on land off Londonthorpe Road adjacent to Belton Park, and when the RAF Regiment left in 1946 the site was taken over by Grantham Borough Council to provide temporary housing. It was named Alma Park Estate in November 1946 (<Grantham Journal 15 Nov 1946>)Samnviv (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Elite" team

An editor has now inserted a claim that the RAF Regiment Gunners are an "elite" team four times in about two hours. I have asked that editor to read WP:PEACOCK, WP:ADVERT, WP:CITE and now WP:3RR. At the very least the claim needs to be independently cited. Dormskirk (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Realmbusiness, would you like to come here and explain your repeated reinsertion of this term? It does not appear supportable. Do you have other backing that we are not otherwise aware of? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Realmbusiness has politely popped up at my talkpage and provided the http://www.mod.uk link stating that RAF Regiment personnel are elite. However, Wikipedia is not in the business of uncritically mirroring the UK MOD. Think whether Encyclopedia Britannica would have replicated French claims about the Fusiliers Commandos de l'Air twentyfive years ago. MOD claims are not WP:INDEPENDENT, they're not WP:THIRDPARTY. Other third-party sources would be required to justify the elite claims. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Citations need to be independent. Dormskirk (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like puffery to me, and certainly requires an reliable source independent of the MOD. In fact I would go so far as to say it is an exceptional claim and requires a very high quality source. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As requested please refer to the link below for an indepedant source of reference?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/692547/RAF-hero-proved-MUCH-more-match-kidnappers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmbusiness (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Express, being a tabloid like the Daily Mail, does not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)