Lol@ppl thinking Americas military is better.. Royal marines have longest military training in the world and when they did joint ops the American forces couldn keep up, America relies on brute force not skill lmao
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
i love how when your in cadets you can look at these military videos and be able to think to yourself "I know how to do that" or "ive done that myself!" and like when i see them stripping the weapons, i no longer feel mystified or curios - i do that every other night at cadets!!
@skepticsbibleful Must be an ex-ranker going for his commission, cadets previously serving are allowed to wear jump wings and RAF Regiment mudguards on their kit.
okaaaiiiden tbh shes the one actually on basic training and doing something with her life. not sat on their fat arse making comments which just embarass you and yeah make you sound like a douche :/
im a u.s citizen going maybe to the airforce or marines but 1 thing y do they call most of there branches in the military royal and whats the elite branch in the british military?
@FletcherAppeal im afraid this is wrong. if we are talking about the UK. the 'elite' regiments are: the Royal Gurkha Rifles the Parachute Regiment the Royal Marines the RAF Regiment RAF/AAC/FAA Special forces flights Elite Royal Artillery then a step up from that is the special forces: SAS SBS SRR SFSG 18 Signals Regiment
The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are 'Royal', the British Army is not. This is due to the fact that the army overthrew the monarchy in the English Civil War, and beheaded King Charles I. The British special forces are the SAS and SBS, while the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines are also elite forces. The British Army's regiments are however superior in quality to the average U.S. Army regiment; British troops are better trained and generally better-led. Regimental pride is stronger as well.
bULLCRAP, USA is better funded, and has better technology, on top of that USA soldiers prior to joining the army are well trained in firearm training even from an early age because firearms are not illegal.
You might want to find out what you are talking about before you waffle. The US military has the worst trained enlisted soldiers in NATO. Its officer training is also inferior. It may not have struck you that the military use of firearms is separate. The US Service Academies certainly have funding problems. US soldiers get 9 weeks of basic training and Marines 13; Even a truck driver in the British Army gets 16 weeks basic training before becoming a soldier.
You obviously do not know that many shooting concepts has come from sport shooting, like the high ready position which was first used in American sport shooting. Furthermore, many flashlight accessories and modification now used by the military also come from sport shooting. And even if we just imagine that the bristish army is better, then the US would stillkick its arse, because they out number you.
I'm quite aware of that. The fact is that the more disciplined, coordinated use of fire will always trump individual marksmen in a battle. Learning to shoot before you join does not really confer a genuine military advantage. The British Army has consistently proved that it is better; it is much better trained, better led and more professionally competent. In warfare numbers and equipment are not decisive; morale, discipline, training and doctrine are and the British are superior in these.
The facts bear out what I have said. I served for a time in the US military, and like many Americans I am going to the British Army. The Falklands War is a perfect example of why the British military is superior man-for-man. The Pentagon assessed that an invasion could not succeed. The Argentines had air superiority, naval superiority and a vast superiority in numbers. The British were victorious with a small task force. The US hasn't won a war alone since the Spanish-American War.
@Kampfer1445 the isrealis training is regarded by everyone who is not biased to be the best .the uk are best at telling everyone how great they are and that the usa are shit .
most of your equipment of course comes from the usa
all strategic lift
almost every missile
most mraps
most uav s
every helicopter that acctually works in afghanistan
the usa has been protecting you for many years and without them throughout the last 50 years no one would have cared what the uk had to say
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Israeli Defense Forces is a conscript military. Its training is not the equal of the UK, Australia or other British-style armies (the Israeli Defense Forces is based on the British military, which is reflected in everything from uniforms and insignia to organization, a legacy of British Palestine). Many people who actually know what they are talking about believe that the IDF is declining in quality, today;s generation being less ruthless.
Most British equipment is actually British or part British, with a few notable exceptions. You seem to forget that the exchange of military equipment is going both ways; the US has not produced a tank without outside help since the M48, and has continually lagged behind in tank development. The M60 had a British gun, the Abrams was only possible with British armor technology and mounts a German gun. All of the US military's' towed artillery is now British. All US machine guns are Belgian.
@Kampfer1445 your falklands comments are extremly funny.when are u going to syop harping on about the war where u beat up a bunch of conscripts with no leadership .the air superiority prrt is really funny as it never came into play because the usa suplied you with the newest air to air missile .the sidewinder ,and thank god they did .i say god cos i know your to predjudice to thank the americans .the uk used to bee a great country but today its a very different story
That you are militarily ignorant is abundantly clear. You seem to overlook that the Pentagon believed that the reconquest of the Falklands was impossible and the US military would not have even attempted it with the forces available to the UK. That the British pulled it off spectacularly underlines many of the differences between the British and American militaries. It is the same in the War on Terror. Argentina had numerical superiority and a more than 6-1 advantage in aircraft.
@Kampfer1445 the falkland what a joke.lol they were all conscipts with no leadership .jamaica could have kicked them off there lol .the reason the usa said that if they did was probably because u only had a baby carrier but we helped u out and gave u stingers so your planes had a chance
@Kampfer1445 the idf does have conscipts but also has a regular force and there training is second to none .the british army up until iraq had barely any decent equipment.today the rn has been cut back so badly that u have 7 destroyers left lol and around 2o frigate .sine the falkland ur navy has shrunk by over 50%
the diffence between the us and uk military is we get the job done as in iraq and we will do it again in afghanistan .you had about 6 helicopters for troops there lol
The only regular formation in the Israeli Army is the Golani Brigade. It is virtually entirely a conscript force. Blandly stating that their training is second to none merely exposes your ignorance. The performance of Israeli troops in the Lebanon since the 1980's make it abundantly clear that that is not the case. As many astute commentators recognize Israel's reputation was built by the ruthless generation that had to fight for their country's existence; today's Israelis are not their equals.
Your comments make it obvious that you are a mickey-mouse commentator. The US military isn't doing a great deal of anything in Afghanistan; one only needs to look at a map to see that the British, Canadian and Dutch contingents are doing most of the fighting, perhaps up to 80%. The kill-loss ratio of US (14/25-1) and UK (100-1) troops makes it quite obvious which military is better trained, more professional and more capable. Neither equipment nor numbers are decisive in warfare.
@Kam in fact in iraq it was the us surge and u did have to borrow are equipment and still do because u have nothing .
you will see things turn around in afghanistan as we are now able to put the boots on the ground and the equipment on site .you say its not numbers ,well ur wrong u need numbers to hold ground
These comments prove that you are a mickey-mouse commentator, who hasn't the first idea of warfare. The surge is hailed as the decisive factor in the media; I would advise you to actually learn something rather than rely on popular media. The surge achieved little until Sunni militias turned and defeated the Sunni insurgency; that was the product of the Sons of Iraq strategy. The problem in Afghanistan is that there are too many 'boots on the ground' doing nothing.
Like most military amateurs you assume that numbers and equipment provides a military advantage. The Taliban's supply lines and reinforcement routes cross the US sector of Afghanistan with impunity to fight the British, Canadians and Dutch. If the UK has nothing it is remarkable that they are doing so much more in Afghanistan than the US military, and is simply a further credit to the British Armed Forces.
@Kampfer1445 we have seen how you have performed in afghanistan and the results speak for themselves .
now its our turn and again as in iraq we will show u how its done .but it wont matter because you will still turn it so that it was all the uk and there great training that saved the day
you make me sick how you treat everyone like there inferior ,be humble is a vertue that u could really use
Pretty much what I expected from an idiot. You completely reverse logic and fats to attempt to prove some nonsense argument. The British achieved the success in Iraq, and they are with the Canadians and Dutch, and more recently the US Marine Corps doing nearly all of the fighting in Afghanistan. If you actually studied the war on terror you would know that US generals take all their lead from the British, from the capture of Baghdad to the defeat of the Sunni Insurgency to now Afghanistan.
@Kampfer1445 the problem in afghan as it always is is that you dont have enough equipment or troops to hold ground thats taken .the taliban simply melt and then come back.
as for your indiginous equipment lol .you have some yes but a large slice is ours especially the stuff that works .your helis cant even go there.
also just a small point i think your coast gaurd just ordered all us helicopters ,because they acctually work .you cant build and design cos u cant afford it period
The UK doesn't have a Coast Guard, but nice try. Very little of the UK's combat equipment is American, and you of course forget that such basics as radar, sonar, jet engines and all the technology used on US carriers, from steam powered carriers to angled flight decks were copied from the RN. Of course where the equipment comes from is irrelevant; how the armies perform is what matters, and there is no contest there.
You clearly don't know anything about military history or military science. It is indeed amply clear that your only understanding of the War on Terror is from journalists whose own understanding is negligible, and certainly not much more than yours. You don't defeat a guerrilla movement by occupying ground, because guerrillas don't hold ground. You defeat guerrilla movements through the use of intelligence and mobile light forces. You can't fight guerrillas using conventional tactics.
In Iraq the British effectively achieved the current success in spite of continuous American blunder. In 2006 US Special Forces asked the SAS to take over operations in Baghdad, as Delta Force, SEALs and Green Berets were starting to take heavy losses to intelligent insurgent tactics. Within a year the SAS had killed or captured 4,000 insurgents and crippled the Sunni insurgency. Insurgent bombings decreased from several hundred per month to about a dozen. The real change came before the surge.
In addition it was the British inspired Sunni Awakening movement which co-opted the local Sunni chiefs to the Allied side, and it was Sunni sheikhs who crushed the Sunni Insurgency. The surge merely spread the US forces out into individual towns throughout the region to prevent a return of the Insurgents. The surge was the consolidation of British success, the second-wave in the campaign. It did not achieve success in its own right, or defeat the enemy.
For political reasons and through judicious manipulation of facts and statistics Americans, particularly of the Republican variety manipulated the defeat of the Sunni insurgency as an American victory, and made General Petraeus into some sort of military genius. If you get your impressions and opinions from the media that is what you will think. The fact that militarily the surge claim doesn't add up doesn't phase the ignorant, which apparently includes yourself.
@Kampfer1445 like i said ur royal navy is now so small its really to the point of insignificance .7 destroyers lol .who cares how good the men are your barely able to form as task force
Only they RN is building 6 Type 45 Daring Class destroyers, which will probably increase to 12. The Daring Class dwarfs the air defense capabilities of AEGIS warships, with more than twice the detection range and ten times the tracking and engagement capacity. Also quality can and will trump much larger quantities.
@Kampfer1445 also for your info .the usn has more officers with bachelor degrees than the whole of the roral navy put togetther .you are a has been country.you havnt been great at anything for 50 years .
That is the problem. Bachelor degrees have absolutely nothing to do with anything. All US commissioning sources focus on having a bachelor degree, and you can't be a US officer without one, so go figure. US officers are poor at actually fighting wars, which has nothing to do with college degrees. The UK has also fought and won the only major naval war since 1945, against odds which the US has admitted they would have given up over. The US Army in particular take their lead from the UK.
You are also ignorant of the fact that it was the Iraqis who achieved success in Iraq, through the Sons of Iraq program, which was British inspired and led. Lt. Gen. Lamb (UK) who did it in Iraq is being asked by General MacChrystal to come to Afghanistan to win the war there. The US military has to follow the UK's military lead in everything because US officers are incompetent. The RN also has quality; several USN officers have told me of the inability of the USN to match other NATO navies..
You also are neatly ignorant of the fact that the Royal Navy is equipped with the Harrier, which is superior to F-15, F-16 and F/A-18E/F in both BVR and WVR engagements. On joint maneuvers Harrier pilots of the RAF and the RN's Fleet Air Arm have repeatedly mauled US Hornet squadrons. The Blue Vixen is such a potent radar that NATO forces over Kosovo often used Harriers to cover gaps in AWACS coverage. Given the greater quality of the RN, they would come off well against a USN carrier group.
The only thing that can be said about you is that you should probably go back to baseball or something, because military strategy and warfare are completely beyond your comprehension. The Sea Harrier outperforms all US fighters bar the Raptor in maneuvers; in the Mediterranean FAA Harriers shot down 35 US carrier aircraft without loss. The AAF in the Falklands barred their pilots from engaging the Harrier after seeing its results against F-15 and F-15 aircraft on maneuvers in the US.
With the Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM the Sea Harrier FA Mk. 2 is the best fighter in BVR and WVR engagement prior to the current generation (Raptor, Typhoon, Rafale). The Blue Vixen was used by NATO over Kosovo to fill gaps in AWACS coverage. Speed means much less in fighters today due to the development of BVR capabilities and guided missiles. Then again you are completely ignorant of anything in the military sphere, so I have to explain these things to you.
Well let's face it; the US military wouldn't have any modern or capable tank without the UK, they wouldn't have the Harrier, and they would be lagging behind in artillery. If we go back further the US only got the jet engine from the UK and the USAAF had to use Spitfires because they lacked any capable fighters until the P-51D, which was only a great fighter because of the British Rolls Royce Merlin engine. The list goes on. The US military also takes all of its guidance militarily from the UK.
The British military has been underfunded for decades, no one would deny that. It is thus amazing how they have a much better kill-loss ratio on operations than the US and American generals take their lead from their British opposites when they can't figure out what to do, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Quality will beat quantity and the British dominate on quality.
Finally the UK has been adopting foreign equipment in recent decades to cut costs, not because they lack the capability to equip themselves. They were for example developing their own stealth strike aircraft until they switched to the F-35 because the US would have to bear most of the development costs. The UK has full access to all of the technology used in the equipment they employ so they have the capability to produce their own. Of course the Meteor and Storm Shadow are not US missiles.
The list is not endless; almost all of the British Army's weaponry and the Royal Navy's equipment are indigenous. UAV's are not in any way difficult to build. The UK is looking into strategic life. Helicopters are cheap. You aren't proving anything. How can the UK begin developing stealth aircraft, build the world's most capable air defense destroyer, equip America's artillery and lead AFV development if it 'can't' build the Chinook (when it builds the Lynx, Sea King etc.), C-130s and UAVs?
@Kampfer1445 i think you listen to your mod s spin myn friend .watch a video on here from the times of london called ,us questions british performance in afghanistan .then get back to me .the british are extremly good at one thing or acctually 2
1 being pretentious
2 being ungrateful for the help thaat other countrys give them as they think they dont need it
Your problem is of course that you listen to journalists and the media. I don't; none of them know the first thing about warfare and they all have agendas. If you knew anything about history and historical study you would know that the media doesn't have a clue. The British military is shamefully underfunded; they still achieve more than the US military with much less.
@Kampfer1445 also u are right u are looking into ur strategic lift , you just bought another c17 .helicopters are a little more complicated than u think as you found out when you recently tried to mess with avionics on 6 or so which grounded them for several years causing a political mess as ur troops were being slaughted by ieds .which brings us on to the next subject .
the good old snatch landrover ,how lovely u still send ur men out in these pieces of shit along with another piece of shit
'Being slaughtered' by IED's is hysterical nonsense. They simply aren't taking many casualties, so the IED losses are high. The British and Canadians are also doing the vast majority of the fighting. In the initial invasion of Iraq the UK suffered 6 deaths from Iraqi fire. The US military suffered far more than that (although probably less than their 133 total).
It is still doing far more with far less. The kill-loss ratios in the War on Terror speak for themselves. UK 100-1, US 14/25-1. The UK military and all European militaries are far more effective on the ground with far less than the US military, which mistakes firepower and numbers for military advantage, and has no idea how to use forces. The US military's do less with more is nothing to be proud of.
Again, the British Army does more with less. The US military does less with more. Bachelor's degrees aren't important, you are falling into the usual American habit that on-paper qualifications are significant. US officers are often poor leaders, they lack initiative and have little grasp of military science. Bachelor degrees mean jack squat. The only thing that matters is intelligence, wisdom and military training; bachelor degrees give none of those three things. US officers are mediocre.
all you said is correct but the air force requires more brains then physical endurance. the 8 weeks are to make sure you are fit enough for emergency. know in my case i went through 8 weeks of basic and 9 weeks of indocrination and even after that i had another year and a half ahead of me. the millitary traines those that need the training the most. *special ops Air Force* e flight 333.
@Kampfer1445 Only an idiot who doesn't understand the U.S. military academy system would say something so stupid and ignorant. Why can't you be proud of your country without trying to put America down!! Funding problems? U.S. military academies are basically four year colleges there are much stricter age limits. The people in this video look rather older than the average 18 year old entering West Point, the Air Force Academy or Anapolis!!
@Kampfer1445 Funding problems? The U.S. military has a larger budget than all European militaries combined! It's even bigger than that juggernaut country of more than 2 billion people, China. Just because they don't use the British method, doesn't mean their training is inferior!
@Kampfer1445 you realized that the US Army does 10 plus ait. then the US Army does up to a yr of training before deploying. The difference is the British keep all the recruits together longer and the US military sends them to their unit to train more. Both are constantly training, but considering each's success in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army is obviously the best, followed by USMC, RMC, then British Army.
@Kampfer1445 You shure liked our poorly trained soldiers led by there inferior Officers when the Germans were kicking your british asses.Now isnt that so Limey ?
There is the RAFFT which is minimum 9.10 beep test, but 15.04 to get top marks, 20 push ups in one min (60 for top marks) and 35 sit ups (55 for top marks) in one minute. Then there is IOTFA which min standards is 1.5 miles sub 10.30 then 44 push ups and 50 sit ups in 2 mins each.
Army is 10.2 beep followed by 44 push ups 50 sit ups, each in 2 mins.
Yeah, don't be yourself, be the best version you can manage and try and fit in. All nonsense aside, if you look like you'll fit in it's a big tick in the box.
The nice thing about this was when they say Yes Sir. I still am an Officer. I was an Infrantry Officer with the 82nd and the 101st in Vietnam. I suppose that I just kill people and break things. That is what I do or did.
Yeah, I've heard the army is pretty demanding physically.
I'm joining the Army as an officer, I'm in recruitment as a GSO, though only in the Reserves as I've still got my uni degree to finish. I've done some intensity training and basic fitness to make sure I'm prepared, here's hoping I go okay :p
im just gonna join the army as soon as i finish school..btw it takes a while to become a officer, my cousin told me so dont think its that easy lol...but good luck in your endeavours!
Yeah, I have no illusions to the challenges ahead. For a reservist it can very for 2-3 years to become an officer in the army. Some of the training is notoriously difficult, especially the later training, not just physically but also mentally demanding. I heard Singleton makes the course at Kapooka look boy scouts. Good luck in your career
It's not a person :p , Singleton is where infantry and Special forces train. Infantry are stationed there after they complete Kapooka training I believe, but from people that have been there they said its the most rewarding experience due to the difficult nature of it. After today's run though I'm hoping its not hot like it is now when I go.
You need to be fit because of the often High G's you pull in a Jet. There ia a technique you use to help keep the blood in your brain and stop you blacking out. This is very very strenuous. Also you are often doing very very long hours on a mission on full concentation all the way. Trust me you need to be fit. If you not then you will not last a week in training.
So they look good in their uniforms. You'd be worried if a massive, fat bastard said he was defending your country from attack. No one has faith in fat people.
Uum... think you've been taking piss taking seriously. Have a word mate. And no. Those crabs that are not pilots do NOT mostly do as demanding work as the army. They do a job that is really quite different actually, as do the RN from the army. So don't try and equate everyone who wears a uniform, or you'll have to include MOD police and traffic wardens.
you have to be able to swim 2 lengths and tread water for 3 ins and get out. If you're a weak swimmer i would advise getting some time in at the local pool as swimming in a coverall is much harder than in your shorts.
If you wanted to join the RAF as a pilot, would anybody recommend going university or just applying straight after college? Any advice would be much appreciated
well, you can join the university air squadron while at uni and they will teach you to fly for free, and you can get a good feel for if you are any good/ still want to be a pilot. but if you don't get in to the RAF and you don't have a related degree you may end up with a lot of debt and no job like a lot of uni students.
on the other hand if you apply straight after college if you dont get in no time or money wasted, but you climb the ranks slower and have a harder time.
also they are less likely to take you on as you have less life experience.you can go to uni at any time and the cut off age for pilot is 23, so you can still go to uni after application.
personally im hoping to do 6 months is Oz after A-levels, then applying.
I noticed on the RAF website that it doesn't state any specific A-Levels that you need for a pilot, but do you think or know of any which would give an advantage?
well when i spoke to them they said good academic ones like maths physics etc. you don't need to do anything you think you will struggle with because A-levels are v hard. but if you dont get into the RAF and want to pursue a career in civil aviation, especially at degree level maths and physics really help.
Officers in a way are more intelligent (and most hold University degrees)with better leadership skills.....Officers are higher ranked millitary personnels such pilots...engineering officers while airmen/women are people like aircraft technicians with no university degree but some sort of qualification if that makes sense (they can however go up in rank but not as quick or as much as officers. hope that helps a bit
also i did not mean that people that didn't pass where useless or which ever words i used, i mean it separates the people that may not be able to cope with RAF life at that time or at all, for instance someone who doesn't yet have enough life experience but may come back in 6 months time.
i apologise for my ignorant comment on this video. I must have disengaged my brain from the rest of my body, it was a line of ridiculous statements.
i think what i meant to say was it teaches all the skills needed throughout your RAF life like leadership etc. but you also learn what you may need if you are forced to fight or you may need to survive in the wild. it is my understanding that IOT is a building block for other training that may come afterwards.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
any ARMY training will of course be alot harder that this because this is training for every one, IOT stands for Initial Officer Training, my dad had to do this and he was a doctor. i think this is probably more designed to take slackers and people that are hopeless at leading from the ranks, its not to much of a challenge!
Have you done it?! unless you have dont think you can judge about slackers hopeless people! Get your facts straight first. The docs do SERE a short 10 week course, everyone else does the long 30 week course. Trust me... its not easy, tell that to the around 30% failure rate per course. :(
i retract my statement about it being 'not much of a challenge' having spoken to many more people that have done it it probably is quite hard. apologies to any1 offeneded
is this for the regiment or for all aspects of the royal air force
Deaksvidz 3 months ago
@Deaksvidz This is for people who want to go in the raf as an officer, its not regiment only
Flaminghamster1 3 months ago
@Flaminghamster1 ok thanks
Deaksvidz 3 months ago
@Deaksvidz Just the branches which require you to be an officer such as Regimental Officer :)
seedot555 3 weeks ago
Lol@ppl thinking Americas military is better.. Royal marines have longest military training in the world and when they did joint ops the American forces couldn keep up, America relies on brute force not skill lmao
TheBobandben 5 months ago
I think they are bad ass at 7:10 they popped out of the bushes it skeered me :(
Ildaleigh 5 months ago
hi_Í_fèèl_sò_l0nélý_tÒdåY
BibiaaLiviaaa598 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW ABOUT WE DO SOMETHING REALLY BRAVE...
& STAND UP TO THE ISRAEL/AMERICA PACT OVER PALESTINE!
Palestinians have to live on only 15% of regular supplies DUE TO THE ILLEGAL ISRAELI BLAOCKADE WHICH HAS STOOD FOR DECADES. Or are we just another U.S. lap dog state now?
LOOK AT MY CHANNEL FOR ALL THE INFO
(click my screen name)
BlackRoof 10 months ago
thanks for the upload! very informative, i am considering becoming an officer in the raf.
JAMamation 10 months ago
four occupants with small arms? ;D
daveslow84 10 months ago
Officers = Knobbers
kelv8 1 year ago
@kelv8 yet without em, we'd be fucked
ACiDNATiONN 1 year ago
@kelv8 clever bloke....wonder if you will ever promote....probably not.
beejjordi 10 months ago
IT GIVES ME A FEELING OF PRIDE THAT 2 GENERATIONS OF THE IAF HAD TRAINED AT THE RAF cranwall including MIAF Arjan singh DCF
Madraskings 1 year ago
i love how when your in cadets you can look at these military videos and be able to think to yourself "I know how to do that" or "ive done that myself!" and like when i see them stripping the weapons, i no longer feel mystified or curios - i do that every other night at cadets!!
fuck the bnp
miky261 1 year ago
at 6:01 how come that officer cadet has para wings?
skepticsbibleful 1 year ago
@skepticsbibleful Must be an ex-ranker going for his commission, cadets previously serving are allowed to wear jump wings and RAF Regiment mudguards on their kit.
lukessavage 1 year ago
@dogameel84 Vote BNP, your a mad man. And I believe most soldiers wouldn't agree with you.
moleman9000 1 year ago
do they still do NBC training because my mate in the paras said they arent putting as much emphasis on it now
danpayne118 1 year ago
How many press ups must they do?
ShitMovies2000 2 years ago
1001 in 1 minute
IMnotSAS 2 years ago
oi!
okaaaiiiden tbh shes the one actually on basic training and doing something with her life. not sat on their fat arse making comments which just embarass you and yeah make you sound like a douche :/
hornydavetew 2 years ago 3
No offence, but without seeing her run, i think you're a douche to make a comment like that.
TheHusky9 2 years ago
???
britisharmybethebest 2 years ago
thats because they usually only defend airfields like kandahar.
britisharmybethebest 2 years ago
Don`t slag off what you know nothing about. Join up, do you time then after 22 years give me opinion. Untilo then, wind you neck in.
theswedex 2 years ago
shut up you twat, you have tornadoes on the streets of iraq or towns of afghanistan all the raf is is back up
britisharmybethebest 2 years ago
without air superiority, the war is already lost.
TheHusky9 2 years ago
im a u.s citizen going maybe to the airforce or marines but 1 thing y do they call most of there branches in the military royal and whats the elite branch in the british military?
rune2468 2 years ago
We us "Royal" because we have a Royal Family, most of regiments have a Royal Accent from the Monarch.
In terms of "Elite" we use that word differntly to the US Military.
box10019 2 years ago
lol idiot
schmokes1 2 years ago
I believe the parts considered Elite are:
SAS
SBS
Royal Marines
Parachute Regiment
FletcherAppeal 2 years ago 28
and SRS?
jessejustin 2 years ago
00jams00 1 year ago
@FletcherAppeal YOU DAMN RIGHT SOLDIER!!
Arsenal22JW 1 year ago
The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are 'Royal', the British Army is not. This is due to the fact that the army overthrew the monarchy in the English Civil War, and beheaded King Charles I. The British special forces are the SAS and SBS, while the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines are also elite forces. The British Army's regiments are however superior in quality to the average U.S. Army regiment; British troops are better trained and generally better-led. Regimental pride is stronger as well.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
bULLCRAP, USA is better funded, and has better technology, on top of that USA soldiers prior to joining the army are well trained in firearm training even from an early age because firearms are not illegal.
IMnotSAS 2 years ago
You might want to find out what you are talking about before you waffle. The US military has the worst trained enlisted soldiers in NATO. Its officer training is also inferior. It may not have struck you that the military use of firearms is separate. The US Service Academies certainly have funding problems. US soldiers get 9 weeks of basic training and Marines 13; Even a truck driver in the British Army gets 16 weeks basic training before becoming a soldier.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago 41
"The military use of firearms is different"
You obviously do not know that many shooting concepts has come from sport shooting, like the high ready position which was first used in American sport shooting. Furthermore, many flashlight accessories and modification now used by the military also come from sport shooting. And even if we just imagine that the bristish army is better, then the US would stillkick its arse, because they out number you.
IMnotSAS 2 years ago
I'm quite aware of that. The fact is that the more disciplined, coordinated use of fire will always trump individual marksmen in a battle. Learning to shoot before you join does not really confer a genuine military advantage. The British Army has consistently proved that it is better; it is much better trained, better led and more professionally competent. In warfare numbers and equipment are not decisive; morale, discipline, training and doctrine are and the British are superior in these.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Well unless you have served in the US military or trained with them i guess all your confidence stinks of nationalism and nothing more.
IMnotSAS 2 years ago 2
The facts bear out what I have said. I served for a time in the US military, and like many Americans I am going to the British Army. The Falklands War is a perfect example of why the British military is superior man-for-man. The Pentagon assessed that an invasion could not succeed. The Argentines had air superiority, naval superiority and a vast superiority in numbers. The British were victorious with a small task force. The US hasn't won a war alone since the Spanish-American War.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 the isrealis training is regarded by everyone who is not biased to be the best .the uk are best at telling everyone how great they are and that the usa are shit .
most of your equipment of course comes from the usa
all strategic lift
almost every missile
most mraps
most uav s
every helicopter that acctually works in afghanistan
the usa has been protecting you for many years and without them throughout the last 50 years no one would have cared what the uk had to say
marks9591 2 years ago
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Israeli Defense Forces is a conscript military. Its training is not the equal of the UK, Australia or other British-style armies (the Israeli Defense Forces is based on the British military, which is reflected in everything from uniforms and insignia to organization, a legacy of British Palestine). Many people who actually know what they are talking about believe that the IDF is declining in quality, today;s generation being less ruthless.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Most British equipment is actually British or part British, with a few notable exceptions. You seem to forget that the exchange of military equipment is going both ways; the US has not produced a tank without outside help since the M48, and has continually lagged behind in tank development. The M60 had a British gun, the Abrams was only possible with British armor technology and mounts a German gun. All of the US military's' towed artillery is now British. All US machine guns are Belgian.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 your falklands comments are extremly funny.when are u going to syop harping on about the war where u beat up a bunch of conscripts with no leadership .the air superiority prrt is really funny as it never came into play because the usa suplied you with the newest air to air missile .the sidewinder ,and thank god they did .i say god cos i know your to predjudice to thank the americans .the uk used to bee a great country but today its a very different story
marks9591 2 years ago
That you are militarily ignorant is abundantly clear. You seem to overlook that the Pentagon believed that the reconquest of the Falklands was impossible and the US military would not have even attempted it with the forces available to the UK. That the British pulled it off spectacularly underlines many of the differences between the British and American militaries. It is the same in the War on Terror. Argentina had numerical superiority and a more than 6-1 advantage in aircraft.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 the falkland what a joke.lol they were all conscipts with no leadership .jamaica could have kicked them off there lol .the reason the usa said that if they did was probably because u only had a baby carrier but we helped u out and gave u stingers so your planes had a chance
marks9591 2 years ago
This comment made no sense. No surprises there.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 the idf does have conscipts but also has a regular force and there training is second to none .the british army up until iraq had barely any decent equipment.today the rn has been cut back so badly that u have 7 destroyers left lol and around 2o frigate .sine the falkland ur navy has shrunk by over 50%
the diffence between the us and uk military is we get the job done as in iraq and we will do it again in afghanistan .you had about 6 helicopters for troops there lol
marks9591 2 years ago
The only regular formation in the Israeli Army is the Golani Brigade. It is virtually entirely a conscript force. Blandly stating that their training is second to none merely exposes your ignorance. The performance of Israeli troops in the Lebanon since the 1980's make it abundantly clear that that is not the case. As many astute commentators recognize Israel's reputation was built by the ruthless generation that had to fight for their country's existence; today's Israelis are not their equals.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Your comments make it obvious that you are a mickey-mouse commentator. The US military isn't doing a great deal of anything in Afghanistan; one only needs to look at a map to see that the British, Canadian and Dutch contingents are doing most of the fighting, perhaps up to 80%. The kill-loss ratio of US (14/25-1) and UK (100-1) troops makes it quite obvious which military is better trained, more professional and more capable. Neither equipment nor numbers are decisive in warfare.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kam in fact in iraq it was the us surge and u did have to borrow are equipment and still do because u have nothing .
you will see things turn around in afghanistan as we are now able to put the boots on the ground and the equipment on site .you say its not numbers ,well ur wrong u need numbers to hold ground
marks9591 2 years ago
These comments prove that you are a mickey-mouse commentator, who hasn't the first idea of warfare. The surge is hailed as the decisive factor in the media; I would advise you to actually learn something rather than rely on popular media. The surge achieved little until Sunni militias turned and defeated the Sunni insurgency; that was the product of the Sons of Iraq strategy. The problem in Afghanistan is that there are too many 'boots on the ground' doing nothing.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Like most military amateurs you assume that numbers and equipment provides a military advantage. The Taliban's supply lines and reinforcement routes cross the US sector of Afghanistan with impunity to fight the British, Canadians and Dutch. If the UK has nothing it is remarkable that they are doing so much more in Afghanistan than the US military, and is simply a further credit to the British Armed Forces.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 we have seen how you have performed in afghanistan and the results speak for themselves .
now its our turn and again as in iraq we will show u how its done .but it wont matter because you will still turn it so that it was all the uk and there great training that saved the day
you make me sick how you treat everyone like there inferior ,be humble is a vertue that u could really use
marks9591 2 years ago
Pretty much what I expected from an idiot. You completely reverse logic and fats to attempt to prove some nonsense argument. The British achieved the success in Iraq, and they are with the Canadians and Dutch, and more recently the US Marine Corps doing nearly all of the fighting in Afghanistan. If you actually studied the war on terror you would know that US generals take all their lead from the British, from the capture of Baghdad to the defeat of the Sunni Insurgency to now Afghanistan.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
Any fool can talk about something. What is clear is that you can't diffrentiate between talk and knowledge.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 the problem in afghan as it always is is that you dont have enough equipment or troops to hold ground thats taken .the taliban simply melt and then come back.
as for your indiginous equipment lol .you have some yes but a large slice is ours especially the stuff that works .your helis cant even go there.
also just a small point i think your coast gaurd just ordered all us helicopters ,because they acctually work .you cant build and design cos u cant afford it period
marks9591 2 years ago
The UK doesn't have a Coast Guard, but nice try. Very little of the UK's combat equipment is American, and you of course forget that such basics as radar, sonar, jet engines and all the technology used on US carriers, from steam powered carriers to angled flight decks were copied from the RN. Of course where the equipment comes from is irrelevant; how the armies perform is what matters, and there is no contest there.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
Comment removed
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591, Britain has allways been a superpower since the 1300's.
Please get me the quotes of the British generals saying the British army is getting worse.
UnitedProviences 1 year ago
You clearly don't know anything about military history or military science. It is indeed amply clear that your only understanding of the War on Terror is from journalists whose own understanding is negligible, and certainly not much more than yours. You don't defeat a guerrilla movement by occupying ground, because guerrillas don't hold ground. You defeat guerrilla movements through the use of intelligence and mobile light forces. You can't fight guerrillas using conventional tactics.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
In Iraq the British effectively achieved the current success in spite of continuous American blunder. In 2006 US Special Forces asked the SAS to take over operations in Baghdad, as Delta Force, SEALs and Green Berets were starting to take heavy losses to intelligent insurgent tactics. Within a year the SAS had killed or captured 4,000 insurgents and crippled the Sunni insurgency. Insurgent bombings decreased from several hundred per month to about a dozen. The real change came before the surge.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
In addition it was the British inspired Sunni Awakening movement which co-opted the local Sunni chiefs to the Allied side, and it was Sunni sheikhs who crushed the Sunni Insurgency. The surge merely spread the US forces out into individual towns throughout the region to prevent a return of the Insurgents. The surge was the consolidation of British success, the second-wave in the campaign. It did not achieve success in its own right, or defeat the enemy.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
For political reasons and through judicious manipulation of facts and statistics Americans, particularly of the Republican variety manipulated the defeat of the Sunni insurgency as an American victory, and made General Petraeus into some sort of military genius. If you get your impressions and opinions from the media that is what you will think. The fact that militarily the surge claim doesn't add up doesn't phase the ignorant, which apparently includes yourself.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 like i said ur royal navy is now so small its really to the point of insignificance .7 destroyers lol .who cares how good the men are your barely able to form as task force
marks9591 2 years ago
Only they RN is building 6 Type 45 Daring Class destroyers, which will probably increase to 12. The Daring Class dwarfs the air defense capabilities of AEGIS warships, with more than twice the detection range and ten times the tracking and engagement capacity. Also quality can and will trump much larger quantities.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 also for your info .the usn has more officers with bachelor degrees than the whole of the roral navy put togetther .you are a has been country.you havnt been great at anything for 50 years .
marks9591 2 years ago
That is the problem. Bachelor degrees have absolutely nothing to do with anything. All US commissioning sources focus on having a bachelor degree, and you can't be a US officer without one, so go figure. US officers are poor at actually fighting wars, which has nothing to do with college degrees. The UK has also fought and won the only major naval war since 1945, against odds which the US has admitted they would have given up over. The US Army in particular take their lead from the UK.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
You are also ignorant of the fact that it was the Iraqis who achieved success in Iraq, through the Sons of Iraq program, which was British inspired and led. Lt. Gen. Lamb (UK) who did it in Iraq is being asked by General MacChrystal to come to Afghanistan to win the war there. The US military has to follow the UK's military lead in everything because US officers are incompetent. The RN also has quality; several USN officers have told me of the inability of the USN to match other NATO navies..
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
You also are neatly ignorant of the fact that the Royal Navy is equipped with the Harrier, which is superior to F-15, F-16 and F/A-18E/F in both BVR and WVR engagements. On joint maneuvers Harrier pilots of the RAF and the RN's Fleet Air Arm have repeatedly mauled US Hornet squadrons. The Blue Vixen is such a potent radar that NATO forces over Kosovo often used Harriers to cover gaps in AWACS coverage. Given the greater quality of the RN, they would come off well against a USN carrier group.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Comment removed
marks9591 2 years ago
@marks9591 Probably right, but if this ever happened what about WMD?
N0bb13 2 years ago
The only thing that can be said about you is that you should probably go back to baseball or something, because military strategy and warfare are completely beyond your comprehension. The Sea Harrier outperforms all US fighters bar the Raptor in maneuvers; in the Mediterranean FAA Harriers shot down 35 US carrier aircraft without loss. The AAF in the Falklands barred their pilots from engaging the Harrier after seeing its results against F-15 and F-15 aircraft on maneuvers in the US.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
Comment removed
marks9591 1 year ago
With the Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM the Sea Harrier FA Mk. 2 is the best fighter in BVR and WVR engagement prior to the current generation (Raptor, Typhoon, Rafale). The Blue Vixen was used by NATO over Kosovo to fill gaps in AWACS coverage. Speed means much less in fighters today due to the development of BVR capabilities and guided missiles. Then again you are completely ignorant of anything in the military sphere, so I have to explain these things to you.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 lol in your dreams mate .another one with napoleon syndrome
marks9591 2 years ago
You are quite a bluffer.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 no you are quite the blind patriot
all your strategic lift ,c130 c17
chinook,
apache with some little tweeks that u love to harp on
you uavs
your maraps
cruise missiles
all ur other missiles almosrt
and on and on
you give us the m777 and maybe a couple of other things and then some parts but little in the way of complete systems like we give u
marks9591 2 years ago
Well let's face it; the US military wouldn't have any modern or capable tank without the UK, they wouldn't have the Harrier, and they would be lagging behind in artillery. If we go back further the US only got the jet engine from the UK and the USAAF had to use Spitfires because they lacked any capable fighters until the P-51D, which was only a great fighter because of the British Rolls Royce Merlin engine. The list goes on. The US military also takes all of its guidance militarily from the UK.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
The British military has been underfunded for decades, no one would deny that. It is thus amazing how they have a much better kill-loss ratio on operations than the US and American generals take their lead from their British opposites when they can't figure out what to do, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Quality will beat quantity and the British dominate on quality.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
Finally the UK has been adopting foreign equipment in recent decades to cut costs, not because they lack the capability to equip themselves. They were for example developing their own stealth strike aircraft until they switched to the F-35 because the US would have to bear most of the development costs. The UK has full access to all of the technology used in the equipment they employ so they have the capability to produce their own. Of course the Meteor and Storm Shadow are not US missiles.
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 please all ur
strategic lift c17 c130
your mraps
your helicopters that acctually work in a desert enviroment
ur uavs that are armed
the list is endless and the reason is simple you dont have the capability anymore .
marks9591 2 years ago
The list is not endless; almost all of the British Army's weaponry and the Royal Navy's equipment are indigenous. UAV's are not in any way difficult to build. The UK is looking into strategic life. Helicopters are cheap. You aren't proving anything. How can the UK begin developing stealth aircraft, build the world's most capable air defense destroyer, equip America's artillery and lead AFV development if it 'can't' build the Chinook (when it builds the Lynx, Sea King etc.), C-130s and UAVs?
Kampfer1445 2 years ago
@Kampfer1445 i think you listen to your mod s spin myn friend .watch a video on here from the times of london called ,us questions british performance in afghanistan .then get back to me .the british are extremly good at one thing or acctually 2
1 being pretentious
2 being ungrateful for the help thaat other countrys give them as they think they dont need it
marks9591 2 years ago
Your problem is of course that you listen to journalists and the media. I don't; none of them know the first thing about warfare and they all have agendas. If you knew anything about history and historical study you would know that the media doesn't have a clue. The British military is shamefully underfunded; they still achieve more than the US military with much less.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 also u are right u are looking into ur strategic lift , you just bought another c17 .helicopters are a little more complicated than u think as you found out when you recently tried to mess with avionics on 6 or so which grounded them for several years causing a political mess as ur troops were being slaughted by ieds .which brings us on to the next subject .
the good old snatch landrover ,how lovely u still send ur men out in these pieces of shit along with another piece of shit
marks9591 2 years ago
'Being slaughtered' by IED's is hysterical nonsense. They simply aren't taking many casualties, so the IED losses are high. The British and Canadians are also doing the vast majority of the fighting. In the initial invasion of Iraq the UK suffered 6 deaths from Iraqi fire. The US military suffered far more than that (although probably less than their 133 total).
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
Comment removed
marks9591 2 years ago
It is still doing far more with far less. The kill-loss ratios in the War on Terror speak for themselves. UK 100-1, US 14/25-1. The UK military and all European militaries are far more effective on the ground with far less than the US military, which mistakes firepower and numbers for military advantage, and has no idea how to use forces. The US military's do less with more is nothing to be proud of.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
Comment removed
marks9591 2 years ago
Again, the British Army does more with less. The US military does less with more. Bachelor's degrees aren't important, you are falling into the usual American habit that on-paper qualifications are significant. US officers are often poor leaders, they lack initiative and have little grasp of military science. Bachelor degrees mean jack squat. The only thing that matters is intelligence, wisdom and military training; bachelor degrees give none of those three things. US officers are mediocre.
Kampfer1445 1 year ago
@IMnotSAS well said
marks9591 2 years ago
all you said is correct but the air force requires more brains then physical endurance. the 8 weeks are to make sure you are fit enough for emergency. know in my case i went through 8 weeks of basic and 9 weeks of indocrination and even after that i had another year and a half ahead of me. the millitary traines those that need the training the most. *special ops Air Force* e flight 333.
ccolon255 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 Only an idiot who doesn't understand the U.S. military academy system would say something so stupid and ignorant. Why can't you be proud of your country without trying to put America down!! Funding problems? U.S. military academies are basically four year colleges there are much stricter age limits. The people in this video look rather older than the average 18 year old entering West Point, the Air Force Academy or Anapolis!!
plutogirllovekj 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 Annapolis!
plutogirllovekj 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 Funding problems? The U.S. military has a larger budget than all European militaries combined! It's even bigger than that juggernaut country of more than 2 billion people, China. Just because they don't use the British method, doesn't mean their training is inferior!
plutogirllovekj 1 year ago
@plutogirllovekj a lot more can be learnt/taught in 13 weeks rather than 9.
ACiDNATiONN 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 lool your correct and the truck driver bit made my day lool
WolveZGuY 1 year ago
@Kampfer1445 Can't judge training by how long it takes lol.
GeneralArrow 6 months ago
@Kampfer1445 you realized that the US Army does 10 plus ait. then the US Army does up to a yr of training before deploying. The difference is the British keep all the recruits together longer and the US military sends them to their unit to train more. Both are constantly training, but considering each's success in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army is obviously the best, followed by USMC, RMC, then British Army.
srithikdatta 6 months ago
@Kampfer1445 You shure liked our poorly trained soldiers led by there inferior Officers when the Germans were kicking your british asses.Now isnt that so Limey ?
19thSFGA 4 months ago
wen did germany kick our arses?
pupRu33 3 months ago
the elite branch in the British military is
SAS (special air service)
and SBS (special boat service)
Australia has special air service
jaspreet69er 2 years ago
There is the RAFFT which is minimum 9.10 beep test, but 15.04 to get top marks, 20 push ups in one min (60 for top marks) and 35 sit ups (55 for top marks) in one minute. Then there is IOTFA which min standards is 1.5 miles sub 10.30 then 44 push ups and 50 sit ups in 2 mins each.
Army is 10.2 beep followed by 44 push ups 50 sit ups, each in 2 mins.
joeyansorge 2 years ago
wat weapon they were using on the shoting range
Killjoy174 2 years ago
It's NOT the same as the ARMY, however it has changed:
press ups: 19
Sit ups: 32
Run: 9.04 on the MSFT
and you can check this at the following RAF website:
mbwest165 2 years ago
Its 44 press ups, 50 sit ups and 10:30 1 and 1/2 mile. Same as the army, more is expected tho cos this is the minimum
imanbrown1 2 years ago
yes big balls is correct. Army is 44 in 2mins and 10:30 run for 1.5 mile.
RAF is 11 in 2 minutes, its not a guess, its not about whether it is easy or not, that is the minimum requirement.
mbwest165 2 years ago
weeeeak
11 press ups in 2 mins is the RAF officer pft pass mark!
mbwest165 2 years ago 2
I'm pretty sure it isn't
SheepJumpFish 2 years ago
pretty sure? How about you read the information they put out via their recruitment office then you'll be 100% sure like myself ;)
mbwest165 2 years ago
Sorry big balls, maybe I was thinking of Sandhurst for the Army which I believe is 44 for men in 1 minute
But 11 in 2 minutes is ridiculously easy, I can do 35 in around 30 seconds and I'm only 15 so that has got to be wrong mate
SheepJumpFish 2 years ago
Royal air force!! I cant wait to join. I'm going to try to get in as an officer. Does anyone have any tips? x
m3lnv 2 years ago
just be yourself because if you try to be like how you think an officer in the RAF would be they will spot you from a mile away and send you home.
AdamAlim95 2 years ago
Yeah, don't be yourself, be the best version you can manage and try and fit in. All nonsense aside, if you look like you'll fit in it's a big tick in the box.
joeyansorge 2 years ago
I dont think so ...
m3lnv 2 years ago
Army is better, i'm gonna try and getting into the Air Corps
SheepJumpFish 2 years ago
My god, how old is this video? the class rooms are different, so are the rank slides for term 1. And we never do fire exercises on the base any more.
VenomPSA 2 years ago
The nice thing about this was when they say Yes Sir. I still am an Officer. I was an Infrantry Officer with the 82nd and the 101st in Vietnam. I suppose that I just kill people and break things. That is what I do or did.
82abnoff 3 years ago
Why do RAF officers need to be fit?!
tfsahaodj 3 years ago
they dont. its the easiest ADF course to get into the ARMY is the hardest u gotta be fit fit fit!!
Mikerocka 3 years ago
Good man- just what I was thinking... although RM...?
tfsahaodj 3 years ago
Yeah, I've heard the army is pretty demanding physically.
I'm joining the Army as an officer, I'm in recruitment as a GSO, though only in the Reserves as I've still got my uni degree to finish. I've done some intensity training and basic fitness to make sure I'm prepared, here's hoping I go okay :p
UNKNOWNPOW 3 years ago
im just gonna join the army as soon as i finish school..btw it takes a while to become a officer, my cousin told me so dont think its that easy lol...but good luck in your endeavours!
Mikerocka 3 years ago
Yeah, I have no illusions to the challenges ahead. For a reservist it can very for 2-3 years to become an officer in the army. Some of the training is notoriously difficult, especially the later training, not just physically but also mentally demanding. I heard Singleton makes the course at Kapooka look boy scouts. Good luck in your career
UNKNOWNPOW 3 years ago
ty....who is singleton lol?
Mikerocka 3 years ago
It's not a person :p , Singleton is where infantry and Special forces train. Infantry are stationed there after they complete Kapooka training I believe, but from people that have been there they said its the most rewarding experience due to the difficult nature of it. After today's run though I'm hoping its not hot like it is now when I go.
Me + 20kg pack + little sleep + exhaustion = :(
UNKNOWNPOW 3 years ago
wrong wrong wrong the rm is the hardest military course to pass in the UK look into it its not for wimps
Heggity08 3 years ago
You need to be fit because of the often High G's you pull in a Jet. There ia a technique you use to help keep the blood in your brain and stop you blacking out. This is very very strenuous. Also you are often doing very very long hours on a mission on full concentation all the way. Trust me you need to be fit. If you not then you will not last a week in training.
beeching31 3 years ago
So they look good in their uniforms. You'd be worried if a massive, fat bastard said he was defending your country from attack. No one has faith in fat people.
1dschamp 3 years ago
Why wouldn't they? They have to capture and hold air fields for example, they have to construct temporary radar towers etc.
Also pilots have to be very, very, very fit! But most of the RAF are not pilots, but still do as demanding work as the Army and Royal Navy.
TomJames69 2 years ago
Uum... think you've been taking piss taking seriously. Have a word mate. And no. Those crabs that are not pilots do NOT mostly do as demanding work as the army. They do a job that is really quite different actually, as do the RN from the army. So don't try and equate everyone who wears a uniform, or you'll have to include MOD police and traffic wardens.
tfsahaodj 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fucking pussies.
Sentenashi 3 years ago
does anyone know that during the OASC stage your allowed to wear skin tight knee length swimming shorts?
inexcessive 3 years ago
i love the complete lack of beastings this video has.
Dravensdmf 3 years ago
do u have to be a strong swimmer?
LeMansIndy500 3 years ago
you have to be able to swim 2 lengths and tread water for 3 ins and get out. If you're a weak swimmer i would advise getting some time in at the local pool as swimming in a coverall is much harder than in your shorts.
Dravensdmf 3 years ago
If you wanted to join the RAF as a pilot, would anybody recommend going university or just applying straight after college? Any advice would be much appreciated
dawsaldinho92 3 years ago
well, you can join the university air squadron while at uni and they will teach you to fly for free, and you can get a good feel for if you are any good/ still want to be a pilot. but if you don't get in to the RAF and you don't have a related degree you may end up with a lot of debt and no job like a lot of uni students.
on the other hand if you apply straight after college if you dont get in no time or money wasted, but you climb the ranks slower and have a harder time.
treloar123 3 years ago
also they are less likely to take you on as you have less life experience.you can go to uni at any time and the cut off age for pilot is 23, so you can still go to uni after application.
personally im hoping to do 6 months is Oz after A-levels, then applying.
it's up to you tough tbh.
hope i've helped
treloar123 3 years ago
ok thanks. and yes you have helped :)
I noticed on the RAF website that it doesn't state any specific A-Levels that you need for a pilot, but do you think or know of any which would give an advantage?
dawsaldinho92 3 years ago
well when i spoke to them they said good academic ones like maths physics etc. you don't need to do anything you think you will struggle with because A-levels are v hard. but if you dont get into the RAF and want to pursue a career in civil aviation, especially at degree level maths and physics really help.
treloar123 3 years ago
Cheers m8 u have been a big help.
Thanks
dawsaldinho92 3 years ago
no worries m8, good luck getting your wings
treloar123 3 years ago
cheers. You 2 :)
dawsaldinho92 3 years ago
what if you don't know swimming?
gotahc 3 years ago
if you do cadets you are prepared for the drill and weapon handling. which is good practice and you would be ahead of the game ;)
chickenzrule 3 years ago
What's the definition of an 'officer'? How does an officer differ from an airman/woman? How is the training different?
Any response would be much appreciated, thanks
tomski3 3 years ago
Officers in a way are more intelligent (and most hold University degrees)with better leadership skills.....Officers are higher ranked millitary personnels such pilots...engineering officers while airmen/women are people like aircraft technicians with no university degree but some sort of qualification if that makes sense (they can however go up in rank but not as quick or as much as officers. hope that helps a bit
tobelism 3 years ago
any going oasc on the 8th april?? youll be joining me if u are!!
joanatyphoon 3 years ago
also i did not mean that people that didn't pass where useless or which ever words i used, i mean it separates the people that may not be able to cope with RAF life at that time or at all, for instance someone who doesn't yet have enough life experience but may come back in 6 months time.
many apologies
treloar123 4 years ago
Cool :) your right it is a building block, covering phase 1 training, it is just the beginning of a long long road but one that is def worth it!
Thanks for retracting statement, no offense taken,
stavix 4 years ago
i apologise for my ignorant comment on this video. I must have disengaged my brain from the rest of my body, it was a line of ridiculous statements.
i think what i meant to say was it teaches all the skills needed throughout your RAF life like leadership etc. but you also learn what you may need if you are forced to fight or you may need to survive in the wild. it is my understanding that IOT is a building block for other training that may come afterwards.
treloar123 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
any ARMY training will of course be alot harder that this because this is training for every one, IOT stands for Initial Officer Training, my dad had to do this and he was a doctor. i think this is probably more designed to take slackers and people that are hopeless at leading from the ranks, its not to much of a challenge!
treloar123 4 years ago
Have you done it?! unless you have dont think you can judge about slackers hopeless people! Get your facts straight first. The docs do SERE a short 10 week course, everyone else does the long 30 week course. Trust me... its not easy, tell that to the around 30% failure rate per course. :(
stavix 4 years ago
do apologies have retracted my statement was completely talking out my arse
treloar123 4 years ago
i retract my statement about it being 'not much of a challenge' having spoken to many more people that have done it it probably is quite hard. apologies to any1 offeneded
treloar123 4 years ago
try the US Army WOC Flight Course at Mother Rucker.
elroto 4 years ago
How the Fuck would wank Yanks know? Their military skill set is crap.
donalds815 4 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
british accents make every thing seem easier/gay-er (sp?)
retep1510 4 years ago
Holy fuck try being an Infantry officer.
kibushi2 4 years ago
The English OTS is a joke...
dms7dx 4 years ago
do you know if there is such a video for sandhurst?
livyphoenix 4 years ago