Talk:Royal Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Royal Marines is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

To anyone who might known about the page, the 1761 capture of Belle Isle now needs to be disambiguated, but I do not know if it is the island in the Detroit River in Michigan, or the one off the coast of Brittany. The time frame suggests it could be either, and I hesistate to guess. -- Decumanus

The Bretish one. --the Epopt 14:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Initiation

Those involved in the video of the joining run were not recruits. They were newly trained ranks just passed out of training.

______

Whoever added the initiation bit should get thier facts straight. It wasn't an initiation of any kind. It was a bit of drunken fun as was evidenced actually by the marine who was kicked in the face. When you get lads together and drunk fights will happen. Admittedly this is a bit of an odd fight but...

And they werent newly trained ranks they had been marines for a while (cant remember how long so cant state...)

Craig Humphreys. Not a member.

[edit] Official Name & Creation date

Althouth the Royoyal Marines are in fact a corps their official title is Her Majesty's Royal Marines NOT the Corps of.........!
As for the birth of the Corps you will see that one of the memorable dates is 28 October 1664 the birth of the Corps. This is celebrated in every unit, every year so please stop changing it to 1755.

While the army regiment which became the Royal Marines was formed in 1664, the Marines were created as a unit under the Admiralty in 1755. Therefore the latter date is the correct one for the creation of the RM itself, although not for its antecedent! As for not having "Corps" in their official name, a number of reputable websites disagree with you. See here, here, here (an MOD website) etc. -- Necrothesp 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, i'm sorry that this is only a quick reply but i'm performing in London this week at The Mountbatten Festival of Music so wil be away from my pc. But i hope that i can direct you to a couple of relevent web sites. the first is This one where if you look at the bottom paragraph you will see the date 1664. The second is here which is the historical section of The Globe & Laurel website which is the journal for the Royal Marines. Please don't take any offence in any of my replies as this was never the intention. I look forward to continuing this discussion when i get back. Cheers :) -- Bartsimp

I'm not disputing that the Royal Marines' origins go back to 1664 or that they celebrate their date of origin as 1664 - I'm merely saying that technically they were indeed created as Marines under the Admiralty in 1755. Saying they were created in 1664 is like saying the RAF was created in 1912, because that's when the Royal Flying Corps was created. But it's generally recognised that the RAF was created in 1918, because that's when it emerged as a separate service distinct from the Army and the RN. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landing craft units in WWII

The landing craft units of WWII are still missing from the article. JMOsman 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWI RMLI

Why did the Royal Marines mutine?

  • The unit involved was formed from former prisoners of war and formerly wounded men. It was sent to monitor a plebiscite (election) in northern Europe after the war. When Marines were needed in Northern Russia the composition of the unit was overlooked and it was sent to do a job that was beyond its means. Jmosman 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Royal Marines - a Pictorial History 1664-1987" by Peter Smith and Derek Oakley does not mention POWs or formerly wounded personnel but does note that the 6th Battalion RMLI (raised in 1919 to police the plebiscite in Schleswig-Holstein and then diverted to northern Russia) did include a large number of young recruits plus longer serving men expecting demobilisation. Most did not specifically volunteer for Russian service (unlike other units sent there). Post-war disillusionment, an instance of "friendly fire" and casualties in an initial clash were also to blame. As noted above, it was the wrong unit in the wrong place. Ninety marines were found guilty after court-martial, of whom 13 were sentenced to death (all death sentences were subsequently commuted to five years in prison). Buistr 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insignia question

Could someone confirm whether or is correct for a WO2 in the Marines? In addition, are the officers' insignia available publically anywhere? I hesitate to copy them from a commercial site, despite the lack of copyright on such symbols. Tevildo 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are or were various images of tri-service insignia on the RN's own website. Don't have actual links to hand but you should be able to find them their or on the MOD or other service websites. David Underdown 12:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The crown in wreath is the correct insignia for a RM WO2 30 June 2006 [London]

From what I remember during a death by powerpoint lesson on rank in the British Army at least both are WO2, however the first is worn by the squadron/company quarter master. However it may be diffrent for the marines. Renski 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Band

Shouldnt there be something included on the bands here, i don't know enough abou tthem to include anything but i think something ought to be put in about them.

[edit] Commandos

This section:

[edit] Commandos

  • 40 Commando - formerly 3rd Royal Marine Battalion
  • 41 Commando - formerly 8th Royal Marine Battalion (disbanded 1981)
  • 42 Commando - formerly 1st Royal Marine Battalion
  • 43 Commando - formerly 2nd Royal Marine Battalion (disbanded 1968)
  • 44 Commando - renumbered 40 Commando in 1946
  • 45 Commando - formerly 5th Royal Marine Battalion
  • CSG

Was included and doesn't appear to add a great deal to the article. I've removed it to here, anyone with an interest in beefing it up is free to do so, but in its present form it just jars the flow.ALR 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The size of the article page is a bit big, the History section is pretty big and it's not my area so I'm reluctant to butcher it. The alternative would be to split it off into a History of the Royal Marines article. Any thoughts?ALR 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A seperate article might not be a bad idea. However, you'd really need to summarise the most important stuff here to give an overview, and provide a link to the main article for those who want to know more. David Underdown 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass reversion

Given the scale of edits undone by reverting all of my edits over the last day or so I'd appreciate some indication of what the issues are? My version unexplained reversion.

ALR 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My outside view. First, please post diff links, not version links, so it's easier for others to see changes made. For example, [1]. Click on history and copy the "last" link for each version you'd like to discuss.
There are a lot of changes made, so I'll have to check everything, but Tashtastic's mass reversion without explaining in the comment or the talk page what constitutes "butchered" is odd and uncivil. I don't see anything glaring about ALR's edits.
To defend your edits against reversions, I'll echo Wandalstouring's comment that you must cite all your sources. Otherwise, everything's fair game for removal. I would be VERY wary about using intranet sources; I wouldn't post anything that I couldn't myself verify was openly available. Furthermore, you don't need to use internet sources; there are many good books on the Royal Marines that you sould consult for sources. I'll post 2 later that I used a paper sometime back. --Mmx1 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Julian Thompson's Royal Marines: From sea soldiers to a special force is a great history
  • Robin Eggar's Commando: Survival of the Fittest follows a class of officers through training; quite motivating. --Mmx1 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. to be honest I'm not planning on touching the historical side any more than I have to, not a strong point for me, I'm more interested in current state and doctrine/ strategy. Given the most recent changes are probably too recent to be documented I'm not convinced that there'll be anything better than internet sources. You'll note I said I validated on the intranet, rather than sourced. The most recent C2 change was about 5 months ago when CINCFLEET re-organised, something STRIKE AND LAND are in the process of themselves.ALR 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
After looking it over; I see nothing wrong with ALR's additions; though citations would always be helpful (but this is a typical wiki problem). I'm also not impressed with Tash's edit history. Good job, carry on, and I'll keep this page on my watchlist against any further unexplained reverts. --Mmx1 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "issues" are your changes are a bloody mess. What's "odd" is:

  • why the organisation section was changed so 3 Commando Brigade is now no longer mentioned as a separate formation
  • Why it's no longer mentioned as the main formation.
  • Why its components have been separated and scattered.
  • Why there is no link to articles on all the components
  • Why Fleet Protection Group is listed twice
  • Why the section on it claims it has tasks different from those on its page on the Marines website.
  • Why the UK Landing Force Command Support Group listing is incomplete and has no link
  • Why the entire section on attached army units was deleted with no explanation
  • Why no alternative mention was made of the particular attached army units, leaving the organisation section incomplete and mis-leading.

These are major changes reducing the quality and reliability of the article. Unless these are adequately addressed, further action will be taken and the article will be ripe for reversion. Tashtastic 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Commando Brigade is mentioned and linked. It's role as the major deployable force could possibly be highlighted more in the current version. It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them. There is no article for UK Landing Force Command Support Group to link to as far as I can see (it's a red link in the 3 Cdo Brigade article). Treatment of the Fleet Prtoection Group could be tightened also. Overall I would say the article is "better" in it's current state than it was previously and your concerns can be adressed easily enough from the current article without making any further mass reverts. David Underdown 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly "better" as the quality and reliability of the article have been reduced. 3 Commando Brigade is only given the briefest of mentions and is not mentioned as the main formation. "It is mentioned that RE and RA units are attached, and full details of the attached units are in the article on the brigade itself, which seems to me to be the correct place for them." Again, only given the briefest of mentions. My point was not that it does not have "full details", but that there is not even any mention of the units so that one can either know which units they are or link to the articles about them. That is a mess. Tashtastic 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the solution would be to work together to build consensus here on the Talk page rather then edit warring and reverting. You also need sources to cite for major changes to the page as per WP:VER.Michael Dorosh 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Tash, thankyou for your comments, it's useful in developing these articles to use the talk page and collaborate to improve the articles. I'll concede that there is still some way to go, however I think I've structured things in a meaningful way and trimmed off some of the unencyclopedic language, to create a more formal style. Highly appropriate to use a style that Officers of the Corps might themselves use. I'll deal with each of you're points in turn:
  • why the organisation section was changed so 3 Commando Brigade is now no longer mentioned as a separate formation

The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to.

  • Why it's no longer mentioned as the main formation.

It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language.

  • Why its components have been separated and scattered.

The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly.

  • Why there is no link to articles on all the components

The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful.

  • Why Fleet Protection Group is listed twice

Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that.

  • Why the section on it claims it has tasks different from those on its page on the Marines website.

I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'.

  • Why the UK Landing Force Command Support Group listing is incomplete and has no link

There is no article for UKLFCSG as yet, so no need for a red-link. I don't usually put in red links until such time as I'm ready to create an article. Although I note that I've wrongly referred to the Sigs Squadron as a Sigs Troop. I've also described the Loggy function as Life Support, that's what Loggys do, I'm content to alter that. I am thinking of creating the appropriate article once I've finished tidyiong up the various others.

  • Why the entire section on attached army units was deleted with no explanation

Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article.

  • Why no alternative mention was made of the particular attached army units, leaving the organisation section incomplete and mis-leading.

See my previous response, they are mentioned.ALR 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


"The article is about the Corps, not 3Cdo. It is clear that the structure of 3Cdo is important and the appropriate article is linked to." I understand what it's about, the point is it's now no longer clear that it's part of the organisation.

"It's made clear that it's the only operational formation, I'm not going to argue over one word or the other. To my mind 'main formation' is not particularly encyclopedic language." Actually not, as your mass change says the operational formation is only 5 Battalion-size units, instead of 3 Commando Brigade. It also implies the Brigade is only an administrative section for other units, which it is clearly not. "To my mind.." this is also not "particularly encyclopedic language".

"The various SO1 commanded components have been brought together in one grouping, supported by further explanatory text. Stylistically I think it captures the force elements more clearly." Your point of view only. The components are actually separated from each other and are not clearly portrayed as components of 3 Commando Brigade.

"The various force elements are linked to on their first mention. I don't see much need for stub articles on 40 and 42 Commandos until such time as there is enough substantive material on their history to be useful." There is already an article on 45 Commando, so not having one for the others is inconsistent and not very thorough.

"Stylistically I think its readsonable to bullet the header, then to provide further explanatory text. The section may need tweaking, perhaps lifting bullet headers for SBS and 1AGRM, which are also commanded by half-colonels, into the main group and rewording slightly. I'll have a think about that." Fine about the header and further text, but mentioning it twice is just repetetive and of no value, especially when listing it with components of 3 Commando Brigade, which it is clearly not one of.

"I used the website, and supplemented it with my own knowledge, when I wrote that section. I didn't mention November ceremonies, which is a liability for everyone in the RN, or JSU Northwood, on the basis that JSU falls under 'other security duties'." not good enough for an encyclopedia that requires sources. The section on FPG RM from the mass reverted version adequately summarised its role. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". It's more reliable to stick to information about its role that can be verified from reputable sources such as the Royal navy website.

"Because they're not Royal Marines, they're attached to 3Cdo, which is the subject of its own article." They are not marines, but they are also Commandos and still components of 3 Commando Brigade. This makes the organisation section incomplete and not very thorough.

With this much mass reversion and point of view, the quality and reliability of the article is reduced and is now a bloody mess. Tashtastic 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your useful and clearly well considered comments. I note the point about 40 and 42, the artilce about 45 was already written, given that the structural and employment issues are generic across the three then the only distinctive issue is the history of each Commando. Personally it's not much of an interest of mine so I'll leave it for someone else to write, if they feel the need.
Notwithstanding that I get the impression that your main concern is that this article is not about 3 Cdo? I would draw your attention to my previous point on the issue, 3 Cdo has its own article, and is subordinate to this one. The article on the Brigade does need some work, but the two are different topics. The relationship between the two is clear, the relationship between the various formations is also clear, although I'll review the wording again, you seem to be suggesting that the wording indicates that the section is about the Brigade, so I can deal with that.ALR 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Your impression is wrong. My concern is about the organisation listing. I realise 3 Commando Brigade has its own article which is the place for details about it. You have changed the section so it is no longer clear the Brigade is part of the organisation and is the main operational formation.
If you are going to list it or its components, it is only logical and consistent that you list them together, separate from other units like Fleet Protection Group and SBS which are not part of it; and list ALL of the components. That includes attached army units, which only need to be listed, with links to the articles about them.
If not, then the organisation section is inconsistent, incomplete and mis-leading. As it is, the section is a mess and not of the clear and complete quality it was before your mass change. Tashtastic 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear on which bit of this article is about the RM, not 3Cdo isn't clear. The article now reflects that the RM is made up of a number of units, some of those have OPCON delegated to 3 Cdo, the subject of it's own article. I really don't see the value in listing units which are not RM in an article about the RM, when they are more fully discussed elsewhere.
Clearly this discussion is going nowhere, so unless you can present some substantive suggestion I think I'll leave it there.
Regards. ALR 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commando Flash image

Would it be possible to move the image of the commando flash so it's inline with the section about when royal became a commando force?

[edit] MedCab Case

[edit] This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Tashtastic ALR

Would any other interested parties add their name to the list and review the suggested compromise on the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Compromise

The following compromise has been suggested by Tashtastic:

"The Brigade also has attached army units from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers:

These units are components of the brigade and their personnel have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the 'commando dagger' on their uniform."

replaces

"The Brigade also holds Operational Control of attached Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer assets."

Addhoc 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As identified on the case, it's verbose and inappropriate in this article. the subject of the article is the ROYAL MARINES, not 3 CDO BDE.ALR 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's an uneccesary level of detail for this article for an article on the RM in general, all that matters about the attached units is that they are not RM, having full details in this article just gives to places to change information if the attached untis (or their designation) is changed for any reason. However, perhaps the profile of the 3 Cdo Brigade within the article could be raised by having it as a sub-sub-head and using {{main|3 Commando Brigade}} to highlight the article on it? David Underdown 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Regarding your suggestion, I think we could also have a sub-sub-head for the independent elements and this would make it easier to find relevant information. Addhoc 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a see also or main to the Brigade would be entirely reasonable, however anything more than that would be overkill.

[edit] 30 Commando Assault Unit

Why is there no mention of 30 Commando Assault Unit in this history? It consisted virtually entirely of Royal Marines.. http://www.30AU.co.uk

[edit] Typo?

Should the word "altitude" be "latitude"? even better would be "... and are optimised for operations in high latitudes"

Original: "As the United Kingdom Armed Forces' specialists in cold weather warfare the Corps will provide lead element expertise in the NATO Northern Flank and are optimised for high altitude operations."

The wording might need optimising but altitude is correct, the Corps provide the UK mountain warfare lead element.ALR 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I would like to suggest that the history be moved more to the top and the current organisation details be moved more toward the bottom. That way, the reader doesn't have to scroll down through so much content that is essentially "lists" to get to textual "meat". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info on officers

The information on officers is lacking and vague. As an outside observer I am confused on how one becomes a Marine Officer. Does one attend Britannia Royal Naval College or completed university? --ProdigySportsman 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] surrender comment

whoever came up with it, congrats it gave me a big laugh.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyal_Marines_93fc.html"