The Commando 7

[Caversham]

Great info, thanks all.

Speaking of issued taches check this character out.

C/Sgt Nobby Clarkson of 45 Cdo. My TQ when I was there. Great guy!

Alan

 

[ThreadpigeonsAlpha]

If you put a round into someone with a 7.62 they went down six foot away from where the round struck them and more importantly, stayed down.

Alan

And the round would keep going 1/4 of a mile down the road through old Mrs Granny Smiths Bathroom brick wall and bounce round until it finally lost energy...

I’m sure there’s reports of 5.56 having no effect on drugged up insurgents and that the Yanks are considering changing the NATO round.

 

[thirdtry]

And the round would keep going 1/4 of a mile down the road through old Mrs Granny Smiths Bathroom brick wall and bounce round until it finally lost energy...

I’m sure there’s reports of 5.56 having no effect on drugged up insurgents and that the Yanks are considering changing the NATO round.

Maybe quite technical but I remember learning as a nod that the SA80 functions best with a very specific NATO 5.56 and I've got it noted somewhere that "other 5.56 ammunition will not fire effectively and may lead to stoppages".

Why is that? Surely if a 5.56 round fits a 5.56 weapon it is good to go?

Never got an answer because when I asked back then I got the duty "you don't need to worry about that because you'll only ever be supplied the correct rounds anyway" answer

 

[Chelonian]

Why is that? Surely if a 5.56 round fits a 5.56 weapon it is good to go?

5.56 NATO is a very specific balance of bullet and load. It is standardised to ensure compatibility across NATO weapons of the same calibre. Compatibly in this context means that the weapon will operate reliably and safely with minimal stoppages while delivering ballistic results.

A 5.56 NATO round is the same calibre as the popular commercial .223 Remington in dimension. But there might be a considerable variation in propellant loads which are commercially available or which one might load oneself to suit particular requirements.

So the answer about not having to worry about it makes sense.

By the way, a standard .223 Remington round (equivalent to 5.56 NATO) will turn a fox inside out and project it ten feet off the ground at 200 metres. I can only guess that such energy would take the shine off a human's day.

 

[thirdtry]

5.56 NATO is a very specific balance of bullet and load. It is standardised to ensure compatibility across NATO weapons of the same calibre. Compatibly in this context means that the weapon will operate reliably and safely with minimal stoppages while delivering ballistic results.

A 5.56 NATO round is the same calibre as the popular commercial .223 Remington in dimension. But there might be a considerable variation in propellant loads which are commercially available or which one might load oneself to suit particular requirements.

So the answer about not having to worry about it makes sense.

By the way, a standard .223 Remington round (equivalent to 5.56 NATO) will turn a fox inside out and project it ten feet off the ground at 200 metres. I can only guess that such energy would take the shine off a human's day.

Brilliant answer, thank you. Puts to bed one of those "bug bares"/unanswered queries!

 

[Caversham]

One of the reasons for the 5.56 round is that it designed to wound, whereas a 7.65 is designed to kill. A dead body on a battlefield is not a threat and cannot receive treatment, so is left until after the firefight. Whereas a soldier wounded with a 5.56 will require medical attention and then removal, which will take others away from the frontline.
I believe that the effective range of a 5.56 is around 300 metres, whereas a 7.65 is up to 600 metres? In Afghanistan the bad guys kept a distance of more than 300 metres thereby putting themselves out of danger. Hence the introduction of the 7.65 Sharpshooter.

All of this is after my time, so I'm happy to be corrected by those more in the know.

Alan

 

[Chelonian]

As alluded to by @Caversham there is a lot of politics and economics associated with multi-billion dollar decisions about standard NATO materiel. A fascinating topic in itself.

There are many dogmas to be juggled; but put basically, which is more effective? An unlimited volume of ammunition which renders individual marksmanship less important?
Or the enduring UK (and USMC) protocol of making every aimed round count?

 

[ThreadpigeonsAlpha]

Maybe quite technical but I remember learning as a nod that the SA80 functions best with a very specific NATO 5.56 and I've got it noted somewhere that "other 5.56 ammunition will not fire effectively and may lead to stoppages".

Why is that? Surely if a 5.56 round fits a 5.56 weapon it is good to go?

Never got an answer because when I asked back then I got the duty "you don't need to worry about that because you'll only ever be supplied the correct rounds anyway" answer

Cheap ingredients.

You can have a nice chocolate pudding rolled in hundreds and thousands.
And you can have a turd rolled in hundreds and thousands.

Both look the same but yield very different results.

 

[Chelonian]

The old .303 British cartridge—predecessor of 7.62 NATO—achieved victory in two World Wars.

With a little help from the atom bombs in the second, obvs.

 

[Former AE]

Recce and some other troops carried M16s for their ability to go auto, have a phot some where of the effects off one 7.62 on a wild boar after 4 rounds of 5.56 didn’t stop it, wait out.

 

[Former AE]

 

[DutyWretch]

Before PRMC there was the PRC (Pre Recruit Course), before that nothing! When I joined it was the recruit test, interview and medical, all done within a short space of time and within weeks you were on your way to The Depot, Deal.

When I asked my CA what I could do fitness wise before joining I was told to do nothing, as "that's our job to get you fit". Those first gym sessions at Deal were horrendous! But by the time we left for CTC we were fitter and leaner than ever before.

I think the main reason back in my day was due to most of us coming from work involving manual labour, (I worked on building sites) and we tended to walk everywhere when not working. Despite all of this the numbers reaching KS was around 50% or less. We had a 12 week opt out window, where you could buy your way out the gate for £20, after that you were in for the duration. Out of around 50, (we had a number of Junior Marines join the original 38), that left Deal for CTC around 18 passed out, including some who had been back trooped, I was not one of them. In the Troop that I did pass out with, around 8 weeks later, there were 11 and of those, only 9 originals.

So I believe that the PRC/PRMC was introduced to try and stem the dropout rate, because of the perception that the generation applying in the 1980s did not have a baseline level of fitness that my generation had. Judging by the numbers reaching KS these days, not a lot has changed.

I do believe that that the reason that the standards for entry are more stringent is because of the long term injuries that we are now suffering with. Myself and most of the former Marines that I know are in receipt of a pension for injuries. Mine is for knees and hearing, which was a common ailment and the cost must be huge to the public purse. I believe that I would not have made the start line had the current requirements been in when I joined. I weighed 9st 10lb, around 60kg and I had a pre existing injury to my knee, as well as various other "problems".

I also believe that the training is more structured and even "harder" than before, (mine was around 30 weeks), although it still follows the same principles as today, as gym, bottom field pass out and the Commando Tests are exactly the same. However the equipment is far superior now. I have mentioned before that some of our kit was from WW1 and the webbing and boots were not fit for purpose. The only decent kit was our rifle, which was the SLR and the GPMG, all the rest was gash. No Gortex, no sleeping bags, no Jet Boils etc etc.

However, when I see what the guys who went to Achnacarry had to contend with, I expect they were saying that we had it soft when compared to them! I think they were right!

Alan

Legend.

Don’t play it down. It was a lot harder and far more brutal in the 70s 80s and 90s.

The fact you had less kit, probably actually benefits the end product, more than anything else.

I respect all who have been through the mill and got a green lid. But experiences at Lympstone massively vary from troop to troop.

We had one team member who had been to the Falklands in 82, and was almost unacceptably ‘orrible’ even by Commando training standards*

I think he alone accounted for my troops attrition rate and Kings Squad of 11 out of an original 57 lads.

Times change and as long as the training is still of the highest renown and tests the same, we can all remain proud of our achievements and our beloved Corps


* edited to add that this training team member was one of the warmest and entertaining guys you could ever hope to meet once, of course, you had ‘earned’ the right to spin him your Chad dit’s by way of earning your green beret!

 

[Caversham]

Legend.

Don’t play it down. It was a lot harder and far more brutal in the 70s 80s and 90s.

The fact you had less kit, probably actually benefits the end product, more than anything else.

I respect all who have been through the mill and got a green lid. But experiences at Lympstone massively vary from troop to troop.

We had one team member who had been to the Falklands in 82, and was almost unacceptably ‘orrible’ even by Commando training standards*

I think he alone accounted for my troops attrition rate and Kings Squad of 11 out of an original 57 lads.

Times change and as long as the training is still of the highest renown and tests the same, we can all remain proud of our achievements and our beloved Corps


* edited to add that this training team member was one of the warmest and entertaining guys you could ever hope to meet once, of course, you had ‘earned’ the right to spin him your Chad dit’s by way of earning your green beret!

We also had one Cpl who, after I laughed at the state of him after he had been in Peter's Pool in February on the Endurance acquaint, promptly filled me in. This was in front of the Troop stripey and grunter and the only response was from the stripey who said, "I bet you don't take the piss out of another PW!

I didn't get to meet up with the Cpl again after I did pass out, which was just as well, as I didn't get to keep the promise that I made to myself about what I would do to him. Thankfully, those practices are no longer tolerated.

Happy days...... not!

Alan

 

[DutyWretch]

We also had one Cpl who, after I laughed at the state of him after he had been in Peter's Pool in February on the Endurance acquaint, promptly filled me in. This was in front of the Troop stripey and grunter and the only response was from the stripey who said, "I bet you don't take the piss out of another PW!

I didn't get to meet up with the Cpl again after I did pass out, which was just as well, as I didn't get to keep the promise that I made to myself about what I would do to him. Thankfully, those practices are no longer tolerated.

Happy days...... not!

Alan

Made you the man you are mate.

Unfortunately a dying breed.


I’ve heard some similar dit’s from the old sweats I bumped into, all down played of course, but reading between the lines I’m glad I wasn’t a generation earlier in joining up.

 

[Bootra]

We had the PRC when I joined, and I’m glad we did. It gave me a taste of CTC, and the fitness expected of me. To basically go from the careers office to Deal or CTC must have been ninja!

I was lucky that they had already brought in PLCE and bergans (OG not DPM) and we had high leg combat boots. No day sacks so we turned the bergans side pooches into rocket packs, which were Chad as your dad, but did the job.

The Falklands was still the main reason why most of us joined, and one of our Corporals had been down South. He was a beast, and his ‘extra phys’ was brutal. But like the rest of the team totally professional. He wanted to produce men that he could rely on if he ever went back to war and that’s why he expected the best from us.

RT was only 30 weeks as well. That was long enough, so fair play to those going through nowadays!

 

[Chelonian]

RT was only 30 weeks as well.

I scratch my head about it and ponder in 2020 but from a Para perspective the blokes who fought at Darwin Goose Green and on Mount Longdon did only 22 weeks of RT. And four weeks of that was the Basic Parachute Course at Brize.
Disregarding Brize some of the blokes who deployed directly from RT at Depot Para—including the seventeen-year-olds who were KIA—had only 18 weeks of training before going to war. A sobering thought now.

 

[BigBadJohn]

I was trying to find an old RM Fitness book and I accidentally stumbled on this, https://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rfburger/royal-marine-commando-7-exercises-sunday-times-1972.pdf, https://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rfburger/royal-marine-commando-7-exercises.pdf.

Which for those who don't want to download from a random website, seems to be a pdf of a newspaper article demonstrating the Commando 7 as well as an exercise regime using them for a U13s football club. Can't verify if either are legit but the newspaper has a copyright 'Royal Marines Commando and Times Newspaper Ltd. 1972'.

Interesting to see how the circuits could be organised anyway. Odd to find it from a Computer Science club in Canada.

 

[DutyWretch]

I scratch my head about it and ponder in 2020 but from a Para perspective the blokes who fought at Darwin Goose Green and on Mount Longdon did only 22 weeks of RT. And four weeks of that was the Basic Parachute Course at Brize.
Disregarding Brize some of the blokes who deployed directly from RT at Depot Para—including the seventeen-year-olds who were KIA—had only 18 weeks of training before going to war. A sobering thought now.

Chel, I seem to be locked out of certain areas of the site right now, such as trained ranks and partners/parents.

Which is weird, I can see my thread in trained ranks but it’s saying I’m not allowed to view the rest of the threads.

Not a big deal, and no rush, but would be interesting to know why and wether I can be reinstated.

Sorry, I dunno how to PM!

 

[Chelonian]

Sorry, I dunno how to PM!

I've done a tweak so you should now be able to see and post in Trained Ranks.
I'll drop you a PM which should guide you to the PM bit. It's quite intuitive.