Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Not that I am an expert, but I thought "Not by strength, but by guile" was the motto of the SBS. Paul, in Saudi 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Google search turns up both "Not by strength, by guile" and "By strength and guile" as the motto of the SBS. The former appears far more often (and is given on the SBS page), but the latter is supported by this MoD page (although this may be out of date, or applicable to the SBS Reserve only, as the picture doesn't look like other descriptions of the SBS cap badge). At any rate, it seems unlikely that the SRR would have the same or similar motto. As both the SAS and SBS feature their mottoes on their cap badges, it is possible that the SRR's motto is simply "Reconnaissance" (which I admit lacks a certain zip). Franey 10:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a source for the SRR's alleged motto, I think it should go. I'm taking it out. Franey 10:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Chachu207's revision of 17:30, 10 Jun 2005 adds a full, word-for-word transcription of the Telegraph article already linked to. I'm taking it out. Franey 10:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with British Forces Rangers

As has already been pointed out on Talk:British Forces Rangers, the two units are distinct. The SRR is a special forces unit, already operational, formed from 14 Intelligence Company; the "Rangers" have not yet been formed (or if they have, it's yet to be officially announced); are a support group for special forces, rather than special forces themselves; and will likely be based around 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment. I can't see any basis for a move. — Franey 12:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE

these 2 units are two seperate entities keep them seperate please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.202.119 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Further information on SRR involvement in Iraq

There is information on the talk page of Iraq War which has been removed from that article. It relates to the arrest of the two British soldiers in Basra in September 2005. Relevant to be inserted here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias in Article

In the 'History' seciton of this article, the second paragraph includes a statement of personal opinion which I find to be biased. The statement in quesiton is "Although someone did happen to say "we weren't here, im not lying, honest"." Should this article not be impartial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.254.245 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

An Apology

Straight away, I'm not going to start flinging mud around. The SRR are a sensitive subject and rightly information is sparse - in the open domain, anyway. I have over-hauled the original article, and included some absolutely cracking omissions, such as the fact that the British Army was solely engaged against 'Republican Terrorists' - utter rubbish. There are also numerous references to something called '14 Intelligence Company' - this organisation has never existed in fact. It is called JCU(NI). Darth Doctrinus 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So why does Sarah Ford refer to '14 Intelligence Company' and it's constituent detachments, South, North and East Dets and the Untouchables (Sarah Ford, 'One Up', HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, page 139.), and why does James Rennie also claim to have served with them (James Rennie, 'The Operators', Pen and Sword Military Classics, 2004, title page.)? And Duncan Falconer seems to think that he served with 14 Int too (Duncan Falconer, 'First Into Action', Warner Books, 2001, page 428.). I assume that you mean that its official name was abbreviated to JCU(NI) but it seems reasonable to refer to it as 14 Intelligence Company if that name is so widely used. Tim Watson 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia or not? Do we want fact or not? Clearly, you may refer to this '14th Intelligence Company' all you like, but the fact is it has never officially existed. If you wish to include a reference to this organisation, you should also make reference to its status - or lack thereof. The unit was officially known as JCU(NI) - what various ghost writers call it in their works of embellished fiction is also immaterial. I'm not going to keep on banging this drum. Darth Doctrinus 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct to point out that what we should do is stick to the facts. If the facts are as you state then perhaps the article on 14 Intelligence Company should be corrected too? Tim Watson 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - done!  :) Darth Doctrinus 09:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion! :) Tim Watson 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As a former member of 14 Int (not I hasten to add as an operator) I have to disagree that the unit did not officially exist. Whilst it has been stated in earlier atricles that the HQ was based at RAF Aldergrove, the 'on the ground' HQ which dealt with admin, stores, weapons, (and the unit bar) was based at Thiepval barracks in Lisburn, Co. Antrim. As a non operator it was part of my duties to liase with the green army of my own badge who were based at Thiepval barracks and from the Green Armys C.O. down to the unit clerk, everyone new and referred to the unit as 14 Int. It may well be that in the towers of Whitehall it was referred to as JCU (NI) but the fact is on the ground in N.I. 14 Int did officially exist. I think to say they didnt is misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.217.241 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As another former non-operator of three tours I can concur with the comment above. Both names officially existed and I can dig out official army docs to prove it such as posting orders. Both unit names are even in my end of service red book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.129.29 (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was involved in various operations for JCUNI and 14 Int and worked out of Aldergrove. There was also an SAS set now as F Squadron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.249.46 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Insignia

It is interesting that the insignia should depict a corinthian helmet. I wonder if this refers to the mythical helmet that was given to Hades that rendered the wearer invisible? Krea 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

Are these guys technically an infantry regiment like the SAS? In fact are they even part of the army? The SAS is classed as an infantry regiment, and as such is shown in the infantry order of precedence, and the SBS are part of the Royal Navy. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the SAS isn't an infantry regiment, they're a special forces regiment, separate from the conventional standing of regular infantry. I think a good question is 'what wing of they military are the SRR?' They're under UKSOCOM, but beyond that I'm unsure. My guess would be the army, but if they're somehow a class of their on, I wouldn't be surprised. These guys are so secretive it's scary.

The SAS is last in the infantry order of precedence. The predecessor of the SRR was 14 Intelligence Company so they may come under the Intelligence Corps. But its a good question.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The SAS is NOT in the infantry order of precidence - they are next after it and SRR is two below (ie after the Army Air Corps and before the god squad); to quote QRs:

• Precedence of Corps and Regiments

• 8.001. The following table gives the order of precedence of corps and regiments in the Army. Regiments shown collectively therein take precedence amongst themselves as shown in the Army List.
• 8 Regiments of Infantry (b),
• 9 Special Air Service Regiment.
• 10 Army Air Corps.
• 11 Special Reconnaissance Regiment:
• 12 Royal Army Chaplains' Department.

Brookesward (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

C2 is UKSF, JCUNI wasn't an Int Corps unit.

The role is special recce :) HTH

ALR (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Far Too Much Information

I'm sorry but it seems that the people discussing on this page are speaking of a very delicate matter and should only reveal what is revealed its self on the army website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setmua (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you close your eyes, no one can see you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.98 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, not even by governments. They don't get to decide what is allowable here. 69.181.249.189 (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1