Page 2 of 2
Re: Incident at The Louvre in Paris
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:30 pm
by keving
Hudswell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:21 pm
Actually Keving, I probably did join the Army in order to defend my family, my friends and my country, and In that order. I did not understand that at the time, because yes it is a very exciting vocation, note I did not say job, and deploying on operations is extremely exciting and what we are trained to do. And you aim for the largest mass...the Chest area, and we were never trained "to shoot to wound" And Jonno, no need to waste ammunition, a 5.56 round to the chest region will put you down and you will stay down.
Very commendable Hudswell, and having known you for several years now on several forums, not at all surprised about your reasons for joining the army.
The Telegraph article above, and the quote contained within, refers to a problem in current recruitment.
I can well believe that a majority of current recruits sign up for reasons such as your own, but it appears that recruitment falls when there are no current operations.
By the way, I don't disagree with your use of the word vocation. I think anyone who goes into public service - whether nurse, doctor, teacher, fire fighter, social worker, military or politician, etc - who accepts a lower salary than they could have got in the private sector, has accepted a vocation to serve the public with all the challenges and criticism that often entails, and deserves the greatest respect. Kudos to you.
Re: Incident at The Louvre in Paris
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:36 pm
by johnoddy
Hudswell wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:21 pm
Actually Keving, I probably did join the Army in order to defend my family, my friends and my country, and In that order. I did not understand that at the time, because yes it is a very exciting vocation, note I did not say job, and deploying on operations is extremely exciting and what we are trained to do. And you aim for the largest mass...the Chest area, and we were never trained "to shoot to wound" And Jonno, no need to waste ammunition, a 5.56 round to the chest region will put you down and you will stay down.
My personal weapon was a Browning 9mm. Standard issue was the SLR 7.62. The Browning was better if the rounds were played with.
Re: Incident at The Louvre in Paris
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:58 pm
by PhotoLady
We assume it was the French who were paying for the ammo, yes?
In which case, it looks like they still did a good job and although they took 5 shots it seems they were in the right place
Thanks Hudswell for the informative response and to Rita for understanding our reasoning

Re: Incident at The Louvre in Paris
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:04 pm
by Firefly
Hudswell
Well said. Your comment re. recruitment trends being worrying, I Know of one young man who has been trying for at least six months to join up. His Mother tells me that he has passed all the necessary tests, but his medical papers are being lost, even though they have been sent by recorded delivery. She has just posted another copy of his doctor's letter this week, I would have given up by now.
Jackie
Re: Incident at The Louvre in Paris
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:28 pm
by Dominic
I would have thought one of the biggest recruitment problems they had in recent years was all the reports saying how much the army is going to have to shrink.
I remember watching Squaddies training at Ash Ranges. I did not envy them doing their cross country runs in full kit with a rucksack.