Queen's guardsman attacks an "oik"

Agent Starling · **Joined:** 8th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 1701

Click.

It's a link to the currant bun, so apologies in advance.

Anyway:

Quote:

A QUEEN’S guardsman saw red when a giggling student took the mickey out of him outside a royal palace by mimicking his actions - and went on the ATTACK.

Columbian student Nick Ibarra, 23, began larking about for pal Suzanne Cadosch, 22, who was videoing the armed guard on duty in his bearskin and red tunic. As the guardsman marched up and down as he stood sentry duty outside St James Palace in front of dozens of tourists, laughing Nick marched alongside him.

He had heard that the famed royal guards never leave their post unless a threat to the royals presents itself. But he got the shock of his life when this one lost his cool and quick marched over to him and clipped him round the back of the head and aimed a boot at him. Then according to Nick he pushed him away with his SA-80 semi automatic rifle while letting out a furious roar.

Unfortunately Nick’s student pal Suzanne was so shocked and scared she stopped videoing the soldier’s attack.

She said:”I just thought “Oh My God” he’s got a gun and he’s going for Nick and he grabbed him and tried to boot him and we were so shocked we just ran away fast.

“You often see people pulling faces at the guards and standing beside them for photo’s and marching along with them but obviously this soldier didn’t find it funny.

“In hindsight I can understand the soldier losing his cool but it was very frightening indeed” she said.

Nick, who is studying English in Oxford, Oxon, said: ”I felt this huge hand on my collar and managed to avoid a boot up the backside but he was growling like a bear.

“I was worried because he had a bayonet on his gun and didn’t want that going somewhere painful! He pushed me away with the gun and I just ran for it”, he said.

The guardsman was on sentry duty at St James Palace which is the senior Palace of the Sovereign and is where the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra reside. The St Jame’s Detatchment of The Queen’s Guard mounts sentry duty there daily and Clarence House where Prince Charles and his sons live is within St James’s environs.

A Queen’s guardsman, on being shown the video, said: ”On one hand you can understand him wanting to put a hobnailed size 12 up the guy’s backside for taking the p**s.

“But on the other hand he will be in hot water for losing his cool when he should have ignored it. He should have gone back into his sentry box and just stood guard.

“But he will no doubt feel very satisfied at putting this oik to flight”, he said.

I suppose the solider fella might be in a spot of bother, but good on him for giving the twat a bit of a shove. I'm also struggling to believe that he "let out a furious roar" or "growled like a bear".

Shin · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 0:51

Serves the little dickhead right

Dimrill · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:00

What Shin said. I remember seeing a load of tourists in Edinburgh taking the mick around a piper on Prince's Street. SHould've kicked their heads in too.

Shin · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:04

I couldn't do it, I'd be running after them all scraming at them. I have respect for those guys, i really do-bastards that take the piss out of them

GazChap · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:12

Convenient that she stopped filming when he attacked, eh? Cor, imagine that.

Shin · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:13

I thought that, bloody slime weasle! Weasel? Weasle...?? hmmm

Runcle · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:15

Im still a bit pissed off they cant find an alternative for bearskin for the hats, how about wearing a top hat or something?

Malabelm · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:36

America… Australia. America… Australia.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Excellent. I hope he gets a bonus.

More importantly;

Quote:

Suzanne Cadosch

Some people were named for their profession. Others, for their town of birth or claims to an estate. Now we know of another group, woefully underrepresented: Those who were named for the sound they made when they fell off a bridge.

MrD · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2139

Without knowing exactly what took place... you know.

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:22

Where's 'Columbia' then? Is it different from drugs-ridden hellhole Colombia?

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:53

Moral: do not piss off armed men

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:35

sinister agent wrote:

Excellent. I hope he gets a bonus.

More importantly;

Quote:

Suzanne Cadosch

Some people were named for their profession. Others, for their town of birth or claims to an estate. Now we know of another group, woefully underrepresented: Those who were named for the sound they made when they fell off a bridge.

A bridge over a river, not the M4 as that would be Suzanne Whumpsplattcrinchkerdunkerdunkerdunk

MaliA · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:45

Kern wrote:

Moral: do not piss off armed men

Heh.

GazChap · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:22

Runcle wrote:

Im still a bit pissed off they cant find an alternative for bearskin for the hats, how about wearing a top hat or something?

The hats are made from the skins of bears that are going to be killed anyway as part of a population control cull in Canada. 40,000 are killed every year apparently, but it's nothing to do with the MoD or the Royals.

If the hats weren't made out of bearskins, then the skins would basically just be burned - at least this way something is coming out of it all.

They've also been trying to find a decent alternative for years, but nothing comes close in terms of longevity and comfort.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12326

It's disturbing how The Sun just makes stuff up.

kalmar · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:37

Why does the Sun still talk like it's 1937? "Putting this oik to flight"?

Oh wait, that was a direct quote wasn't it, sorry.

Grim... · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:58

Quote:

Unfortunately Nick’s student pal Suzanne was so shocked and scared she stopped videoing the soldier’s attack.

Haha yeah rrright.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12326

Grim... wrote:

Quote:

Unfortunately Nick’s student pal Suzanne was so shocked and scared she stopped videoing the soldier’s attack.

Haha yeah rrright.

In [Rec] and Quarantine they were being attacked by zombies and still carried on filming, so I hardly think a man with a big hat could cause her to drop her mobile from some distance away.

I am beginning to hate papers more and more for shit like this.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Agent Starling wrote:

Quote:

Then according to Nick he pushed him away with his SA-80 semi automatic rifle while letting out a furious roar.

There are a million other things to concentrate on in all this, but I'm going with "the SA-80 is automatic, not semi automatic, you twonks, otherwise it wouldn't be an assault rifle."

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 20:26

What about the M16A2, then, which can only fire three round bursts at most?

Curiosity · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 20:45

Or them other guns in CoD4 that fire single shots.

Please don't tell me I've been living a lie!!!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

MetalAngel wrote:

What about the M16A2, then, which can only fire three round bursts at most?

That's not an assault rifle, any more. It's a rifle. I reckon. Similarly with the Cadet version of the SA-80 - that's a single shot target rifle, not an assault rifle, according to the manufacturer.

The first assault rifle was the Stg-44, wasn't it? I feel a Wikipeeed coming on to look into this.

Pundabaya · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5016

The M16A2 and A4 are both selective fire, though. There is no need to have a full automatic mode for the weapon to be classed as an assault rifle.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Pundabaya wrote:

The M16A2 and A4 are both selective fire, though. There is no need to have a full automatic mode for the weapon to be classed as an assault rifle.

Hmmm. So what is the deciding characteristic, then? It surely can't be an assault rifle if it's single shot or semi-automatic only, otherwise it's just a rifle with a big magazine. Selective between semi and burst is fair enough, but I can't say why that makes it an assault rifle.

Pundabaya · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5016

According to Wikipedia, it be an assault rifle:

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Pundabaya wrote:

According to Wikipedia, it be an assault rifle:

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Cor, well. That makes sense. I still don't like the idea of a 3-shot-burst rifle being counted. It's just wrong.

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 21:43

Mr Chris wrote:

Pundabaya wrote:

According to Wikipedia, it be an assault rifle:

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Cor, well. That makes sense. I still don't like the idea of a 3-shot-burst rifle being counted. It's just wrong.

It's not so much wrong as evolution of development in weaponry I would think. With the sophistication of automation and the bean counting that goes on with defense budgets and the incremental cost of ammunition, allied to the trigger happy nature of the majority of grunts that will be using them, then full automatic is something that should only be given to sensible shooters

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

DBSnappa wrote:

It's not so much wrong as evolution of development in weaponry I would think. With the sophistication of automation and the bean counting that goes on with defense budgets and the incremental cost of ammunition, allied to the trigger happy nature of the majority of grunts that will be using them, then full automatic is something that should only be given to sensible shooters

I can't, off the top of my head, think of any other army other than the US that decided to take away the full auto option on their standard assault rifle. Maybe everyone else is better trained...

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 21:53

Mr Chris wrote:

DBSnappa wrote:

It's not so much wrong as evolution of development in weaponry I would think. With the sophistication of automation and the bean counting that goes on with defense budgets and the incremental cost of ammunition, allied to the trigger happy nature of the majority of grunts that will be using them, then full automatic is something that should only be given to sensible shooters

I can't, off the top of my head, think of any other army other than the US that decided to take away the full auto option on their standard assault rifle. Maybe everyone else is better trained...

Ha. Yes, they're more interested in dropping expensive ordnance rather than shooting it - give with one payload, take away with the other hand I suppose

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 21:58

DBSnappa wrote:

full automatic is something that should only be given to sensible shooters

It's one of the main reasons why repeating rifles were not used in the war of Northern Agression American Civil War. There was a fear that soldiers would panic and quickly run out of ammunition, so they stuck to their muzzle-loaders. Three rounds a minute (in line, from 100 yards) is enough for anybody...

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Sharpe would never have stood for that.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Can anyone explain to me why in the likes of the Napoleonic wars, the modus operandi appeared to be to form up in a line and march slowly towards your objective under heavy fire, without loosing a single shot until you get there? I'm all for discipline under fire, but wouldn't running like buggery ensure that once you reach your objective you have significantly more men with all limbs attached?

Also filed under 'not wearing bright red jackets'.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Craster wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why in the likes of the Napoleonic wars, the modus operandi appeared to be to form up in a line and march slowly towards your objective under heavy fire, without loosing a single shot until you get there? I'm all for discipline under fire, but wouldn't running like buggery ensure that once you reach your objective you have significantly more men with all limbs attached?

Also filed under 'not wearing bright red jackets'.

That would be dishonourable and generally poor person-ish.

I was thinking this myself, the other day, while watching Vanity Fair. For god's sake, go out in skirmish formation and run - get in cover, *then* fire.

Again, Sharpe had it right, aye. Right enough.

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 22:11

Craster wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why in the likes of the Napoleonic wars, the modus operandi appeared to be to form up in a line and march slowly towards your objective under heavy fire, without loosing a single shot until you get there? I'm all for discipline under fire, but wouldn't running like buggery ensure that once you reach your objective you have significantly more men with all limbs attached?

Once you fire, you're vulnerable. If you can get the enemy to fire first, at a longer range, they've wasted precious time. Moreover, the idea is that heavy concentrated fire is more likely to hit something than individuals in loose ranks firing themselves. Troops elbow to elbow are also easier to control and less likely to break and run.

Once you've fired, you can then break into a bayonet charge to scare or kebab the enemy, at least in theory

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 22:14

Craster wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why in the likes of the Napoleonic wars, the modus operandi appeared to be to form up in a line and march slowly towards your objective under heavy fire, without loosing a single shot until you get there? I'm all for discipline under fire, but wouldn't running like buggery ensure that once you reach your objective you have significantly more men with all limbs attached?

Also filed under 'not wearing bright red jackets'.

I'd put that firmly in the realm of moron tacticians who went to the right schools and didn't have to think about the consequences of being on the front line - or, it was the done thing in the previous wars and we can't possibly take on board the consequences of newer military tech. See also the first world war.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Kern wrote:

Once you fire, you're vulnerable. If you can get the enemy to fire first, at a longer range, they've wasted precious time.

That makes perfect sense. Until you introduce cannon.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

DBSnappa wrote:

Craster wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why in the likes of the Napoleonic wars, the modus operandi appeared to be to form up in a line and march slowly towards your objective under heavy fire, without loosing a single shot until you get there? I'm all for discipline under fire, but wouldn't running like buggery ensure that once you reach your objective you have significantly more men with all limbs attached?

Also filed under 'not wearing bright red jackets'.

I'd put that firmly in the realm of moron tacticians who went to the right schools and didn't have to think about the consequences of being on the front line - or, it was the done thing in the previous wars and we can't possibly take on board the consequences of newer military tech. See also the first world war.

What with the key word here being formed by the word "Napoleon", I'm not sure this is quite the case.

The Count of Six · **Joined:** 23rd Jan, 2009 **Posts:** 145

The idea behind marching in slow, tight formation was to bring the greatest concentration of fire to bear on the enemy ranks. The British army used a rolling volley technique whereby designated sections of the line would fire in succession, thus limiting the amount of time between volleys and keeping the enemy under constant fire. Also, contemporary weapons were supremely inaccurate at anything greater than short range, so it was a matter of playing the percentages.

As for the idiocy of walking slowly out of trenches in WWI, that was a different matter entirely. Since much of the British army consisted of largely untrained volunteers it was felt that even the most basic of tactics (running from cover to cover, fire support etc) would be beyond them, but that anybody could master formation marching... :hat:

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 23:24

Craster wrote:

Kern wrote:

Once you fire, you're vulnerable. If you can get the enemy to fire first, at a longer range, they've wasted precious time.

That makes perfect sense. Until you introduce cannon.

Damn artillerymen. Still, not as bad as cavalry.

I'm guessing that the usefulness of artillery depends on its range, its aim, and when it's used. A barrage prior to an infantry assault could wipe out the opponent's cannons, but also serves as a handy indication of what is to follow. Moreover, a response would be to keep your cannons quiet until the enemy's fall silent and the infantry start moving (as was the case for the Union during Pickett's charge on day three of Gettysburg). But once the troops are advancing, as soon as the crew are within musket range a lead group of skirmishers could just duck whilst the balls fly over then pick them off.

I really, really need to get some books on tactics. I have no idea if the above has any basis in fact, but just some initial ideas for consideration.

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 23:24

All of

is why this forum is excellent

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 23:25

The Count of Six wrote:

Also, contemporary weapons were supremely inaccurate at anything greater than short range, so it was a matter of playing the percentages.

And even more accurate weapons are only as good as the operator. The hit rate on a clear range is likely to be very different to that under the pressures of battle.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

You have to realise of course, that I am basing all of this on Sharpe.

You would have 300 English redjackets, marching in line across 1000yards of open ground, very slowly. Not one of them would even dream so much of removing their gun from their shoulders. Facing them would be a fortification of men constantly firing from behind crenelations and a veritable fusillade of cannon fire blowing bloody great holes in the English ranks.

Why not at least run until you reach 200 yards, then start slow-marching from there?!

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

If anyone was likely to be that stupid, it was the English. That's exactly why Napoleon kicked everyone's arse for as long as he did - his tactics were far, far in advance of anyone else's, and his military reforms meant that a lot more of his officers were, too.

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 23:36

Craster wrote:

Why not at least run until you reach 200 yards, then start slow-marching from there?!

Control. The situation is noisy, smelly, confusing, and until the invention of smokeless powder, almost blind. We need to get the men to overcome their natural survival instinct and get them into position to fire. Keeping them tight reduces the risk of them fleeing, and allows the commander to both know where the men are, and to ensure they get to the right place.

Kern · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 23:38

sinister agent wrote:

If anyone was likely to be that stupid, it was the English. That's exactly why Napoleon kicked everyone's arse for as long as he did - his tactics were far, far in advance of anyone else's, and his military reforms meant that a lot more of his officers were, too.

And his tactics were studied and adopted the (western) world over.
Did the Prussians adopt and extend Boney, or just make it more effective?

devilman · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 0:03

Craster wrote:

Why not at least run until you reach 200 yards, then start slow-marching from there?!

Or jump around the battlefield randomly. If only they'd been able to train on FPS games.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 0:16

devilman wrote:

Craster wrote:

Why not at least run until you reach 200 yards, then start slow-marching from there?!

Or jump around the battlefield randomly. If only they'd been able to train on FPS games.

If they'd have been able to train on FPS games, they'd have found a way under the map.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

devilman wrote:

Craster wrote:

Why not at least run until you reach 200 yards, then start slow-marching from there?!

Or jump around the battlefield randomly. If only they'd been able to train on FPS games.

Great, now I've got an image of some English sergeant saving the day at Inkerman by turning up and shouting "OMG HAX FFS". Thanks.

Malc · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:04

Getting back to the guard for a minute (I've not read the story) but according to my Dad, their guns are not loaded when they are on guard duty.

Malc

Be Excellent To Each Other

Queen's guardsman attacks an "oik"

Who is online