ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by saladin

Generalising somewhat you appear to be roughly in agreement with all of OOTs points bar the loss of R&R - and I agree with you there. My suggestion would be units with sufficient manpower to allow for decent extended periods of R&R but with tours that were longer for the key appointments - an example might be OC AOR on a 2 year tour maybe - but with a number of month long R&R periods, covered by a 2IC who had also umpteen months experience in theatre. I'd see some G2 and Influence roles being almost full careers.....

I am in agreement with OOTS, but what I feel has been overlooked is that many people agree with them, in general, but have no sway over executing the appropriate changes required. And if I have been biting is because I object to being lumped in by the word "you" (insert smiley if appropriate).

I don't think 2 year tours in theatre for company commanders are the answer. The responsibility to train and command lies with the commander, its a fine balance to be had. I believe/have been conditioned to believe that the best way of doing business would be about 9 months PDT, a 12 month tour followed by 3 months of fun. You can filter people in and out during a 12 month period if you have faith in the IR system. That coy comd tours should be longer in general (to 3 years) I would agree with.

Glad This became an officer thread...thought it might even face the facts we cannot recruit enough toms/Jocks for you to lead.....

Originally Posted by saladin

How did our forebears cope with India, before the jet aircraft ?

By doing five-year op tours and taking a local wife.

Originally Posted by saladin

6 month tours is what they remember. 2 year garrison tours appear to have dropped from folk memory, alongside the permanent Bde HQs - audience for Sallys wisdom, 12 individuals at levels from Cpl to SO2.

IIRC

The Bde structure was a 1* Op HQ with 2 year tours for the staff. They were augmented by 4 month tours for watchkeepers etc. They had a resident infantry battalion on a two year tour. They rotated their coys around a number of roles. Each AO had a Bn on a six month tour. Some of those tours were worse than others, naturally. They also had a number of UDR/R IRISH PT/FT units under command.

The 3 x Bdes had the 3* HQNI above them, also on two year tours. COS NI commanded the theatre troops and there was a reserve battalion held on the mainland (usually providing an ops coy forward). The resident and mainland Bns held COPs forward.

Originally Posted by swampmonster

Glad This became an officer thread...thought it might even face the facts we cannot recruit enough toms/Jocks for you to lead.....

Bloody Wos&Sgts Mess, always putting a damper on things with an irritating doses of reality.


So - How to recruit enough jocks - TA and Regular. TA used to be relatively simple - enough kit, interesting role, enough MTDs for 2 weekends a month, decent training programme etc etc - having a real WAR to go to should actually make life easier in terms of recruiting the "one off adventurers". Regular is more complex but if I were to be a tad radical I'd suggest that we need a shake-up in what we see in a 2012 soldier intake. Several refreshments to the good I'll probably not phrase this well but "Being a soldier" is not exactly top of most kids list - even with over a million unemployed "Yoof" we are not attracting enough. I actually think the answer is beyond the Army, its a question for society at large to answer.

Originally Posted by barbs

IIRC
They also had a number of UDR/R IRISH PT/FT units under command.
.

Ah, yes, Native troops. Excellent soldiers when lead by White officers, for the most part.

Originally Posted by saladin

Bloody Wos&Sgts Mess, always putting a damper on things with an irritating doses of reality.


So - How to recruit enough jocks - TA and Regular. TA used to be relatively simple - enough kit, interesting role, enough MTDs for 2 weekends a month, decent training programme etc etc - having a real WAR to go to should actually make life easier in terms of recruiting the "one off adventurers". Regular is more complex but if I were to be a tad radical I'd suggest that we need a shake-up in what we see in a 2012 soldier intake. Several refreshments to the good I'll probably not phrase this well but "Being a soldier" is not exactly top of most kids list - even with over a million unemployed "Yoof" we are not attracting enough. I actually think the answer is beyond the Army, its a question for society at large to answer.

Its not as bad as I posted Saladin (as you know) ...yes its not great but numbers are without a doubt on the increase...Its the public perception of what we are and do....And its going to take a hell of along time to change that...The old beer drinking "Enablers" that dont go on tour (for the most part) are in the minority and will be gone in a couple of years..Peer pressure alone will see to that in my/Our Regiment anyway......

So your post does the Nail/Hammer thingy

Originally Posted by saladin

I rarely disagree with OOTS but this, I think, fails to understand our political masters. Their actions in regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan indicate to me that they have no desire to win the war. If they did desire to win the war we'd be looking at some attempt to get the nation behind the effort, to concentrate resource and effort. I see no such signs. Both campaigns were political moves to stay "on side" with the US. Both campaigns ended up being political disasters and the politicians immediate response is to ensure that bad press headlines are minimised. Post this latest incident I would not be surprised to find that direction comes from above to hunker down in the FOBs and start to thin out asap. The one event that might focus national attention on actually winning the fight would be a major disaster - FOB overrun, Isandwala 2, to the extent that the public back was got up....even then I doubt our effette population would man up for it.

My assessment is that the current goverment think - like most of the rest of the electorate - that Iraq was pointless and AFG is pointless. They don't think we can win and they don't think it's worth the cost to try. That's why we are running for the exits just as soon as possible consistent with not annoying the US too much. That's why major drawdowns have already been brought forward to 2013 (although it did rather slide under the radar in the press) and why many loggies are looking very thoughtful about how we get thousands of tons of shite out of a landlocked country.

The previous shower - well, I've sworn enough tonight so I shall say no more. I agree with your asessment as to the half arsed way Blair and co drifted into things, but I'm afraid that - rightly or wrongly - the public expected more from the Army than just going along blindly.