Originally Posted by Outstanding

An an aside, I wonder what the effect of disclosing the real truth about teeth arem / non teeth are career prospects would be on RMAS O/Cdt Career Selection.

To be honest, I don't think it would change most peoples' views. We're going through this process at the moment, and very few are thinking about what happens after the initial platoon command / troop leader post. Being slightly older than the average, I am acutely aware of this (and the changes in this thread) though.

Originally Posted by RifleButts

To be honest, I don't think it would change most peoples' views. We're going through this process at the moment, and very few are thinking about what happens after the initial platoon command / troop leader post. Being slightly older than the average, I am acutely aware of this (and the changes in this thread) though.

Do you not have a talk from a Lt Col or such like to point out precisely what your choices imply later on in your career? And if not, perhaps you should!

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Do you not have a talk from a Lt Col or such like to point out precisely what your choices imply later on in your career? And if not, perhaps you should!

Not as far as I can recall, no. I also agree completely with your view that such a talk should be given. The regiments / corps are just as guilty too, really, in how they sell themselves at the various expression of interest evenings.

(Edit)

Also, I think a number of people are wondering whether it's worth thinking past the next 3 years what with SDSR / beyond-SDSR reductions in manning coming into effect. While it's been stated that junior officers are generally safe, junior officers become not-junior officers and then the squeeze happens. That said, morale is generally rather high, but that may just be a product of being in a training establishment and us wanting to get out of the other side and into the field army!

Originally Posted by Outstanding

::::::::::::::::::::::

As others have expressed above, that suggestion would fail as it would simply stream the chosen ones even earlier, The result of which might well be to disenchant the second stream and cause them to leave the Army. Now that might seem fine, but of course the top stream rely on the second stream to do all the shitty jobs.

At the moment even if the streaming happens at Reg level, the second stream are constantly, being encouraged, chivvied along and being fed the line that they still have a good chance of later promotion, that if they do a good job they might still Command. the truth is almost certainly not the case.

That last line is not a new phenomenon.

And my experience of 'streaming' at regimental level is this: (a) It has always happened, and (b) Some regiments [mine] generally have 'fast-tracked' those the regimental committee - or some other such oligarchic mechanism - have thought of as 'the right sort of chaps' to command Reg Bns, yet very few of them have gone beyond Lt Col, and even fewer still beyond 1-Star. Theregiments "second streamers" appointed to command TA and Trg Battalions, however, generated a disproportionately high number of full Colonels. From which I concluded that the regimental 'streaming' process was applying unofficial criteria that are completely out of alignment with the criteria of the wider army. Of the 3 mobs in our Inf Div, only your old one seems to have got that streaming thing right, and (I'm guessing, based on the number of guys like you who re-badged at field rank) to have been honest with its 2nd streamers at career interview time.

On duraton in post - that's a toughie: fact is, to change an organisation like HQ LAND (let alone the whole Army) demands consistent leadership over at least a half-decade (cf. Von Seekt running the Reichswehr between WW1 and the creation of the Wehrmacht, perhaps), yet our tribal tradition gives nobody more than half that time in post.

Yet the former is potentially a recipe for stagnation, while the latter is a proven recipe for dodging blame, and falsely claiming credit for ill-managed initiatives that subsequently go pear-shaped (procuring SA80 would be but one example - but the same thing happens in barracks, and on ops, if my experieince in NI and threads on here about AFG are good indicators).

There's more to this change business than just changing the official rules. There are changes to attitudes that need to get sorted too - but fat chance of that, under 30mth here-today-gone-tomorrow leaders.

Otherwise its the dance of the Titanic's deckchairs yet again.

Originally Posted by RifleButts

Not as far as I can recall, no. I also agree completely with your view that such a talk should be given. The regiments / corps are just as guilty too, really, in how they sell themselves at the various expression of interest evenings.

(Edit)

Also, I think a number of people are wondering whether it's worth thinking past the next 3 years what with SDSR / beyond-SDSR reductions in manning coming into effect. While it's been stated that junior officers are generally safe, junior officers become not-junior officers and then the squeeze happens. That said, morale is generally rather high, but that may just be a product of being in a training establishment and us wanting to get out of the other side and into the field army!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::

More power to you in succesfuly completing your training.

I do think that a really honest and open breakdown of future career implications of Regt/Corps selection should be given, I know it was never done, really fully, in the past. the obvious reason being that no-one would want to join the less career fulfilling corps. Of course the system is not stupid and does allow the occassional non teeth arm (RE, R Sigs, RLC) chap the chance to get through, but this is done more to effectively conceal the streaming of the "chosen".

In terms of adjusting the mindset, there are a few issues that really need to be addressed across the whole Army. CSS as well as Cbt, there is too much protectionism.

Example: infantry command: good officer in Div A scoring higher than officers in Div B (in fact scoring better than all but one Div B officer), but within his own Div did not get a regular command and was not offered a command in Div B. An officer in Div B scored better than every other officer in his Div outside his Regiment but came second in his Regiment gets no command. Who is at fault? The system, APC, MS himself or the Regimental Councils (various)? In my view, all are at fault, or at least complicit.

Top grade cavalry officer runs for a top grade CSS post. All the stars are aligned over his OJARs and the opportunity to fill the posts comes his way. Log career field manager blocks the appointment by not running him to the board for that job so that CSS officers get a chance. So what? It is not just the Cbt Arms that do this. And this applies further up as well. Log Bde Comd anyone? Why does it need to be a CSS buddy?

The answer is clearly vested interests. So what is the answer: get over it. The system is what it is, it is flawed, play to the whistle. Defeatist? Probably; Pragmatic? defo.

As an infantryman - we are pretty short on generals at the moment, so please don't suggest we are the only branch [insert appropriate cliche] on this one.

Originally Posted by barbs

In terms of adjusting the mindset, there are a few issues that really need to be addressed across the whole Army. CSS as well as Cbt, there is too much protectionism.

Example: infantry command: good officer in Div A scoring higher than officers in Div B (in fact scoring better than all but one Div B officer), but within his own Div did not get a regular command and was not offered a command in Div B. An officer in Div B scored better than every other officer in his Div outside his Regiment but came second in his Regiment gets no command. Who is at fault? The system, APC, MS himself or the Regimental Councils (various)? In my view, all are at fault, or at least complicit.

Top grade cavalry officer runs for a top grade CSS post. All the stars are aligned over his OJARs and the opportunity to fill the posts comes his way. Log career field manager blocks the appointment by not running him to the board for that job so that CSS officers get a chance. So what? It is not just the Cbt Arms that do this. And this applies further up as well. Log Bde Comd anyone? Why does it need to be a CSS buddy?

The answer is clearly vested interests. So what is the answer: get over it. The system is what it is, it is flawed, play to the whistle. Defeatist? Probably; Pragmatic? defo.

As an infantryman - we are pretty short on generals at the moment, so please don't suggest we are the only branch [insert appropriate cliche] on this one.

I would suggest you have more Generals than you have infantry battalions, which seems a little odd!

Originally Posted by barbs

In terms of adjusting the mindset, there are a few issues that really need to be addressed across the whole Army. CSS as well as Cbt, there is too much protectionism.

Example: infantry command: good officer in Div A scoring higher than officers in Div B (in fact scoring better than all but one Div B officer), but within his own Div did not get a regular command and was not offered a command in Div B. An officer in Div B scored better than every other officer in his Div outside his Regiment but came second in his Regiment gets no command. Who is at fault? The system, APC, MS himself or the Regimental Councils (various)? In my view, all are at fault, or at least complicit.

Top grade cavalry officer runs for a top grade CSS post. All the stars are aligned over his OJARs and the opportunity to fill the posts comes his way. Log career field manager blocks the appointment by not running him to the board for that job so that CSS officers get a chance. So what? It is not just the Cbt Arms that do this. And this applies further up as well. Log Bde Comd anyone? Why does it need to be a CSS buddy?

The answer is clearly vested interests. So what is the answer: get over it. The system is what it is, it is flawed, play to the whistle. Defeatist? Probably; Pragmatic? defo.

As an infantryman - we are pretty short on generals at the moment, so please don't suggest we are the only branch [insert appropriate cliche] on this one.

That'll chnage in a few years what with all the Comd's TFH coming through. The RE and RA will no doubt lose out in comparison to the Infantry.

It's a fair point Barbs, but an annoying one. As it will directly affect my career and my enjoyment of my career, I can;t say I can just get over it.

Originally Posted by Outstanding

:::::::::::::::

A few observations Litotes.

A peacetime Army? we have had that since 1945 as I don't think we have formally declared war from that time to today. Not sure that such a defintion has any meaning - although it does sound good.

Completely agree that any organisation that employs significant numbers must have a structured, transparent, fair and easily understood promtion system. Better organisations also favour fastrack promotion and todays top excutives are becoming younger, better qualified and sharper.

General War - difficult defintion again. Ask the patrol commander pinned down in Afghanistan, by mortars and SA fire, who is calling in artillery, helos and close air and fast jets to bomb - whether he thinks he is involved in an all arms combat, general war or minor insurgency. I think I recognise your meaning though and what you say is a bit of a no brainer.

Finally you make an interesting point, should the promtion scheme be tri-service?

I grew up with the terms "General War", "peacetime Army" and "TTW". A "peacetime Army" implies that, across the board, all standard procedures and processes are in place, used and audited.

I agree that current ops blow those terms out of the water but I note that we haven't changed the business processes!

I wasn't suggesting that the promotion system should be tri-service. I think that would be a step too far!

Litotes

Originally Posted by Litotes

I grew up with the terms "General War", "peacetime Army" and "TTW". A "peacetime Army" implies that, across the board, all standard procedures and processes are in place, used and audited.

I agree that current ops blow those terms out of the water but I note that we haven't changed the business processes!

[snip]

Litotes

By 'business processes', I take it you meant the processes by which 'the right sort of chaps' proceed relentlessly to the top, while 2nd streamers are kept in the 2nd stream - achievement in the field notwithstanding? If that is what you mean, the most painful example I can think of would be that of Chris Keeble in '82. His CO's Staff-College perfect plan having fallen over bigtime, and its author having bought the farm, the man dragged victory from the jaws of defeat and got an Argie surrender with minimal loss of life, only then to be replaced in the field by a man (literally) parachuted in from the MoD. In the longer term, he got a gong, and a TA battalion.

As recognition and reewards go, IMHO, that just sucked.

But then, he was never one of 'the Chosen'.