Having just read the above article (now available on ArmyNet), have I missed the point somewhere? The Command situation he is describing is the same for every other unit, apart from Inf Battalions, in all 3 forces. What's the non-stated background behind this?

yours in confusion,

Al

[The Regimental System in the British Army - 1685 - 2010, Lt Col J Storr PhD, BAR 149 pp70 - 76]

That was an amazing read. What he's saying is that the Infantry has perfected by complete accident an almost perfect way to ensure a high level of cohesion within a unit. By accident the 2006(?) changes have possibly destroyed that cohesion

Given that this has been a hobby hoss of mine for a while, plus my admiration for Storr's (almost always controversial) analyses, is there any chance someone could lob me a soft copy, since I'm a professional civvy these days, and can't access ArmyNet.

Any volunteers, PM me, and I'll supply an email address (either that or upload it to Scribd, and PM me a link)

Originally Posted by Stonker

Given that this has been a hobby hoss of mine for a while, plus my admiration for Storr's (almost always controversial) analyses, is there any chance someone could lob me a soft copy, since I'm a professional civvy these days, and can't access ArmyNet.

Any volunteers, PM me, and I'll supply an email address (either that or upload it to Scribd, and PM me a link)

PM inbound..........

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

PM inbound..........

Check - have replied

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

That was an amazing read. What he's saying is that the Infantry has perfected by complete accident an almost perfect way to ensure a high level of cohesion within a unit. By accident the 2006(?) changes have possibly destroyed that cohesion

By implication, every other unit in the Armed Forces doesn't reach that "perfection". I doubt that very much, both inasmuch that the Inf are perfect (at any point in history) and that other units can't reach the same heady heights. Why am I confident in saying this? If it was so bloody good, why isn't everyone doing it?

PS - Stonker, still need a copy?

I don't suppose you could forward one to me alf?

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

By implication, every other unit in the Armed Forces doesn't reach that "perfection". I doubt that very much, both inasmuch that the Inf are perfect (at any point in history) and that other units can't reach the same heady heights. Why am I confident in saying this? If it was so bloody good, why isn't everyone doing it?

PS - Stonker, still need a copy?

I have been sorted, thanks,

and on "if it's so bloody good etc" - tribes are slow to learn new ways, esp. when they are 'certain' (never mind evidence to the contrary) that they are 'doing it right' . . .

I don't know that I concur with much of Storr's analysis, BTW - accepting that I'm out of touch with the 2006 changes, I'd need to re-read it slowly and sober, but - having written my Staff College commandants paper on cohesion - I question some of his statements and assumptions about what makes it happen.

I hate to say it, but it reads as though written without consideration of the buckshee private's PoV on group dynamics, and it seems to accept a number of myths about the how the regimental system impacts on group identity.

Stonker, hence my question. Why is he raising this? Is there something in the SDSR that will further decrease Inf cohesion? Have some Col Cmdt of Regiments been leaning on him? Or is he pushing for the rest of the Army to make their Command Selection process (at every level from Cpl to Lt Col) to fall into line with the Inf?

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Stonker, hence my question. Why is he raising this? Is there something in the SDSR that will further decrease Inf cohesion? Have some Col Cmdt of Regiments been leaning on him? Or is he pushing for the rest of the Army to make their Command Selection process (at every level from Cpl to Lt Col) to fall into line with the Inf?

I didn't notice Storr flinching in the face of that kind of disapproval when he was still taking the Queen's shilling, and had a uniformed career to protect: the reverse, if anything - a man I warmed to immediately

That said, this is an emotional topic: it is hard (impossible?) for anyone who has at some point signed up to it - literally committed their life to it - to be entirely dispassionate, objective and scientific (as in Grissom's "follow the evidence") about it.

I note, however, that the BAR artcle is a distillation of a longer piece of work (produced for an AUS or CAN audience?), and I'd like to read that, if I could, but - hey - we can't have everything.