2 MI Bn Ex GREEN WARRIOR

[ALREADYJACKEDGENIUS]

Because GW doesn't integrate across the full FMI spectrum, it's probably safe to say the exercise is CT2.5, although it could equally be sold as the CI&Sy MRX . Your point about the 1 MI Bde Ex is interesting, for if it included all the FMI capabilities, it would be a true CT3 exercise. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Another positive post, helpful suggestions?

You are starting to give Arrse a bad name

 

[CrapSpy]

Because GW doesn't integrate across the full FMI spectrum, it's probably safe to say the exercise is CT2.5, although it could equally be sold as the CI&Sy MRX . Your point about the 1 MI Bde Ex is interesting, for if it included all the FMI capabilities, it would be a true CT3 exercise. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Another positive post, helpful suggestions?

You are starting to give Arrse a bad name

My apologies, I didn't realise it was illegal to ask questions on the internet.

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

As an aside, no bad thing I would say. 3 x 2 MI Bn SSgts, heavily involved in the exercise over the years (as training staff and exercising troops) all come off the SSgt to WO2 board. Go figure!

and how many of them can beat you running across a muddy field?

 

[pointyhead]

[quote="CrapSpy]Your point about the 1 MI Bde Ex is interesting, for if it included all the FMI capabilities, it would be a true CT3 exercise.[/quote]

Interesting thought, but who would plan, coordinate and deliver such an undertaking? No doubt you are probably aware that GREEN WARRIOR, only delivering trg for CI & Sy pers, is incredibly resource and manpower intensive.

 

[CrapSpy]

[quote="CrapSpy]Your point about the 1 MI Bde Ex is interesting, for if it included all the FMI capabilities, it would be a true CT3 exercise.

Interesting thought, but who would plan, coordinate and deliver such an undertaking? No doubt you are probably aware that GREEN WARRIOR, only delivering trg for CI & Sy pers, is incredibly resource and manpower intensive.[/quote]

Agreed. As a Bde ex it would have to train soldiers from across the whole Bde, utilising instructors from across the Bde. However, whilst I suspect the Bde HQ could plan and co-ord such an exercise, the MI bde can't exactly call on BATUS/CAST/CATT etc to deliver the exercise!

 

[pointyhead]

.. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Alternative? One that springs to mind is attempt to align with a GM fmn as it is going through the OPTAG delivered package. The INT CORPS pers would then potentially train with the fmn they are deploying in support of and could hopefully provide real time support to the fmn at the same time.

 

[CrapSpy]

.. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Alternative? One that springs to mind is attempt to align with a GM fmn as it is going through the OPTAG delivered package. The INT CORPS pers would then potentially train with the fmn they are deploying in support of and could hopefully provide real time support to the fmn at the same time.

But do you align to the GM Bde before or after declaring CT3? And if we are tied to teh GM Bde training plan, will we have time for CT1/2? Questions, questions - I feel a training conference coming on!

 

[Alfie_Boy]

[quote="CRmeansCeilingReached] I wish I was 'Alfie_Boy and had a life but instead I spend my time noshing off Rodneys, from primetime El Tee's right through to moustachio'd Majors - I just can't get enough Officer C0ck!!! Shhhlurrrp mmm nice and they all simply gush over my ARRSE efforts as well [/quote]

Hey CR - whatever floats your boat mate, I certainly wouldn't knock you for getting by in whatever way you feel comfortable with.

 

[pointyhead]

[quote="CRmeansCeilingReached] I wish I was 'Alfie_Boy and had a life but instead I spend my time noshing off Rodneys, from primetime El Tee's right through to moustachio'd Majors - I just can't get enough Officer C0ck!!! Shhhlurrrp mmm nice and they all simply gush over my ARRSE efforts as well

Hey CR - whatever floats your boat mate, I certainly wouldn't knock you for getting by in whatever way you feel comfortable with. [/quote]

And here was me thinking that CR's social life was quite mundane. I never realised that he indulged in such diverse past times.

 

[PartyLineGang]

Because GW doesn't integrate across the full FMI spectrum, it's probably safe to say the exercise is CT2.5, although it could equally be sold as the CI&Sy MRX . Your point about the 1 MI Bde Ex is interesting, for if it included all the FMI capabilities, it would be a true CT3 exercise. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Do you envisage a 1 MI Bde MRX with the CS, GS, CI/Sy and WIS Sects completing a common range package followed by bespoke in camp training and an FTX? At present the Ex GW FTX comprises of a series of specific trade tasks (CI casework, FSAVs, LEC Screenings, Walk-ins, SRM etc) supplemented by 'green serials' which test the Sect's individual and collective understanding of HERRICK TTPs (C-IED drills, Foot/Mobile Contacts, Convoy Ops, IDF, Defensive Shoots, Sangar Duties etc). Both elements of the FTX are wrapped up in an overarching scenario with INTREP/INTSUM injects by EXCON staff.

Do you see a similar approach for the GS, CS and WIS elements (each doing there own trade tasks but with common 'green serials') or is there a requirement to integrate all the FMI components with the designated FMI OC doing the fusion bit? Would the various components feed off/contribute to INTSUMS/INTREPS? Could be a complex mess!

 

[pointyhead]

.. It would also allow the Comd to 'sign off' FMI Coy as 'fit for purpose' - much as a GM Bde Comd would do for his BGs. Is there an alternative mechanism?

Alternative? One that springs to mind is attempt to align with a GM fmn as it is going through the OPTAG delivered package. The INT CORPS pers would then potentially train with the fmn they are deploying in support of and could hopefully provide real time support to the fmn at the same time.

But do you align to the GM Bde before or after declaring CT3? And if we are tied to teh GM Bde training plan, will we have time for CT1/2? Questions, questions - I feel a training conference coming on!

I would suggest align before. Run CT3 hand in hand with the GM Bde. If memory serves, their OPTAG package runs over a number of weeks with the various sub units attending different periods. A possible by-product could even be including the GM fmn's Sy Ed and even OPSEC trg as a concurrent activity.

Potential bonus of running hand in hand - This would allow some flexibility in timing and also avoid the nause of deconflicting with OPTAG for DTE usage.

Potential challenge - Define and mandate a common CT2 standard that must be attained by all our tps before any CT3 is undertaken.

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

[quote="CRmeansCeilingReached] I wish I was 'Alfie_Boy and had a life but instead I spend my time noshing off Rodneys, from primetime El Tee's right through to moustachio'd Majors - I just can't get enough Officer C0ck!!! Shhhlurrrp mmm nice and they all simply gush over my ARRSE efforts as well

Hey CR - whatever floats your boat mate, I certainly wouldn't knock you for getting by in whatever way you feel comfortable with.

And here was me thinking that CR's social life was quite mundane. I never realised that he indulged in such diverse past times.[/quote]

how else was i suppose to get promoted?

 

[Op_Int_and_Spy]

As a minimum, your MATTs, OPTAG and you're good to deploy.

Are you a moron?

If you are a SNCO or above then you need to have a f"cking serious word with yourself about the duty of care you have to the men and women below you.

Sending troops off to theatre having passed an APWT and a quick SERE brief on OPTAG is not the mark of a good Commander. I suppose it would be to much trouble to drag you away from your riveting posts on stable belts and wearing uniform in public to actually consider the training that soldiers need before deploying against suicidal enemies.

Edited for repeated formatting errors.

Calm down love, time of the month was it? You'll notice from my original post the word could was underlined. There is a big difference in what could be done and what should be done. Also there was a bit of pisstaking involved.

Having been sent on an Op tour myself with minimum/no amount of training I'm not advocating this for anyone. But a good commander sometimes has to manage risks, if you're required to send someone to theatre as a short notice BCR and that person has only done their MATTs and OPTAG then they go.

Does your limited experience tell you that we just reduce the capabilities in theatre until that replacement has done several weeks of PDT?

As for OPTAG, the battle lessons aren't great but provided you get involved and don't hide at the back then they are certainly more than a quick SERE brief.

Perhaps when you've done more than 5 minutes in the army and deployed to more than 1 Op theatre your childish comments might carry a bit more weight. If life in the army was always by the book, people would only wear the stable belts they're entitled to!

 

[Dontdreamit]

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

Perhaps when you've done more than 5 minutes in the army and deployed to more than 1 Op theatre your childish comments might carry a bit more weight.

how dare you sir! Dontdreamit would never dare to denigrate your generation.

DDI - OI&S was completely correct in stating the minimum requirements for deployment. (in fact, to take it further, I was told on OPTAG that the only mandatory part for deployment was the legal brief; don't know if that's correct or not.)

OI&S wasn't suggesting it as a route to take or an ideal, merely pointing out that people could legally deploy with less.

he's infinitely more experienced than you, has more deployments under his belt and manages many people just like you. he clearly stated "as a minimum" so it should have been obvious what point he was making.

your rant at him was a reflection of your leaping to a conclusion (yet again) rather than him demonstrating bad leadership. you really ought to work on that.

for the record, as i've said before, i thought the PDT was an excellent package, and ahead of its time (with the advent of BCCS). of course everybody should have that standard of training before deploying. however, as OI&S said - legally, OPTAG & MATTS and you're "good to go". (and presumably MATTS now includes the BCCS day?)

 

[Dontdreamit]

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

I doubt any of you have managed to accomplish what I have accomplished in the same space of time. I am well regarded by both my peers and my immediate CoC.

we are truly blessed to have you

 

[Op_Int_and_Spy]

CR - I notice you have not addressed PartyLineGang comments or PointyHeads - just my own.

Strange that. But in all honesty I couldn't give a f'ck. Being in the Army longer does always equate to knowing better.

Just because we have a firm grasp of the legal requirements necessary to deploy does mean we should not strive over and above that.

The OP asked a clear and simple question, OpIS responded with basically bullsh1t. Most posters on here all well aware that OPTAG / MATT's cover you. Stating that is not helpful.

I don't expect the amount of time I have in the Army or the Corps to be an issue again. I have accomplished enough in my career to come to my own informed decisions. If you don't think so, or those that think they may have identified me don't think so then I guess that is just tough eh?

I doubt any of you have managed to accomplish what I have accomplished in the same space of time. I am well regarded by both my peers and my immediate CoC. Evidently more so than yourself given what others say about you.

Couldn't agree more!

CR - I notice you have not addressed PartyLineGang comments or PointyHeads - just my own.

Strange that. But in all honesty I couldn't give a f'ck. Being in the Army longer does always equate to knowing better.

Just because we have a firm grasp of the legal requirements necessary to deploy does mean we should not strive over and above that.

The OP asked a clear and simple question, OpIS responded with basically bullsh1t. Most posters on here all well aware that OPTAG / MATT's cover you. Stating that is not helpful.

I don't expect the amount of time I have in the Army or the Corps to be an issue again. I have accomplished enough in my career to come to my own informed decisions. If you don't think so, or those that think they may have identified me don't think so then I guess that is just tough eh?

I doubt any of you have managed to accomplish what I have accomplished in the same space of time. I am well regarded by both my peers and my immediate CoC. Evidently more so than yourself given what others say about you.

You're great, I wish everyone in the Corps was as good as you. Keep this up, you don't sound like a big headed prick at all with comments like this. I know quite a few people both senior and junior to me that have accomplished more than me, I doubt you're one of them.

 

[Dontdreamit]

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

If you don't think so, or those that think they may have identified me don't think so then I guess that is just tough eh?