A level project - titles "Does the British military train the best combat engineers?"

Discussion in 'Sappers' started by Hazey, Oct 5, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hey guys im at college at the moment and im taking an a level called extended project, it's basicly a project on anything you want, it just needs to be a commonly known hypothesis and you find information on whether its true or not. e.g "youths wearing hoodies terrorise the elderly"

    Anyway my title is "Does the British military train the best combat engineers in the world?", and now im looking for as much information as possible, i realise there a quite a few things im not allowed to know like bomb disposal techniques ect. but any information would be amazing, like if anyones came back from afghan lately, or remebers there tour, things like how long would you spend setting up a base, what did you do there, were the skills you were trained used regularly, if you were doing anything under fire how did leadership skills differ from when you weren't.
    if anybodys just gone through training what was it like and what were you tought and how were you trained.

    The only people the information will be accessed by is me, my teacher, and the exam board. and everyone reading the topic if you dont pm me. Thanks you very much
     
  2. Spelling and punctuation need attention, more effort required.
     
  3. Why not go for a quick win with a title like 'The Roman Army in its heyday had the best combat engineers ever.'? Sure, there's some British Bailey Bridges still standing, but there's also some Roman military engineering that's still around.
     
  4. I might have a look into that actually, Cheers for the advice
     
  5. You need to put more thought into your topic, your original title is too broad and unquantifiable. If you go down the Roman route differentiate between combat engineering (defences and temporary bridges etc) things that aid the operation and military engineering (roads, fortifications, water supplies etc) things that aid the occupation.
     
  6. thats a good point ive already started researching the roman idea alot more information out there i just hope its not too late
     
  7. Sounds a bit biased. Not that I've got anything against the RE but you just know the answer's going to be 'yes, obviously'.

    At least include some proper criticism and consideration of alternative viewpoints. Otherwise you won't get more than a B.

    You might also be a journalist. Just sayin'.
     
  8. You also need to put more effort into grammar and syntax, you may think it unimportant but it is not. Review your work before you press send or hand it in.
     
  9. not a journalist but can see why you could think that, and i was going to ask for peoples thoughts on issues ect after, were still in the planning stages of our essays, im also planning on getting information from other countries, was thinking america and if i can find a decent way to translate, china. i appreciate your comments though, cheers :)
     
  10. Sorry, i do apologise - sorry if thats spelled wrong, ill ask someone to proof read my write up, before i submit, and cheers for the suggestion.
     
  11. Do it yourself, you clearly know what is correct. It's called attention to detail, don't fob off your responsibilities to someone else.
     
  12. The wording of the title strikes me as odd. Why complicate the question with "train the best"? Surely the interesting question is "Are the Royal Engineers the best military engineers?" Unless it's really the training process you're interested in, of course.

    But however you phrase it, you've got your work cut out, as you'll need to look in depth at the equivalents of the Royal Engineers in a reasonable number of other armies. And what criteria are you going to apply in assessing them? Time taken to clear a minefield? Number of MGBs dropped into rivers?

    And yep, well worth using the spell-checker and/or getting your text proofread. I'd dock you several percent for things like ect (if you remind yourself it stands for et cetera (i.e. and the rest) you'll never get it wrong again).
     
  13. Aah see why a couple of people brought it up now and i feel a bit of a fool. I wasn't certain on all the things i was going to rank each "force" on but you've raised a good point and ill add your ideas to the list.
    Thanks
     
  14. Not good enough. Represent.
     
  15. It's unlike any A-Level assignment I've ever heard. But fair enough, I'm not wholly up with the times. That, combined with the relatively personal nature of the questions you asked - 'what did you think about thi's rather than more abstract questions about RE doctrine, training, pratice etc - and the pretty un-academic title phrasing flagged you for me.

    In tune with what other much more knowledgeable people are saying, think about this: military proficiency is not a video game stat. The RE are the best in the world... at what? They probably have a different set of priorities in Botswana than here. Does equipment count? To give a childish example: Man A digs a hole in an hour with a spade. Man B does it with a JCB in two minutes. Which is the better engineer? I know I'd want the lazy JCBer... unless I'm operating in impassable mountainous terrain. Horses for courses is the phrase ARRSE likes.