Ammunition Tecnical Trades

Discussion in 'Sappers' started by fatblerk, Feb 19, 2005.

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. As a loggie skulking in the Eng zone, I thought I'd ask your opinions

    Do you (individually, not from Corps view) think Ammo Techs and the full trade should be rebadged RE?

    Do you think all EOD should be RE but without ATs?

    Do you think EOD, Search etc should be JS and taken out of the RE, RLC, RAF & Navy (for org not for dress and loyalty!)?

    Should I just stay in the RLC forum? :lol:

    This isn't for bites, i actually want to know!
  2. We gave the loggies our postal lads.

    It is NOT meek and right to return the favour by giving us the EOD loggies...Although from a selfish 'Corps strengthening' point of view, Hell yeah, Send em over.. AT's n all

    In reality, I dont see that the way it is at the moment is not the right way to continue? If one's trainset is working, then dont start pulling the engines apart to fix them. (Although maybe there needs to be better communication between the real EOD and the Loggies EOD... :lol: :wink: )

    No doubt one of our bomb fettlers will be along shortly to say that the trainset IS bust, but hey, thass my take on it.
  3. Hmmmm

    Wouldn't that then mean it would make more sense for the RE to then take over the whole AT supply chain set up as well?

    Can't see that happening somehow. Engineers having to do supply tasks????

    Let's face it Postal Courier was hardly what you would call a Field Engineer task now was it? I think it would have made more sense to transfer the PCS over to the AGC myself but there you go.

  4. Real EOD! Pah!

    Thanks anyway, but I can see why you'd not want technicians that spell technical without an H as in my title :roll: What a tw"t
  5. RE have done supply tasks for longer than the RLC have been formed!!

    ME Resources Specialist being the one that immediately springs to mind... Global.. Oliver.. Unicom.. LPO tasks.. as well as the rest of it... Stores System 3 has been raped by the RE for years!

    So.. In answer to the quoted, Yeah, why not? We are gaining Class 3 Res Specs soon, which will bulk up the Resources Specialist trade to a decent head count, no reason why a bored Res Spec or two at EOD couldnt take over the logistical side of the AT supply chain.. It's not exactly rocket science! :wink:

    Fatblerk, We'd accept you in the Corps with no problems..., we're always after blokes to man the Burco... Coffee,2 Sugars, there's a love.. :wink:
  6. hear hear, mines a coffee nato, and warm up the cab while you're at it....

    seriously though, from my point of view (ie the shop floor), why not rebadge RLC AT's as RE EOD ?

    RLC=trucks, rations, fuel, ammo

    RE=bombs, bridges, mines, demolitions, search, containment, etc.

    makes more sense to have the AT/IEDD side of life within our corps, no offense meant to our RLC brethren of course
  7. Well why not just go the whole hog and absorb the RLC then?

  8. AT's are one thing, but to bring the whole lot over, lock stock and not quite so smoking barrel??

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    3/4 of 'Em wouldnt pass B3 Combat Engr training. :wink:
  9. I'd like to suggest that more like 7/8 of us couldn't pass Cbt Eng cse, about the same as yours on AT Class 2, :wink: and you can pour your brew down a funnel! Cheeky w**** :)

    The point about just the ATs just for IEDD is the main problem. ATs primary task is ammunition and explosive management and safety, hence the EOD/IEDD bit we do, but there is the rest of the inspection, repair, monitoring and unit assistance as well (so who would look after the "supply" ammo? or could it be a resource?)

    My own view (unpopular with my lot) is that the IEDD skills would better supported in the RE but the RLC tasks need to be remembered - though could be civilianised or made part of the "Smart Procurment" game.

    If RE Bomb boys became a career with progression not a post and a cse then the arguement is over.

    Purple will be the way ahead, or Police led but then you end up like the US where the FBI do civ bombs and the Army go on ops with no experience.

    Thanks for you time chaps. I'll get the kettle on :p
  10. Yup.. and Yup.. RLC tasks would need to be remembered, and Yup.. A form of 'whole fleet management' for Ammo would/could be the way forward... 'Whole Ammo Management'

    Would free up Soldiers to do other important things, especially if the carriage of ammo was also given over to 'Whole Ammo Management'..

    You simply put in for the Ammo, for a range week, or whatever, fire n forget the demand, and come the day, up tips 'Bob Smith' with a truckload of Ammo, in a resprayed Brinks Matt security van, sent from the Civi managed ammo depot. At the end, the excess ammo is returned for credit to the Unit's training allowance. okay, not that simple, but no reason why it couldnt be done.

    No RLC have been hurt in the production of this idea..Although some may have started sweating at the thought of working/working elsewhere
  11. It could easily be that simple, but I'll still have to stand in the rain doing the Safe to Move cert! And not in the life time of DCSA and non talking computer systems! :x
  12. Would it not be simpler to transfer the RE 'Bomb Disposal' (Big things that fall from the sky) to the RLC? Remember it was ALL done by the RAOC pre WWII and only transfered to the RE becouse you needed to dig down to the damn things! This could be done by specially trained Pioneer Sections and give them something to do. Its not Rocket Science to dig a hole!

    Battlefield EOD and Mine clearance could still be a RE tasking with a more realistic division being:

    RLC= Transport, Combat Supplies* (Ammunition, Rations & Fuel (POL)) Ammunition & Giuded Weapons inspection, repair & managment, EOD inc 'Bomb Disposal', IED

    RE= Bridges, Mine Laying & Lifting, Field demolitions, Battlefield clearance, Search, Containment.

    * Combat Supplies is a little more than delivering Training Ammunition, Its the supplying of a Regiment, Brigade or Division with all it needs every day on Operations. Thats Lorry after Lorry load of Artillery or Tank Ammunition and Tankers of Fual from Field Storage Locations to the FMA as and when needed.
  13. You have a valid point with the supply lines arguement (if only we could do it as easily as it is described :oops: ), but the separation of EOD tasks comes down to a couple more things.

    RE do air drops because they're usually a long way down and they have the kit to get there. :)

    RE do area clearance because of the similarity to demining (in a VERY basic way) and because they have allocated manpower to that task (& done some clever subbing out) :)

    Both those would need addressing prior to RE taskings (not pers) becoming RLC. :x

    Most RE would make good loggies, best breakfast in a BG leager is usually near the AVRE/AVLB or python! :twisted:

    I doubt they'd be interested in joining a trade that isn't well loved or administered by its corps :?: As I said purple is next, with central admin and attached pers
  14. Transferring the job, as opposed to manpower?

    If it were moving the manpower, or part of it, from RE to RLC, then there'd be problems. as Fatblerk mentioned earlier..
    EOD isnt the primary role (or should that be 'sole' role) of an EOD Engr. if they were to move badges (or even a percentage of the EOD Engrs) to aid covering the increased workload placed on the RLC as a result of restructuring the workload/roles, then there'd be problems that impact on other elements of 'being an Engr' . the loss of the EOD Engrs' other trade quals from the RE trainset would bring further problems.

    No, but If youre sending in Pioneers to dig round big hooge 'ticking' bombs, then can I be in a different hemisphere please..
  15. OK my reply was a little tongue in check, but I think it illustrates that the dividing line either way is not clear cut. But I think RE v RLC nit picking does not help. If the 2 Corps worked more together instead of drawing a line in the sand, I think that would be half way to solving the problem...