Arms Plotting - Good or Bad ?

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Ramillies, Jan 3, 2003.

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. There is a view as to whether Inf Bns should continue to Arms Plot or not. The cost of moving Bns every 2 to 5 years is considerable. Some believe that Inf Bns should reside within their county boundaries, and those that do not have them agree to serve abroad. Overseas exercises and operational tours would continue irrespective and Offrs and some SNCOs could be posted to other Bns within their Inf Division to gain Armd Inf or Mech experience.

    Perceived advantages of Arms Plotting are:

    - Recruiting advantage to serve in a variety of places.

    - A varied life and trained in multi skilling (Mech/Armd Inf or Lt Role Bn).

    - Consolidation of unit identity when serving abroad.

    - Reduces boredom.

    Perceived disadvantages are:

    - Cost of moving and retraining - money could be better spent on eqpt, welfare or pay.

    - Turbulence especially for marrieds, schooling etc.

    - Unable to buy a house in the local area or wife to continue her career locally.

    - Lack of county identity for recruiting and for TA and ACF linkage.

    - Becoming stale in a particular role.

    Views ?
  2. V tricky one this, and one that's been touched on before, I am currently trying to get the Royal Corps of Inf thread moved into the Inf domain, where it belongs, but if you cannot wait, it's on Current Affairs, page 13.
  3. Ramillies,

    Not being an Infanteer or part of a capbadge that is subject to Arms plotting I've not got the depth of experience. But, if the Inf (and by implication RAC) did stop arms plotting and become static Units like some  RA, RE and RLC Regt's then there may be a number of disadvantages:

    1) Units spending far longer than 2 years on residential tours in NI. NOT good for retention.

    2) Guards Bn's spending the majority of their time on ceremonials and not on the training cycle.

    3) Temptation for MOD to introduce trickle posting for Inf, regardless of rank. This would have the potential to seriously erode if not eventually destroy the Regtl system.
  4. Having done two years in Londonderry, I absolutely agree with the NI thing, and there are political reasons prohibiting the complete handover to the very competent RIRISH.  Suspect that if this did become the case that the res tour of NI would have to be canned.

    For the forseeable future they will remain op tours and hence would be excluded from most OTXs (though I know they have taken place in the past) and certainly form the FRC.

    Personally, I believe the move maintains a balance between experience and boredom, although we must look at the roles of our lighter roled brethren (which is ongoing I know).  Having been part of a light role bn, it was hugely frustrating for all to have had no discernable role, save shoreing up granny's front door with sand-bags, whilst on Spearhead, watching the Paras deploy elsewhere.  (This is not a cue for para 'but that's because we can do' , leave that for the boards above, lest the post be moved!).  The point is, unless this issue is properly overcome, then arms plotting the Inf is unlikely to work.

    This is because there remains yet a three-tier inf.  AI (and arguably Mech), para and light role.

    Before the other thread is moved, how about this?

    But here's another way of skinning this particular fearsome cat.  How about permanently battle-grouping?  We do it in our training and LATF periods as none of us can fight alone in a high intensity conflict, the same is mostly true in lower intensity ops.  How about therefore establishing permanent battle groups within Brigades?  This would allow for example an inf regiment to have an affiliated armoured, mech or light role battle group, which contain companies of its cap-badge.  There would remain the similar promotion opportunities for both soldiers and officers as there would be no requirement for cuts.  These groups would allow for trickle postings between sub-units (I submit that a sub-unit is the smallest detachment we should go down to for the sake of regimental cohesion and identity).  It would solve the requirements of those unsuitable for certain roles and would maintain the regimental system.  It would also certainly improve our all-arms awareness and heighten our level training (see that of permanenlty in-role units such as the Paras and Commandos).  This would also breed Battle-group identity, again vital for warfighting, which after all, until things change in the President's mind, is what we are ultimately about.  Cannot as yet see a massive down side, what do you all think?
  5. Thread now moved.
  6. The last taboo, see on thread head page.