Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

PaM21 pertained to the conduct of live firing, irrespective of range
I'm tempted to ask "Are you sure about that" but there's no point.

You have even less idea of what you're talking about than I do, and that's saying quite a lot as I've not opened Pam 21 or referred to it for over 40 years.

Pam 21covers planning, conduct and supervision of LF and training on approved / authorised ranges only, and only inf wpns and pyro. There's a pretty clear hint in the name: Infantry Training, Volume IV, Ranges, Pamphlet No. 21, Regulations for the Planning, Conduct and Supervision of Firing and Training with Infantry Weapon Systems and Pyrotechnics
 
Well, if those were the training lessons the results of the last couple of decades were based on it does explain a fair bit.
I don’t think they were learnt. In fact, the opposite. Mission command and the manoeuvrist approach that was developed in 3 Div didn’t stand contact with the blob of reactionaries at Camberley let alone when it was supposedly rolled out Army wide.

We ended up with a mountain of doctrine and a cohort of doctrinal nazis who stumbled through the 90s and 00s unable to think freely let alone act freely. The nadir was Herrick 1.
 
Pam 21covers planning, conduct and supervision of LF and training on approved / authorised ranges only,
So does not cover Stage 4 & 5 live firing, which may or may not take place on approved / authorised ranges ?

It comes as no surprise that you were SNLR'd under the guise of redundancy on phase 2 of Options for Change.
 
Is that why you thought Pam 21 was called '' Shoot to Kill ''
I didn't actually think about it at all.
How does it manage to cover a piece of land in the hinterlands of a place like Archers Post in Kenya ? Where there were NO Ranges. ( When I was there )
Quite easily - the piece of land was approved and authorised for use by the Army as a range. This isn't complicated.
There is a very good reason why it is called Pam 21 '' Planning, conducting & Supervision of firing ''
Actually it's not. That's only part of it. It's actually called 'Regulations for the Planning, Conduct and Supervision of Firing and Training with Infantry Weapon Systems and Pyrotechnics' and it's part of Infantry Training Volume 4, Ranges. That's 'RANGES'.

There's a very good reaso why it's part of Vol 4 (Army Code 71751, to be precise) which covers 'RANGES'. That's because it covers ... ummm ... yes, you've got it ... not 'accommodation'', but ... yes ... 'RANGES'.

If you've got access, which is unlikely, you can get a pdf copy:
http://baebb.asei.mod.uk/baebb/documents/6_Inf/2_Inf_Trg/AC71855.pdf
Of course you wouldn't know anything about that as apparently your Milan Platoon Commanders Course did not cover any of those aspects.
Really? Who told you that?
Which is pretty amazing as I am assured by those who have actually done Milan Courses, DC's / Sect Comds & Milan 2i/c's that it is indeed covered, in depth, including Range letters, complete with traces and all other relevant information / details, which you EMPHATICALLY denied were a part of your course
Did I really? and 'EMPHATICALLY' too? Are you sure about that?

That's odd, because I've just checked and re-read the post where I said ('EMPHATICALLY') that I was fully Milan range qualified but not Wombat range qualified due to time constraints.

Maybe you could find and quote that post where I "EMPHATICALLY denied" that?

... or maybe not .....
 
So does not cover Stage 4 & 5 live firing, which may or may not take place on approved / authorised ranges ?
The areas where the LF takes place are approved / authorised ranges. Just like your "piece of land in the hinterlands of a place like Archers Post in Kenya" was an approved / authorised range. That's why they come under Pam 21 which is part of Infantry Training Volume 4, Ranges. That's 'R A N G E S' .
 
I don’t think they were learnt. In fact, the opposite. Mission command and the manoeuvrist approach that was developed in 3 Div didn’t stand contact with the blob of reactionaries at Camberley let alone when it was supposedly rolled out Army wide.

We ended up with a mountain of doctrine and a cohort of doctrinal nazis who stumbled through the 90s and 00s unable to think freely let alone act freely. The nadir was Herrick 1.
I think the nadir, unfortunately, has yet to be reached.
 
That's odd, because I've just checked and re-read the post where I said ('EMPHATICALLY') that I was fully Milan range qualified but not Wombat range qualified due to time constraints.

Maybe you could find and quote that post where I "EMPHATICALLY denied" that?
Reading and comprehension ability in the gutter ya bunnet

Which is pretty amazing as I am assured by those who have actually done Milan Courses, DC's / Sect Comds & Milan 2i/c's that it is indeed covered, in depth, including Range letters, complete with traces and all other relevant information / details, which you EMPHATICALLY denied were a part of your course.
Are you denying that this is your post ?

John G said:
In a word (again) 'No'. NO!

As has been explained at enormous length, countless times, NO 'part of the course was PLANNING a live firing Exercise that would have consisted of Range Letters, traces, movement boxes, references and everything else that goes into the planning of a live firing exercise. Pam 21 - Shoot to Kill required.' NONE!!!
istockphoto-481254776-612x612.jpg
 
With that many FPs you would have had more in house than on some UK concentrations!

Were all the pls full Milan pls (24 posts)? Just wondering how manning for the rest of the bn was done, as that must have meant you were down nearly two rifle coys.
I don't remember how many posts per platoon. It wasn't 24 though. 16 rings a bell but I may be wrong. Support Company had more. My failing memory also indicates we turned a rifle platoon into a Milan Platoon per Company, which would mean we had 2 rifle Platoons and 1 Milan Platoon per Company. I honestly don't remember with any certainty despite being in a Milan Platoon for 4 years during the 6 Airmobile trial. I drank a lot of Ouzo.
 
Reading and comprehension ability in the gutter ya bunnet
Yours certainly are today!
Are you denying that this is your post ?
No, not denying it at all. It was made in reply to your question about Pam 21, which concluded (your bold) "Pam 21 - Shoot to Kill required". It referred to "Pam 21" as that was what was being discussed and what was in your post which I quoted.

Pam 21 WASN'T required. Milan hadn't been incorporated into Pam 21 as an 'Infantry Weapon System' at that stage so Pam 21 didn't apply. It would have done had the course included a Wombat / Bat range qualification, but it didn't as I've explained God knows how many times and how many pages before. It was a transition course which covered both Wombat and Milan but only gave a Milan range qualification due to time constraints.

It's very simple, it's been explained at length several times but if it's still beyond your reading and comprehension ability there's little I can do about it.

Pam 21 - Shoot to kill required.
Pam 21 isn't Shoot to Kill, BTW. Easy mistake to make ...
 
Last edited:
Yours certainly are today!
No, not denying it at all. It was made in reply to your question about Pam 21, which concluded (your bold) "Pam 21 - Shoot to Kill required". It referred to "Pam 21" as that was what was being discussed and what was in your post which I quoted.

Pam 21 WASN'T required. Milan hadn't been incorporated into Pam 21 as an 'Infantry Weapon System' at that stage so Pam 21 didn't apply. It would have done had the course included a Wombat / Bat range qualification, but it didn't as I've explained God knows how many times and how many pages before. It was a transition course which covered both Wombat and Milan but only gave a Milan range qualification due to time constraints.

It's very simple, it's been explained at length several times but if it's still beyond your reading and comprehension ability there's little I can do about it.

QUOTE="Portree Kid, post: 9173427, member: 160091"]Pam 21 - Shoot to kill required.
Of course Walter.
 
Indeed it does.

You haven't, apart from in your limited field.

Why you insist on pretending you have when it's anything but a big deal and not something you could, would, or should have done defies any sort of rational explanation.
Of course Walter.
 
I don't remember how many posts per platoon. It wasn't 24 though. 16 rings a bell but I may be wrong. Support Company had more. My failing memory also indicates we turned a rifle platoon into a Milan Platoon per Company, which would mean we had 2 rifle Platoons and 1 Milan Platoon per Company. I honestly don't remember with any certainty despite being in a Milan Platoon for 4 years during the 6 Airmobile trial. I drank a lot of Ouzo.
That makes far, far more sense - 16 sounds correct as that was what most converted to initially (4 sects of 4). The only thing I'm a bit surprised about is that you only had a Sgt commanding each pl rather than a CSgt, with a WO2 as the bn 'A/Tk 2ic'. AFAIK most bns made the most of the extra rank slots and had Sgts as Milan Sect Comds and Cpls as DCs, although some slots were inevitably 'poached' by HQ Coy.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top