Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Status
Not open for further replies.
So does not cover Stage 4 & 5 live firing, which may or may not take place on approved / authorised ranges ?
Missed that pearl of wisdom.

There's no "may or may not" to where Stage 4 & 5 LF can take place.

It's only on approved / authorised ranges.

You and Alamo clearly have no idea what "ranges" are, but it's pretty clear from the title of Infantry Training Volume 4 which Pam 21's part of: "Ranges".
 
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!!!
Walter

On this special Milan Pl Comd's Course that you allegedly completed. That did not include the above. Did they happen to teach you how to blow blinds. Blinds being Milan missiles that failed to function / detonate ?

What Pamphlet do you think the required information for carrying out this task might be ?
 
I know Walter.

Do you want me to dig out your original post calling it Pam 21 '' Shoot to Kill '' and my subsequent post correcting you ?.
Well, since you just made the exact same mistake that I did, you don't appear to "know" at all.

Feel free to dig it out if you want to, but as I've been only too happy to accept that I was mistaken when I made a vague passing reference to it and to explain that the last time I used it was over 40 years ago I'm unsure what the point would be. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed about it, but you still managed to make the same mistake.

Doesn't say much for your grasp of it.
 
Herein lies the issue.
That nails it.

I think that this proves Walter Mitty thinks he has completed courses.

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!!!
Talking out the wrong orifice with that cracker. Simply beyond belief that Milan DC's / Sect Comd's and 2i/c's have to complete this as part of their courses but the speshul window licker did not.
 
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.
I was part of the 6 Bde trial and as I recall the two bns (1LI and 1 Gordons) went from a 'standard' 16 posts per bn to 48 posts.

As Sappers the involvement we had was about clearing obstacles to the wire guidance (such as telephone lines) and helping with defensive positions.

I think you're slightly over-egging the constraint issue, John.

Yes frontal penetration was a problem with T72 but the use of reverse slope/enfilade defensive positions, particularly in the C-Pen role, was pretty much an established doctrine in BAOR by Ex Lionheart (for example) and so I'm not sure that it was such a radical change for the battalions, even in 6 Bde with all those extra posts.

If anything, the problem was that Milan was the only a/tk weapon available at that particular moment. Of course in an airmobile role there was no armour and anyway the 70's doctrine of digging in penny packets (1 troop per 'Combat Team') was already out of date.

LAW80/LAWMINE was late getting into service and, IIRC, the Charlie G ammunition was degrading so badly it was Category B (war use only) hence us only being able to fire TPTP in training.

So IMHO it wasn't so much a constraint in the weapon (they've all got those) but more that we didn't have many other direct fire weapons to fill the gaps caused by those constraints. Hence the importance of tactical AT mine fields and those who laid them...

Now I was only a Sapper subaltern but do bear in mind that as the Sapper troop commander I was in CO 1LI's 'R' group so I probably knew more about the 'Commander's intent' than any of the platoon commanders.

On a similar note, and in support of the ATOs*, they were the ones bought in to do the inevitable accident investigations, so they had to have a very good understanding of how the weapon systems worked. Probably more than the users did**

* No, I can't believe I said that either :)

** Certainly, in the case of those being investigated!
 
On this special Milan Pl Comd's Course that you allegedly completed. That did not include the above.
Well, that may be your view, but it isn't mine. What it didn't include, which you seem unable to grasp, was any requirement for Pam 21. It wasn't "required" as Milan wasn't yet in it.
Did they happen to teach you how to blow blinds. Blinds being Milan missiles that failed to function / detonate ?
No they didn't as (IIRC) that was the ATO's job and one of the things he was there for. It definitely, 100%, wasn't any part at all of my course.
What Pamphlet do you think the required information for carrying out this task might be ?
Well, it certainly wasn't Pam 21 at that time as Milan wasn't included in Pam 21 so it couldn't have been.

I'm actually very dubious about whether that sort of "required information" is in Pam 21 now, although I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about.

What makes you think it would be, since you yourself said you "know next to nothing about Milan" ?
 
That nails it.

I think that this proves Walter Mitty thinks he has completed courses.



Talking out the wrong orifice with that cracker. Simply beyond belief that Milan DC's / Sect Comd's and 2i/c's have to complete this as part of their courses but the speshul window licker did not.
Unbelievable. You still don't get it.

It was included in the course.

Pam 21 wasn't required as Milan wasn't in Pam 21 at that time.

Had the range qualification for Wombat been included Pam 21 would have been required, but the range qual for Wombat wasn't included.

This was the part I disagreed with 'EMPHATICALLY' as that was the part under discussion, which you even put in bold in the original:
(snip). Pam 21 - Shoot to Kill required.
For some reason you've edited your own post when quoting yourself to remove the bold,, and edited my post by putting it in bold, apart from that part.

I wonder why that would be? (Well, I don't really).
 
What makes you think it would be, since you yourself said you "know next to nothing about Milan" ?
As Ex - Inf ( 22 years ). I know many Ex DC's / Sect Comd's & 2 i/c's as well as Milan Pl Comds.

1 -3 qualified by way of SCBC 4 - 5 qualified by way of PSBC

2 years as an SPSI supported by a Milan PSI and a Mor PSI.

So I probably know a fair bit about Milan, although to a trained and qualified Milaner it will be next to nothing.

Ran more ranges & field firing than I care to remember, in various parts of the world. All under the umbrella of Pam 21. The RCO's Bible.

You wouldn't know that as apparently you were never an RCO and had very little to do with training.

No they didn't as (IIRC) that was the ATO's job and one of the things he was there for.
So what were you to do when / if there was no ATO ? Which could happen for any number of reasons. You cannot just leave a blind on the range.
 
I was part of the 6 Bde trial and as I recall the two bns (1LI and 1 Gordons) went from a 'standard' 16 posts per bn to 48 posts.

As Sappers the involvement we had was about clearing obstacles to the wire guidance (such as telephone lines) and helping with defensive positions.

I think you're slightly over-egging the constraint issue, John.

Yes frontal penetration was a problem with T72 but the use of reverse slope/enfilade defensive positions, particularly in the C-Pen role, was pretty much an established doctrine in BAOR by Ex Lionheart (for example) and so I'm not sure that it was such a radical change for the battalions, even in 6 Bde with all those extra posts.

If anything, the problem was that Milan was the only a/tk weapon available at that particular moment. Of course in an airmobile role there was no armour and anyway the 70's doctrine of digging in penny packets (1 troop per 'Combat Team') was already out of date.

LAW80/LAWMINE was late getting into service and, IIRC, the Charlie G ammunition was degrading so badly it was Category B (war use only) hence us only being able to fire TPTP in training.

So IMHO it wasn't so much a constraint in the weapon (they've all got those) but more that we didn't have many other direct fire weapons to fill the gaps caused by those constraints. Hence the importance of tactical AT mine fields and those who laid them...

Now I was only a Sapper subaltern but do bear in mind that as the Sapper troop commander I was in CO 1LI's 'R' group so I probably knew more about the 'Commander's intent' than any of the platoon commanders.

On a similar note, and in support of the ATOs*, they were the ones bought in to do the inevitable accident investigations, so they had to have a very good understanding of how the weapon systems worked. Probably more than the users did**

* No, I can't believe I said that either :)

** Certainly, in the case of those being investigated!
Right 48 rings a bell actually. That would be 12 posts per Platoon then. Some minor points...both 1 and 2 LI participated alongside 1 Gordons, and it was 6 Airmobile Brigade not 6 Brigade.
 
I was part of the 6 Bde trial and as I recall the two bns (1LI and 1 Gordons) went from a 'standard' 16 posts per bn to 48 posts.

As Sappers the involvement we had was about clearing obstacles to the wire guidance (such as telephone lines) and helping with defensive positions.

I think you're slightly over-egging the constraint issue, John.

Yes frontal penetration was a problem with T72 but the use of reverse slope/enfilade defensive positions, particularly in the C-Pen role, was pretty much an established doctrine in BAOR by Ex Lionheart (for example) and so I'm not sure that it was such a radical change for the battalions, even in 6 Bde with all those extra posts.

If anything, the problem was that Milan was the only a/tk weapon available at that particular moment. Of course in an airmobile role there was no armour and anyway the 70's doctrine of digging in penny packets (1 troop per 'Combat Team') was already out of date.

LAW80/LAWMINE was late getting into service and, IIRC, the Charlie G ammunition was degrading so badly it was Category B (war use only) hence us only being able to fire TPTP in training.

So IMHO it wasn't so much a constraint in the weapon (they've all got those) but more that we didn't have many other direct fire weapons to fill the gaps caused by those constraints. Hence the importance of tactical AT mine fields and those who laid them...

Now I was only a Sapper subaltern but do bear in mind that as the Sapper troop commander I was in CO 1LI's 'R' group so I probably knew more about the 'Commander's intent' than any of the platoon commanders.

On a similar note, and in support of the ATOs*, they were the ones bought in to do the inevitable accident investigations, so they had to have a very good understanding of how the weapon systems worked. Probably more than the users did**

* No, I can't believe I said that either :)

** Certainly, in the case of those being investigated!
Agree with all of that, bob_the_other_b, but just a couple of points.
I think you're slightly over-egging the constraint issue, John.
Not at that time, and certainly not at the time it was introduced aand I was careful to try to make that point very clear andto repeat it. I'll give you two very clear examples.

1. On Ex Crusader (1980) I was bn A/Tk pl comd with Wombat, but as the Bde Comd had declared all A/Tk assets (Wombat and Milan) were Bde assets which he sited personally, down to individual guns and FPs, based on his own experience as an A/Tk pl comd, I was 'spare' so I was lent to Fd Force HQ as a watchkeeper. I could see the siting was a disaster, but couldn't say anything: he'd not only done his original siting based on a recce (cheat) he'd done 6 months before without allowing for the crops growing so he had to change all the siting at the last minute, but he'd sited everything using Wombat characteristics including mainly head-on / angled head-on shoots. Where there was any 'enfilade fire from a defilade position' it was just a bonus.

Enter one very unhappy Maj Gen to Fd Force HQ wanting someone's head on a platter for the abysmal siting - fortunately not mine.

2. A few months later Eastern District held the Lt to Capt promotion exam (PQS 1), based around a BG defensive position that only allowed a head-on shoot for Milan, which students had to site and base pl positions around in a CT. Chris Keeble, then CI at SWW Netheravon, was visiting for a recce for a TEWT the following month and he recognised me and courteously came over to say hello and had a glance at the test paper. To say he was unimpressed by the exam and the 'DS solution' would be an understatement.
Yes frontal penetration was a problem with T72 but the use of reverse slope/enfilade defensive positions, particularly in the C-Pen role, was pretty much an established doctrine in BAOR by Ex Lionheart (for example) and so I'm not sure that it was such a radical change for the battalions, even in 6 Bde with all those extra posts.
IIRC Lionheart was four years later. By then I expect people had learnt the lesson, but for some it was a painful one.
IMHO it wasn't so much a constraint in the weapon (they've all got those) but more that we didn't have many other direct fire weapons to fill the gaps caused by those constraints. Hence the importance of tactical AT mine fields and those who laid them..
That was exactly the problem. Bats could engage head-on and take out pretty well anything, so at least in the early years a lot of those who were familiar with Bats assumed that because it was an 'improvement' it could do the same when it couldn't.
a similar note, and in support of the ATOs*, they were the ones bought in to do the inevitable accident investigations, so they had to have a very good understanding of how the weapon systems worked. Probably more than the users did**
Agreed 100% - although I'd say (and hope) that they'd know far more about how the system "worked" than we, the users, did. That's the point I was trying to make with dingerr; he and I had totally different jobs with Milan and were trained in totally different things. When he means by 'effective' as an AT, for example, isn't what I mean as the user.

That's also why I'm very, very dubious about PK's claim that blowing Milan 'blinds' was taught at SWW and later at SWS as part of the pl comds' cse. It certainly wasn't taught on mine and I find it very hard to believe it was taught on later cses; that's why an ATO was there, and I wouldn't like to be the Milan pl comd who'd over-enthusiastically blown up a 'blind' while dingerr or any other ATO was finishing off his cup of tea.
 
Right 48 rings a bell actually. That would be 12 posts per Platoon then. Some minor points...both 1 and 2 LI participated alongside 1 Gordons, and it was 6 Airmobile Brigade not 6 Brigade.
Thanks Dave!

I think 2LI were an addition to the brigade after Lionheart, as it definitely started as a 2-battalion brigade. But I left to go to the FI just after Lionheart.

You're right about it being 'Airmobile'. IIRC this title was officially adopted after the Brigade March and Shoot competition and formation parade at Sennelager, some time in early 1984 I think.
 
So I probably know a fair bit about Milan, although to a trained and qualified Milaner it will be next to nothing.
Correct - next to nothing. A perfect example of a little knowledge (in your case a very little) being a dangerous thing.
You wouldn't know that as apparently you were never an RCO and had very little to do with training.
I was an RCO as a pl comd, but as far as I can recall never after that except once on a pistol range and I can't even recall where that was. Pl Comd was in Gib (in case you haven't noticed) and after that I had more important things to do - running ranges simply wasn't what I was paid to do.

That's what you did? Happy for you. That's what people who worked for me did too, but they were at least two levels down. I was paid to run training, not ranges (and if that sounds pompous, it's meant to).
So what were you to do when / if there was no ATO ? Which could happen for any number of reasons. You cannot just leave a blind on the range.
"any number of reasons" ? Really? I'd be very interested to know exactly what those reasons are, as I expect dingerr would although he's keeping a rather low profile on this.

As far as I'm aware an ATO had to be at every firing on a range (ie every non-operational firing) and under no circumstances would the pl comd or anyone else just gaily blow up a 'blind' as all had to be reported and investigated.

You really are way out of your depth here, even more than with the " 'accommodation' " and the best thing you can do is just STFU.
 
I never saw or heard of a blind. Rogues were not unusual though.
Likewise, although you've got more experience than me.

I never saw or heard of a blind, although I'm sure there have been some, and I only ever saw one miss which was on my cse by the only foreign student.

He was a Ghanaian, IIRC, named Alfred Ch***ra who was a schoolie Capt in his 40's doing every pl comds cse at Sch Inf: he'd done PCBC and still had Mortars and Recce to go before going back to Ghana to teach at their Sch Inf. Not a happy chappie, particularly as he was only one of two who had to do the 10k tab for the BL before firing while the rest of us were driven to the range by bus, fired in whatever very mixed dress we had on, then got straight back on the bus. He kept on pre-aiming in the excitement, apparently.
 
A vague passing reference - BwaaaaaaHaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaa
Well, this was the actual post that you're getting so excited about, from the 'Fat Troops Exposed' thread. The 'vague passing reference' is around the middle.
In their own time? Without supervision?

Why fitness, when it's a military requirement?

Admittedly the Army gives guidance and even allows some soldiers limited gym access (to limited gyms), again without supervision, but for the majority of soldiers fitness training consists of no more than 3 x 45 min periods a week.

Why not bin weapon handling and rangework and just give them a Pam 21 (Shoot to Kill) and tell them to go to the local shooting club over the weekend? Bin living in the field and tell them to join the Ramblers Association over leave?

Just think of the money and effort that could be saved.

(hint: it's 'because they can'.
It's the only military skill, capability or requirement that's a 'personal responsiblity' although it requires as much or more training, time, effort, concentration and supervision as any other and results in more injuries.
If they're fit, it's because the Army's given them all the necessary help, encouragement and pride.
If they're fat it's because they've stuffed their faces with cake)
You think it's a big deal? Go for it, knock yourself out.
 
Aaah ... the penny drops. Farmed out to run ranges for the TA, with a chip on your shoulder because you never made it in the Regular Army. I'm sure they were impressed.
Of course Kettle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top