Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Status
Not open for further replies.
No John, it was quite clear I was talking about the RQMS as I was talking about people and not qualifications.

Would it be fair to say you scan read it and missed it’s full meaning. That would be a fair reason for anyone and there’s no need to say anything about your entirely reasonable misinterpretation.
No, I've just got no idea why you jumped to include the RQMS, etc.

Back to this magic floating Milan missile, followed by it's equally gravity defying control wire, however much you want to avoid it .....
 
As I've attempted to explain: not my job. It may have been for other pl cmds under other circumstances, but it was never mine. Pl Sgts are authorised to do so. Why, as a pl comd, would I not trust my pl sgt to do so? Micro-management ad absurdium and a total lack of trust. No wonder so many inf bns got p'd off with you.
John, authorising Ammunition, declaring an FFE declaration has been conducted and all ammunition packaging that is not being returned to store has been checked and certified FFE. It’s not your job to carry out the inspection, but it is your job to ensure it is carried out. It’s a straight forward, Command, Leadership regulatory requirement.

Can you never remeber signing an AFG 8228?
 
No, I've just got no idea why you jumped to include the RQMS, etc.

Back to this magic floating Milan missile, followed by it's equally gravity defying control wire, however much you want to avoid it .....
Avoiding the issue John.

Clearly Milan is not floating, but it’s not doing exactly as you claim.
 
You're obfuscation again, John, because you read something incorrectly.

The Pl Sgt wouldn't have the final say on the ammo demand - if you think he did then you're a fantasist.
Obviously I read it incorrectly if I read it to mean something else!

... in an inf pl? At pl level, going on a range? Of course he would.

It could be turned down, by the Coy 2ic, CQMS, RQMS, etc, but the pl comds not even in the chain.
 
John, authorising Ammunition, declaring an FFE declaration has been conducted and all ammunition packaging that is not being returned to store has been checked and certified FFE. It’s not your job to carry out the inspection, but it is your job to ensure it is carried out. It’s a straight forward, Command, Leadership regulatory requirement.

Can you never remeber signing an AFG 8228?
No.

Edit: and, FWIW, the pl comd normally would carry out the inspection himself, take the declarations, etc.
 
Last edited:
I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What possible connection does what the RQMS does have to do with me as the pl comd? If dingerr was talking about the RQMS in connection with pl comds' responsibilities no wonder I thought he was talking about RQ as in 'Range Qualified', since as a pl comd I had nothing to do with ammunition or the RQMS authorising it, etc, etc. Absolutely nothing. That wasn't my job - that was P Sgt > CQMS > RQMS. There's no involvement in that side by the Pl Comd in any inf bn or inf unit I've ever been in or known of. None. It's simply not their job.

... and as I've said, BS is the only poster I have permanently on ignore (recently joined by D_D's sock), so I've no idea what he posted.
As I said, ammo and soup weren't my responsibility as a Pl Comd going to the range. Not my job at all, and any pl sgt would have been insulted, quite rightly, if a pl comd had decided to interfere with it. My Pl Sgt never needed me to "authorise things" in the way of ammo, stores, etc. He had the authority for that himself. That's why he's a Pl Sgt, FFS - he doesn't need a pl comd's authority for that. Maybe in the RLC ...
Ummm ... no. Still no idea how we got on to the RQMS.
Everything is just somehow ‘different’ in @John G world isn’t it? The MS procedures were different, in particular the Staff College selection procedures were different (he didn’t want to go you see although I imagine that’s Thai for ‘I failed PQS 2’), his MILAN missiles are different, his way of commanding a platoon is different, his op experience is different. But he’s not allowed to talk about it (just post in an increasingly incoherent and frantic fashion).

There’s a pattern here. Everyone else is either a liar or just plain wrong (I can imagine his little face screwing up as he reads this). He rails against the injustice of it all - everyone else is wrong and knows nothing about anything but at the end of the day he has to shut his laptop knowing that his valiant and righteous indignation has had no effect on anyone. He drifts off in the awful knowledge that he’s dug himself into so many holes that nobody in their right mind would help him out and that he really did visit a Thai tailor to make up his uniform complete with fictitious rank and that he’s made a fool of himself bragging about it years later on the internet.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again - he should be ashamed of himself.
 
Avoiding the issue John.

Clearly Milan is not floating, but it’s not doing exactly as you claim.
No, I'm presenting the issue!

Look at your own vid. The second, black and white one. You can see the burn for the first 3 metres / 1.5 secs. Exactly as described in my vid. Then, in your vid, it stops.

Then WHAT HAPPENS?


It floats, it falls, or it fires. Which is it?
 
Obviously I read it incorrectly if I read it to mean something else!

... in an inf pl? At pl level, going on a range? Of course he would.

It could be turned down, by the Coy 2ic, CQMS, RQMS, etc, but the pl comds not even in the chain.
So, as I stated, he wouldn't have the final say.

Cheers. No need to apologise.
 
No, I'm presenting the issue!

Look at your own vid. The second, black and white one. You can see the burn for the first 3 metres / 1.5 secs. Exactly as described in my vid. Then, in your vid, it stops.

Then WHAT HAPPENS?


It floats, it falls, or it fires. Which is it?
Are you referring to the motor burn fading/flicking? That’s not the sustain kicking in, that’s caused by the missile turning. Continue watching and you can see the point at which the sustain kicks in.

Regardless, it’s certainly not 2m/s.

Stop believing unsubstantiated information from the internet. None of it shows your experience, just your ability to google.

You don’t help yourself when you can’t even get the basics correct, such as the nomenclature of the missile you supposedly fired or any of the three that have been in British Service.
 
Everything is just somehow ‘different’ in @John G world isn’t it? The MS procedures were different, in particular the Staff College selection procedures were different (he didn’t want to go you see although I imagine that’s Thai for ‘I failed PQS 2’),
No, they're exactly the same.
his MILAN missiles are different
No, those are exactly the same too.
his way of commanding a platoon is different,
No, that's the same too. Pl comd = comd, Pl sgt = admin (on a range, ammo and soup).
his op experience is different.
No, in a Brit unit that was exactly the same too.

You did the ammo and soup on the range as a pl comd? Didn't go on the ground on ops?

Hmmm .... interesting variation.

There’s a pattern here.
Definitely a pattern.
Well I suppose QRs could be wrong about ranks and rank titles ... anyone who's done UNTAC could be wrong about RE posties and Brit staff support ... everyone (except you) could be wrong about Milan's effective range ... the Bde Comd and CO could be wrong about the use of 'N Armagh bn' ... the open source reports and all the vids could be wrong about Milan ... your friend Eddie could be wrong about bomb-int ... UNTAC and the Thai Army could be wrong about my rank with UNTAC ...

The list's pretty lengthy, and growing by the day, but they could so easily all be wrong ..
But they're all wrong ... QRs, everyone (except dingerr, of course), all of them ... all wrong ... all completely wrong ... what can they possibly know?

I'm certainly ashamed .... ashamed that utter dross like you was ever allowed to command soldiers who deserved better.
 
No, they're exactly the same.
No, those are exactly the same too.
No, that's the same too. Pl comd = comd, Pl sgt = admin (on a range, ammo and soup).
No, in a Brit unit that was exactly the same too.

You did the ammo and soup on the range as a pl comd? Didn't go on the ground on ops?

Hmmm .... interesting variation.

Definitely a pattern.
But they're all wrong ... QRs, everyone (except dingerr, of course), all of them ... all wrong ... all completely wrong ... what can they possibly know?

I'm certainly ashamed .... ashamed that utter dross like you was ever allowed to command soldiers who deserved better.
QED I think everyone?
 
I'm certainly ashamed .... ashamed that utter dross like you was ever allowed to command soldiers who deserved better.
It’s quite funny that you quoted yourself when posting that.
 
Are you referring to the motor burn fading/flicking? That’s not the sustain kicking in, that’s caused by the missile turning.
Umm ... no. I'm talking about where the motor burn stops. Not fades or flickers. Stops. 1.5 secs / 3m into the flight.
Continue watching and you can see the point at which the sustain kicks in.
No you can't. The vid stops before then. Boost hasn't even started so sustain can't kick in.
Stop believing unsubstantiated information from the internet. None of it shows your experience, just your ability to google.
dingerr, it's got nothing to do with the internet, although it's not only fully substantiated but it's confirmed in every vid of Milan firing, including even the one you posted which couldn't be clearer.

Whatever you may or may not have been taught, it was never anything to do with operating Milan in the field, and it was either wrong, such as your nonsense about min / max ranges which was almost certainly just bad teaching, or you've got confused as with your tripe about forgetting about gravity and that it was actually your job to observe Milan being fired and in flight, not just gaze aimlessly down range.

As for the farce about bomb-int, there's not much need to say anything there.
You don’t help yourself when you can’t even get the basics correct, such as the nomenclature of the missile you supposedly fired or any of the three that have been in British Service.
The basics are the operation and use of the missile. You know nothing about it - less, in terms of absolute basics such as effective min and max range, than anyone else here who ventured an opinion. The "nomenclature of the missile" ? Just sad storeman's waffle.
 
According to the BBC, North Korea has just tested a new tactical guided missile. It was pretty shit by all accounts, big on bluster and noise but failed to hit the mark. I think we may have got to the bottom of Johhny’s ‘Milan’ advisory work with various SE Asian states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top