Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

I've got no problem with it at all - either with it as ops or system operation.

You seem to be under the illusion that you were as in date and trained as any and every Milan, Rapier, Javelin (SAGM), Drone, HVM, Swingfire, TOW and TRIGAT operator. Of course you weren't. There was no possible way you could be and absolutely no reason for you to be.
WTF are you talking about? Where have you dreamt up that I said this the first time?

Of course there was an ATO present but he kept his snout out of things that didn't concern him.

I'll keep it simple.

Are you seriously saying that in your view the Milan pl comds and 2ics, SectComds and DCs didn't all fire at least once on their cses at SWW as part of the standard course syllabus to get trained and qualified?

That there were no LFBLs?

You must be out of whatever tiny brain you've got left if you think they didn't all fire on the courses and that a pl would go on a concentration with no-one ever having fired before.

You're out of your tiny mind.
I haven’t a clue what your acronyms mean.
 
You're out of your tiny mind.
Now I know you are just being nasty. With your extensive knowledge of all things ATO, you will be aware of the extensive psychological evaluations we have to undertake, especially to qualify as a high threat ATO.

I think the personal attacks are because I am disabled and you perceive it as a weakness, just like your mysogyny and thinly veiled racism you have displayed in the past.
 
p
think the personal attacks are because I am disabled and you perceive it as a weakness, just like your mysogyny and thinly veiled racism you have displayed in the past.
No, they're because you're being a d1ckhead and I'm treating you like I would anyone else, except with rather more courtesy and patience, which is now being rapidly exhausted.

Misogyny? I've probably said more in support of women being as physically capable as many men and cited more examples than everyone else put together in the assorted women in GCC threads.

Thinly veiled racism? Cite any. This, the misogyny and the supposed attacks on the disabled are pure fantasy. Cite any and quote them unedited and I'll be quite happy to quit the board entirely. I can't say much fairer than that.
 
I've lurked on this this site for a couple of years and until now never felt the need to post. I'm aghast at some of the comments here, particularly by some of the younger members. They show almost no knowledge of army life before Options, how the army was configured and what it was tasked with.
 
I've lurked on this this site for a couple of years and until now never felt the need to post. I'm aghast at some of the comments here, particularly by some of the younger members. They show almost no knowledge of army life before Options, how the army was configured and what it was tasked with.
brilliant, more BAOR dits...ffs
 
Welcome to ARRSE. If you are staying it may be prudent to get in a good supply of popcorn and a heavy duty bullshít filter for John G’s posts.
 
I've lurked on this this site for a couple of years and until now never felt the need to post. I'm aghast at some of the comments here, particularly by some of the younger members. They show almost no knowledge of army life before Options, how the army was configured and what it was tasked with.
Eeehhh, by gum.

Back in my day, t'were all fields round here, children respected their elders and you could get a packet of chips, two pints and the bus home for a shilling.

I tell thee, the country 'as gone to the dogs.
 
Welcome to ARRSE. If you are staying it may be prudent to get in a good supply of popcorn and a heavy duty bullshít filter for John G’s posts.
Whilst I don't really agree with his tone, @John G makes some good points particularly regarding previous structures and commitments of the Army. In the 70s-90 it was equally busy with lots of exciting times. To the poster who mentioned Training Teams, these have always happened, often in much more austere conditions with zero communications. I left in 1995 after amalgamations. I am out of date on some of the issues discussed.
 
Whilst I don't really agree with his tone, @John G makes some good points particularly regarding previous structures and commitments of the Army. In the 70s-90 it was equally busy with lots of exciting times. To the poster who mentioned Training Teams, these have always happened, often in much more austere conditions with zero communications. I left in 1995 after amalgamations. I am out of date on some of the issues discussed.
I hear there were at least 6 operational theatres. I’ll understand if some of them were TOP SECRET and you can’t talk about them.
 
Well, it was certainly bollocks, bob, we're agreed on that.
The MCT was / is totally different to the platform mount, which is ... well ... a platform mount. That's why it's called a platform mount.

... and the MCT was introduced when, bobthewalt? Spartan had only just been introduced into service and the MCT didn't even exist at the time, you complete and utter knob.

Edit: and if the game you're playing is repeatedly showing just how much "random bollocks" you can post to prove just how little you know then you're winning hands down.
Of course MCT was a platform mount you moron. Milan mounted on the Spartan platform. A launcher on the cupola ring was neither platform or turret mounted; it was dismountable so not platform mounted and a cupola wasn’t a turret. Nor was it mounted on a Spartan. MCT would have entered service in around 88, at which point Milan was platform mounted for the first time. You tell me the year, your the expert.

While we’re at it. I specifically mentioned Milan numbers in Armoured Infantry battalions. In case you hadn’t noticed it was another little Pooh trap. Armoured Infantry didn’t exist when you were wombling Salisbury Plain with your Wombat platoon. The first Warrior battalion was operational in 1988.

I’m right about differing numbers of Milan platoons in Armoured and particularly 6 Airmobile Brigade versus those in UK wheeled. I can’t remember exact numbers; get your 1988 Staff Officers Handbook out.

The core point remains; you were fantasising about Fantasians on Salisbury Plain whilst contemporary anti-tank platoon commanders were contemplating how to defeat the first wave of the Third Shock Army. One was for real, the other exercise play.
 
Did the MCT actually get through trials? Milan has (had) limited track mileage and that’s on the condition it is internal storage. External mounting would reduce it greatly. (The tube is prone to delamination).

I know it was intended to mount Milan on warrior, but that was binned. It was also the intention to mount TRIGAT on warrior, but in the end TRIGAT never entered service.
 
Of course MCT was a platform mount you moron. Milan mounted on the Spartan platform. .
Pure nonsense - you've no idea what you're talking about. Google hasn't been your friend here at all.

There were two totally different mounts.

The first was a platform mount with a Milan FP dismountable from it, which came in very early on, around 1980, then on 432. Very basic, little more use than just firing out of a hatch as the FPs were simply "transported" inside, exactly as I said, then taken out to be fired. AFAIK there was never any Milan mount on a cupola ring and this is some strange figment of your imagination as it never existed apart from maybe on an Airfix model you modified.

The second was a compact turret with two Milan fitted to the turret, not on conventional firing posts, on Spartan.
Nor was it mounted on a Spartan.
Bob, I think your getting confused. Again. Or you're finally losing your marbles. Or you've been at your waccy baccy again.

You've just said "Milan mounted on the Spartan platform" in the same para. You've also said it in previous posts where, as you said. you were posting "random bollocks". Of course it was Spartan - just the MCT variant. You were right the first time before you tripped yourself up - I've no idea why you changed your mind as for once you were right.
MCT would have entered service in around 88, at which point Milan was platform mounted for the first time. You tell me the year, your the expert.
You mean the MCT that you now say wasn't mounted on Spartan? I guess it was late 80's, but certainly several years after I'd been Milan pl comd making your whole argument nonsense.
While we’re at it. I specifically mentioned Milan numbers in Armoured Infantry battalions. In case you hadn’t noticed it was another little Pooh trap. Armoured Infantry didn’t exist when you were wombling Salisbury Plain with your Wombat platoon. The first Warrior battalion was operational in 1988.
Another little Pooh trap? Like your last one, where you'd just insisted that AT ex names were always two words with the second indicating the Div / District then you banged on about your Ex Ice Maiden which ... umm ... wasn't.

They're certainly Pooh traps, though, as you're catching yourself out every time!
... and FWIW this is what you actually said when you first brought up this nonsense about Milan numbers:
Whilst you were siting your handful of wombat / milan to face the Fantasians on Salisbury Plain, your contemporaries in Germany were siting their sometimes much larger platoons (6 Bde platoons 24 posts IIRC) on the ground they would fight facing 3rd Shock Army. Rather different.
You introduced Armd Inf bns later when you said the Milan pl in my bn only had 6 FPs when the minimum in any reg inf bn, even at the start of Milan introduction, was 16 (including BAOR).
BAOR Armoured Infantry battalions had far more posts than your platoon (24 versus 6 IIRC).
Your Pooh traps are definitely catching you out, Bob.
I’m right about differing numbers of Milan platoons in Armoured and particularly 6 Airmobile Brigade versus those in UK wheeled. I can’t remember exact numbers; get your 1988 Staff Officers Handbook out
No you're not, Bob, you're talking utter cock. Milan pls in reg inf bns never had 6 FPs. The minimum was 16: 4 sects of 4 dets of 2 FPs. Later some pls in BAOR changed to 24, as did some in UKLF.

You really have absolutely no idea about this at all.
The core point remains; you were fantasising about Fantasians on Salisbury Plain whilst contemporary anti-tank platoon commanders were contemplating how to defeat the first wave of the Third Shock Army. One was for real, the other exercise play.
Bob, whether it was "for real" or not, my bn was in 7 Fd Force; our role was to move to BAOR, as played with BAOR on Crusader. Fortunately we also had other more interesting things to do so we didn't face those daily challenges of facing 3 Shock Army in a bratty eating contest.

You really are totally clueless, Bob. Great Pooh traps, though.
 
Makes me wonder, as I increasingly do, what army you joined and served in, bobthewalt.

There were no questions about sexual preference during application for offrs or ORs - maybe someone asked you, for some reason, but it certainly wasn't routine.

Nor was the question ever asked in vetting, which I was a number of times. The only question ever asked of me was a mumbled and rather embarassed "have you ever slept with a man" (to which I answered an honest 'no'). Your experience may have been different for some reason but if so, again, it wasn't normal.
You do talk an enormous amount of cr@p, bob.

I can only obviously talk from my own experience as there was no 'gay network' I'm aware of then that could give a more informed view, but during the 70's and 80's the only reason anyone 'came out' was so that they could 'get out'.which at that time was automatic for those who did. Things may have started to change in the late 90's as being gay became more likely to be accepted and less likely to be grounds for an automatic discharge, but that was after my time and it was never the case while I served.

It was certainly never a case of gays 'taking the cowards' way or lacking moral or any other sort of courage - being a soldier was simply more important to them (and anyone they served with) than being gay, although the priorities for some now seem to have changed. I served with soldiers (ptes, JNCOs, SNCOs, WOs and offrs) who were as close to being openly gay as it was possible to be at the time without broadcasting it from the rooftops (not many, but a few) and nobody cared as long as they did their job. The idea that they were cowards because they didn't insist on broadcasting their sexual preference is about as insulting to them as it comes - two I'm aware of in my bn had gallantry awards.

Your experience may have been different, but in the units I served in it was simply 'don't ask, don't tell, don't care' as long as whatever anyone did was between consenting adults, serving or not, and didn't affect anyone else or the unit. The only person discharged I knew (and knew of) was an offr deservedly CM'd and discharged in 92.
So lets be clear John. You served in a Army which had a clear policy that homosexuality was contrary to good order and discipline and which defended that policy on the grounds that homosexuality would undermine unit cohesion as fighting capability. Yet you knowingly turned a blind eye because in your opinion they were good at their job.

As you note, John, the standard you walk past is the sundaes you accept.

I stand by my comments about cowardice amongst gay officers. I know several who actively avoided the issue during the time when Listig Preen and his cohort were challenging in the courts, only to come out immediately that the rules changed. Had they had balls, they would have actively supported the campaign.
 
Only 3? That's rather a sad reflection on the others considering it was their job.
Well as you would obviously know, the orbat of a BAOR armoured recce regiment squadron would usually consist of 5 troops.
3lts, a junior captain and a very hoary Ssgt commanded these troops in my time.
Now guess which 3 out of 5 did orderly officer duties including the cook house attendance...
 
Did the MCT actually get through trials? Milan has (had) limited track mileage and that’s on the condition it is internal storage. External mounting would reduce it greatly. (The tube is prone to delamination).
Luckily it never rained on the mighty BAOR because they were so ******* good at what they did and the sun was blocked up by the exhaust from 3 Shock Army revving up their engines.

AFAIK the problem was solved by never actually loading any tubes onto the MCT.

In case you're still having problems with the acronyms, 'SWW' was 'Support Weapons Wing' of Sch Inf at Netheravon, where they ran all the Milan cses ( the cses you think didn't include any live firing).

... and LF is 'live firing', and a BL is a 'Battle Lesson'.

WTF is 'what the feck' (or 'who the feck').
 
Pure nonsense - you've no idea what you're talking about. Google hasn't been your friend here at all.

There were two totally different mounts.

The first was a platform mount with a Milan FP dismountable from it, which came in very early on, around 1980, then on 432. Very basic, little more use than just firing out of a hatch as the FPs were simply "transported" inside, exactly as I said, then taken out to be fired. AFAIK there was never any Milan mount on a cupola ring and this is some strange figment of your imagination as it never existed apart from maybe on an Airfix model you modified.

The second was a compact turret with two Milan fitted to the turret, not on conventional firing posts, on Spartan.
Bob, I think your getting confused. Again. Or you're finally losing your marbles. Or you've been at your waccy baccy again.

You've just said "Milan mounted on the Spartan platform" in the same para. You've also said it in previous posts where, as you said. you were posting "random bollocks". Of course it was Spartan - just the MCT variant. You were right the first time before you tripped yourself up - I've no idea why you changed your mind as for once you were right.
You mean the MCT that you now say wasn't mounted on Spartan? I guess it was late 80's, but certainly several years after I'd been Milan pl comd making your whole argument nonsense.

Another little Pooh trap? Like your last one, where you'd just insisted that AT ex names were always two words with the second indicating the Div / District then you banged on about your Ex Ice Maiden which ... umm ... wasn't.

They're certainly Pooh traps, though, as you're catching yourself out every time!
... and FWIW this is what you actually said when you first brought up this nonsense about Milan numbers:
You introduced Armd Inf bns later when you said the Milan pl in my bn only had 6 FPs when the minimum in any reg inf bn, even at the start of Milan introduction, was 16 (including BAOR).
Your Pooh traps are definitely catching you out, Bob.
No you're not, Bob, you're talking utter cock. Milan pls in reg inf bns never had 6 FPs. The minimum was 16: 4 sects of 4 dets of 2 FPs. Later some pls in BAOR changed to 24, as did some in UKLF.

You really have absolutely no idea about this at all.
Bob, whether it was "for real" or not, my bn was in 7 Fd Force; our role was to move to BAOR, as played with BAOR on Crusader. Fortunately we also had other more interesting things to do so we didn't face those daily challenges of facing 3 Shock Army in a bratty eating contest.

You really are totally clueless, Bob. Great Pooh traps, though.
John, a dismountable firing point on a 432 was no more platform mounted than a pintle mounted GPMG was. Neither were integrated into the vehicle in a way that could be used under armour and both could readily be dismounted. My reference to Spartan not being fitted with Milan firing posts refered to dismountable bracket system used on 432, not MCT. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

Splitting hairs slightly, but I’m not entirely sure that MCT was fitted to Spartan anyway. I think they were new build vehicles, not modified existing Spartans. They certainly had a unique designation of FV120. Happy to be corrected.

So now you do have BAOR experience. Somewhere at the back in remfville protecting the logistic chain?
 
Well as you would obviously know, the orbat of a BAOR armoured recce regiment squadron would usually consist of 5 troops.
3lts, a junior captain and a very hoary Ssgt commanded these troops in my time.
Now guess which 3 out of 5 did orderly officer duties including the cook house attendance...
No idea. AFAIK in most units the junior capt would have done as well. Did you have a separate cookhouse just for your sqn?
 

Latest Threads

Top