Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

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').
It wasn’t the most effective concept. Only two tubes, which couldn’t be reloaded from under armour. AFAIK the tubes were loaded immediately before contact; you never saw them move far loaded, certainly not on road moves. Was in service for a while though; into this decade I think.

Spartan MCT was probably a bit of a knee jerk to the need to get more manoeuvre capability into fire support and combat support capabilities. Challenger and Warrior was a step change in capability and anything stuck in 432s just couldn’t keep up. We fucked around with Chieftain AVREs for the same reason.
 
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
Your Pooh traps really are catching you out, bobthewalt.

A "pintle mounted GPMG" is "mounted" - it's on a mount, which is why it's called ... umm ... mounted. Whether it can be used under armour, etc, or the weapon can be dismounted is completely irrelevant, as it was with 81mm mors, etc - obviously the MCT can't if you need to reload it!

Are you seriously saying that a 'mount' isn't 'mounted'? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Even by your standards that's a tad odd ...
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
So if they're old Spartans they're called 'Spartans' and if they're new Spartans they're called ... umm ... well ... 'Spartans'.

So now you do have BAOR experience. Somewhere at the back in remfville protecting the logistic chain?
Umm ... no, that wasn't the 7 Fd Force role. You don't seem to know much about BAOR after all. No surprise .....
Happy to be corrected.
Happy to keep you happy.
 
Your Pooh traps really are catching you out, bobthewalt.

A "pintle mounted GPMG" is "mounted" - it's on a mount, which is why it's called ... umm ... mounted. Whether it can be used under armour, etc, or the weapon can be dismounted is completely irrelevant, as it was with 81mm mors, etc - obviously the MCT can't if you need to reload it!

Are you seriously saying that a 'mount' isn't 'mounted'? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Even by your standards that's a tad odd ...
So if they're old Spartans they're called 'Spartans' and if they're new Spartans they're called ... umm ... well ... 'Spartans'.

Umm ... no, that wasn't the 7 Fd Force role. You don't seem to know much about BAOR after all. No surprise .....
Happy to keep you happy.
Yes it’s mounted, not platform mounted. I’ve never heard anyone other than you refer to demoutable weapons as platform mounted. Platform mounted means it’s oart of the platform not dismountable.

On the Spartan MCT issue, I think FV120 was a shortened Stormer series vehicle, not an original Spartan. They were certainly quite different from the commanders hatch back. Stormer was the platform for HVM and Shielder both entering service during the same period. I may well be wrong; I can’t find a reference and it’s 30 years ago.

I’ve no idea what 7 Field Force’s role was. It had long gone by the time I got to Germany in 86. Do enlighten us where your GDP locations were. I’m not thinking they were forward if 1 & 4 Divs....
 
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.
Wise words John. Been a lurker for a while, but you seem well informed and learned. Would you be able to help me with my research?
 
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.
I'm far from sure that actually was the policy as stated - do you have any reference for that? I simply don't know as I've never seen it or looked for it, as I had no reason to.

I'm sure there was a reason, but I've no idea exactly what it was. Maybe you did as you were singled out for questioning when you applied, but I never gave it too much attention. although you and a few others seem fixated by it.
Yet you knowingly turned a blind eye because in your opinion they were good at their job
Not quite (or remotely) correct. The units ignored it because it had no affect on good order and discipline and didn't affect unit cohesion or fighting capability - and evidently they were good at their job or they wouldn't have held the ranks they did. The only one I'm vaguely aware of under my command was a pte in my rifle pl who my pl sgt mentioned in passing was 'a bit gay, but he's OK' a couple of days aafter he arrived just before I interviewed him. It really wasn't something I gave too much thought to, or something I quizzed popular and respected WOs about when they were invited to the Mess.
As you note, John, the standard you walk past is the sundaes you accept.
I'm rather partial to a sundae, Bob. I'm not so sure grabbing a passing SNCO or WO and accusing them of being gay, or that banging on the Adjt's door to say 'I've heard xxx is gay, you need to do something about it' would have been very constructive. Different units obviously did things in different ways.
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.
I can't quite follow the logic of that, and while I 'm not as informed on it as you evidently are nor was I surrounded by gay officers your version doesn't appear to be what happened. If the case was already going through the courts, and the high court had already agreed but said they had no authority to change the policy but agreed, and it was then going on to the ECHR, then what exactly would '#sack me too' have achieved?

... and if they'd felt as strongly about it as you do, shouldn't they have protested about it before joining? ... rather than apparently lie on their applications and vetting in order to get in?

There doesn't seem to be much consistency there ...
 
Yes it’s mounted, not platform mounted. I’ve never heard anyone other than you refer to demoutable weapons as platform mounted. Platform mounted means it’s oart of the platform not dismountable.
Well, that's your view, bobthewalt. As far as I'm aware 'platform mounted' simply means mounted on a weapons platform.

You'd never heard of AT ex names where the second name didn't refer to the Div (although you then named one you say you were involved in, which is a bit confusing), or TA taking part in expeds thirty years ago, insisting that 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' it never happened, when it very clearly did.

There are plenty of things plenty of people have never heard of, but most have the common sense to realise that doesn't mean much other than ... well ... they don't know about it.
On the Spartan MCT issue, I think FV120 was a shortened Stormer series vehicle, not an original Spartan. They were certainly quite different from the commanders hatch back. Stormer was the platform for HVM and Shielder both entering service during the same period. I may well be wrong; I can’t find a reference and it’s 30 years ago
So you think it was a Spartan that was lengthed to be a Stormer that was then shortened to be a Spartan again? I see .....



(although to be fair stranger things have happened)
 
I'm far from sure that actually was the policy as stated - do you have any reference for that? I simply don't know as I've never seen it or looked for it, as I had no reason to
No I don’t have a reference John; I think it was stated in QRs. There may also have been an offence or offences under AA55. The procedures were in AGAIs. RMP investigations weren’t uncommon so at a blind guess there was an offence as well as an administrative process.

My only contact with this issue was the what I recollect was called the HPAT which I think stood for Homosexual Policy Advisory Team. I was a Squadron Commander at the time, so my guess is 96. I had to run a discussion group of about a dozen representative ranks from across the Squadron to elicit their collective opinion and there was a civil servant (IIRC) there to record things. I remember the consensus toeing the policy line and there being an underlying fear until the SSM announced that his brother was gay. Different times......

I do think there was a lot of hypocrisy around the issue.
 
Well, that's your view, bobthewalt. As far as I'm aware 'platform mounted' simply means mounted on a weapons platform.

You'd never heard of AT ex names where the second name didn't refer to the Div (although you then named one you say you were involved in, which is a bit confusing), or TA taking part in expeds thirty years ago, insisting that 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' it never happened, when it very clearly did.

There are plenty of things plenty of people have never heard of, but most have the common sense to realise that doesn't mean much other than ... well ... they don't know about it.
So you think it was a Spartan that was lengthed to be a Stormer that was then shortened to be a Spartan again? I see .....



(although to be fair stranger things have happened)
Let’s agree to disagree about platform mounted. It’s semantics.

Stormer wasn’t a lengthened Spartan; it was a larger member of the CVR(T) family originally built on spec by Alvis. It wasn’t adopted by the British Army until HVM and Shielder came in to service. The latter two were built as native diesel vehicles, not subject to the LEP that converted in service vehicles. I’m happy to proven wrong, but my recollection is that FV120 was derived from that platform.

As for the AT issue, you haven’t proven me wrong. Publish the JSP for the period and I’ll gladly admit to being wrong.
 
I'm far from sure that actually was the policy as stated - do you have any reference for that? I simply don't know as I've never seen it or looked for it, as I had no reason to.

I'm sure there was a reason, but I've no idea exactly what it was. Maybe you did as you were singled out for questioning when you applied, but I never gave it too much attention. although you and a few others seem fixated by it. Not quite (or remotely) correct. The units ignored it because it had no affect on good order and discipline and didn't affect unit cohesion or fighting capability - and evidently they were good at their job or they wouldn't have held the ranks they did. The only one I'm vaguely aware of under my command was a pte in my rifle pl who my pl sgt mentioned in passing was 'a bit gay, but he's OK' a couple of days aafter he arrived just before I interviewed him. It really wasn't something I gave too much thought to, or something I quizzed popular and respected WOs about when they were invited to the Mess.
I'm rather partial to a sundae, Bob. I'm not so sure grabbing a passing SNCO or WO and accusing them of being gay, or that banging on the Adjt's door to say 'I've heard xxx is gay, you need to do something about it' would have been very constructive. Different units obviously did things in different ways.
I can't quite follow the logic of that, and while I 'm not as informed on it as you evidently are nor was I surrounded by gay officers your version doesn't appear to be what happened. If the case was already going through the courts, and the high court had already agreed but said they had no authority to change the policy but agreed, and it was then going on to the ECHR, then what exactly would '#sack me too' have achieved?

... and if they'd felt as strongly about it as you do, shouldn't they have protested about it before joining? ... rather than apparently lie on their applications and vetting in order to get in?

There doesn't seem to be much consistency there ...
You’re right John. This Bob bloke seems to be a right tosser.
 
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).
Never heard of it. I suspect it was drawn down. There is (or was) the Specialist Weapons School at Warminster. In my time at Warminster the only authorised Milan firings were for the Weapons Effect Demonstration and SF. Other than that Milan in the UK was Warcop, Brecon, Otterburn and Cape Wrath.
 
Whos sock are you or are you just wanking óver John G.

FFS it seems the only thread you are on is this one', and don't give any supporting info, apart from, oh you seem to know stuff John G.

Support your boyfriend with knowledge, or **** off and hopefully this pointless thread may die.
I’ve been trying to work that one out too. Can’t believe John has any mates on here.

Just look at who the OP was; our man from
Thailand. Let this thread run and keep him busy; at least he’s not infesting the rest of Arrse.

In short, we’re doing a social good by occupying John here. This thread is far from pointless.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
I’ve been trying to work that one out too. Can’t believe John has any mates on here.

Just look at who the OP was; our man from
Thailand. Let this thread run and keep him busy; at least he’s not infesting the rest of Arrse.

In short, we’re doing a social good by occupying John here. This thread is far from pointless.
On here? I can't believe John has mates anywhere!
 
I’ve been trying to work that one out too. Can’t believe John has any mates on here.

Just look at who the OP was; our man from
Thailand. Let this thread run and keep him busy; at least he’s not infesting the rest of Arrse.

In short, we’re doing a social good by occupying John here. This thread is far from pointless.
Ahh, The Bugsy O'Liar strategy. Like it!
 
As for the AT issue, you haven’t proven me wrong. Publish the JSP for the period and I’ll gladly admit to being wrong.
Well, bobthewalt, this is what you posted, isn't it?
the basics of the rules. Limited to the 6 or 8 allowed activities (memory fade, but not skiing) , funded 1/3rd public, 1/3rd non-public and 1/3rd individual contributions, adult, regular service personnel only, no civilians except guides, no competitive element, cleared on an ATFA through Divisional HQ with a formation indicator (TRIANGLE / DIAMOND etc) and then staffed onwards to LAND and MoD if Level 1.
... and taking each in turn they are all evidently wrong, aren't they?
Limited to the 6 or 8 allowed activities (memory fade, but not skiing)
Wrong'. Your own Ice Maiden (2000) included skiing; the more recent Ice Maiden (2018 ) included skiing; River Rover was by hovercraft; Gulley Heights was abseiling. All well documented (except yours, which was yours after all) so no need to even mention Jnr Sldr mandated AT or any other expeds.
funded 1/3rd public, 1/3rd non-public and 1/3rd individual contributions
,Wrong. The funding breakdown was recommended as a guideline not mandated as a rule and was shown conclusively to be wrong when you made the same claim in another thread, with a string of specifics and it's contradicted by the examples above (Ice Maiden, Gulley Heights, etc) where the accounts are either available or it's clear that participants would never have paid anywhere near 1/3 of the full costs, including in your own Ice Maiden.
regular service personnel only,
Wrong. Even though you subsequently insisted that it could not have happened 'in my time' "beyond any shadow of a doubt". Not only have a number of posters here contradicted this from their personal experience but it's also contradicted by a number of verifiable expeds such as Gulley Heights.
...no civilians except guides,
Wrong. As a general rule, yes, but if justified or to meet exped aims civilians can take part. Gulley Heights is a verifiable example (although the civilians approved and asked declined to take part).
... no competitive element,
Wrong. Both Gulley Heights and Ice Maiden (2018 ) were applied for as "the first".
..., cleared on an ATFA through Divisional HQ with a formation indicator (TRIANGLE / DIAMOND etc) and then staffed onwards to LAND and MoD if Level 1.
Wrong. Neither Ice Maiden had a formation indicator (your own was named after a boat), norcdid Gulley Heights (all easily verifiable) or countless others.

Wrong on all counts. That's a little sad since you made such a big deal about those points all showing my own supposed lack of knowledge, etc.
 

New Posts

Top