the_officer
Swinger
Very, very tempted to edit this masterpiece to remove much of the verbosity and break the last from CDS/PUS on talking to the press by sending it to our friends at the Daily Jackboot.
Sir,
Your front page juxtaposition of a photograph of firefighters upon reports of the virtual inevitability of war (9th September) struck me as somewhat ironic.
I serve in one of those Armoured Brigades in Germany that may be pledged as part of Britain’s military support to ‘regime change’ in Iraq. Concurrently we are preparing to take over from the firemen across Great Britain with five days training should they decide to strike. Whilst most of our equipment is nearly as old and unreliable as the Green Goddesses, putting out fires from them does not strike me as the best preparation for high intensity warfighting.
The basic wage for a fireman is currently more than for a trained private soldier. That fireman will do two days, two nights and four days off. He will be based in one location and settle into a routine. The life of a soldier is somewhat different. A soldier is compensated by always being paid fifteen per cent more than an equivalent civil servant – the x factor – to make up for the disturbance and by the provision of subsidised housing. Whilst ignorant of the exact requirements of firefighting I suggest that there are roles within the services that require a higher skill level but do not necessarily see the monetary reward.
So the Army is going to stand in for the firefighters with inferior pay, equipment and training. Meanwhile we will slowly be suffering skill fade rather than maintaining ourselves at a high readiness. Excellent. I have a solution: pay the firefighters more money. Give them a fifteen per cent rise, five days training, and then send them on six-month tours to the less rational parts of the globe and place them in the kernel of a combined arms battle with a little nerve agent thrown in. Or would they rather go for the four per cent rise?
Yours aye,
Tommy Atkins
Sir,
Your front page juxtaposition of a photograph of firefighters upon reports of the virtual inevitability of war (9th September) struck me as somewhat ironic.
I serve in one of those Armoured Brigades in Germany that may be pledged as part of Britain’s military support to ‘regime change’ in Iraq. Concurrently we are preparing to take over from the firemen across Great Britain with five days training should they decide to strike. Whilst most of our equipment is nearly as old and unreliable as the Green Goddesses, putting out fires from them does not strike me as the best preparation for high intensity warfighting.
The basic wage for a fireman is currently more than for a trained private soldier. That fireman will do two days, two nights and four days off. He will be based in one location and settle into a routine. The life of a soldier is somewhat different. A soldier is compensated by always being paid fifteen per cent more than an equivalent civil servant – the x factor – to make up for the disturbance and by the provision of subsidised housing. Whilst ignorant of the exact requirements of firefighting I suggest that there are roles within the services that require a higher skill level but do not necessarily see the monetary reward.
So the Army is going to stand in for the firefighters with inferior pay, equipment and training. Meanwhile we will slowly be suffering skill fade rather than maintaining ourselves at a high readiness. Excellent. I have a solution: pay the firefighters more money. Give them a fifteen per cent rise, five days training, and then send them on six-month tours to the less rational parts of the globe and place them in the kernel of a combined arms battle with a little nerve agent thrown in. Or would they rather go for the four per cent rise?
Yours aye,
Tommy Atkins
