Bowman on HERRICK - bad or bad practices?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Zorro, Feb 16, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just reading Dead Men Risen about the WG in Afghan and there are lots of references to the lack of reliable comms, with good old Bowman getting the most negative press (i.e. it didnt work). Have also read Alert State Red about the R Anglians in Helmand in 2007 and there was very little (if anything) about poor comms.

    Is this because, as the first Bn to get Bowman, the R Anglians were more familiar with it and therefore have fewer problems or have the software upgrades affected the system, hence the issues 1 WG had? There was talk of integrating the 355/6 whip antennas into the PCE/Body armour to limit breakages but not sure if that ever happened?

    Would more education and training have helped? Physics doesnt change after all, although with Bowman being digital it either works or doesnt (on or off) rather than being able to 'fight through' bad atmospherics. I know the guys have to cover a huge area and VHF is not ideal but Bowman does allow ad hoc VHF/HF rebroadcast, has that worked/helped?

    This is not a criticism of 1 WG by the way, am interested for my next job as I will be dealing with lots of BGs and would like to help/educate if I can.
     
  2. Hardly the place to discuss this is it ?
     
  3. 4 years out of date. Things are moving on very quickly in Afghanistan. Comms is a major area of improvement. Bowman (BCIP 5.4) now in theatre and working reliably.