Ceremonial Duties

Depends what the mission is. If the mission is to provide the King's Trop RHA and the HCR Mounted Regt for ceremonial duties I'd say that the donkeys are not just essential but mission critical.

We, as soldiers, don't define the mission. The government, on behalf of the nation does that and the Government wants ceremonial. If they want us to empty bins, fight fires, make flood defences or dispose of mad cows then that's the mission
Not so - look at the deployments to BH, Afghanistan & Iraq to see that that is simply not true. The government is frequently incapable of defining missions for military operations.
 
We're taking our ceremonial lead from a country that's younger than some of the buildings I've slept in now then? Why is the ceremonial policy of the US military relevant to the policy of the UK any more than that of France, Sweden, Italy, Russia or any of the other nations in the world that have soldiers who dress up nice occasionally?

Ah, so it's a game of ceremonial top trumps you're looking to win?


Ceremonial - we're rather short changed now, but by Jingo! Don't the chaps scrub up nice!
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Not so - look at the deployments to BH, Afghanistan & Iraq to see that that is simply not true. The government is frequently incapable of defining missions for military operations.
You are attempting to make point that is irrelevant of this thread and wrong. The government has defined the mission in those cases. If the chain of command has not understood those orders then they have failed in their duty to clarify it.

I put it to you that either you have failed to understand the mission and have not bothered your arse to find out what it is or it was too complicated for you to understand and you haven't bothered to get anyone to explain it to you other than whining on the internet orwhat you really mean is that you don't like the mission and have confused that with there being no mission.

If you check the government's websites, via google, you will find all those missions explained. You may still not like it but that's different.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Ah, so it's a game of ceremonial top trumps you're looking to win?


Ceremonial - we're rather short changed now, but by Jingo! Don't the chaps scrub up nice!
You're the one whining about a tiny ceremonial commitment and comparing it to random nations who don't overly bother, not me. I just asked why you don't compare it to countries on the same continent as us with similar histories and similar sized (or smaller) militaries.

But don't let me stop you. Why not regale us with what Ecuador or Paraguay do for their ceremonial troops next? It's as relevant as what the US does.



Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
You are attempting to make point that is irrelevant of this thread and wrong. The government has defined the mission in those cases. If the chain of command has not understood those orders then they have failed in their duty to clarify it.

I put it to you that either you have failed to understand the mission and have not bothered your arse to find out what it is or it was too complicated for you to understand and you haven't bothered to get anyone to explain it to you other than whining on the internet https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/33695/ADPOperationsDec10.pdf you really mean is that you don't like the mission and have confused that with there being no mission.

If you check the government's websites, via google, you will find all those missions explained. You may still not like it but that's different.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I put it to you that there is no mission for Iraq or B-H in the website to which you allude. Arguably, the paragraphs written in the website on Afghanistan do not constitute a mission. And the ISAF mission was written a couple of years after the start of the operation. Unless you can point me to specific mission statements for these operations, your point is invalid.

To aid you, I commend this publication https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/33695/ADPOperationsDec10.pdf it has some useful guidelines for you.

I put it you that you haven't (or can't) bothered your arse to think about it.

And, if you bothered your arse to read before making pompous, half-arsed comments, you would see that my comment as in response to someone else's comment - so it became relevant at that point.
 
Ah, so it's a game of ceremonial top trumps you're looking to win?


Ceremonial - we're rather short changed now, but by Jingo! Don't the chaps scrub up nice!
You are one that keeps goin gon about the cost of things so, what does it cost to service a Bn doing PD's (Bearing in mind that PD's are not the only thing they are doing) compared to a BN not doing PD's?
 
You're the one whining about a tiny ceremonial commitment and comparing it to random nations who don't overly bother, not me.

'Tiny'?

We've already shown the Army is spending at least 10 times more on ornamental gee gees as an Army 12 times bigger.



I just asked why you don't compare it to countries on the same continent as us with similar histories and similar sized (or smaller) militaries.
I did, the French, and as I demonstrated, all their equivalent number of gee gees double up as police horses unlike our purely ornamental gee gees.


But don't let me stop you. Why not regale us with what Ecuador or Paraguay do for their ceremonial troops next? It's as relevant as what the US does.
And Equador and Paraguay? Are you really suggesting a proper comparison for the British Army is those fine military machines? Well, they do major on ceremonial, especially the Paraguayans, very good at parading, they do lots of parading about to impress the Junta and the locals.


But we digress, it's clearly 'history' that taxes you, not military effectiveness or the fact the Army budget is shrinking but the ceremonial spend seems sacrosanct. Whether you like it or not, and clearly you don't, with every pound cut from the Defence Budget, every pound spent on discretionary ceremonial costs becomes a bigger slice of the pie. At what point do the ongoing cuts merit a long hard look as ceremonial spending in JBM land?
The Army is halving the number of operational front line tanks, but not a single gee gee has been cut from its vast fleet.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
Other than the first time someone tries out their No 1s, does anybody actually like dressing up and marching about? And how enamoured are they with all the polishing that has to happen beforehand?
 
'Tiny'?

We've already shown the Army is spending at least 10 times more on ornamental gee gees as an Army 12 times bigger.
Given that you don't know what the British Army spends on horses and haven't posted what the US Army spends, how have you shown any comparison of costs?

The Swedish Army will only be 50,000 strong (including reserves, I believe) after their reorganisation. They seem to manage an infantry battalion and a cavalry regiment for ceremonials. I'm sure we can manage a battery of guns with 30,000 extra regulars plus reservists.

I did, the French, and as I demonstrated, all their equivalent number of gee gees double up as police horses unlike our purely ornamental gee gees.
Because there is no requirement for military support to the police in the UK (other than specialised roles).

And Equador and Paraguay? Are you really suggesting a proper comparison for the British Army is those fine military machines?
They're as much of a proper comparison with the UK as the US is.

But we digress, it's clearly 'history' that taxes you, not military effectiveness or the fact the Army budget is shrinking but the ceremonial spend seems sacrosanct
The only thing taxing me is the fact that you seem to think inventing numbers, suggesting stupid crap like a ceremonial regiment of the RMP and comparing us to the US as though their policy is in any way relevant to our own is somehow a credible debate.

Whether you like it or not, and clearly you don't, with every pound cut from the Defence Budget, every pound spent on discretionary ceremonial costs becomes a bigger slice of the pie. At what point do the ongoing cuts merit a long hard look as ceremonial spending in JBM land?
Whether you like it or not both the MOD and the treasury clearly consider the small cost of ceremonial duties (since most of the costs would remain no matter what the troops were doing) as being worthwhile.

The Army is halving the number of operational front line tanks, but not a single gee gee has been cut from its vast fleet.
The gee gees are used much more regularly than CR2, cost less to buy and maintain and have a foreseeable regular use in the future. Is 500 horses really a 'vast fleet' anyway? It's enough for two squadrons of cavalry and an artillery battery. It's hardly the Mongol hordes.




Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I put it to you that there is no mission for Iraq or B-H in the website to which you allude. Arguably, the paragraphs written in the website on Afghanistan do not constitute a mission. And the ISAF mission was written a couple of years after the start of the operation. Unless you can point me to specific mission statements for these operations, your point is invalid.

To aid you, I commend this publication https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/33695/ADPOperationsDec10.pdf it has some useful guidelines for you.

I put it you that you haven't (or can't) bothered your arse to think about it.

And, if you bothered your arse to read before making pompous, half-arsed comments, you would see that my comment as in response to someone else's comment - so it became relevant at that point.
You quoted my post and made comments under it. I assumed that you were responding to the post you quoted. Silly me. In future I'll be aware that your posts are randomly sprayed around the internet.

I wasn't referring to any particular website just pointing out that the missions for all the operation you mentioned are readily available on the internet for anyone to see.

Perhaps I was a trifle pompous but it has always irritated me when people say they don't know what the mission is. The missions you mentioned were/are quite clearly defined and understood by the chain of command who accepted them and said they were doable.

Yes they may have changed as circumstances have changed and yes they are more complex than 'do alpha iot achieve bravo' but in a complex multilayered operation it would be surprising if the mission wasn't complex and multilayered.

You may not like the mission, you may think they're too complex, too unachievable, too unrealistic or whatever but they have been defined.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
'Tiny'?

We've already shown the Army is spending at least 10 times more on ornamental gee gees as an Army 12 times bigger.





I did, the French, and as I demonstrated, all their equivalent number of gee gees double up as police horses unlike our purely ornamental gee gees.




And Equador and Paraguay? Are you really suggesting a proper comparison for the British Army is those fine military machines? Well, they do major on ceremonial, especially the Paraguayans, very good at parading, they do lots of parading about to impress the Junta and the locals.


But we digress, it's clearly 'history' that taxes you, not military effectiveness or the fact the Army budget is shrinking but the ceremonial spend seems sacrosanct. Whether you like it or not, and clearly you don't, with every pound cut from the Defence Budget, every pound spent on discretionary ceremonial costs becomes a bigger slice of the pie. At what point do the ongoing cuts merit a long hard look as ceremonial spending in JBM land?
The Army is halving the number of operational front line tanks, but not a single gee gee has been cut from its vast fleet.
Not got much of an understanding of budgets or politics have you. I'm a simple sort so I'll put it simply. The government tells the military what it wants them to do. The military tells the government what sort of capability it requires to do that and how much it will all cost. Obviously the brass always want more and the treasury want it cheaper.

The treasury hands over the money and the MoD spends it. If the brass say they are going to phase out 500 widgets and replace them with 300 widgetA2, same cost but enhanced capability nobody cares. If on the other hand the army decided to scrap a capability then you can be damned sure the treasury would want to claw back some of the taxpayer's hard earned dosh. The PM might also want to know why the army is failing in the mission given to it.

If you think ceremonial is a waste of taxpayer's money (it's a valid point of view but not one I agree with) tell your MP, start lobbying lots of other MPs. Start a FaceBook petition.

Careful what you wish for because if you succeed what you will have achieved is a slightly less colourful country, a smaller military budget, a few more redundant soldiers and the thanks of dozens of hippies and assorted Guardian readers. Not something to be proud of, at least not to me.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
You quoted my post and made comments under it. I assumed that you were responding to the post you quoted. Silly me. In future I'll be aware that your posts are randomly sprayed around the internet.

I wasn't referring to any particular website just pointing out that the missions for all the operation you mentioned are readily available on the internet for anyone to see.

Perhaps I was a trifle pompous but it has always irritated me when people say they don't know what the mission is. The missions you mentioned were/are quite clearly defined and understood by the chain of command who accepted them and said they were doable.

Yes they may have changed as circumstances have changed and yes they are more complex than 'do alpha iot achieve bravo' but in a complex multilayered operation it would be surprising if the mission wasn't complex and multilayered.

You may not like the mission, you may think they're too complex, too unachievable, too unrealistic or whatever but they have been defined.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Silly old me - in future I'll remember to take what you say then guess what you mean shall I (I remind you what you said: "If you check the government's websites, via google, you will find all those missions explained."). Grateful if you could find an articulate, well defined and properly thought through mission on any of those ops - bearing in mind that a mission has to be achievable, legal, realistic, specific etc - it's simply not good enough to write a mission statement without it being achievable - anyone can do that and it's pernicious.

Frankly, whether you get irritated or not is of no importance. Perhaps you should get more flustered when military ops are embarked upon with parlous planning, poor mission development, a failure to underpin them with the principles of war, a singular failure to revisit lessons and apply them, a singular lack of intelligence gathering or assessment, arguably on occasion illegal casus belli, hubris that overrides capability and a failure to understand how to align non-military operations with military operations.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Silly old me - in future I'll remember to take what you say then guess what you mean shall I (I remind you what you said: "If you check the government's websites, via google, you will find all those missions explained."). Grateful if you could find an articulate, well defined and properly thought through mission on any of those ops - bearing in mind that a mission has to be achievable, legal, realistic, specific etc - it's simply not good enough to write a mission statement without it being achievable - anyone can do that and it's pernicious.

Frankly, whether you get irritated or not is of no importance. Perhaps you should get more flustered when military ops are embarked upon with parlous planning, poor mission development, a failure to underpin them with the principles of war, a singular failure to revisit lessons and apply them, a singular lack of intelligence gathering or assessment, arguably on occasion illegal casus belli, hubris that overrides capability and a failure to understand how to align non-military operations with military operations.
Those would be failures on the part of the military which accepted the missions given to them by the government - and which they probably helped to define.

The missions may have been unrealistic but I didn't notice a flurry of brass resigning in protest. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I understand what your saying. It's complex, difficult, nasty, the plan didn't survive contact with enemy and you don't like it. I agree but that's not the same as saying the mission was not and is not defined.

You were trying to score a childish point against the government and I'm being a childish pedant and it's all totally irrelevant to this thread.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Other than the first time someone tries out their No 1s, does anybody actually like dressing up and marching about? And how enamoured are they with all the polishing that has to happen beforehand?
Yes
Not very.
It's all about Regimental pride which I have in spades even after 27 yrs as a civvy.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I have regy pride despite never having anything posher than No2s and more drill in the last 25 years in a blazer!
 
I'm being a childish pedant
No - you're just being wrong but that doesn't matter.

and it's all totally irrelevant to this thread.
And this doesn't matter either. All threads meander gently around bullshit, mendacity, bile, humour, guff, pithy commentary, verbose claptrap and the odd fleck of validity - the only one that didn't was the one that ended with a gash shot (so I suppose even that one dropped off the focus tree).
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
So yet again, the best argument for spending millions on dressing up soldiers in pre Victorian uniforms and clip clopping around on horses is it amuses the tourists?

OK, make them a proper tourist attraction, franchise them out to Madame Tussaud's as part of their 'London experience' and sell tickets to see them.
They are not pre Victorian you ignorant wazzok.
 
Not got much of an understanding of budgets or politics have you. I'm a simple sort so I'll put it simply. The government tells the military what it wants them to do. The military tells the government what sort of capability it requires to do that and how much it will all cost. Obviously the brass always want more and the treasury want it cheaper.

The treasury hands over the money and the MoD spends it. If the brass say they are going to phase out 500 widgets and replace them with 300 widgetA2, same cost but enhanced capability nobody cares. If on the other hand the army decided to scrap a capability then you can be damned sure the treasury would want to claw back some of the taxpayer's hard earned dosh. The PM might also want to know why the army is failing in the mission given to it.

If you think ceremonial is a waste of taxpayer's money (it's a valid point of view but not one I agree with) tell your MP, start lobbying lots of other MPs. Start a FaceBook petition.

Careful what you wish for because if you succeed what you will have achieved is a slightly less colourful country, a smaller military budget, a few more redundant soldiers and the thanks of dozens of hippies and assorted Guardian readers. Not something to be proud of, at least not to me.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

All well and good, but when a politician asks for a breakdown of costs for deploying 'Horse, ornamental, ceremonial duties for the use of'… he gets told by MOD … 'no, we don't have a scooby how much running all these nags is costing us'.
 
All well and good, but when a politician asks for a breakdown of costs for deploying 'Horse, ornamental, ceremonial duties for the use of'… he gets told by MOD … 'no, we don't have a scooby how much running all these nags is costing us'.
That's not FoI, that's routine parliamentary business. And what politician asks a question that's not loaded?

How much does the cavalry cost? The figures for stabling, vetinary care etc are probably easily accessible but so what? "Cost" needs to be off set against benefit, obviously, as well as conceived in terms of future value, capital vs revenue, tangible vs intangible aspects.

The people advocating for PD and ceremonial seem to have a handle on the issues' complexity, whereas those advocating against seem to prefer a straw/horse argument.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top