Command Sergeant Majors to promote high standards?

Legs said:
loosehead said:
Just been released, the new super CSM's are going to be female.
Oh really? Where did you learn that snippet? The one who has started at 1 Div certainly is a bloke - and a decent one at that.
He's already started? Or have the RA managed to get two of these appointments?
 

Ex.26.Gnr

Swinger
The RA only got one post, one of the others is from the Rifles.
It seems like they will write there own job description, so depending on the individual they may be more hands on than we imagine. the bloke for 1 Div is a good lad.
 
To answer the original question in this thread by the time a soldier has reached and been appointed RSM he does not need a command layer to tell him how to do his job or what his standards should be. In My 16 yrs I only met 1 who didn't keep it up to the mark, all the rest took the job seriously and whtever their managerial style was they got the job done.

Happy is the Commanding Officer with an RSM who makes the time to keep his gaol full, crime rates drop as a result.
 

Topper_Logan

Swinger
The third Command Sergeant Major is Para Reg and a mate of mine met him last week when he was visiting a unit that the Sergeant Major happened to be at. Decent bloke already been offered a commission. His brief was to get round the bazzaars and speak to the blokes and if he was with the General then he wasnt doing his job.Seems strange that they have offered the posts to a gunner and Para Reg who both passed the LE board. But the Rifles guy didnt want a commission and was getting out.
Im gonna request he visits us.
 
chocolate_frog said:
Why don't 2, 4 and 5 require such a slot?
Because they are not Divisions just admin offices, face it they exist mainly to maintain the bloated Command Structure which these three chaps will add to.

To quote Patrick Mercer MP http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6578792.ece

regiments of three battalions have plenty of headquarters and officers, but only enough combat power - men - for one and a half of those battalions
if the three Services already have a single permanent joint headquarters why do we need the three individual headquarters in the shape of Land, Strike and Fleet? And why do we have a vast MoD overseeing all four?
 
Is this too many chiefs idea still going ahead then?

Surely these Command Sergeant Majors will get bored seeing as they will only be responsible for 7 toms, 3 lance jacks and a full screw at the current rate.
 
Closet_Jibber said:
Is this too many chiefs idea still going ahead then?

Surely these Command Sergeant Majors will get bored seeing as they will only be responsible for 7 toms, 3 lance jacks and a full screw at the current rate.
I wonder how its going to work in practice? Is he going to have a roadshow around the Garrisons, arrange to line up all the RSMs outside his mobile office and have them stamp in fur a 1 to 1 chat on what their standards should be?
8) 8)
 
Nothing against the blokes who occupy these slots...

But it's all b0110x.

The RSM of a Regiment or Battalion doesn't need that much guiding on his role or standards. He hasn't got that far, by being sh1t has he?

We have Corps RSMs, Garrison Sgt Majors and of course the Academy Sgt Maj, to provide Corps and Army focus.
 
chocolate_frog said:
Nothing against the blokes who occupy these slots...

But it's all b0110x.

The RSM of a Regiment or Battalion doesn't need that much guiding on his role or standards. He hasn't got that far, by being sh1t has he?

We have Corps RSMs, Garrison Sgt Majors and of course the Academy Sgt Maj, to provide Corps and Army focus.
Seconded. This smacks of the NCO equivalent of hounory colnels etc. Never needed before, not needed now.
 

HE117

LE
Yet another example of the long handled screwdrivery that plagues modern society..

I believe that each organisation has an optimum sized grouping that actually does the work. For the Infantry it is definately the battalion, whearas in the Gunners it is probably the Battery and the Cavalry the Squadron... Whichever block is correct, there should be only one point of command at that level and the group should be as autonomous as possible.

Establishing parallel lines of command that circumvent the "single point of command" (i.e. the CO/OC) simply weakens the structure and must be avoided...

The US have ALWAYS sucked power far too far up the chain of command. The saving grace of the British army has been the independence of the CO/OC. The RSM should have loyalty to his sovereign and his commanding officer and no other IMHO....

Anything else smacks of political commissary...
 

Chief_Two

Old-Salt
scots_wahey said:
My limited experience of the American Command Sergeant Majors is positive; they provide a direct link to the CoC in order to raise soldier issues.
My greater experience of CSMs endorses that view.
 

GeneralMalaise

Old-Salt
I believe that this whole idea came from General David Richards when he occupied the post of COMARRC. The Corps HQ has a Headquarters Sergeant Major whilst the Support Battalion had (used to being the operative phrase) the Regimental Sergeant Major with the latter always being a second tour, commission deferred, WO1 (RSM). A time came when a newly appointed WO1 was posted to the HQ and it was clear that the individual may have benefited from some time as a WO1 before he assumed the appointment.

Whilst serving as COMISAF, Gen Richards became fond of having the HQ Sgt Maj with him on his visits around Afghanistan and in/around HQ ISAF. It was during this 12 month tour that Gen Richards spawned the ideas of having Command Sergeant Majors; taking the idea from the Americans but applying its logic to his own HQ.

The relationship between the two WO1s in HQ ARRC was never questioned by anyone as it was known by all who the primus inter pares was. This combined with the fact that all the WO1s (RSM and HQ Sgt Maj) I ever met were wholelly professional and got along just fine - discussing issues where appropriate and deciding on policy.

The issue of Comd Sgt Majs is not one that should add to the burden upon the CoC but it should be an appointment that adds value and seeks to help those units within which he/she is serving. There should be strict criteria laid-down to those selected for each appointment (2nd tour RSM, deferred commission in HQ ARRC example) and in practise the appointment should be the soldiers voice direct to the GOC.
 

hoodie

Clanker
Now that we have Veng Long, the possibility of a WO1 spending 17-18 years in rank is a serious probability. Not all WO1's want to get commissioned, (what would you rather be, RCMO or Cmd SM?) so the only chance of a change of scenery could well be by taking up one of these Uber senior positions. Think about it. How would you feel when you've done 4 RSM posts in a row?
Don't knock it fellas, we should be behind this idea 100%.
 

Nige

LE
The Aussies have Sgts Major at each level of command, modelled on the yanks. We have 'tiers' of RSM, so a Div RSM gets paid more than a 'regimental' RSM.

Personally, I don't see the point in the command RSMs, I have not seen any benefit (mind you, I've only been here 3 yrs) except for the Bde RSM being the Presiding member in the Bde Mess (no Regt Messes in 1 Bde).

As has been intimated previously, my perception is that the CoC don't think RSMs are doing their jobs...
 
hoodie said:
Now that we have Veng Long, the possibility of a WO1 spending 17-18 years in rank is a serious probability. Not all WO1's want to get commissioned, (what would you rather be, RCMO or Cmd SM?) so the only chance of a change of scenery could well be by taking up one of these Uber senior positions. Think about it. How would you feel when you've done 4 RSM posts in a row?
Don't knock it fellas, we should be behind this idea 100%.
I thought Veng was to basically keep experianced soldiers in a position where there might otherwise be a gap, not so new roles can be created for people who don't want to leave.
 

Latest Threads

Top