Corps military training run by the infantry?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by goldiemaggs, Mar 28, 2007.

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. Having transfered from the infantry a number of years ago, i find it hard to understand why 4 Sqn is run by the infantry. They have an infantry OC, SSM and an infantry advisor (also a SSM). Having been in the infantry and now (quite proudly) a member of the Corps I don't understand why the Corps can't provide the manpower or proffesional expertise to deliver the training internally, maybe with the advice of an infantry advisor!
     
  2. Good point when you get an answer can you you US know please!
     
  3. Cow

    Cow LE

    Maybe because our background is Comms? We don't have Inf teaching Ptarmigan and I'm sure you don't have Sigs instructing at ITC (Correct me if I'wrong). Surely it's better to get your training from the people who do the job?
     
  4. The Inf Adv is obviously the Advisor. As for the rest, good point. I didn't realise the SSM was Inf, I thought he was Signals. The OC I presume is either a long standing tradition, or some sort of job creation scheme for the Inf. I am pretty sure we could fill both slots from our own ranks.

    Like you say, I can't understand why these slots are filled with Infantry unless they have a further Infantry Advisory role on top of their OC/CSM tasks.
     
  5. Soldier first, siggie second. Cuts down on wasted manpower, no more jobs for the, oh to be drill pig again. Smoke break!!!
     
  6. When I was there the SSM was ex-inf, anyway whats the problem? 2/3 of my units YofS are ex inf, 1/3 of the WO2 and about 50-60% of its SSgts. That drops to 30% at Sgt level.
     
  7. Fellas

    Lets get the facts right all the Inf posts are long established posts,S02 Advisor/OC,Inf Advisor and Inf Pipe Major,for some strange reason the Corps are gapping and/or cant fill the SSM post,hence to those looking in, it may look Inf top heavy when in actual fact it is not. We have got exactly what we are meant to have.
     
  8. There is alot of Infantry influence down at 4 sqn. However the delivery of all training at the sqn is by Royal Signals personnel. Therefore is there any need for these posts to be filled by infanteers. They could be well used if used only for advisory roles. This is all dependant on if the blokes at 4 sqn have got the quals to deliver the correct training.
     
  9. Eh? I had to ask advice on comms matters from (attached) RSigs when I was an Inf Sigs Det Comd, so why not the other way around?
     
  10. Would I be right in saying that MLG (4 Sqn)'s main role is getting people through CLM? (yeah - I know about the leadership course). If that is the case then you need to look at what CLM is supposed to be about. There are two phases; an All Arms education phase and a Corps-specific applied skills phase. Surely the point of CLM is not to teach infantry commander skills. If it were then it would be an All Arms course, held in Brecon and called the CLM Infantry Phase, surely? I'm pretty sure the other Corps do a very similar thing, and perhaps many would argue that such a course would be of extremely high value, considering our two ongoing biggie ops. It would also be taught by the very best infantry instructors, ensuring quality control.

    If the Army insist that the "field" phase is Corps-specific, then that's for a reason and the phase must be relevant, not simply bolting on an Andy McNab module for ego reasons. There is a danger in confusing traditional broadbrush "soldiering" and actual applied infanteering. The course has to be delivered by the very best of our own Corps NCOs and particularly those who have recent experience of proper operations, in order that they can put those skills into context. The infantry advisor should be there to make sure that we don't lose sight of that context and that where we do delve into areas in which the infantry excels, he makes sure that we are applying best practice and taking on lessons identified by the infantry on those same ops.
     
  11. i think it is great having an infanteer instruct on CLM etc.
    not only do you get A grade tuition and advice if you ask correctly, you get all new insults and funnys to steal.

    prime example was after a perticularly 'angry' section attack me and my 2 i/c led, we were told that if he could borrow us to lead the other sections, we could in turn borrow his wife.......

    ....never came through on the offer though
     
  12. Would I be right in saying that MLG (4 Sqn)'s main role is getting people through CLM? (yeah - I know about the leadership course). If that is the case then you need to look at what CLM is supposed to be about. There are two phases; an All Arms education phase and a Corps-specific applied skills phase. Surely the point of CLM is not to teach infantry commander skills. If it were then it would be an All Arms course, held in Brecon and called the CLM Infantry Phase, surely? I'm pretty sure the other Corps do a very similar thing, and perhaps many would argue that such a course would be of extremely high value, considering our two ongoing biggie ops. It would also be taught by the very best infantry instructors, ensuring quality control.

    If the Army insist that the "field" phase is Corps-specific, then that's for a reason and the phase must be relevant, not simply bolting on an Andy McNab module for ego reasons. There is a danger in confusing traditional broadbrush "soldiering" and actual applied infanteering. The course has to be delivered by the very best of our own Corps NCOs and particularly those who have recent experience of proper operations, in order that they can put those skills into context. The infantry advisor should be there to make sure that we don't lose sight of that context and that where we do delve into areas in which the infantry excels, he makes sure that we are applying best practice and taking on lessons identified by the infantry on those same ops.
    _________________


    u go girl..... don't hang back! (wink smiley!)
     
  13. Would I be right in saying that MLG (4 Sqn)'s main role is getting people through CLM? (yeah - I know about the leadership course). If that is the case then you need to look at what CLM is supposed to be about. There are two phases; an All Arms education phase and a Corps-specific applied skills phase. Surely the point of CLM is not to teach infantry commander skills. If it were then it would be an All Arms course, held in Brecon and called the CLM Infantry Phase, surely? I'm pretty sure the other Corps do a very similar thing, and perhaps many would argue that such a course would be of extremely high value, considering our two ongoing biggie ops. It would also be taught by the very best infantry instructors, ensuring quality control.

    If the Army insist that the "field" phase is Corps-specific, then that's for a reason and the phase must be relevant, not simply bolting on an Andy McNab module for ego reasons. There is a danger in confusing traditional broadbrush "soldiering" and actual applied infanteering. The course has to be delivered by the very best of our own Corps NCOs and particularly those who have recent experience of proper operations, in order that they can put those skills into context. The infantry advisor should be there to make sure that we don't lose sight of that context and that where we do delve into areas in which the infantry excels, he makes sure that we are applying best practice and taking on lessons identified by the infantry on those same ops.
    _________________


    u go girl..... don't hang back! (wink smiley!)
     
  14. Is there an echo in here?
     
  15. :twisted: I know this is an old post but as I came across it and it is one of my favorite subjects I am going to have my say.
    I am glad we have Infantry to teach us Infantry tactics for to long the Corp has relied on wannabee's and failed tradesman with a chip on both soldiers. I can take a boll@cking from an old bold grunt on why my section attack was crap but it sticks in my throat from some big timing c@ck who's claim to fame is his posting to a training regiment and not being able to get promoted in trade. Whilst risking opening another can of worms why are most of the bell ends in mil training short?
    There I feel better.
    PS
    P Dwarf the height thing is not aimed at you.