Far-reaching study of Officers/SNCOs underway

Discussion in 'Officers' started by Hello365, Apr 10, 2005.

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. A draft personnel strategy document is circulating by Directorate of Army Personnel Strategy (DAPS), dated 21 Mar 05, entitled Striking the Balance of Officers and SNCOs in the British Army. It includes many excellent (and controversial) ideas, linked in with NECSt (the Non-Commissioned Engagement Study).

    Among other ideas it suggests that up to 230 of the current ~900 SO3 appointments could be done by WOs, that the rank of WO be made more selective, that separate LE commissioning terms of service be abolished, and that the utility of the mainstream TA officer (ie all those not specialists) is, post Cold War, in doubt.

    Anyone in DAPS care to comment? Presumably we should get to read this paper officially in the next edition of British Army Review - it is, after all, 'The Magazine of British Military Thought'. (Otherwise we could always post the entire document here... :D)

    PS ARRSE is mentioned on the official Army website! (albeit in a slightly pejorative way!) See http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/whatsgoingon/daps_we_want_your_suggestions.htm
     
  2. MS_Rep

    MS_Rep RIP

    [Not DAPS]

    This was attempted in the mid 1980's - Remember MARILYN anyone? - Manning & Recruiting In the Lean Years of the Nineties.

    It was proposed at the time that we should use WO to fill SO3 appts. To a man every GOC disagreed this!

    If we ask WO to be SO3s we should commission them first was the view.

    How about just employing WO, call them WO G1/G3/G etc or SO5 etc etc?
     
  3. I'm a sad man in that I read an awful lot of military history. One thing that stands out is the difference between the Wehrmacht (in the days when they had an agressive role in foreigh policy) is their attitude to officers. The Red Army made anyone who needed to read to do their job an officer or their equivalent of a WO. The boxheads on the other hand had very few commissioned gentlemen but those that they did have were very competent and given huge latitude in their actions. Their NCO corps coped very competently taking care of the extra tasks.

    Which model should the British Army be tending towards ?

    And more recently I'd remind you that the TA mobilisations for Veritas used SSgt and WO to fill SO desks in London. I wonder whether this has contributed to the study.
     
  4. msr

    msr LE

    And the paucity of TA Officers (other than Med) mobilised in their role for TELIC

    msr
     
  5. Will the study be carried out by psychologists, anthropologists or zoologists?

    TA officers are there, so why not use them? God knows they used enough of them "outside their specialisations" during Granby and Resolute. I confess that the nearest thing I did to my TA mobilisation role was book an artillery range at Glamoc...otherwise I did "G3 Ops", "G1 Pers & Discipline" and "SO3 getting the USLO's HMMWV out of a ditch by the brothel in BL" jobs.
     
  6. I heard first mention of this about 2 years ago.

    My two pence: Assuming there is still a requirement for us to maintain a rank structure, then if a WO is needed to fill an SO3 post, make him a Captain. While the work that an SO3 produces will be 'for Comd', there will equally be a good reason why his post is SO3, not SO2 or SO1, and this is based on rank and experience that the post holder must possess. I wouldn't argue that a SSgt or WO2 may well equal or surpass the young DE Capt in experience, but I personnally feel it would be wrong to deny them the rank that they might need to do the job properly (and rightfully deserve).

    Moreover, in an age where we increasingly work alongside foreign armies, to ask a WO2 to work as an SO3 in a multinational HQ without giving him at least local Capt seems a little unfair at best and likely to hinder his effectiveness in post at worst. Anyone who has worked with a selection of our rank-centric and common-sense blind foreign 'friends' will know what I mean.
     

  7. Less opportunities for promotion no doubt! :(
     
  8. Where can we find this study?
     
  9. The element of selectivity at SNCO and WO rank (and to a lesser extent for Offrs as well) can already be seen in the increasing expectation of appropriate academic credentials prior to selection for LE Commissions (to varying degrees between corps and capbadges, natch).

    I certainly support the elimination of distinctions between the employment of DE and LE officers. There's no reason at all to think that LE officers are best employed in G1 and G7, whilst DEs are best kept for G1 and G3.

    The LECC at RMAS is starting to address what knowledge gaps LE officers possess on commissioning. Now it's about time the RMAS DE CC addressed the knowledge gaps of DE officers.

    IF
     
  10. ........its just that they smell!
     
  11. ...(I'm sorry; I seem to have misread the title of this thread.

    I'll just get my windproof smock, shall I?
     
  12. I do not doubt the competency of LEs, but I understand that many seniors feel that Regts suffer when WOs spend their whole time concentrating on commissioning. As a side issue surely increasing the number of LEs will exacerbate this problem.