Gen Wall - "The RAC are Aloof"....

At this year's DRAC Conference, Maj Gen Wall, Comd 1 DIV, stated that the RAC were 'aloof'.

My first reaction to this was the obvious, "That's fair enough - we probably are" and I felt rather smug. But that's the problem.

He suggested that the rest of the Army did not understand our merits and given the choice between a RAC Regt and an Inf Bn most commanders would rather, on the whole, have an Inf Bn beacuse they were more broadly employable.

If that is what the rest of the Army truely think of the RAC then we need to consider how we best market ourselves (no matter what platform we end up sitting in) so that we are an equal, if not first, choice for a senior commander's toolbag.

My god - is your other job 'Duty Masochist'? :D

[rant on]

My humble offering, based on operations and exercises all over the world across the last 14 years or so, is that you either get really REALLY good Cav types - or absolutely fcuking dreadful ones, who couldn't give a to$$ about anything other than 'the form', where the frankly fcuking annoying (and very carefully portrayed) attitude of 'the gifted amateur' is taken to ludicrous extremes - the sort of individual who says 'blood on the tracks' without ever having actually served anywhere this is likely to happen.

PS: Unless you're the KRH, in which case you're more of a menace to Blue Forces than the enemy, and if you're female, you may as well leave the Army than hope for anything like a fair, balanced managed lifestyle or career - cos they're all living in the fcuking dark ages. Allegedly. From what I hear. Possibly.

[/rant off]

PPS: Still some bloody good Cav types around though. Telic was chocker with 'em. :D
When things have gone 'noisy', shrapnel dances in the air like fireflies on a summer evening, things that go 'FCUKING BANG' abound like the clap ina garrison town. The underrated and much shat on infanteer is in need of a 'SH1TLOAD OF FIREPOWER'

Gentlemen, we need tanks, lots of them

Aloof as may be, but bloody useful!
"More broadly employable" my hairy arse. Lets not forget that RAC soldiers can train down, can Inf train up? quite possibly(utmost respect intended) but not in todays climate of cuts and the debarcle of "pay 2000" issues. How many of us have slogged the streets and cuds of NI(albeit not for a 2 yr stint). An armoured Sqn minus tanks attatched to RGJ in Saxon in Bosnia, thats just a couple to mention. Which way is FR going? The crews are dismounted most of the time and are trained to use probably all of the Inf weapons and specialised weapon systems. Does this make an RAC soldier more busy/employable/shiney? Of course it does. The only reason I can see that an Inf Bn is "more employable" is for sheer numbers alone, more doesn't mean better. So the Senior Commanders need to take their heads out of their "toolbags" and have a look around :evil:
I think Inf are seen as 'more employable' because they have more bodies to play with - as muttondagger suggests. When it comes to holding an AO, what is the Bde Comd going to want - 400 RAC soldiers more used to patrolling in vehicles or 650 odd Inf types with experience of patrolling on foot and interacting with the natives?

Plus, having served with both Inf and Cav types, the grunts are usually more able to relate wedgeheads :)

I'm not having a pop at RAC here, just giving another view of the 'aloofness' aluded to by Gen Wall.
If Some RAC units looked after the horses, many so desperately miss, the way they look after their tanks, they'd be on RSPA-sponsored animal cruelty charges!
I think a point to remeber is that both Maj Gen Wall and Calypso are correct.

!. RAC are aloof

2. There are excellent RAC officers and poor one but that the same for all Regiments.

The real question for the RAC is are you actually bothered?
They shouldn't be bothered about it.

At risk of taking flak from everyone in the army, I got the impression that a commission with the Cavalry is something akin to the holy grail.

Except more easily attained, not much more easily though.
Enlightened_One said:
I think a point to remeber is that both Maj Gen Wall and Calypso are correct.

1. RAC are aloof

2. There are excellent RAC officers and poor one but that the same for all Regiments.

The real question for the RAC is are you actually bothered?
Great; why not just come and squelch all the fun out of the thread by reasoned logical thought :lol:

Back in the 80's, I think we can generally accept that the majority of Cav officers were cnuts. More interested in Polo than POL, and marking time for three years until they inherited most of the Pennines from Daddy.

I think the proof of the pudding was that I always found - all other things being equal - that Cav NCO's were better than my own, because they had to carry all the dead weight while Piers and Hugo were busy throwing bread rolls at the saxophonist at Goppi's.

Fast forward to the 21st C; The opportunity over the last 5 years to closely watch nearly every Armoured Brigade we have left (both of them?) rotate through BATUS. Of all the young Cav officers I met there, NONE of them were anything less than 100% professional; gad, they could almost have been with the "Men in Black", sirrah!

OK, so sometimes the Cav push the old horsey thing a little too far, but is that any worse than the Paras or Greenjackets living on past glories?

I bet they're kicking themselves for having turned down first the chance to take over the AAC (imagine WAH-64 with a hunting horn) and then the NBC Regiment role.

"There will always be a place for the horse on the modern battlefield" FM The Lord Haig

"Yeah, it's called Menu H" L/Bdr Podsnap, 28th Hy Underwater Regt


Similar threads

Latest Threads