General Sir Patrick Sanders as Chief of the General Staff

Alamo

LE
Oh dear God, you took that to mean I expect him to be responsible for making my wishlist happen?
I just took you at your word
Under his watch I want to see Defense Budget increase by 1% GDP ; Army expanded by 20,000 personnel ; less fat fucks walking around Amesbury in combats, all Housing / accomodation issues sorted, Sodexo effed- off at the high port and proper ACC reinstalled.
Plus lots of Leave, AT and a Pay Rise for all.
 
It is one thing to punish an extended period of operational underperformance - think the 9/12 being removed from HERRICK rotations for repeatedly failing collective training exercises.
Apologies for the drift.

@Sarastro - Did that occur?

Is it covered elsewhere on Arrse anyone?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Still, next time we need a battalion to assault an enemy battalion dug in on top of a mountain, who are we going to call?
Scots Guards? Using the same conflict as I guess you are.

You may not have noticed but the first couple of decades of this century were rather busy for the armed forces, who on the whole, did well. It may also have escaped your notice that not all the troops involved were airborne.
 

Alamo

LE
There is a reason they aren’t considered qualified police officers by the Home Office…
Because they’re not (generally) Home Office certified. Works the other way too, I had Home Office trained snowdrops who weren’t allowed to question because they hadn’t done a mil TQ course.
 
He appears to be yet another falling-plate mafia wannabe, promoted far above his capabilities.

So he wants a British Army that is capable of "fighting in Europe again". Good luck with getting the scum at the Treasury to pay for that Sugar-tits!

The Treasury in this case is absolutely correct, unfortunately. £5.5 billion budgeted for AJAX, of which £3.5 billion has been spent, to deliver just over a dozen vehicles, none of which work, some of which permanently injure anyone who rides in them, and no-one knows what is wrong or how to fix it. With the remaining £2 billion they need to figure that out and produce nearly 600 more working vehicles and get them into service. There is simply no possibility this will happen. And this was entirely the Army's doing, this, WCSP, everything else, the Treasury knows fully well that any taxpayer's money it gives to the Army will be squandered and that none of the officers involved will ever be held accountable, they'll be promoted instead! Even the billions allocated for the estate have vanished and the accom is in a worst state than ever.

Complete reform at the top is needed, a complete change in culture to recognise that in the modern world "smiting the Queen's enemies" really means "delivering the Queen's procurement projects on time and on budget". Sanders I notice is not actually an Old Etonian, but he is the same sort, it will not happen under his leadership.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Apologies for the drift.

@Sarastro - Did that occur?

Is it covered elsewhere on Arrse anyone?
Yes. Another Bn (cannot remember if Inf or cav) as well, IIRC.

Not sure if it's covered on ARRSE, it was pretty common knowledge at the time though (circa 2013). Vague memory suggests this was around the time that numbers were drawing down anyway, so there was suddenly competition for the BG roles, and 9/12 consistently performed the worst on CT within that Bde (someone also told me they had been under-performing for years). I think the drama was that they - for whatever reason - had been pretty confident they would get a primary BG role, and ended up being atts and IAs.

Point is there is a big difference between removing / deprioritising a Bn from tour for professional under-performance, and for unrelated issues.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Treasury in this case is absolutely correct, unfortunately. £5.5 billion budgeted for AJAX, of which £3.5 billion has been spent, to deliver just over a dozen vehicles, none of which work, some of which permanently injure anyone who rides in them, and no-one knows what is wrong or how to fix it. With the remaining £2 billion they need to figure that out and produce nearly 600 more working vehicles and get them into service. There is simply no possibility this will happen. And this was entirely the Army's doing, this, WCSP, everything else, the Treasury knows fully well that any taxpayer's money it gives to the Army will be squandered and that none of the officers involved will ever be held accountable, they'll be promoted instead! Even the billions allocated for the estate have vanished and the accom is in a worst state than ever.

Complete reform at the top is needed, a complete change in culture to recognise that in the modern world "smiting the Queen's enemies" really means "delivering the Queen's procurement projects on time and on budget". Sanders I notice is not actually an Old Etonian, but he is the same sort, it will not happen under his leadership.
The biggest change needed is an understanding that army does not = infantry.
 
Still, next time we need a battalion to assault an enemy battalion dug in on top of a mountain, who are we going to call?
Any other fit well trained Bn in the British Army......Regimental histories are full of battalions assaulting hilly features occupied by superior forces (far more than the illustrious Parachute Regiment)...the Scots Guards didn't do too badly in the Falklands either, I'm assuming that's the theatre you were referring to.

Likewise many Bns in history have screwed up through indiscretions, poor lower level supervision, carried away with their 'hard' image..... my own family regiment for one - the KOSB back in the 1980s where a very promising CO, Adjt and RSM (all friends of mine) were relieved of their appointments...the Bn was under a cloud for a while though went on to redeem themselves operationally - as will 3PARA.

Such is the Army...barrack room lawyers (we have a few on this site) and arm chair generals may rant, rave pontificate, measure dicks (as in your case) vis a vis asking which other Bns could do what, etc., though the CGS acted swiftly and, in my opinion, correctly..the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
 

exsniffer

War Hero
Spelling remedied F.O.C

Same pronunciation.

More-or-Less. . . . .​

Outside the monkey-bubble, it is heard differently

Trust me on this.​
That was indeed what I meant, perhaps I should have added "needs" to make my point
 
though the CGS acted swiftly and, in my opinion, correctly.

Why correctly?

No one has done anything illegal, but they have still be punished.

If people want to talk about a failing in values and standards, could they at least state where the Army has previously said soldiers cant have sex with willing females?
Unless of course, they haven't said anything of the sort and this is just someones personal opinion on morals.
 

Truxx

LE
Any other fit well trained Bn in the British Army......Regimental histories are full of battalions assaulting hilly features occupied by superior forces (far more than the illustrious Parachute Regiment)...the Scots Guards didn't do too badly in the Falklands either, I'm assuming that's the theatre you were referring to.

Likewise many Bns in history have screwed up through indiscretions, poor lower level supervision, carried away with their 'hard' image..... my own family regiment for one - the KOSB back in the 1980s where a very promising CO, Adjt and RSM (all friends of mine) were relieved of their appointments...the Bn was under a cloud for a while though went on to redeem themselves operationally - as will 3PARA.

Such is the Army...barrack room lawyers (we have a few on this site) and arm chair generals may rant, rave pontificate, measure dicks (as in your case) vis a vis asking which other Bns could do what, etc., though the CGS acted swiftly and, in my opinion, correctly..the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
Re. your second paragraph I even recall a certain Welsh based organisation getting a gripping a clear out and, presumably, another coat of paint on the boathouse roof back in the early 1990s.

By heck there were a few wrinkly lips....
 
Why correctly?

No one has done anything illegal, but they have still be punished.

If people want to talk about a failing in values and standards, could they at least state where the Army has previously said soldiers cant have sex with willing females?
Unless of course, they haven't said anything of the sort and this is just someones personal opinion on morals.

You seem preoccupied with sex old boy (I presume I'm using the correct pronoun), the back story is the run up to the unfortunate media 'outing' of the barrack block gang bang.
The Bn was victim to an unruly few on exercise, perhaps carried away with their hard won image, who sullied the Bn's reputation and standing by indulging in drunken hooliganism which, apparently, was not nipped quickly enough, in the bud.
The much publicized gang bang was, I suggest, the straw that broke the camel's back.
 
You seem preoccupied with sex old boy (I presume I'm using the correct pronoun), the back story is the run up to the unfortunate media 'outing' of the barrack block gang bang.
The Bn was victim to an unruly few on exercise, perhaps carried away with their hard won image, who sullied the Bn's reputation and standing by indulging in drunken hooliganism which, apparently, was not nipped quickly enough, in the bud.
Then why is Sanders bumping his gums about the video?
The much publicized gang bang was, I suggest, the straw that broke the camel's back.
So don't punish them for something that may affect their ability to soldier, chose something that doesn't?
Great leadership.
 
Then why is Sanders bumping his gums about the video?

So don't punish them for something that may affect their ability to soldier, chose something that doesn't?
Great leadership.
I would take that up with the good General...who has throughout his career displayed all of the salient points of good leadership.
I note 3PARA, credit to them, are not questioning the CGS's decision.
 

Latest Threads

Top