How can our chubby, drug-addled and right-on Army protect us from our enemies?

Every PT session should see soldiers being taken out of there comfort zone.
Thats right, so the army is making them do something that if results in an injury is the armys responsibility.
 
How could an effective army possibly be created from such disparate elements. And what exactly would such an army be fighting for?
You mean like the British Empire in World War 2 that managed to take UK, Irish, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, South African, Indian, Gurkha, West African, East African, Palestinian, French, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish and Caribbean personnel and make them into a war winning force?
 
People volunteer to join the army for good TACOS and should reasonably foresee part of that involving rigourous PT without hovering medical cover.
The genie has been let out of the bottle ref H and S Risk Assessments with a culture of “creeping excellence” meaning authors are doubling down unnecessarily and that just becomes the new norm.
Other than using common sense and The MOD fighting some cases in court to get back to a point of reasonableness it’s probably a self full filling spiral of more and more ridiculous safety measures that hinder fitness training and push the once common and easy to organise into the too difficult bracket.
Show me the contract any of us signed saying the rigorous PT will be given without adequate medical cover?

People worry about health and safety because the army/MOD will always blame the individual if it can. 20 odd years ago a sgt in Bicester was in charge of some cadets and one of them (despite warnings) jumped of a pier/jetty in shallow water and ended up a paraplegic, every man and his uncle said it wasnt the stripeys fault, he was still bust to a tom (he was in his last 18 months or so, which meant he kept his sgts pension). Another example was a PTI taking a youth (civvie) football team through some water, one drowned, the very next day the army put up warning signs saying no swimming but pretended they had been there for a while, even the judge commented the army was acting like cnuts (not his exact words) and plenty of other examples of how the individuals are on their jack jones when it goes tits up. The army just points to its big book of rules and says "we told you to do this".
 
Let me stop you there......you're right, you've no experience. Please, not another 'the world is going to hell' mong - tell you what, 'get some in' then you can criticise the boys and girls currently doing the biz
Werent you in the RAF? Its hardly any different to civvies.
 
Risk assessment is the same matrix.
Not really, no one in the Cardiff marathon makes someone else run faster, or doesnt allow them to stop.
 
You mean like the British Empire in World War 2 that managed to take UK, Irish, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, South African, Indian, Gurkha, West African, East African, Palestinian, French, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish and Caribbean personnel and make them into a war winning force?
Well yes, but didn't these diverse Allied armies, whose courage and bravery I fully salute, only really manage to win the war because they had more tanks and airplanes and - fuel - than the Germans? The German armed forces were crippled by constant fuel shortages.

Most objective observers think that the German Armed Forces in WWII, were man for man, superior to anything the Allies could put against them. They only lost because the Allies had more materiel. More tanks. more planes, and more petrol to fuel them.

But what if the German " Case Blue " campaign in 1942 had succeeded in capturing the Soviet Caucasus oilfields, thus providing adequate fuel for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Then the Allied armies, however worthily diverse,
would not have won.
 
Let me stop you there......you're right, you've no experience. Please, not another 'the world is going to hell' mong - tell you what, 'get some in' then you can criticise the boys and girls currently doing the biz
 
Show me the contract any of us signed saying the rigorous PT will be given without adequate medical cover?

People worry about health and safety because the army/MOD will always blame the individual if it can. 20 odd years ago a sgt in Bicester was in charge of some cadets and one of them (despite warnings) jumped of a pier/jetty in shallow water and ended up a paraplegic, every man and his uncle said it wasnt the stripeys fault, he was still bust to a tom (he was in his last 18 months or so, which meant he kept his sgts pension). Another example was a PTI taking a youth (civvie) football team through some water, one drowned, the very next day the army put up warning signs saying no swimming but pretended they had been there for a while, even the judge commented the army was acting like cnuts (not his exact words) and plenty of other examples of how the individuals are on their jack jones when it goes tits up. The army just points to its big book of rules and says "we told you to do this".
I wouldn’t necessarily class either of those as routine phys.

I’m not blaming the folks, I’m blaming the system that allows this to become a self licking lollipop of money being spent when for 99.9% of the time it isn’t needed.

We should be encouraging educated and calculated risk taking. Not reckless risk taking but a use of common sense. Funnily enough, something that I'm starting to hear in The Police of all places.

The outcome shouldn’t be the decider of whether something was done incorrectly, it should be the evidence of how good the decision making was at the time.
 
But what if the German " Case Blue " campaign in 1942 had succeeded in capturing the Soviet Caucasus oilfields, thus providing adequate fuel for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Then the Allied armies, however worthily diverse,
would not have won.
You really think the only thing stopping the Germans from winning the war against the industrial and manpower might of the US, USSR and British Empire was not having enough oil?

They'd have been beaten. Either in the field as they were, repeatedly, by all three allied forces or when a sudden flash of light appeared over a German city one morning.
 
I wouldn’t necessarily class either of those as routine phys.

I’m not blaming the folks, I’m blaming the system that allows this to become a self licking lollipop of money being spent when for 99.9% of the time it isn’t needed.

We should be encouraging educated and calculated risk taking. Not reckless risk taking but a use of common sense. Funnily enough, something that I'm starting to hear in The Police of all places.

The outcome shouldn’t be the decider of whether something was done incorrectly, it should be the evidence of how good the decision making was at the time.
Wheres there's a blame, there's a claim. The army (and most other organisations) don't give a flying **** about calculated risk taking, if they are the ones having to pay out because you have not paid attention to whatever the **** rules are, someone is in for a dry bumming.

It should be different, but it isnt so we all have to put up with it.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Well yes, but didn't these diverse Allied armies, whose courage and bravery I fully salute, only really manage to win the war because they had more tanks and airplanes and - fuel - than the Germans? The German armed forces were crippled by constant fuel shortages.

Most objective observers think that the German Armed Forces in WWII, were man for man, superior to anything the Allies could put against them. They only lost because the Allies had more materiel. More tanks. more planes, and more petrol to fuel them.

But what if the German " Case Blue " campaign in 1942 had succeeded in capturing the Soviet Caucasus oilfields, thus providing adequate fuel for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Then the Allied armies, however worthily diverse,
would not have won.
I would sharply disagree that the German armed forces were "man for man superior". At the small unit level, I’ll quote Sydney Jary, who served from July 1944 to war’s end in France and Germany.

“It has become the custom for some of our younger military writers to extol the professional ability of the Wehrmacht whilst decrying that of our own fighting arms, particularly our armour and infantry. This has perplexed me because it runs contrary to my experience. My 18 Platoon were better soldiers than any we fought. So was "D" Company and the whole 4th Battalion, The Somerset Light Infantry. Admittedly it was a good battalion but I find it hard to believe that it was unique.
This tendency among writers is understandable. They are too young to have taken part in the operations about which they write and therefore they have had to rely mainly on official records and personal interviews with those who were present. Official documents so often contain "the story for the record". Written after the battle, they are extraordinarily incomplete and sometimes too subjective. Interviews with old soldiers, whatever their rank, can also be misleading. Memory fades or becomes distorted and, particularly with the British, little thought has been given over the post-war years to battles long ago. Sadly, interviews with all but a few ex-infantrymen must necessarily be of limited assistance because very few of them survived long enough to have much to contribute…
…Although they lost, the German soldiers and their families are proud of their exploits, many of which were considerable. It is, of course, very much in their own interest to encourage the theory and myth that, although superior as fighting men, they were beaten only by numerically superior forces and firepower. In my experience this was not so. In many attacks the prisoners we took outnumbered our attacking force and German units who would continue to resist at close quarters were few indeed. Unlike us, they rarely fought at night, when they were excessively nervous and unsure of themselves. Where we patrolled extensively, they avoided it. I can remember only one successful German patrol and not one successful night action.
If our positions had been reversed, I doubt if they would have performed better than we did. Without doubt, some Wehrmacht formations were extremely professionally competent but many were not. Some of the enemy infantry fought with fanaticism but most did not.” (“18 Platoon”, Sydney Jary)

A more nuanced appraisal turns up questions such as the German performance in Op OVERLORD (from June to August 1944), where - despite four years of preparation and planning time, holding some of the most wonderfully defensible terrain imaginable, and fighting an enemy who had to bring every soldier, every tank, and every bullet, bean, battery and drop of fuel across by sea and land it across open beaches… the “highly regarded” German forces were kicked from Normandy to the Seine in a few weeks of fighting, losing half a million men (twice as many as their Allied opponents) and most of their equipment. Yes, they put up a fight… but they lost, and lost hard.

“The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohesion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries” by Anthony King also has some interesting analysis and investigation, noting similar issues: that, particularly when both sides of the story are told, the German performance was - while by no means bad - not noticeably superior to their opponents, particularly when fighting on terms other than their own (King particularly notes the German experience in Stalingrad where their weapons and tactics were found somewhat wanting).

And the idea that "They only lost because the Allies had more materiel. More tanks. more planes, and more petrol to fuel them." - well, does that make choosing to go to war with the British Empire, the USSR and the United States all at the same time look like a stroke of military genius? Is fighting a war where they were so thoroughly outclassed, against opponents able to outnumber and outproduce then, and able to cut them off from foreign supplies by blockade the mark of great strategy?
 
Not really, no one in the Cardiff marathon makes someone else run faster, or doesnt allow them to stop.
The RA matrix is a simple formula.

Likelihood of occurrence V severity of occurrence = score on scale of acceptance.

Civvy organisers of an event have to meet an acceptable level of risk mitigation or they're in the shit.

Nobody expects them to eliminate risk, but it seems that the military have imposed greater standards than those imposed in the real world.

The greatest lunacy is the immediate evacuation of cas minor, creating a disproportionate logistical burden.

If every casualty requires a wagon, how many wagons do you have on standby?
 
Werent you in the RAF? Its hardly any different to civvies.
You really think the only thing stopping the Germans from winning the war against the industrial and manpower might of the US, USSR and British Empire was not having enough oil?

You really think the only thing stopping the Germans from winning the war against the industrial and manpower might of the US, USSR and British Empire was not having enough oil?

They'd have been beaten. Either in the field as they were, repeatedly, by all three allied forces or when a sudden flash of light appeared over a German city one morning.
 
The RA matrix is a simple formula.

Likelihood of occurrence V severity of occurrence = score on scale of acceptance.

Civvy organisers of an event have to meet an acceptable level of risk mitigation or they're in the shit.

Nobody expects them to eliminate risk, but it seems that the military have imposed greater standards than those imposed in the real world.

The greatest lunacy is the immediate evacuation of cas minor, creating a disproportionate logistical burden.

If every casualty requires a wagon, how many wagons do you have on standby?

I will assume that on the Cardiff marathon that no one has an irate PTI/SSM screaming at them to go faster/carry on.
If you were a civvy and you felt fucked you would (normally) stop, the army encourages you to continue. As you rightly say no one will be to blame for dying in the cardiff marathon (probably) if someone snuffs it on a PT lesson you can be assured someone will be sued.
There is no real reason to not have two safety vehicles in most units and that is what the rules recommend,
 
@ Jimmy post # 290 - thanks
Yes, I do think that the basic weakness of the Reich was a lack of oil. Hence the seemingly irrational thrust in 1942 "Case Blue" towards the Caucasus with its oilfields. The Reich had to get oil. Romanian wells and synthetic production wasn't enough

However I agree with you that even if the Caucasus oilfields had been gained, the Reich would still have lost.
Because as you pithily put it, a "flash of light" ie nuclear, delivered by a B-29 bomber from a UK base, in late 1945, would have obliterated still-surviving Hitler in Berlin. And after that, the Reich would have collapsed. Wouldn't it?
 
@ Jimmy post # 290 - thanks
Yes, I do think that the basic weakness of the Reich was a lack of oil. Hence the seemingly irrational thrust in 1942 "Case Blue" towards the Caucasus with its oilfields. The Reich had to get oil. Romanian wells and synthetic production wasn't enough

However I agree with you that even if the Caucasus oilfields had been gained, the Reich would still have lost.
Because as you pithily put it, a "flash of light" ie nuclear, delivered by a B-29 bomber from a UK base, in late 1945, would have obliterated still-surviving Hitler in Berlin. And after that, the Reich would have collapsed. Wouldn't it?

 
I will assume that on the Cardiff marathon that no one has an irate PTI/SSM screaming at them to go faster/carry on.
If you were a civvy and you felt fucked you would (normally) stop, the army encourages you to continue. As you rightly say no one will be to blame for dying in the cardiff marathon (probably) if someone snuffs it on a PT lesson you can be assured someone will be sued.
There is no real reason to not have two safety vehicles in most units and that is what the rules recommend,
Two safety vehicles aren't enough to meet the requirement of casevacing every casualty who doesn't have life threatening injuries.

You'd need a fleet of vehicles, unless you have a holding vehicle and a medic to assess and stabilise them, with a vehicle in reserve to evacuate the emergencies.
 
Two safety vehicles aren't enough to meet the requirement of casevacing every casualty who doesn't have life threatening injuries.

You'd need a fleet of vehicles, unless you have a holding vehicle and a medic to assess and stabilise them, with a vehicle in reserve to evacuate the emergencies.
No point in telling me I don't write the rules I've said on another thread that I can't take my lads out for a run anymore. I don't like it but that's the rules.
 
No point in telling me I don't write the rules I've said on another thread that I can't take my lads out for a run anymore. I don't like it but that's the rules.
How do your lads develop and maintain their aerobic fitness. Just curious, no particular dog in this fight.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E The NAAFI Bar 23
ThunderBox The NAAFI Bar 2
T Photography 120

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top