Increase in ATs

#1
With FAS giving the AT trade a huge boost, does anyone know which Gibbering Buffoon decided to do this without supplying the infrastructure to support them?

The increase in numbers is all well and good but without the right ET / Admin / Welfare support it's useless, especially with current commitments as their is no immediate return. The earliest any benefit real will be seen is at least 5 years down the line but probably longer!
 
#2
Centrifugal_Balls said:
With FAS giving the AT trade a huge boost, does anyone know which Gibbering Buffoon decided to do this without supplying the infrastructure to support them?

The increase in numbers is all well and good but without the right ET / Admin / Welfare support it's useless, especially with current commitments as their is no immediate return. The earliest any benefit real will be seen is at least 5 years down the line but probably longer!
You've dangled a tasty morsel so I'll bite. FAS options basically boiled down to the following:

Option 1 - Do nothing and rag the current crop of ATs into the ground.
Option 2 - Try and get some additional bodies in the pinch point trade, acknowledging that although they won't be immediately available, they will be there in time...whilst also acknowledging that there is no point in having admin/welfare staff sitting around for 5 years (but probably longer) waiting for some ATs to actually admin/welfare!

I could bore you with the intricacies of 'compensating reductions' and other fascinating 'establishment' dullness, but I won't. The gains under FAS were always going to be incremental, no matter how much we might have liked the 'gold-plated solution' first off. Suffice it to say that in terms of priority, it was decided that having some extra ATs (albeit less well supported than we would ideally wish) was better than having none!

Sadly for you there is no single 'Gibbering Buffoon'!! FAS increases were not dreamt up and established overnight by any one individual. The clue is in the title - Future Army Structures. Even a CO :twisted: could not staff all the FAS increases and the attendant G1-G4 matters on his own, without a considerable number of others inside the Regt and out, casting a beady eye over the proposals.

Can I assume that you have found a cunning way of creating good quality SNCO Ammo Techs in less than 5 years? And if so, can you tell me your secret?!?!
 
#3
As far as having the support elements "sitting around for 5 years" is concerned, there is plenty for them to be doing right now, like dealing withn the influx of fresh ATs we're receiving. How do you propose we administer, train and develop these JNCOs into the seniors of quality we require?

There is no quick fix to implement the FAS (which, don't get me wrong, I approve of) change but there is more to it than churning out a job lot of baby ATs and saying "they'll be ready in 5 years, was there anything else?"
 
#4
Sorry to dive across into yuor forum again but from our experience in the Enginner EOD FAS has already created a fair few problems, our extra Squadron is now on line, with no kit, no houses and no extra courses being run at the school. Recently on a Briefing day the guy's in charge of our procuremt heard about the extra Squadron and the doubling of our search assessts for the 1st time. Not great when you are trying to get the new Squadron on Tour on October, as normal its "hello left hand this is right hand over"
 
#5
slippersapper said:
Sorry to dive across into yuor forum again but from our experience in the Enginner EOD FAS has already created a fair few problems, our extra Squadron is now on line, with no kit, no houses and no extra courses being run at the school. Recently on a Briefing day the guy's in charge of our procuremt heard about the extra Squadron and the doubling of our search assessts for the 1st time. Not great when you are trying to get the new Squadron on Tour on October, as normal its "hello left hand this is right hand over"
SS - Your use of the term "Enginner EOD FAS" is wildly incorrect. Yes you have another Sqn formed and you even state yourself above that they are for search. How many times have you lot got to be told SEARCH is not EOD its SEARCH!

God! - next your be saying that you want to do HT IEDD! Oh hang on you do don't you.
 
#6
C_B, obvoiusly FAS is not ideal, but it is attempting to repair the damage done by some Fcukwit back in the early 1990s when they decided to bin T2 courses hence the manpower gap. As you are looking for the 'gibbering buffoon' to single out for assasination, what do you suggest we do with the influx of T2 ATs who are not even qualified to wipe their own arrse's yet? I believe the welfare and admin side is the least of the problems, we need to find them constructive employment where they will learn something about the job hence becoming more employable in the future.
 
#7
Mili, there are ways of employing and trg the new LCpls (who arrived not fully Phase 2 trained due to some ATRA f*>> up) quite easily and well.

However, if you don't administer them correctly and sort out their welfare (& I don't mean wet nurse them, I mean pay them correctly and ensure that their incorrect pay doesn't lead them to debt too early) you will have no Sergeants to administer or train in 5 years 'cos they'll all vote with their feet. :cry:

Not saying an increase in manning is unwelcome, just that we need correct basics.
 
#8
Exactly my point. M_R, the new ATs come as a whole package and unless they are supported with all the other elements with which we've been struggling to cope without so far, how do you propose they are developed?
 
#9
_B, obvoiusly FAS is not ideal, but it is attempting to repair the damage done by some Fcukwit back in the early 1990s when they decided to bin T2 courses hence the manpower gap. As you are looking for the 'gibbering buffoon' to single out for assasination, what do you suggest we do with the influx of T2 ATs who are not even qualified to wipe their own arrse's yet? I believe the welfare and admin side is the least of the problems, we need to find them constructive employment where they will learn something about the job hence becoming more employable in the future.
Not wholey correct there mate; yes the T2 courses did have some impact on the AT trade, tours and there was an obvious backlash - although alot of younger AT's have now jumped on this bandwagon and ridden in on the complaints. The old AT trade size was I believe about 325, when redundancy was offered and the T2 courses stopped due to the estimate that they could naturally waste away the ones they didn't want and get down to the ideal number. Unfortunately ALOT of people liked the package and took it aswell as no-one saw anything other then NI as future. FAS did require an increase in the trade but realistically it was to increase to approx 350 (Dibble will know the exact I'd guess) so FAS was not the complete fault.

And anyway, not like we have only just started producing cr@p AT's, there's always been enough around, just the fact that its now easier to blame the system.
 
#10
Dibble, Dibble, Dibble - those trainees are obviously getting to you. Search is part of EOD mate, remember the definition? Oh dear, fancy feeding your favourite sparring partner that one. Come on back mate, quick as you can now......................
 
#11
Search - part of EOD. Surely not. If that was the case, then would the NSC at DEODS not just be another wing of DEODS itself instead of having its own CO and command structure?
 
#12
EOD is comprised of Conventional Munition Disposal (CMD) and Improvised Explosive Device Disposal (IEDD). Low or high risk search is part of the 'toolset' an IEDD operator may choose to employ.

Search in terms of CMD is something else involving those fantastic 'anti-mine' boots and other such comedy items...
 
#13
EOD = explosive ORDNANCE disposal

ORDNANCE = 1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.

IED's can be of a non military nature - so therefore IEDD is not part of EOD.

Simple really.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#14
Bomb_Doctor said:
EOD = explosive ORDNANCE disposal

ORDNANCE = 1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.

IED's can be of a non military nature - so therefore IEDD is not part of EOD.

Simple really.
Great logic, which is difficult to fault. I wonder if PANTO will ever use it? (LOL)
 
#15
The new Sqaudron is not Search, it is another EOD Sqn and has already deployed. Each EOD Squadron now has as integral search troop as well now. Rumour has it more are on the way, 33 will assimilate all, god help us.....
 
#16
farmaggeddon said:
Search - part of EOD. Surely not. If that was the case, then would the NSC at DEODS not just be another wing of DEODS itself instead of having its own CO and command structure?
EOD concerns, amongst other things, the detection of unexploded ordnance. Detection concerns, amomgst other things, searching. Therefore search is part of EOD.

NSC has its own structure becasue it is funded by the Home Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Defence,
 
#17
Bomb_Doctor said:
EOD = explosive ORDNANCE disposal

ORDNANCE = 1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.

IED's can be of a non military nature - so therefore IEDD is not part of EOD.

Simple really.
So does that mean if an IED is of a military natire, then it is part of EOD.

Utter rubbish - EOD is a generic term incorporating many sub categories, each with their own defintitions. EOD includes, but is not limited to CMD, IEDD, BCMD...... and search.

All in the Army Field Manual and the doctrine publication definitions annex.
 
#18
Nice to see this thread has veered wildly off topic. Never mind, I'll veer it off some more.

Definitions of the various parts of EOD is a bit of a hot potato at the moment as its being used to justify that pile of dogsh1t that the Jt EOD branch have put out about generic operators. Particularly with respect to what is or is not an IED and whether search is or is not EOD.

The authority for all NATO definitions is AAP2. This includes the definitions of EOD, CMD, IEDs, IEDD and search. This can not be disputed or amended without reference to NATO, so attempts to redefine search and IEDD by the wedge are futile. EOD doctrine is laid down in JDP 2/02 and this amplifies the definitions in AAP2. JDP 2/02 says that search is an enabling activity to EOD, but not EOD in itself. So there you go.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#19
Sir Rowley Birkin QC said:
The authority for all NATO definitions is AAP2. This includes the definitions of EOD, CMD, IEDs, IEDD and search. This can not be disputed or amended without reference to NATO, so attempts to redefine search and IEDD by the wedge are futile.
Mmmmm. And who is the UK rep on the NATO EOD Committee = E in C?
 
#20
Sammy The Cat said:
Bomb_Doctor said:
EOD = explosive ORDNANCE disposal

ORDNANCE = 1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.

IED's can be of a non military nature - so therefore IEDD is not part of EOD.

Simple really.
So does that mean if an IED is of a military natire, then it is part of EOD.

Utter rubbish - EOD is a generic term incorporating many sub categories, each with their own defintitions. EOD includes, but is not limited to CMD, IEDD, BCMD...... and search.

All in the Army Field Manual and the doctrine publication definitions annex.
I was going to reply to BD, but Sammy has done it far more succintly than I would have!

Improvised Explosive Devices, especially these days, do include military ordnance as the main charge so.......!

11 EOD Regt does both, hence the EOD part but perhaps 33 Regt (EOD) should be renamed 33 Regt (CMD)? The devil being in the staffwork, and all that. Certainly, a more technically correct title?

Ditto on the publications comment above.
 

Latest Threads

Top