Jim Storr Article in BAR 149 - Infantry Command

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by alfred_the_great, Aug 31, 2010.

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. Having just read the above article (now available on ArmyNet), have I missed the point somewhere? The Command situation he is describing is the same for every other unit, apart from Inf Battalions, in all 3 forces. What's the non-stated background behind this?

    yours in confusion,

    Al

    [The Regimental System in the British Army - 1685 - 2010, Lt Col J Storr PhD, BAR 149 pp70 - 76]
     
  2. That was an amazing read. What he's saying is that the Infantry has perfected by complete accident an almost perfect way to ensure a high level of cohesion within a unit. By accident the 2006(?) changes have possibly destroyed that cohesion
     
  3. Given that this has been a hobby hoss of mine for a while, plus my admiration for Storr's (almost always controversial) analyses, is there any chance someone could lob me a soft copy, since I'm a professional civvy these days, and can't access ArmyNet.

    Any volunteers, PM me, and I'll supply an email address (either that or upload it to Scribd, and PM me a link)
     
  4. PM inbound..........
     
  5. Check - have replied
     
  6. By implication, every other unit in the Armed Forces doesn't reach that "perfection". I doubt that very much, both inasmuch that the Inf are perfect (at any point in history) and that other units can't reach the same heady heights. Why am I confident in saying this? If it was so bloody good, why isn't everyone doing it?

    PS - Stonker, still need a copy?
     
  7. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I don't suppose you could forward one to me alf?
     
  8. I have been sorted, thanks,

    and on "if it's so bloody good etc" - tribes are slow to learn new ways, esp. when they are 'certain' (never mind evidence to the contrary) that they are 'doing it right' . . .

    I don't know that I concur with much of Storr's analysis, BTW - accepting that I'm out of touch with the 2006 changes, I'd need to re-read it slowly and sober, but - having written my Staff College commandants paper on cohesion - I question some of his statements and assumptions about what makes it happen.

    I hate to say it, but it reads as though written without consideration of the buckshee private's PoV on group dynamics, and it seems to accept a number of myths about the how the regimental system impacts on group identity.
     
  9. Stonker, hence my question. Why is he raising this? Is there something in the SDSR that will further decrease Inf cohesion? Have some Col Cmdt of Regiments been leaning on him? Or is he pushing for the rest of the Army to make their Command Selection process (at every level from Cpl to Lt Col) to fall into line with the Inf?
     
  10. I didn't notice Storr flinching in the face of that kind of disapproval when he was still taking the Queen's shilling, and had a uniformed career to protect: the reverse, if anything - a man I warmed to immediately :-D

    That said, this is an emotional topic: it is hard (impossible?) for anyone who has at some point signed up to it - literally committed their life to it - to be entirely dispassionate, objective and scientific (as in Grissom's "follow the evidence") about it.

    I note, however, that the BAR artcle is a distillation of a longer piece of work (produced for an AUS or CAN audience?), and I'd like to read that, if I could, but - hey - we can't have everything.
     
  11. Far be it for me to be cynical but he does reference his own book in the article!
     
  12. Serving personnel may like to know that the new electronic home of the British Army Review is AKX on the RLI. Individual articles are linked to a discussion forum in order to stimulate lively debate. The BAR Editor John Wilson is tapped into this. We will soon be loading the BAR up on to AKX(U) on ArmyNET which will make it more easily accessible.

    AKX is LF one stop shop for Land environment operational knowledge and exists on 3 platforms - AKX(U) on ArmyNET, (R) on the RLI and (S) on the SLI. There is a quick link from the Defence, Army, LWC and LWDG home pages.
     
  13. AKX - many thanks, but having watched VitalGround die on it's arse on AKX, I'll be posting questions like this on here for the time being.
     
  14. "Vital Ground " on AKX(U) on ArmyNET "died on its arse" because we were having difficlty getting buy in from the Majors community. Probably because most Majors have rather a lot on their plates at the moment!! Communities of Practise will only work if the community wants it to work and participates - it can not be driven from outside. I am not convinced that having a closed community for Majors / SO2s is the way we do things in the British Army but I could yet be convinced. I will be talking to DAD ICSC(L) shortly and if they want to support it, it may be reinvigorated yet. In the meantime, have you had a look at the Discussion Forum on AKX(R) accessible on the RLI? You may be pleasantly surprised. It is taking off with contributions from Comd FDT (through his MA) down to Cpl level.
     
  15. My main problem is that my access to DII is sporadic at best (the other being I'm not a Maj either).

    Whilst I understand the requirement for "real" usernames (provenance and such like), I suspect it has a limiting effect on anything like VG; if I had a problem/question like the ones that should be on VG, I'd send a e-mail (bcc of course) to all the other people who might be able to help. Exposing the limits of your ignorance is a good thing, doing so to people who will either use that to judge you, or stab you in the back, will result in career suicide. And we've discussed the pernicious effect of "Career-ism" on these boards to demonstrate this fact!