Bed...word has it that the closest you have ever come to "green" on your bonce is the obvious show of envy for the Logisitcs master race.
As for being wannabes....perhaps some of us wanted a career of a slightly higher caliber than shehite shovelling post release and learned a worthwhile skill first and left the meat bombing and trugging about in the cold and wet until a short spell in gorilladom seemed like a spot of fun. ???
Then again, who actually enjoys digging in when you can travel in comfort. Any idiot can be cold and wet. :-X
1) Mention to a civi that you're in the Army and they think tanks or bayonets. Bet you don't take the time to explain what your job is.
2) Inf and Cav get the gallantry medals, command Bdes, Divs and sit on the Army Board (last loggy CGS?)
3) Inf and Cav have the highest pick up rate for Staff College.
It says alot that you have to do a course (based on Infantry work) to gain any sort of profesional pride. You seem to bang on alot about "Commandos" and "green berets", but not being a loggy. I work with quite a few Marines (ie proper ones with SUSATs) and they are less than impressed with corps sorts banging on about being "commandos."
I will now leave this site so you lot can crack on talking about bar codes and containers - the core stuff of your job.
Not that you'll read this as you said you were leaving but in answer to your facts:
1) True, more important things to talk about.
2) Ask the next ATO that helps you out about gallantry medals. Yes , you do command Bdes and Divs but only if you've passed selection.
3) Hats off to you - we all want to go to Staff College!!
Perhaps if you had joined the Paras or Marines then you would have done Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, etc, rather than just 'working with a few Marines' and you wouldn't have to sit at home watching Sky News pretending to polish your non-existant medals. And as for SUSAT's, even the AAC have them! I refer you to the top of this post about Commandos.
Also I've noticed that you have a natural flair for logistics with your use of the terms Bar Codes and Containers so if you ever feel the urge to transfer......
Oh dear, sounds like the bop at Donni has just kicked out. Sad that all this thread has degenerated into, is NAAFI bar on a Friday night, to be expected though I suppose.
BTW, AAC has no use for SUSAT as that would improve our sighting system on the Lynx.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, tell everyone they can and read books like Soldier X, a troopers story and tell family that they can't tell them what they do for a living but mention 'H' and 'the South coast' an awful lot. And do you still earn your Para pay?
CO, I think you'll find that these people still regard 'Front rank kneel, rear rank FIRE' as the latest ammendment to the Basic Tactics pamphlet.
Hey, is'nt it great that we've taken over the Really Large Corps thread already with mindless trivia. Although to expect them to have someone who is capable of operating a keyboard without the assistance of a social worker might be too much to ask. Care in the community and all that.
I stand in awe of a man who had the good judgement at such an early age, that he could arrange to be born to parents who could afford to send him to public school. Automatic qualifier for ECAB, surely.
This will clearly outweigh his ignorance of the quota system applied to Staff College selection, which is designed to ensure that Inf/Cav are both over-represented at JSCSC, and therefore beyond, making a mockery of any pretence the Army may present to the world, of ability being the sole criterion for advancement in its officer corps.
It must be wonderful to be equipped by nature with life skills as essential as 'Knowing Chaps from School Who Can Give Me a Good Job When I Discover I Only Smell Like God's Gift to Defence' and 'Looking Down On People'.
I am sure you are proud that this Army, alone of those in NATO, has only had one QMG in its entire history, with a professional logistical background [Travers - rebadged from Inf, died in post after a year - block at Camberley Staff college and Barracks in Aldershot named after him. Son still serving, in Inf].
No doubt you can explain why the British Army, at a strength of 135,000 needed to train 100[+] pscs per year, when the German Army - 5 times larger - was pushing only 55 officers per annum through its ''equivalent'' course [of 2 not 1 year duration]. Remember, they trounced us time and again between 1940 and 42 - we only started winning when the Yanks gave Monty the ammunition, and the Russians gave him the breathing space he needed. When we won the war, we were such masters of manoeuvre and mission command, we went in to the Cold War with an Army most of whose infantry soldiers were just highly trained coal-painters.
We have, of course overcome this tendency - with the aid of such naturally broad thinking and charismatic leaders as your good self, and we wait with bated breath to hear how you propose to conduct the next British operation without the irritating encumbrance of low-life logisticians cluttering up an otherwise socially acceptable moral atrocity.
If you want to prise open your tiny clam-like mind a little, climb out of your mental slit-trench, and get a field of observation beyond 300m. Start with 'Power and Prestige in the British Army' by Prof Reggie Von Zugbach of Paisley University, [out of print, but available through MoD Library Whitehall] or The Politics of the British Army, by Hew Strachan.
You might ask yourself also, whether Colin Powell [parents British Citizens] could have become an Inf CO in the British Army, let alone CGS.
Regular Army Infantry Officer
late Public School
graduate of the University of Andersonstown[before JOKER], with post-graduate qualifications from Newry and Sarajevo
GLOSSARY: L-I-B-R-A-R-Y: Place where you find books[many without pictures].
I'll second that. Excelllent post. It's always bemused me slightly why, since the very top posts (CGS, CAS, 1SL et al) are actually an awful lot more, indeed, almost exclusively these days, about complex management, orhcestration and technical knowledge that the Services persist in reserving them for people who were initially selected primarily for either good hand eye co-ordination or their ability to lead people with bags of smoke and two-up....rather than those who have had a career of managing complex organisations and techie stuff.
But then, there's the rub. Do we primarily want great Platoon/Company/Bn LEADERs at the top of the profession, or do we want people who are technically competent, can run large organisations and take the sort of complex decisions that are needed (rather than just reading the first two lines of the paper DASD has prepared and reading out what he's told to read). Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but it does seem a bit odd to artificially restrict options early on.
Could this possibly be a serious debate here ? Surely not !
They are good points and well made - however I think they perhaps relate more to the past than the future, while still having a large relevance in the present.
It would be churlish to assume that those who make Lt Col are tactical warriors who run around with bayonets in their teeth screaming for blood. Generally they are fit and tactically able, but also technically competent and wanting to get on. (Interpret the last bit as you see fit)
Of course we all come across CO's/OC's who you want to disembowell but the same is true in Civvy Street. It is also clear that there must be some serious career planning / arse licking and all points in between to get up the greasy pole but that does not mean that they are not equipped for the environment they will find themselves.
Army board level posts are essentially political appointments and will, from now, on always be. The point I am trying to make is that the situation was ever thus but takes us time to realise it. We would all like a board who would fight our battles in both the political and martial arena but it is simply not realistic to expect both. Clearly we could at times be better served but also considerably worse.
My god what just got into me - Im off to develop some flippancy
Congratulatons and thank you to Stonker! What a well read young man he is. I'm also really happy to see such crap being written on the RLC page.
The basic truth of the conumdrum over CGS/CDS being combat arms/combat support arms really has never changed. The person at the top will have got there by a combination of skill, intellect and arse licking (but not necessarily in that order! However most of the really good officers will have got out long before they reached their potential, and are now far happier, richer and more successful than they would have been had they stayed in.
The only worry therefore is the real skill of those who command us.
To paraphrase Harold MacMillan, "High Comand in the British Army at the start of a war is not a good place to be".
Chaps - lets not get too excited before bedtime. Remember that we have an important job to do next week, in re-fuelling and arming those combat arm types to prevent them from just being expensive targets!!