Let's Get It On!!!!

Discussion in 'RLC' started by Commando, Jan 11, 2002.

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. Commandos first in, as usual! ;D
  2. As a truck driver????!????
  3. Yes.  Well done for bringing forward some hexiblocks and lever arch files in a big truck.

    I have noticed that the most "Airbourne" or "Royal" people about aren't the Paras or Marines, but the attached Corps.

    Smacks of wanna be to me.

    Didn't like digging in, did we?
  4. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    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.  ;D

    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
  5. Bed Pan - Thanks for your interest in the RLC forum, can your lot not write or something?

    Talking of 'wannabes', you wannbe my 5 year old son because he can spell Airborne!  A few years of education should see you right.

    The reason I didn't join your lot becomes more justified everyday. ;D
  6. Sigh.

    The facts:

    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.
  7. You clearly know the origin of a Commando!

    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......
  8. Shut up Bed, you fuckin' hat ;D
  9. 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?  ;)

    I can't spell it, but I can bench press it!
  10. Harrumph.  (Telegraph rustle) (coffee sip) (pensive ear tug).  What the hell is going on here?

    Bed_in; I suggest a couple of dodgy fire works in the direct role.  What d'you reckon?  
  11. 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. ;)
  12. Yeah baby, let's get it out!!!! :eek:
  13. 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].
  14. Bloody good post, stonker! ;)
  15. :D

    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 !