Like an official version of ARRSE to share military knowhow?

:idea: Unleashing the power of the Army Profession. :!: I am fired-up by a US Army website called It was set up to connect leaders and enable Company Commanders to share information and their knowledge in a "virtual Officers' Mess". It allows officers to gain access to each other and tap into the collective knowledge of the members IOT share their professional knowledge with those that need it. It breaks down the stove-pipes of current army structure to allow what are currently limited areas of interest to break into seams that run across the breadth of the Army. It does what goes on all over the British Army today at coffee, but it allows for a much greater participation and therefore much greater sharing potential. I am hoping to persuade MoD to create an official community of practice, similar to ARRSE in UK called something like

:?: Does anyone have real experience of using ARRSE or a similar community of practice website to share knowledge in a military environment? I am trying find real-life UK examples of where it has proved useful.
My gut feeling is that we (the British Army) find it hard enough to come together for lunch, let alone an 'formal exchange of ideas and concepts that will facilitate the reduction - and increase the transparency - of stovepipes (in terms of career, LoD and employment) that such a bold and innovative will undoubtedly create'.

(Direct lift from the CONEMP for ArmyNET)

Yeah, that will be an obstacle to overcome - but we are doing it now! So far about 7,500 army soldiers / officers have signed up to ARRSE.

If we had a professional forum that one could go to to share info / experiences (e.g anything from an Excel spreadsheet to help account for range-allocation to best practice / doctrine for Convoy drills in Iraq) then I am sure it would be used. In addition, current expert knowledge resides with those that are in the experience right now - if you are about to have that experience or have just had it there is no-way to share that tacit knowledge at the moment; would overcome that.

What does CONEPM stand for?
CONEPM = Concept of Employment.

Forum for professional military knowledge is a bad thing on the WWW, as you can't post anything above UNCLASSIFIED. Which wouldn't really be that useful.

For lessons ID or learnt, you need to speak to the LWC.
Go to the Land Command homepage and follow the links to the LWC. You will find that most of this info is above RESTRICTED and so can only be found on CHots
Because it's RESTRICTED. The point is that you can't have a professional forum and dicuss anything meaningful (in terms of operations/lessons) on the WWW.
Ah, wonder why they bothered to include the link then.

However you didn't answer the question regarding an intranet, my understanding of there working is limited but I believe they can be run without needing a connection to the www.
ARRSE could be used, but my personal view is that:
1. Army Rumour Service is meant to be just that - it needs to be different from a professional forum for debate amongst soldiers / officers and the new service should be a complement to ARRSE rather than competition to it.
2. There can be no anonymity on It would be about sharing best practice and being able to contact one another.
3. With decent security passes there is no issue with using www. - but most of what MoD considers to be Restricted really isn't.
abacus said:
Assuming that anonymity would not be a concern, why not just use a private forum on ArmyNet?
Army Net is shortly upgrading to php version 2.0.11, which will give a similar look, and provide the same functionality as arrse (whether they chose to use the functionality is a matter for armynet).

It might be worthwhile asking the moderators of armynet whether they could devolop a part of the forum to provide the kind of service your talking about. It might even prove a better option as the firm are paying for the running and the bandwidth. I'm not sure that anonimity would be required, it may even prove an advantage to have contact details in your signatures (work email, mil phone number etc) people can then contact you directly to discuss your particular area of expertise.

However you didn't answer the question regarding an intranet, my understanding of there working is limited but I believe they can be run without needing a connection to the www
You are right - that's why you can't access it from the outside! There are a variety of MOD/LAND etc IT systems that can access the Intranet but funnily enough the people who don't have access are usually those people in sub unit command in the Field Army.

Nice idea but impractical until every desk has a terminal - at the moment we can't give every officer access to a computer at work to complete his mandatory e-learning packages for promotion :!:

I do like the idea of a forum to share information but it already exists in the various magazines and publications that are all over the Army - KIT/ADTN/BAR etc. Making it electronic won't make it better - in fact it is likely to prove confusing, reinforce poor practice and be poorly though through - the benefit of the printed word is that a considerable number of people will have access to the draft - 2Lt or Sgt write up their good experiences, Coy Comd checks it, CO casts an eye over it, editor checks it and passes it across to an SME and eventually it gets published as an accurate and authoritative document - not an ill-conceived and poorly written scrap like this :!:

If we introduce another format then they will all become diluted and be of less value.

Just because its modern doesn't mean its better - our unit lost a laptop just after they were issued as 'battle winning equipment' - the QM lost his rag and threw notebook and pencil (sharpened at both ends) on the table and shouted: 'Battle Winning Equipment my arrse - battle winning equipment is kept in the armoury overnight.'
Except apparently the US site works.

I personally think it an excellent idea. It could also include AT Instr / lesson plans and the rest. Restr nature is not insurmountableWill save an awful lot of work in the long-term. It can also cater for all levels (which typically most of our publications do not).

If aval on the internet, then it truly is accessible to all (authorised) whereas the limited distr of other pubs is not. Think of alll of the times you have had to write an instr knowing that someone else must have done exactly the same. Reckon it would be easier to drag something off the net and to adapt rather than re-inventing.

Even as a relative luddite I can see the potential benefits, so let's not therefore rubbish the idea. it seems to work on this site well enough.
A true professional cummunity of learning, which is what I envisage, is based on identity. It is about being able to connect with people and to build a truely powerful community of best practice one has to have trust - thus known authorship. ARRSE is a great model to prove that it would work - it sort of suggests that there is both a need and a solution, but or whatever it will be called must be separate to allow what ARRSE is really about to continue.
Is it me or can anyone else not access Sounds like a cracking idea to have something similar for the British Army.

I agree that this is something that the ArmyNET team should look at. Half the problem is the fact that we all need to be re-educated as to what is RESTRICTED and what is not. 90% of RESTRICTED is in fact UNCLAS from my experience!
#17 is difficult to access due to the demand and it sometimes 'times-out'. You won't be able to get into the main part because you need a US email account. BUT if you do manage to get the web-page up you can access the Professional Reading forum for an idea of what the rest of the site looks like.
OK Guilty of taking a swipe without thinking :oops:

I've just treid to have a look, can get the home page but can't log on (having not commanded a company in the US Army!) Does anyone have a screen shot or likewise that we could have a look at.

No IT expert but if you have to log on to a discrete site like ArmyNet and then cut across, wouldn't that solve some of the security issues?
I've just sent them an email using our USLO to ask if I (and by extension all British officers) could have a .mil account.

Wait out.

Similar threads

Latest Threads