Proposed Training Changes Post Army 2020

[bob_the_bomb]

Let's send everyone to RMAS, then they're all trained to the same level.

We'd have a brilliant army.

I think that's rather missing the point.

There's been lots of points made on here for 'exceptions' because of regimental differences. Such as inculcating a 'guards' attitude. Whatever we on Arrse might think of this, it's going to be justifying all these different depots to the axemen in these times of cuts, especially when RMAS pumps out all the officers for all these different 'exceptions'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cutaway]

In garrison, I would pick Fijians to go out on the town with over Gurkhas hands down, in the field, Gurkhas seem to outshine Fijians easily.

Yeah, an evening in town with the Fijians always ensures a warm bed for the night and a brew in the morning.
It all changes after the Monkeys arrive at the nick to take you back to camp.

 

[bob_the_bomb]

Whats the point in teaching everyone sword drill - and to be crap at reading maps?

Steady.

I admit to being crap at sword drill

Oh, wait...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eodmatt]

It'll be an automatic limit on any expeditionary deployments.

Doubt it. According the the CV carrier thread, HMS TQ and HMS Charlie will be right there flogging across Laffans Plain and up the Kyber etc.

 

[HLD DMR]

Have you ever been 'in the field' with Gurkhas in an area / environment they're not familiar with?

Yes, and Fijians.....
Only problems I’ve ever had with Gurkhas is I want to shove a dull ice pick into my ear after listening to their pipers butcher a tune.....

 

[Caecilius]

Especially when RMAS pumps out all the officers for all these different 'exceptions'.

There are exceptions to that. RM have a bespoke course and Paras have to do PCoy, for example (I have also occasionally heard Para toms being slightly disparaging about their officers not being real Paras). The guards CIC is only longer because of extra drill which is covered at RMAS as standard so the different course for officers doesn't really apply.

Officers also have the advantage of social selection so you're picking like-minded people to join messes. If you have to build a particular mentality from disparate people with nothing in common then combined training helps.

I wonder how big the savings here really are. If you don't amalgamate RM training with army training (which, let's face it, isn't happening) then you end up with something pretty similar to the Catterick model we have at the moment. Some bits of the infantry can do normal training with 1ITB, while others like the guards need a bespoke course at 2ITB. Unless some serious sacred cows are killed, like removing the Paras from the ORBAT, then there isn't much cash to be saved in infantry training alone.

 

[John G]

Then I think we are in agreement and can let the thread continue with its intended direction.

I overlooked my other rather major point of disagreement - while I'm also in favour of 'British lads' doing the job they don't seem to have much interest in doing it, so in my view anything (even Gurkha) is better than nothing.

 

[Deleted 129455]

I also don't see the logic for taking PF away from 16X. Again, they exist for a reason which is removed by making them part of the group. There's probably no harm in making them do the hills before heading back to 16X for the rest of their course though.

They already do a hills phase with a selection equalling test week.

I agree PF should stay in 16X as they do serve a purpose as the BRF and if ever a mass jump takes place again their HAPC capability will be used as DZ marking.

 

[bob_the_bomb]

There are exceptions to that. RM have a bespoke course and Paras have to do PCoy, for example (I have also occasionally heard Para toms being slightly disparaging about their officers not being real Paras). The guards CIC is only longer because of extra drill which is covered at RMAS as standard so the different course for officers doesn't really apply.

Officers also have the advantage of social selection so you're picking like-minded people to join messes. If you have to build a particular mentality from disparate people with nothing in common then combined training helps.

I wonder how big the savings here really are. If you don't amalgamate RM training with army training (which, let's face it, isn't happening) then you end up with something pretty similar to the Catterick model we have at the moment. Some bits of the infantry can do normal training with 1ITB, while others like the guards need a bespoke course at 2ITB. Unless some serious sacred cows are killed, like removing the Paras from the ORBAT, then there isn't much cash to be saved in infantry training alone.

There have always been 'special to arm' courses and I don't see those going away.

Savings? I'm sure there are some. Will it be enough to pay for a carrier or save an armoured brigade? Probably not. Probably in the same range as a few bands or the BBMF. At a guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John G]

I wonder how big the savings here really are. If you don't amalgamate RM training with army training (which, let's face it, isn't happening) then you end up with something pretty similar to the Catterick model we have at the moment. Some bits of the infantry can do normal training with 1ITB, while others like the guards need a bespoke course at 2ITB. Unless some serious sacred cows are killed, like removing the Paras from the ORBAT, then there isn't much cash to be saved in infantry training alone.

Exactly the point I was making before. He's made it sound very 'radical', but when you look at it closely and take out the pie in the sky of "RM training with army", presumably with their officers also training at RMAS, he's actually proposed changing the square root of damn all except changing the point at which recruits are allocated a cap badge /unit from the recruiting office to on completion of Ph2.

That makes sense, but I don't see how it's going to save any money.

Savings? I'm sure there are some.

Where?

Take out the RM joining the Army (and he hasn't even bothered to mention RAF Regt, or officer trg) and he hasn't even moved the deck chairs round on the Titanic, he's just dusted them off.

 

[UORMan]

Why you can't combine Infantry Ph 1 Training. Both the Infantry and RAC used to do it with the Junior Leaders Regiments in the 70's / 80's.

I am not sure what the RAC do for Basic Training now, but 30 years ago, it was either Tanks (CH/CR1) or Recce (CVRT), they are now operating across a wider number of platforms, which require as much if not more specialist training than some of the Infantry roles mentioned.

As for the Gurkha's, I think the opportunity to remove them from the Orbat was missed when HK closed. At the very least, they should have disbanded the Engineer/ Signals / RLC type elements.

 

[bob_the_bomb]

Exactly the point I was making before. He's made it sound very 'radical', but when you look at it closely and take out the pie in the sky of "RM training with army", presumably with their officers also training at RMAS, he's actually proposed changing the square root of damn all except changing the point at which recruits are allocated a cap badge /unit from the recruiting office to on completion of Ph2.

That makes sense, but I don't see how it's going to save any money.



Where?

Take out the RM joining the Army (and he hasn't even bothered to mention RAF Regt, or officer trg) and he hasn't even moved the deck chairs round on the Titanic, he's just dusted them off.

I personally don't have a dog in this fight. However it's worth bearing in mind that 'special pleading' hasn't worked very well as a defence over the last 25 years or so since 'Options' kicked in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John G]

Why you can't combine Infantry Ph 1 Training. Both the Infantry and RAC used to do it with the Junior Leaders Regiments in the 70's / 80's.

Yes and no ... it was actually a combined Ph1 and Ph2 course (plus additional education, etc, as they were Juniors), so broadly similar to the current CIC, but they were still divided on a divisional basis - not just Guards, Paras and Line Inf, but Line Inf was further sub divided by Div (Queens, Kings, Light, etc) within Line Inf, and by the 80's there were a number of different but parallel IJLBs for the different Divs.

Pretty well exactly as it is now except centralised at Catterick, which @maninblack's "One Star former SF bod" friend seems somehow blissfully unaware has already happened, as this seems to be the core of his cunning plan.

 

[John G]

After phase 2 successful soldiers would be asked to specialise and would then be posted to a battalion. The exception for this would be those going for Royal Marines or Parachute Regiment service

I re-read the opening post to make sure that I'd understood it properly. While the arguments for and against combining RM and Inf seem to have already been covered, namely on the 'for' side it may save costs and on the 'against' side even if it's acceptable to 1SL and CGRM while RM and Para tasks can overlap there are significant differences in basic role and operating methods, I still can't follow / believe this part:

Specialist infantry would attend 3 months at a combined training centre on a course based upon the All Arms Commando Course. This would likely remain at Lympstone. ..... Those who complete the course would be able to select Parachute Regiment or Royal Marines subject to available posts in their chosen unit.

If I've understood that correctly, that means that after completing their 28 weeks CIC (Phs1 & 2) they then complete an additional 13 weeks - a total of 41 weeks training.

The Para CIC is 30 weeks (two weeks longer than Line inf) and RM trg is 32 weeks. I've never heard of a cost cutting / "streamlining" plan that takes courses that are role specific, tried and tested, and already producing what's wanted and needed and last 30 or 32 weeks with something that's 30% longer. Ignoring all other aspects, how can making basic training 30% longer possibly save costs?

Also joining this course would be those non-infantry soldiers volunteering for Commando or Airborne units.

... and this is even more confusing.

P Company is one week; the AACC is 8 weeks, plus the 4 week preparation phase ... and in the interests of cost-cutting and "streamlining" they're both to be replaced by a course lasting 13 weeks?

I know I'm out of touch, but all other issues aside I can't understand how replacing a course that lasts one week (P Coy) and is, again, 'role specific, tried and tested, and already producing what's wanted and needed' with one which is 13 weeks can be "streamlining" and save costs.

I also can't see how replacing the AACC, which in addition to teaching Commando skills also teaches core infantry skills such as fieldcraft, tactics, signals, first aid, etc, with an alternative course which is also done by potential RM after they've completed their Ph 1 & 2 basic trg (the CIC) but have yet to join their units, can achieve the same aim. Either it still teaches the same core infantry skills in order to bring those from other arms up to a common standard (as in the AACC), in which case it's duplicating the exact same training the recruits have just completed in their Ph2 trg, or it doesn't and it only teaches Commando skills.

If it does the former then duplicating training that's just been done is as pointless as it is a waste of time and money, and if it does the latter it won't achieve its aim as it'll be teaching Commando skills to those who don't even have basic infantry skills or training.

@maninblack, are you sure this was a "One Star former SF bod of established and proven influence" you met, who was also "one of the driving forces behind the revision of uniform policy white paper"? Both have all the hallmarks of @meerkatz on one of his off days.

 

[Switchback]

@maninblack, are you sure this was a "One Star former SF bod of established and proven influence" you met, who was also "one of the driving forces behind the revision of uniform policy white paper"? Both have all the hallmarks of @meerkatz on one of his off days.

Why wrap it up in that John, if you think he’s lying why not just say so?

 

[John G]

Why wrap it up in that John, if you think he’s lying why not just say so?

I don't think he's "lying" at all - anything but.

I only wish he was and that this and the proposals on dress regs could be written off as a massive 'Waah', but I've no reason to think they are as people who are far better informed than me are taking them seriously..

I was just trying to put their rationality into some sort of light-hearted perspective; if that came across as suggesting that @maninblack was a liar I apologise, as that was never even remotely my intention.

 

[eodmatt]

I happen to know that Maninblack is a lady of great integrity.

 

[BugsyIV]

could be written off as a massive 'Waah',

Learn the difference between a wah and a wind up.


Wah - ARRSEpedia

 

[John G]

Why wrap it up in that John, if you think he’s lying why not just say so?

On second thoughts, apology retracted.

All else aside, it's not really conceivable that a 1* would be involved in drafting white papers on Army Dress Regs and Tri-Service / infantry training at the same time, so your then misinterpretation of what I said I meant is actually correct.

 

[BugsyIV]

Morning @John G

I see you gave me a show again Braincell, which is funny being you're the stupid cuñt who doesn't know the difference between a wah and a wind up.
Oh well no need for me to be polite now then.

Unless it was a mistake from you being over tired from fuçking kids in the far east.... Sorry enjoying the scenery and cuisine.