Discussion in 'RLC' started by Louis_Cyph, Jan 1, 2006.

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. Err....has anyone at the esteemed DRLC figured out exactly what the RLC's modus operandi is now FAS is upon us. I only ask 'cause I'm really worried that important people might actually ask me how 17000(ish) service personnel will support the Army!!! So far I've resorted to bluff and cuff but i'm fast running out of diversionary tactics. I've even resorted to:

    "LOOK a bear!" [Louis pegs it down the street in the opposite direction]
  2. I would suggest that the formation of Logistic Support Regiments is a big clue that they have.
  3. Ahh commeate, you'd like to think so wouldn't you?

    So the LSRs have been given a clear direction as to how they'll operate have they? Are they a Bde asset - if so why have they only got OPCON (max) status? How will they run and adminster a now massive BSG? How will they interface with the Bde HQ - will they sit in Bde HQ like the arty and engr COs do on Ops? etc etc etc.

    Not so clear cut methinks. Commeate don't be fooled into thinking that because they changed the name of a few Regts that the actually know what's going on.
  4. So 13 years after the formation of the RLC from the RCT & RAOC (ACC/RPC/Posties still do there own thing with a different capbadge) nothing has really improved? in fact it has got worse...... Until Logistics is looked on as a battlefield asset instead of 'Rickshaws, Cabs & Taxi's' Incorporated it never will.
  5. Agreed - Having recently done one of the RLC courses at St Omer the problem appears to stem from the RCT hangover - no one else got a mention or relevent course content/input - until this corporate truck mentality disappears we are, it would appear, to be fighting an uphill battle to the detriment of the corps as a whole
  6. Why would anyone 'important' ask you that question if the best that you can come up with is "LOOK a bear!"? If you are paying attention then you might actually obtain the answer to your question for yourself, unless you are DRLC and there REALLY are important people asking....

    Let us briefly examine some facts:

    The RLC is evolving constantly; new equipment, procedures and doctrine appear practically every week. Therefore we must manage that change as best we can now, and in the future. Sometimes it is better to have a sh1t plan rather than no plan but a delay here, whilst CONOPS are refined, would appear to be beneficial rather implementing hastily evolved doctrine that won't work.

    Clear direction is something that we don't have the luxury of, right now. Why not just get on with job and use a little mission command, like you have been taught, instead of whining that you haven't been told exactly what to do? Who knows, the procedures that you set in place during this period may yet form the basis of future doctrine.

    Corporate truck mentality? What on earth is that, exactly? A mistaken mental attitude that lives on only in the minds of a handful of SNCOs who just can't let the past go. Get it straight, there is no RCT, or for that matter RAOC, supremacy now.

    LSRs are OPCON specifically so that they are not tied to a particular Bde - it is more flexible this way and it also means that the Bde Comd can't interfere with the workings of the LSR too much. But you are mistaken if you think that logistics is not regarded with importance, despite the fact that is is not exercised properly either in the field or during CPXs. It is a question of resources - literally how much money can be thrown at training. I would suggest to you that, with a limited budget, any fmn comd would make sure his combat soldiers are sorted out first because he knows that his logistic support elements are employed at trade on a daily basis and the odd FTX, which is enough to get the job done. We could go on here and argue the toss about 'soldier first, tradesman second'....

    Conclusion: You might not like what is happening but you will have to manage the changes nevertheless. But you must first at least understand what is going on around you rather than viewing a small number of examples in isolation.
  7. Call me cynical but would it not be safe to say that a Commander Log Sp at Div has not ceded the LSRs as OPCOM to the Bde Comd as this reduces his own empire? What would happen to the Log Sp staff at Div with each Bde owning its own Log Sp to second line?

    Personally I think this is a fantastic opportunity for the RLC to be part of the gang, admittedly the CO of the LSR is on the second row at the Bde Comd’s O Gp, but at least he’s on the O Gp! The LSR if owned by the Bde would be far more involved in their own destiny and could better ally their efforts with the field commanders who would utilise them. From an alternative perspective, full involvement of the LSR within the Bde would yield slightly more human benefits: subbies and WOs would attend study days and functions etc and deployments could be predicted based on the plotting of the parent Bde. There is also pride that goes with the close association and established identification with a parent Bde. In short it goes along way to redressing the fact that the RLC as an organization and Logistics as a function are poor relations; this change of ownership should be embraced in much the same way as the REME Bns are doing.

    The issue here is a broad reaching one as many of the Corps have dropped the ball on FAS. My limited understanding of FAS is that it was designed around the re-rolling of some Bdes and the downsizing of the Infantry; it did not directly refer to the restructuring of other functions which was seemingly left to the various directorates and for them to identify opportunities for change.
    (--My interpretation may be wrong but who knows if I’d have belonged to a Mech Bde as part of an LSR someone may have bothered to brief me!)

    I’d be interested to know what opportunities DRLC as an organization has identified for change many of which have been suggested on this forum e.g. Joint Forces EOD, giving the EFI their own cap badge, making fatblerk the Corps RSM etc. How about a presentation team to brief on the changes? Maybe as a supplement to the MCM Div road show, then perhaps these briefs can contain some truth!
  8. Whale,

    i wished that i lived in your imaginary little world where all the clouds were fluffy and the rabbits had big ears, but i don't and neither, it appears does, louis. the 'just use mission command' maxim is regularly trotted out by more senior offrs to more junior offrs when the senior offrs haven't the fainest idea of how to over come the problems faced (esp wrt lack of eqpt). 'mission command' does not provide a template for a 'general way of doing business', and i suspect that louis feels the conops do not either. perhaps, during this period of constant change (when does a period become an age?) some firm leadership and direction could be given by the more senior offrs - provided, of course, that it does not interfere with their quest for the perfect ojar.
  9. Well, from my pov (part of a brigade, with an LSR with us all year long for training) including two Bde FTX there are some difficulties. The first I think is not one of command status but rather one of understanding the Army wide implications of Medium scale. In practice this means a Log bde and a manoeuvre bde in perfect harmony.

    The frictions will (as always) be on Bde boundaries, the domain of the LSR! At present Comds Log Sp retain the right to flex the LSR around as required. This means that LSR CO cannot forecast confidently what he might be doing next. Furthermore, by the letter of the 'law' if retained as Div Tps/ LC tps CO LSR should get situational awareness, conf calls, etc as part of LCHQ, even though all of his tasks wil be either in sp of man bde or log bde. By keeping LSR in LC Tps column of TASKORG, we create perfect confusion - CO not a member of either Bde Comds O gp and is a free agent!

    Bottom line - there appears to be no doctrine, we worked last year through local agreement and massive amounts of pragmatism - there is a clear need to develop CONOPS, mission command is only as good as the mission and the commander!
  10. Oh two other things - I am wholly unconvinced by whale omelettes assertion that loggies are employed at trade on a daily basis - the frictions in exercsing two brigades at the same time with a Log Bde doing real log sp and the LSR then doing real log sp to the brigade units exposed huge experience and knowledge gaps. Proof positive that log elms do need to exercise more and better - how many log OCs teach tp comds how a brigade is organised? Who is in an A2 ech? How to do a DP? Who really takes the time to explain to a troop commander how a demand gets from point of failure/ loss of an item, all the way to a depot, is met and then brought forwards? How does a transport regiment deliver forwards into a BSG? Who is responsible for them? What is their command status in the Brigade area?

    The other assertion - 'LSRs are OPCON specifically so that they are not tied to a particular Bde - it is more flexible this way and it also means that the Bde Comd can't interfere with the workings of the LSR too much.' - strikes me as weak - do you honestly think a Bde Comd COULD interfere with an LSR (given the lead time for establishment changes, ET review etc, never mind DRLC proponency pan Army) even if he wished to? As for flexibility - why is central control more flexible? Surely the point of five (future) manoeuvre brigades and five LSRs is so that LSRs can grow alongside the Brigades and be optimized for supporting the unique style and MO of that brigade. That is flexibility, not controlling them at an artificial level of command. The Land Component should concentrate on solving land component problems and doing cross component liasion, not worrying about where CS and GS squadrons harbour locations will be!

    Have the courage to do that most mission command of things and TRUST subordinates - the RLC will then be in a position to provide the decisive bit of the Army the support it needs, without a staff in the Land Component having to be asked for assets that the Brigades self evidently NEED to fight.
  11. Bravo the Prefect, bette ein bette and really fascinating,

    You took the words right out of my mouth. Whilst I admit my original post seemed flipant, and whale I understand that this probably looked like another loggy bashing that we see so much on these pages, but some real issues have been raised here.

    1) Mission command is fine what we are i real danger of just making stuff up as we go - there has GOT to be something to hang your hat on.

    2) The idea that LSRs have to remain OPCON so Bde comds don't interfere is utter arrse and is the same arrse reason as the Engrs and Arty give. Fortunately the REME believe their Bde Battalions should be more fully integrated into the Bdes and appear to be taking steps to make it so (certainly from what I see). Bde Comds are reasonably intelleginent people (I hope!) so I 'm sure they would cope. I don't see Bde Comds interfering with the inner workings of its Inf/Cav units.

    3) I agree with Mr Really_Fascinating - Its seems fairly clear that Comds Log Sp don't want to lose their power base. Everyone knows that Bdes are the new currency but I'm not entirely sure Div have been told this!!

    Whale, it looks like there is a reasonable amount of disquiet - What might DRLC say!!!
  12. You are a moron.

    Still, the majority of the remainder of this dialogue seems fairly reasonable. And, whilst I stand by some of my points, I do actually believe that when we do eventually evolve a decent set of CONOPS it will be good news for all concerned. We just have to griz it in the meantime.

    Fair one about RLC soldiers being employed "at trade". I know that there is much more to combat logistics than simply maintaining a CA account in barracks. Ex LL showed us, in glorious technicolour, where our shortfalls lay (despite being desperately under resourced).

    And never mind the disquiet, DRLC would not be interested in what I think or say anyway. Neither is anyone else; why do you think Captains are signing off on droves? Before I hand my bedding in (etc etc) I still have a couple of years of usefulness left in me before I reach my ceiling and sign off. I may be stuck in a rut, but it's a reasonably well paid rut. Despite the p1ss poor accomodation, shabby working conditions, rapidly reducing positives and declining resources it's better than some of the alternatives....
  13. Pull up a sandbag, refill the lamp, put on some coffee; we may be here for a while!

  14. Steady on Whale man! Where did this come from!! No one is attacking the right of the RLC to exist or the obvious talent the Corps has in many ways. Anyway I don't think the RLC is necessarily facing any worse a problem than many other capbadges in this respect.

    You stick out through thick and thin, regardless of the ever increasing sound of stampeeding for the exit, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Personally, i'm offski. Better to go when on a high(ish) like The Beatles than wait till your found dead in a toilet like Elvis!
  15. I find the arguments put fwd here slightly odd. The previous relationship of having the BSG run by the Bde SO2 SPS was not entirely helpful. Having run a BSG as an SO3 G4 with a under resourced HQ - 2 men and a dog (BOWO) on a Germany FTX, it didn't have redundancy (I v tired SO3 with blood shot eyes). Gulf War 1 proved that. Having the HQ LSR run the BSG will make a significant improvement with a good RAS role. Also Bde Sp Sqn = LSR? A good increase of capability at 2nd line where it is needed.

    REME and Bde relationship is still heavily dependant on personalities.

    REME integrated with the Log Bde? Really?

    I wouldn't get too rapped about the OPCON for the LSR and as far as the relationship between the Log Bde and Div HQ - there is more work to be done, but we have taken the first step to have the Log Bde integrated with the Div, which means we now are in danger of trg with the organsisations we could go to war with - EX LL being the first step. Question people - is this all an improvement - a step in the right direction? Are some of the people on this thread sounding chippie? The real issue facing us is the echelon rebalancing which has not yet been released .

    As some one who has probably reached his last posting before departing, even I can see inprovement.