RS redundant, good or bad??

Discussion in 'REME' started by daddyguns, Sep 25, 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. i know this sunject has been whipped to death, but they are officially getting the boot from the Corp, what will be the impact of that? I think we will struggle to fill all of the posts they currently are employed in, however might let tradesman get past staffy and get on that quick promotion ladder they all seem to be on. Sgt to WO2 seems to be a 4 year period for them, and i hope that now this venue is open to all the spanner ******* out there. That said i think it will have a big impact on our manning which lets face it is pants at best, gentlemen your views??
     
  2. From DEME (A) newsletter
    The short-term initiatives (briefed to over 20% of the Corps in Jun/Jul 06 by the MTI Presentation Team) for manning the existing REME Military Training Instructor (MTI) posts are unlikely to deliver a sustainable solution
    for Manning the Training Engine. Therefore an enduring career structure is required to deliver a long-term solution to resource the REME Military Training Requirement, including the MTI role.
    HQ DEME(A) is currently undertaking a study on the feasibility of combining the current Technical Storemen (Tech Stmn) Career Employment Group (CEG) with unspecified training liability to form a new CEG. The study has occurred with input from both the Chain of Command and senior members of the Tech Stmn and Regt Spec
    CEGs. The new CEG could encompass all stores posts, some training posts and current E2 driving posts in
    REME battalions (DROPs drivers and CVR(T)/BOWMAN B Signallers). Other headline changes for the new
    CEG are as follows:
    - Robust and established training wings.
    - Increase in military training for Phase 2 and Class 1 for all individuals within the new CEG.
    - All Training Support (Duty of Care) posts to remain Unspec.
    - Majority CSM/RSM posts to remain Unspec.
    - 23 MTI posts to remain Unspec.
     
  3. Text book answer, yeah thanks for that, was really after thoughts from guys on the ground, not arse covering policy bluffing from our dwindling, on our chin strap Corp.
     
  4. Daddyguns,

    You really should get out more. Release that anger!
     
  5. Jack of all master of none springs to mind. Why not have people who teach a subject specialise in that subject. You will get some part time VM, Armourer etc trying to be an RS punter in his last 6 or 8 years to climb to the top of the promotion ladder. Our tradesmen at first line are stretched enough without taking this on.

    Dave
     
  6. Lets face facts RS has been non productive and of no use to the Corps to date. Why should RS be graded the same as real tradesman with no benefit to the real primary ethos of the corps. Time to let go of the baggage and progress as an egineering asset.
     
  7. Tytus_Barnowl

    Tytus_Barnowl On ROPs

    Glad to see it's finally happened. It was RD for years before and the "throwing open" concept was a topic raised post Artificer Military Training open forum.
    December 1986, the guards levering their way into a cushy career path were not impressed.
     
  8. I never really did see the point in having them. they did fcuk all around the workshop apart from being general dogs bodys " can you help out in the stores".... "can you sort out the tech library" etc. and when it came to exercise they were usually asm / OCs rad op.

    everyone i met were bored with their job, and would rather help out on the shop floor.

    even at battallion level, they didnt do a great deal. it was only the senior RS guys that sorted any training out.

    I agree with arstain on this one. However they have all been given the oportunity to become skilled tradesmen, and i know plenty who are now happier in their jobs (especially the ones who went Recy mech)

    the training staff that took me through basic, were Highlanders, Royal irish, Light Inf, and Kings. All of which new their stuff and all had excellent experience.

    Maybe we should leave training to the guys that know best hey?
     
  9. Be Jeez... I finally agree with something from TB!! I'm a strong advocate that all Mil Trg is conducted by those with Mil Trg experience and not necessarily quals.

    If our men are to be subject to the same enemy as our Inf (etc) counterparts, then we should be afforded the same training. It works for the Bootnecks (their chefs/VMs/Techs/Dvrs etc all complete Lympstone), why not all our Army Corps? . A common training school filled with INFANTRY instructors teaching soldiering... it's Mil Trg, and should reflect that. On completion everyone goes their separate ways onto Phase 2.
     
  10. Better to have an RS guy being a dog’s body than a lad off of the shop floor! As for having no use; engineering is our primary role but we still must have a firm grasp of soldiering skills given the current deployments and the requirement to fix as far forward on the battlefield as possible.

    Dave
     

  11. Cheers bink..... but i didnt think we had ever disagreed on anything :D
     

  12. Cheers bink..... but when did we ever disagree? :D

    In my opinion i believe (especially in this area of expertise) that experience doing the job is much beter than just having the qualification to do the job.