Scaley Sigs Pls?

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by barbs, Apr 15, 2008.

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. Just heard an old rumour reappear in a fairly formal environment.

    As part of potentially restructuring the R Signals to sp ops today rather than provide corps-levels comms in time of general war they may offer to man Inf Bn Sigs Pls.

    I can see the sense from a technical and short-term manning perspective, but I think that losing vocational signalling would be a long-term loss for the infantry.

    Any views?
     
  2. What is the reason behind this, I am aware that the old Sigs Rad Op changed to CS Op (on a higher pay band and more demanding entry requirements). Has modern radio skills become too technical for the infantry?
     
  3. Funny you brought this up. The Royal Signals Association had their AGM a couple of weeks ago in London and my old fella went as a Branch rep'.

    The AGM was addressed by the SOinC (A) on what's going on in the Royal Corps today, including Bowman.

    The Chief Scaley outlined that RSignals bods would be going down to inf coy level etc, not because Bowman is a bag of shoite, but because Inf bods (and other odds and sods) don't have the savvy to make the bag of shoite work! Too techie for them, see.

    Think 'rear-link dets' but a coy level and you pretty much have the picture!
     
  4. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Become? It was always too technical for the infantry :D
     
  5. I'd reckon a mix of infantry/RSigs Sigs at Coy/BG/Bde level, undertaking a common sylabus which enables an easy transition between both corps/regiments. An early exposure to planning comms should generate better RSigs supervisors
     
  6. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    If this is the case the BOWMAN IPT should go and walk the plank.

    If basic voice communications, reports and returns, positional stuff etc has become too complicated for the infantry and needs specialists then banter aside that is a fundamental failure in design.

    If the my 10 year old can master using a complicated, secure, hand held, voice and message communication device then we should be going to Nokia for the human interface not GD
     
  7. What a load of Shoite - the Inf signalling training and qualifications are scrutinsed and ratified by D2TDT to ensure that everyone is being taught the same thing to the same level. Therefore a Bowman Basic Signaller completes the same lessons, TO and EOs irrespective of the service he is trained by.
    The Inf trained Vocational Signaller is a very different beast to a RSigs pte soldier. First and foremost he is a fully trained Infanty soldier, the training burden on Inf Bn to run basic tactical training cadres to bring the RSigs attachments up to the required levels of fieldcraft and tactical skills would be unworkable
     
  8. I think that the Royal Sigs are bigging themslves up for a combat role here. Obviously infantry signalling is the sexy end of the signalling spectrum. Its exciting, challenging and far more dangerous than operating tactical mobile phone masts. Of course comms go down, but that isn't because the kit is sh1t, its because of tactical situations that change leading to an inability to choose the best sites for comms. Battles, and indeed FTXs are fluid. Infantry don't have the luxury of maintaining sites for extended periods of time, especially at company level and TAC. The RLD is fine at Brigade, but not in battalions.
     
  9. Well what a shame the SOinC (A) hadn't discussed this matter with you before bullsh!ting the collective wisdom of the old and bold at their AGM, you've certainly put him staight there, haven't you

    Ever stop to pause and think that it's because 'everyone is being taught the same thing to the same level' and that that level isn't competent enough for the complexities of modern comms with BOWMAN that RSignals bods are to be sent down to sub unit groupings BUT NOT TO RUN AROUND THE ULU WITH A SET ON THE FECKING BACKS WHILE INF PLAY COWBOYS AND INDIANS!

    If inf bleeps were so fcuking good with there comms side of life from coy groupings to higher formation with BOWMAN, the subject wouldn't have even arose!
     
  10. At Sig/Pte/LCpl level thats true but the infantryman stops (to a certain extent) getting infantry training at Cpl level whereas the Signals have a greater inf content at both Sgt and Cpl CLM.

    Does your Coy Det/CV Sgt teach mil skills??? The equivalent in the Signals does
     
  11. Without getting into an inf/RSignals slanging match.

    The intial post in this thread states what it states and was heard first hand.

    The SOinC(A) (That's the Signals Officer in Chief (Army) for those that don't know) on briefing the old and bold 'in a general outline' of what was on the horizon made mention of the fact that RSignals bod were to be put in to units down to sqn/coy level with the inferences that it was because comms was getting to techie for grunts and other to handle. Now, you can argue that it was a bit of banter and that the implication was that grunts etc. are too thick in this day and age, or you could say that the complexities of mordern comms need more than are being given to unit level signalers.
     
  12. My point was that if everyone is being taught to the same level (and i know they are as i helped design and implement the then ATRA policy) sending RSigs individuals down to Inf Bns is not going to help.
    Infantry Signallers run around the ulu with radios on their backs its the core essence of what they do at sub unit level. The only place your logic would therefore place RSigs operators would be in the 2ic's wagon as he tends to remain static and vehicle based whilst the Coy Comd is on foot. However when the 2ic has to dismount (OBUA) then we are back to the good old game of Cowboys and Indians as you so eloquently put it.

    From your emotive outburst i take it you are a frustrated R Sigs Tels tech.......
     
  13. Edited due to mong DII double posting
     
  14. Airfix,

    The placement of RSigs trained soldiers into an Inf Coy would solve nothing - as i mentioned they are all taught to the same level. A RSigs Adv Sig Sys is trained in exactly the same knowledge base (and if D2TDT has its way on the same lesson plans through the Defence Learning Portal) as an Inf Adv Sigs Sys (or RSAS as it is currently known). Therefore you are just adding to an insufficiently trained workforce. I am not arguing that the current BOWMAN training across the defence piece is poor - not enough kit in trg estb and not enough resources (vehs, time and trg areas) to run decent validation exercises.

    By the way are you related to SOinC as your reply was a little emotional.......
     
  15. But for the infantry is the full course, for signals it is the basic qual and soldiers will have to complete additional training on posting to a unit.