Should the CQMS rebadge to RLC?

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by RP578, Sep 7, 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. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    Just stumbled on this in the Loggie forum:

    Do they have a point? Would this free up more Rfn for the line, as per recent suggestions to hand over some C2 slots to the R.Signals? Or are the stores the sole preserve of the knackered-knee old and bold?
  2. Yes, originally infantry and cavalry regiments were formed by individuals who basically paid for most of the kit themselves. The QM was there to ensure that the Earl of Richveryrichindeed wasn't robbed blind by the Horseguards, Ornance Board or various sutlers. He was off the regiment and for the regiment, rather than the local node on a logistics network.
  3. Once upon a time units provided their own catering staff in the form of Regimental Chefs, and were similarly phased out by the Catering Corps (Although unless I'm mistaken, Regimental Chefs were still employed long after the ACC was founded.)

    Many smaller dets such as EOD Sqns have a dedicated Supplier, I can certainly see the logic in applying these ideas on a larger scale, with regards to QM and SQMS.
  4. There is a successful precedent for moving specialist functions out of individual capbadges and into a unified corps: REME.

    One of the reasons for forming the AGC was that this would create more riflemen. It didn't because the AGC is largely female and, apart from issues like ablutions, most of the girls can't carry infantry weight on the CFT. Net result has been that the RAO has become detached from the rest of the bn and the clerks have got civvy mindsets (not everywhere, I hasten to point out, but certainly in quite a few units). RLC, R Signals, and Int Corps - the only ones whose functions can be found at bn level - are also heavily female, so the problems with the AGC would be replicated, just on a larger scale, if those corps took on the QM, Sigs, and Int Pl jobs at bn level.

    Which brings the question back to REME. Taking maintenance out of capbadge control worked because (a) there was a clear demarcation between what a vehicle crew did and what the LAD did and (b) the technical knowledge a VM needed was more than that of a typical MT mechanic. With computers, however, the technology is moving in the other direction, so that less and less technical knowledge is needed for stock control and comms (rather in the same way as JPA has led the RN to retrade its writers (clerks) as loggies, albeit with the wonderful title of CPOLOGPERS).
  5. As I may have said before...


    The biggest undetected criminals in the Army.... :roll:
  6. Had the pleasure of knowing a cqms who was known as Arthur Daily. His abilities were such that water did turn into wine, and the coy tuck shop may have run low on other stickies but always had mars bars and snickers to hand.

    The cqms post is a chance for good platoon sjts to reach before stepping up to the role of csm. By outsourcing it to other cap badges, how do sjts get the tick in the box to become as c/sjts :roll:
  7. This is among other ideas being flung around behind doors, under the guise of One Army One Cap Badge!
  8. AGC (SPS) and RLC (Chefs) appear to manage. Perhaps they are the model for any proposal.

    Although my immediate instinct is to point to the regimental system and the precedent of historical performance as reasons not to change (..if its not broken..), it has to be said that for years academy has pointed to our culture as being the greatest factor in retarding our overall evolution. Lets get rid of drill and bearskins while we're at it. And dont get me started on tanks...
  9. Snip

    There didn't seem to be any problems with the female Int Corps soldiers operating at Inf Coy level locations in Bosnia on Op Grapple (before the Americans joined in).
  10. Infantry CQMSs, QM and TQ should be from that capbadge. They will be known by the majority of the Bn from their previous jobs and will (in most cases) have the respect of the blokes.
  11. No - but it would be unwise to base military planning on an unusual campaign like Bosnia. The question whether female personnel can be expected to perform at the same level as the rest of the bn. The AGC experience, which is more extensive than that of the Int Corps, is that they can't and that that can have detrimental effects on morale and performance. I think we have to address these questions before we go about further restructuring.
  12. Quick clarification: my last post is a reply to Bonzo's, not Crow's.
  13. To make an ascertion that female int operators cannot operate alongside the infantry is wrong - and has been proven operationally and not just in Bosnia. They were there because they have a particular skill - if you need an infantryman, task an infantryman. If you need a professional int operator, task an int operator (which might be female).
  14. I did not say that female int operators could not operate alongside the infantry. My point was that the experience of the AGC - which, so far, is more extensive than that of other corps - has been that there can be problems integrating female personnel into combat arm units and so we ought to look closely before we make QM, sigs, and int pls into RLC, R Signals, and Int Corps postings.

    Gender is only one of several issues that should be thought about and it's hardly the most important of them. The NCO career structure, for instance, has to be considered because, as Crow Bag and Tiger Stacker have pointed out, CQMS is key point in progression from Sgt to WO2. Similarly, the appointments to the sigs and int pls are more specialist but the SNCOs who fill those appointments are the key links between BHQ and the experts, for want of a better term, in the signals sqn or int coy.

    I go back to my original point about giving the RLC responsibility for bn logistics. Setting up REME was successful because it took over a discrete and not fully understood function. Setting up the AGC took away from cap badges something that belonged to them (look at the threads complaining about the loss of company clerks) and replaced it with something that didn't seem to fit. Perhaps I used a poor example with female soldiers being unable to carry inf loads on CFT, but it was an issue (usually resolved through common sense and good leadership on both sides) and the kind of small point that becomes the grain of sand that jams the gearbox.
  15. I think, in essence, we agree. The overal subject is worthy of further discussion. My personal view is that teeth arm units should have the best support possible and therefore, from an int perspective, have their own organic professional int support in the form of an Int Corps sub unit.