Should the CQMS rebadge to RLC?

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Just stumbled on this in the Loggie forum:

stacker1 said:
PoisonDwarf said:
Soldier-Poet said:
On another related matter, I have heard it expressed that we should have log pers doing the QM functions in all Regiments and Bns. Whilst I understand the sentiment, I would not wish to break long held traditions or the traditional career path for LEs. Further, I do believe the traditional QM is a key part of a CO's team and brings a huge amount to a Regiment, but maybe we should put a professional log cadre in each Regiment and Battalion as key log management pers and log advisors - a permanent LSD (Capt led), the RQMS and QM (T). Just MHO. Thoughts ?
Good on that man!

Sorry to come into your party and start conversation where it ain't wanted (hey it's the internet, come on in) but I am a scaley by profession (corps) and a rather great fan of this. I think that the QM Tech and RQ Tech should be career logisticians, although not the QM Maint/Gen and his RQ - cos that's a different job and therefore a different kettle of fish entirely.

Using the same logic, I think that the C2 practitioners in each Regt should be Royal Signals, so if I was in charge (that would be a very bad day for the country I admit! :D ) I would subsume all Signal Pls/Tps into R SIGNALS, all MTs into RLC, all QM Tech into RLC and so on. We should think in "business" terms about the things that we bring to the party and add value (i.e. excellence).

Although, to counter that, that's what they did with the AGC. Look how that's turned out. :roll:
I've just got back from some of the FOBs in Afganistan where I was on a stocktaking team and one of our recomendations is to have loggie QMs in the FOBs as strangely enough infantry QMs care more about their men than stores which may explain why 3 million pounds worth of bowman has gone AWOL.
Is there any historic/military reasons why infantry units tend to do everything themselves?
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...

QM/RQ/CQ....

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:
 
#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

troll_king said:
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.
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).
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#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.
 
#13
troll_king said:
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.
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
Bonzo_Dog said:
troll_king said:
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.
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).
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.
 
#16
Bonzo_Dog said:
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.
Bonzo, I concur fully with what you say.
 
#17
Most Btns have a dedicated int officer and sjt with a few toms/jocks/micks/leek lovers to assist in the collation of material.

As a formed battlegroup or detached reinforced company, the cqms and int sjt/cpl are assisted by their own capbadge and relevant corp when it comes down to achieving their task.



mong spelling :x
 
#18
BQMS was the best job I ever had, how can you expect to rebadge somebody with such a wealth of experience for a post they will not be in forever, if you ever attend the CQMS course (if it still happens) you will see the wealth of experience attending but also the fast track guys who effectivley need a stepping stone
 
#19
tiger stacker said:
Most Btns have a dedicated int officer and sjt with a few toms/jocks/micks/leek lovers to assist in the collation of material.

As a formed battlegroup or detached reinforced company, the cqms and int sjt/cpl are assisted by their own capbadge and relevant corp when it comes down to achieving their task.



mong spelling :x
You are quite correct but when deploying on ops, the Int Section is reinforced with personnel from other coys depending on the requirement on the ground. For example, support coy might well be the guys who go from fire sp weapons to int section (albeit with some training). Any Int Corps operator will tell you that experience is a key factor in the int profession and this just isn't the case in battalion int sections.

You mentioned a dedicated IO - well he is usually only dedicated for one tour - then, like almost every IO/officer at Battalion level, moves on to another post/staff college etc. The section SNCOs are the key guys - I have known some to stay for years, but one man in the section cannot carry the rest.

I am not saying the current system isn't working, far from it - it works reasonably well. What I am saying is that it could be far, far better if each operation teeth arm unit had their own, organic Int Corps section. Fully trained, vastly experienced with the various skillsets that just don't exist at battalion level and working in conjunction with the other sections at higher levels would give so much more. Remember, Int is a force multiplier and a more efficient set up would give even more of an advantage to the bayonets on the ground.
 
#20
Wasn't there a comment from some American whining about how he had had logistic staff that didn't know how his infantry worked.
Might give the rlc another job to do cant see any advantage to battalions to do this .
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
manchesterutd Jobs (Discussion) 4
Q Seniors 41
Tactical_Ted REME 3

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top