SO2 G2 - loads. SO2 G2 Int Corps - none

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by roseandpose, Mar 31, 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. Why is that? COS 1 MI Bde (him with the cool shoulder flash !!??) couldn't give an answer.

    Word has it than when non corps 'gifted amateurs' get posted in, we work hard to make them look good.

    Would the RA do that for a Int Corps SO2 guns?

    Would the Infantry like an Int Corps SO2 G3?

    I think not.
  2. There are certain G2 appontments that will always be tied to the Corps. There are (were?) numerous in HQ NI, 2 x SO3's at the 2 deployable Divs, and those within each major deployed HQ (Iraq & Afghan). Due to our small size, the chances of an INT CORPS SO in other staff branches are slim, but it does happen. I've seen a Corps SO2 G4, but he was a fcukwit. I'm also aware of an officer in the Corps that was G1 Staff Officer, before he was selected for his Lt Col. By the way, the average SO2 G3 probably has more to do with NCOs in the Corps than he ever does with his own capbadge.............
  3. msr

    msr LE

    Perhaps it has something to do with a chronic inability to retain SO3s?

  4. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    And a certain unwillingness of the rest to give up good black bag E2 slots! :D

    Saying that, the eventual Int Corp intention is to fill these posts and that was stated by DINT rep at a Project Roberts meeting a while ago. He was miffed as, at that time, each and every Bde/Div that had deployed to Iraq with its normal G2 load of E2 offrs had asked for a Int Corp SO2 to add expertise. This blew away the opinion expressed by MS reps (or anyone other than Int Corp capbadged) that "any good offr" would be able to fill the post.

    The need to fill these posts was one of the reasons given as justification for the expansion of the Corp over the last couple of years.
  5. there's no need for complicated discussion on this one, in my opinion. anyone who has worked in a large HQ with non-int corps SO2 G2s knows that the "gifted amateurs" are largely a pipedream. they may exist, but i've yet to meet one - have instead been saddled with useless fuckwits who would be better replaced by a corps SNCO - let alone a major.

    get rid of these charity slots - SO2 G2 is a very important job nowadays, and the days of letting it be filled by "others", just because they only ever have to demonstrate their incompetence on imaginary exercises, are LONG gone.

    but i think it speaks for our professionalism that no matter what a c*nt the bloke may be, the int cell always support him and try to head off his stupider ideas and dafter fuckups. in my experience anyway.

    ps.. roseandpose - i did a thread on this a while back with a poll - might be surprised by the results.

    p.p.s. three posts on a friday night - you got a rant on?!??! :) at least im posting after drinking all evening lol
  6. Or maybe its because they interact better with other arms than our Toff boys do?

    Just thinking aloud. I've served under a number of other badged SO3/SO2's from the Inf and RA and they were all bloody good at their jobs - listening to us!
  7. I can only chip into this from an historical perspective but on the whole I agree with FNB. Most none Corps SO2/3s I worked with were sound and understood the importance of treating the Int NCOs well. Some of the Int Corps SO3s certainly did not!
  8. FNB

    You make an excellent point, both were top blokes and more than capable SO3s. There is a lot to be said to have either the SO2 ISTAR or the SO3 G2 being tied to the Corps to have a subject matter expert in the HQ other than the INTWO.

    If I want a bridge building I'll ask an engineer; if I want an enemy position taking I'll ask an infanteer, if I want Intelligence I'll ask anybody.... doesn't always work does it!
  9. The 'Brown one' was my hero! And contary to what he says - he NEVER made me cry!!!!!
  10. having deployed as an SO3 J2 as an E2 offr, i can conclude, that whilst its nice to have an int background, its not essential.

    What's more important is a wider understanding of the theatre, the force elements and the IRs of the comd. The key to being an effective staff offr is the ability to mentality flex to the main effort. Eg, So3 G1, isn't tied to AGC, SO3 G4 not tied to RLC etc.

    What doesn't fill me with confidence is when int corps offrs get appointments on the general staff - this is due to their very narrow pespective on military life, lack of comd/regt'l experience, eg. an Mi coy OC has less tps than say a RE/RLC Tp Comd, and the issues they've dealt with tend to be very int-centric and they tend to dodge wider military issues - they think G1/G4 is somebody else's problem
  11. Goon Bde,

    It's rare that I post but I have been watching you make an extraordinary tw@t of yourself for some time now, and not just in this forum. You come across as a reasonably junior officer, who isn't very bright, and who tends to make wide-ranging pronouncements based on insufficient experience or broader understanding. I would love to know what J2 post you actually held and where, but your previous reference to INT CORPS soldiers as 'speccy tw@ts' gives me a reasonable idea of your regard for the soldiers. You clearly consider yourself a 'command' guru of some ability, obviously much more capable than Corps officers; I wonder, do you consider and refer to soldiers of your own cap badge as 'thick squaddies'?

    You make an imbecile of yourself by implying that the number of troops under an officer's command relates directly to their ability to understand wider military issues. You, sir, are a fool. I don't know quite what it is that has made you so chippy but if you bothered to take your head out of your arse for half a second you would understand that Corps officers (and indeed J and SNCOs) are exposed to a much broader spectrum of military issues than most at very early stages of their careers.

    Your basic premise is risible: Anyone can do an Int Officer's job but Int Officers can only (just about), do their own. And there was me naively thinking that INT CORPS staff officers attend the same Staff College courses as everyone else. Is this not the case? Have I been misled? Do INT CORPS officers attend a separate 'int-centric course' which makes no mention of G1/G4 issues?

    You, Goon Bde, are a cretinous buffoon, and I pity the soldiers who work for such a narrow-minded and arrogant little man.
  12. I think it would be fair to say that you do not have to be an Int Corps officer to hold a G2 staff appointment in the majority of field force HQs. The important distinction is that whoever does the job should be an accomplished staff officer who maximises the effect of the 'technical' expertise brought to any planning process by the Int Sect. Having been a G2 staff officer myself if I needed 'technical' advice I asked for it. But first and foremost I was a staff officer; if the Army followed the somewhat parochial line of logic espoused by some posters here all G4 officers would be from the RLC. It would not work. On the other hand I worked as a COS in a specialist HQ where the G2 staff officer was from the Corps. He was a good bloke knew his 'technical' stuff but constantly needed advice on how to be a staff officer and his knowledge of the Army outside his Corps was lamentable. In our case there was no Int Sect to fall back on.
  13. and this was my point, although probably not very articulated as i'm both junior and dim....

    and yes, i stand by an earlier statement, there are a lot of spectacle wearing JNCOs in the Int Corps that enjoy the finer points of online dungeons and dragons, just as there are a lot of overweight-lesbians in the RLC a few 'planks' in the arty and several geeks in the Sigs. Get over it.
  14. ...and from the perspective of an old ex-pond life green slime senior, there are entirely too many dim and gobby Ruperts around. Time for the "why oh why oh why do we need so goddamn many officers when the Bundeswehr seems to get along just fine with fewer and better?" thread, perhaps.

    I have absolutely no idea why goon_bde has such a down on my Corps and I don't care, particularly. I am slightly concerned that the Corps' DE officers, who im ny experience have significantly fewer noshers in their ranks than other Corps and Regiments and who have all, without exception, done at least a short teeth arm tour, are getting such a slating from these very impressive high-speed, low-drag G3 thrusters (of whom we all stand in awe, obviously). I had the impression that if you were a trained staff officer, that's what you were, regardless of cap badge. Isn't that the point of the Staff College?

    No, actually, damnit, I do care why goon_bde has such a down on my Corps. Care to elucidate, matey, perhaps with some indication of whereabouts in the great military taxonomy your own parent Corps or Regiment sits?
  15. Actually, the reason Gunners are sometimes called 'planks' is not due to their (supposed) lack of brain, although it's debatable in some, I admit. It's actually due to the fact that in WW1, the gun detachments would use the bodies of fallen comrades on the gun line to shore up collapsing gun pits and casements, which kept falling in due to CB, the weather and so on.

    So there you go. You're not as fcuking smart as you think, eh?