Sort out this mess that is the RLC.

Discussion in 'RLC' started by General Melchett, Jul 20, 2005.

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. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    Long car journies can bring out some reasoned argument at times. On such a journey today we discussed what a mess the RLC was and how to sort the problem. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

    So, the RLC was formed from the amalgamation of RCT, RAOC, ACC, RPC and RE P&C. Another case of "seemed like a good idea at the time" no doubt.

    Despite trying not to, I came to the conclusion that RLC would rather do away with AT's, Pioneers, P&C, Marine Engineers, and probably Chefs.

    Lets face it. Someone made a mistake back in '93 and it isn't getting any better.

    So the plan to sort out the mess, and I'm sure you'll slate me for it.

    Ressurect the RAOC to incorporate AT's, plus armourers and gun fitters from the REME and the EOD element of the RE. (Key word to link all three "Ordnance")

    Send the Pioneers to the RE. (After all, the RLC is killing the trade).

    P&C to the AGC.

    Marine Engineers to the REME.

    Chefs, not sure what to with them, but no doubt they'll be done away with soon anyway.

    This would leave the driver and stores trades to get on with being logistical.
  2. Forgive the presumption from an ex-stab, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Let's hope DRLC is on-line tonight.
    Hasn't most catering been out-sourced anyway?
  3. We get your Pioneers but lose our EOD blokes? Sounds good to me - as a Sapper I'd definitely go for that one. Most of the Pioneers I've worked with have been decent blokes and it wouldn't be rocket science to merge Combat Engineering and Pioneering into a single trade, with certain bits of both becoming specialist quals instead of integral to the trade. Just as long as it didn't become an RE responsibility to stag on at HQs I can't see a problem.
  4. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    It did always seem odd seeing what the Pioneers did, and then seeing a lot of it done by Combat Engineers too. I'm certain the Infantry training part of the Pioneer trade, which they seemed to be quite rightly proud of, has been taken out of their training by the RLC. If the stagging on part was due to the Infantry training then are they still justified in having that role? "It's a naff job so lets give it to the Pioneers" part of the RLC. Nothing vaguely logistical or engineer in stagging on. So bin that, and give it to the RAF Regt.
  5. Chefs should be badged to whichever unit their with anyway, I dont mean wear the same beret with the RLC capbadge, they should be part of the particular regiment,I.E you can join the RGJ as a chef, as was the case with the Grenadier Guards until the 70's I think.
  6. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    Sounds like a top idea BRL.

    I think there used to be Regimental Cooks many moons ago.
  7. Agreed about the idea behind the RLC. Why on earth the CGS not question this in the ealy 90's when he would have been around to witness the dissolving of the RASC and think to himself 'Hang on? We are about to re-create what we took apart 20 odd years ago! Surely after Granby it shows that all of the various elements can do their job together perfectly well as independant organisations? Ah well, we might as well go and destroy any sense of family they have...again.'
  8. I agree with Melchy here.
    However what we need to do right now is intergrate our log assets with the divs/bdes, so we train and deploy with them. Instead of forming composite Regts every time we deploy anywhere.
  9. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    Sounds like a plan KOR.

    For once everyone seems to making sense, I must have been having a sober moment.
  10. This forum would benefit from some RCT input. They are the strongest element within RLC. What did they get from the amalgamation? The rank of Conductor seems to be enjoyed by all and sundry. I still believe that the Combat Logi concept of a trade was a good idea. Sup Specs and Drivers could easily become a single trade. After 2 years cutting your teeth as a Combat Logi you can then specialize.

    A poll regarding the RLC amalgamation would be interesting. I think there are a number of trades that have genuine greavances regarding poor treatment from the RLC. Sustainer Mag is a waste of resources. May be the mag would benefit by being segmented into old capbadge sections. Everyone I knew used to start at the back of the old RAOC Gazette as it had everyones posting in it from Pte up. Atleast it was of some use seeing where old mates were posted.
  11. I think the sustainer is starting to improve, give it time to grow. The young blood is starting to course through its limp pages.
    What strikes me most is even after 10 years you still hear the trog stacker rivalry.
    Time to ack that it hasn't worked and find a different way.
    (For the record I joined the RLC).
  12. Re Melcher's original proposition. I like it, and wish I'd thought of it. In fact, I'm going to claim to all and sundry that I did.
  13. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    Oi Birkers,

    Boil your head.
  14. In a bucket of p1ss, sir?
  15. Melchers like the plan;

    However for us to accept the RE EOD element they would have to make the skill a trade unlike as it is now a 2-3 yr posting.
    Most of the blokes in 33 don't want to be there, they want to be engineers and soldiers and can't wait to get back into the Armd Engr Regiments.
    Because of this cycle, is why they can only have a 6 week course, are poor at EOD and they never keep any corporate knowledge when they learn something new.

    Combat Engr in warfighting is all that is required and every RE is that, bin the EOD role completely. Hell; there were even assault pioneers during TELIC 1 doing dems of enemy ammo stocks.