The Army Brain

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Or alternatively John Kincaid of the Rifles in Wellington's Army - not that good at being a soldier and had sex with a bird for bread. Could be that one?
Sounds an excellent soldier to me.
 
He's definitely Type 2 - blaming everyone else...
 
I have to admit . . . you are very funny, and inventive . . . and I honestly enjoyed the reading, if not the roasting . . . sincerely . . and to keep the tone up I should now saY f*** off . but I don't want to encourage you . . . so will just say keep safe . . but you were right about the cat . .
 
Last edited:
Time for bed said Zebedee......
 
I have to admit . . . you are very funny, and inventive . . . and I honestly enjoyed the reading, if not the roasting . . . sincerely . . and to keep the tone up I should now saY f*** off . but I don't want to encourage you . . . so will just say keep safe . . but you were right about the cat . .
Reported for inappropriate punctuation.
 

shadowonarun

Old-Salt
Type One, generally middle-aged with a refined sense of responsibility, both to themselves and those they love . . . they can often be seen staring into the middle distance, silently mouthing “F**** , I better batten the hatches . . . I better get more stores in .
Does that mean it's the Army Brians that have stockpiled all the bog roll and pasta?
Tossers.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
I hope you'll excuse me for intruding on the conversation, as a mere civilian. But I wonder what happens if you're given an order by your Commanding Officer, and you perceive immediately that the order is stupid, and would lead to disaster if carried out.

From what I've read in books, the best procedure is for you NOT to refuse the order. Because that would lead to you
being court-martialled for "refusing to obey an order". And you'd be convicted.

Instead, you should just say "Yes Sir", salute, and go away - and then not carry out the order.

Then the most you can be charged with is failing to carry out an order. Which is not as serious as direct refusal.

And in fact, you might not get charged even with "failing to carry out", because when your CO has had a chance to think about it, he'll probably realise that his order was stupid, and would've led to disaster. Therefore he'll be glad you didn't try to carry it out. And so he'll not take any action against you, and just let the matter drop.

Is this how it works, and does it happen often?
 

Chef

LE
@mcphee1948 Having attained the lofty rank of full screw (Part time T.A) I learned never to give an order unless you're 90% certain that the lads were going to do it anyway.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
@mcphee1948 Having attained the lofty rank of full screw (Part time T.A) I learned never to give an order unless you're 90% certain that the lads were going to do it anyway.
Thanks - yes, this chimes in with an aphorism I read about not to give an order, if disobedience is possible but enforcement isn't.
 
I hope you'll excuse me for intruding on the conversation, as a mere civilian. But I wonder what happens if you're given an order by your Commanding Officer, and you perceive immediately that the order is stupid, and would lead to disaster if carried out.

From what I've read in books, the best procedure is for you NOT to refuse the order. Because that would lead to you
being court-martialled for "refusing to obey an order". And you'd be convicted.

Instead, you should just say "Yes Sir", salute, and go away - and then not carry out the order.

Then the most you can be charged with is failing to carry out an order. Which is not as serious as direct refusal.

And in fact, you might not get charged even with "failing to carry out", because when your CO has had a chance to think about it, he'll probably realise that his order was stupid, and would've led to disaster. Therefore he'll be glad you didn't try to carry it out. And so he'll not take any action against you, and just let the matter drop.

Is this how it works, and does it happen often?
A soldier has an obligation to refuse an order that violates the Law of Armed Conflict - e.g. an order to harm a prisoner of war, or to treat him unfairly. That's the only lawful exception as far as I can recall.

An SNCO or a commanding officer is always right, even if s/he is wrong.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
A soldier has an obligation to refuse an order that violates the Law of Armed Conflict - e.g. an order to harm a prisoner of war, or to treat him unfairly. That's the only lawful exception as far as I can recall.

An SNCO or a commanding officer is always right, even if s/he is wrong.
When you mention the "Law of Armed Conflict", I don't remember having heard of that before, is it the same as the "Geneva Conventions"?

Also, is there a safe, tactful way to query an order if you think it's wrong?
 
When you mention the "Law of Armed Conflict", I don't remember having heard of that before, is it the same as the "Geneva Conventions"?

Also, is there a safe, tactful way to query an order if you think it's wrong?
Yes I believe they are roughly the same, though the term 'Law of Armed Conflict' was used more, probably because there's more involved than just the Geneva Conventions.

As for querying an order, maybe it could be done tactfully. Maybe not. If I had to refuse, I'd certainly give a very good reason for it.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top