The Review 2009

#1
Must have been short of articles this year. Some real crackers in there.

edited to add:

If you are unfortunate enough to read the RLC Review 2009 magazine there is a strange article about how female soldiers should be in the infantry because they are already on the front line, closing with and destroying the enemy, when out on CLPs (Combat Logisitc Patrols).

Granted some CLPs are quite hairy affairs, but its not quite the same as conducting a deliberate attack, F&Ming to an enemy postion and bayonetting them to death.
 
B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#2
KnightsofRowallan said:
Must have been short of articles this year. Some real crackers in there.

edited to add:

If you are unfortunate enough to read the RLC Review 2009 magazine there is a strange article about how female soldiers should be in the infantry because they are already on the front line, closing with and destroying the enemy, when out on CLPs (Combat Logisitc Patrols).

Granted some CLPs are quite hairy affairs, but its not quite the same as conducting a deliberate attack, F&Ming to an enemy postion and bayonetting them to death.
Oh I dont know. Some of the women I have pissed off in my life seem quite capable of all of the above!
 
#3
Glad I found this thread, didnt know which one to stick it in. Never realised before, but only the people with nice shiney badges got one. So the question I am asking is why only them and who and what paid for The Review?
 
#5
Fell asleep looking at the front cover my opo feel asleep on page one. Does it get and more exciting or interesting!!!!
 
#6
Had a quick scan before consigning it to the natural home of publications that never get read.

One worthwhile comment stuck out - page 62, and unfortunately made by a chef - "for a generalist to be successful they need to be surrounded and advised by specialists".

Not strictly true but the intent is correct - the RLC has diluted the skill-base inherited from the forming Corps, particularly the 'technical' Corps, to a point where SME is now pretty much non-existent.
 
#7
KnightsofRowallan said:
Must have been short of articles this year. Some real crackers in there.

edited to add:

If you are unfortunate enough to read the RLC Review 2009 magazine there is a strange article about how female soldiers should be in the infantry because they are already on the front line, closing with and destroying the enemy, when out on CLPs (Combat Logisitc Patrols).

Granted some CLPs are quite hairy affairs, but its not quite the same as conducting a deliberate attack, F&Ming to an enemy postion and bayonetting them to death.
Why did they have to put three photos of that scary bird in the article? I'd managed to resign the image of that munter to the back of my mind - until NOW! :x
 
#8
I've been meaning to write something for The Review for some time but...
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#9
Marco Ciotti's article about the Hell's Angel Sect Comd at Bunde was quite funny. But then again, Marco was always amusing.

The Army isn't as funny as it used to be.
 
#10
Mr_Logic said:
Marco Ciotti's article about the Hell's Angel Sect Comd at Bunde was quite funny. But then again, Marco was always amusing.

The Army isn't as funny as it used to be.
Agreed. The Army takes itself far too seriously nowadays.

Good effort by the LCpl to pen the CLP article. Wouldn't have happened in my day however - we had far more important things to fill our days with, primarily avoiding work, avoiding Active Edge, drinking and whoring.

We had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the chain of command, where we fitted in to said chain, doctrine, policy, kit or tactics - far too busy enjoying ourselves. I know which environment I prefer.
 
#11
I was very impressed with the "shinyness" which, unfortunately, renders it non-absorbent and we've run out of bog paper.
 
B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#12
Mr_Logic said:
Marco Ciotti's article about the Hell's Angel Sect Comd at Bunde was quite funny. But then again, Marco was always amusing.

The Army isn't as funny as it used to be.
I found that funny too; however I live in Blackwater and I dont know too many crack dens. It is Surrey after all!
 
#13
Have you seen the advert for the FPS on the inside of the back page? WTF is going on there?

Some tit has laid permanent Infrastucture in the form of a BFI slap bang in the middle of a SPOD. This is just plain mental. The H&S considerations have been blatatnly ignored and this whole area is an accident waiting to happen.

The incidents taking place in this operation are just shocking. Some tit from 47 AD has lobbed 13 bundles out of the back of a Herc straight into the oggin. The tail end of the CLP leaving from the SPOD clearly shows some trog breaking convoy discipline in an attempt overtake his way to the lead vehicle as he knows it will take forever to get a pie from the EFI at the other end.

There is a very near miss involving an apache and and a Herc.

None of the personnel in this picture are wearing hi-vis vests and to top it all off (having scanned the docks for at least 45 minutes) I cannot see one life preserver so when some fat mover falls in the drink he's gonna just float off over the horizon.

I can also see no less than 7 RETCH in this picture 2x C17 1 xAH64 6 x HET 4 LCR and yet there only appears to be 13 people running the whole operation from the ground.

What a pile of shit that picture is.

Having looked at the back page and being outraged at this attempt in portraying logistics, I have thrown the publication straight in the bin and written to the daily mail and my local prime minister.
 
#14
I was also gabbertyflasted that the 2 Israeli soldiers pictured on page 9 have not been given time to shape their helmets properly or have RLC TRF's photoshopped onto themselves. What is the RLC coming to these days?
 
#15
Personally, I would rather the money spent on printing and distributing this publication be spent on welfare, sport and charity. It could still exist but through the medium of the Inter/Intranet.
 
B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#16
And I can clearly see a guards troopy not wearing his seatbelt whilst commanding a Jackal.......................Oh hang on thats page 11 of Novembers Soldier Mag!
 
#17
KnightsofRowallan said:
Must have been short of articles this year. Some real crackers in there.

edited to add:

If you are unfortunate enough to read the RLC Review 2009 magazine there is a strange article about how female soldiers should be in the infantry because they are already on the front line, closing with and destroying the enemy, when out on CLPs (Combat Logisitc Patrols).

Granted some CLPs are quite hairy affairs, but its not quite the same as conducting a deliberate attack, F&Ming to an enemy postion and bayonetting them to death.
Having fished it back out of the bin, I can now confidently agree with you and quite categorically state that (IMO) this particular paper is a pile of shit.

The comparison between CLP and the work of an infanteer is not (nor ever will be ) valid. The inf are required to close with, engage and kill the enemy. CLP is required to deliver materiel. Admitted that the RLC may have to react to given incidents during the task but I would hazard that it is never the commanders top priority to seek out and engage the enemy and then deliver the post.

Assymetric warfare dictates that there are no lines and that the threat is everywhere. Fine. I can live with that concept. However the level of assymetric threat is vastly different for the infanteer, to the threat faced by an RLC soldier. Whilst I applaud every single soldier regardless of sex or capbadge (apart from movers) who go and ply their trade in afghan etc I do not dare to presume that just because a woman is capable of producing the goods at the very highest levels on a CLP that she would be equally capable of producing or replicating the results of an Infanteer who is required to be a very different beast altogether

The use of sandhurst and the 'sameness' in trg is misleading and ill thought through. All soldiers regardless of sex, gender etc complete CMSR (or whatever it is called) whether you are Inf RLC AGC or even a mover. Do you seriously think that the teeth arms are content to let loose an officer after completion of Sandhurst without any further specialist trg?

I imagine that a lot of Argentinian conscripts thought that due to the revolution in electronics etc that they would be unlikely to face a bayonet as well! Shit argument!

Women should be allowed to train and serve as infanteers just like men but there should be no erosion of standards. There should be no no 'gender fair' tests. So at a very basic level you have to do all the mandatory tests that the men do in the same times etc. That is all there is to it in my book and doesn't require a shit paper in the review to point it out. Fact of the matter is that it is the public that drive the politicians and I don't think the public opinion will ever concede to seeing their 'wimmin' being required to do the business 'infantry stylee'.
 
#18
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Personally, I would rather the money spent on printing and distributing this publication be spent on welfare, sport and charity. It could still exist but through the medium of the Inter/Intranet.
Boiledolleocks to that mate. I would rather the money was spent on me. Just me. Nice new pair of shiny shoes and a pie and a pint. If there is any leftover I would like 10 Regal King Size and a bag of those fish and chip crisps (that were actually biscuits) that you can't seem to get anymore.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#20
GeneralMalaise said:
It was nice to see that one of the articles (by a WO1 (Cdr) no less) was plagiarism of the highest order.
That'll be the one about trains then? I wonder if he took the pictures himself?

However, as the great Tom Lehrer said in one of his superb songs "Plagiarise, that's why the good Lord made your eyes, so plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise, but always call it research."
 

Latest Threads