What is the role of OC HQ Coy/Sqn ?

#1
With ever increasing numbers of DE Officers finding themselves in this appointment ( normally as a 6 monther after beigeing but before ICSC) what does the community think the Tactical role of the OC HQ Coy/Sqn should be ??

BGLO / CSSO or something else ?
 
#2
machiavelli said:
With ever increasing numbers of DE Officers finding themselves in this appointment ( normally as a 6 monther after beigeing but before ICSC) what does the community think the Tactical role of the OC HQ Coy/Sqn should be ??

BGLO / CSSO or something else ?
M,

No change - providing the infra sp necessary to enable the BG to operate effectively.

By the way, why the distinction between DE/LE? Are you of the opinion that there is more stretch in the DE offr who is able, therefore, to broaden his AOR?

PAW
 

B_AND_T

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Would you trust a DE in this appointment?
 
#4
B_AND_T said:
Would you trust a DE in this appointment?
Have known both DE and LE officers being OC HQ, granted the majority have been LE but I can't actually say LE was better than DE or vice versa. Totally depends on the individual IMHO.
 
#5
Out of the 5 OCs my old Sqn had, only one was LE and he was the most popular by far. Out of all the OC positions awarded in the RE HQ Sqns are seen as a bit of a let down for DE officers but as an LE it's pretty good. I didn't think LEs could be OC of "normal" Sqns/Coys due to their type of commission but I am waiting to be corrected if I'm wrong.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#6
I once had an OC HQ Sqn charged with false accounting.
Does that help? :jocolor:
 
#8
A friend who is an LE officer in the Inf has spent time as OC of Fire Sp Coy and most HQ Coy OCs in the inf are LEs
 
#10
BGLO is the norm in the RAC, we also have LE's as 2IC in Sabre Sqn, at last they have woken up to the fact that LE,s are experienced in more areas than most.

PS OC Burma Coy (training Coy not QM) AFC is an LE post.
 
#11
Solon_of_Athens said:
Pling said:
most HQ Coy OCs in the inf are LEs
Not for very much longer. The competition for sub-unit comd is such that DEs are being given HQ Coy as their only SUC.
Yeah right, I always knew were regarded as 'Polyfilla' by the DE community!

As TARA said it is the norm in the RAC for OC HQ Sqn to be the BGLogO, I for one would like to see it change so that is done by the QM (Socks&Sausages). That would enable OC HQ to at least command his own blokes in the field and run A2 lets say, this in tail would free up the QM(T) to run around beg, stealing and borrowing spares for his BG vehicles!
 
#12
Regt/Sqn 2I/Cs and RCMO posts are great posts for LEs. Mainly because they realise how important it is to make sure everybodys career is well managed.
 
#13
Solon_of_Athens said:
Pling said:
most HQ Coy OCs in the inf are LEs
Not for very much longer. The competition for sub-unit comd is such that DEs are being given HQ Coy as their only SUC.
The last round of Regt Appointments boards in the Inf graded all eligible Majors for SUC - this included OC FSp Coy and HQ Coy.
What i cannot understand is this - if competition is so high how can one famous household divi regt have 4 A/Maj as OCs ?
And how competitive is it when 10 Maj from the Queens div sign off - if anything surely competition is getting less..
 
#14
oldbaldy said:
I once had an OC HQ Sqn charged with false accounting.
Does that help? :jocolor:
My first two weeks in the job were spent closeted with my Stores Tp Sgt who asked me to write off £2M worth of E&MAs. They had never existed but an incompetent operator had brought them onto the books. I signed the certificate, but never did get to the bottom of the problem, as I deployed shortly after. I am still waiting for the call which starts "Ah, Major Litotes, I have a write off certificate with your signature on it and I would like to discuss...."

Litotes
 
#15
machiavelli said:
Solon_of_Athens said:
Pling said:
most HQ Coy OCs in the inf are LEs
Not for very much longer. The competition for sub-unit comd is such that DEs are being given HQ Coy as their only SUC.
The last round of Regt Appointments boards in the Inf graded all eligible Majors for SUC - this included OC FSp Coy and HQ Coy.
What i cannot understand is this - if competition is so high how can one famous household divi regt have 4 A/Maj as OCs ?And how competitive is it when 10 Maj from the Queens div sign off - if anything surely competition is getting less..
All Sub Majors are on ICSC(L) getting educated!!!
 
#17
I have been selected to command a RE HQ Sqn in Jul this year. I am DE and am chuffed to bits. Competition for Sqns was outrageous last year and this. 51 eligible Majors going for 30 Sqn Comds. Just to get a Sqn is a great privilege. Only 3 LE Majors selected. It is so bad that 5 DE Majs were deferred 2 years as there is a massive gap in 4 years time with only 30 odd Maj's going for 35 sqns.

Most of the problems resulting from DE Majs in HQ Sqn posts is as a result of them trying to treat their Sqn as a Fd Sqn. It is not, it is there to support the Regt, hence why I am trying to get on a Resources Officers Cse rather than CATAC (although I know that CATAC would be great fun it will in no way be very useful to my post).

SF
 
#18
More on the LE issue than on OC Hq, but the AAC used to survive on E3 offrs to fill Sqn 2IC LSNs. As the E3 contribution begins to subside the LEs are vitally useful for this sort of role as well as FOB/FARP Comd (like BKs in Arty Btys) - not flying but running the meat of the Sqn on the ground.

Trouble is, they aren't pilots. So, QM, Trg Offr, OC Hq Sqn etc is the next logical place for these chaps to go in the AAC.

My point is that despite ROCC and OCD there is no standardised answer across the Army for career paths for LEs. An LE staying in the Inf is likely to have a totally different array of opportunities to his peers who move, say, from the Inf to Avn.
 
#19
Victorian_Major said:
My point is that despite ROCC and OCD there is no standardised answer across the Army for career paths for LEs. An LE staying in the Inf is likely to have a totally different array of opportunities to his peers who move, say, from the Inf to Avn.
VM,

Now off thread to some extent but agreed, and at some point, if the Army wishes to retain motivated LE officers, a decision will need to be made on his role, and from that will fall out a structured career path and development plan.

Currently, selection for posts is based on both professional/specialised expertise, and manning expediency.

The former is not a problem on initial commissioning, but is when deciding selection for command/SO2 appointments where the LE officer has received no formal staff/command trg.

The latter, whereby LE officers are used as a measure of last report to fill gaps in DE capability, is inefficient and corrosive, resulting in: dissatisfaction as LE officers are elevated into command and SO2 appointments and then just as quickly dropped back into the mundane job pit, regardless of how well they have performed in post; a dimunition of capability in the Sgts Mess as WO1s are commissioned early, and dissatisfaction amongst WOs as the numbers commissioned each year rises and falls as inexorably as the tides; dissatisfaction amongst DE Officers as they perceive that 'less qualified and experienced' officers are being used to fill reasonable quality jobs.

The reality of gaps in the DE world needing to be filled, with the consequnces detailed above, is likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future, and there are no quick fixes.

What could, perhaps, be fixed is the streaming of LE officers into those fit for command and staff appointments, and those who are not, through means of a transparent and defined process. This could possibly be achieved simply through the use of ICSC as a filter. Attendance would mean increased opportunity and a chance of progression to Lt Col. Non-attendance would limit opportunity to lower grade jobs and career limitation fixed at Maj.

As well as incentivising the LE Officer to improve his command and staff qualities, this would provide a clear route to Lt Col based on a more visible and proven overall ability and utility assessment, rather than what could be perceived as the traditional 'reward for long/valued service' selection criteria.

PAW
 
#20
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Victorian_Major said:
My point is that despite ROCC and OCD there is no standardised answer across the Army for career paths for LEs. An LE staying in the Inf is likely to have a totally different array of opportunities to his peers who move, say, from the Inf to Avn.
VM,

Now off thread to some extent but agreed, and at some point, if the Army wishes to retain motivated LE officers, a decision will need to be made on his role, and from that will fall out a structured career path and development plan.

Currently, selection for posts is based on both professional/specialised expertise, and manning expediency.

The former is not a problem on initial commissioning, but is when deciding selection for command/SO2 appointments where the LE officer has received no formal staff/command trg.

The latter, whereby LE officers are used as a measure of last report to fill gaps in DE capability, is inefficient and corrosive, resulting in: dissatisfaction as LE officers are elevated into command and SO2 appointments and then just as quickly dropped back into the mundane job pit, regardless of how well they have performed in post; a dimunition of capability in the Sgts Mess as WO1s are commissioned early, and dissatisfaction amongst WOs as the numbers commissioned each year rises and falls as inexorably as the tides; dissatisfaction amongst DE Officers as they perceive that 'less qualified and experienced' officers are being used to fill reasonable quality jobs.

The reality of gaps in the DE world needing to be filled, with the consequnces detailed above, is likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future, and there are no quick fixes.

What could, perhaps, be fixed is the streaming of LE officers into those fit for command and staff appointments, and those who are not, through means of a transparent and defined process. This could possibly be achieved simply through the use of ICSC as a filter. Attendance would mean increased opportunity and a chance of progression to Lt Col. Non-attendance would limit opportunity to lower grade jobs and career limitation fixed at Maj.

As well as incentivising the LE Officer to improve his command and staff qualities, this would provide a clear route to Lt Col based on a more visible and proven overall ability and utility assessment, rather than what could be perceived as the traditional 'reward for long/valued service' selection criteria.

PAW
Good idea, PAW, but there aren't enough vacancies for all those who are so inclined! It is early days yet for ICSC but the indications are that, if you are selected for ICSC as an LE, you will have the best chance of reaching Lt Col, either through conversion to DE, or as an LE. Once people realise, the rush for the few LE vacancies, will be tremendous.

Litotes
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top