WHAT WOULD yOU SAY?

#2
I would ask them to do 6+ months in the sand pit like our boys do, front line stuff ofcourse, then ask them if they think we should be there. The big problem is none of the chiefs are in any danger - they play with us like toy soldiers.
 
#3
no1cares said:
I would ask them to do 6+ months in the sand pit like our boys do, front line stuff ofcourse, then ask them if they think we should be there. The big problem is none of the chiefs are in any danger - they play with us like toy soldiers.
Some, though not all, of the current breed of Generals have direct experience of Ops in NI during the 70's and 80's (I know its not Afghan or Iraq) and some fought in the Falklands. Lt Gen Kiszely won an MC there. Many Admirals were on board ship there as young officersl with the real risk of being bombed or being hit by an exocet.

If I had my chance with the Generals and politicians I would tell them that the forces are too small in terms of manpower and are equipped to satisfy political priorities and not the military realities that we confront on Ops. On top of that our hands are tied by legal constraints that do not recognise the harsh realities of the job and by doing so put our lives in danger.
 
#4
One of the biggest concerns of the modern day squaddie is that they are not actually being listened to by anyone of any relevance. How many times have you had a visit to your unit by someone of significant influence within the Armed Forces, and actually asked what you think? And of those few times (if ever) can you recall any of your remarks being acted upon in any way?
I think one of the things I would point out (and beat in with a stick until it finally stuck) is that the Chain of Information from top to bottom is at worst a shambles, at best a series of Chinese whispers. For example, the vacating of JHQ. I hear many different rumours regarding what the outcome will be, and they all differ vastly. Maybe a regular brief direct to soldiers can be incorporated into JPA, regarding the more pressing issues
 
#5
Invicta said:
Some, though not all, of the current breed of Generals have direct experience of Ops in NI during the 70's and 80's (I know its not Afghan or Iraq) and some fought in the Falklands. Lt Gen Kiszely won an MC there. Many Admirals were on board ship there as young officersl with the real risk of being bombed or being hit by an exocet.
I appreciate that however I was referring to the 'civilian' side of life. I think Bliar and co need to do play soldier for a few months and see if its really what they thought it was like. Throw in a few casualties/deaths of friends etc and then ask them the question: "Are we doing the people of(input war-torn country) any favours by having our presence here?"
 
#6
Outstanding said:
If you could say anything or bring anything to the attention of a high level Command manangement conference what would it be?

That pot of tea you've all been drinking was 1/2 tea and 1/2 my piss, and a small dollop of extremely powerful poison..............
 
#8
I think i would ask about the future of recruitment, and how they think they will reach the young people of to day, not the drop outs but people who can deal with the advancement of technology for example... from an outsiders point of view, i would be asking what strategies they have to target the right tyes of recruit. with levels being at an all time low due to several reasions in the 16-18 year old age gap. what are they planning in terms of meeting the market?

The fact is that apporpriate Recuits are becoming harder hard to find!

:?
 
#10
Little_Miss_Pink_Pants said:
The fact is that apporpriate Recuits are becoming harder hard to find!

:?
Why the sudden concern about recruitment? In a recent thread which you started elsewhere on the forum, you wanted advice on dating squaddies! Are you really getting through them that quickly? You really do sound like a classy piece!
 
#12
Why do you consistently treat soldiers worse then civilians in terms of HR and Personnel matters ? Why do you expect soldiers to believe you have their best interests at heart when this is the case ? How can you as a result say "Serve to lead" with a straight face ?

Pay for instance - a civvy form would be hauled up in front of a tribunal for a tiny fraction of the incompetence Glasgow exhibit. And I could go on but you get the picture.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
Why have NAAFI been allowed to push out smaller organisations who have been with us for longer than they have?
 
#15
Now we are into a recruiting black hole and we also have the europe immigration problem I would say grab the additional available manpower from Poland Czech republic Romamia etc.
Anyone care to argue against this?
8)
 
#16
One_of_the_strange said:
Why do you consistently treat soldiers worse then civilians in terms of HR and Personnel matters ? Why do you expect soldiers to believe you have their best interests at heart when this is the case ? How can you as a result say "Serve to lead" with a straight face ?

Pay for instance - a civvy form would be hauled up in front of a tribunal for a tiny fraction of the incompetence Glasgow exhibit. And I could go on but you get the picture.
EXCELLENT! Give me more!
 
#17
I would ask why senior officers keep buying kit that squaddies on the shop floor don't want because it doesn't work as advertised.

There are any number of these, so I will make them relevant;

SA80 - Stood for 'Small Arms family 1990'. Don't make me laugh! Firstly, in 1983, the post Op Corporate, (Falklands War to you and I), report, the army specifically stated that there was still a requirement for a belt fed support weapon at section level. Did they listen? No - we got LSW, which, whilst not a bad piece of kit, requires a mag change every 30 rounds. Thak God that, about 12 years after the Yanks got it, we got Minimi. I wonder how much we would have saved by buying it instead of LSW?

We test a bunch of tanks, asked for Leopard 2 and got Challenger 1 - a tank so poor, the MOD proudly boasted that its replacement Challenger 2, although visually almost identical to Challenger 1, was 80% 'different (ie, it actually worked). Thus, the British Army re-entered tank gunnery competitions it had stopped attending years earlier. I wonder how much we would have saved if we'd bought Leopard 2 originally?

Bowman - a digital secure comms system which was supposed to be in service 5 years ago is still being rolled out, is over budget and there are still reported problems with it (like it takes up more space than the Clansman it replaced in a vehicle!) I am pretty sure we would have saved bucket loads of cash buying something that worked in the first place, instead of developing it from the ground up.

My point is - when are senior officers and politicians going to take any notice of the people who actually need the equipment, and therefore know what they require of it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, all those officers are touting for their second careers, despite of their fantastic pensions! Silly me! Why would they listen to the average grunt, clanky tanky, bleep or whatever, when they have their feathers to nest?

Additionally, as alluded to earlier, we would have saved a great deal of money if the politicians had bought what we wanted in the first place. And those who talk about the defence industry benefitting - exactly how many coutries have bought the Rifle (formerly known as SA80)? Zero - even the Falkalnds Defence Force didn't want it. What about Challenger 2? If memory serves correctly, Oman bought some and that is it. How many people will buy Bowman? Not a whole lot, I am guessing. So much for the benfits to industry then. This might help explain why they screw the MOD so much in the first place - once the MOD have bought something, no other f*&ker wants to!

Cynical? You bet! But tell me I'm not the only one and I'll laugh in your face and pi55 in your beer!
 
#18
Wasn't there a series on the TV a few years back (BBC, I think) called 'Back to the floor' which included one episode where the then CGS was back as a platoon commander for a week. After wiping out his platoon on their first attack across a river he got time to talk to them and after some intial reluctance they told him a few home truths on their working conditions and gear. The way it looked on the program it appeared to have some impact and he did try to change certain things as a result. Trouble is that even when the boss sees that things need to change it is not always the same as actually achieving the change require by the time it goes through the layers of bureauracy and personal jealousies. People are people and some do not have the character to allow change for fear that it will make them and some of their previous decisions look bad.

That is the same not only in the military but also on civvie street. Though the idea of getting the people at the top to spend some time at the coal face should be compulsory. Even with the best will in the world the higher up you go the more you lose touch and what may seem like a great idea in the comfort of an office is not always so on the ground.
Ultimately though, if the people you are putting in harm's way are not getting the support they deserve then you have failed as a leader.
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
Tytus_Barnowl said:
Now we are into a recruiting black hole and we also have the europe immigration problem I would say grab the additional available manpower from Poland Czech republic Romamia etc.
Anyone care to argue against this?
8)
You might find that they speak better English than some of the F&C soldiers we already have. (This is not a racist statement - just a point of fact).
 

Latest Threads

Top