Thanks Thanks:  31
Likes Likes:  40
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 98
  1. #26
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    As you brought up the subject can you provide the details.
    Thanks.
    Your welcome

  2. #27
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    You're *
    Still waiting for naval numbers that you were quoting.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. #28
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You're *
    Still waiting for naval numbers that you were quoting.
    The figures I originally quoted were the strength as at 30 Sept 17 and are available here:
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...h+table#g803.r

    Just a month later the strength (see above) dropped dramatically:
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...+table#g1444.r


    The establishment is in the 2nd link and is unchanged.

    The 2nd link is the more up to date figure of the 2, it shows how the situation is even worse than the one I quoted for Seamen and JNCOs, the SNCO ranks have been sorted more or less - but as you said (and I agreed) a short fall there wouldn’t really effect ships or maintenance
    Last edited by DeV; 23rd January 2018 at 12:06.

  4. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  5. #29
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at ECF introduction in 2011/12 the approved sanction for all the PDF was 70% for strengths shown in DF Establishments CS4. Key tech jobs on ships cannot live on 1.5 ratios, if you have to relieve singletons very often the relief is done by a person filling a shore side vacancy. I would press strongly for a 2 ratio but still think we need a better ratio to cover career courses and realistic sea shore ratios. The current strategy still does not reach Full Establishment so it is important that the allowed figures are being met in all departments with clear avenues of career/trade development. Wave type recruiting with succeeding training shut downs is totally unprofessional and leads to pissed off training by pissed off staff.

  6. Dislikes TangoSierra disliked this post
  7. #30
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Really ? I thought we were working to a fully filled Establishment of 9500p + 4169r . There will be 800 PDF recruits this years - it was in the dail PQs I put up
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  8. #31
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Looking at ECF introduction in 2011/12 the approved sanction for all the PDF was 70% for strengths shown in DF Establishments CS4. Key tech jobs on ships cannot live on 1.5 ratios, if you have to relieve singletons very often the relief is done by a person filling a shore side vacancy. I would press strongly for a 2 ratio but still think we need a better ratio to cover career courses and realistic sea shore ratios. The current strategy still does not reach Full Establishment so it is important that the allowed figures are being met in all departments with clear avenues of career/trade development. Wave type recruiting with succeeding training shut downs is totally unprofessional and leads to pissed off training by pissed off staff.
    +1

    At the time the DF ECF was decided there wasn’t a huge gap between the ECF and the actual strength at the time (by service and rank)

    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    Really ? I thought we were working to a fully filled Establishment of 9500p + 4169r . There will be 800 PDF recruits this years - it was in the dail PQs I put up
    In fairness, it would (for the PDF). Assuming no one left and that it didn’t take 4+ years to be trained to fill some appointments. Retention is the bigger issue

  9. #32
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Naval Service Rank Establishment 6 7 75 15 226 180 402
    Naval Service Strength 6 8 73 14 172 114 510 ***
    Vacancies by Rank 0 -1 2 1 54 66 -108

    6 warrant officers and 8 SCPOs...and even at that one over establishment and yet short 110 POs and L/Hands... and 108 enlisted

    So we are short 211 people up to the rank of CPO......but all the top jobs are full....

    I don't believe for one minute we need in excess of 120 Lts and S/Lts,, when there are on average 2 appointment pership for Lts and 4 for S/Lts.

    And they wonder where the money is gone?
    Time for another break I think......

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #33
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Naval Service Rank Establishment 6 7 75 15 226 180 402
    Naval Service Strength 6 8 73 14 172 114 510 ***
    Vacancies by Rank 0 -1 2 1 54 66 -108

    6 warrant officers and 8 SCPOs...and even at that one over establishment and yet short 110 POs and L/Hands... and 108 enlisted

    So we are short 211 people up to the rank of CPO......but all the top jobs are full....

    I don't believe for one minute we need in excess of 120 Lts and S/Lts,, when there are on average 2 appointment pership for Lts and 4 for S/Lts.

    And they wonder where the money is gone?
    Thing about it the number of JNCOs has decreased (partially) because there have been promotions - this is good for the retention of these people and their families (it should also be good for the people who step into the vacancies their promotions create). That of course assumes there are people to replace them - and there isn’t.

  12. #34
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    S/Lts is an interim rank overtaken by time so that all appointments of xo, gunnery, navigation officers, can be filled by Lieutenants eventually. Junior officers in the PDF are promoted to at least Capt. Army or Lieut. NS. so that you could have out of a hundred Junior officers 100 lieut NS and 0 Sub/Lieuts or 6o Lieuts NS and 40 Sub/Lieuts depending on service. As far as I can remember the Naval Establishment did go over a 1000 all ranks and now languishes at it's current strength. The ideal use of reservists should mirror the duties of trained personnel . Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat

  13. #35
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat
    Legislation required for that. The Dept have had many a chance and have run a mile every time, I often wonder about them.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  14. Likes TangoSierra, Turkey liked this post
  15. #36
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    The ideal use of reservists should mirror the duties of trained personnel . Prolonged call-ups are required to get best use both ashore and afloat
    No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

    Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

    Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
    If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

    Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.

    S/Lts is an interim rank overtaken by time so that all appointments of xo, gunnery, navigation officers, can be filled by Lieutenants eventually
    Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

    The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

    We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

    Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.

    That of course assumes there are people to replace them - and there isn’t.
    Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

    We have learned nothing
    Time for another break I think......

  16. Thanks Truck Driver thanked for this post
  17. #37
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The figures I originally quoted were the strength as at 30 Sept 17 and are available here:
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...h+table#g803.r

    Just a month later the strength (see above) dropped dramatically:
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...+table#g1444.r


    The establishment is in the 2nd link and is unchanged.

    The 2nd link is the more up to date figure of the 2, it shows how the situation is even worse than the one I quoted for Seamen and JNCOs, the SNCO ranks have been sorted more or less - but as you said (and I agreed) a short fall there wouldn’t really effect ships or maintenance

    Right.
    The way I see it the NS isn't that badly off when it comes to Establishment V Strength, compared to the rest of the DF. Indeed there are some facts difficult to explain or justify.
    If people are promoted into vacancies it improves the picture a whole lot.
    Starting at OR3, a surplus of 84 people. Promote them and you now have a surplus of 18 people at OR4 rank. Promote this surplus to OR5 and now you only have a shortage of 36 Petty Officers. And can someone explain to me why there is an extra SCPO in the NS?
    Equally at officer rank, there are 22 extra OF1. Granted many of these are OUTs, but it does outline the huge wastage at junior officer level the NS is expecting. When promoted, there will only be a shortage of 3 Lt(NS). The big question though is how can it be that the NS has 5 more Lt Cdrs than it needs, and with this in mind, how come the NS seems to be struggling to crew one ship out of 8 at any one time, with a ninth ship on the way?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  18. #38
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Looking at ECF introduction in 2011/12 the approved sanction for all the PDF was 70% for strengths shown in DF Establishments CS4. Key tech jobs on ships cannot live on 1.5 ratios, if you have to relieve singletons very often the relief is done by a person filling a shore side vacancy. I would press strongly for a 2 ratio but still think we need a better ratio to cover career courses and realistic sea shore ratios. The current strategy still does not reach Full Establishment so it is important that the allowed figures are being met in all departments with clear avenues of career/trade development. Wave type recruiting with succeeding training shut downs is totally unprofessional and leads to pissed off training by pissed off staff.
    Apologies, disliked by accident. You're right on the money here. Great post!

  19. #39
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

    Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

    Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
    If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

    Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.
    FOCNS awarded NWCs to 2 NSR Officers in 2016

    Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

    The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

    We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

    Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.
    RN MCMVs currently have Lt Cdrs as OCs

    Could be a 2 fold reason. The responsibility for a State ship, mission and crew warrants it (possibly) and the increase in rank of course means an increase in pay (making it easier to retain people).

    If the NS had Lt (NS) as vessel OCs, the FOCNS would probably be a Cdr or Capt (NS) at most.

    Absolutely agree but people aren’t getting the conditions they should get because the strength isn’t there. People aren’t joining & aren’t staying because of it. Bit of chicken and egg really.

    Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

    We have learned nothing
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Right.
    The way I see it the NS isn't that badly off when it comes to Establishment V Strength, compared to the rest of the DF. Indeed there are some facts difficult to explain or justify.
    If people are promoted into vacancies it improves the picture a whole lot.
    Starting at OR3, a surplus of 84 people. Promote them and you now have a surplus of 18 people at OR4 rank. Promote this surplus to OR5 and now you only have a shortage of 36 Petty Officers.
    Absolutely but that 84 includes recruits (not sure if there are any apprentices (probably some members of the TTS)). A fair few probably have less than 3 years service (not sure what the minimum service is to qualify for promotion (could of course be changed but needs to be considered).

    Equally at officer rank, there are 22 extra OF1. Granted many of these are OUTs, but it does outline the huge wastage at junior officer level the NS is expecting. When promoted, there will only be a shortage of 3 Lt(NS).
    Cadets aren’t OF1 they are OR3 (but I know what you mean and I would agree)

    If I’m reading it right they are a OF1 for 3-4 years and are still OUTs during that period. So realistically very few of those are actually qualified to fill a Lt(NS) vacancy





    Ref the supernumeraries. Not sure myself. Could potentially fill DFHQ or overseas positions. The officers could maybe tech officers maybe with fixed term promotions (not sure if that’s still done).

  20. #40
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    Absolutely but that 84 includes recruits (not sure if there are any apprentices (probably some members of the TTS)). A fair few probably have less than 3 years service (not sure what the minimum service is to qualify for promotion (could of course be changed but needs to be considered).


    Cadets aren’t OF1 they are OR3 (but I know what you mean and I would agree)

    If I’m reading it right they are a OF1 for 3-4 years and are still OUTs during that period. So realistically very few of those are actually qualified to fill a Lt(NS) vacancy


    Ref the supernumeraries. Not sure myself. Could potentially fill DFHQ or overseas positions. The officers could maybe tech officers maybe with fixed term promotions (not sure if that’s still done).
    I don't think apprentices are apprentice rank in the NS any more. More often lately is an O/Sea being sent on tech training after passing out to Engineering branch.
    I took the cadets out of the OR3 category just for clarity, but their transition to OF1 is enivitable. They will never be an A/Sea. The only alternative for them is the other side of the main gate.
    There isn't that many positions held by LT(NS) that a Sub Lt cannot do aboard ship. The line between ensign and Sub Lt has become very blurred lately, with many cadets now being commissioned as Sub Lt. What it means is that where in the past, only the XO was an LT(NS) nowdays, the majority can be, with a Sub Lt still OUT where in the past the Nav would bave been the only subbie. It used to take 3 years to get from Cadet to watchkeeping officer. The clock was ticking. Those who were unsuccessful ended up wearing a green uniform as an admin officer in some quiet CSS unit. Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.

    Re supernumaries: An appointment is an appointment. The only thing I can suggest is Maternity leave. The average female officer reaches Lt Cdr around the same time in her life that she decides to have a family.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  21. #41
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    I don't think apprentices are apprentice rank in the NS any more. More often lately is an O/Sea being sent on tech training after passing out to Engineering branch.
    if they joined as an apprentice their rank is apprentice (very very few in the DF anymore think the AC is the only exception). If they are on the Trainee Technicians Scheme then they are A/S.


    I took the cadets out of the OR3 category just for clarity, but their transition to OF1 is enivitable. They will never be an A/Sea. The only alternative for them is the other side of the main gate.
    they join the DF as a 3*/ AS for the duration of they Cadetship. The actual rank they hold is Cadet (AFAIK).

    There isn't that many positions held by LT(NS) that a Sub Lt cannot do aboard ship.

    The line between ensign and Sub Lt has become very blurred lately, with many cadets now being commissioned as Sub Lt.

    What it means is that where in the past, only the XO was an LT(NS) nowdays, the majority can be, with a Sub Lt still OUT where in the past the Nav would bave been the only subbie. It used to take 3 years to get from Cadet to watchkeeping officer. The clock was ticking. Those who were unsuccessful ended up wearing a green uniform as an admin officer in some quiet CSS unit. Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.
    They send 2 years as a Cadet (this includes first year in NMCI). People who are already graduates are commissioned as S/Lt (school leavers as Ensigns). They are then OUTs for another 2-3 years. Only after they have their NWC can they fill the Nav, Gunnery, Comms etc vacancy on a ship.

    Re supernumaries: An appointment is an appointment. The only thing I can suggest is Maternity leave. The average female officer reaches Lt Cdr around the same time in her life that she decides to have a family.
    could be or career break

  22. #42
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the NS had Lt (NS) as vessel OCs, the FOCNS would probably be a Cdr or Capt (NS) at most.
    We even had Lt Cdrs OC of MTBs and up to the 70s, FOCNs was a Captains appointment

    Many a Bad Naval cadet made a mediocre LSB 2/lt.
    Or adversely many a bad LSB officer held a Lt. Cdr appointment in the NS!

    NS never had apprentice ranks, persons came from the Apprentice school hold O/ or A Rank depending on level of qualification, if in the case of some guys were granted apprenticeships while serving they were granted O/ grade and then A/ grade

    FOCNS awarded NWCs to 2 NSR Officers in 2016
    Two since 1947....I suppose its progress.....now ask them can they deploy to the med for three months.....
    Time for another break I think......

  23. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  24. #43
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    We even had Lt Cdrs OC of MTBs and up to the 70s, FOCNs was a Captains appointment
    this is true

    NS never had apprentice ranks, persons came from the Apprentice school hold O/ or A Rank depending on level of qualification, if in the case of some guys were granted apprenticeships while serving they were granted O/ grade and then A/ grade
    thanks I knew it sounded wrong

    ...now ask them can they deploy to the med for three months.....
    they don’t need to be able to but if they could cover a (home) patrol or 2 during the year that means 1 or 2 people can take their leave

  25. #44
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,129
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval manning

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    No...No and thrice no!!!!!!

    Not a slight at reservists by any means but reservists cannot be considered as part of the establishment of any organisation as they tend to be transient, take longer to train and often not available when required.

    Civilian employment will always be their primary consider, and rightly so, thus the NS can never count them as part of their actual establishment.
    If the legislators had grasped the concept of job security for reservists back in the early noughties there might have been a different end game regarding reservists, but they didn't and as a result the reserve element of the DF is just about notional at this point.

    Reservists are not a cheap alternative labour supply and should never be considered as such. If we can't pay the guys doing the job, we certainly should be trying to replace or even supplement them for people who do not have the same contractural obligations.



    Watchkeepers have always been S/Lts on OPV sized vessel. To say that all such appointments should be filled by Lts adds an extra layer of pay grades that there is no requirement for !

    The RN on minesweepers etc ran with Lts as Officers in Command.... but we had to create appointments for pay grades.

    We have to stop padding out pay grades and start ensuring that the lower earners conditions equal that of their peers.

    Ships after longer patrols need to be taken n charge by alongside crews to give the sea going crews rest from 1 in 3 duties and watches, people need to be able to get proper leave periods and have access to proper living conditions as opposed to living on ships while not at sea.



    Promotions to fill vacancies and not having the backfill to fill the vacancies created by promotions is stupid.... too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Given a L/ Hand now makes what an A/B did ten years ago all thats happening is what happened during the 70's and 80s where vacancies were filled to keep posts open in the hope some brilliance might be recognised along the way. Hence we ended up with a generation of dead wood in the DF for many years, holding appointments they were never qualified for and couldn't be got out of thus blocking promotions.

    We have learned nothing
    Many frontline services , including the BA, use reservists in combat units. If reservists are NOT a functional reserve then disband such forces and
    institute a 3year lottery conscription. What do we see as the use of 4169 reservist strength.?

    I was a Lieut. watchkeeper and there were NO S/Lieut watchkeepers until a class of 4 Cadets came through, and eventually they became Lieuts in due time. In the Naval Service qualified watchkeepers can be of either rank as it is not specifically only a Sub's job.

  26. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #45
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Many frontline services , including the BA, use reservists in combat units. If reservists are NOT a functional reserve then disband such forces and
    institute a 3year lottery conscription. What do we see as the use of 4169 reservist strength.?

    I was a Lieut. watchkeeper and there were NO S/Lieut watchkeepers until a class of 4 Cadets came through, and eventually they became Lieuts in due time. In the Naval Service qualified watchkeepers can be of either rank as it is not specifically only a Sub's job.
    I assume that the majority of current S/Lt’s wouldn’t hold NWC as it takes so long to get it?

  28. #46
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Historically most would have one. Unless the University modules are slowing down the point of acquisition. Any seaman S/Lieut appointed to a ship will have the required Cert.

  29. #47
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Historically most would have one. Unless the University modules are slowing down the point of acquisition. Any seaman S/Lieut appointed to a ship will have the required Cert.
    2-3 years as a S/Lt before NWC is awarded

  30. #48
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    2-3 years as a S/Lt before NWC is awarded
    Do they still send young officers to do irrelevant university courses after qualification? I know of one who did geology, a great source of mirth to his mates, who said at least now he'd know all about the type of rock he would run aground on.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  31. Thanks CTU thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  32. #49
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Do they still send young officers to do irrelevant university courses after qualification? I know of one who did geology, a great source of mirth to his mates, who said at least now he'd know all about the type of rock he would run aground on.
    Afaik not in the NS because they have to go to NMCI

  33. #50
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,457
    Post Thanks / Like
    In answer to the question if the reservists could deploy to the med for 3 months - did anyone ask them ? If I had to plan it out a year in advance I probably could.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  34. Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •