Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Integration - A Failure???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Border Bunny
    replied
    Originally posted by Vickers View Post
    Integration failed because the PDF did not want it - period.
    How did the PDF stop almost 6000 RDF members putting in for Integration?
    The RDF seems to want to blame everyone apart from themselves, from the Goverment to the Cadre to the PDF for the failed Integration.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZULU
    replied
    Originally posted by Vickers View Post
    Integration failed because the PDF did not want it - period.
    Some were quite happy to see it succeed. But these were put down for being to out of line with the institutionalised views of the higher ups.

    I know for a fact one of the leading champions of the concept had their knuckles rapped for demonstrating that it could work and work very well provided the personnel were up to standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vickers
    replied
    Originally posted by Oriel View Post
    How is it the Cadres fault Integration failed?
    Integration failed because only 300 out of over 6000 RDF members bothered putting in for it.
    Dont blame the Cadre, blame the lazy RDF members who want to keep it a social club.
    Integration failed because the PDF did not want it - period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Border Bunny
    replied
    Originally posted by Steyr Fan View Post
    I have said that the BIGGEST obstacle to Integration (2 years ago) was the cadre. They put EVERY concievable obstruction in front of us and this is why. It might have shown up the fact that they were NOT doing what they were supposed to be doing. If reservists could be seen to actually do what they should have been doing, they why have them at all? Integration was doomed from the start.

    fcukkers
    How is it the Cadres fault Integration failed?
    Integration failed because only 300 out of over 6000 RDF members bothered putting in for it.
    Dont blame the Cadre, blame the lazy RDF members who want to keep it a social club.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steyr Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by ZULU View Post

    8,157,000 euro over 5 years to the select 450 odd cadre alone!


    Jesus H Christ! Imagine what you could have done with the reserve if you had implemented the Integrated concept from the Re-Org.
    I have said that the BIGGEST obstacle to Integration (2 years ago) was the cadre. They put EVERY concievable obstruction in front of us and this is why. It might have shown up the fact that they were NOT doing what they were supposed to be doing. If reservists could be seen to actually do what they should have been doing, they why have them at all? Integration was doomed from the start.

    fcukkers
    Last edited by Vickers; 1 May 2010, 01:51. Reason: Fix quote

    Leave a comment:


  • ZULU
    replied
    Didn't need to be in on the Friday, People just got up and in for breakfast and were at stores loading gear before 0800. Just had to cut out the beers on friday night and get a good kip. But this is going on a tangent to the thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ZULU View Post
    In my opinion it would be. Look at the time frame of a Recruit coming into the RDF. Year one is spent getting to 2*. Year two is 2*/3* training with a further year confirming their newly aquired skill set during continuation training, PSO, duties. A bit of time in the Green Machine to hone them as it were.
    If you can keep them that long!


    Weekend timings meant nothing in terms of making allowances for travel. We just had to get up earlier, move out earlier, and come back later.
    It doesn't in Non-integrated RDF either, if you have a weekend beginning on a Friday evening, RV is at say 1800 / 1900. Some people from my unit have to be picked up at 1600 (not allowing for traffic!). If it finishes at 1700 Sunday, these people people still have another 2 hours travelling to do.

    I'm all for getting the troops into barracks late on a Friday for early start Saturday. But say be in barracks for 2000. After all some people will have to come straight from work as it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZULU
    replied
    Sorry for the delay, so in response

    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The commnets are appreciated from one has been there and certainly outlines any ideas that were created by what was being sold
    Thanks. Information and openness I think is going to be key to this scheme. So to your points:


    This for me was an issue as outlined in my thoughts as yes duties are a nessacry evil but these are things that could impinge on training.. guy goews in for a weekend .. does guard on a staurday rest off sunday.. no training.
    Duties during the initial period of a scheme like this are always going to be counter productive. The first thing that needs to be done is test the peoples skills in their rank and give them any ones that are missing as a result of their RDF training.

    LIMITED operational duties once this has been completed is as much training as it is doing duties. You have to confirm by practise what you learn in the first phase. But again using upskilling training time for duties is counter productive, and thankfully this didn't happen our Int Res unit in 2007.

    Allocated paid duty days would be far more economic and no drain on actual training time.
    I agree, but only in a training context. Year 2 integration (2nd Phase) could see Int Res supporting PDF on CIT, Shannon duties, enabling it to practise and test new skills as well as helping break down the barrier between PDF and RDF.

    Your point in which you point ou the the RDF is responsible for the skills levels required to hold rank opens an interesing path.

    Given thet the time given to integration was focussed on learning skills not readily available at RDF level should integration be a precursor to attaining rank within the RDF?
    In my opinion it would be. Look at the time frame of a Recruit coming into the RDF. Year one is spent getting to 2*. Year two is 2*/3* training with a further year confirming their newly aquired skill set during continuation training, PSO, duties. A bit of time in the Green Machine to hone them as it were.

    But there is only so much the RDF can give the soldier. The organisation cannot give them the experience of LFTT, weapons and equipment familiarisation and instruction, an environment of elevated training and increased operational tempo, a professional work place. These are things that only training with a PDF unit directly will give to the RDF soldier. Hence a stint in Int Res.

    MOI, natural leadership can and is harnessed at the RDF level, but the neccesity of operating at a professional level during Int Res training would hopefully stick with the RDF soldier when going for Promotion. Hence, placing a motivated, professionally skilled and enhanced training ability into their RDF unit at a point where they can inject this into their unit.

    I've seen this in our unit, with our 3*s, one especially. They came in a lot greener than most of us, (being NCOs made up from Ex PDF, 7year + NCOs) but came out the other end a robust, confident, asset that would be perfectly placed to go into a promotion cycle.



    I suppose to qualify for integration there had to be a substantail grounding in the subjects you mentioned ... fair enough...

    Question .was there a disparagy in the foundation levels?
    There was a disparagy when you compared the skills the RDF gave us to what the PDF operated at. M203, SRAAW, LFTT was non-existant. Generic skills such as Nav, Steyr, Tactical was well grounded but was ratched up to the PDFs professional expectations. Coca-Cola League 1 to the premierships as it were. We knew how to play football at our level, but we were playing with the big boys now for not only kudos but survival within the Int Res.

    Initially the prposal of inytegration was for the potential inductee to be able to take 'a career break' fromthe 9 to 5 and give apsecified commitment to integration.. this was not feasible due to employmant legislation but greater allocation of time during the normal working week to fall in in on regular training would have acheived more normailsed training rather than just having to set up an independent training regime.
    a pipe dream I know but ideally if the reservist was able to fit in with Army time as opposed to the Army having to set out alloted time the whole thing probably would have been more productive.
    I understand what your saying. FTT is always going to be better at providing robust skills. But in addition to this needs to be regular refreshment in the form of weeknds, weeknights etc. Up the commitment, put the resources in place to accomdate it (Equipment, money, HR) and the Reserve will begin to come in line with all other Reserves. Dont and you'll get what you give.



    Ok so now you've done it how can it be repackaged to make it more attractive in future.?
    Not the way their going for 2008 thats for sure. Cutting time from 33 days to 21 is idiocy. More time is what should be happening.

    How will what you have learned be applied to every day reservist?
    Robustness of training. We have a new recruit Pln at present thats getting its training from Int Res 2007 NCOs. The softly softly approach, poisioning the RDF at large is well and truely cut out. The new recuits are put under pressure with a more seasoned and upskilled training staff, with a proffessional attitude and abhorrence to anything but THE standard.

    And do you know what, the recruits are lapping it up. A sense of achievement by doing things that are not easy, is what people with a soldier in them will come back for.

    Has the parent unit approached the integrated peeps with a view to working forward ?
    Our unit, very much so. Our unit supplied over 90% of the Int Res 2007 personnel, such was the level of investment they are putting into this. Int Res personnel 2007 are being utillised to their fullest in the operational running of the unit, as well as extracting from us the skills learned with the PDF. Thats the return.

    From a persoanl aspect I have no doubt it was rewarding but how will the training be expanded throughout parent units?
    Thats up to the attitudes of the naysayers and fifedom protectors.

    So many questions... not from a nitpicking point of view but I would like to hear from you in twelve months time and see how it worked.

    No worries. I'm glad to share. Hopefully people are watching and reading!

    As regarding the time versus quality of training.. this has always been an area I have been interested in as I watch course run in the RDF take so long as opposed to course in the PDF which are run over far more concise period of time which while intense actually lends itself to the learning curve. Often the preesure of such learning curves uincreases the performance as oppsed to modular over six months which gives guys time to go away and give more time to thought than action.
    Fully agree. Adding the correct amount of pressure in a learning environment will etch and ingrain the skills into the students in a far more robust and effective way than drips, and hand holding.


    I can appreciate that much of your training was condensed into weekends and had to make allowances for travel etc. but was there enough time to have a full appreciation of what was being learned?
    Weekend timings meant nothing in terms of making allowances for travel. We just had to get up earlier, move out earlier, and come back later. We stayed till the mission was accomplished, nothing short of it. And believe me, FULL APPRECIATION was learned during the tactical phase. Our Ex-PDF sniper Pln member commented on it, saying a lot of PDF wouldn't take the beating so graciously. I think all of us knew of the chip on our shoulders if we did not only pull it off, but we had to do it well.

    Sorry for all the questions but I haven't had a chance to discuss the actual reality from some one who went at it from the infantry side.
    No worries. Thanks for asking them They mange to extract info that I wouldn't neccasarily think of.

    Regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZULU
    replied
    Hi Murph,

    Originally posted by hptmurphy

    right taking hits here
    Incoming!!


    many corps units had achieved the level of integration required before the declared integration status had begun

    And the 'parent unit' even recognised this'

    All the Cav courses have been run as either continutaion or specific too courses and not in the ' need to bring in line' courses.
    I think this is a product of the Corp units being a) smaller than the Infantry and b) that the corp units use the same equipment (Vehicles for eg) so the skill sets are the same.
    In an infantry context the same principle could not be applied due to a number of reasons.

    The RDF infantry has in no way the same level of equipment as the PDF counterpart, while a Cav or Logs unit would have enough to cover its equipment, i.e personnel in a vehicle that both the PDF and RDF share


    guys coming on line saying ..I have fired the HK...w hile some of us were qualified as instructors six months ago!!
    Again, a product of a small unit, using the same equipment as the PDF parent unit. Up until Sept last year a PDF Bn was still using BAPs. Again, a numbers and time game.

    Guys bullshitting about GPMGs where in some units AD and Cav we have been using it for the past 10 years
    AD use the GPMG in a SF role for AA, Cav use the GPMG as a mounted weapon on the vehicles. Again, AD and Cav are smaller compared to their respective Infatry unit and as a byproduct of using the equipment of their PDF unit, will train on it sooner.

    .5s... 3 cav fired it 15 years ago...check the records if you want...
    Again, .5 mounted on vehicles that both the PDF and RDF cav utilise.

    The role out of weapons skills will always be slower in the INfantry compared to corp units due to the numbers involved and the first availablity of the equipment going to the PDF.


    integration or catch up?
    A bit of both I think. The RDF are never going to be in any position to support the PDF if they aren't brought up to the same standard and skill set as them. Your Cav unit have the PDF units equipment to train on. This will always mean by proxy corp units will upskill on new weapons faster.


    Having no Live Fire instructors/marshalls in the RDF cuts this skill completely from the RDF infantry
    Lack of available equipment such as NVE, mollycuddling from PDF in the form as Grenades etc, will hamper any attempt by the RDF infantry to progress upwards.

    Worst of all, this mollycuddling attitude has perpetrated itself into the RDF all over in both its training standards and projection.
    Last edited by ZULU; 19 February 2008, 01:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZULU
    replied
    Originally posted by luchi View Post
    (these guys are members of the "I'm intergrated they should give me a black berret so I don't have to associate with you" gang)
    If thats their attitude, they are neither helpful to Integration nor RDF.

    Leave a comment:


  • spudula
    replied
    Originally posted by luchi View Post
    (these guys are members of the "I'm intergrated they should give me a black berret so I don't have to associate with you" gang)
    NOT ANYMORE THEIR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • luchi
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    I...................(basically a tweaking of some of the stuff they knew allready with a few extra skills they didn't know) have been much improved upon from day one of their training.Also the standards of dress and deportment and fitness.
    I've said this before but where you were this may have happened but in atleast 3 units I know int pers had minor improvement in their skills but as for fitness, dress and deportment it is going to take years for their RDF unit to knock them back into shape.
    (these guys are members of the "I'm intergrated they should give me a black berret so I don't have to associate with you" gang)
    Last edited by luchi; 18 February 2008, 00:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    I couldnt agree more with you Dev.Instructors courses would have been handy for the lads in year two ,if year two had followed the natural progression of year one.But it didn't.
    Now we are back to square one.
    However the soldiering skills(basically a tweaking of some of the stuff they knew allready with a few extra skills they didn't know) have been much improved upon from day one of their training.Also the standards of dress and deportment and fitness.These are not things you have to have an instructors title to pass on.If the lads who didn't go integrated are willing to learn and not cut the lads down beacuse they went integrated then those skills can be passed on.The improvement while taking a while to become evident will soon be there for all to see.And that can only be a good thing.Cant it???

    (I am only speaking from my own experience of training integrated rdf infantry.I have no knowledge if what i have said above will ring true across the other corps)

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    No.No instructotrs training was conducted during integration 2007 for infantry.However most of the ncos would allready be instructors in most of the basic weapons.SRAAW and HK would have been a bonus along with M203 but their wasnt time.
    If instructor training wasn't conducted how is integration supposed to upgrade the training of the non-integrated?? Yes there are now individuals in the RDF who have completed SRAAW, M203, LFTT, etc - but will they would get to do it again / can they upgrade the training within the unit / can they retain their currency in skills/knowledge?

    Leave a comment:


  • luchi
    replied
    2AD was training on the GPMG in the early 90s and the .5 in the late 90s..........

    but murph intergration is also about co-operation. Know thy place as it were!!!
    Last edited by luchi; 16 February 2008, 01:20.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X