Announcement

**Muzzle** · 22 October 2008, 11:42

Originally posted by luchi View Post

ensuring that tpt was were it should be at all times.

Except when the 24 hour HQ office was closed at 6am when a duty driver was looking for his keys that were taken off him the night before.

**luchi** · 22 October 2008, 12:14

Originally posted by Muzzle View Post

Except when the 24 hour HQ office was closed at 6am when a duty driver was looking for his keys that were taken off him the night before.

The duty driver keeps his keys at all times. A designated driver is assigned a time to report for duty.
Was 6am his time to report? Was someone late due to the absents of the Tpt NCO?

According to the report sent back to the unit from the Bn commander the Tpt NCO did his job. Since I wasn't there I cannot comment further.

**Traumagod** · 22 October 2008, 13:14

Originally posted by luchi View Post

Yes trell you are correct. 100%
RLSB in EBde only was required to supply 8 drivers.

All drivers including your self were employed by the Inf Bn Tpt Coy. So all drivers no matter what their home unit was were inf drivers for the week end.

For the record there was a total of 56 TCVs in operation. (hats both LTCV and STCVs). Drivers were a mix of RDF and PDF and from all 3 brigades. There were also some spare/relief drivers that were cadre staff from some units but for H&S reasons were made available to the tpt NCO to be uses as and when required.

I am sure there were many drivers confirming directions and routes.
I am sure if you were dropped off in the Curragh and told to head to Rabbit hill you would need directions too since it would be out side your normal AO.

BTW:
Bn Tpt Office was run by a Cpl from my unit as he was the most experienced Tpt NCO that was there. Although he would not normally be in the detail office. From what I heard he did an excellent job .Although a certain WBde officer initially refused to co-operate eventually he was given the respect and co-ooperation from all as he rose to the challenge of ensuring that tpt was were it should be at all times.

Absolutely. Congrats to that Nco as well. He did a very good job. As for that officer, his ncos had a word........

P.S. Luchi, was great working with your guys and look forward to it again!

**luchi** · 24 October 2008, 10:37

Originally posted by SC Uilechumachtach View Post

Ah the exaggeration effect lives on. I saw 5 mps max there and even I admit they did a good job. As for a transport idiot trotting anywhere well what whatever next.

Transport idiot trotting???
I would like to have seen that. I can't think of a single tpt person that would trot. Unless in the loo.

I never understand how corps idiots never get it about infantry due to the sheer size of units it takes time to move. Anyone know how long it takes for a battalion size formation to pass a fixed point even on transport.

You odviously don't understand either otherwise you would not have made such a rediculous statement.

**luchi** · 24 October 2008, 12:29

Originally posted by SC Uilechumachtach View Post

Can we get back to the assessments shold they be improved for next year?

As you say yourself you reqularly make mistakes mark one up

Well actually although not assessed I would think that the movement of troops is an important factor that should be examined as much as any tactical issue.
I think someone posted posted earlier that one purpose of the assessment was to see the effectiveness of the command and communications.

There were 56 vehicles working. Yet tpt command was done by a cpl.
Either the BN should have appointed their own O/ic tpt and tpt Sgt or they should have been requested from the tpt coy as was the case with Slaney.

As was mentioned earlier. Some unit commanders did not know that all drivers and vehicles would be under the controll of the Bn tpt office.

As Muzzel says the 24hr tpt office was found closed at a certain time. I've been told that any time the duty NCO was not there the stand to driver was there si I don't know how this could have happened other that some one had nodded off (sure that would never happen) or slipped out to the loo.

**luchi** · 24 October 2008, 12:32

Originally posted by trellheim View Post

NO MORE tpt Posts here. Myself and Luchi have that battleground fairly well defined in the big driving thread ... let's take the mickey out of the next most paranoid corps ..... Artillery ! but in another thread.... let's take the assessments seriously for what they are

Sorry trell. I had the post started while you were writing yours.

But I do thing the Bn tpt requirements should not be ignored.

**trellheim** · 24 October 2008, 12:42

Transport was under control of a Comdt. rather ./... ?

**SC Uilechumachtach** · 24 October 2008, 15:29

Firstly I agree the transport Cpl did well and did a good job. Secondly I agree the whole transport coy HQ should have attended to support him and to be exercised ala slaney.

**luchi** · 28 October 2008, 10:47

Originally posted by trellheim View Post

Transport was under control of a Comdt. rather ./... ?

Now thats soooo vague.

You could say your pl was under a comdt.

The effective control of the tpt we a cpl. By that the person that attended the breifings and designated the tasks was a cpl. Yes in the next office there was a comdt. And yes that comdt ensured that the weight of his swords were there to support the cpl but that does not take away from the fact that there was no tpt sgt or officer for the specific task. The tpt officer is usually an Lt ut occasionally a Capt. There is usualy a "chain of command".

In this assessment there was the platoons doing what they do and transport doing what they do. There was not a Bn do int what it does.

**trellheim** · 28 October 2008, 11:00

Luchi. When I say it was under a Comdt, it was under a Comdt . There was a specific Comdt who called all the drivers together and let them know he was the boss [ just of Transport ]

In that role he seemed to be doing the HQ Coy comdt quite well.

**luchi** · 29 October 2008, 09:18

Trell. I think you missed my point.

There is supposed to be a chain of command. That chain has links. Those links did not exist.
HQ has a comdt over tpt. Who is supposed to give orders to the Capt/Lt. Who then gives the commands to the Sgt. Who designated vehicles and drivers and passes that info to the Cpl (or other Duty NCO) who then in turn passes the orders to the drivers.
In this case the comdt I/C HQ passed instructions directly to th Cpl. The chaim of command was missing.
I know the job got done and everyone was happy but if that hapened in the inf platoons I am sure there would be questions asked.

**DeV** · 29 October 2008, 11:10

Would it not normally be the case that the Tpt Officer receives the req from the requesting unit, signs it and gives it to the detail NCO to assign vehicle, driver etc?

**luchi** · 29 October 2008, 17:15

Originally posted by kermit

No it wasn't. There was also a Capt & a Lt. Just because your Sgt never turned up isn't their problem.

really???

Firstly this was an inf Bn excersise. The tpt cplwas picked to do the tpt NCO job because thats what the HQ wanted. There was no request for any tpt pers other than drivers. So if no one was requested it stands to reason that no one was there.

Secondly why were ther Lt and Capt you speak of not at the briefings. Why did the Comdt instruct said Cpl to attend briefings that were directed at senior officers?

Dev to is a little different at Bn ex level.
For example all vehicles moving as a block (conoy or packet) are covered by tpt movement order.

**ARNGScout** · 30 October 2008, 18:22

[MOD: Moved & edited from RDF Overseas]

Are people saying that someone who drives a truck in the reserves couldn't do that on an overseas deployment?

Announcement

Transport Considerations

Transport Considerations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment