# CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2005)

This thread is an offshoot of another, which you can find here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33346.0.html

In the interest of NOT hijacking _that_ thread, I've started this new one, as I think it's a subject which may generate some discussion.

I've quoted the following post, as it is germane to, and indeed started the discussion which threatened to hijack the UNDE thread.  So, if it seems that you've started in the middle of a previous discussion, it's because you have.



			
				Springroll said:
			
		

> This is what I don't get though.
> They will be performing the duties of cooks and such.....
> why should they get the same benefits as those who are out patrolling etc?
> 
> ...



To the subject at hand:

There is a tendency within any large organization for people to ascribe certain qualities to "their" particular part of it which tend to make them believe they as individuals are "different", or "better", or "more deserving" than members of OTHER sub-sets of the parent organization, sometimes these differences are real, often they are not.  The military, as the quintessential large organization, harbours these same tendencies amongst its members.

This quite natural human tendency, within the military context, gives rise to such rivalries as Army vs Air Force vs Navy, or Regulars vs Reserves, or Cbt Arms vs CS vs CSS, or PPCLI vs RCR vs R22eR, or Officers vs NCMs, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.

Usually, as military members become more experienced (in the Army's case, in my experience, normally by the time a soldier is a seasoned MCpl, or Capt), they begin to realize the basic truth that ALL members of the organization are required for the effective functioning of that organization, and these rivalries become the good natured and jocular "ribbing" that is extremely commonplace and eagerly indulged in (to some extent) by all military personnel.

To suggest, however, that some members, by virtue of their MOC (or MOS ID, or trade, or branch) are "better", or more "deserving" than others, is absurd.

CSS soldiers are NOT inherently less of a "soldier" than their Cbt Arms brethren.  Was I a "good soldier" as an RMS Clk?  My superiors apparently thought so, my peers of all trades respected my abilities, and my subordinates gave me their respect as well.  Did this make me a good Infantryman?  Of course not - nor did it make an Infantryman of similar rank and experience a good RMC Clk.  We were both good soldiers - our specialties were different, we respected those differences, and we used and relied upon each other's skills as required to get the Bn's mission accomplished.

A little cold war history for you, to illustrate my point.

When I was a Pte Adm Clk with 1 CBG Sigs in the early '80s, who do you think stood stand-to and exercised the skill of fighting defensive battles in the hide?  Why ALL of us of course, CS troops, CSS troops, and Cbt Arms troops (there was a D&S Pl of Patricia's intrinsic to the unit's strength).

When I was a Cpl and MCpl in the Canadian Airborne Regiment, both with Svc Cdo and HQ & Sigs, who do you think did those same defensive tasks - why ALL of us, of course.  If the rifle commandos were (as they often were) engaged in offensive ops, who do you think "held the fort" so they'd have something to come home to (not to mention, something coordinating their movements - read Cdo and Regt HQ), why generally CSS and CS troops, with expert leadership by the Inf, of course.

A little "asymmetrical" war history for you.

When 3 PPCLI went forward on various ops, who went forward?  Why everyone REQUIRED, of course.  Aside from those you'd expect (Infantry, Armd, Comms, and Medics), there were also Mechanics, Supply Techs, Tfc Techs, MSE Ops and RMS Clks (amongst others - omissions are not intentional).  Why do you think that was?  Because the CO wanted it that way - he foresaw a need for these specialists for various functions.  He also saw a need for a "Rear Link", which is where my FUNCTION, not my personal ability required me personally to be.  There were some brave actions taken by some excellent soldiers on those operations - the submissions for various bravery and other awards included CSS soldiers amongst others.

I would invite you to peruse the history of Canadian VC winners - you can find those histories here: 

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group01/cdn_vc

There are CSS troops amongst them.

You can also check out recipients of the US Congressional Medal of Honor here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/Moh1.htm

There are CSS troops amongst them, as well.

To further illustrate my point, I would invite you to pay attention to the current war in Iraq - there are CSS and CS troops fighting, being wounded, and unfortunately being killed alongside their Cbt Arms brethren on a daily basis.

Springroll:

Your original post citing personnel "sitting by a stove" as somehow less _deserving_ would have been justification for my initial anger had you been a serving soldier, expected to know better.

Instead, it is an illustration of a lamentable ignorance amongst civilians, even more lamentable in your case because of your professed proximity to serving members.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Aug 2005)

Retired CC I agree with many of your points.  I think the quote from Springroll was intended to target civilians and uniformed CSS, however, I agree that the underlying meaning is germane to your new thread.

For Springroll et al:  A cook, floor sweeper or pot scrubber inside an overseas military camp targeted by "evil-doers of whatever ilk" are in no less in danger than the patrol trudging through a minefield (or London commuter on their way to work or a T.O. toddler playing in the street, it would seem).  If your home has a big target on the roof and suspicious packages arriving at your doorstep then you might be in the same boat.  Constant attack, you say - how about the threat of attack - I don't think the rounds or suicide gatecrashers are discriminating in their destination - " Beep, beep, oh, I only seek to kill the highly skilled uniformed camp occupants.  Get out of the way you stove-hugging cook. You are not worthy of my destruction."


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

You know what's ironic?  the word "team", and phrases like "work as a team" and "team building" are thrown around by the recruiting ads so much that they beging to resemble a cheesy old corporate motivation slogans, to the point that most people seem to think that "learn to work as a team" is being used because "learn to kill people" sounded too aggressive. At least, that's what I thought before I joined (it was so for both US and Canadian recruiting commercials). 

Only after I joined, did I realize that this was the ONLY point where the commercials were actually being very realistic. Working as a team IS the most important skill you learn, and it's the reason why for the last 2000 years disciplined and organized armies defeat lesser disciplined and organized ones. A unit(of any size) which works as a team WILL defeat one that doesn't, regardless of weapons or individual ability.  

So, newbies: *Teamwork* seperates the wheat from the chaff. Sounds cliche as heck, but it's true. Remember that when the yelling and screaming starts, learn, and you'll be ready for when the shooting starts too.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Aug 2005)

A revelation on the relevance of all army trades was told to me recently;

Every soldier's role in the Army, regardless of rank or occupation, is to support the Infantry Sgt in Battle. 

Taking that statement to effect, regardless of whether you are the Col J-3 directing the operations, or the Pte Cook peeling potatoes in the field kitchen, your role is essential to the success of the mission.


----------



## Springroll (10 Aug 2005)

Thank you for educating me on the error of my ways. 

I still feel that civvie workers should not be going over, instead send over our own well trained personnel, even if it means taking them from units that are not utilizing them.

Now that I am past the initial hard hump of quitting smoking, things are sinking in better....


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Every soldier's role in the Army, regardless of rank or occupation, is to support the Infantry Sgt in Battle.
> ...



BINGO!

Although a slight oversimplification - that is the concept in a nutshell.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (10 Aug 2005)

Thats a great initial post!


----------



## wotan (11 Aug 2005)

Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.  And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.

  That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.

  Firstly, being a CSS soldier myself, I certainly don't see the "purple trades" as being in anyway less deserving of recognition or financial benefits than their Cbt Arms comrades in the same theatre of ops.  However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued.  

  Essentially, many of the folks I spoke with were a bit peeved that those outside Afghanistan received the same medal as the troops humping ruck, albeit they did not receive the bar.  For example, those on the ships or serving at the HQ in Florida recieved the SWASM, but not the bar.  Now, to a large part, this particular issue has been resolved for future ops with the establishment of the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal and I had hoped that this issue would be put to rest.  However, it seems that this previous discontent is now manifesting itself in the form of a comparison of the "type" of service rendered within the theatre of ops.  Perhaps what is wanted or what would resolve this specific question is something akin to the US Combat Infantryman's Badge for Cbt Arms and CSS soldiers that participate in active patrolling vice being not venturing out from a camp.

  From my conversations with both CSS and Cbt Arms pers, I don't see this so much as a matter of CSS soldiers being deemed less deserving, but that there is a desire from pers engaged in active patrolling, etc to be recognized for these activities and the perceived increase danger of those activities.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Aug 2005)

wotan said:
			
		

> Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.   And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.
> 
> That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.
> 
> ...



Being a recipient of the SWASM, having served with 3 PPCLI BG in KANDAHAR, I can assure you that the issue of how the SWASM was issued is not a Cbt Arms/CSS issue - most of us, CSS, CS, and Cbt Arms who served at Kandahar felt the same way regarding those who were given the EXACT same medal for their service in air conditioned comfort.

Leaving that aside, however - I like the concept of something similar to the CIB.  This also has its' problems associated with it.  Because of my job, I worked fairly closely with the Rakassan S1.  The administrative hoops and reports required to document who was "in the box" and for how long were amazing.  

I think the Campaign Star and Medal may well meet the requirement, I guess we won't know for a couple years.

I didn't start the thread out of any sense of "injustice" - in fact, as I said in the original posting - these types of silly comparisons usually fade as soldiers gain experience and respect for each other's functions.  I did think it was worth bringing up, though, based on what I'd read in other threads.  In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't generated more interest from the multitude of junior soldiers present on the forum - who were my real intended "target".


----------



## wotan (11 Aug 2005)

Retired CC,

  Ack, I should have worded "However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued" more carefully.  It wasn't my intent to indicate that the supporting arms and services troops weren't miffed about the sit as well.  My bad.

  Something like a CIB might be workable, but I suppose no matter what system is developed there will be those that aren't completely happy with it.  But, I believe the GCS/GSM is a big step in the right direction and hopefully folks will see it as that.


----------



## Cansky (11 Aug 2005)

wotan said:
			
		

> Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.   And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.
> 
> That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify this :  The only persons who did not qualify for the bar were those in Tampa Bay Florida.  All others that were in the theatre of Ops (this included Arabian Gulf, UAE and Kanadahar to name a few places) got the bar.  I think it wouldn't have been such a big issue if the bar reflected exactly where they were but they all say afghanistan.  
And yes I was in Kandahar, but am now to the point that I know I was there and if asked will tell but no longer get upset over this issue.  I think most of us have that same attitude now.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Aug 2005)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> Just to clarify this :   The only persons who did not qualify for the bar were those in Tampa Bay Florida.   All others that were in the theatre of Ops (this included Arabian Gulf, UAE and Kanadahar to name a few places) got the bar.   I think it wouldn't have been such a big issue if the bar reflected exactly where they were but they all say afghanistan.
> And yes I was in Kandahar, but am now to the point that I know I was there and if asked will tell but no longer get upset over this issue.   I think most of us have that same attitude now.



Thanks Kirsten - you said it better than I - and perfectly!

And I believe you are right regarding most BG folk's attitude - in my reply to wotan I was trying to downplay the issue as it wasn't germane to the subject, but you did it better!

How's the database goin' ?


----------



## honestyrules (14 Aug 2005)

Roy Harding,
Interesting post ,to say the least!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad you bring that up.
For people not understanding what's going on, imagine a cook going out to get supplies, a refrigeration mechanic getting air conditionning units for the camp or a clerk who put his name in to go on patrol with the 031 dudes, CSS troops volunteering to do some CIMIC stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(by the way, as seen on ops...)

As seen in Irak , CSS troops are targeted even more sometimes than infantry or tankers because the enemy want some dead bodies ,not a firefight or get their a## kicked by the well armed combat troops! 

My two cents though...


----------



## S McKee (10 Sep 2005)

Come to think of it this medal thing was a issue in Roto 0 in Kosovo too. A rumour was circulating that those who served in Kosovo would get a different medal than those in FYROM. Anyway after it was all said and done everyone got their medal the "controversy" faded away. I like the idea of a CIB, if you go to the US Army web site they have now instituted the Combat Action Badge as I understand it, for CS/CSS trades. http://www.army.mil/symbols/combatbadges/Action.html?story_id_key=7285


----------



## TheNomad (20 Sep 2005)

It matters not what your job in the army is.  If you are in theatre and a gong is issued for turning up then you qualify for it.  Just because you are an infantryman does not mean you are seeing action.

What about those infantrymen that did not get a chance to shoot at anyone - does that mean that they should not get a gong?  How about the CO, after all he spends most of his tour in a CP?

Maybe gongs should be awarded on who fired the most rounds - if you fire less than 5 you are not really a soldier at all, so should stop pretending to be real infantrymen?

I have been an infantryman and an MP.  All jobs in the forces are equally deserving of the gongs.  

Personally I believe that anyone who thinks that a part of the forces is less deserving than another is both ignorant and arrogant.  I also think they should be invited to hand their gongs in, as unless they received a bravery award as an individual they too are less deserving.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Sep 2005)

TheNomad said:
			
		

> How about the CO, after all he spends most of his tour in a CP?



I am on my fourth tour - and have never seen a CO who "spends most of his tour in the CP" - maybe I have just been lucky.  Now if you said the pasty-faced COS, I would have to agree...but I'm guessing said COS would give his left testicle to be out and about.

Dave


----------



## KaptKain (22 Sep 2005)

I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there.


----------



## S McKee (22 Sep 2005)

KaptKain said:
			
		

> I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
> SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND
> 
> Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there.



I've heard this saying before, but what does it mean? Should we all be able to become infmn/gnrs or crwmn at a moments notice? Or is it that members of the CS and CSS should embody the attributes of service before self. We are all soldiers within the areas of our responsibilities, dedicated, loyal, mission oriented and ready to fight,  but if you want to get paid, eat, get kit, have your vehicle fixed, your wpn repaired, get patched up if you get hurt or be flown or shipped to theatre, the primary job of CSS is to do just that: support.


----------



## wongskc (22 Sep 2005)

KaptKain said:
			
		

> I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
> SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND
> 
> Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there.



Not to mention that CSS units usually are not equipped to act in anything more than a defensive role.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Sep 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I am on my fourth tour - and have never seen a CO who "spends most of his tour in the CP" - maybe I have just been lucky.   Now if you said the pasty-faced COS, I would have to agree...but I'm guessing said COS would give his left testicle to be out and about.
> 
> Dave



Naaa...  Aren't theatre PERs just about due?     ;D


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I've heard this saying before, but what does it mean? Should we all be able to become infmn/gnrs or crwmn at a moments notice? Or is it that members of the CS and CSS should embody the attributes of service before self. We are all soldiers within the areas of our responsibilities, dedicated, loyal, mission oriented and ready to fight,   but if you want to get paid, eat, get kit, have your vehicle fixed, your wpn repaired, get patched up if you get hurt or be flown or shipped to theatre, the primary job of CSS is to do just that: support.



I think I would define it has emplacing realistic combat standards across the Army.   Fitness, marksmanship, baseline tactical awareness, and a proper "soldier mentality" should be something that all soldiers need to routinely focus on and practice with.   The Combat Arms troops (especially the Infantry) merely jump to the next level and make it their _raison d'etre_ (as the CS/CSS guys make support theirs), but it doesn't disqualify all Army pers from having a basic understanding of what I'd term "combat survival, something I think requires four things;


Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

I'm sure we've all seen first hand many examples of people not ready to do any of this.   In my opinion, these four principles are part of the uniform.

There was a good article in the Marine Corps Gazette a while back on how the Marines did this at the basic training level.   I'll see if I can find it, but unfortunately MCG articles aren't available publically.


----------



## dutchie (22 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
> Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
> Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
> Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it



That's about as accurate and consice as can be expected. That is precisely what 'soldier first' means to me as well. However, going from where we are (in a general sense) to that is a bit of a tab, I think. 

As I said many moons ago in another related thead, before we can expect CSS troops to be able to meaningfully contribute to the fight (literally), than we first must convince them to put the firing pins back in their weapons. The 'soldier first' mantra has been paid only lip service until now amonst the rank and file, where it counts. From my somewhat limited experience, tradesmen/women do not think of themselves as riflemen first. It's almost as if the 'army stuff' was just required learning by this silly institution so that they can learn how to fix a truck/drive a truck/cook/etc. 

I'm not picking fights here, I've actually heard that, more or less, from a variety of CSS types at various times. Of course, I have also met many 'switched on' CSS types, and many shitpump cbt arms types.

We have to decide if these trades have to be filled with soldiers, or if civvies should do the work. If we go civvie, offer the CSS troops of that trade a transfer to the civvie equivelant. Right now, there are too many civies in green pajamas driving trucks and filling out 638's. Once we decide we need trained riflemen in every Army position, train them as such (addressed somewhat with SQ), and require retention of those skills. 

Failure to do so = recourse into SQ.


----------



## Donut (22 Sep 2005)

I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.

I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF

The more civilians we place overseas, the more force protection our facilities need, correct?  

If Johnny Potwolloper from Little Grass Falls can't even aim and fire a weapon in the face of an imminent threat to Camp Whatever, and our BDF plan calls for 600 rifles on the berm, then we need to make sure that those 600 rifles are there, whether it's a switched on cook, an MSE Op, or a Jimmy, or a member of one of our LIBs.  What that means, though, is that we need to make sure those Jimmies, Drivers and Cooks can take up arms in a defensive role, instilled with those 4 qualities.

DF


----------



## dutchie (22 Sep 2005)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.
> 
> I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF



Fully agree with you, BTW. Just playing devil's advocate.

What you get out of a soldier (or a training system) is equal to what you put into it.


----------



## Donut (22 Sep 2005)

Caesar, I didn't think you'd lost your mind.

Once again, this has opened a discussion of the balance between *soldier* and *tradesman*.

This isn't just a matter of training time, but of mindset, attitude, deportment.

This has been flogged several times.

There's no doubt there are institutional shortfalls that contribute to this: training time and budget,  deployment rates, pers shortfalls, etc. there is a shortage of warrior ethos in many of the support trades, mine among them.  The fact that so many support trades spend most of the major ex's "administratively" deployed, is another factor.

BUT, when my (apparent) mission is to provide no duff medical(replace with transport, comms, etc.) support on exercises, I'm ON the exercise, but not OF the exercise, and I know that short of general mobilization no one under me is going to be deployed without significant soldier training, and we barely have training time to get them competent in one of the skill sets, but not both...we have a problem.

DF


----------



## dutchie (22 Sep 2005)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> we barely have training time to get them competent in one of the skill sets, but not both...we have a problem.



So this begs the question:

How much of a reduction in skill at the secondary trade are we willing to accept to achieve this higher standard of rifleman? IE, is it ok to have a trucker who's not as good of a driver, but is an excellent rifleman? Is a reduction necessary? 

I think how far we're willing to degrade that secondary skill depends on the trade. I for one want my medic to know wtf they're doing, no doubt.

One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job. 

How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?


----------



## Donut (22 Sep 2005)

Caesar, that brings up a solution that's never even crossed my mind, even though it may not be applicable outside my trade.

We're trying like the dickens to get civi paramedics into the health services reserve.  That's all well and good.  We've GOT civi paramedics in just about every other trade, Infantry, Divers, Arty, Engineers just to name a few, but we DON'T let them practice as medics.

It seems to me that the Res Inf MCpl, who soldiers a couple of weeks a year, but works EMS the rest of the time, is going to be your best bet for a combat-oriented, situationally aware, rifle-shooting, bad-guy-zapping, life saving medic.  But, since he's not a medic, we can't employ him as such.

On the other hand, you have a civi paramedic in the health services reserve.  He does the civi ems thing 50 weeks a year, and does the major exercise as a medic, in a no-duff role, the remaining two weeks.

I'd put foreward that they would both provide an excellent standard of care, one would be more familiar with a cf amb or evac, but the other would be the far better medic to have on hand when the crap has hit the oscillator.


Hmmm.  a new perspective.

DF


----------



## S McKee (23 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think I would define it has emplacing realistic combat standards across the Army.    Fitness, marksmanship, baseline tactical awareness, and a proper "soldier mentality" should be something that all soldiers need to routinely focus on and practice with.    The Combat Arms troops (especially the Infantry) merely jump to the next level and make it their _raison d'etre_ (as the CS/CSS guys make support theirs), but it doesn't disqualify all Army pers from having a basic understanding of what I'd term "combat survival, something I think requires four things;
> 
> 
> Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
> ...



Well put. I Agree. That's pretty much how I see it.


----------



## TheNomad (3 Oct 2005)

And how does any of that relate the idea that these people are less deserving?  

These are not bravery awards, they are turning up awards.  If people want gongs because they want to feel heroic they need to do something heroic, being an infantryman is not in itself heroic, nor is being shot at.  

How would you deal with a CSS soldier who had to engage the enemy - is he now somehow more deserving?  How would you deal with an infantryman who did not have the opportunity to engage the enemy - is he now somehow less deserving?


----------



## exrigger66 (2 Nov 2005)

Very well written Roy.  Could not have said it better myself.  Airborne!


----------



## TheNomad (10 Nov 2005)

I agree 100% with the soldier first mentality, but if anything the lack of training being provided by the government could be construed as making the CSS troops more deserving.

After all the suggestion is that these troop are not properly prepared to go to war and yet they are being sent - thus they are more deserving of the gongs.

Lets not get too hung up on the roles people play in an operation, they are all there because the work needs to be done for the operation to be a success.  Thus they are just as equally deserving as everyone else.  

I did my time in the infantry and as an MP so I have seen it from both sides.  Good infantry are they key to most military operations, but it does not make them especially deserving for doing their job.

How about all gongs are done away with except real gallantry awards - so it would be medals for heroes and nothing for the rest?


----------



## TN2IC (7 Jan 2006)

KaptKain said:
			
		

> I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
> SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND



Amen...I follow that saying. I make sure my troops are able to fight.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.
> 
> How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?



Simple. 

Little Johnny has some personal motivation, and _chose_ to have two skill sets. He did not stop at a 40 hr week, he worked two jobs. 

I also find it interesting that you seem to think that this is some sort of phenomenal effort worth mentioning - I've seen Mechanics on Para courses, and the Maintainers digging in and defending quite well. I've also seen 031s troubleshoot, get the parts and fix their own assigned vehicles, and infanteers learning to weld. No biggie, just guys who would rather learn than play cards.

The bottom line is, that all of the parties involved above took some time and effort to go the extra mile. The army cannot *make* you go the distance, they can only make rules and make you follow them. We all know these people, who achieve the minimum, laugh, and go home. 

The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.
> 
> How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?



You will also note that his two skill sets were given to him by two very different organizations, with differing institutional requirements, separate budgets and completely separate intentions to employ him in only one role within each organization.

The Army didn't train him to do both and then plan to maintain both skillsets throughout his career. Similarly, his civvy job isn't training and employing him to both do pay and manage the loading dock.

It's not a valid comparison. You don't get to have two trades because the Army only employs you in one trade at a time, with all of the attendant requirements and costs for career management, courses and jobs.


----------



## TCBF (8 Jan 2006)

Know why we have all this wog bashing?  Because we have always been LUCKY.  We didn't lose tens of thousands of soldiers surrendered in Singapore, or the Sixth Army in Stalingrad, or  X US Corps in Korea (read "The River and The Guantlet" by SLA Marshall).  We have never had a major defeat where a Canadian Corp Support Command (or equiv.) was overrun.  Or been in a modern war where we did not have air superiority.

We have had some occaisions where Armoured Regts had to scrape together cooks, clerks and fitters and form an assault troop for a brief period, but not on the same scale that other armies  had to do as a front collapsed.  

Lets hope our luck holds out.

Tom


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Simple.
> 
> The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.



Good...waiting to have all you guys loaded onto your CSS trades courses. So that you can do my job (properly and legally-that includes the appropraite paperwork to issue/redemand/purchase whatever you toss your friends over the counter) whenever required overseas and at home. 

Funny how lots of people like to quote the Soldier's first...Tradesmen second factor and tell us useless CSS trades to get off our duffs...use our initiative and learn this after hours if we need too. 

Apparently, after I'm done with my *sarcasm on* 1.5 hour lunch breaks, coffee breaks, computer playing, and general DFn my nice comfy chair at work...I'll be going out to teach some of those pointy enders my skill sets after regular working hours and on weekends....so that they can be better qualified to take care of their peers kit requirements, ensure their peers' field pay gets into the bank on time. Apparently they can do our jobs better and have all the answers. What's good for the goose....but before I can teach....I'm going to have to go round up all those pointy enders who seem to fn live in the Tim Horton's around here during regular working hours. Or call the home numbers of the many staff who aren't giving a lecture right now and rouse them from their residence. 

Give me a break and get a little realistic shall we?? This place is incredible in it's ability to continuously slam those CSS trades of which you are so obviously so mis-informed about. A simple trip to any Timmies here at any time during working hours and a quick glance at exactly which cap badges overwhelmingly adorn said berets at the tables would very quickly dispell this little myth that gets perpetuated so much around here.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Good...waiting to have all you guys loaded onto your CSS trades courses. So that you can do my job (properly and legally-that includes the appropraite paperwork to issue/redemand/purchase whatever you toss your friends over the counter) whenever required overseas and at home.



My quote was intended to bash the lazy in both CSS and Cbt Arms trades, and denote that our Reserves are not the multi - talented soldier phenomenons that a post earlier had implied.

There's nothing I hate more than people claiming that my job is easy, or that they could do it better, but  IMHO, being able to run and hit a target with reasonable accuracy is a minimum requirement for all soldiers, as is a certain degree of flexibility and adaptation.

Many have said it before, and I agree, but the Marines have it right when they make every man a rifleman first.


----------



## dutchie (9 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I also find it interesting that you seem to think that this is some sort of phenomenal effort worth mentioning - I've seen Mechanics on Para courses....
> 
> The bottom line is, that all of the parties involved above took some time and effort to go the extra mile. The army cannot *make* you go the distance, they can only make rules and make you follow them. We all know these people, who achieve the minimum, laugh, and go home.
> 
> The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.



Well, the example I mentioned was someone I know, so forgive me for drawing on personal experience. Your examples are equally valid. As for the rest of this, completely agree. Especially the last sentence.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You will also note that his two skill sets were given to him by two very different organizations, with differing institutional requirements, separate budgets and completely separate intentions to employ him in only one role within each organization.



Ok, are you arguing for or aginst my point? I'd think it would be easier to train someone in two different skill sets if it were done form one source, one budget, etc. The 'left hand knowing what the right is doing' idea.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The Army didn't train him to do both and then plan to maintain both skillsets throughout his career. Similarly, his civvy job isn't training and employing him to both do pay and manage the loading dock.
> 
> It's not a valid comparison. You don't get to have two trades because the Army only employs you in one trade at a time, with all of the attendant requirements and costs for career management, courses and jobs.


Right, but were talking about being skilled in one area (say, Admin Clerk) and competant in another (Rifleman). I am not suggesting that all trades attain and maintain the same skills as a Infantryman.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jan 2006)

You said:



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> So this begs the question:
> 
> How much of a reduction in skill at the secondary trade are we willing to accept to achieve this higher standard of rifleman? IE, is it ok to have a trucker who's not as good of a driver, but is an excellent rifleman? Is a reduction necessary?
> 
> ...



In the first part you make reference to varying degrees of skill.

In the second half of your post you specify that this double-barrelled training system, albeit not executed intentionally by either agency, has produced your hypothetical "dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person." You left the inference that he was equally skilled in both areas, else why the emphasis on skills and attributes in each trade?

"Johnny" has also achieved thus by (hypothetically again) voluntarily working 60-80 hours weeks balancing his civilian job and his reserve training schedule. I suppose he also has the ideal employer that kept bringing him back on board after his "tour or 2" as well.

But all of this is talking about the possible mechanics at the lower end of the career spectrum. What happens when his civilian job promotes him and he has less time for the military - his skills might remain but his contribution draws down to a lower level. The realities of life won't let him maintain this balance forever.

I emphasized the two separate agencies because neither of them committed time and enegry to training him in two areas while planning to maintain high skills levels in one and "competencies" in the other. That's why CSS trades get excellent training in their technical duties, and a minimum skill set in a "secondary role" like the self-protection and local protection duties which many erroneously consider to be "trained like infantry soldiers." Their focus, institutionally and individually, is on their primary role.  

My question is, what, exactly, are you proposing? Do we train every CSS soldier as a field soldier as well (beyond SQ and with progressive duties and responsibilities in field work and combat skills) and then hold up their primary career development because after a few years in a base finance office they had skill fade and forgot how to strip a C-9? Don't we put everyone on pre-deployment training to check that skill fade before they need it?

Where is the advantage to increasing the emphasis on field training for all CSS soldiers, regardless of where they are currently employed? This ultimately comes at a cost of time and energy devoted to their primary duties.

Perhaps you should tell us how much of a reduction is skill is acceptable and what the minimum corrective action (in your opinion) should be.


----------



## dutchie (9 Jan 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But all of this is talking about the possible mechanics at the lower end of the career spectrum. What happens when his civilian job promotes him and he has less time for the military - his skills might remain but his contribution draws down to a lower level.



I was merely pointing out that the 'one person, 2 skillsets' idea was do-able. I was not suggesting that 'Johnny' was the ideal soldier, and I didn't intend for the example to be taken as far as you have taken it. To do so misses the point: having 2 skillsets is possible.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The realities of life won't let him maintain this balance forever.



Which is why it should work even better in the reg force/singular employer world.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> My question is, what, exactly, are you proposing? Do we train every CSS soldier as a field soldier as well (beyond SQ and with progressive duties and responsibilities in field work and combat skills) and then hold up their primary career development because after a few years in a base finance office they had skill fade and forgot how to strip a C-9? Don't we put everyone on pre-deployment training to check that skill fade before they need it?



1-Enhance the SQ training program to include convoy ops, OBUA, more patrolling, etc. I heard a review of the TP was underway, not sure if any of this has been added.

2-Spend more time training CSS troops as Riflemen. That means more field exercises, live fire, rangetime, etc. 

3-Due to way more field time, Johnny can't keep up with all the paperwork at the Orderly Room. If necessary, hire more Admin Clerks, contract out some work, etc. 

In short - establish a standard we want in ALL CSS troops, enhance the SQ TP to achieve the 'attain' component, and do regular (not just annual) training to 'maintain' the standard. Those who fail to meet standard go through the normal process that troops on course go through for PO failures (PRB).

How does that sound?


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jan 2006)

Personally, I see the "inability" of CSS troops to learn very basic rifleman skills to be crap.

We train infanteers to be drivers, signallers, storemen and mortarmen, with little or no associated skill fade, and as an integral part of their career progression. Yet we accept the excuse that a CSS soldier could not possibly do his primary job, and maintain a seperate skill set at the same time.

How is asking a truck driver/supply tech to dig a trench and hit a figure 11 at 100,200, and 300m, 8 times out of ten, any different than having an infantry WO as a CQ, an infantry Cpl as a signaller, or an Infantry Bn's Tpt platoon staffed and led entirely with infanteers? 

I refuse to believe that our Cbt Arms trades are simply so much more versatile and hardworking that they can achieve a high level of proficiency in two trades, while our CSS troops can only achieve it in one.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2006)

Sorry GO!! But to me you are sending mixed messages...



> My response was intended to dispell the notion that so many people on this site have that the job of an infanteer is simple, easy, and should be considered a "secondary" task to all of their "real" duties.
> 
> I've responded to other threads where Air Force techs are claiming to want to "patrol like the infantry" and "secure their own bases". This holds about as much water as the FOO/FAC claiming to be more of an infanteer than the infantry, which is, bollocks.
> 
> ...



and



> Personally, I see the "inability" of CSS troops to learn very basic rifleman skills to be crap.



It seems that you chastise one side of the board for not being able to hold a candle to their Infanteer brethern, and then in this thread - it's a cop-out if they can't function as "basic riflemen"... 

Or - maybe you want them to be posess 2 skillsets, one of which should be infanteer - but just not be too cocky about it  ;D

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debate...


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jan 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Sorry GO!! But to me you are sending mixed messages...
> 
> and
> 
> ...



Don't confuse "Rifleman" with "Infanteer", one is a weapon operator, the other a multi - faceted cbt soldier. 

As for posessing two skills - why not? I think we manage to corner the market on "cocky" - so no argument there.  ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2006)




----------



## TN2IC (10 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> How is asking a truck driver/supply tech to dig a trench and hit a figure 11 at 100,200, and 300m, 8 times out of ten, any different than having an infantry WO as a CQ, an infantry Cpl as a signaller, or an Infantry Bn's Tpt platoon staffed and led entirely with infanteers?



Did it..done it. Passed.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Personally, I see the "inability" of CSS troops to learn very basic rifleman skills to be crap.
> How is asking a truck driver/supply tech to dig a trench and hit a figure 11 at 100,200, and 300m, 8 times out of ten, any different than having an infantry WO as a CQ, an infantry Cpl as a signaller, or an Infantry Bn's Tpt platoon staffed and led entirely with infanteers?


Been there and got the t-shirt GO!!!. 
Now, to let me clarify the "CQ" quote. A CQ is not a qualified Supply Technician. There is no comparison. A combat storesman is just that....a combat storesman. Basic Supply knowledge. Any person (Combat storesman, CQ Adm runner) can pick up the Unit credit card and go downtown and purchase stationary, pens, or whatever on the credit card. It happens all the time right? (Now...just to point out that any combat storesman doing this is doing so illegally as there is a National Contract for these items. IAW Treasury Board Regulations/various CANFORGENs items available from the particular holder of this contract must, IAW the law, be processed via the FMAS system -not credit cards-). 
I have yet to see a combat storesman loaded onto an FMAS course, purchasing management course, hazmat storrage and handling course, packaging course, CTAT/ITAR Regulation Course, MiMs Management, Site Manager Functional Courses etc etc). 1st line CQs/cbt storesman etc are relegated to employment in those specific Units for a reason. And, they also have qualified MOC 911 at those same said Units for a reason, for it is the MOC 911 putting those demands the cbt storesmen etc are writing up through the system, vetting, applying fin coding, sending the QD messages to NDHQ, SMs and LCMMs. That is the crux of our trade and it is not being done by CQs/cbt storesman. Any person can write up a demand or a TSR -to know how (and to have the proper trg/courses) to process these items in a fashion which is legal and IAW all applicable regulations, draft the contract, specs or standing offer, or request for purchase. That is another story all together. Therefore let's be absolutely clear on this...no CQ or combat storesman could walk into 2nd line Supply or 3rd line supply and do our job. Period. Yep, they can use a credit card, write a TSR, offload a truck, stock a shelf, fill out a Temp Loan Card, write up a DND2227 demand when their stock gets low...but face the facts....that demand them goes over to the QM from the CQ....where a Supply Tech does the actual work to get whatever it is through the system via message, PWGSC contract, LPO, standing offer or whatever.


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I refuse to believe that our Cbt Arms trades are simply so much more versatile and hardworking that they can achieve a high level of proficiency in two trades, while our CSS troops can only achieve it in one.


I refuse to believe, with your statement above, therefore, that you would have any qualms with becoming a functional Supply Tech....ie a high level of proficiency in both your trade and mine. That does not mean a cbt storesmen because of course, to be proficient in my trade you need to be able to work in many many sections, writing contracts, messages, complying with the 10 001 applicable regulations when you receive a part that is DMC A (for one example)...who do you draft the message to etc etc.
So, seeing as how we Land Force Posn Sup Techs are out on the ranges at least once/year maintaining our basic skillsets on a multitude of weapons, passing our weapons handling tests, annual range qualifications, BFT, fieldcraft, hand signals, comms, NBC drills etc etc and complying with what the pointy end likes to call "basic rifleman skills", I'm wondering when you will all be becoming proficient in our trades.

That would also solve another problem brought up by Caesar:


> 3-Due to way more field time, Johnny can't keep up with all the paperwork at the Orderly Room. If necessary, hire more Admin Clerks, contract out some work, etc.


No hiring will be necessary. You see, if you are all for CSS to become proficient riflemen, I expect you should also have no problem becoming a "proficient" RMS clerk, that way you'll both be cross-trained. If required they can then be 'that soldier first" and the pointy enders who like to hang out at Timmies  during Regular working hours...can now go to work in the OR and ease some of that clerk's paperwork...after all the CF is based on "Teamwork" isn't it?? 

Or is that only when it's good for you guys?? Just wondering because as you pointed out....we are all paid 24/7. PS....you'll have to give up the block leaves that you're so used to getting too...a rarity amongst us CSS pers.


----------



## Daidalous (10 Jan 2006)

Not the evil CTAT and ITAR. I will take  ITAR N  and  CTAT A,  please ArmyVern  ;D .    Lets look at one thing first before we go on.   Some CSS trades have been merged with other trades over the decades.  It is the same as if the Infantry and Artillery were amalgamated.  Good luck


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2006)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> Not the evil CTAT and ITAR. I will take  ITAR N  and  CTAT A,  please ArmyVern  ;D .    Lets look at one thing first before we go on.   Some CSS trades have been merged with other trades over the decades.  It is the same as if the Infantry and Artillery were amalgamated.  Good luck


Nice try there Daidalous...but no way...they're the easiest messages to draft and the list of companies certified to take them off our hands for proper handling after we demilitarize it and have it certified by the Tech Inspector already have their security checks done!! We could probably qualify a combat storesman to work that CTAT A Desk at R&D section in about a month; but nice try...trying to suck the easy job outta me!!  ;D


----------



## GO!!! (11 Jan 2006)

<sigh>

I am not saying that Infanteers *do* the job of a supply tech, only (still) trying to get my point accross that it is not unreasonable to expect other trades to have a basic understanding of ours, as is *already* the case for us.

Infanteers can fill out loan cards, hand out weapons and kit etc. Supply techs can shoot rifles, become jumpers and jumpmasters, so what is the problem here?

Why can't a minimum be expected? No - one is asking Cbt storemen to acquire space shuttle parts, or part the ocean of paperwork that Supply tech Sgts deal with, just as supply techs are not being asked to lead platoon fighting patrols, or do month long exercises living out of their rucksacks.

March, shoot and hit the target - why do you hate this concept so much?


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> <sigh>
> 
> March, shoot and hit the target - why do you hate this concept so much?



You should read my post again Go. I do not hate the concept...I hate the fact that most of the Zero trades, especially those posting in this thread, are failing to grasp the concept that *WE already * do this!! Every year. Annually. It's required and it's done.

You stated that CQs etc have "achieved a high level of proficiency" in both trades. This is absolutely false and I called you on it. They may be proficient at working in one single section of supply...a first line Stores account (which still requires a qual'd 911er in the QM to enable that CQ to 'operate'), unfortunately the Supply Trade encompasses approximately 21 different sections (not one), all of whom have different regulations, paperwork and governing policies and procedures, and no two desks within the same section in our trade will have the same work requirements and anyone already proficient in my trade would already know this and wouldn't need to be told.

I agree with you..."soldier first" but it's really about time certain MOCs got off their high-horses about how with their own little 'concepts' about how we CSS personnel need to get off our asses and go out and do something that we already are.


----------



## dutchie (11 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> You see, if you are all for CSS to become proficient riflemen, I expect you should also have no problem becoming a "proficient" RMS clerk, that way you'll both be cross-trained.



You miss the point. Were talking about soldiers surviving in battle.  An RMS clerk must be able to act as a rifleman to survive on the battlefield. An Infantryman does not need to cross train as a clerk to survive on the battlefield - he (or she) has all the necessary skills already.


----------



## DG-41 (11 Jan 2006)

GO!,

Back in the day I was a maintainer posted to 1 SVC, Maint Coy right off my TQ3. A Maint Coy in a service battalion is set up for doing all the second-line maintainence for a Brigade Group involved in a full-on shooting war, so in peacetime, there just wasn't enough second line maintainence to go around; we were way overmanned.

I don't know if this was 1 SVC policy or something more widespread, but they solved the problem by rotating surplus young Craftsmen through the first line LADs at the other units in the Brigade. You'd do a rotation attached to somebody else (so you'd do all their exercises) but you were also responsible for attending all the SVC Btn exes as well. The end result was a lot of field time.

In garrison, you'd work on the shop floor with your attached unit, turning wrenches. (I was attached to 1 Hq & Sig, and anywhere there are Linesman there are broken trucks) When your attached unit went to the field, you'd be part of an MRT or a recovery team. But when Mother Maintainence Company came calling, that was almost always "soldier training" with no wrenching on the agenda at all.

I remember a lot of patrolling (day and night), lots and lots and lots of digging, and I got to lead a 3-man recce patrol on FRG's hide at one point. We weren't anywhere near Infantry standards, but we took the "soldier first" thing pretty seriously. I'd say that about half the exercises I did there didn't involve my trade at all.

And incidentally, one full month out of my TQ3 was devoted to being a member of a fighting platoon. Recce patrols, defensive positions, and lots of fire and movement (in gas masks no less - God that sucked)

Maybe things have changed since, but when I was doing it, "soldier first" wasn't just lip service.

DG


----------



## GO!!! (11 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> You should read my post again Go. I do not hate the concept...I hate the fact that most of the Zero trades, especially those posting in this thread, are failing to grasp the concept that *WE already * do this!! Every year. Annually. It's required and it's done.
> 
> You stated that CQs etc have "achieved a high level of proficiency" in both trades. This is absolutely false and I called you on it. They may be proficient at working in one single section of supply...a first line Stores account (which still requires a qual'd 911er in the QM to enable that CQ to 'operate'),



I am not asking supply techs to "attain a high level of proficiency" I am asking why they so strongly resist marching and shooting, and use "too much work" as an excuse not to practice.

Your assertation that Company Quartermasters are incompetent compared to a qualified Sup Tech is utter tripe, to put it mildly. A CQ handles the logistics for up to 150 men, beans, bullets, transport, and everything else required by a Company. He is often required to "think outside the box" as the oft heard Supply Tech mantra "blame it on the pubic service/Government" or "come back tomorrow" just does'nt cut it when 100 plus men are freezing and starving in the dark. In addition to this, a CQ holds the keys to enough firearms and heavy weapons to lay waste to a small city, and several million dollars worth of kit, combined with the knowledge to use it all, not just hand it out and do the paperwork. He is also expected to serve as a JM, CSM, PlWO, and the same again for courses, etc. I have never even heard of a Supply tech who can do all of the above, unless he was an infanteer first. 

Maybe a certain logistician needs to step down from her oversized equine.


----------



## MJP (11 Jan 2006)

Well said Go!! and Ceaser.....A very interesting debate on a topic many of us in the infantry wonder about from time to time.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

"LADs"  Light Aid Detachments - I haven't heard that one in years.

Typical Recce Sqn task on an Exercise " Send someone to go hit 4 Svc Bns Maint Coy.  They are dug in and keyed up and need somebody to bounce them so they can repel you and build on their sucesss."

Okay, deal.  I know what it's like to be bored.

US Army Captain on FALLEX 88: " Thanks for attacking us.  Only time we've been hit in almost two weeks!"

Me:  "Hey Sir, no problem."

Tom


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I am not asking supply techs to "attain a high level of proficiency" I am asking why they so strongly resist marching and shooting, and use "too much work" as an excuse not to practice.


You actually believe that they resist this? All the ones I've worked with actually very much look forward to our annual IBTS/ranges etc. We know it's going to happen and the CoC can't tell us to skip it because it is an annual requirement that we must complete to maintain our basic soldiering skills. The "too much work excuse" doesn't come into play with this annual training, as it must be completed. Whether we like it or not, the work needs to be done. The rank and file of the CSS trades are in a catch22 situation for if the CoC decides to forego the workload and get out on the ranges more often...invariably the complaints come in about 'no stock for my soldiers' from the very same personnel who are usually complaining about us not being out on the ranges enough. And the circle continues.

The "too much work" factor comes into play for PT... and is not used by the rank and file themselves. PT is mandatory at all Army Supply sites I've been posted to..and if constant course kittings etc keep them from PT, or an overwhelming workload (that sometimes must come first...especially if you want clothing in stock to be able to issue etc) that is not a problem to blame on the CSS troops, but rather the leadership who fails to provide adequate human resources which would allow the completion of PT and workload, a point I've brought up many times. 


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Your assertation that Company Quartermasters are incompetent compared to a qualified Sup Tech is utter tripe, to put it mildly.
> Maybe a certain logistician needs to step down from her oversized equine.


I asserted NO such thing whatsoever. I stated that they were proficient in one section of Supply. Yes they may also be JMs (if they've got that course) etc, just as they could be proficient in other sections of Supply....if they had those courses. I know very well what a CQ does...my husband previously filled this posn and was a JM too. There are many CQs who are not Infantry; the engineers, Arty, Armd have CQs, SQs etc as well. Many Sup Techs are JM qualified as well (PMD has a ton of them), CSS trades also have PL WOs, CSMs. Our courses for Pl WOs, CSMs etc differ from yours because our primary task, even while deployed, is to do our CSS job. Just as the Arty PL WOs course differs from that of the Infanteer. 

If the dust hits the fan then it becomes our job to drop the stock/get off our comfy chairs and really get to work utilizing those "soldier first" skills we maintain annually, and hopefully which we have learned correctly and I don't know a CSS person in NATO who would disagree with this. 

Apparently the senior Leadership of the Army has decided that the IBTS trg, ranges etc that we CSS pers do annually is sufficient for us to maintain these basic skills. If it's not then perhaps a change to the IBTS trg is warranted, a decision made well above the rank and file of the CSS. 

I don't think I'm on a high horse GO, I agree that we should all be soldier's first...I am contstantly fighting for the resources I require to allow my section the time to maintain these skills/ease our workload/allow regular attendance at PT etc...but if the resources aren't there (our trade is currently closed) the regular work still has to happen. You're comment about "blame it on the pubic service/Government" made me laugh for I can't tell you how many e-mails I've sent up my CoC calling it the "Non-Supply" system. Us Sup Techs don't like the way the system works either...you won't get an argument from any of us on this point. There are many of us who are very adept at thinking outside the box (and who are sometimes/often quite embarrased to be a Supply Tech) but we don't get to decide what system we work with..."blame it on the Government." 

I only ask the respondants in this thread to "think outside the box" once in awhile as well. I have watched my personnel take off their gortex to give it to CAP/SQ students etc because they'd be out in the field and needed it more. 

Many assertions in this thread have asserted that the CSS rank and file are, for the most part, less deserving, lazy, and willfully negligent at maintaining weapons skills, basic soldiering skills, and PT standards, and that they only show up to collect a paycheck is mis-information and simply wrong. And that's what I have the problem with.

..call it a high horse if you will


----------



## S McKee (16 Jan 2006)

I've been on both sides of the fence and this is a completely pointless and ridiculous argument. Everybody has a job to do. Not everbody can be an Infanteer, just like not everybody can be an MP or a Medic, Sup Tech etc. Hey we've only got 60,000 people in this outfit so we can only afford to have 5000 guys do PT 4 hours a day, hang-out at the coffee shop for two hours and pack and re-pack their kit for the remainder (and don't forget personal admin time). All the crap like pay and supply just doesn't magically happen.  Get your heads out of your butts, all this bitching about CSS trades seems like a lot of the green eyed monster. We all had our chance at the recruiting center to pick what we wanted to be when we grew up.  I know the 031s like to have this air of superiority, you work hard I know that, but you're not all Rambos, so for the love of God please stop living this fantasy that you can all be cross trained medic/helicopter pilot and give it a rest. So when the RMS clerk makes sure that you've filled out all the proper forms because he/she cares that your wife has money in the bank at the end of the month while your on tour, and that she is the beneficiary of your estate if something should happen to you, and when the Sup Tech gives you your new pair of boots and when the Medics patch up all your injuries, just say thank-you and be on your way. You can say what ever you want to the MPs because they're just there to screw you over and they really don't care what you think.


----------



## TheNomad (16 Jan 2006)

Very true - most MP do not care what you think of them.  They have heard it all before and it did not impress them then either


----------



## GO!!! (16 Jan 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I've been on both sides of the fence and this is a completely pointless and ridiculous argument. Everybody has a job to do. Not everbody can be an Infanteer, just like not everybody can be an MP or a Medic, Sup Tech etc. Hey we've only got 60,000 people in this outfit so we can only afford to have 5000 guys do PT 4 hours a day, hang-out at the coffee shop for two hours and pack and re-pack their kit for the remainder (and don't forget personal admin time).



Who are these guys? Well, whoever they are, they are truly driving the body compared to the dudes who work at DB - 4 days on 4 days off - just like the yellow jackets?

I give up. This is a pointless argument, and one that will go on until the end of time. 


> I know the 031s like to have this air of superiority, you work hard I know that, but you're not all Rambos, so for the love of God please stop living this fantasy that you can all be cross trained medic/helicopter pilot and give it a rest.


Air of superiority? Spoken like a true former infanteer.

Better than the inferiority complex that seems to accompany the the storm trooper uniform and red beret. 

We have the distinction of actually being able to do our jobs on occasion, as opposed to attempting to ever - expand our job description as a method of job security.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jan 2006)

Well, I think that about does it. The circle has been worn down to trench level. If anyone has anything new and exciting to add, ask a Mod to open it for your post.


----------



## theoldyoungguy (19 Jan 2006)

Im going to touch upon a subject here that is widely open to judgement, and that is the treatment of combat arms towards non combat arms soldiers and vice versa. This subject has been on my mind as im continually hearing gripes about other trades within the CF and the hostilities amongst eachother. With that said im gonna try to be objectional here and i mean absolutely no offence to anyone in the CF as we are all soldiers first.

To begin, lets start with the combat arms and there feelings of service and support personal. The reason for there hostility towards them is fairly simple, combat arms soldiers feel as if though there jobs are more important as they carry more risk, and to a certain extent it is tru, wihtout the comabt arms, there would be no military, but the same goes for the service and support, without them us combart arms cannot do our job, we need them or were screwed, and we give them purpose. From my experience one of the reasons of hostility is due to the regular civi folk knowing very little about the military, they assume everyone is infantry and/or drive tanks. due to this the combat arms feel angered that the service and support are stealing there thunder if u will. a combat arms soldier is generaly put under alot more stress and greater danger in deployment, but thats not to say support personal arent in danger or arent under a great threat, it was just a generallity. To jump to the point these combat soldiers feel that the support troops are getting just as much credit as they are for there work, and for a combat arms soldier especially infantrymen the amount of danger in the job is overcome by an immense amount of pride in knowing ur doing the job most others could not or did not want to do, so in a sense it is a smash on there pride, the one thing they have to keep them going in harsh deployments. another reason for the anger towards support is ignorant attitude of SOME suport troops and that they are not in the infantry for example because it is a shit simple job and anyone can do it. Infantry soldiers take great offence to this. Yes anyone can do it assum,ing they have self determination and good drive, but to say u can do there job just as well as they can do is ignorant, u know the basics, however they do it on a daily basis. just as they learn to survive in desolate climates, the support learn how to fix there trucks in desolate places. both trades can do the same job, but both have there area of expertise.

Now since ive brought out the combat arms(mainly infantry) gripes about the support troops, ill aruge the other side. the support troops feel angered at the childish attitude of the comabt arms. they feel we are all soldiers first and all are taught infantry tactics and therefore are equal. we all wear the uniform and al deserve the respect that goes with it. Additionally they dislike the attitude of the combat arms soldiers who have there attitudes for the reasons above. and the combat arms types have been known to grossly be childish about those reaons and treating the support as second class soldiers.

To sum up, it comes down to the old 5 grade playground type scenario. both groups angry at eachother because they say and do things behind eachothers backs. i think what the CF needs amongst its members is more respect. THe infatry and combat types need to realise, without the cook to cook them a meal, without the trucker to drive them to there patrol area, without the weapons and supply techs to get them there equipment and fix there weapons, and without the logistics to pay our salary and organize the daily operation of the CF, those comabt types are ineffective and irrelevent. and at the same time the combat arms is the purpose of the army and the support is there to support the combat arms. Everyone in uniform is a soldier, and everyone sacrafices so much of there life for our beautiful country, and all deserve a great amount of respect, but i belive the first step towards greater harmony is greater respect amongst ourselves.

any thoughts?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2006)

loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> any thoughts?



Yes !

If you wanted to start a gong show, this will do it.

My bet is 3 pages before this gets locked  :


----------



## combatcamera (19 Jan 2006)

Wow!  Just read your thread here.  Good questions you ask.  Where I work we are lucky we get to work with all branches of the CF on deployed ops.  What I can tell you is that these "neanderthal" views you mention are from people who have no appreciation, or clue, of how our CF works period .....

Bottom line.  One Mission. One Team.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (19 Jan 2006)

loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> Now since ive brought out the combat arms(mainly infantry) gripes about the support troops, ill aruge the other side. the support troops feel angered at the childish attitude of the comabt arms. they feel we are all soldiers first and all are taught infantry tactics and therefore are equal. we all wear the uniform and al deserve the respect that goes with it. Additionally they dislike the attitude of the combat arms soldiers who have there attitudes for the reasons above. and the combat arms types have been known to grossly be childish about those reaons and treating the support as second class soldiers.



I would hardly classify BMQ and SQ as grounds to say CSS have undergone infantry training. Theres far more to the Infantry than just a Section attack, and a week in a trench. Time and time again, I've listened to highers refer to the "Infantards" as nothing more than the dumb mans trade full of glorified SQ'ers, which is obviously not the case.

Thats similar to an Infanteer with MLVW on his 404's, claiming he's just as qualified or familiar with CSS work as they would be with the infantry.

Most trades rib eachother, its the nature of the beast and wont be changed. Im not so sure i want it to either...

Anyone can read the bathroom walls in Meaford and get a good feel about how the Infantry feel towards the Armoured, but we dont complain, we just dish it back and have a healthy sense of "compitition" (for lack of a better word).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jan 2006)

There is a thread already running (4 pages) that should answer most of your doubts as to the animosity between the Cbt Arms and the "Purple Trades". I really don't want to get another going that amounts to the same thing, and just results in the same shit slinging.

CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?




			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Yes !
> 
> If you wanted to start a gong show, this will do it.
> 
> My bet is 3 pages before this gets locked  :



Sorry, you lose. 

OK. This has been merged. Play nice or it get locked again.


----------



## old soldier (23 Feb 2006)

BOY talk about about flogging a dead horse. This argument has been going on for as long as I can remember. Everyone in every trade has their arguments and beliefs and that will never change.

Is one better than the other? I think not..... just the people doing the job. Can one person do it all, NO! that is why we have "THE TEAM" Like hockey, some people think that one position is more important than another but without everyone working you can not win the game. Ergo it takes us all working toward the greater good to make us the military that we are...... mission orientated and goal minded.

If people want to keep up their petty arguments about who is better or does what or who does not do what, they have some serious issues to contend with. If all that was required was for everyone to be an infantier or tanker or gunner then we would not have the other trades.

Do the CSS train to defend or advance yes but not to the degree that the pointy enders do and with reason. Can they pick up a weapon and defend themselves and fellow soldiers the answer is YES.

Will this argument ever been settled? I think not because we do not put people in others positions to show what it is like. 

On missions, is anyone really more secure than the next? CSS do convoys, MRT duties, medical support, cook and are put in harm way while doing so. I have experienced this and have been bumped twice while doing it. Yet I know many people who have done numerous patrols and never had anything happen. So let get away from all the he says, she says crap and look at the big picture.


----------



## reccecrewman (8 Mar 2006)

CSS Troops are no less deserving of anything than their combat arms brethren. I am a crewman.  I NEED a mechanic to fix my Coyote when it breaks, I NEED FCS to fix my surveillance equipment and the numerous other components of a Coyote that require their skill, I NEED a weapons tech to repair my 25mm, MG's and pers weapon, I NEED a SigOp because nobody but a SigOp understands TCCCS, I NEED a medic to heal & patch me up, I NEED a Supply Tech to kit me out........... The list goes on and on.  Tick any of these CSS pers off and they can f@!* you over twice from sunday when you need them.  They are just as integral and necessary as any combat troop.  Thank you all for your expertise & help, we couldn't function without you.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (8 Mar 2006)

Very well said, Reccecrewman.  I had the good fortune to command CSS soldiers for a year, and count it as one of the most rewarding experiences I've had in my career.  Professional to a fault, and given my intent, they would work wonders in keeping the battalion on its feet.  I have no lack of admiration for my CSS colleagues.


----------



## gatorjumper (8 Mar 2006)

Shut up and give me my bullets so i can get back to killin like a real soldier!!!!


----------



## Franko (8 Mar 2006)

gatorjumper said:
			
		

> Shut up and give me my bullets so i can get back to killin like a real soldier!!!!









Regards


----------



## gatorjumper (15 Mar 2006)

i have a very large fig. 11 body count thank you very much! :threat:  And by the way Franko I did grow up, thats why i'm out of the army!


----------



## gaspasser (29 May 2006)

Thanks Reccecrewman, not many Cbt arms types fully support "US" support types.  I have done my time in the field, albeit I'll never claim to be a cbt arm type, I've dug tenches and slogged along with the best of them. Cammed up, played silly bugger and pepper potted thru the trees.  For the record; the first Canadian Ground Troops into Kuwiat City the day after the Iragi's left were.....1 Canadian Field Hospital CSS.  Truckers and Supply techs to replenish the Embassy water and rations.  I was Scudded in Riyadh and had an IED go off behind me targeted on a US convoy.  Was I deserving of my GK medal?  I think so.
   And obviously, gatorjumper packed his own chutes, because I believe Supply techs (para riggers) do that. Or ever had to go to the UMS or MIR to visit the Medics.  CSS and regular base support is there to Support the operations of the CF.  Who fuels the planes that the jumpers jump out of?  
  Just my two cents worth to qualm all those arrogant Cbt arms types who think that war and the rest of the world revolves around them.  
  If you use it, a supply tech packed it, a traffic tech loaded it and a truck brought it.  Sorry for leaving out the RMS types, but I do like getting my pay.
  Servitium Nulli Secundus.


----------



## TN2IC (29 May 2006)

Servitium Nulli Secundus.

Amen


----------



## Sawbones (31 May 2006)

From my favorite Wizard of Id:

Sir Rodney: Jones, I’m taking you out of the ranks and making you a clerk.

Soldier: But sir, I was born to battle!

Sir Rodney: You’ve never been in Administration, have you?


----------



## Milhouser911 (7 Jun 2006)

I'd like to re-iterate on a couple of points that have been brought up here.

As for Johnny the Reserve infanteer, who maintains both a civilian skillset and a high standard of soldier skills, he does far more "soldiering" than your average CSS does.

As for Infanteers being able to fill CSS positions?  Given some time in the field, working as an infanteer, I'm sure that most CSS troops could get themselves up to snuffl

If our leadership took PT as seriously as the Cbt Arms leadership does, you can bet you'd see less fat wogs around.

Its very difficult to maintain proper soldiering skills by doing a BFT once a year, and doing MLOC once a year.  I work in Wainwright Base Supply, so in my part of the world, the CSS never sees the field.  We can't exactly do a full refresher course every year and follow it with a confirmation ex.  I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is, but I think that these are the reasons for the problem.

Just a lowly mo Cpl on a year-long contract in Wainwright.


----------



## GO!!! (7 Jun 2006)

Milhouser911 said:
			
		

> As for Johnny the Reserve infanteer, who maintains both a civilian skillset and a high standard of soldier skills, he does far more "soldiering" than your average CSS does.



How is he maintaining a "high standard" of soldier skills vs someone who is a soldier every day? Who measured this standard?

We have cooks/drivers/medics etc. attached to us on a regular basis who posess decent field skills, this being more a matter of personal pride and interest than a unit driven result.

I would not consider Wx stores to be indicative of the entire CSS world in this respect.


----------



## trucker00 (9 May 2007)

Don't forget that truckers in Afghanistan leave the wire everyday on 15+ hour convoys driving through ambush alley and choke points min twice to deliver goods to the battle group. They are also the echelon for the combat teams which keeps them fighting, happy with the mail and clean laundry.
The Battle Group goes looking for Taliban. The Taliban looks for us.


----------



## TN2IC (13 May 2007)

trucker00 said:
			
		

> Don't forget that truckers in Afghanistan leave the wire everyday on 15+ hour convoys driving through ambush alley and choke points min twice to deliver goods to the battle group. They are also the echelon for the combat teams which keeps them fighting, happy with the mail and clean laundry.
> The Battle Group goes looking for Taliban. The Taliban looks for us.



True to that. Kill us... kill the lifeblood of the army.


----------



## fse soldier (12 Oct 2007)

Well here is a good topic on the said subject, CFPSA civilian pers are being awarded the SWASM along with TAV'S who were there for Roto 2 Aug - Feb 06 aka TFK 03-06 Now myself serving in afghanistan at this time believe I also have the right to be awarded the medal even thou the powers that be said we were going to get it....  Meanwhile just like the army HURRY UP AND WAIT...... I am a Support trade who was out in the FOB's and also a major part of the OP plus being on many of the convoys I was put in harms way.... I was also part of a fire fight now you tell me I do not deserve this medal..... LOOK AT PAST TOURS lets see Yugo you would get the former yugo medal and the peace keepers medal Now the moment of truth is it not armed conflict that my roto was part of was my roto not the hardest hit....... Get your facts straight


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

fse soldier said:
			
		

> Well here is a good topic on the said subject, CFPSA civilian pers are being awarded the SWASM along with TAV'S who were there for Roto 2 Aug - Feb 06 aka TFK 03-06 Now myself serving in afghanistan at this time believe I also have the right to be awarded the medal even thou the powers that be said we were going to get it....  Meanwhile just like the army HURRY UP AND WAIT...... I am a Support trade who was out in the FOB's and also a major part of the OP plus being on many of the convoys I was put in harms way.... I was also part of a fire fight now you tell me I do not deserve this medal..... LOOK AT PAST TOURS lets see Yugo you would get the former yugo medal and the peace keepers medal Now the moment of truth is it not armed conflict that my roto was part of was my roto not the hardest hit....... Get your facts straight



Are you professing to tell me that you weren't presented a medal in recognition of your tour?? I'm sure that you were. Case closed. 

Or is it ... that you just want the other one instead ..  or that you want two (the GCS *and* a SWASM -- that's kinda greedy now isn't it??)?


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Oct 2007)

fse soldier said:
			
		

> Well here is a good topic on the said subject, CFPSA civilian pers are being awarded the SWASM along with TAV'S who were there for Roto 2 Aug - Feb 06 aka TFK 03-06 Now myself serving in afghanistan at this time believe I also have the right to be awarded the medal even thou the powers that be said we were going to get it....  Meanwhile just like the army HURRY UP AND WAIT...... I am a Support trade who was out in the FOB's and also a major part of the OP plus being on many of the convoys I was put in harms way.... I was also part of a fire fight now you tell me I do not deserve this medal..... LOOK AT PAST TOURS lets see Yugo you would get the former yugo medal and the peace keepers medal Now the moment of truth is it not armed conflict that my roto was part of was my roto not the hardest hit....... Get your facts straight



Your profile doesn't illuminate much, and your post illuminates even less.

Can you present your thoughts in a clear manner - such that others may be able to follow your logic?


----------



## fse soldier (12 Oct 2007)

Well yes I currently have the GCS, and during our tour we were promised the SWASM, anyone who was on the tour knows that.  And I am guessing the Combat badge is not coming out but meha


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

fse soldier said:
			
		

> Well yes I currently have the GCS, and during our tour we were promised the SWASM, anyone who was on the tour knows that.  And I am guessing the Combat badge is not coming out but meha



Don't presume to know too much. 

Dude, your sit is not unlike that of the Apollo Roto II pers (who got the SWASM) who did 6 months with Op Apollo, and then were extended for the TAT and Roto Zero of Op Athena (some for up to 4 months on that tour as well). They didn't get the GCS or GCM although the boys that came and went on the TAT did ... and still they were there in theatre the whole time (some of them even deploying to another tour of the Congo during that 9-10 month period) because they had already had their deployment recognized with the SWASM. 

It's just the way it is. You can NOT compare that to the gimme of the CPSM (a Canadian recognition BTW), Bosnia et al were NATO recognitions or UN recognitions as the case may be.


----------



## Franko (13 Oct 2007)

fse soldier said:
			
		

> Well here is a good topic on the said subject, CFPSA civilian pers are being awarded the SWASM along with TAV'S who were there for Roto 2 Aug - Feb 06 aka TFK 03-06 Now myself serving in afghanistan at this time believe I also have the right to be awarded the medal even thou the powers that be said we were going to get it....  Meanwhile just like the army HURRY UP AND WAIT...... I am a Support trade who was out in the FOB's and also a major part of the OP plus being on many of the convoys I was put in harms way.... I was also part of a fire fight now you tell me I do not deserve this medal..... LOOK AT PAST TOURS lets see Yugo you would get the former yugo medal and the peace keepers medal Now the moment of truth is it not armed conflict that my roto was part of was my roto not the hardest hit....... Get your facts straight



Ummm... there are a few glaring problems with your post.

Roto 4 Athena/ 0 Archer (August 05 to March 06) were authorized to get the SWASM as well as the GCS. This was due to the fact that we changed mandates and operations in mid tour. TAVs were only allocated one medal, primarily the SWASM due to them coming on ground during the move. The CFPSA members were only given the GSM IIRC.

If you haven't received your SWASM bring it up through your CoC and get it sorted out. 2 years is too long of a time to not be awarded a medal.

Now onto another point.....

Part of a fire fight? So you're telling me that you dismounted and engaged? Bullshite. No one during the road moves between Kabul and KAF dismounted, period.

There was an ambush that happened just outside Gazny and the convoy pushed through without a shot being returned.

Now which FOB exactly were you in? Gazny or Lagman because those were the only two used by us during that tour.


----------



## fse soldier (13 Oct 2007)

Yes I see your point as to which the ppl from Roto 0 got there swasm and general campaign star due to the fact the made there move to KAF. Now let's get one thing straight PBW TFK 03-06 feb thru Aug 06 does that make sense to you now...  Where every soldier no matter what trade was put out on the front-line for the big push. Due to the fact there a soldier first..... And I am sure I stated what roto I was on now call bullshit on that..................... And further more I am talking about CFPSA and TAV pers who where on the same damn tour I was on recieving there GCS and SWASM....


----------



## Franko (13 Oct 2007)

fse soldier said:
			
		

> Yes I see your point as to which the ppl from Roto 0 got there swasm and general campaign star due to the fact the made there move to KAF. *Now let's get one thing straight PBW TFK 03-06 feb thru Aug 06 does that make sense to you now*...  Where every soldier no matter what trade was put out on the front-line for the big push. Due to the fact there a soldier first..... And I am sure I stated what roto I was on now call bullshit on that..................... And further more I am talking about CFPSA and TAV pers who where on the same damn tour I was on recieving there GCS and SWASM....



Now that you've sorted out what you've posted......you put down the wrong dates in your original post, hence me calling it bullshite. See below....



			
				fse soldier said:
			
		

> Well here is a good topic on the said subject, CFPSA civilian pers are being awarded the SWASM along with TAV'S who were there for Roto *2 Aug - Feb 06* aka TFK 03-06 Now myself serving in afghanistan at this time believe I also have the right to be awarded the medal even thou the powers that be said we were going to get it....  Meanwhile just like the army HURRY UP AND WAIT...... I am a Support trade who was out in the FOB's and also a major part of the OP plus being on many of the convoys I was put in harms way.... I was also part of a fire fight now you tell me I do not deserve this medal..... LOOK AT PAST TOURS lets see Yugo you would get the former yugo medal and the peace keepers medal Now the moment of truth is it not armed conflict that my roto was part of was my roto not the hardest hit....... Get your facts straight



Now onto you not getting your SWASM....go through your CoC and get the memos flying. 

I didn't think that CFPSA were eligible to get the GCS, only the GSM due to the fact that they aren't allowed outside the wire of KAF. 

Regards


----------



## CorporalMajor (20 Mar 2008)

My two cents:

To me being a deserving soldier isn't about what trade you're in, how much action you've seen, how fit you are or even what training you've been put through.  It is entirely about how much effort and initiative you put forth, your constant will to learn and listen and improve, and where your mind is in general.  Approaching situations like an adult.  Working with others and not against them.  Jumping apon any opportunity possible to hone your skills. And of course it's about the same theories beaten into all of us during SQ.  Duty, Honor, Integrity, DISCIPLINE.

 I've seen people of all trades in action.  I've met some pretty worthless CBT Arms types who are in good shape and have even reached MCpl, but are either very lazy or otherwise borderline-retarded.  Example being, me and a peer lifted upwards of 50 sandbags back and forth while a bunch of Inf NCOs sat around laughing with their thumbs up their rear and literally doing NOTHING to help us until I pleaded for it - no joke. 

I've seen Maintainers, RMS and Sup Techs who FAIL to even drive themselves to any acceptable standard, or who treat the trade as if it's a 9 to 5 and dont see how important it can be to the person you've working for when you take the extra mile to help them or otherwise do your job that much better.  And I have met very good CSS troops who weren't even remusters from CBT Arms but could keep up with them in more ways than one.  Would you beleive that the best candidate on SQ was a VTech when it was overwhelmingly CBT arms candidates?  Of course, there's many good CBT Arms types as well, and those four trades deserve respect for the training they're put through and the dangers thrown at them.

It's in anyone's potential to be a terrific solider, and it's as simple as this - you get what you put in.  So, granted, CSS troops don't get the chance as often to hone their skills like some others do.  The only way to work against this is in the meantime, show up for as much field exes and weapons exes as you can, and make it clear to your COC that you take your green undershirt that seriously.  That's what I do, and it helps.  I do think we should put more focus on solidering in a lot of trades, especially mine, because to me honing marksmaship is more important than standing at your bed heels-together every morning and being expected to care how your thsirts are folded or whether your socks are happy  : and somehow I wound up doing more of the latter than anything even remotely soldier related... but such is life, and we gotta work with what we have.  

At the end of the day, what you rather have in charge of you - 
A) a guy who  isn't in super shape and doesn't work a very 'hardcore' trade but is intelligent, mature, disciplined, works hard and knows a thing or two about organizational skills and a soldier's ethos OR
B) your stereotypical rambo-wannabe who is near olympic, has para wings and all but lacks what the former has inspades.

It's not all about guts and muscle.  And none ofthe above even remotely depends on your MOC at all.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Mar 2008)

CorporalMajor said:
			
		

> I've seen people of all trades in action.  I've met some pretty worthless CBT Arms types who are in good shape and have even reached MCpl, but are either very lazy or otherwise borderline-retarded.  Example being, me and a peer lifted upwards of 50 sandbags back and forth while a bunch of Inf NCOs sat around laughing with their thumbs up their rear and literally doing NOTHING to help us until I pleaded for it - no joke.



What were they doing prior?Didi they just finish a huge task while you were doing paperwork in a mod tent somewhere?There are two sides to every story remember.And honestly I have ZERO issue telling my troops to stand down and relax coming back into camp.And anyone that has maybe sat around for the past week and is now asking for their help is proably not going to get it.

Two sides each story....and 50 sand bags....come ON!


----------



## medaid (20 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Two sides each story....and 50 sand bags....come ON!



Heaven forbid... that's... that's 25 sandbags each! Oh my...


----------



## TN2IC (20 Mar 2008)

CorporalMajor~ I believe you need some more TI before you pipe up again. I"ve done the PRes deal as a MSE Op and now as Reg Force. I"ll work in many places and have seen many faces. Give yourself sometime before you thump your chest. You won't go far on this site. Your profile gives me a feeling your just a tad green. Not meaning to sound like an arse,  but I have to jump on the band wagon, there are two sides to the story. I strongly agree with X-mo-1979.

Regards,
Schultz


----------



## TN2IC (20 Mar 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Ah yes, because we all know that CSS troops spend all their time *maybe* (just to cover your rear, eh) sitting around doing nothing all week and cbt arms guys spend all their time 'doing hard tasks'.
> 
> Just remember, while your battalion is out on sports day complaining about the lazy supply guys (for example) who never get you what you want, they're still busy working in stores while you're playing murderball and counting the time until happy hour when you can all leave. Oh wait, I'm just an OCdt...I haven't seen anything so stay in my lane...right?
> 
> God, I HATE ignorant comments like that from people who, from their profile, should know better then to make assinie comments like that.



I'm sorry OCdt if you feel upset over this assinie ... I do know this X-Mo feller very well. And I can support his view. Yes his statement was a tad "ignorant" taste, but some folks just need an eye opener, in my view/opinion.

I can honestly say I don't know your background. So for me to reply about the "so stay in my lane" would be pushing it.

Regards,
Fellow logistician...
Schultz


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Mar 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Ah yes, because we all know that CSS troops spend all their time *maybe* (just to cover your rear, eh) sitting around doing nothing all week and cbt arms guys spend all their time 'doing hard tasks'.
> 
> Just remember, while your battalion is out on sports day complaining about the lazy supply guys (for example) who never get you what you want, they're still busy working in stores while you're playing murderball and counting the time until happy hour when you can all leave. Oh wait, I'm just an OCdt...I haven't seen anything so stay in my lane...right?
> 
> God, I HATE ignorant comments like that from people who, from their profile, should know better then to make asinine comments like that.



When did I say that's all CSS troops' did?
When someone complains when they are lifting a whole 50 sand bags,It tends to make me believe their previous tasking was far from labour intensive.

As for asinine comments maybe you should limit yours while making an assumption about battalion sports days/happy hour.Were usually too busy trying to injure one another playing hockey to complain about anyone. ;D

My comments were made to demonstrate,when you see those guys sitting around watching maybe think of why they are.Their proably exhausted.

Work on your writing skills,as your poor attempt to put words in my mouth are obvious.

I have worked with Sgt Schultz in previous employment,and he should know I have a HUGE respect for CSS troops.However I will NEVER volunteer my guys for menial labour when it is obvious the others have not been driven as hard as my guys.
If its for a common goal,for sure.If it's 50 sand bags...





			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> Heaven forbid... that's... that's 25 sandbags each! Oh my...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Mar 2008)

And just to add.If my guys have been sitting around not doing anything and were watching you,even though it's only a one man job I'm POSITIVE they would be helping.As they would know I would be around shortly to ask why the heck their making k-9 love.

I have helped load HLVW's full of rations.I've carried bag's of mail around base for the postal clerks.I've also came in off patrol sat in front of my tent and watched other troop's do the same.Any section,troop,will most likely give you assistance if their work load is light.But don't expect it at all times.

I would think this CSS Combat thing would be moot when the HLVW's show up with your supplies.

A good read on the dedication of CSS troops is the book "15 days" in support of combat missions.A Lav commander complained that the CSS guys were driving all over the road.When the driver were approached they found it was something like 36hr since they had stopped to sleep.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2008)

The best NCOs I've seen are the ones that take their shirts off and get their hands dirty with the troops. I've met a ton of them in 3RCR and some I worked with in 2PPCLI, I'm sure other BTNs have them too.

Same goes with officers. Platoon and company commanders working along side their men.  My regiments old CO, an ex airborne regiment type helped in the digging with a russian trench system-he was probably the toughest hardest working body there too.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Mar 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Ah yes, because we all know that CSS troops spend all their time *maybe* (just to cover your rear, eh) sitting around doing nothing all week and cbt arms guys spend all their time 'doing hard tasks'.
> 
> Just remember, while your battalion is out on sports day complaining about the lazy supply guys (for example) who never get you what you want, they're still busy working in stores while you're playing murderball and counting the time until happy hour when you can all leave. Oh wait, I'm just an OCdt...I haven't seen anything so stay in my lane...right?
> 
> God, I HATE ignorant comments like that from people who, from their profile, should know better then to make assinie comments like that.



I was in the arms my entire career.  Plenty of times I had to work for the bin rats, cooks, and sundry other mechs and techs.  All good, all part of the team effort.  I NEVER had a bin rat, cook, or any other loggie come sprinting down to the Armoured Engineer bay to help me bust leo track or change a road wheel.  In fact, it was a never ending source of amusement to the Q continuum to sit on their picnic bench and watch us hammer track pads all day.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2008)

OK

I've locked this for everyone's good.

Piper

Just a point.  Bin Rats and such do have their "Regimental/Battalion Sports Days".  Vern has posted about the "Log Spiel", in competition with the Armour Corps "EX Ironsides", but neither can hold a candle to the "Pig Spiel".  There are no units or organizations in the CF that are without some form of Sport or other event to tie up a day or a week of unit "fun".  Perhaps you didn't intend that connotation when you posted, but it came across as the Bin Rats work 24 and 7, 365/365/365/366 a year and never sleep.  That is a false notion.

Any way, this is a touchy subject which as you can see, can easily raise a lot of hackles when someone without experience feels it is time to voice an ill-informed opinion.   (CorporalMajor, I am looking at you.)


----------

