- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Casing,
I‘m sure the Arty folk do a lot more "infantry type" work than most people realize. But, how do you justify the statement that the Artillery does all the same things that the infantry do and get the fire the "big guns" as well? If your statement is true, then your regiment should think about planning their exercises and training programs better. Artillery is not infantry, and vice versa. There is some overlap with roles and justifiably so. All army personnel should have some knowledge of infantry skills. And granted, with the stress on personnel overseas, often Arty (and other combat arms) are seen doing gate shifts and patrols. But I don‘t think this justifies training an Arty soldier in section attacks and fighting patrols. If you‘re trying to recruit potential infanteers by saying that Arty isn‘t all just howitzers and driving, fine. But don‘t question the fact that infantry soldiers are specialists at their trade just like any other. I don‘t think you are purposefully doing so, but you seem to suggest that anyone can be an infanteer. If someone wants to specialize in infantry tactics, they go infantry. If they want to specialize in artillery, they go arty. Plain and simple. If your trade really is interesting, you shouldn‘t need to pander to those considering infantry or any other trade. Your combat arms role should sell itself.
PS And for the record, an acquaintance of mine recently completed his leadership course which was staffed by mostly Arty folk (including his platoon warrant). Let‘s just say he wasn‘t impressed.
I‘m sure the Arty folk do a lot more "infantry type" work than most people realize. But, how do you justify the statement that the Artillery does all the same things that the infantry do and get the fire the "big guns" as well? If your statement is true, then your regiment should think about planning their exercises and training programs better. Artillery is not infantry, and vice versa. There is some overlap with roles and justifiably so. All army personnel should have some knowledge of infantry skills. And granted, with the stress on personnel overseas, often Arty (and other combat arms) are seen doing gate shifts and patrols. But I don‘t think this justifies training an Arty soldier in section attacks and fighting patrols. If you‘re trying to recruit potential infanteers by saying that Arty isn‘t all just howitzers and driving, fine. But don‘t question the fact that infantry soldiers are specialists at their trade just like any other. I don‘t think you are purposefully doing so, but you seem to suggest that anyone can be an infanteer. If someone wants to specialize in infantry tactics, they go infantry. If they want to specialize in artillery, they go arty. Plain and simple. If your trade really is interesting, you shouldn‘t need to pander to those considering infantry or any other trade. Your combat arms role should sell itself.
PS And for the record, an acquaintance of mine recently completed his leadership course which was staffed by mostly Arty folk (including his platoon warrant). Let‘s just say he wasn‘t impressed.
