Ask a Soldier

[Flying Pig]

Is there any political screening within the British army? I mean for regular army, not any "sensitive" roles?

If so, what form does it take?

Until relatively recently, a serving soldier could not be a member of any political party, and being a member of a group which is known to support actions or beliefs contrary to Army Values and Standards (for example, a far-right group which supports racism) or having had prior membership of one is a bar to joining the army in most circumstances. There's no political screening for special forces, I can tell you that now, and the same holds for Close Protection of VIPs, including Government ministers. We're all security cleared and vetted, and that coupled with the oath of alleigance is deemed sufficient.

 

[nonconformist]

I'm talking more about people who are openly socialist, to be honest, but non-revolutionary; people who, while socialist, are not members of any party, and can not in all fairness be seen as a threat to the country/army (or indeed who are socialist patriots, think Orwell or the ilk)

EDIT: or hell, someone like me!

EDIT again: or indeed, someone who is openly republican, but again, would take the oath etc.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm talking more about people who are openly socialist, to be honest, but non-revolutionary; people who, while socialist, are not members of any party, and can not in all fairness be seen as a threat to the country/army (or indeed who are socialist patriots, think Orwell or the ilk)

EDIT: or hell, someone like me!

EDIT again: or indeed, someone who is openly republican, but again, would take the oath etc.

None of those would be a problem. We don't care: as long as you've sworn to defend Her Majesty in Name, Person and Dignity etc etc to the death and are willing to do so, who cares what you think of state-owned industry versus private competition, or direct versus representative democracy?

IIRC Orwell did actually serve the King, as a policeman in Burma

 

[nonconformist]

One more question (sorry I'm picking your brains quite a bit today)

German soldiers (for obvious reasons) have quite a moral burden placed upon them; as someone once put it they are trained to be"human beings first, soldiers second".

To what extent does the British army train, or put emphasis on rejecting orders which are blatantly illegal?
I'm talking about policy "Invasion of Iraq" etc, but breaches of the Geneva conventions, execution of prisoners, collective punishments, etc?
Is there any emphasis, or indeed mechanism in place for a soldier to reject an illegal order?

Can a subordinate officer (as in the US miltiary) relieve a superior of his command if he exceeds his mandate?

Edit (again)

My above post was related to something which happened to me a couple years back. Before I realised I wasn't up to it, I talked to some DSTL fellas about joining, and they were sceptical about my politics.
When, however, I mentioned I held dual nationality, they got quite edgy, and told me I'd have to renounce my French nationality prior to joining

 

[Flying Pig]

German soldiers (for obvious reasons) have quite a moral burden placed upon them; as someone once put it they are trained to be"human beings first, soldiers second".

Definitely true in all modern armies; that's the only way to avoid atrocities like our own army recently experienced with the Baha Mousa case (which is quite a complicated issue and I won't go into that for now).

To what extent does the British army train, or put emphasis on rejecting orders which are blatantly illegal?
I'm talking about policy "Invasion of Iraq" etc, but breaches of the Geneva conventions, execution of prisoners, collective punishments, etc?
Is there any emphasis, or indeed mechanism in place for a soldier to reject an illegal order?

You actually get lessons on military ethics, and are taught that you must reject an order which you feel to be illegal - however, not if it has been cleared 'above your level' as legal, so 'invade Iraq' is OK, but 'shoot the prisoner' is not. One of our chief values is moral courage, and we consider it the mark of real bravery to be able to do what you think is right when everyone else thinks it's wrong, not just being able to charge a machine-gun nest but also being the man who speaks out when he sees something going on which shouldn't be happening, or the junior officer who has the moral courage to demand a salute from that sergeant who walked past with hands in pockets. Indeed, one of the reasons why the unit that got involved in the Baha Mousa affair managed to develop into the army's 'problem battalion' was that junior officers came into the regiment, saw that the sergeants in the battalion thought that they were on top and ruled with an iron fist, and didn't dare speak out because they assumed that that was 'just how the army worked'.

Can a subordinate officer (as in the US miltiary) relieve a superior of his command if he exceeds his mandate?

Not officially, I don't think, but it would be the junior officer's duty to refuse to accept an illagal order from his CO, and if the CO lost all moral authority then the logical next step would be for the next most senior officer to take de facto command.

 

[nonconformist]

Thanks for your answers, mate, very much appreciated, sorry about using up your valuable time

 

[Glassfan]

More to the point, you're not spending a lot of time hovering in the air helplessly; you can jump at the same speed as parachuting but there's no 'hang' time. The chinook's worse, because it has two rotors, which makes it very obvious. Of course, the idea is that you land away from the enemy and then hit them on foot.

I would add that choppers can also bring in artillery, ammo, supplies, reinforcements and can evac casualties.

Further, once the Airborne drop, they're committed (Arnhem). Whereas the Air Cav drops in, kills something, and then extracts by air (Ia Drang).

 

[Glassfan]

Hey FP, are you Brits developing any active protection systems for your Challengers like Trophy or Quick Kill?

 

[Flying Pig]

Hey FP, are you Brits developing any active protection systems for your Challengers like Trophy or Quick Kill?

Is that like this charged armour that BAE have prototyped, which has two layers with opposite electrical charges so that the energy from a HEAT round is dissappated off it? Don't really know about any of this technological stuff, to be honest, nor do I really like to mix with our red-trousered brothers - I stick to running and shooting things

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That's more armour technology than an active protection system. Reactive armor, maybe.

Anyway, ever seen any instances unorthodox tactics like riding tank desant? Stories would be appreciated.

 

[Flying Pig]

Anyway, ever seen any instances unorthodox tactics like riding tank desant? Stories would be appreciated.

In battle? Not likely. A tank is a big, scary, metal thing which just screams 'please shoot me' - I wouldn't want to be a soft squishy thing on top of one of those. The infantryman's only protection is his camoflage and concealment, and sitting on top of a tank rather removes that one. I did somewhat chuckle at the memory of an absolutely insane young officer on exercise once who had managed to lead an attack armed with a pitchfork; he'd found the thing in some German farmer's barn and decided that it would make a much better target indicator than blank rounds and a loud voice.

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't the Russians make quite extensive use of tank riders though in WWII? Or was that more of a "it is a moving vehicle, sit on it and get to the battle" then any sort of formalized tactic?

 

[Flying Pig]

Didn't the Russians make quite extensive use of tank riders though in WWII? Or was that more of a "it is a moving vehicle, sit on it and get to the battle" then any sort of formalized tactic?

Yes, but frankly they played a very different ball game and weren't too bothered about a few hundred dead squaddies here and there, whereas we most definitely are.

 

[Glassfan]

...I stick to running and shooting things

Infantry?

That's more armour technology than an active protection system. Reactive armor, maybe...

The systems I've been reading about are "active" in that they combine a dopplar radar with a shotgun and blow up incoming missiles before they hit the tank.

A tank is a big, scary, metal thing which just screams 'please shoot me' ...

Beg to differ. A tank is a big, scary, metal thing which just screams, "Get out of my way or I'll crush you!"

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The systems I've been reading about are "active" in that they combine a dopplar radar with a shotgun and blow up incoming missiles before they hit the tank.

I was addressing FP though.

Beg to differ. A tank is a big, scary, metal thing which just screams, "Get out of my way or I'll crush you!"

Unless the enemy has anti-tank weaponry, of course.

 

[Flying Pig]

Infantry?

Too bloody right - proper infantry, as well, none of this funny mechanised business. Airborne all the way to use one of Mr Conn's favorite (well, more printable) phrases.

The systems I've been reading about are "active" in that they combine a dopplar radar with a shotgun and blow up incoming missiles before they hit the tank.

Very interesting. I don't think any of those are currently used as standard, but they're almost certainly in development and/or being tried out somewhere.

Beg to differ. A tank is a big, scary, metal thing which just screams, "Get out of my way or I'll crush you!"

Well, the response of a trained soldier when frightened of something is generally to try to remove the threat - that varies from the unnerved but disciplined reaction of calling for fire or getting out the 66 (man-portable anti-tank weapon carried by ~25% of privates) and letting loose, or the slightly less disciplined reaction of firing at it like a mad thing. Neither of those seem like particularly enjoyable experiences for a bloke sitting on the outside of the tank without the benefit of a metal exoskeleton!

Unless the enemy has anti-tank weaponry, of course.

Indeed - which in the British army is about two anti-tank rockets for every section of 8-10 men, then a bigger, guided missile called a Javelin in every platoon of 30 and a troop or two of four friendly tanks for every battalion, not to mention artillery and Apaches watching the area - in most circumstances, tanks cause a few raised eyebrows but it's certainly not the case that soldiers would be rushing to get out of the way, especially given that you can see the things for miles off so fire would be exchanged in force initially at about 800 metres or so.

 

[carmen510]

How accurate is the sentiment echoed by this movie about military technology/equipment?


Link to video.

 

[Flying Pig]

How accurate is the sentiment echoed by this movie about military technology/equipment?


Link to video.

I have to say I thought that was brilliant. On military kit it's completely wrong - all vehicles are specialised to their roles, and while there is a little bit of overlap our reconnaissance vehicles are totally unsuited for engaging MBTs and vice-versa. However, on how it can feel to be a junior talking to a senior officer in the military, absolutely spot-on and I felt myself sympathising with the poor colonel quite a bit.

 

[GamezRule]

Indeed - which in the British army is about two anti-tank rockets for every section of 8-10 men, then a bigger, guided missile called a Javelin in every platoon of 30 and a troop or two of four friendly tanks for every battalion, not to mention artillery and Apaches watching the area - in most circumstances, tanks cause a few raised eyebrows but it's certainly not the case that soldiers would be rushing to get out of the way, especially given that you can see the things for miles off so fire would be exchanged in force initially at about 800 metres or so.

USA #1.

 

[Ajidica]

USA #1.

USSR #1!