Colin P said:
... having AFV at certain Militia units will improve knowledge of the vehicles, improve recruiting and give a sense of mission to the troops.
Providing troops a warm & fuzzy feeling is a wonderful tertiary argument for spending resources. However, all the primary & secondary arguments toward buying an AFV need to be about creating an operational capability. There are calls to spend money to provide the reservists with some light armour patrol vehicle like the old Ferret or the Panhard VBL. Why? If the vehicle will never be used operationally (as its supporters have suggested in this thread), then why spend the money for something armoured when a Jeep or GWagon can provide all the same training opportunity?
recceguy said:
Make up your fucking mind.
Hello Pot, this is Kettle!
You have complained about a lack of doctrine & relevant role, and now you want to pour effort into a vehicle that will do nothing significantly different from what you've done before.
You have complained about the limited operational employment available to the Armd PRes, and now you want to pour money into a vehicle that will continue that dynamic. I have accepted your initial suppositions, and I believe what you are now asking for flies in the face of fixing the problems that you have raised.
If you want a non-operational toy to beat-around in the country side, then be happy in the G-Wagon C&R. However, don't ask for the government to take our limited resources out of operational capital projects so you can have a sexier vehicle, and do not whine & complain when the only operational deployments open to you are gate security and Force Protection Pl.
recceguy said:
Indeed.
recceguy said:
It's dealing with attitude like this that's put the PRes in the situation they are in now.
The PRes, or the Armd PRes? It seems the other three combat arms have plenty of opportunities for operational employment within occupation.
I have not provided any solutions in this thread. That is because I do not have them. However, I have been describing the criteria that a solution would have to meet. I think that there are enough intelligent people in this thread that we could start hammering together a skeleton of what a solution might look like. This might require letting go some sacred cows, or maybe it does not. It absolutely must involve identifying the Army's needs and then seeing how those can be met while accommodating unit 'wants' (which may differ from unit to unit)
Infanteer said:
and some beret colours may have to change too.