Need for More 360 Reviews in CAF? (split fm Trudeau Popularity)

[dapaterson]

Short of war casualties, 20-something year olds don’t become BGens.

And BGens don't have to worry about their subordinates every four years deciding whether or not they're fit for their job.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And BGens don't have to worry about their subordinates every four years deciding whether or not they're fit for their job.

Maybe they should.... just sayin'

 

[dimsum]

Maybe they should.... just sayin'

I fully support the idea of everyone getting 360 evils, not just GOFOs which is currently the case.

However, I’m also fully cognizant that a bunch of people who thought they were doing well (at all levels) will get a proverbial kick in the pants when they realize that their subordinates hate them. I’d prep the popcorn in advance.

But, back to govt instead of the CAF…

 

[Good2Golf]

And BGens don't have to worry about their subordinates every four years deciding whether their leader hasn’t shit the bed badly enough to get them fired from or not they're fit for their job.

FTFY

 

[daftandbarmy]

I fully support the idea of everyone getting 360 evils, not just GOFOs which is currently the case.

However, I’m also fully cognizant that a bunch of people who thought they were doing well (at all levels) will get a proverbial kick in the pants when they realize that their subordinates hate them. I’d prep the popcorn in advance.

But, back to govt instead of the CAF…

If we're going to be 'woke' like, allegedly, the civilian market place then we should probably 'cull the herd' occasionally like the civilian market place.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I fully support the idea of everyone getting 360 evils, not just GOFOs which is currently the case.

However, I’m also fully cognizant that a bunch of people who thought they were doing well (at all levels) will get a proverbial kick in the pants when they realize that their subordinates hate them. I’d prep the popcorn in advance.

But, back to govt instead of the CAF…

Indian Army in the Interwar period had a policy of the regiment OR's voting to keep or turf young Officers after a 6 month probationary period. That might be a useful way to sieve out some of the future crappy leaders.

 

[George Wallace]

Indian Army in the Interwar period had a policy of the regiment OR's voting to keep or turf young Officers after a 6 month probationary period. That might be a useful way to sieve out some of the future crappy leaders.

Our problem has arisen from PASSING crappy leaders through our schools, and then sending them back to the Schools to create clones of themselves. I noticed this in the 1970's, and it was not just in the officer Corps, but at the NCO levels as well. When I marched into the RSM's Office in Petawawa, to join the Regiment, he made a comment that I agreed with at the moment; but fully disagreed with as I contemplated it when I walked out of his office. His comment was that he wanted to keep his Best in the Regiment and send his trash to the School.....I realized as I walked out his door, that the Trash would only produce trash and that trash would have to be completely retrained when it arrived as new members to the Regiment. Your Indian Army sample is probably much more effective than what we have done to ourselves over the past five or six decades, breeding more and more "trash" and promoting it.

 

[dimsum]

Indian Army in the Interwar period had a policy of the regiment OR's voting to keep or turf young Officers after a 6 month probationary period. That might be a useful way to sieve out some of the future crappy leaders.

That might work for trades in which officers have a lot of constant contact with the NCMs like combat arms, and to a lesser extent NWOs. But, would that probationary period be before their trade training, or afterwards?

Aircrew officers don’t get put in charge of NCMs unless they are in multi-crew aircraft with aircrew NCMs. Single-seat folks may only talk to the maintainers before and after flights for a few minutes, and specifically about the aircraft status.

I suppose there could be an argument that said officers become supervisors for ground crew, but between the training timeline and that they don’t really work together that often, I’m not sure if’s really a good solution.

 

[George Wallace]

That might work for trades in which officers have a lot of constant contact with the NCMs like combat arms, and to a lesser extent NWOs. But, would that probationary period be before their trade training, or afterwards?

Aircrew officers don’t get put in charge of NCMs unless they are in multi-crew aircraft with aircrew NCMs. Single-seat folks may only talk to the maintainers before and after flights for a few minutes, and specifically about the aircraft status.

I suppose there could be an argument that said officers become supervisors for ground crew, but between the training timeline and that they don’t really work together that often, I’m not sure if’s really a good solution.

I can see there being exceptions, especially in cases of single or duel seat aircraft, where there is no NCO's to judge their actual performance. Multi-engine aircraft do have crews capable of making those decisions. Ground Crews also have more NCO's than officer supervisors. Then as Air Force officers progress up the line, they eventually land up flying a desk and overseeing NCO's.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Indian army way, was when the Subaltern was assigned to a unit. So I am assuming they had their basic somewhere else and then came to the regiments to actually learn how to lead and be judged.

 

[Grimey]

Indian Army in the Interwar period had a policy of the regiment OR's voting to keep or turf young Officers after a 6 month probationary period. That might be a useful way to sieve out some of the future crappy leaders.

Good thing they kept Slim.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good thing they kept Slim.

Maybe Slim was Slim because of that system. Or to put it another way, maybe the system found Slim.

Slim was always a favourite with the ORs, a lot of whom were temporary soldiers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe Slim was Slim because of that system. Or to put it another way, maybe the system found Slim.

Slim was always a favourite with the ORs, a lot of whom were temporary soldiers.

I encourage all to read Slim's 'Unofficial History,' which tell us a lot about how he got from being a junior officer in the Indian Army to one of the allies best field commanders.

 

[Kirkhill]

That might work for trades in which officers have a lot of constant contact with the NCMs like combat arms, and to a lesser extent NWOs. But, would that probationary period be before their trade training, or afterwards?

Aircrew officers don’t get put in charge of NCMs unless they are in multi-crew aircraft with aircrew NCMs. Single-seat folks may only talk to the maintainers before and after flights for a few minutes, and specifically about the aircraft status.

I suppose there could be an argument that said officers become supervisors for ground crew, but between the training timeline and that they don’t really work together that often, I’m not sure if’s really a good solution.

This raises a point that keeps recurring: The difference between the technical trades and the man-management trades.

Or, in my view, the difference between the Red Suits and the Blue Suits, Sandhurst and Woolwich.

A clear historical line connects the Air Force with the Artillery with the Engineers with the Ordnance with the Fortresses with the Navy. That line passes through Greenwich and Woolwich, 5 km apart down Bugsby's Way.

A separate line connects the infantry and cavalry with county barons, housecarls and fyrds and prehistoric communities. That line passes through Sandhurst, a hundred kilometers away on the other side of London.

We are well accustomed to complaining about unification in terms of Army, Navy and Air Force, and Logistics.

But what if Logistics, Air Force, Navy, Engineers and Artillery are all considered with The Ordnance and the real divide is between The Ordnance and the Combat Arms?

Everyone else serves the guns, or their physical equipment equivalent. The Combat Arms are all about man-management, and replacing battle losses.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Since this discussion was looking interesting, thought it was worth its own thread separate from the fortunes (and/or lack thereof lately) of PMJT.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Grimey]

I encourage all to read Slim's 'Unofficial History,' which tell us a lot about how he got from being a junior officer in the Indian Army to one of the allies best field commanders.

I’ve just finished ‘Defeat into Victory’. The Slim/Stilwell relationship was fascinating.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re reviews and elections - we already have one element electing their leaders

Who are the Canadian Rangers?​

Canadian Rangers are Canadian Armed Forces members who are always ready for service. They are on duty when they are training or when they are called upon during an emergency situation or a domestic operation. Unlike the traditional CAF promotion practices, Canadian Rangers elect their patrol leaders, Canadian Ranger sergeants. There are approximately 5,000 Canadian Rangers living in more than 200 communities who speak 26 different languages and dialects.

About the Canadian Rangers - Canada.ca

Canadian Rangers

www.canada.ca

 

[Halifax Tar]

This raises a point that keeps recurring: The difference between the technical trades and the man-management trades.

Or, in my view, the difference between the Red Suits and the Blue Suits, Sandhurst and Woolwich.

A clear historical line connects the Air Force with the Artillery with the Engineers with the Ordnance with the Fortresses with the Navy. That line passes through Greenwich and Woolwich, 5 km apart down Bugsby's Way.

A separate line connects the infantry and cavalry with county barons, housecarls and fyrds and prehistoric communities. That line passes through Sandhurst, a hundred kilometers away on the other side of London.

We are well accustomed to complaining about unification in terms of Army, Navy and Air Force, and Logistics.

But what if Logistics, Air Force, Navy, Engineers and Artillery are all considered with The Ordnance and the real divide is between The Ordnance and the Combat Arms?

Everyone else serves the guns, or their physical equipment equivalent. The Combat Arms are all about man-management, and replacing battle losses.

Are you thinking Operators VS Supporters ?

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you thinking Operators VS Supporters ?

There is an element of that. But a crew of four inside an armoured self-propelled gun (aka a tank) - are they Operators or Supporters?

I've got myself into enough trouble with Armoured Corps today so I'll skirt that one.

...

Historically Kings and Barons could find all the guys with pointy sticks and longbows they needed. Getting an edge over those armies meant spending money and buying technology and technologists. Masons and Engineers, Artificers and Gunners. And Sailors.

Board of Ordnance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Navy Board - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The pointy stick brigades did most of the dying. Still true today. Need lots of them during wars. Between wars they are a drag on the budget.

...

The things that motivate technicians to serve their kit are not the same things that motivate people to volunteer to replace losses in the line.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This raises a point that keeps recurring: The difference between the technical trades and the man-management trades.

Or, in my view, the difference between the Red Suits and the Blue Suits, Sandhurst and Woolwich.

A clear historical line connects the Air Force with the Artillery with the Engineers with the Ordnance with the Fortresses with the Navy. That line passes through Greenwich and Woolwich, 5 km apart down Bugsby's Way.

A separate line connects the infantry and cavalry with county barons, housecarls and fyrds and prehistoric communities. That line passes through Sandhurst, a hundred kilometers away on the other side of London.

We are well accustomed to complaining about unification in terms of Army, Navy and Air Force, and Logistics.

But what if Logistics, Air Force, Navy, Engineers and Artillery are all considered with The Ordnance and the real divide is between The Ordnance and the Combat Arms?

Everyone else serves the guns, or their physical equipment equivalent. The Combat Arms are all about man-management, and replacing battle losses.

I suspect there has been, since ancient times, two "classes" of soldiers: the 'warriors' (and the 'gentlemen warriors' who led them into close combat) and the "professionals." I'm sure that every Roman centurion knew, roughly, how deep and wide each layer of a road had to be, but the big roads and the aqueducts were built by trained engineers and the Romans also had specialist to operate the catapults and so on. The gunpowder age added to the "professionals" status; some Scots lords, for example, had more artillery in their private arsenals than King Henry VIII had in his entire army. Gunners, sappers and miners and other specialists were the core of the "standing army" while the bands of warriors - led by gentlemen - were called up as needed.

Many of my gunner friends who were FOOs in a combat team do not believe they played "second fiddle" to the infantry or armoured corps soldiers who marched (or rode) beside them. Ditto the sappers who want ahead to clear obstacles so that the infantry and armoured soldiers could follow.