British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save cash

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#3
Its only impacting troops in units in non deploying formations - its not as big a story as people want it to be, but it sounds impressive, and thus warrants a front page. Deploying units allowances are paid for from HM Treasury reserve, and don't get impacted in the same way.

We're broke as a department, and need to save cash, this is a means of doing that.
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#4
[quote="Purple_twiglet" ]Its only impacting troops in units in non deploying formations - its not as big a story as people want it to be, but it sounds impressive, and thus warrants a front page. Deploying units allowances are paid for from HM Treasury reserve, and don't get impacted in the same way. We're broke as a department, and need to save cash, this is a means of doing that.[/quote] I strongly disagree. This is an important issue as it concerns, effectively, the Operational Capability of the whole of the deployable army, and possibly; in time; the Corps, although obviously currently it is LAND that is skint. Weapon training and core shooting skills require ongoing and progressive training, hence the requirement for a minimum tested standard each year. (I won’t get into the reality of how much shooting is or should be done.) The SAT and blank can only fill part of the gap left by not live firing. I note that live firing prior to HERRICK will only commence at the 3 month point, compare this to what is currently happening or BANNER; when in-unit training would have commenced at around the 6 months point. Obviously I don’t have data to hand but my gut feeling is this will be a real cut in operational individual and collective training.
You say that it affects only non-deploying units but that is clearly not the case as it will restrict live firing training to the Optag period. I would also point out that; as discussed and argued in many forums incl here and ArRSe; that there is no such thing as a rear area and therefore, IMO, all deploying troops require comprehensive, long term shooting training. It is this that builds the instinct and muscle memory that could be key when a "REMF" is required to fire in earnest once during his tour.
Noting also that it is effecting arty units, this seems more like the moratorium of the early 80s than a slight glitch. Will it be fuel or track mileage next?
IMD
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
Firing small arms - in order to practice drills, rather than marksmanship - with live ammunition does not make you a better member of a Fire Support Team if you are using blank ammunition instead.

Simples.

As stated above, I agree that this is a non-story dressed up to reflect a more serious situation. The media should get to the root of the problem rather than appeal to the headline-friendly stories that appeal to the masses... :oops:
 

dixie_gooner

Lantern Swinger
#6
Re: British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save

sgtpepperband said:
Firing small arms - in order to practice drills, rather than marksmanship - with live ammunition does not make you a better member of a Fire Support Team if you are using blank ammunition instead.

nor does using live ammunition to fire off the back end at no target at all. but we still do it
 
#8
Re: British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save

Are the TA still issued waders for the times they fire on wet ranges prolonged kneeling on wet ranges can bring forth rheumatics?
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#9
sgtpepperband said:
Firing small arms - in order to practice drills, rather than marksmanship - with live ammunition does not make you a better member of a Fire Support Team if you are using blank ammunition instead. I agree but the issue is marksmanship not drills. I don't know a SAA instructor or PW anywhere that would suggest using ammo to purely to practice drills. However the drills carried out under realistic (battle) shooting conditions are an integral part of that shooting practise. This is why we have AOSP and LFTT! As you said specifically marksmanship I will add do not confuse the aims of TBS with an afternoon on Straight Point.

Simples.

As stated above, I agree that this is a non-story dressed up to reflect a more serious situation. Again I fail to see, please explain to my slow old brain, how the loss of shooting training for all except those in preparation for deployment is a non-story. Now, I accept your next point that the issue goes deeper but the fact that the shortfall of expenditure on current Ops is impacting on collective training does not make it unimportant in its own right. The media should get to the root of the problem rather than appeal to the headline-friendly stories that appeal to the masses... :oops:
The intent of this story is about more than the restrictions on low cost consumables, ammo in this case. It clearly states that cuts include arty ammo and man training days for the TA (at a time when they are being increasingly deployed in support of operations). The cuts in consumables (other items will be effected) will have very little impact on the deficit but overall a massive impact on things such as vehicle availability, training, official travel, etc. Using the figures in the article; saving 5 million rounds (a huge amount in terms of unit allocations) will save only £1.5 million. Experience tells me that cuts to unit budgets, all areas, will be on the cards also.
That this is symptomatic of a deeper malaise, agreed, not important, disagree.
 
#10
Re: British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save

A more interesting article would be the government saving wonga by not sending the benifit scrounging tossers of our fair nation on well deserved (sic) hols because they are fuggin depressed!!!!!!!!