Source Branch to Warfare!

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by Jenny_Dabber, Jun 15, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK, there must be a good few of you who are still serving or were at the time that the 'Source Branch' (Sonar/Radar/Gunners etc) evolved into the 'Warfare Branch' (OM's).

    What is your take on this? Keep in mind that the RN tried to revert back to its source branch roots in some sort of way be introducing the 'Topmast'.

    Do you think having the separate trades such as UW (Under water warfare), AW (Above water warfare), EW (electronic warfare), MW (Mine warfare) and C (Comms) work better as a whole?

    Also, if you were source before hand, were you given the oppotunity to switch over to warfare?
  2. I was and always have been source branch and always called myself a CRS despite what my pay chit said :)

    In my opinion the WB never worked properly and should never have been implemented in the first place. Several other NATO navies tried it and binned it, but no, the good old RN 'would' make it work. It didn't.

    The RN now finds itself having more or less turned full circle and gone back to operators and maintainers.

    For many of the older folk (RNA peeps) this was done many, many years ago as well. For me, its the good ideas club in the ivory towers who keep re-inventing the wheel. They should concentrate on the wider issues instead. Such as; better living conditions, kit, not working all hours and no longer having the carrot of a decent run ashore, not going from deployment to workup-to deployment-to work up-to deployment!!

    There is very little fun left in the RN nowadays with runs ashore disappearing faster than John Prescott's salad bar.

    So to answer your question Jenny. NO, RAM THE WARFARE BRANCH up the nearest Whitehall pen pushers backside.
  3. The real question is if the warfare branch was not introduced or introduced with better planning and more forethought how many of us from the source branches would still be in ? I for one would be one and be a gong killick or po so maybe there wouldnt be the impending black hole in sr's i agree totally with brigham600 it should have been used as a supositry in whitehall
  4. I had the good fortune to be teaching in Collingwood and had many a class where source were being "re trained", what nonsense, half of them didn't want to change and how can you teach the technical side of things to people who don't want to be there ? It is hard enough when they do..
    It was a major factor in my decision to leave before completing my 22.

Share This Page