plus ça change …
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Army buries the beret
Dan Oakes
August 20, 2010
ICONIC berets worn by Australian troops on battlefields across the world and down through the decades will be seen no more.
Chief of Army Ken Gillespie angered soldiers this week by ordering them — with the exception of special forces — to wear the slouch hat from now on.
‘‘He is not a popular man with the soldiers, I can tell you,’’ a soldier said of Lieutenant-General Gillespie.
Photographs at the Australian War Memorial show how much a part of army life the berets have been: a cavalry corporal sporting Ray Ban sunglasses adjusts his beret while perched atop an armoured personnel carrier in Vietnam, 1971; an instructor lectures future tank commanders on gunnery drill at Puckapunyal in 1942; a young soldier laughs with East Timorese boys in a Dili street in 1999.
The slouch hat is the primary form of headgear for the army, but armoured and aviation corps and military police also wear berets regularly . There has traditionally been some discretion allowed as to whether a unit sports a beret.
As well as the historical reasons for troops wanting to retain their berets, there are practical considerations, with berets better suited to troops operating predominantly in vehicles.
‘‘Although this may seem a trivial matter for those outside of the army, I am predicting an unprecedented backlash from soldiers,’’ a second soldier told The Age. ‘‘For example, members of the battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment — who wear the rifle green beret — are banned from wearing their beret from mid-September.
‘‘I look forward to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation being employed to design hat racks for tanks, light armoured vehicles and Tiger helicopters.’’
A Defence spokesman confirmed the order, but said several factors were relevant to the decision.
‘‘Berets are no longer to be worn as headdress with dress of the day by members of the Australian Army,’’ he said. ‘‘Berets may be authorised for wearing as headdress with ceremonial orders of dress under specific circumstances.
‘‘The decision has been made to ensure that measures are in place to ensure an appropriate balance between sun protection, heritage considerations and the wearing of the slouch hat, which is iconic and central to the Australian army’s image.’’
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James said the order could have practical implications, but the effect on morale would be softened somewhat by the leeway for ceremonial occasions.
‘‘It will be an interesting occupational health and safety experiment, particularly for the crews of armoured vehicles and helicopters,’’ he said.
‘‘But corps and units that wear berets will still be able to do so on ceremonial occasions, so it won’t have the emotional wrench that it might otherwise have had.’’
My emphasis
http://www.theage.com.au/national/army-buries-the-beret-20100819-12s3q.html
When I joined the reserves forty odd years ago my RSM (see next post - he was an institution in the RAAC) impressed upon me and the other recruit going off for basic training that the infantry ****s running the show would try to make us wear slouches instead of our armoured berets, and that if we wore a slouch he’d know about it and would make our lives a ****ing misery beyond ****ing belief when we returned to the unit. We would wear our berets with pride regardless of what the infantry and other instructor ****s did, or we weren’t worthy of them. Also, he would make our lives a ****ing misery upon return to the unit.
We got the message.
We didn’t wear slouches, although the infantry ****s running the show did try to make our lives a misery. Also the artillery **** major, and sundry others.
Pride in an arm, branch or unit is instilled in many ways, and it relates to espirit de corps and morale and other things that help make them effective.
Depriving people of those things will usually be counterproductive.
I assume that this latest innovation has been generated by the defence zombies who recommend using scissors to fix up their latest equipment **** up, although they don’t issue scissors in the basic kit, which presumably is designed by accountants and seamstresses.
BAH! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
SOLDIERS in Afghanistan have complained that their government-issued equipment is failing during firefights with the Taliban and putting them at risk of injury or death.
Leaked Defence Department documents reveal that four official complaints have been received from the Middle East and from training bases in Australia - one on May 7, and three from June 11-18 - about the standard-issue ammunition pouches soldiers must use.
‘‘Soldiers have significant difficulty in removing their magazines from their issued … . pouch due to the pouch simply being too tight,’’ said one complaint, obtained by The Age.
''This could lead to the lack of capability in a lethal environment causing unnecessary casualties or death.
The Defence Department said it is developing new pouches in response to complaints and they should be issued by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, army headquarters has ordered soldiers to use scissors to modify the pouches to eliminate a potentially dangerous defect.
In two incidents in the past three months, soldiers have misplaced live rounds for blank rounds during training exercises because a divider in the pouch can ‘‘hide’’ a loose round at the bottom of the pouch.
The rounds were accidentally loaded into a magazine when they was stuffed in the pouch.
In one incident, on June 11, the official document reports: ‘‘The RODUM [reports of defective or unsatisfactory materiel] identifies that a live round was found mixed in with blank ammunition in the . . . webbing of a trainee when being admitted to hospital.’’
‘‘The RODUM identifies that the divider folds could have concealed the live round during a range clearance from a previous live-round practice but cannot confirm this was the case in this instance.’’
Soldiers have been advised to cut the divider away, Defence admitted this week. Troops have also been advised to take more time to check the pouches for live rounds after range exercises.
In May 2009, the military banned the use of non-issue pouches preferred by many soldiers on operations because a soldier was shot through the same kind of accident.
The ban led to uproar among combat soldiers on online forums and a string of official complaints.
In the latest such complaint, also obtained by The Age, combat soldiers in Afghanistan have warned the Defence Department’s top brass that the problem is putting lives at risk.
The leak follows an investigation in early May, which revealed troops were being issued with defective equipment because the Defence Materiel Organisation was riddled with questionable tender practices and incompetence.
The Chief of Army, Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, and the head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Stephen Gumley, put out a statement in response claiming they contained ‘‘inferences’’ that were inaccurate.
In his statement, General Gillespie said the DMO ‘‘provides safe, fit for purpose, high-quality clothing and personal equipment’’.
On June 1, he told a Senate estimates hearing that: ‘‘The vast majority of troops acknowledged that they were among the best-equipped troops in the theatre. The inference is that, because we have some issues with pouches at the present time, we have let our soldiers down. I do not accept that.’’
Five days later, a combat soldier logged a formal complaint that the ‘‘pouches fail to meet the operational usage required by infantry soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan’’.
‘‘The Land 125 Minimi magazine pouches as designed are not robust enough under operational conditions,’’ it said.
‘‘The link inside these pouches falls forward and de-seats causing an ammunition stoppage on the two in-service machineguns … denying the operator lethal effect.’’
In April 2009, a commanding officer in Oruzgan province, Major Michael Bassingthwaighte, wrote that equipment ‘‘failed to meet the standard required for the deployment’’.
It was revealed in May that 90 per cent of Major Bassingthwaighte’s soldiers bought gear at their own expense.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/troops-say-gear-failing-in-war-zone-20100817-128iw.html
When I was in the reserves four decades ago about 100% of us bought our own equipment, and usually spent considerably more on it than we were paid for our army service.
It looks like things are getting better for the regular army now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
