Ambidextrous assault
Right of reply: In January’s Talkback Maj Jim Mowie, chief of staff of HQ Land Forces’ Equipment Directorate, acknowledged that while other rifles can be converted to be fired from either shoulder, the accuracy of these weapons does not match that of the British Army’s SA80 A2
Picture: Graeme Main
IN response to a letter enquiring about the possibility of the British Army procuring a left-handed rifle, “Left-field rifle request” (January), Maj Jim Mowie of HQ Land Forces’ Equipment Directorate argued that no such weapon was required on the grounds that left-handed firers adapt successfully to firing from the right shoulder.
I was serving when the SA80 was being trialled (in 4.85mm calibre) and was introduced to the rifle at Bisley, where I was told that a small toolkit issued to unit armourers would allow for the configuration of the weapon to be changed from right- to left-handed in about ten minutes.
Clearly this feature did not survive the trials process and only a right-handed version of the SA80 entered service.
The point that Maj Mowie misses is that a weapon should be able to be shot from either shoulder, depending on the piece of cover that the soldier wishes to fire from.
At all stages of my training with the SLR [Self-Loading Rifle] and during operational training for Northern Ireland, I was taught to fire off both shoulders. As a left-hander I was able to move along the left-hand side of a street and cover my front man, who in turn could cover me with his weapon on his right shoulder. The two men at the rear of the patrol could swap shoulders at will and one would always be covering to the rear.
With the SA80 such a formation is not possible and soldiers have had to adapt to the weapon instead of the other way round. In contrast, both the general purpose machine gun and light machine gun can be fired from both shoulders giving the firer greater flexibility.
The M16/C7 series of ArmaLite derivatives together with the AK47 family can be fired from both shoulders and those two weapon systems dominate the world of long-barreled small arms.
How many countries use the SA80? Very few. Of the other successful “bullpup” designs, how many are right-handed only? The French FAMAS and Austrian Steyr can both be adapted for left-hand use and the FN P90 and the new Kel-Tec RFB are fully ambidextrous. In other words it is only the British Army’s weapon which restricts the firer to one shoulder. – Maj P Cook, HQ Theatre Troops, Netheravon.
new Sharpshooter rifle
I READ with interest the article on the new Sharpshooter rifle in February’s issue and couldn’t help but notice the weapon’s remarkable resemblance (from the outside at least) to the 7.62mm AR10 version of the M16.
While the AR10 is a weapon that received considerable praise when it was designed in the 1950s it would seem odd to pay more than £3,000 per rifle for them in the 21st Century. I am sure that National Match accurised M14s would be available from Springfield or the American Government for a much better deal and would provide much the same performance.
Even the humble SLR or heavy barrel FN might be readily available in large numbers and, equipped with the undoubtedly improved sighting system, would do the job required. Perhaps Soldier could provide a bit more technical detail on the new rifle. – Erik Blakeley, Curator, Staffordshire Regiment Museum.
The editor, pondering on an excuse to get out of polishing his own guns, writes: The Sharpshooter is featured in Top guns.
Time for tax-free tours?
Taxing conditions: The Operational Allowance recognises the “significantly increased and enduring nature of danger” encountered by British troops in theatres such as Afghanistan and is not a tax rebate
Picture: LA(phot) Gaz Faulkner
I HAVE just finished an operational tour in Iraq and duly received my operational bonus. Looking back on my previous tours with the British Army it is noticeable that the organisation has come on leaps and bounds when it comes to pay.
That said, I understood the operational payment to be a tax rebate for the six-month deployment and, having done the maths, I am sure it falls short of the sum I have paid out. Would a simpler solution not be to follow the lead of our American and Australian cousins and for British soldiers to stop paying tax when they deploy? – Name and address supplied.
Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), responds: I agree with you that much has been done in recent years to improve financial recognition given to members of the Armed Forces and I assume that the “operational bonus” that you refer to in your letter is the Operational Allowance (OA).
This payment is often mistaken as a tax rebate for time spent on operations, probably because the original rate was based on the tax paid over six months by a private soldier with five years’ service.
However, OA is not and never has been a tax rebate. It is an allowance designed to recognise the significantly increased and enduring nature of danger in specified operational locations over and above that compensated for by X Factor.
The allowance is paid as a lump sum (at the daily rate of £13.08) at the end of a qualifying tour. It is paid equally to all ranks at a rate which is reviewed annually and is set by the Treasury in consultation with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
RECENT newspaper reports stated that soldiers on “operational tours” are entitled to a “tax-free bounty”. Does Cyprus qualify for this payment?
As TA soldiers, my colleagues and I would also normally qualify for a bounty on completition of our Military Annual Training Tests (MATTs). On our return from Cyprus in October 2010, will we automatically qualify for our bounty in April 2011 or will we still need to complete additional duties?
We are also due to be downsized to a squadron at the end of the tour and a number of our members will be transferring to other units. Will those on the move still qualify for their bounty or will they have to make arrangements with their new units to complete the required number of training days? – LCpl N Gribben, 40 Sig Regt.
Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), writes: Newspapers do not always use the correct terms for Service allowances and the “tax-free bounty” you are referring to is the OA, which is outlined in my response above. Those serving on Op Tosca are not eligible for this allowance.
Bounty qualification while on operations is specified in Joint Service Publication 754 (chapter 4, section 5), which states that entitlement to any bounty will be suspended when a Reservist is called out for permanent service except when such duty is authorised to count in lieu of obligatory training.
However, it is recognised that your pre-deployment training covers many aspects of your training year. It is anticipated that your Op Tosca mobilisation will last for approximately 30 weeks, which means that you should be entitled to a reduction of seven out-of-camp training days to qualify for bounty. If you did not attend any out-of-camp training days prior to mobilisation you will have an obligation to train for five days out of camp in order to qualify.
Personnel who move after their unit reduces to squadron-strength should take their current MATTs and bounty-earning qualifications with them. If elements of training have been undertaken by the new unit before they were taken on strength, the CO has the ability to extend the training year to April 30 in order to give time for training for bounty to take place. In certain circumstances the CO may apply to the regional brigade for a further extension to June 30.
Short hair, chinos and brogues – Sandhurst style does not suit all
 Right, Model soldier: On April 1, 2005 Soldier broke the “news” that Sandhurst cadets were to be given lessons in style after fashionistas criticised would-be officers’ unofficial civvy uniform – a wardrobe consisting of “brogues, mustard cords, red jeans, blazers and slacks, and tweed and wax jackets”
IN December’s issue of Soldier a “frustrated soldier” wrote in querying “why we need to be groomed in a 1950s’ style”, asserting the truism that “a hairstyle doesn’t dictate the combat effectiveness of a soldier”.
A useful answer from the chain of command would have identified the standards required, the rationale for them and any argument for amending them, and perhaps protected soldiers by cautioning over-zealous SNCOs against imposing their own interpretation of the rules.
Instead, Brig Griffiths’s reply was notable only in its singular failure to address the substance of the complaint, and the patronising manner in which it did so.
Queen’s Regulations (QR) for the Army state: “The hair of the head is to be kept well cut and trimmed – style and colour (if not natural) is not to be of an exaggerated nature.” This does not justify the lobotomised company sergeant major mentality to which the complainant’s letter alludes in which soldiers’ hair has to be shorn “needlessly short”, as if to remove any semblance of individuality.
While traditional in Phase One training, treating soldiers thereafter as children (or sheep) is, I believe, condescending and archaic and, in less economically depressed times, detrimental to retention.
As a direct entry officer I was thoroughly institutionalised by the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst ten years ago and while I am quite happy to embrace 1950s’ chic in the form of short hair, beige chinos and brown brogues, I do not impose my archaic fashion shortcomings upon my subordinates – nor should others.
To quote the British Army Review in 2006: “No other organisation in the UK controls its people as closely as does the Army (not even the RN or RAF. We have rules for everything). The social circumstances of Britain have changed as have the expectations and behaviour of individuals within the Army.
“Soldiers are less willing to be told what to do, especially in their private lives. More separation between Service life and private life is desirable and may be essential to recruit and retain.”
More recently the same author [Col (Retd) John Wilson, Editor, British Army Review] commented that “the Army is still the recognisable post-National Service army of 1960, but that is fast changing”. Not fast enough apparently. – Disappointed officer, name and address supplied.
Brig Mike Griffiths, DPS(A), responds: Thank you for reproducing the section from the QR on haircuts, to which I would add the final piece “sideburns are not to descend below the mid-point of the ear and are to be trimmed horizontally”. These are the standards expected of a male soldier, which gives adequate scope to be presentable and even fashionable (with a bit of wax or gel to help it along).
With something like hair you need to be precise or anarchy will prevail as each soldier sets his own standards – that is after all why we recruit people who push the envelope.
But let me be quite clear; no senior officer has given direction that could interpret a shaven head as the expected standard for a haircut.
Your letter misses the point that officers are essential to the process of interpreting orders and giving SNCOs clear direction so that the standards laid down in the QR and by the chain of command are enacted. If the SNCOs in the original letter are enforcing an over-zealous interpretation of the guidelines then the officers’ role, your role, is to mitigate this.
As an officer of some ten years seniority you are probably a major, perhaps in a command appointment with the responsibility of maintaining and in some cases interpreting the standards expected of you and your soldiers. Hair, dress, equipment carriage, battlefield discipline all fall to you and your SNCOs to enforce. It is not for us to question which ones to impose, when and why. If so, why have any standards at all?
Hair, like medals, is a contentious issue. We have clear standards and until the Chief of the General Staff decides a change is needed then we must abide by them.
|
