It Wasn't Like That in My Day! National Service Meant Everyone Had the Same Education!

Chuck Unsworth, our resident veteran, has a look at one of the aspects of service life that those who have never served rarely understand 

It occurred to me the other day, reading how Des Browne, our defence secretary, apparently believes that most soldiers aren’t well enough educated to get any other job, that the education given by anyone who does join the forces is second to none. No wonder our troops don’t think that the rest of us value them sufficiently. Frantic Friday night commuters hurrying west out of London to their various homes, weekend cottages, and country seats are usually too busy trying to preserve life and limb on the motorways to pay much attention to the passing terrain.  But the Thames Valley and the areas surrounding the M3, M4 and M40 are full of military and naval establishments, some large and some miniscule, where the forces are given a far better grounding in life than many civilians. It isn’t just about learning how to kill, even when it seems to be just that.

In the middle of Wiltshire at Warminster is one of the smallest units.  It’s the Headquarters of the Small Arms School Corps.  A modest establishment, it has a tightly crammed museum of various weapons of various types dating from the 16th century onwards, from pistols up to and including mortars and anti-tank missile launchers.  There is a fine library, too, with some remarkable documents.  You can visit the museum, (by appointment, 0930 -1630 hours Tuesdays to Thursdays) and it is quite extraordinary. They have a website, which gives an insight. Naturally the Corps would prefer that visitors did not remove the exhibits and take them home with them, so visitors are usually accompanied.

The SASC itself began life as the School of Musketry in the 1850’s at Hythe, on the Kent coast. Those ranges are still regularly used and I occasionally drive along that coast road, remembering fine summer days by the sea there. The School was established partly in response to developments in weapons technology which were beginning to have profound effects on battlefield techniques.  The advent of rifled barrels had increased accuracy and effective range of personal weapons, and that led to various changes, such as armies fighting at ever increasing distances. So the Corps was formed and its principal function was to develop the fighting efficiency of soldiers using small arms in the field.  It became a repository of skill and knowledge which remains unrivalled. The Corps recruits its members only from serving personnel, and it is rightly very cautious about who may join its ranks. Only a few people join each year, maybe one per month - the total number of SASC members is just about two hundred. So one can understand that these are rare beasts.

My first encounter with anyone from the SASC was when we were being instructed in the use of the Bren Gun. A magazine-fed Light Machine Gun with a fire rate of about 500 rounds per minute, we were taught to use the Bren at ranges of up to 1,000 yards when firing single rounds, and about 600 yards on automatic. It’s a beautiful Czech designed piece of engineering, robust, simple to maintain, nicely balanced and with minimal recoil, it was a joy to handle and use. The Bren was subsequently replaced by the General Purpose Machine Gun, which I did not really take to in the same way. 

Our Warrant Officer instructor elegantly demonstrated whole new applications of sciences to us. Things we had forgotten from our school days were suddenly brought back to life as he showed how kinetic and potential energy, chemistry, physics and mathematics all came into the concept of suppressing and defeating an enemy. Weapons’ training was no longer just a question of aim and shoot; our lessons became a wider understanding of so many other factors and calculations, a real broadening of vision. In my experience most, if not all, training in the armed forces is of the same extremely high standard - the true application of the academic to the practical.

So it is somewhat depressing to read reports of a Minister for Defence apparently denigrating the academic abilities of the junior ranks, indicating that young recruits are not paid as much as those in uniformed civilian organisations because they lack the qualifications needed for other jobs. True, these young men and women may not be particularly well qualified on entry, but by the time they finish their service they have been polished and honed and above all, taught, to be very useful and properly motivated members of society. How many other organisations do that?  And during the course of their service many of these people are routinely being exposed to mortal danger – does this happen in the Accounts Department or Customer Service very often?

Anyway, given the choice of an academic success or an ex-serviceman or woman, I know which one I’d employ. It’s attitude, not a paper diploma, that counts.

Comments

[William29]

All of the officers come complete with silver spoon and the men tip the forelock and utter Yus Sir ! This man displays a level of stupidity that explains the lofty heights he has achieved within the
party, me thinking you could not make Hoon look bright - Des has at least managed this - qualification for the Magic Circle! Making crass statements on subjects he knows nothing about, then again, that is his brief ! Where do the highly skilled men in an infantry Bn come from, (I remember teaching such subjects as - Intervisibility by resection) Mortars Anti Tank, Signallers, Assault Pioneers - not easy to teach to the - ill educated!
Yes Chuck is right, many soldiers leave the army with more confidence and because of the constant need for good communication leave better equipped for employment. I would remind Des that the services continue loyally do his bidding, insulting the servants is not the mark of a gentleman . Honourable or not !

[William29]

"Britain to send more key-skill troops" Someone in the MoD could have at least told Des, he was not aware that the forces have specialists, experts and skilled personnel, in engineering, logistics, training, EDUCATION, medicine and other skills.

[Dennis]

From my experience in the military the MOD and its officers could not have cared less about the 'other ranks' educated or not. That officers still retain their rank after leaving the mob says everything about them. The whole military system is a tragedy equipment wise as it ever was. From D-Day Lands, those glorious men, supported by the pathetic 'Cromwell' tank to the demise of, the finest rifle the MOD ever produced (7.62 SLR)in favour of the pathetic - SA80 and please don't tell me the SLR's demise was to 'standardise' ammunition. We dragged (Royal Marine Anti-tank) the abysmal one ton 'Mobat - Recoiless Gun' like fools around Europe. Broke my heart but I was glad to get out. Trapped in Military Law and then to be ill equiped - disgraceful; criminal.

[William29]

Dennis:

A few points;
1. SLR - Yes great weapon, but the British Army as far back as the first world war were asking for a small calibre high powered rifle.
2. I would venture that the best rifle was one the army never got;
The EM-2 Enfield No 9 .280 calibre.
(Google em-2 Enfield) Killed off as the ammo was not standard NATO. You also forget that the Centurion was in developement but was not in time for the war.Bat/Mobat/ Wombat yes big heavy pieces but would not want to have been on the other end ! We all have experiences that form our views on life, yours are just different than mine. Non the less valid though!

[William29]

Further to my last: I should have continued with the EM-2 (1951)story. This weapon was years ahead of its time. And was in fact to be adopted by the army. a change of government and refusal of the USA to adopt this ammunition put a stop on it. The Canadians and Belgians had indicated that they would develop weapons to use the .280 round.Churchill did not wish to upset the USA, and agreed on 7.62mm calibre. Enfields attempted to up calibre the EM-2 this failed. We then adopted the FN which was modified into the GS SLR. Which as Dennis said was a good weapon, not good in close quarter the length of the rifle could be a problem. In true American style they developed their own small calibre rifle (m16). I only met one old hand who swore blind that the EM-2 was a winner, he had been in a trials battalion. I have my own favourite rifle any mark of the No 4 Rifle. which from my cadet days I can still name every component of -
I know sad !!

[Chuck Unsworth]

It may be apocryphal, but I did hear a comment that the Gurkhas did not take very kindly to the M16 in jungle conditions, generally preferring the SLR. Two criticisms were made - that the M16 was fragile and needed constant cleaning, and that its lightweight ammunition did not penetrate jungle vegetation in quite the same way as the heavier 7.62mm SLR round.

How true that is I really do not know, but is this not also a discussion about kinetic energy?

[ted Clark]

on leaving the forces at the end of a short service commission, i rapidly learnt to pitch my employment interviews in different ways. older guys with service experience knew what you could do and the responsibilities you had carried. younger md's had no idea and had some cartoon colonel blimp idea of service life where you just swanned about languidly raising an arm in salute and saying carry on sarnt major. sadly this huge gap is still with us, even more so now with the retirement of the national service generation