48Highlander said:
You misunderstood, I wasn't bashing the airforce.
And, Retired CC, I wasn't bashing individual supply techs either, I know that most of the time the ones I deal with are usualy friendly and try to be helpful but are hampered by policy or an incompetent superior.
However, there is deffinitiely a lot that needs improving in the supply system at the ASU's and bases I've had to deal with. There's also a lot of improvement that could be made in the selection proccess for, and evaluation of, clerks at the unit level, at least within the reserves. The few times I've dealt with regforce clerks working on actual bases, my experiences have always been positive, so maybe it's not so bad outside of toon-land.
As for the airforce/army thing, once again, I wasn't trying to bash anyone, I was just pointing out what GO tried to explain in his last post - that different bases have different levels of service. Not neccesarily because someone is trying to "pamper" the airforce types; more likely it's a problem within the supply system. Maybe because an airforce member needs less individual pieces of kit, the clothing stores on airforce basis can aquire and stock more of it. Maybe because your kit doesn't wear out as quickly as an infanteers, you get more use out of it, therefore exchanging less often and taking some strain off the supply system on your base. I don't know exactly what the cause is, or even how the supply system works on the other side of that counter, but there has to be a reason why you've had mainly positive experiences whereas those of us who aren't airforce have had plenty of negative ones.
Fair 'nuff - point taken.
Perhaps I can shed some reasoned light on the subject. My (now retired) wife was a Sup Tech. She served with the Airforce (in Edmonton, back when it was an Airbase), 1 Svc Bn, 7 CFSD, and 1 GS Bn. I got to hear about the problems of all the organizations she was in (and hear about it, and hear about it, and hear about it! If any of you repeat this to her, I'll deny saying it!! Uh - some idiot posted this and signed my name to it!).
Anyway - when she was on the Airbase, and when she was with 7 CFSD her ONLY job was Supply. She was a soldier, yes, but her job in those places could have been done by a civvie (in fact one of her biggest complaints with 7 CFSD was having civvie "union Gods" as "supervisors".)
Now - when she was with 1 Svc Bn she was totally a field soldier - her platoon was not tasked with anything but supporting 1 CMBG field deployments. When not deployed, she and her platoon TRAINED - basic "soldier" training, trades training, etcetera.
When she was posted to 1 GS Bn she was part of a unit that had a "split personality". Members were tasked not only with support to what used to be known as "Base Functions" (which were static in nature), but were also tasked with "field functions" - providing deployable third line supply functions to LFWA, including 1 CMBG. The resultant mess was predictable - she and her fellow GS Bn soldiers ran around like chickens with their heads cut off - attempting to provide "Base" functions (in her case - Clothing Stores), while at the same time having kit inspections, CO's marches, ranges, etcetera, etcetera. There didn't seem to be any identifiable MISSION. To be fair to GS Bn leadership, she was a Cpl and therefore not privy to the decisions being made higher up - but the result was confusion, poor service to the soldiers (which ripped her apart, by the way) and lackadaisical field training. The whole mess contributed to her decision to pull the plug.
Now - peripheral to the above discussion - I was the Ops NCO in 1 Svc Bn when some genius came up with the idea for GS Bns. I was involved in producing TO&Es, org charts, etcetera, etcetera. I did NOT have any input into the organization, I merely assisted - but that involvement gave me a unique perspective on what GS Bns were conceived to be. They were NOT conceived to be "field deployable" - and therefore the extra manning required to enable them to both conduct their PRIMARY mission of STATIC support to Army bases AND conduct "soldier training" was NOT built into them. (Neither were the weapons, MSE, or other ancillary considerations).
I don't know where/when/how 1 GS Bn (I cannot speak about 2 and 5 GS Bns, as I simply don't know) acquired a field deployable role. I can attest to the fact, however, that it wasn't
supposed to have that role and wasn't manned for it (at least at inception). I don't believe that their TO&E or REMAR was EVER changed to reflect the changing reality. You are now all living with the result.
Having said all that - perhaps the (perceived?) difference in support between Airforce and Army bases has it's roots in the fact that Airforce base personnel, for the most part, don't have a concurrent role which, on a regular basis, takes them away from their primary trades function?
I dunno - I'm just a dumb ass retired CSS soldier.
