I suspect that anyone who serves, or has served, in the armed forces will accept, I think, that they exist or have existed in an acronym-rich environment.
I first became aware of this as a very junior subaltern, and was moved to write a whimsical piece for my regimental magazine which incorporated as many of the then current acronyms in everyday use that I could think of.
It was indeed a foreign language to everybody else.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The author, Stuart Crawford, was a regular officer in the Royal Tank Regiment for twenty years, retiring in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 1999. Crawford attended both the British and US staff colleges and undertook a Defence Fellowship at Glasgow University.
More recently I was reminded of this phenomenon when compiling the glossary for a military themed book I have just completed. It runs to at least four and a half pages of mostly acronyms. Although most would probably understood by the military reader, a civilian would most likely be mystified by the bulk of them. We military and ex-military people do speak a different language at times, which is probably not altogether a good thing.
More recently, however, I have been alerted to the growing concern over what can only be described as military gobbledy-gook being spouted by, in some cases, the higher echelons of our military hierarchy. The first example I took any note of was when a commander of some nameless organisation asserted that his unit’s mission was to “deliver effects”. What on earth does that mean? It sounded to me like he was in charge of a white van delivery service.
Whatever has happened to “defeat the enemy”?
I noted that there was a groundswell of opinion on the topic from others on this particular topic, so I decided, as one does in these enlightened times, to turn to the wonderful world of social media to ask my fellow travellers for examples with which I might further illustrate this article. Some of the responses are listed below and need no additional comment from me.
Some of the views expressed were:
“Pieces written at the senior level could come straight out of a business management lecture from the 1980’s, hosted by David Brent. The ability to write so many words and yet say so little make politicians look like amateurs.”
“It’s awful in some places. Some of my favourites so far: ‘Unpacking a problem’ ‘Get after it’ ‘Opera-cise’ ‘Federated Sprints’ ‘Set piece back briefs’ ‘Leadership acumen’ ‘Talking to space’ ‘Information is lethal’ ‘Blue light matrix’. The list goes on and on.”
“If only real English were used in grammatically normal sentences then it would at least be understandable. The lazy careerist adoption of ‘vogue’ phraseology is an area I would seek adjustment. ‘Get after’, ‘piece’ and countless short-hand phrases our allies don’t recognise.”
“Some recent examples: ‘delivery’ for anything from projects to security but not of supplies; ‘migration’ meaning change; ‘stepping up to plates’; ‘victim operated devices’ (mines); ‘interface’ (boundary); ‘game-changer’; & the worst alongside ‘delivery’ is ‘kinetic’ for lethal.”
“‘Getting after’ has made its way into the Navy too. I don’t think it’s going away any time soon as CDS and the other 4*s use it all the time … any unscripted address or Q&A session with a senior officer seems to include a few ‘getting after’s’ these days. Absolute nonsense.”
“When did parachuting become ‘Joint Theatre Entry’? Why? It’s just total rubbish.”
And some examples from official published sources:
“Today, all operations are a combined effort. Pulling together every component of the army, including those engaged in activities in cyberspace, to create an irresistible effect. All elements in an orchestra, operating in harmony.”
“Air-to-air sniping is about as challenging as it gets. The seam between the air and ground domains is complex, the RAF Regiment brings focus and intellectual rigour to understanding this environment.”
And finally a heartfelt plea from a civilian organisation on the prospect of moving away from such mumbo-jumbo:
“That would be super useful for those of us who work with the MoD as a client who aren’t military ourselves.”
Now, these quotes are merely the result of a random straw poll on Twitter and cannot be taken as hard scientific evidence of the extent of the plague that currently besets military language. Nor am I the best qualified to draw attention to these matters, in fact some would say that I am hardly qualified at all. For those who might to delve deeper into the lack of plain English in current military discourse may I draw your attention to the splendid article ‘It is time to kill our darlings‘ by the wonderful and expert Merryn Walters in the online blog The Wavell Room?
I won’t spoil it for you but must just feature one particular quote here:
“There is no easy way to put this: until leaders turn their backs on buzzword-laden homilies that are an inspiration to no man and, instead, find some respect for a skill mastered by few but instinctively admired by many … we will carry on shooting ourselves in the foot. It is only a matter of time before that will lead, directly, to someone getting shot in the head (if it hasn’t already).”
And in passing I must just ask; has anybody hired Ms Walters to teach our senior officers how to write and speak in plain English and, if not, why not?
The other question I need to ask is why people do this? Why do they employ obscure and convoluted language to express themselves when there are easier ways to get their ideas across? I think there may be a number of inter-related answers to this one. The first is perhaps acceptance, or the need not to be seen to be different from the current paradigm. If CDS, for example, is championing this sort of gibberish then best just to go with the flow and not stand out. Might not be good for future advancement, know what I mean? It’s very easy to fall prey to what others have called “the tyranny of the prevailing orthodoxy”, although maybe I’m in danger of going down the same path with that one!
Next might come what I call entry into the brotherhood of the cognoscenti, a sort of closed, quasi-masonic sect, without having to go through all the hassle of rolling up your trouser leg and jumping over the goat’s back, or whatever they do. Using the convoluted language and expressions of modern military-speak brings admittance to an exclusive club where everyone can speak complete codswallop without fear or criticism or ridicule because all the other members express themselves in the same manner. Safety and security from the outrageous arrows of fortune in the form of the mirth of others is provided by the exclusive language cult.
Closely related is the overwhelming desire to be regarded as clever and smarter that one’s direct competitors and peer group. In their minds using esoteric language signals their higher intelligence and greater knowledge, gaining entry to the brotherhood of like-minded souls who, clearly, are a superior breed. The reality is, of course, is that it tends to do exactly the opposite and make those who espouse the new military-speak the objects of amusement and ridicule. Plus most folk don’t have a Scooby-doo what they’re talking about.
So, a plea from me and many, many others. Let’s get back to using plain, simple English in our written and spoken communications. As the army diminishes in size and accordingly becomes even more distanced from everyday society, being understood by both the soldiers under command and the population at large becomes ever more important. If they don’t understand, they are less likely to be supportive. How could they be? They don’t know what’s going on.
I finish with some words of advice from George Orwell, who I think most would agree was quite good at writing:
- Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word when a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Orwell’s fifth rule above seems to me to be particularly apposite, and I commend it to you. Senior officers and their drafting staff take heed!
I have followed Merryn Walters work for a while and I strongly suggest everyone else does. Nothing is dumbed-down – quite the opposite in fact – but presented in straightforward no-nonsense English. She knows her stuff.
Anyone remember that bus driver who got an award for changing the operation manual from “Adust the climate controls for best passenger comfort” to “Turn the heater on when it’s cold”?
I never understood why cutlery is called diggers, or sleeping bag a dos bag, or my favorite; a housewife is a sewing kit! Why not use the same names as everyone else on the planet?
Digger… “Foods ready dig in”…
Doss, to sleep rough, Dossbag “a bag to sleep rough in”
The term housewife referring to a portable sewing kit was used in print for the first time in 1749. Such kits were also known as a “hussif”. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was common for mothers, wives and sweethearts to embroider personalised sewing kits for their menfolk to take to war… “hence the Housewives package, became House wife…
I understand what people are saying, but why should we loose our language, colloquialisms, military jargon just to be ”hip”…
Before JPA we would be on leave, after JPA we were absent…
Both mean the same thing, however, being absent from work does not sound a ”correct” as being on leave from work…
To be a contrarian there is nothing wrong with a profession having a common lexicon which the current generation of practitioners understand and utilise. What may seem incompressible to a previous cohort in the industry may just be appropriate in the modern context. For example in the IT world words and phrases that may have seemed jargon at one point (such as e-mail, cloud, file storage, operating system etc) is such common parlance that quite a lot of the general public understand, or at least heard of, these terms. Also, some individual phrases that have been called out for scorn in the article above, such as leadership acumen, do not really seem like jargon at all.
However, when communicating with the public or others outside of its profession the military must be better at using language that its audience is more likely to understand.
Not sure that is quite the right point. e-mail as an example is a good descriptive word. In the electonic world everything was/ is new. A new language, a new lexicon was created by necessity by IT. And as we see, its created it’s own two letter achronym.
But we have had ‘artillery’ for centuries. Why now does it have to be called ‘fires’?
But doesn’t every language evolve, words like ‘sick’ now have different meanings today than 20 years ago. People are drawn to the need to be part of a group or fashionable so use language differently, this is just another permeation of that and part of human nature.
Because nowadays “fires” is a term which covers all indirect and direct weaponry when used in the offensive support role, to include fast air ordnance, missiles (both ground and air launched, smart or dumb) mortars and other such ordnance delivery system. While I agree that there is an excess amount of corporate speak by head sheds, I am a firm believer that terminolgy should change with the weapons and task description and capability. Cheers
Dont see the logic in that at all. You have listed a wide range of munitions, juts what does ‘fires’ mean?
Yes I have listed a large list of munitions which are to be used in the offensive support role, and provide the kinetic effect. Suppose you, and me no longer need to see the logic, but as a previous JTAC, it’s called “joint fires,” and fires for short. Modern warfare has changed and changes continuously and the terminology to describe both actions and capability needs to change also. Here’s a simple one, no longer is a rifle a rifle, it’s now a weapon system due to the fact a different number of “systems” can be added to improve its operational capability depending on your job and requirements.
Hmm
A rifle fires bullets. The vast majority of which don’t hit their target.
It could easily be called an Area Supression Delivery System…. with Minimum Collateral Damage
It’s a rifle.
Its actually a weapon, add further capabilities to it and it becomes a system. But you can call it what you want want mate, as it seems to be an issue with you. But I also see you also ignored the previous explanation in regard to fires. Don’t worry, the military moves on and many of the older served lads do get left behind and don’t understand current thinking. And I’m not refering to the corporate chuff the head sheds bleat, I’m talking about the changes in capabilities and assets which also eventually require a different nomenclature and description.
In my 19 years service and as a weapons instructor I’ve never heard of a rifle being called a weapons system, a weapons system to me is an integrated computerised system that can be controlled either directly or indirectly by one or more users, a rifle with attachments is STILL a rifle, the user or rifleman fires the weapon/rifle by pulling the trigger, hopefully after applying the marksmanship principles correctly and then a round will be sent on its way to the target. Tell me, what attachments to a rifle, would make a rifle a weapons system? When does a rifle become a weapons system? In what UK infantry weapons training pamphlet is a rifle called a weapons system?
Ah Rogbob with new avatar. Ok I will play along with this very old thread? Weapons instructor? Never heard someone from either the SASC or a Skilly (as I was) calling themselves a weapons instructor? And 19 years? You got out just 3 prior to full pension? Bloody hell you need to research the chuff you come out with before continuing your walting!
Yes, 19 years, took phase 3, ex 3/2LI and yes with a full pension. Served at the LDD as an instructor where amongst other duties I was a ‘Weapons Instructor’, also as a NITAT instructor guess where, and other posting across the globe… blah, blah. LOL… Skilly… WTF! Never heard of her. Get a grip. A Rifle is a Rifle regardless of what other shit is attached, I served with wets like you in Saudi, full of milspeak with the latest terminology used to describe basic objects with inflated language, I’m interested in what you would call other objects that are used on a daily basis in the military, just so I can keep up with the current lexicon… as a walt that is. Dangler.
Oh dear, abusive response, with child like comments, but again I will do you a favour and respond. Methinks, firstly please get a grip of yourself and calm yourself down, you are getting excited and not making sense. You got full pension after 19 years? wow thats impressive, not real but impressive, you need a full 22 years for a full pension, but im sure you know that (or your so long out it was the scheme prior to AFP75 WOW?). Oh and if you like to peruse the British Army website, you may find it called a weapon system, so, stop being a Walt with your Saudi stories, as feck all went on there. But you can elaborate and make best effort to impress if thats what you need? And ex 2/3 LI, long time ago then, not realy current in modern combat operations then, never mind pal, its ok.
Apologies for the second reply, had to read your post once more as want really paying attention! Read it and clocked phase 3, redundancy! So just to confirm you are well out of the modern combat loop, joined in 75, and therefore totally unaware of modern combat systems. Thanks for confirming your lack of up to date experience and knowledge. Please try to respect others more up to date experience and views.
See, that didn’t take too long did it, although 75 was a bit before my time, and yes I’m on a full pension. Combat operations… really, WOW!, airborne… Regt or plastic para? FFS don’t say RAF Regt, 5 mile death march and all that. Skilly, have you googled what it means LOL. As for experience and up to date knowledge on weapons and weapons systems, don’t worry I’m up to speed with most of it. So what are you a ‘Skilly’ in – COD, Rainbow Six?
And why do keep referencing the British Army website? Is that where you get your info from… Walter?
Phase 3, out by 94 according to the time frame of the day, you did 19 years, maths aren’t adding up (but I don’t really care, im only answering this long dead thread as I’m on down time) But anyway it’s ok, not everyone had the ability, fitness and aggressive professionalism to become an airborne soldier, so take that crap hat chip off your shoulder and realise even you probably was quite useful to the Army on occasion. So stop being boring, realise when your arguing not for the subject matter but because your possibly little bit disappointed you didn’t achieve what you thought you could, and now as your getting older it’s grating you. It’s ok, no one thinks less of you…..
British army website also states it’s a weapon system! Cheers Harry, enjoy your day dreaming.
And one more rather amusing thing, even the British Army website, on weapon types and uses, call it a weapon system….so goodbye, make more of an effort on educating yourself on the subject if you want to challenge me on what to me is a professional lifetime (and continuing) utilising weapon systems of various types. Ta ta for now.
All depends on who’s firing said rifle. lol
It is actually still a rifle.
Calling it a weapon system takes longer and doesnt describe what it does without even more words because “weapon system” could be anything from a flick knife to Trident. Rifle tells you exactly what it is and its broad capabilities.
Did you/others really refer to it as a “weapon system” when someone say dropped one, or you asked them to pass it to you or they told you theirs was broken/jammed? What if they had the rifle and say another “weapon system” such as a pistol, machine gun or rocket type with or near them – how would you distinguish quickly and clearly?
At its core it is still just a gun with a rifled barrel. Sights and attachments are put onto that but 80-90% of what you have as an object is still about being a rifled gun, and so rifle describes what it is, and set expecatations of size/shape/capability far more than “weapon system” does.
It’s a classic spade vs gardening tool case. The former tells you exactly what it is, the latter it could be a wide range of stuff.
Maybe in the RAF you call it a rifle as it’s not your primary role, but as it’s more than a rifle, it becomes a system. And generally if you need to talk about it, to the armourer etc you call it a weapon. And once you add further capabilities it becomes a system. But, then again, many pie and mash units call it a gun……..
You do realise that denigrating other’s service (and assumptions make what remember…), doesnt really form an effective argument as it just illlistrates you cant counter a point? Still, if that’s your style then that’s just your style I suppose.
For the record, when I served alongside Royal Marines they referred to it as a rifle. To easily distinguish it from all the other weapon systems. (And called it the carbine when we switched to that variant as more suited to what we were doing)
They were the most professional and effective soldiers I’ve seen, far above the Infantry I’ve been deployed with, and I’ve encountered enough of the relevant badges.
One of the stand out things with them was a noticable lack of BS. And calling things what they actually were was a key part of that. Now the Navy did when possible try very hard to make up for that lack of BS, but the RMs had a sweet spot of relaxed pragmatism but absolutely on the ball on the stuff that mattered. Which given the nature of the ops, made all the difference to how things went.
I grant the Army doesnt have their standard of people so cant perform to that standard, whilst the RAF doesnt seem to have much to do with rifles anyway bar the Regiment, and the less said about them the better.
So I’ll stick to their view thanks, but you crack on with over-complicating stuff and pretending that equates to professionalism. I think that was one of the original author’s points but like the nonsense of “fires” (which whenever you talk to someone about it, as I have and do, then requires adding a question/modifier to describe what “fire” it actually is, because just using that on its own would be too quick and easy), I guess its better if it goes over ones own head. But, I suppose someone has to believe in the BS, perhaps it somehow saves the rest of us from wasting our time on it?
Wow talk about pot kettle. That was a most childlike response, to my simple statement that as you once stated you repaierd “chinnys” and confirmed to me you served in the RAF, then the “rifle” was not your primary role/task. What was the problem with that? have I hit a nerve? I do appreciate your efforts at pontificating and instead of countering an opinion with another opinion, you seem to try to admonish others for having a seperate experience and lose your “cool front” and resort to childlike “experience dits”.
You would seem to be the most experienced and professional poster on here, and we all should be learning from you, thats for sure. As for “fires”, sorry to say but the RM use that terminology also…..And you served alongside the RMs, so, not an RM then but maybe what we would call a groupie?
Wowser, that was dafter than I expected.
Nope not a RM, although if I’ve regrets its not going down that route as they really impressed me. I suppose given the RAF have actual complicated things called weapon systems, a rifle seems absurdly simple so whilst there is a vast array of complicated terms say to do with a Typhoon, it would be laughable to apply that approach to a mere rifle. Unless you want to appear more intellectual and pretend that really they are similar in some way.
No idea why you mention RMs and “fires” with regard to me, there is no such link between them in my post. But I guess if you dont have an argugment, just fabricate it eh!
I presume your pot kettle is a form of self awareness? I mean really – look at your first and last comments!
As for opinions, I’m not the one who came on here to berate people for not believing that calling a rifle a weapon system was actually super professional and not just over complicated BS that bears out the original author’s points.
Nice of you to compliment my experience and professionalism btw, but I really cant see why you’d place me at the head, I wouldnt. Oh wait, you’re being sarcastic aren’t you! Oh dear, is that not rather childish? especially as you bore on to bleat about the very same.
As for nerves and cool, really? This is an internet forum, how does one get upset about words from randos that have literally zero effect on ones life? Is that what happens with you? Is it what you seek to acheive in others? Being here is just a way of whiling away time. People can take from it what they will, maybe learn, maybe not, its all utterly irrelevant really.
Oh dear, if we are talking about upset you do seem to be spending far to much time making best effort at justifying yourself. Theres no need, Im not overly concerned. But you still ignore the subject matter and continue to resort to child like comments and child like phrases. And as for “fires”, er, come on, please make an effort to read your own posts, your final paragraph is all about the term. But, I do expect you to ignore that and go off on a tangent, with some “my experience dit”…..bah blah.
You have to understand, this is an internet forum where people who have an interest in the military can continue to read and comment. Its not about patronising, grandising and coming up with random “very grey” dits about your vast experince in every single subject matter, while ignoring others. And as for someone who is whiling away the time, you do seem to have quite a lot to while away!
Ahh, interesting, so you dont see a need to justify yourself or evidence experience to make an argument, it just “is” what you say it is. Which explains your complete inability to take being challenged or even questioned on the BS you spouted.
Please just qoute where I’ve linked fires to the RMs. But hey, you like whinging about tangents so I’m hardly surprised you go off on one.
As for childlike:
“ many pie and mash units call it a gun”
“ do appreciate your efforts at pontificating”
“ and we all should be learning from you, thats for sure”
“ maybe what we would call a groupie”
I’ve no idea really what a pie and mash unit is, although assume its derogatory for those units and badges that weren’t at the top of the pyramid such as your own (of course, although one might say that’s rather self appointed and others would disagree), and I’m confused how groupie works when the military literally posts one to jobs… arent groupies by definition there of their own volition, unpaid even? Perhaps you’re projecting a personal habit of hanging around airborne stuff in the hope of some reflected glory? Who knows, who cares. But I’m pretty sure bleating about something whilst doing gets called hypocrisy? Normally one tries to avoid that, but it depends upon personal standards I guess.
Oh and love the snip about time spent writing posts here – define irony!
Wow, your responses continue to come thick and fast, and continue to contain immature replies. But at least we didnt get a “my experience” dit, which surpasses all others, and thats a bonus. Advice for future communication, maybe listen to other people, and if you want to reply, try not to make out that yours is the only voice to be heard. Comunication is two way, not just your way.
Ah, I miser a reply, what a shame. I had a nagging sense the world had deteriorated a bit more but I put it all down to penalties.
You really need to get a dictionary and look up irony and hypocrisy! Seriously I’ve not seen such a case of bleating complaints about your own behaviours in this forum before! Honestly your posts right from the outset dripped with snide remarks aimed at anyone not on your self appointed pyramid and goading comments – but boy can you not take what you give eh!
Look, its not my fault you fell for the “making things overcomplicated” crap that the forces love, and think BS is important, it really isnt. Perhaps it was a big part of your life and you nust lack the ability to take a step back from it? I dont know and I care even less frankly.
As for demanding to know if its Bde or Div or whatever – good grief your view is unbelievably narrow, literally telescoped into whatever tiny little world you knew or claim to have known. What next, demands for JPA copies of assignment orders !? (be interesting if you know the flaw in that statement, anyone who has actually served would…).
There is listening to people, and then there is letting sad old duffers dictate complete BS because that’s all they know. But, as per my first line, look up those words and perhaps take your own advice!
Completely ignored the question and tried to deflect with more extended waffle. It’s just that it’s interesting to know why an RAF missile engineer (18 years ongoing) is talking to people about “fires”! Which raise the question (well quite a few) about when you were “ANA, embedded” as the mentoring the Kandaks, only started on 2006 (OMLTs) first was non Inf ,7RHA, the rest on ever HERRICK was Inf. Other questions are now raised in regard to your TA service, “2000s” etc….
I could go on, lots more you have claimed, none add up. It’s only an internet site for a bit of waffle and chat about military matters, but it’s sad when some have to try to bully, abuse, dictate and patronize to make others bend to their opinion. You need to see others just as important opinions and experience and not have to make up so many “ambiguous experiences dits” In the US they call it stolen glory, over here we call it “walting”, it’s sad, but you clearly have a chip on that shoulder about not being a combat arm! It’s ok, get over it and try to get over it with a little integrity intact. Sad, very sad.
A much slower response this time I see. Most commentators will be suprised at your bluff, bluster and childish diversionary reply, to my polite (not demanding) question. Therefore I will ask once more, could you please let me know how an RAF misslie “engineer” (18 years ongoing) would need to talk to to various people in regard to “fires”? Is that at FST, TACP level, or Bde/Div Arty Cell level?
Also, how would an RAF missile engineer (18 years ongoing) (apologies for my probably incorect terminology) be deployed in an ” fully embedded” mentoring role to a Kandak, when you have fully trained Infantry Battalions allocated to those tasks? I do have MANY more questions but it would be polite and appreciated if you can answer these polite questions. Once again thankyou in advance.
Ignore him, he’s definitely Civpop aka Walt. His vocabulary is that from a dedicated COD warrior, he references the British army website as a source of all things military and never from actual service/experience, at best a blanket stacker, at worst a wannabe, nuff said.
FYI rogbob is long gone as he was caught our walting and is now using a different avatar and email address. Bloody hell you are really struggling with the timeframe on this long dead post. The sad thing is (one off them that is) is you have joined this site, and you have only actually posted in a whining way on a long dead thread, without no effort at posting on current subjects. Go on, I’m excited to hear about your “service in Saudi….” sounds dangerous…..My advice, freely given, take the “I left early from the Army as I couldn’t achieve the next rank so I will take the easy way and easy money” off your shoulder, it’s your demon, you deal with it. Saudi……wow
And “nuff said” wtf hilarious, bit sad, lazy but hilarious cheers for the smiles you don’t realise you raise!
Airborne… is that your COD handle too? Still swinging in the dark I see. Nuff said is taking the piss, you just don’t know it. I’ve read quite a few of your posts, and I’m absolutely certain you are a Walter and a true wannabe, and considering the amount of time you spend on here you must have a lot of ‘down time’ to pontificate about anything you can google and comment on, back to your keyboard ‘Airborne Warrior’ give them hell on COD.
Saudi….wow….
Ah just reading your reply once more, as sorry to say I only skim read it prior as it was quite boring, I see you have to talk to others about “fires” “as you have and do”, and you have to add a question/modifier on what fire it actually is….I’m intrigued on how and why you need to speak to people about it? Do you mean on the ground on a fire mission, CAS mission? Or at planning Bde/Div level? Thank you in advance.
To me ‘weapon system’ sounds as if it should refer to a major medium/heavy weapon, possibly a crew-served weapon when often just a rifle, used as rifle, is meant.
Seemes strange when we like to shorten everything (Afghanistan to Afghan, non-commissioned officer to NCO – that we want to be more wordy elsewhere).
Sorry, I am old school, but not resistant to (good) changes.
Got to go – must now get to the Line of Departure with my 5.56mm weapon system to deliver some kinetic effect to a major player (with support from the fires people, of course!)
Mate im also pretty old school, and know when head sheds are talking corporate chuff. But the rifle thing was just an example (taken way out of context by the argumentive amongst us) of how names can and do change, of both weapons and systems, to describe the “newer” or more updated use or changes to capability. “Fires” is another good example, as thats in common useage and actualy does describe, and collate all the various assets and capbilities of modern OS, which isnt all just kinetic effects or just Arty. Cheers mate.
Thanks Airborne. I always enjoy your posts. Served alongside your kith and kin in Colchester in 2006-9, less a sunshine 6-month break in Helmand.
Thanks mate, lovely Colchester, still live there now….
Fires means fire support, usually indirect and in support of ground troops.
True. I am an old codger and prefer the term ‘fire support’ or a more specific term to define what type of fire support ie ‘CAS’, ‘artillery support’, ‘mortar support’ etc.
Terminology would then be common – in use of the word ‘support’ ie ‘Engineer support’, REME support’, logistic support’. So why not stick with ‘fire support’ too.
No advantage in saying ‘fires’ – its too American, too imprecise.
I fully agree with your last point. ‘Fires’ is clearly an Americanism, possibly dressed up to be a ‘Natoism’; it has replaced the much better words ‘artillery’ or ‘fire’.
Even worse is ‘the very passive sounding ‘Line of Departure’ rather than ‘Start Line’.
Technical language is OK but verbiage is not. ‘Business acumen’ makes sense, ‘leadership acumen’ shows ignorance of the meaning of the word leadership.
As I was reading this I was thinking exactly that I’d encoutered this before in George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language, only then to come across the quotes from the very same that the author references. History certainly has a habit of repeating itself. Orwell wrote his essay in 1946.
Here are a couple of representative examples of the above from that time which he quotes:
“Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes such egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate or put at a loss for bewilder.”
PROFESSOR LANCELOT HOGBEN (Interglossa)
and – this one’s a classic – an excerpt from a letter to the Tribune newspaper about the BBC (as it was in 1946):
“If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and
atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may lee sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion’s roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream−−as gentle as any sucking dove. A
virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes, or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as “standard English.” When the Voice of Britain is heard at
nine o’clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school−ma’am−ish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens.”
LETTER IN Tribune”
Even Sir Humphrey might struggle with that last one.
Well said!
This sort of crap language is everywhere. I first came across it in the ’80’s when I heard an American explain that he was in a job he hated because he “was in a negative alternative employment situation”. Since then it has invaded most sectors of UK working life as well.
The words we now have for a ‘bin man’ defy belief! I could cipe with ‘refuse operative’, but we now have ‘cleansing team member’ etc.
Back to subject – politicians have long since used this weird verbiage for nefarious purposes, thus we have a ‘restructured army’ or ‘an army fit for purpose’ or a ’21st Century army’, rather than mentioning that it is very much smaller and can take on fewer tasks.
Too much business-speak in the MoD and weird Americanisms throughout Defence.
Well said that man, I totally agree, when I was in school I was taught to write short and directly to the point. When In later life I was asked to write a evaluation on a piece of equipment which I did a 30 page document and a four page summery. By the time my American boss finished with my work it was 150 pages and a 30 page summery. After the work was presented the senior engineers got me to the side and asked me what the hell had I presented, I gave them my four page summery a quick read of it and a Ahh thats the issue. So much for to many words.
Hi Stuart,
This is a great article and highlights a real issue for the services and MoD. However, it is nothing new. I read a book about WW1 a couple of years ago and there was a passage referring to the working relationship between the British and newly deploying US forces. Apparently, the Americans prefered working with the French because the British spoke the kind of gibberish you describe even back then!
I also had experience of this in the written word when I was working as a contractor. I was helpfully given a functional block diagram of a system that was a key part of a certain RAF aircraft. There was one acronym I just couldn’t decypher and even when I rang the MoD project team no one could give me an answer. Eventually I was issued with the UK project acronym definitions book. An A4 document over 1/2 an inch thick. Guess what, the acronym I was struggling with wasn’t even in the official list! It would have been funny if it hadn’t cost the MoD really money, it took several hours to find someone who could give me an answer (if I remember rightly I actually drove to the Project Team office!).
Cheers CR
“Closely related is the overwhelming desire to be regarded as clever and smarter that one’s direct competitors and peer group. In their minds using esoteric language signals their higher intelligence and greater knowledge, gaining entry to the brotherhood of like-minded souls who, clearly, are a superior breed. The reality is, of course, is that it tends to do exactly the opposite and make those who espouse the new military-speak the objects of amusement and ridicule. Plus most folk don’t have a Scooby-doo what they’re talking about.”
^^^^^^ This. Its hard to take the ‘business talk’ guff seriously at the best of times but if you’ve served with the ‘bigwig’ before his promotion(s) and know he didn’t used to talk like that it just comes across as ridiculous and changing to fit in with what they think is expected of them. Hardly a quality to respect.
People will be people I guess and some will want to set themselves apart. I’d have more respect for someone who uses the already rich language of the Forces, nothing like a bit of Jackspeak…. although probably not much help when dealing with the uninitiated. 😂
In my role as a Technical Training Specialist I often come across corporate jargon from the top floor, but this is as nothing when compared to the military. I often have cause to be subjected to many examples of the drivel mentioned in Mr. Crawford’s excellent article by the red tab brigade, who, once handed the talking stick are very reluctant to pass it on. I served 24 years in the Army and still find the best and most effective communication tool I have in my box is to speak my mind, use the vernacular where appropriate and sound like an old Squaddie who’s been round the block.
Indeed.
Acronyms are increasingly impossible to follow, and add to that a string of letters formed from first letter of meaningless words that spell a catchy word.
Press releases are increasingly indecipherable.
“Press releases are increasingly indecipherable.”
I must admit, when I’m reading an article on here and I’ve picked up the bones of it thanks to the writer I tend to skip the quotes from the highheidyns from either the Forces or the Contractor. You know its going to be bollox. I then skip onto the comments.
Part of the reason for using rather generic descriptive language is that it (hopefully) fosters innovative thinking by deterring the mindset that there is only one way to achieve a goal, e.g. getting troops into theatre, eliminating the capability of an enemy platform to threaten you etc. The phrase ‘deliver effects’ for example can encompass disabling a target by jamming it or blinding its electro-optic systems, or by blasting it off the face of the earth (the latter being a ‘kinetic’ effect). Which is the best solution depends on the circumstances.
?
Not unreasonable point, in theory, except what I think actually happens is that all this BS just saps capacity as people have to interpret “deliver effects” and think about what it means then go “oh, we mean put people and kit where they need to go, which we know because its obvious”.
So we actually think less as thinking is occupied translating, and we then switch off in wearisome frustration.
Plus before we did this, its not like we didn’t innovate – we created the global industrial revolution, the armoured fighting vehicle, the all big gun armoured warship, the jet engine.
And interestingly the people who did that weren’t the ones talking the language of the time in accordance with official thinking and policy, but the misfits who chinned all that off and got on with it. AIUI the tank was a success because the people in the Tank Corps were those not wanted in the (smart) cavalry regiments. The leaders from those regiments took us into an era of trench warfare with ideas of cavalry charges, despite half a century since the US Civil war very clearly showed what state level industrial era warfare looked like.
Today we have “strike”.
Strike is an interesting word. First used by the RAF, possibly, when they formed Strike Command which was the amalgamation of Bomber Command and Fighter Command, with the slighlly later addition of Signals Command and Coastal Command. So mixing kinetic with support components. But this word usage was for an organisation, not a concept..
Use of the word ‘strike’ in the army is unclear to me. I presume it means delivering ‘kinetic effect’ against light and medium armour and strongpoints. But does it include armoured reconnaissance, as Ajax (a Strike vehicle) was originally roled as such? Does it include the task of engaging dismounted infantry? Does it include ‘fires’ or anything else in close support? Engrs?
Can anyone give a good definition of ‘strike’ in the army sense.
Strike was always meant as “instant buckets of sunshine” hence the Bucc being S1/2 as a nuclear capable bomber using tac nukes as its primary weapon. Hence also the S in TSR2. Not sure who got there first but RAF/RN seemed certain of that concept upto the end of the cold war (hence SHAR FRS1, having WE177 against surface targets – Ive even heard a claim that the S in helicopter HAS was for strike via nuclear depth bombs!)
From Tornado, Strike was used to mean a nuclear task, hence I think Strike Comd as although the deterrent had passed, it was still tac nuke dominated. Noting I think the helos and transports were in Support Comd initially?
The Army’s idea of strike I think started as a “we’re out of COIN, lets have a conceptual think about what we can do etc and experiment in the theme of the 1930s but actually learn from it” so a very good thing, but it rapidly seems to have become a top down directed groupthink. Largely due to the insatiable need to justify and publicise itself – which imposes deadlines that dont really fit a slow burning conceptual development. Not to mention careerist ambitions…
That it got tied into the equipment programs to justify those and thus became a FRES type juggernaut with its own momentum and politics, just warped it even further.
The result, according to Army peers, is a near total lack of thinking going on and just desperately trying to paper over the gaping holes between what it has and what it nominally says it has/will have/can do.
Meanwhile the Navy is about (a) carrier strike and (b) littoral ops. It seems to have a much sounder concept and resources allocated accordingly – making very good use of interim solutions (River batch2s, LPDs) rather than just waiting for the gold plated one to arrive – whilst putting in place plans for better solutions in the pipeline (T31/32 and MRSS).
The Army could take a lead out of the Navy’s book and make do with the 100s of PPVs it has rather than try and replace them with the 100% answer and instead do that in 10 years time. Thus focus on its heavy force now rather than “everything at once”. Ambition and reality seem very far apart, with unsurprisingly a consequent mess.
Thanks Rogbob, the army is certainly in a mess.
Development of the heavy side became increasingly ignored as soon as HERRICK started – my own tank support project in 2010 at Abbey Wood did not survive.
The army got good at doing counter-insurgency, provincial reconstruction and training team/mentoring stuff in hot/arid Afghan with some good UOR kit – but much of that UOR kit was not taken into core and we have had skill fade on Afghan-type operations since Oct 2014 close-out of HERRICK.
Army comes back to UK to find the armour has not been developed in the 12 years they have been away on HERRICK. No serious upgrades for CR2, WR or AS90 in the interim. Run-on of many 1960s FV432s, 1970s CVR(T)s. Slow to get back into Boxer MIV programme and nothing but trouble with Ajax/Ares etc vehicles. No clear idea of what ‘Strike’ is.
Further cuts to regular manpower. Dom Cummings script favouring drones and cyber goodies over massed manpower and modern vehicles and weapons seems to have held sway. Apache modernised but fleet cut by 16 airframes; tanks cut to 148 but won’t all be modernised until 2030 (FOC)! Warrior to lose upgrade and be replaced by additional Boxer buy many years hence but possibly without cannons.
No serious (kinetic) deployable roles for the army at present – lots of random stuff like training foreign forces and supporting the NHS at home. There must be massive skill fade in warfighting.
Pay rise paused in Apr 2021 – https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/armed-forces-pay-rise-paused-for-2021-22/
Services Families Accomodation still poor in areas; many other married soldiers living many miles from barracks in hirings.
How good is the troops morale?
Mate thats the best summary ive read for some time. No “corporate” speak there lol. The sad thig is the Army is mostly to blame for its own sad situation. Constant re-evaluation of needs and requirments, continued changes to CONOPS etc all mixed in with political direction, CDS inactivity (where it was needed) and the “selling” of the Strike concept which has cost the Army most of its armour. Sad to say the RN has got there shit together, had plans and stuck with them and are in the best shape they can be at this time. Cheers.
Yeah I can certainly sympathise with the Army having to fight the fire in front of it, very much my world at the moment, but even then it took a few years to get to that realisation.
Against that the heavy stuff was largrly abandoned. But you cant but heavily criticise say the Warrior saga whilst Ajax seems flawed from the outset too. Neither of those lacked for money or interest – yet the decision making and execution has failed one and seems to be failing the other.
I think the bigger failing is not looking back at the last 20 years and recognising we werent actually very good at COIN/mentoring/training. The results speak for themselves as the Afghan Govt gets closer to total collapse.
The lack of that honest discussion seems a gross failing of integrity – I’m happy to “lie to outsiders” if you like, but lying to ourselves is just stupid.
Some of the mentoring/trainging stuff like the Specialised Bns seems a step in the right direction, yet it was done really for the worst of reasons (badges and numbers). That it didnt become properly cap badge agnostic seems a failure to
In terms or kit, I remember warning FRES was a juggernaut back in the mid 2000s, it had all the signs of a failure, from too big, too complicated, too many revolutionary steps and too much riding on it.
As for the homebase absolutely, FAM is coming and that will be shit on a scale PAYD could never aspire to. It is difficult to explain to people how we spend billions on kit yet they spend years and uears without hot water or heating. But that goes back to the utter leadership failure from the top whuch has just become a functional pyramid for careerists. I read recently a pirce by CAS from the 90s about the huge reorganisations that took place – it was all drive by having sufficient “slots” at each star level and keeping as many as possible. Nothing to do with effective output. The Army has morphed its formations so many times now I wonder anybody knows what theirs is called in any given week.
Meanwhile “strike”, well yes, less said the better!
On the plus side the dets to Eastern Europe are new and at least warfighting focussed, it will be interesting if the talk of more overseas based units gets actioned – noting the Navy has already started things that were small print/dismissed as PR only in the IR so perhaps watch that space.
Can I ask why its “very much your world at the moment” as you stated you are, I quote “RAF 18 years ongoing ASRAAM, METEOR technician”? And who did you warn about FRES, as during that time, in the 2000s you stated you were in the TA/AR, at sub unit level increasing your recruitment figures “with a very good PSI”? I await a polite response for a polite question.
The silence is shattering, different email and avatar then I take it, thought so Walt.
True- there’s always a danger that you complicate things when it’s not appropriate to do so.
Quite – thats the problem, this is all complicated enough without adding to that. Problem is people get brainwashed by it and think its special when it’s just daft – proper Emperor’s Clothes scenario. The other issue being the force’s culture is very poor at dealing with that incoming truth, although that’s probably true of any organisation really.
If I knew the solution I’d be making a fortune selling it 🙂
While not wanting to detract from a good article I found it ironic to use the word “apposite” in the last paragraph when “apt” would have done. Especially when it is used in reference to rule 5.
This kind of gobbledegook isn’t confined to the military. It is common in large organisations, especially those with top heavy management structures. Senior staff with little real work hide the pointlessness of their roles by initiatives whose lack of substance is concealed in meaningless jargon. Stripped to simple English, the truth would emerge. Anyone questioning the new speak is seen as awkward or disloyal as those without a real role continue to protect their unneeded positions.
Sadly army I served in 1975/83,long since passed into history…I ask who are the rifles?,Mercians,and such the county regiments were a backbone,all very sad
You think the military have a lot of acronym. Try the medical professional groups. We have more then anyone could possibly imagine.
Maybe the answer is that every time you hear someone spout this b……. laugh at them. Even someone as vacuous and dim as the average officer will twig.
It’s primarily so they don’t upset the civil servants with the cold hard reality of War fighting.
In short in matters animal, vegetable and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern major general.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSpFksJ9LQ
Very good 😀
Answer the General Baldrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ1ljlnSjU
We see this phenomenon in many walks of life. For what its worth my view is that it is a symptom of a deeper malaise; a loss of sense of identity and purpose. Its a kind of cry for help…
No, not a cry for help. There is plenty of help: defence committee, public accounts committee, infrastructure and projects agency, national audit office … but none of these understand the generals’ language (and if they find out then the language is changed).
The generals don’t understand that incomprehensible language doesn’t make them experts, it makes them irrelevant.
Nah, I’ll stick with my original assessment. If you sound confusing its
because you are confused. And unfortunately for the rest of us they are relevant because they are running the show…they need to be sent for a month to some kind of therapy to get themselves sorted out.
Fair enough
As an example, one service was transforming its terms and conditions, trades and so on. It had a load of projects to do that. A key aim was engagement with the junior ranks throughout all the projects.
Each project had a latin name. Latin. Who the fk learns that anymore? It took a junior rank forcibly making the point for the penny to drop with the 2 star and their coterie. To be fair they changed it, but it made me weep TF at nobody in the months of planning had thought of this, or had said anything, or had been ignored when they did.
As for Senior Leadership spouting bollocks via incomprehensible language, I think its a subconscious reaction to them not actually having much they can do.
As was pointed out to me – the OF5 (Group Captain = full Colonel) commander of RAF High Wycombe changes the parking and gate entry arrangements every time a new one comes in. Why? Because despite probably 20 if not 30 years of experience and being paid approaching £100k (amortisation double that in terms of taxpayer burden), that’s all they actually can do.
Multiply that out across the tens of thousands of officers across the services where decision making is forever “a long way upwards” and its not surprising all the inertia and inactivity breeds BS as people find something to do or change or mess with it and have so much time on their hands.
(By which I mean for example, a project I was in that screamed “cancel this immediately, total waste of time” took a year to be cancelled. In that time everyone knew it would be. But everyone was still on it as a “program of record” so lots of rubbish was created including re-labelling existing systems).
Another example is renaming stuff. The major policy document we use is now on its 3rd iteration of name and format in less than 10 years. The purpose and contents are unchanged other than where they evolve independently. But it looked good on the Staff Officer’s OJAR who did it I guess and thats worth the thousands of manhours to update references in hundreds of units and the confusion down to junior ranks who had just about got what this was and could refer to it confidently, for it to change again. I actually pleaded with the most recent originator not to do this, they literally looked at the ground and had nothing to say.
Correct to a degree as there is so much corporate chuff being spoke at senior levels it can be confusing and slow the understanding of the target audience. However there is always going to be a necessary change in terminology as weapons, tactics and effects change, and warfare is much more asymmetric, both kinetic and none kinetic (to include cyber etc). Therefore I do believe that terminolgy should rightly change with the effects and requirements of the mission/task, and is used and understood by those at the coal face. But yes he is correct in the fact that the higher some go, the more chuff they are required to speak.
Kinetic ? Why not just say kill or negatively impact there life expectancy going forward ?
Don’t be silly as warfare changes and kinetic is used in a number of different ways, not just to kill. That’s one of the number of terminology changes which has been accepted and is in common use for people pretty much lance Jack and above, as they understand that change happens.
Haha-interesting and enlightening article! I don’t feel so bad now reading some of the acronyms on these forums, not knowing what they stand for but being too afraid to ask for fear of revealing my ignorance 😀
Sort of on subject, in the old days in the Province of Natal, the Natal Provincial Administration Works Department put out a long standard specification in which, inter alia, it had a half page formula for making limewash. It went roughly along these lines-In a forty gallon drum mix 50 pounds of unslaked lime/sludge with 30 gallons of warm water., stirring vigorously. Add 2 pints of tallow 3 pounds of sea salt and continue stirring for 15 minutes. Add 4 pints of raw linseed oil and continue stirring.Decant into 5 gallon containers ready for use.
Alternatively you may use Ready Mixed Limex from your local hardware store!!
I remember being told that the very first Requirements document for an RFC biplane was written on one sheet of foolscap. The services used to do brevity!
I’m looking forward to hearing how the army proposes to ‘deliver the effect’ of an infantry fighting vehicle without an infantry fighting vehicle.
Please explain, Paul. New vehicle for the Infantry will be Boxer which is an IFV, so long as it has a turret and cannon of course!
Sorry Graham. Just being sarki about the Warrior CSP. You are right. Everything will work out if we get Boxers with a cannon and enough dismounts. Artec have already developed 3 I see.
https://www.artec-boxer.com
Thanks Paul. I have heard that not all Boxers replacing WR will get a cannon, as a savings measure. Hope thats not true. I still would like to see trials reports showing that a wheels/tracks mix of F Echelon in a BG will be succesful.
Well, no surprise if we need to make savings after the money we have thrown away. Read somewhere but can’t find the link, that a year or so ago a detachment of German army Boxers exercised with the British Army here in UK. This was before we placed the order for Boxers. I would think that the purpose of that exercise was to validate the mix of wheels and tracks.
It’s all a form of military Latin, the less everyone understands it the better. Call it what it is and possibly save lives?
Nobody uses JSP101 or the associated defence writing guidance documents that encourage the use of plain English.
They even say in the documents to not use most of the sayings in the piece above, which makes me think that most releases are written by spotty faced 22 year old Uni grads with a degree in media studies and absolutely zero life experience.
They can describe in one page of A4 the square root of a banana but they cannot peal one!
The MoD used to issue a pamphlet on writing plainly, illustrated on the cover by a drawing from Alice in Wonderland. A commendable document, now no longer used, as the MoD does not like simple plain language. I have one somewhere.
The current CDS is the worst in a generation at least, he has been promoted despite numerous failures (FRES, Musa Qala, Land Rover snatch as well as several reductions in the army itself).
he has almost single handedly done more damage to the army than any of his predecessors.
and how has he gotten away with it, he has cosied up to the Americans and became this awful consultancy type manager, who adds no value.
unfortunately I see it all too often in my day to day job, people with no interest or skin in the game making awful decisions that impact all those around them. They get promoted leaving those behind to clear up the mess. Things that used to be taken for granted as being relatively easy to do, all of a sudden become unexplainable complex, requiring more staff and resource to complete in twice the time it used to, yet has not increased in complexity or volume.
i blame the CDS for quite a lot, as I still don’t fully understand why we get so little out of what remains a very good defence budget, especially given we had a good baseline to operate from.
Very harsh criticism of Gen Sir Nick Carter. I read his Wiki bio – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Carter_(British_Army_officer)
and struggled to identify quite the level of failures you describe, although Americans Col Tunnell and Lt Gen Bolger were critical of Carter’s performance in Afghanistan – which was not endorsed by US Lt General Hodges who actually worked under Carter in Afghan.
What role did Carter play with FRES and Land Rover Snatch and in organising several army reductions?
he was the lead for FRES and its main sponsor and advocate of Strike.
he was also the head of the Army and is now CoS when the army has been significantly less capable and reduced in size and also allowed snatch landcovers to be deployed to Afghanistan when anyone worth their salt knew these vehicles were not suitable.
With every failure he has seemed to have been promoted.
Fair play to the author, but I’m not even going to read this nonsense, it is so frustrating and does my head in!
Soldier 12 years, police officer 30 years. The business speak is a cancer. I challenged a business man presenting to me about how long his “road map for the future” was. He didnt know. I ended up being berated by superiors for my challenge. The business speak is now commonplace. Let’s get back to good old plain speaking. Say it like it is without prejudice or malice.
Stuart, great article. Immediately after I come across another article on my news feed and thought to share some of it it, it read – A British Army task group deployed in Mali as part of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission. 😂 hilarious.
Kindest regards
Former Signaller 20+ Years Royal of Signals.
Certa Cito
It’s the way acronyms are delivered that gets my back up. Soldiers rattling off acronym laden statements thinking they are going to be understood. No wonder things go wrong. If you are saying it please have the decency to spell it out the first time you use it in fresh conversation (no matter how many times you have said or heard it). And definitely if you don’t understand ask, there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Acronyms are there to make the listener look ignorant and to establish the presenter as the ‘expert’. Its an ego thing.
In most languages there is a word already for what you want to say e.g. in English ‘predict’ is made up of pre= before or in advance and dict from the latin to speak.
The German equivalent would be vorhersagen, or vorhersehen for example. These constructs have a logic to them.
Of course its a challenge when new technology comes along. Like the Welsh for television……wireless look you 😉
I like this!
This even tells you how to write clear, concise papers and its an MOD document!
Go figure.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940304/20201201-DCDC_Writers_Handbook_Sept_2020-O.pdf
It’s interesting, as I see it there are basically three types of English that are not what you would call plan English:
1) Every day professional/technical language.The is both used for short cuts when you need to communicate quickly and precisely as well as communicate complex issues that are only related to that set of professionals. It also give and indicates membership of a Professional Club.
2) Protectionist Professional/managerial language. This is very much the dark side of Professional languages, it’s used to protect the power of groups ( only we can interpret this report or information). It’s also used to hide things that the professional group don’t want others to know ( we actually killed your granny, but we will make it look like it was an something that was inevitable and could not be prevented). Risk assessments are generally full of this language that is used to hide the truth.
3) Corporate/management language: This is all the trying to make myself sound clever bollox that comes out of senior management reports. It sounds the same from senior NHS managers, private sector, public sector etc etc.
Victim Operated Device covers more than just mines and is used to distinguish a device from, say, a remote control device.
“Personally, I prefer short words and vulgar fractions!” Winston S Churchill.
In case you were wondering what a ‘Ranger’ regiment does….
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/15/ranger-regiments-first-task-likely-fighting-islamists-east-africa/
Good point but when it comes to the British Army it’s purely down to our politicians. We haven’t really gone out of the way to defeat our enemies since the Falklands and even that was a pretty close run thing.
The British Army as been hampered by the failure of all past governments to finance our Forces in terms of manpower and equipment. We have always been the poor relation compared to our closest ally the USA. It’s all well and good building expensive carriers to show the flag but if you can’t back them up with real power it’s only window dressing.
I think another factor in the explosion of jargon is squeamishness at expressing the brutal realities of warfare in plain language. It’s not that senior soldiers are hyper-sensitive to these things themselves, but they’re aware that they now live in a world where people frequently claim to be ‘traumatized’ by being exposed to the ‘violence’ of ‘insensitive’ language. Far from being told to grow up an stop being silly (as they might have been in previous decades) these people find a receptive audience for their victimhood, and pretty soon an online mob is baying for the blood of the ‘monster’ who dared to confront a precious soul with the fact that bullets kill people by making holes in them.
If you, the miltary congnoscenti can barely decipher “delivering overmatched kinetic terminal effects” to mean “killing the bad guys”, then how much more likely is it that some snowflake will sail right over it?