GREATER INTEGRATION OF SERVICES SUGGESTED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27309, 27 March 1954, Page 6

GREATER INTEGRATION OF SERVICES SUGGESTED

DEFENCE

[Specially Written for “The Press'*] [By R. R. BEAUCHAMP]

• A recent correspondence in “The Press” on the subject of the precedence of tHe three armed services and cable news of unrest and minor sabatage in the Royal Navy have brought into focus some random thoughts and impressions about New Zealand’s defence. The burden of my complaint is this. How much longer will a small but growing country endure the waste and inefficiency of three separate defence forces? First of all, let me make it clear that I do not want to destroy those traditions of loyalty and heroism which are the pride and glory of the older services and which two wars have begun to build into the youngest. Such things are right and . proper and are necessary to the maintenance of a spirit of service and pride in one’s particular branch. But consider the changes which modern science has brought about. In old times a sailor needed the arts of seamanship to keep his ship at sea in all weathers. To this was added some simple knowledge of gunnery—a most inexact science requiring mainly brute strength. The soldier required basic drill in the use of his arms; he must keep his gear clean and serviceable and his body fit to endure incredible privations and discomforts. The recruit of those days was mainly a poor type, kept up to his work by a harsh and often discipline. That these men survived at all and often became solid and useful citizens is a tribute to the value of service life and training; a value that is not in any way diminished today.

What about the modern man at arms? He is extracted from an increasingly educated population and must be wooed by recruiting officers into services where conditions must compete with the countless jobs and opportunities that his school career officers telLhim about. Neither hunger nor the fear of gaol drives him into the armed forces, as they did once. The soldier, airman or sailor of today needs to be a highly intelligent -and conscientious man, handling gear and machinery worth millions of pounds, none of which is his property, but upon which in time of stress the country may depend for its survival. Not only is he the expert and guardian of the immensely complicated paraphernalia of modern war but he must in peace time carry on the traditions of courage, discipline and loyalty without which, in the present uneasy state of the world, no nation can survive. Farmers, mechanics and teachers will join tip in war time and make magnificent fighting men; but fighting is not their profession. The responsibility lies with the permanent service. ' New Training Methods Needed

In a small cdtmtry like New Zealand it seems to me that we must look for new methods of training men for their new responsibilities. While we rely on the past for guidance, we must consider future problems with an open mind, not forgetting that the principles upon which our present services are run were evolved during 400 years in an old country of 50,000,000 people. 12,000 miles away from us. The problem, as I see it, is twofold. Since we are. in general (though unwilling) agreement that we must spend money and employ men in* the business of defence, then we must see the money is spent economically and see .also that the men feel theirs to be an honourable and worthwhile profession. Recruiting for the services is not an easy task. The Navy has to dig deep into the barrel to get enough men. The retiring chief of the Air Staff says “neither the right calibre, nor sufficient numbers are coming into the R.N.Z.A.F. for air crew duties.” (“The Press” February 7). Of the attractions which a service career should offer young men I will say more later. It is enough to say here that with the ever growing value and complexity of weapons of defence neither financial nor technical efficiency can be got without first class manpower.

I think that the answer to both aspects of the problem of defence is

greater integration. The last war made it perfectly clear that no arm could stand alone. Each must know intimately the problems of the others And this does not apply only to the higher command. Joint staff courses for all three services have long been in existence and the principle is beginning to filter down. Young airmen are encouraged to sail small boats (the foundation of seamanship) Young Royal Naval officers are given extra pay if they get their wings But the movement is slow and hampered by the conservative, watertight compartments in which- the three an™ still exist.

Integration of the administrative side of the three, services should present no great difficulty in this country and is the answer to.thfe problem of savins both manpower and money. Accounts stores, clothing could all be simplified and standardised to the great comfort of the auditor-general. I suspect that underpants issued to soldier, sailor and airman are each of a different pattern, involving three tenders and consequent expense. Provided such a policy of integration is approved and a minister of defence can be found capable of pushing it through, then more of our slender defence budget will be available for its real purpose —the provision of arms and the training of the men who will use them. Recruiting and Training

How would the policy of a combined defence service affect the recruiting and training position? One of the strongest incentives that a young man has to join any service is that it gives him opportunities that once were the privilege of the very wealthy. He can see the world. He can fly. He can drive an armoured car. He can sail small boats and have charge of large, powerful launches. He has gadgets innumerable and can acquire skills in many trades. My ideal of a training centre for combined forces wobld be an airfield with the sea on one side and mountains on the other, where the basic skills of soldier, airman and seaman would be taught and demonstrated. Of course, the most important lesson of all would be that mental and physical fitness, with discipline and responsibility, underly and support all these skills. Specialisation need only come after at least a year of such training, preferably two. Now for one or two points about such a policy of integration—a policy designed to meet the needs of a country such as this in a world such as we can dimly foresee. First, let us simplify and standardise uniforms. The last war produced the battle-dress for cold weather and the shirt and shorts for hot. Have three colours if you will: dark blue for the sea, light for the air, khaki for the land. If we can afford polished leather and gold lace for ceremonial occasions let us keep them for the benefit of the ladies but not delude ourselves into thinking they enchance the dignity of an officer or his fighting capacity. The second point is that all entry should by through the ranks. Both these suggestions will, I know, draw howls of protest from many quarters, but as long-term policies I am convinced that they are sound.

My last point concerns a rather intangible but very vital aspect of the defence services. This is the continuity that can only be achieved by long service. In the Navy, both here and at Home, and I believe in the Air Force, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get men to sign on after their first period expires. Now services suffer in two ways from this. Too many men go out because they are disgruntled. This has a bad effect on recruiting: for the real solidity of any service lies in its older men. Whether they remain privates, able seamen, LAC’s or have achieved higher rank —they are the keepers of its traditions. The fact that they have found it good enough and interesting enough to make it their life’s work is a sound and healthy indication that life in the country’i armed forces can be—as we say—a good show.