Im just going to prempt where this will end up…
3 Likes
Grow up. It’s inane responses like this which get threads closed. Everyone else is managing to be sensible and adult.
2 Likes
It isn’t necessarily about stopping someone from joining - after all, can you honestly tell me that most 12 year olds would have heard those terms before? But it’s about making the people in the organisation feel like they’re part of it. This has gone down the trans route as people assume it’s always for that, but actually it’s just as much about making sure the women and girls we have in the organisation can feel like they’re not just a hanger-on in a boys club.
Again, it isn’t hard. We’re not talking about moving mountains here, it’s literally changing the wording of a badge which, as someone else posted, people aren’t going to get anyway because of how difficult the entire shooting experience is to run.
3 Likes
If they hadn’t added that statement that marksman and marksmanship are not to be used in relation to the new badges, I wonder how many people would’ve noticed. I think this is definitely a case where less would have been more (call them shooting badges, without the emphasis on what they used to be called or ‘banning’ the established terms).
1 Like
I think you were so quick to judge there, that you failed to see this for what it was…a joke!
2 Likes
I’m reading through all the posts and as I can make out/summarise (whilst getting a headache):-
-
There is a group within the ATC that feels we should change “marksmanship” to be gender neutral.
-
Marksmanship is the term used because this is more socially acceptable & politically correct due the social & violence implications around young people & firearms. It is also the traditional term used.
-
the change would only be within the air cadets not within the wider service or across the armed forces or other cadet groups.l so will only affect ATC (CCF will continue to use army terms)
-
the air cadets will not be considered trail blazers & just look odd & may hamper the wider adoption of gender neutral policy as regulars don’t want to sound like the cadets.
-
Live Fire Marksmanship Training is the term used in Pam21, & CTR. This it the document that would need to be edited.
-
there is no reasons why the badges for the application of the principles of LFMT cannot be referred to as “shooting badges” but perhaps “Rifle proficiency” or “rifle badges” be the better term (que moans from clay pigeon brigade)
-
the whole conversation about terminology seems to have forgotten the actual point of the badges & like so much in the ATC at the moment there is more concern over appearances, reputation & ego than the actual delivery & the purpose for the badges.
This bit is what has made me the most cross on this thread - I don’t know if it was meant seriously or just to troll the person you were replying to but a plague on both your houses.
If the standards specified do not link to the principles we are training & developing then the standard is pointless & the fundamental philosophy of the PTS is flawed & should be abandoned as soon as possible.
Since it’s introduction standards have reduced, things have been become more vague & badges have become a battle ground for egos & empires rather than cadet achievements. An attempt to fit all future cadet training into PTS is proving how unworkable that is e.g. Space (basically key stage 2 science even at high end) or field craft (where our gold standard for air cadets is equivalent to ACF two star taught to those who’ve been in 18months).
In an ideal world, badges should be harmonised across the cadets forces so standards are the same particular in common core skills of first aid, leadership, rifle, field craft & radio. Yes that might mean that ATC cadets never get beyond bronze on some areas but it would mean things would simplify & to a comparable standard. We could then all use the same names & terminology.
The simplification of the Rifle badges is a good thing. The organisation needs to save money so perhaps a full overhaul of all the badges is required. The name convention is of no consequence as people will continue calling it what they want to & use to.
4 Likes
I own a BSA Scorpion myself (technically my parents, but I am the only one who uses it), and I like it a lot. Mine is the T10 variant, and ofc I only use when my parents are with me and ofc I follow H&S etc etc.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines: a ‘shot’ as a person with a specified level of ability in shooting;
a ‘marksman’ as a person skilled in shooting;
a ‘markswoman’ as a woman skilled in shooting;
and a ‘sharpshooter’ as a person who is very skilled in shooting.
Therefore the word ‘marksman,’ like the other two neutral terms has always been gender neutral, because the word ‘person’ defines a human being regarded as an individual. It’s not the same as a female in the RAF being called an ‘airman,’ which would have been an incorrect term in the WRAF of 1918, let alone today’s air force, the correct term being ‘airwoman.’ ‘Airmanship’ is defined in the OED as skill in flying an aircraft. We can presume that aircraft is being flown by a human being, the same as firearms can be used by any person capable of doing so.
Indeed, aviation and rifle shooting are two human activities which are carried out by both men and women, without either sex having to either use or overcome ‘traditional gender characteristics’ to do it up to a high standard or at all. We in the RAFAC are part of the the process of introduction into both these activities: where else can young people fire semi-automatic full-bore rifles and have a practical grounding in aviation?
The word ‘shot’ is being used by the RAFAC correctly to describe those who can use a rifle to do more than just make loud noises whilst turning rounds into empty cases, but it’s not as aspirational-sounding as ‘marksman’ or ‘sharpshooter,’ both of which define higher levels of skill. My recommendation would be to have those three levels of achievement recognised for each of the rifles used for shooting training.
We probably do need those twelve different grades in total for the four rifles. The competitive shooting of each is a separate discipline requiring different skills, within a sport of many more.
When I was a cadet, there were only two marksmanship badges: the ATC and RAF Marksman, and only two rifles used to qualify for each one. Those were the .22in LR No8 rifle and the L1A1 SL Rifle. I don’t recall the No4 rifle being used for the RAF Marksman, because it wasn’t the current service rifle in the 1980s. An even simpler system, but the standard of instruction wasn’t up to what we need today. We learnt how to use the No4 and No8 rifles as part of First Class Cadet training - it’s in the ACP31 of the day - and the SLR pretty much on the range day one first fired it. That was because whilst ATC Sqns held No8 and No4 DP rifles, SLRs would be issued straight from RAF station armouries, so there never were any formal lessons given for it.
But then when I joined the Army, I learnt the SLR and SMG in formal lessons, WHTs and range firing, and the LMG, GPMG and 9mm pistol as concurrent activity on a range just before I fired them. No WHTs for any of the latter! 
1 Like
You are aware that jokes are supposed to be humourous, right?
Good humour doesn’t need to punch down.
I miss the good old Reply all emails and cheese-gate 
Hampton School CCF; I saved the email! 
The contingent got shut down.
Completely unrelated.
There was no cheese left in the stores. But plenty of shooting paraphernalia, including army and RAF shooting badges. (Boom: back on topic)
2 Likes
There are enough of them on the RAFAC now.
1 Like
As everyone seems to think we are rewording and changing everything I just wonder where we are going with “cockpit” and how will the camps get on when the accommodation is gender-neutral?
I don’t care if I’m a marksman, chairman or use a Manhole to descend into a pipe, I’m mature enough to not care and certainly not petty. Ive been told to grow a pair or man up sometimes by other women. Mind you Id rather not man-up and the only pair Ive grown are large enough thank you.
1 Like
Modern day management;
Changing the term ‘Airmanship’ when the actual problem that needs fixing is not enough cadets are gliding.
Changing the term ‘Marksmanship’ when the actual problem that needs fixing is not enough cadets are shooting.
etc. etc. etc.
4 Likes
Now, this I do sort of agree with, however, you can do more than one thing at once. I said before in the previous thread where this got debated:
That point still stands. People say ‘Why are we changing names instead of fixing bigger issues’. They seem to corollate the fixing of ‘non-important issues’ with the lack of fixing of bigger issues, this is not the case.
The complete lack of shooting, or flying, is because of wider incompetency. Not because we are changing some words.
(And @Turbo I’m not explicitly saying this is what you mean, but it does seem to be what a lot of people imply)
2 Likes
Not by HQ RAFAC but no idea whether others have. We will be posting as planned; not to virtue signal but as part of the plan to widely distribute the information.
It was, indeed, a counter-troll.
3 Likes
It’s amazing how reading a thread about the harmless changing of a badge name can tell you precisely which end of the political spectrum someone’s beliefs lie
7 Likes