Combined Ops or Jointery?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combined Ops or Jointery?
Picked up a book the other day, I know how old fashioned of me! Or you didn't know I knew how to read..........
It was on the Dieppe Raids et al, when these ops were conceived, it was never a case of a 'joint' op but a 'combined' op.
Now I know there will be some out there to dive towards a dictionary to point out the differences (or my spelling and grammar).
However my main question is why did we move away from 'combined ops' to 'Jointery'? Words do make a difference especially in today’s world so why the change?
Looking forward to some fruitful discussion on this.
It was on the Dieppe Raids et al, when these ops were conceived, it was never a case of a 'joint' op but a 'combined' op.
Now I know there will be some out there to dive towards a dictionary to point out the differences (or my spelling and grammar).
However my main question is why did we move away from 'combined ops' to 'Jointery'? Words do make a difference especially in today’s world so why the change?
Looking forward to some fruitful discussion on this.
Combined Ops is what we used to be good at during war time and meant all 3 services recognising and delivering their own relevant part of the overall operation and recognising the strengths of each of the other 2.
'Jointery' is what some tw@t of a high flying/high ranking civil serpent decided was a good way forward in the planned destruction of the 3 services in order to create the 'purple' UK Armed Forces.
'Jointery' is what some tw@t of a high flying/high ranking civil serpent decided was a good way forward in the planned destruction of the 3 services in order to create the 'purple' UK Armed Forces.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're actually just visiting 'jointery' on the way back to 'combined', but nobody of any note has recognised it makes us even less efficient than we normally are! I've quoted the example of the Falklands before, where nothing of any consequence ever gets achieved as a result of jointery. Some people struggle to achieve with their existing jobs without venturing into a completely different service!
Combined - where resident experts remain in their respective fields and bring what they know to the party - is where we will end up once there have been sufficient screw-ups. The only other reason for staying with jointery is to pacify the Canadians - giving them one thing they're ahead of us with - finding out it doesn't work and binning it.
Combined - where resident experts remain in their respective fields and bring what they know to the party - is where we will end up once there have been sufficient screw-ups. The only other reason for staying with jointery is to pacify the Canadians - giving them one thing they're ahead of us with - finding out it doesn't work and binning it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick online search comes up with:
Joint. A way in which two or more things are joined. A fracture or crack along which no appreciable movement has occurred. A cheap or disreputable meeting place. slang: a penis. Characterised by united action, Involving two or more variables. Informal Not harmonious, inconsistent, out of order, unsatisfactory. in bad spirit or humour.
I'm guessing then, Joint was thought to be more accurate than "Combined Ops"
with thanks to:
www.thefree dictionary.com
Serious note: "Jointery" does NOT mean all in one uniform, although some seem to want/despise the notion... but it is still about working together, with perhaps the difference being this time it's planned and exercised?
Joint. A way in which two or more things are joined. A fracture or crack along which no appreciable movement has occurred. A cheap or disreputable meeting place. slang: a penis. Characterised by united action, Involving two or more variables. Informal Not harmonious, inconsistent, out of order, unsatisfactory. in bad spirit or humour.
I'm guessing then, Joint was thought to be more accurate than "Combined Ops"
with thanks to:
www.thefree dictionary.com
Serious note: "Jointery" does NOT mean all in one uniform, although some seem to want/despise the notion... but it is still about working together, with perhaps the difference being this time it's planned and exercised?
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 26th Jul 2006 at 20:25.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Definitions change. IIRC:
Joint = multi-service: Air force, army, navy marine etc.
Combined = multi-role, not necessarily joint or multinational, as in a COMAO with OCA, AI, SEAD etc; A combined operation - amphibious landing with air cover.
Multinational: More than one nation.
e.g. "The Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) at Northwood in North plans and executes UK led joint, combined and multinational operations."
Joint = multi-service: Air force, army, navy marine etc.
Combined = multi-role, not necessarily joint or multinational, as in a COMAO with OCA, AI, SEAD etc; A combined operation - amphibious landing with air cover.
Multinational: More than one nation.
e.g. "The Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) at Northwood in North plans and executes UK led joint, combined and multinational operations."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by Pierre Argh
Joint. A fracture or crack along which no appreciable movement has occurred.
Combined was 3 services, each to its own. Joint is doing it the way that the dominant partner insists. I heard that PJHQ went from DPM to light blue and dark blue with shades of green as soon as the boss changed.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Delta Quadrant
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combined or Joint
Almost
The historical answer is WWII. Prior to that, if the Royal Navy and the Britiah Army (with RAF added later) were forced to conduct an op togther, usually amphibious, it was a Combined Op.
When the US services were forced to adopt a chiefs of staff committee, it was enshrined - by law - as the Joint Chiefs. Thus, when the US entered WWII 27 months after us and the French, and FDR and WSC thought a Uk/US committee would be a good idea, it was too much trouble to change the law, and the title "Combined" was adopted to mean multi-national (UK/US). Of course, this didn't stop us, for national purposes, continuing to describe amphib ops as "Combined".
This definition ended up as the NATO version - joint to mean an op involving two or more services and combined to mean an op involving two or more nations.
It is interesting that Joint, on the US interpretation tended to mean each service doing its thing alongside the others, rather than properly intermingled in a purple manner - eventually they had adopt the definition "Unified" to indicate a Command where all the elements were supposed to do what the CinC said.
Anyway, that's the semantic history. I'll leave the rest of you to score points off each other in a properly joined up manner.
The historical answer is WWII. Prior to that, if the Royal Navy and the Britiah Army (with RAF added later) were forced to conduct an op togther, usually amphibious, it was a Combined Op.
When the US services were forced to adopt a chiefs of staff committee, it was enshrined - by law - as the Joint Chiefs. Thus, when the US entered WWII 27 months after us and the French, and FDR and WSC thought a Uk/US committee would be a good idea, it was too much trouble to change the law, and the title "Combined" was adopted to mean multi-national (UK/US). Of course, this didn't stop us, for national purposes, continuing to describe amphib ops as "Combined".
This definition ended up as the NATO version - joint to mean an op involving two or more services and combined to mean an op involving two or more nations.
It is interesting that Joint, on the US interpretation tended to mean each service doing its thing alongside the others, rather than properly intermingled in a purple manner - eventually they had adopt the definition "Unified" to indicate a Command where all the elements were supposed to do what the CinC said.
Anyway, that's the semantic history. I'll leave the rest of you to score points off each other in a properly joined up manner.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AAP-6:
Combined Operations: Military operations in which elements of two or more Allied nations participate.
Joint: Connotes activities, operations, organizations etc in which elements of more than one Service of the same nation participate.
Multinational Operations: Operations in which elements of 2 or more nations participate and which are normally based on a coalition.
Combined Joint Task Force: A multinational multi-service task force.
Combined Operations: Military operations in which elements of two or more Allied nations participate.
Joint: Connotes activities, operations, organizations etc in which elements of more than one Service of the same nation participate.
Multinational Operations: Operations in which elements of 2 or more nations participate and which are normally based on a coalition.
Combined Joint Task Force: A multinational multi-service task force.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lifted straight from JWP 0-01.1 (UNCLAS):
combined
Adjective used to describe activities, operations and organisations, in which elements of more than one nation participate. Also called multinational.AAP-6 [The term .multinational. is preferred within
the UK and Allied joint communities.]
combined arms
Application of several arms, such as infantry, armour, artillery and aviation.
combined force
A force composed of elements of two or more nations. [The term .multinational. is preferred within the UK and Allied joint communities.]
combined joint operation
An operation carried out by forces of two or more nations, in which elements of at least two services participate.
combined operation
An operation conducted by forces of two or more Allied nations acting together for the accomplishment of a single mission. AAP-6 [The term .multinational. is preferred within the UK and Allied joint communities.]
joint
Adjective used to describe activities, operations and organisations in which elements of at least two services participate.Also called "multiservice".
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My attention was drawn to an article written published in the Naval Journal in 1942
http://www.naval-review.org/articles/P0028.asp?CallBy=1
Talking about, as it was then called, inter-service co-operation... one thing satnds out quite early in the article
it doesn't seem to me that much has changed?
http://www.naval-review.org/articles/P0028.asp?CallBy=1
Talking about, as it was then called, inter-service co-operation... one thing satnds out quite early in the article
When any operation, which is primarily a naval or military one, is carried out the Air Ministry at once issues a communique to draw attention to the fact that the R.A.F. had a hand in it even if it was a small one.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What if the navy of one country operate with the Army of another? Is it a combined joint operation? Or a joint combined operation?
ISTR that one Bn of the NL marines are under UK NATO command, and I believe a Danish Bn is too.
ISTR that one Bn of the NL marines are under UK NATO command, and I believe a Danish Bn is too.
