| 20thmaine ||08 Nov 2012 8:42 a.m. PST|
The UK forces are currently being reduced – across all three services looking to let-go several thousands. There's been some "cock-up" stories such as people getting the heave-ho notice just days short of getting a large pension bonus for log service etc.
So they are pretty serious about sacking people.
So why do I keep seeing "The army is recruiting" adverts on the TV ?
Is it as simple as the cynical thought – new recruits are cheaper than old hands ? I'd hope not.
So, is there a "proper" operational reason ?
Serious question, trying to avoid all political aspects with the decision to reduce the army (I'm sure whomever was in power would be making the UK armed forces smaller).
| Waco Joe ||08 Nov 2012 8:54 a.m. PST|
You always need new people entering at the bottom of the food chain in any large organization. Plus with the existing staff you know what you've got. You always want to be open to something new. When that Russian/Chinese/Arabic/Pashtun ninja/linguist comes strolling in you want to make a place at the table.
| 20thmaine ||08 Nov 2012 9:07 a.m. PST|
but they don't seem to be looking for specialists, just regular soldiers – which they've got 10,000 or so too many of already.
|Streitax ||08 Nov 2012 10:37 a.m. PST|
It's a pyramid. You need lots of privates, a fair number of NCO's but fewer as the rank goes up. Same for the officers, Lts are a dime a dozen, lots of captains, and then they start dropping off. In the US Army before WWII, company commanders were 40 year old captains, now it's major within X years or out, same for each subsequent step up the ladder.
|Buff Orpington ||08 Nov 2012 11:49 a.m. PST|
Even during force reductions who need to keep turning over the manpower. To be frank, if an infantryman reaches the age of 27 without being considered for promotion he may not be worth keeping.
Even in the RAF, which traditionally had a longer service length for non commisioned ranks we introduced a system that chopped airmen after 12 years, corporals after 22 years and sgt's at the age of 47.
|Buff Orpington ||08 Nov 2012 11:55 a.m. PST|
Another issue may be the rebalancing of recruitment areas. These are seriously out of kilter for the infantry. It is too hot an issue for the MOD to admit that there are too many Scottish regiments. The problem is that they can't man them at anything like full strength but rather than cut any regiment they bulk some up by adding a company of Gurkhas. This may or may not resolve itself after 2014.
|Norrins||08 Nov 2012 12:22 p.m. PST|
And this is on the day that the government announced that it wants to double the size of the Territorial Army from 15,000 to 30,000 while the regular Army's strength is cut by 20,000 to 82,000.
| 20thmaine ||08 Nov 2012 5:51 p.m. PST|
Oh that's a whole 'nother thing !
I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask another dumb question – how come training 16days solid and a few weekends and evenings is deemed to be equivlent to the training of a full time regular ? What the hell are the regulars doing the rest of the time (and I do mean the ones in home bases, not the ones in Camp Bastion). ?
|Buff Orpington ||09 Nov 2012 2:39 a.m. PST|
Oh You know, skiing in Kenya, windsurfing in Cyprus and all the rest of the old they used to put in the recruiting adverts.
Beautifully summed up here
| Rrobbyrobot ||09 Nov 2012 6:50 a.m. PST|
I think the government paid for the commercials without considering the force reduction plan. You know, SSDD.
|Captain Swing ||10 Nov 2012 7:28 a.m. PST|
The job of one part of the army is recruitment.
The job of another part of the army is force reduction.
Each part has their own targets.
They are both doing their jobs
just not in the most efficient manner
|cwbuff||11 Nov 2012 11:50 a.m. PST|
"Old soldiers never die. Young ones do." Picked up this button at a Cincy Con about 30 years ago.
|yorkie o1 ||14 Nov 2012 9:53 a.m. PST|
Maybe i can shed some light here.
as a bit of background, Im A Sergeant in the infantry, The redundancies are not really effecting the lower ranks. Granted there are a few who have gone, but they have all been voluntary so far.
Currently my regiment has 3 bns, all undermanned. When we go to 2 Bns next year, we will have 2 fully manned Bns.
People will always get out, or retire, so you need a constant inflow of new recruits, even after the redundancies etc, people will leave the army, and during the redundancies, people will leave, or will have finished their careers. You have a constant flow of new recruits in 1 end and old blokes with dodgy knees leaving at the other end!
Most redundancies will come from downgraded personnel, people who are injured, or otherwise undeployable. Those ptes that have served 12 years or more, and clearly are not going anywhere will also be at risk.
So, essentially, although it sounds harsh, the army is getting rid of the undeployable and lower third in terms of performance. Recruitment will continue as it always has.
|janner||26 Dec 2012 6:20 a.m. PST|
Trouble is Steve, we know from all the previous times we've done this, there's a manning surge on amalgamations, but we still end up with undermanned units a few years down stream :-)
Well, except in The Rifles of course, but then we're speschul ;-)
They next batch of redundancies is said to be close to 10,000 and I don't think there are that many of the 'unemployable' left
|yorkie o1 ||08 Jan 2013 12:34 p.m. PST|
Fair one janner, but recruitment will always continue
It has to.
There are loads of undeployable blokes knocking about, those that have hid in the QMs department for years etc
. Im not saying they should be got rid of, because someone has to sort out all the kit, but when given a choice of a fit, deployable bloke or someone who has 10+ years service, is permanently downgraded and is still a pte working in the post room, or working in the officers mess clearing tables then you know whose getting the boot.
I don't know the answer, but hopefully someone somewhere has a plan
. personally im just looking forward to having a fully manned bn.