ARmy Rumour SErvice

As a 46 year old STAB on my last camp I was amazed that while doing my last BFT ect, that a number of much younger,lighter, Fitter? and , in some cases, regular recruits ,seemed unable to keep up with us sad old gits, in just about everthing from boozing to tabbing all over Otterburn in the rain. and that was 12 years ago

The point is there are aprox 9000 troops unable to deploy because they have a "chit". which makes them undeployable.

If a chit is supplied by a doctor because a soldier is OVERWEIGHT and therefore unable to do his duties = deploy to a sandy place then he/she should be sent to same sandy place on a standard 2 year posting (red tabs please note) to support the afgan army with no added extras, just like NI.

He/she can even take his/her family and live in the next best mud hut.

I left the army in 1980, sadly because the promotion system became based on the American system.
As has many "promotion" and "bonding" weekends poisened the uk.

Promotion only came with smartness and saying the right thing at the right time, to the right person.

Doing your job and being a good soldier/nco/snco/leader etc achieved jack shoite.

So no change there then.

unless you are " not the same as the rest".

Part of the X factor alledgedly covers the possibility of deployments and duties, etc. The X factor is NOT pay. So to that end anyone who can not deploy or be posted to certain areas of the world or carry out duties could be docked X factor.

Unfortunately this would be a catch all scenario... Johnson Beharry VC, or the various limbless serving personnel would be affected just as much as the pie munching waster sweating after walking to the gym would be.

As would Single Parents, or Soldiers with sick spouses, through no fault of their own.

I can see why many would want to in some way encourage the unfit to become fit, but I can't see some of these schemes working... we still need to have a "team" who doesn't ostracise someone for being unfit. I could start ostracising those who are thicker than I, or perhaps not as competant a driver.

First off the bat, we need to look at what we are asking our lads to do. It is all well and good for a muscle buster to say the Army are unfit, but if we do more PT does the vehicle maintainence suffer?

The motto of the PT Corps is "Mens sana in corpore sano" (a healthy mind in a healthy body) and it is as good a motto and even mission statement as any.

The PT Corps needs to churn out as many PTIs as we can get... and units should concentrate on keeping htese PTIs current. Also, at present, EVERY office is trained as an ELT. But soldiers have to get on the course. Why isn't EVERY Sgt expected to become an ELT? In some units every Cpl?

After 12 weeks at Brecon, it would be easy enough to fit this course in at the end. The Royal Signals SCLM is currently 4 weeks long and includes sifting for future instructors... again a few days could be used for ELT training.

These ELTs, supported by PTIs, can then be used EVERY morning for a PT session a la the Americans. Arrange the whole day around this PT. ie duty mounts and parades all happen AFTER it.

The unit forms up, in its entirety and then off they go. Non of this running as fast as possible b0110x, to prove the PTI is really fit.

A PFT pass (a good one) requires the runner to run at approx 10mph... so a nice 6mph run is just hte ticket, squaded for about 3 miles. At the end a stop on a sports field for some exercises completes the ensemble, of about 60 minutes.

For the unit, make sure that the lads aren't fcuked about.

Waiting 30 minutes for 2ic or CO to rock up is not really acceptable. Every one turns up together, it is PT not the Queens Birthday, with fcuking fall in the officers malarky, and Tp SSgts handing in nominal rolls to SSMs to report to the RSM. Yes, this really has happened. 0700 turn up, PT started at 0745!

For added bonus, a Fartlek session and a "long" run on alternating weeks would be nice. And a boot run/loaded march every Friday. The two PT sessions can be devoted to Assault courses and circuits.

At the end, the CO can address the Regiment (if needed), as can the Sqn OCs, and Tp OCs as the parade. Perhaps the Monday and Wednesdays could be Tp level, Tues and Thrus Sqn and Fri regimental.... you get the point.

Get some fun back in to the whole thing. March and shoots, with a p1ss up and braty at the end of it?

Stretcher runs, and good stuff like that.

Annual marches (similar to Lanyard) should be encouraged, and whilst at one unit the OC instigated a Sqn exercise consisting of 36 hours on march with a few command stands (think the RMAS first exercise).

But this has to be balanced with other training and equipment maintainence.

We did all the above, in Junior Leaders FFS , 45 years ago

Originally Posted by woodandy3

i think if your injured on ops you should remain on the same pay scale til fit again !!! you didnt ask that IED or bullet to jump out of the ground and bite you!!
totally seperate ball game when it comes to ops injuries and general fat knackers!!

This touches on the core of the problem, and one that ministers are not willing to face up to. From the original article:

Currently there are 3,860 army personnel classified as PUD - personnel unable to deploy - with a further 8,190 regarded as being of "limited deployability" for medical reasons. The MoD cannot give a breakdown for how many of these are obese or simply unfit.

For "cannot give a breakdown" perhaps read "will not give a breakdown" because the number includes those injured on operations and who cannot return to the front line.

Generally, we hear only about deaths on operations in the national media, but for every death there are between 3 and 6 seriously wounded, often missing limbs, but who for whatever reason will certainly not be fit to deploy again with their battalion in two years time (assuming harmony guidleines are actually met). These men are still on held strength and so the army cannot recruit against this loss, not of life, but of combat power. Given that these injuries usually occur in the F echelon, it will not be long before we will see units deploying at well under the levels usually deemed to mean non-combat-effective.

Fat knackers can get fit enough to fight, whether under pressure from commanders or by their own free will. Cash injections to physio care can shorten rehabilitation times. This is not meant to sound heartless, nor in the least bit disrespectful, because several of my friends fall into one or other of the following two groups, but it is the reality of the situation. Dead soldiers are no longer on held strength and therefore another soldier can be recruited. However, our current recruiting policy does not allow us to recruit another soldier while we, quite properly, treat and rehabiliatate injured soldiers who will never be able to serve again in the front line.

I certainly do not advocate the premature discharge of wounded service personnel. Quite the opposite, we must live up to our duty of care and show the government how to behave. However, unless the policy is changed, this is probably the greatest threat to our ability to continue this campaign in the medium to long term.

BD6

The last CGS brief I had said that 14% of the army is undeployable through biff chititis so that actually 14000 soldiers not the 9000 quoted.

The army is implementing a new system in October, using BMI. This I wholeheartedly disagree with. Look at the report below.

There are four central problems with Body Mass Index (BMI), a method of comparing someone’s weight and height first proposed by the Belgian researcher Adolphe Quetelet in the nineteenth century and which has found increasing currency as a measure of the ‘obesity epidemic’ in recent years.

First, it fails to provide an accurate measure of overweight and obesity. Second, it is arbitrary in its classifications of normal, overweight and obese. Third, its classifications of overweight and obese generally do not correspond to increased risk for premature death or serious illness.

And fourth, its unscientific character has allowed it to be transformed into the major tool for misrepresenting the risks of overweight and obesity and justifying a ‘war on fat’.

The BMI provides an inaccurate measure of overweight and obesity because it cannot distinguish between fat, muscle, organ and water. BMI is simply the ratio of body weight (in kilogrammes) divided by the height in metres squared (kg/m2). As such, it tells us nothing about what the weight is made up of. Bodybuilders, for instance, may have high BMIs despite having little fat. The BMI, being simply a measure of weight and height, cannot account for body frame, for instance the differences between men and shorter women, nor is it an accurate measure of children’s weight status. Slight Sri Lankan children in Australia have more body fat than white Australian children with the same BMI.

But the BMI is also arbitrary in that it simply reflects someone’s view as to where to draw the line between normal, overweight and obese. There is no scientific reason why someone with a BMI over 25 should be labelled overweight or someone with a BMI over 30 as obese. Professor Tim Cole of the UK Institute of Child Health, who devised the overweight and obese classifications for children, admits this. As he said: ‘The idea that these numbers are cast in stone is absolute nonsense.’

Moreover, there is little connection between the BMI classifications of overweight and obese and increased risk for disease and death, either in children or adults. A recent Aberdeen study found that children’s BMIs were not associated with increased risk for stroke or heart disease in later life.

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Whisketbreath

Health and Safety rules discourage javelin throwing, hammer chucking, shot putting,

I was a fat bstard but represented county at these sports in college and Brit rep vs Franc at shot put. One gains by increasing weight or speed (e=mvsq). I went down the more mass route (until NS caught me)

I hope you were a better copper than mathematician/physicist