ARmy Rumour SErvice

**msr** · 28-05-2012, 19:08

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

I'd agree with that. Most of the blokes who are in for the full duration are NOT neccesrily the best blokes. They literally just didn't have the gumption to do anything else. Yet all along the line you see capable, intelligent and compentant blokes leaving... for a number of reasons. They don't neccesarily know they can survive and thrive, but they just get bored of the mindnumbing drivel that can accompany forces life. Another big one is the effect of these cling on morons on the intelligent, thrusting lads.

Have you any evidence to back these claims up? Or are you mistaking the plural of anecdote for data?

m-s-r

**aberspr** · 28-05-2012, 19:11

Originally Posted by bokkatankie

Runs from SNCO to aged Captain to Lt. Col. There need to be more sensible cut off points at every level, as there are in the Regular Army. The differing age limitations alone are cause for concern. It does not make sense to retain people in the TA after the age they would have been forced out of the Army if we want the TA to be as capable and deployable as the Army.

Dads Army and or Home Forces are something that can be, perhaps, looked at in a different way, if required, and we can afford it.

The TA should and could be as young and deployable as the regulars if you applied the same age criteria.

For a start most of the TA is older on average as most people don't join straight out of school, most who are that keen go regular. It's isn't necessarily a bad thing to have a few blokes in the junior ranks who have a bit more life experience. Also I'd say that MCPs are largely so the army doesn't have to keep paying increasingly expensive individuals forever, not really an issue in the TA as there is no pension.etc and you are only paying them infrequently unless they're mobilised. Chopping people from the TA purely over age is bullshit.

Just in case you think I'm ancient and desperate to hang on a bit longer I'm young enough to do a full regular career from scratch.

**Carlos_Sanchez_IX** · 28-05-2012, 19:16

Aside from the fact you are a complete shower of shite and somewhat of an embarrassment on the world stage you have some good eggs who give a solid account of themselves, certainly on operations, a complete overhaul is needed but if what I've been reading is true its curtains for your porky non deployers and your sacks of shit. Hopefully in a few years your ranks will be swelled with ex regulars which will go someway to delivering the UK a sharp, professional reserve force capable of undertaking anything asked of it.

**chocolate_frog** · 28-05-2012, 19:34

Originally Posted by msr

Have you any evidence to back these claims up? Or are you mistaking the plural of anecdote for data? m-s-r

I've sat through plenty of boring 22 year speeches and desperatly tried to convince young blokes to stay in... Not 'data', I know, but I am too busy doing a real job to do.

**Gassing_Badgers** · 28-05-2012, 19:35

Originally Posted by Carlos_Sanchez_IX

Aside from the fact you are a complete shower of shite and somewhat of an embarrassment on the world stage you have some good eggs who give a solid account of themselves, certainly on operations, a complete overhaul is needed but if what I've been reading is true its curtains for your porky non deployers and your sacks of shit.

Agreed.

But I thought we were supposed to be discussing the TA, not the Regular Army..?

**bokkatankie** · 28-05-2012, 19:39

Originally Posted by aberspr:4426472

Originally Posted by bokkatankie

Runs from SNCO to aged Captain to Lt. Col. There need to be more sensible cut off points at every level, as there are in the Regular Army. The differing age limitations alone are cause for concern. It does not make sense to retain people in the TA after the age they would have been forced out of the Army if we want the TA to be as capable and deployable as the Army.

Dads Army and or Home Forces are something that can be, perhaps, looked at in a different way, if required, and we can afford it.

The TA should and could be as young and deployable as the regulars if you applied the same age criteria.

For a start most of the TA is older on average as most people don't join straight out of school, most who are that keen go regular. It's isn't necessarily a bad thing to have a few blokes in the junior ranks who have a bit more life experience. Also I'd say that MCPs are largely so the army doesn't have to keep paying increasingly expensive individuals forever, not really an issue in the TA as there is no pension.etc and you are only paying them infrequently unless they're mobilised. Chopping people from the TA purely over age is bullshit.

Just in case you think I'm ancient and desperate to hang on a bit longer I'm young enough to do a full regular career from scratch.

I joined from school as did a few others we then all joined regulars in different shapes and sizes. When we left regular service a few of us went back to TA to find that our career path was blocked by an ageing captain or similar who was a bloody good bloke but military useless.

Many regulars felt the same, demoted,demotivated and pushed to the back of the bar/parade to disguise the shortcomings of the extant seniors.

Having said all that we had some great junior TA nco & officers but they too could see the long years of waiting their turn

**theblindking** · 28-05-2012, 19:50

Originally Posted by msr

Have you any evidence to back these claims up? Or are you mistaking the plural of anecdote for data?

m-s-r

And by what metric would you suggest such data be gathered against? SJARs/OJARs? It appears that many posters believe those to be an unreliable source due to lack of trust in the supervisory system. I would tend to agree.

Course reports/ Op Inserts? Probably more reliable but again not completely so.

Essentially I don't see how you would collect and produce and "data" related evidence regarding the issue of seriously talented and bright guys and girls leaving both the regs and reserve in their droves (though reg more than reserve) because the army cannot retain a large proportion of their best.

I agree absolutely with CF, however can only submit annecdotal evidence; doesn't mean we're wrong though does it?

**CAARPS** · 28-05-2012, 19:57

Originally Posted by theblindking

I agree absolutely with CF, however can only submit annecdotal evidence; doesn't mean we're wrong though does it?

I completely agree and by the same logic it also doesn't mean you are right.

If I had a penny for every undervalued soldier/officer who was getting out to instantly move into a top notch job and earn squillions…

**theblindking** · 28-05-2012, 20:05

Originally Posted by CAARPS

I completely agree and by the same logic it also doesn't mean you are right.

If I had a penny for every undervalued soldier/officer who was getting out to instantly move into a top notch job and earn squillions…

Fair enough. My point was more that I don't believe it is possible to produce pukkah data about a phenomenon that we all recognise. It may be overstated annecdotaly and that's the real problem - no one really knows quite how serious the problem is because we cant reliably measure it.