ARmy Rumour SErvice

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…

Originally Posted by theblindking

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.

Originally Posted by msr

Doesn't mean you are right thought either...

Please see above - why not suggest a method by which we can measure the ability of those leaving?

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…

I'd recomend you discount them, and think about the quiet ones who just slip out of the troop one day... The ones who big their chances up are normally a. looking for a supportive 'yes, you'll be missed' or are b. looking to inflate their confidence. You find them in both Officer and Otehr ranks. Problem with SJAR/OJARs I suppose is the objective feel but the subjective nature.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

The Army are already getting rid of their non-deployables though. Considering we have top end age limits on who can deploy why are we giving money to anyone over that age? The Regs are going through a lot of job losses of people who medically can't deploy (I'd have thought it's very rare for anyone in the Regs to hit the upper age limits) through PAP10 etc, so the TA should do the same with those too old to go to war.

But that is because the regulars have been told to lose 20,000 while the TA has been told to grow by a similar number. If anyone can explain why it takes Glasgow 6-8 months to transfer one to the other (isn't this one of the reasons we bought JPA?), I am sure there several here who would like to know.

Applying regular army age limits to the TA would see the whole organisation crumble.

m-s-r

Originally Posted by theblindking

Please see above - why not suggest a method by which we can measure the ability of those leaving?

You miss the point of academic debate: if I can show you have no evidence, your argument is destroyed. I don't have to provide a solution ;)

m-s-r

Originally Posted by msr

Applying regular army age limits to the TA would see the whole organisation crumble.

If a TA soldier is too old to deploy then they're essentially useless to the core business of the Army. Anyone can learn how to drive a minibus and anyone can be taught how to sign the rifles out of the armoury on a Friday night. Why do we need to keep on paying what is essentially a useless mouth who's blocking the system for the young lads who are still able to return the Army's investment in them? I'm not suggesting regular age limits because I know the TA generally join older. What I'm suggesting is that if you're too old to go on tour then you're no real use to the Army just like if you're too unfit to deploy you're no real use anymore.

I've seen several very good regular soldiers who were outstanding at their jobs, held various driving licences and instructor quals and had a wealth of operational experience who've been told they no longer have a job in the regs because they've got long term injuries they're not going to recover from so why does the TA need to keep geriatrics who are similarly unable to deploy?

Originally Posted by msr

You miss the point of academic debate: if I can show you have no evidence, your argument is destroyed. I don't have to provide a solution ;)

m-s-r

Contrarily, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And anecdotal evidence is exactly that. It's perfectly admissible, provided it's limitations are recognised.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

If a TA soldier is too old to deploy then they're essentially useless to the core business of the Army. Anyone can learn how to drive a minibus and anyone can be taught how to sign the rifles out of the armoury on a Friday night. Why do we need to keep on paying what is essentially a useless mouth who's blocking the system for the young lads who are still able to return the Army's investment in them? I'm not suggesting regular age limits because I know the TA generally join older. What I'm suggesting is that if you're too old to go on tour then you're no real use to the Army just like if you're too unfit to deploy you're no real use anymore.

I've seen several very good regular soldiers who were outstanding at their jobs, held various driving licences and instructor quals and had a wealth of operational experience who've been told they no longer have a job in the regs because they've got long term injuries they're not going to recover from so why does the TA need to keep geriatrics who are similarly unable to deploy?

See here: SNCO Enablers...

Minibus license = 1 week of driver training (can't be done 2 evenings per week over 4 weeks for some unfathomable reason)
Sign rifles out of the armoury = Must be SSgt or above

Now, if we could have some smashed up regulars doing the 'enabling jobs' (e.g.range safety / hazmat trg / C-IED trg / DITS / CBRN / etc) or even (gasp!) running these courses in the evenings / over weekends then we might be on able to deliver a suitably qualified TA.


m-s-r

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

If a TA soldier is too old to deploy then they're essentially useless to the core business of the Army. Anyone can learn how to drive a minibus and anyone can be taught how to sign the rifles out of the armoury on a Friday night.

but that's just the point...anyone could, if you had the time, amongst all the other pointless bullshit that soldiers have to fill up an increasingly small vessel of training time.

One of the best reasons for keeping on old 'n' bold for those sorts of jobs is that it frees up others for more worthwhile training. Or in other words, I could get one of the young 'uns to take time off work to get his C1/D1 licence sorted - but it might also scupper his chances of being able to do that crucial career course, or participate in crucial collective training.

To be honest, the cost of keeping a few old gits on the books for odd jobs is well worth it, unless of course it becomes a promotions blocker. I would suggest however that any OC who allowed the latter to happen requires his head examining anyway.