ARmy Rumour SErvice

**theblindking** · 29-05-2012, 00:38

Originally Posted by Cuddles

There seems to be a fixation in this thread with recruitment but not much consideration of retention - except of course the anathema that is the old and bold enabler. However these are second order issues, if we don't know what we want to recruit for or retain within.

Herrick and continuing operations should soon be a thing of the past. Do not hold your collective breath on that because there are always slips between couch and leap! However the need for a very quickly ready, mainly IR roled reserve may no longer be the main effort. What may become the main effort is the creation of a large-ish reserve, which can develop skills and capability which may be required en masse, at longer notice, tracking a "foreseeable" threat.

Either way, without a credible, reasoned, doctrinal template, there seems little point in shuffling and cutting.

Well, we did raise it earlier but got bogged down in semantics.

"How do we retain?" always has been, and I expect always will be the fundamental factor which dictates the nature and future of the Army.
I regret to say that I don't know what the solution is. I can however give a personal perspective: I have spent the last 4 years or so pretty much in uniform. Tours aside, my willingness to commit (motivated by a combination of retraining and then staying current in a fast changing realm) has reached a tipping point whereby I can no longer afford to be a dirt cheap buckshee bod attached to whoever.

My circumstances are defined by personal factors and the SDSR, but it strikes me that there will be people like me (especially in my capbadge, though probably others) who will provide this stop gap capability and effectively provide the gold standard Reg/res balance that HMG are demanding if only a little effort is made to make it a little bit more worth their while.

In short, the model exists. The motivation exists. The personnel exist. All that is needed is for someone to not fuck the whole thing up.

**alfred_the_great** · 29-05-2012, 02:22

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

I fear you are correct. I also fear that the government is going to get bored of watching the Army refuse to do what it is told and take some pretty unpleasant steps to deal with it. We may say lots of things about the competencies of politicians, but they do tend to notice that sort of thing. And react badly to goverment employees defying the will of Parliament.

I would expect them to be looking for several things:

A root and branch redesign of the TA as a lot of the deficiencies in the current TA are designed in (eg recruits having to be held against RD slots, TA Inf Bns having fewer sub-units and PIDs than Regular and so on);

Ditto for the Regular Army so that when placed alongside each other the total ORBAT makes sense;

Planning and articulating just how the Regular element will train the TA element - after all, post HERRICK it's all going to get very quiet and the traditional option of drinking and whoring in Germany while waiting for WW3 isn't there any more;

Explicit increases in TA footprint and TACs to generate and house the planned expansion in numbers;

Changes in TA and Regular training to support all the above.

Instead what we see is the "Underpants Gnome" approach to FR20.

1. Change nothing that matters;
2. ????
3. Profit !

OOTS - you keep on banging on about this 're-show', precisely who will do it: MoD CS, a retired 'chap', the HoC Defence Select Committee, the RN? I have no doubt your analysis is right, I just can't connect the dots.

This is a serious question, not a dig!

**Gassing_Badgers** · 29-05-2012, 02:36

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

I would expect them to be looking for several things:

A root and branch redesign of the TA as a lot of the deficiencies in the current TA are designed in (eg recruits having to be held against RD slots, TA Inf Bns having fewer sub-units and PIDs than Regular and so on);

(ref my bold)
Well, you be pleased to hear that at least one of those items has now been implemented...

However, as I see it, this is just the first step away from the current crazy situation in which TA units effectively recruit, administer and train (to a certain extent) soldiers from the day they walk in to the TAC. IMHO, the 'system' ought to deliver units fit-for-role soldiers, who are instantly deployable in the ORBAT...just as it does for a Regular Army whose biggest bugbear appears to be TA standards....

**Hobo-Ken** · 29-05-2012, 02:59

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

OOTS - you keep on banging on about this 're-show', precisely who will do it: MoD CS, a retired 'chap', the HoC Defence Select Committee, the RN? I have no doubt your analysis is right, I just can't connect the dots.

This is a serious question, not a dig!

Nobody. Ultimately the re-show will not happen provided that the numbers add up and that we can pretend we have the number of soldiers mandated by the Govt.

**17THSEPTEMBER1944** · 29-05-2012, 06:45

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

(ref my bold)
Well, you be pleased to hear that at least one of those items has now been implemented...

However, as I see it, this is just the first step away from the current crazy situation in which TA units effectively recruit, administer and train (to a certain extent) soldiers from the day they walk in to the TAC. IMHO, the 'system' ought to deliver units fit-for-role soldiers, who are instantly deployable in the ORBAT...just as it does for a Regular Army whose biggest bugbear appears to be TA standards....

Lets hope they are delivered fit for purpose as the RTC's go to the lowest common denominator.

We don't want to be getting blokes (under 30) with 11 min PFT's who can only do 26 press ups after training.

**Bravo_Bravo** · 29-05-2012, 09:04

Originally Posted by 17THSEPTEMBER1944

Lets hope they are delivered fit for purpose as the RTC's go to the lowest common denominator.

We don't want to be getting blokes (under 30) with 11 min PFT's who can only do 26 press ups after training.

Please bear in mind that the RTCs train to the standards imposed on them. They have no influence on the level of those standards.

**The_Duke** · 29-05-2012, 10:09

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Please bear in mind that the RTCs train to the standards imposed on them. They have no influence on the level of those standards.

Which is why units with standards keep their recruits as far away from the centres of mediocrity as possible.

**polar** · 29-05-2012, 10:39

Ok, so apart from the fitness, how are the other standards lower?

National units, like 4 Para, running their own recruit training organisation sounds highly inefficient.

**The_Duke** · 29-05-2012, 11:16

Originally Posted by polar

Ok, so apart from the fitness, how are the other standards lower?

National units, like 4 Para, running their own recruit training organisation sounds highly inefficient.

One of the main drivers for the creation of RTCs was the frankly appalling standard of recruit training being carried out by some units when it was all done in house. It therefore makes sense to bring it all under central control with a proper system of oversight.

However:

1. The standards set for basic TA recuit training are so low as to be ridiculous. The desire to keep numbers has overruled the need to produce a high quality soldier. The system of 9 weekends followed by 2 weeks is never going to match the regular recruit training programmes, and there has always been an element of taking soldiers as "trained" subject to continued training at unit. Unfortunately, few units continue with basic training due to the pressures to get people trade trained. You end up with supposedly trained soldiers who have actually done very little basic soldiering, but lots of drill and powerpoint periods on health & safety and our old favourite, Values and Standards.. This leaves them at risk of falling apart if they ever have to cope in harsh conditions for any period of time.

2. 4 Para (and others with the ability to select their soldiers, rather than just take everyone who stays the distance at an RTC) would have to take a supposedly trained soldier and put them through a further period of training before we could start their proper selection process. It is therefore actually more efficient to keep ownership of our own recruits to set the standards at the required level from day 1. Of course, this requires significant investment in manpower, courses, staff time etc to ensure that the standards set by ITG are met where required, and exceeded when appropriate.

**Smartarrse** · 29-05-2012, 11:44

If the RTC/ATU training standards are set too low, why doesn't the regulatory body (which I think is ITG) raise them?
From what I know of the RTC/ATU's they would be very happy to up the regime and standards!!!!