What does eveyone think of the minimum age limit to join the army being raised. Everyonr i talk to to say junior soldiers turn out to be superb soldiers. I mean no matter what your age you are going to be bullied or not. Some Officers get bullied and the average rupert leaving sandhurst is 23/24.
I think that raising the age limit will ostrocise a valuable source of manpower. These youngsters will go one of three ways:

1. Go to college/get an apprenticeship. Result: civification and a penchant for beer coupled with meeting a girl/boy will lead to them dismissing the army as a possible employer (unless they do the officer thing)

2. Go to work. Result as above.

3. Turn to crime. A lot of our number come from rough backgrounds and their salvation is joining up. I am sure many members can relate to this.

Keep the age as it is, did me no harm.
Joining at 18 will have no effect on bullying in my opinion. It will happen at what ever age and from my experience it is not any worse at 16 or 17 then at older ages.

It's a silly knee jerk reaction.
from what i can understand , if you raise the age to 18 , recruitment will go down by a third.
semper said:
from what i can understand , if you raise the age to 18 , recruitment will go down by a third.
Just what the army needs! :roll:

Could this be a devious ploy by the labour govt (and their liberal cohorts) to further weaken the armed forces and turn them into a home guard?

Putting my shiny hat on :twisted:
Why not introduce a 'halfway house'? Something that 16 and 17 year olds could join, perhaps even going home at weekends, to give them a taste for the military life. Make it fun and throw in lots of weapons training, helicopters and and talk of skiing and parachuting etc. Kind of a mixture of Junior Leaders, Cadets and the Scouts. Trap 'em with the fun stuff and introduce the tougher training when they hit 18. The drinking games can come then too...
The Army has to be allowed to recruit at 16, like any other employer.

However I joined at 16, and one thing that annoyed me was that my minimum commitment was 5 year, yet someone joining as an adult had a minimum commitment of 3 years. To me that's not right - the rules should be the same whatever age you join at - the fact that under 16's are in training longer is just a cost the army should take as part and parcel of the cost of recruiting u 18's
AWOL, you've been to AFC Harrogate then?

The issue of raising the enlistment age to 18 make sense in many respects.

1. Less issues with "children" being shouted at and worked hard in the army and therefore less ammo for the soldier-friendly press (ie the Scum).

2. Would see an end to the problem of under 18s being left to turn idle on rear- party whilst the rest of the Bn is off on Ops.

3. A slightly higher level of maturity of recruits in training.

4. Would get rid of the problem of drinking under age by hiding it in civvie street.

However, as has rightly been said, we rely on a good proportion of our recruits coming into the army before they have found a life for themselves. With continuing recruiting problems we cannot afford to cut back on the under 18s.

However, the army has already proved that we can scrape by whilst undermanned in our Bns so I honestly believe that the present government would see the raising of the recruitment age to 18 as yet another simple answer to any future "Deepcut" senarios.
Joining at 16 never did me any harm, I did adult training without any bullying problems. Would I have joined up if I'd had to wait an extra 2 years? Maybe, would most of the other lads in my intake (a lot of whom were also 16/17)? Maybe not. It's worked for God knows how long, why mess round with it now?
No age change has been "decided". It was suggested by the Commons defence select committee for "consideration" in their Duty of Care report last week. I'd imagine the top brass will resist. If they don't, then maybe they're in the wrong jobs.
This is also driven by the UN and child soldiers. It is difficult for us (UK Gov) to censure counties who arm children and send them to kill the next village when we are arming 16 year olds. Only a little hint of do as I say not as I do.

Sport in school is not great and we can see that in the fitness standards of recruits. What would it be like after two years of doing nothing?
Signed the forms before my 15th birthday and signed the dotted line to serve for 12 years from the age of 18. Joined at 15 and 1 month.....so did 15 years before any option, like the rest of quarter of a million odd boys from 1905 to 1976 who joined the RN at HMS Ganges. Discipline was hard but generally fair and the aim was to turn boys into men to man the fleet, which it did. This all stopped when the school leaving age was raised to 16. Just like the Junior Leaders of the Army system, the majority who went through the that training became good valued members of a society whose antecedence were the power monkeys of Nelson's Navy and the drummer boys of Wellington's Army. IMHO and given the penchant for PC to permeate all sections of society, I think the minimum age for enlistment will be raised to 18 although I don't see the reasoning behind it. In general, the rules are made by oxygen thieves who have themselves never been in harms way. I also did 13 years in the Army and 13 years in the 'sneaky petes' so feel entitled to put my 5 pen'orth in!
If there's an under-age drinking problem in the Army, the Government could solve it by reducing the legal age for drinking (& Ops, and everything else while they're at it) to 16 for members of the Armed Forces (but not Cadets!).

The precedent is already set by allowing 17 year old drivers to drive LGVs.

Should have the double effect of boosting recruitment and allowing 16 year olds to get the alcohol thing (into &) out of their system from the outset - allowing the Army, by way of their Instructors, to shape their views at an impressionable age.

Or are their livers too fragile still? medical opinion needed perhaps. Anyone?


Latest Threads