Army Manning Levels - may I have a clue please?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by LucreziaBorgia, May 15, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hello,

    A serious question, if I may? I'm getting a little confused by the conflicting reports currently in the press.

    Is Her Majesty's Army currently:

    a) Overmanned
    b) Undermanned
    c) A combination of both
    d) Other?

    I've just popped over to the MOD website - the latest Manning Report is up at: (I'm sorry, the system I'm working on won't allow me to post a proper link)

    A direct quote from the report:

    "At 1 April 2011 the full time trained strengths of each of the three Services were below requirement."

    And another:

    "All three Services have been in deficit since April 2003, except the RAF who were briefly in surplus from April to July 2005 following a reduction in the requirement, and the Army who were in surplus from April to October 2010."

    This would seem to make sense, given that recruitment still appears to be in full swing. However - the papers seem to be full of stories of soldiers receiving redundancy warnings, and a couple of my husband's colleagues have recently received a "quiet word"?

    My sincere apologies if this is a horribly stupid question, I just can't seem to get my head around it and this irks me. I can neither confirm nor deny any rumours of a relation between my decrease in mental acuity and my current blood-to-alcohol ratio...

    Many thanks for any clarification you are able to give me.

  2. Not sure about 'overmanned' or 'undermanned', but I know it was properly fvcked by the Blair-Brown-Balls Terror and it has now been 'gang-banged' by the Tory - Limp/Dim Coalition.
  3. The Army was briefly over strength (the term manning refers to the right number of people at the right rank with the right qualification in the right job - we've never had that) but has now dipped under the line again. Recruiting and redundancy are not linked - we might need to reduce the number of REME Sergeants in which case redundancy is one solution but the REME will still need Crafstman coming in to sustain the overall structure. Hope that makes sense.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. It does. Thank you very much. :)

  5. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    ....I know it seems daft to be laying people off when all three Services are under strength....but as per the above post, turning off the recruiting taps has been tried before - and causes much heartache a few years down stream.

    In the late 90's I worked in the Naval equivalent of Adjutant Gen's office - the bit that deals with manning and recruitment.

    At the time, one of the problems produced by turning OFF recruiting in the period 1989 - 91 ( ah, the famous 'Peace Dividend' ) was that downstream, there appeared a 'Black Hole' in some 'pinch point ' trades at the Leading Hand/Cpl level ...the guys who, under normal circs would have been looking to become JNCOs just weren't there..... they even had a handy acronym for it - MARILYN*........I'm sure it is the same in the Army......if you stop recruiting REME apprentices now , in 8 yerars time you won't have the skilled bods you need to maintain the equipment coming back (DV) from Afghanistan !

    ( it's no wonder bean-counters like the unlamented former Chancellor just don't 'get' the Armed Forces - because they are attuned to In-Year Forecast of Outturn and short term prospects (such as getting re-elected) not long-term growth and sustainability..........)

    What depresses people who have been around a while is the sickening regularity with which these ' solutions ' come round again....and again....and again....

    To quote Mark Twain ' History does not repeat itself - but it does Rhyme.....'

    MARILYN - Recruitment (Hansard, 23 October 1989)
  6. The rumour I heard a month ago was that 2 Scottish Battalions are being lined up for the chop because they are undermanned, the Argylls and one other (can't remember which). Obviously not true, as the latest Defence Review seems to have been published without mentioning it, but the fact that the rumour was being treated seriously is an indication of pessimism about the future based on experience.

    On a slightly different note, and with tongue in cheek, I sometimes feel that the Conservative party has a lot in common with the anarchists. For different reasons, neither want to levy taxes, have governments interfere with people's lives, or have armed forces, and both prefer self-regulation to a system of formal laws.