Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

Or (from the perspective of a military bod who is still serving, closer to the heart of current recruitment than 99.9% of posters):

Everything Capita (Crapita, or all the other non funny japes) does in the army recruiting arena is only implemented once sanctioned at 2* ARITC, if low impact, or 3* Home Command, if likely to have a major impact, or more likely ministerial, if likely to hit the national press.

Convienently, in the spirit of partnering, if it goes well (not very likely) it’s a MOD decision, when it goes wrong, in the short term, CRAPITA have f*cked it once again (MOD and Army stand back).

Unfortunately, one of the biggest issues (in my opinion) with current recruiting is that Middle class parents (both military an Capita) who are in charge of it all, are trying to offer a respectable job to their middle class kids.

Their ‘Middle class’ research reinforces their stereotypes of “Generation Whatever”, so they decide with their ‘belonging’ adverts, they are in touch with da youff. Positive reinforcement at a spectacular level!

Therefore we end up offering a career to career minded people.
Individuals who would excel in our technical trades but have absolutely no interest in committing to 4 years of their life.

What we are not offering (which we always did, for centuries) is a way out to the dregs (bare with me). Those who can’t read or write, have no prospects in their slum (read sink council estate), those that don’t have a dozen internet connectable products in their house (as our researchers insist is the norm) those that we can offer real social mobility too.

Those that our multi million pound surveys completely miss. Those that we need if we want to be a credible fighting force. Those that have served us well forever as a great army.

But then, again, I am not from the ‘right’ background, what would I know :)
I would not challenge a word of that.

But your closing line made me think: it's been more than a century since our army made a Field Marshall out of a man from a background such as your own.

Perhaps soldiering would bcome a more attractive career proposition, if the from-the-rank-and-file promotion path could be shown not to have an effective glass ceiling at the rank of Major, in ancillary management roles (no offence intended),?
 
Perhaps soldiering would bcome a more attractive career proposition, if the from-the-rank-and-file promotion path could be shown not to have an effective glass ceiling at the rank of Major, in ancillary management roles (no offence intended),?
That's exactly what put me off, and that was nearly 40 years ago. Despite passing RCB I knew that I'd probably not progress beyond Major
 
I would not challenge a word of that.

But your closing line made me think: it's been more than a century since our army made a Field Marshall out of a man from a background such as your own.

Perhaps soldiering would bcome a more attractive career proposition, if the from-the-rank-and-file promotion path could be shown not to have an effective glass ceiling at the rank of Major, in ancillary management roles (no offence intended),?
And absoloutly non taken :)

I have worked (and still do) with some absoloutly tremendous DE officers (infantry/Cav the biggest culprits but not exclusive) who have no chance of major progression due to wrong school, regional accent.

I know it isn’t fashionable to argue the point but, it is true.

That aside, and taliking about recruitment. We either want an army full of nasty bastards who will do damage to our enemies or an organisation that offers a long and fulfilling, equal opportunities career to all.

Both are fine in their own right, but we need to decide which we want and back it, you can’t have both, but that is axactly what we are currently striving for.

Utter madness :)
 
Or (from the perspective of a military bod who is still serving, closer to the heart of current recruitment than 99.9% of posters):

Everything Capita (Crapita, or all the other non funny japes) does in the army recruiting arena is only implemented once sanctioned at 2* ARITC, if low impact, or 3* Home Command, if likely to have a major impact, or more likely ministerial, if likely to hit the national press.

Convienently, in the spirit of partnering, if it goes well (not very likely) it’s a MOD decision, when it goes wrong, in the short term, CRAPITA have f*cked it once again (MOD and Army stand back).
Two observations on that; it’s only recruiting. Something which every government department, business, university or club does. It really shouldn’t need 3* approval; it’s not complex or high risk. By controlling at such a level, any agility to reinforce success is lost. Crazy.

And a culture of laying the blame in a partnering arrangement is a prime indicator of failure. It’s very difficult to recover failed partnering relationships. If they aren’t kicked off with the right resources and approach at the start they are invariably doomed.

One question; does the demographic you describe still exist in a recruitable form? I have my doubts.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
One question; does the demographic you describe still exist in a recruitable form? I have my doubts.
I think it does. I'd say the majority of cavalry troopers I've encountered have come from a population with few real prospects. Illiteracy is very rare these days and it's a slightly more demanding cohort than their equivalent in the 70s, but that demographic is definitely there to a certain extent. It's a lot less white than it used to be though and our army seems to be pretty poor at getting BAME recruits through the door.
 
The Army don't really advertise. An advert on TV here and there is all there is.
Fairs and fetes all around the country used to have a large military presence as did
fire service and ambulance services.

Kids were running around quite happy with plastic guns until then saw the real ones
Then they got interested. Then we had interested teenagers.

If the message is recruiting aimed at kids is a bad thing, then surely the message is the military as a job is bad.

Army recruiting? I rarely see it.
 
I think it does. I'd say the majority of cavalry troopers I've encountered have come from a population with few real prospects. Illiteracy is very rare these days and it's a slightly more demanding cohort than their equivalent in the 70s, but that demographic is definitely there to a certain extent. It's a lot less white than it used to be though and our army seems to be pretty poor at getting BAME recruits through the door.
Not sure the Cavalry are open to graduate Troopers, I agree with the jist of what you are saying but sadly I don't think the culture is there to tolerate or use them. The cadre of Troopers and Infanteers of the future will continue to be low academically if there is nothing for them to use their brains on, thats if indeed they want to use the skills they used at Uni or in further education.
 
If you ask the yoof on the street their favourite football team, they will give a reply, football followers or not. Ask them their local regiment and they’ll struggle to answer.

Tell parents little Johnny wants to be a squaddie and they’ll see no prospects and no betterment. Tell them that a degree will be paid for by the army if they leave (after getting L1&2 lit and num) and they might see it as a career.

We need a greater presence in the community so people understand what we do and a quicker system to get school leavers into work.
 
it isn’t fashionable to argue the point but, it is true
Indeed - I've just clocked up a 'dumb' from a bloke who contends on here, unchallenged, both that:

(a) The modern army is entirely egalitarian​

and that;

(b) The very best officers are the products of private education, which imparts a certain (and apparently indefinable) 'polish', which is essential if you're ever gonna be a senior officer​

You couldn't make this shit up :-D
 
Last edited:
If you ask the yoof on the street their favourite football team, they will give a reply, football followers or not. Ask them their local regiment and they’ll struggle to answer.

Tell parents little Johnny wants to be a squaddie and they’ll see no prospects and no betterment. Tell them that a degree will be paid for by the army if they leave (after getting L1&2 lit and num) and they might see it as a career.

We need a greater presence in the community so people understand what we do and a quicker system to get school leavers into work.
I think there's a deal of truth in that.

I've a sense that peoples expectations have been shifting in my lifetime, such that 'we all want to be middle class', and rank'n'file soldiering doesn't fit the parental ambitions of the artisan entrepreneur, who knows he ain't well-educated, and will lay out substantial sums on tutors, in the expectation that he's buying his kid(s) a place at grammar school.

That was unthinkable, not so long ago, IMHO.
 
The cadre of Troopers and Infanteers of the future will continue to be low academically if . . .
. . . we continue to recruit whilst applying a basic assumption that says this cadre will continue to be low academically.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in effect.

The US. Army struggled with it for a decade and more, post Viet Nam.


Then Ronnie Reagan comes along, and - rather like @fraudstar suggested - starts offering college education to those who serve in the ranks (there's mebbe echoes in Ronnie's offer, of service in the legions of ancient Rome, or modern France)
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Indeed - I've just clocked up a 'dumb' from a bloke who contends on here, unchallenged, both that:

(a) The modern army is entirely egalitarian​

and that;

(b) The very best officers are the products of private education, which imparts a certain (and apparently indefinable) 'polish', which is essential if you're ever gonna be a senior officer​

You couldn't make this shit up :-D
1. What is incompatible about those two statements?

2. Polish isn't indefinable. I have offered to discuss it but you've refused on multiple occasions. I remain happy to discuss it on either a separate thread or by PMs whenever you wish if you have the intellectual honesty to do so rather than deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your agenda.
 
Last edited:
The recent adverts have been ridiculous. The stopping the patrol for a pray up one wasn't great but the one that really makes me cringe is the cracking hug one, whoever came up with that one needs sacking, whoever signed it off needs sacking with pension removed.
We need people who will stick a bayonet through some ******* face and we're advertising for people who are worried that they might not get a cuddle FFS..........
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
Then Ronnie Reagan comes along, and - rather like @fraudstar suggested - starts offering college education to those who serve in the ranks (there's mebbe echoes in Ronnie's offer, of service in the legions of ancient Rome, or modern France)
This assistance with tertiary education long pre-dates the Reagan Administration. Whilst the Montgomery GI Bill of 1984 is probably the best known version, the Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 was probably the real parent of the modern version of the GI Bill, in that it rewarded Servicemen whether they served in time of war or peace. Until then, all previous Readjustment Benefits Acts, or 'GI Bills' had been for a specific conflict.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Why not simply state it then? It shouldn't be a secret and I need a good laugh.

You are simply setting conditions to hide behind.
Happy to but it will derail the thread because it won't be a single post. There's no condition beyond starting a thread to discuss it. I should point out that I have previously attempted to trigger a discussion of this on another thread but Stonker refused to engage, preferring instead to continue to misrepresent me. I'm just bored of him attempting to derail multiple threads with the same tedious crap.

If you think I'm setting conditions then please start a thread about it yourself. I'll cheerfully respond.
 
Last edited:
It's a lot less white than it used to be though and our army seems to be pretty poor at getting BAME recruits through the door.
That’s exactly my point; the white working class pool from which we used to recruit has dwindled. There are many other aspirational paths available and what remains not following one often disqualifies itself through drug use. The old ways of recruiting were dislocated by demographic change.

IMHO the recruiting partnership was a golden opportunity to reset recruiting for the C21st. It’s been squandered.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That’s exactly my point; the white working class pool from which we used to recruit has dwindled.
It has, but I think it's dwindled less than the size of the army. White working class men (almost the only demographic not targeted by our recruitment) are now clearly the worst performing group at school level so we should still be able to find enough of them to recruit for an army of only 80k.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top