Army shortfall as number of soldiers leaving soar

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by oldbaldy, Oct 17, 2007.

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. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    Scottish Daily Herald

    Looks like someone from the Herald might be having a drink with someone who works not far from their office. :wink:
  2. It also looks like Broon's stingy attitude to defence (ie poor pay, poor accomodation and cr@p kit, when you get kit!) is coming home to roost.

    Unfortunately, that will NOT impact on Broon. Oh no, he will be too busy worrying how it all went wrong and then blaming someone else. The people it will most affect, as usual, will be the PBI.

    Very sad and not a little worrying.
  3. This next 12 months will prove critical. Combination of increasing VO and leaving at first option point will leave HMF reeling.

    It is not just the pay. Many probs caused by overstretch and basic lack of medical care/ priority.

    Nothing that can be fixed easily.

    We should not be committing more troops for Afg. We are wrecking our Armed Forces, for what? No other European NATO country is in it up to their necks, why should we be?
  4. Yet again good old Team Deterrence find themselves looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The problem highlighted was retention, not recruiting. Perhaps the quote from the media drone should have read:

    "The MoD said retention was "challenging" and had been "affected by a number of factors, including the Govt's refusal to uphold the military covenant, spouse reluctance to allow their husband/wife to remain in the military due to poor pay and housing, and the non-availability of further promotion and advancement opportunities".

  5. sadly its a fact of life its not just overstretch people are being promoted to a position of rank they don't deserve and sadly there life skills show as some one who deployed last year and saw first hand experience of this i don't blame these young lads for voting with there feet some of the seniors i had to take crap from deserved to be frag ed complete morons and when the lead did fly there yellowness showed if you haven't got the experience you shouldn't hold the rank
  6. Why, because they gave you orders? As everyone knows blokes (and girls) are leaving the Army for loads of reasons, mostly sh*t pay and conditions and never seeing their families. I don't think talking about fragging people who tell you what to do is a good approach. Ultimately if you don't like being told what to do you could get yourself promoted or leave. Up to you.
  7. Well done Sir for speaking the truth of which all subscribers here are well aware.
    The second statement from the MOD reflects the reason why. People are paid from the same budget to state such absolute BOLLOX. Pay the soldiers more and get rid of these moronic parasites.
    This idea is not new and was predicted in the early 90s before options for change.
    :x :x :x
  8. I don't want to have a go at the grammar or spelling but that really is a bone post. Im guessing that you are near the start of you rcareer and as such you may not be privvy to "the big picture". As such some decisions may appear to be baffling but as a soldier you are expected to carry out your duty. This shouldn't reflect on whether or not you want to get out of the Army. I'd warrant that if you can't be told to do something and then be trusted to do it, you are in the wrong job.

    As another issue, will throwing money at our guys change things? Any junior's on here want to talk about what the gossip in the cookhouse is and what they would do at grassroots to change things?
  9. The key to recruiting is not pay. That sound bite from Brigadier alstead is neither helpful nor illuminating and taken in isolation, as such sound-bites always are prone to be taken, gives a false impression of service people and their values, standards and motivation.

    how many people join the mob because of the money? Yes in the past the "package" looked good, once you threw in reasonable quarters/MQs, AT and sport opportunities and added life-style bonuses. Those appear to have been so deteriorated by generations of governments and increasing operational demands, that pay qua pay seems the least of the problems.

    You would have to pay people a fortune to get them to willingly submit to an undefined period of 6 months on, 6 months off - unless there was something else, something "other" motivating them. Young soldiers tend not to mind the operational tempo, they like the effect it has on their bank balance, the great parties coming home or going out and the kudos of medals and warry experiences. The problem comes when the JNCOs and SNCOs start to get it in the neck from the DSM, they start to feel the stress of mounting, supervising and recovering troops from ops. Then they are under internal and external pressure and many naturally vote with their feet, taking with them skills, experience and qualities of leadership that Shrivenham could not even begin to imbue in its graduates.

    Similarly graduate-predominantly junior officers are put in similar positions, see their peers earning shedloads for much less strain. They see quality of life issues, as the things the army expects of its officers stay the same or increase in burden whilst the fringe benefits reduce or in many cases disappear.

    In many ways the problem with the Armed forces is derived from the argument that technology means you can have fewer men in the loop. so the accountants reduce manpower. The actual iterations of deployment do not change and the individual gets jiffed more and more. Some years ago while working for a major British Aerospace company, who obviously I cannot name or they would boot me from here to Farnborough, I was asked to look at some concepts for future recce AFVs. The boffins were most excited because with auto-loaders, sensors and so forth they reduced the "demands on the crew" and could operate and fight the vehicle with two men. So why not build it to allow two men to operate it. Admittedly most of their thinking, at that time, was conditioned by cockpit designing and RAF operational scenarios. Once it was explained that the two man crew of the AFV would not be returning after a few hours to a nice hotel in Italy, would need to carry out sentry duties in hides, air-sentries, NBC sentries, maintain their vehicles et cetera the idea was dropped...until some accountancy driven geek in the (then) PE produced an OR which stipulated...two man crews!

    It is not about pay. It is about conditions and about maintaining and observing the covenant. The danger with banging on about pay, is that some grubby snouted politician up to his oxters in the trough will recognise that argument as so similar to their own motivations, that they will actually believe it is the answer.
  10. Great post. How do they keep the the NCOs, I agree it's not pay.
  11. I wouldnt discount pay altogether, as it must be a part of the problem. The major factor must be the feeling that they have been at the very least forgotten, and mostly betrayed by this government.
  12. Good post and I pretty much agree with everything you said. Nobody (sane) would join the army for the pay alone as it is possible to earn far more for less effort on the outside.

    From the original article it seems to indicate that the army has no problem atracting recruits just in retaining personel.

    How to improve retention? I can think of a few measures but they would be expensive and mostly retro. A bigger army with less time on operational deployment. More sport and adventure training opportunities. Decent accomodation. Millitary hospitals reopened. Catering on camp to be done by the ACC again and no pay as you dine.
  13. Simple, give them the leadership they deserve both militarily and politically, give them the equipment they need, stop eroding their terms and conditions of service, make the military covenant a legally binding agreement and stop prosecuting them in shameful show trials.

    That would at least be a start.
  14. Perturbed - you seem to get it. I wonder why "Sticky" Twigg, Swiss Tony and co can't quite work it out...brain hurts...nnnnagh!!
  15. Cuddles.

    A really good post. I couldn't agree more. Its not about the money - since I left I've realised that there are so many easier ways to make more cash, and have a better lifestyle.

    Joining the Army is not a strictly rational decision. If I were to look for a new job I could compare it with my current one very easily. How much more responsibility? How much more cash, benefits and package? Will the location give me better quality of life? Will it improve my prospects in my current career, or help me move to another? What would the effect be on my personal and family life?

    By joining the Army you sacrifice nearly all of this choice - its a leap of faith, you can't compare the two. Thanks to decades of economic growth, even young Neds on deprived estates have other, more lucrative and comfortable, options which are much more clear.

    Aside from broad choices - choice of arm, and perhaps a general specialism within that - once you join the Army your career choice will always come a "close second" to the needs of the Army. The gap between the two has widened significantly for many since 2003.

    Secondly, more philosophically, why join the Army at all? Why choose a job which involves voluntarily giving up physical comfort & family stability (among many other things) for intangible benefits - serving Britain's people, national interest & liberating Afghans from the Taliban won't get you a Porsche at Christmas.

    That said I am uncomfortable with normal life - as many of us are after we leave. Why?

    I think some people are "hard-wired" by a combination of upbringing and personal inclination not to see profit as the main focus of their ambition.

    ( I would further argue that the proportion of such people is dropping with time, although this trend could change )

    Hand on heart - I don't lose any sleep over the plight of ordinary Iraqis suffering sectarian violence and pitiful conditions. Nor do I give generously to NGOs seeking rehabilitate Afghan society after crippling decades of conflict. Do you?

    Nevertheless I feel that, once the British people and government have decided that armed force is necessary to achieve some ethical / economic goal, it is a Good Thing to step forward to implement it.

    I - personally - didn't want to be "valued by the nation" - feted at parades, complimented at dinner parties, praised in the papers. I was happy that the public carried on with their lives and left us to ours.

    However, moral committment only goes so far. Not because as soldiers we are being "betrayed by a lying government" but because the government is driving a very hard bargain at the moment.

    Is it too hard? Obviously, I would say yes - and the evidence is in the statistics reported. As Cuddles alludes to - you can work an Army this hard, but should you? Even in pure practical terms, I think not - otherwise it will still be suffering years down the line.

    I think there will always be a relatively steady stream of young men willing to join to do one tour as a man test / life experience alongside their mates. But poor retention limits our ability to train, lead, and develop them in the future.

    What keeps the NCOs in? Hmm... I was approached by a good few before I left who said that they would like to go but that they were scared by the thought of having to find a new career outside, and that they were also hanging in for the pension.

    All that said I am strongly thinking about re-joining, if I can. Why? Its in the hard-wiring...


    ( Edited to say, I meant this in response to Cuddles' first post, not the last one. That said you are right... its not exactly rocket science is it? Just expensive... oh dear )