Army to force out wounded soldiers

Haven't seen this as a thread yet

So as injured casualties rise the Armed forces are unable to absorb them into the system, like before, and now deems them surplus to requirement.

I can appreciate the idea but who honestly believes it will be funded correctly?

"The MoD said yesterday that soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when they leave. They are also given a maximum £6,000 for three years to spend on training and rehabilitation."

6 grand for training and rehab!!!

edited to add quote
Medically Unfit? Do they mean casualties with physical or mental illness or fatties?

Booting out casualties is the road to poor morale, bad recruiting, forced retention (stop loss etc) and an evetual military coup.

Booting out fatties who cannot, or will not pass Service Fitness Tests, is an interesting idea. What if they are in the pinch point trades? Will the media then portray them as "victims". Will there be a run on salads in the cookhouse?

See the thread on this very site about delusional fat people.
Good comment from Tom Scarff;

A simple solution for the wounded and disabled. Civil service appointments in their old Garrisons, or other areas (with re training where necessary). For those unable to meet normal fitness standards the system already exists to "shape up or be shipped out" and in this respect CO's and Medical officers are responsible. The inherited problem is years of an official policy of "retention at all cost" to make up the numbers game against recruiting shortfalls. Woe betide the unit commander who decided to do some "weeding and pruning". In these days of of Super Soldiers General Sir David Richards must have his "boots on the battlefield". If what we read is true there is hardly a unit in the Army which is up to combat strength. Conservatively the figures of the medically unfit represent a Combat Brigade. Sadly, confidence in the government is non existent and this remedial intention is immediately interpreted as yet another measure to "do down" our valiant wounded and disabled.
It might not be the acceptable thing to do, but it has to be looked at.

The Armed Forces are there to deploy and do the business. Therefore, those in uniform are to be the deployable force. We are also fewer than ever in numbers and are deploying more than in living memory.

The percentage of those not able to be deployed is increasing. This means the reducing numbers of fit and healthy have to pick up the deployments.

At what point do you do something about it? Those at the top can't sit there and wait for the train wreck.

I'm not saying I agree with it - I'm just saying we should think about the consequences of a small military with an increasing undeployable section. Given the obvious lack of investment, how would anyone else solve it?
Lovel;y way to treat people who have fought for the country. This government is prepared to spend as much as it wants on immigrants, giving 800 million to India for its poor despite the fact thatr India prefers to spend it's money on space exploeration and spend billions on two wars it shouldn't have been involved in and yet it cant spend some money on these soldiers. This traitorous government is just a waste of time and should be immediatly removed from power and the Labour party disolved.

I like the way in the article it states: "Now they are blocking the recruitment of young, fit soldiers and have to be medically discharged because no extra money can be found to pay them.”

The military are crying out for new soldiers to fulfil the commitments, so does this mean that now the military has more people then it knows what to do with? Labour=Liars.
Obviously, if the powers that be were to provide appropriate compensation, adequate war pensions, as well as re-training and support post discharge it would be acceptable in extreme cases, given the amount of casualties the Army is taking. Sadly, we know that will never happen as governments of all types will dump the injured without a second glance or thought.

Surely there must be enough medically downgraded jobs around to accommodate those able to continue to serve in some meaningful way?

Those who were injured to such a degree that they were unable to remain in H.M. Forces should be given first refusal for MoD civilian jobs so they can still feel part of the team and skills put to good use.

Take good care of the severely wounded or mentally unable to continue, or keep them employed wherever possible.

Loyalty and morale should always be the first priority.

Good luck getting the former or maintaining the latter... :x
25,000 Service personnel unfit for operational duties? Something has to be done about that.
As mentioned earlier, medically unfit were reatained as part on the numbers game and for 'emotional' reasons. The forces have always had a perfectly functional system for discharging those who will never return to full fitness.

An article recently detailed how the Army was in danger of going over strength due to the surge in recruits, so, it's just the numbers game putting pressure on the other end of the manpower figures.

Heaven forbid that anyone out there has worked the system for the past six years ensuring that they are fit enough to serve but too unfit to deploy.


Book Reviewer
There must come a point where soldiers will have to be let go due to the seriousness of their injuries
If we continue to hold on to severly wounded soldiers then they are effectively taking the slots that needed to be filled by fit soldiers able to deploy

I would get rid of all the fat knackers who are unable to pass fitness tests and deploy if soldiers with one leg can regain fitness and pass the tests there should be no reason why able bodied people can't

Off course there should be proper recompence for loss of limbs and careers and rehabilitation and training probably needs massive investment to ensure these soldiers are cared for


This sends out a clear message ---Get wounded, and we wont want to know you any more!! ---- Or confirming the fact that Canonfodder really does exist!! ----Or if you really want to get funny about it,----- Any soldier in this situation, should sue the Army under the disability discrimination act. "Thanks for your long loyal service to Queen and country" Now piss off!! :evil: :evil: ----- What is wrong with giving them a back room job? or is that bad for the Army image?
Pointless having soldiers if they cannot perform their duties efficiently. The army isn't a charity. Its all very well putting them in jobs that don't require full fitness but there's only so many places within a battalion. Give them a decent payout and pension and mag to grid.
Sounds harsh but the army isn't a charity, it's a fighting organisation and sadly it's the fighting troops from the infantry that are sustaining the most casualties. Infantry battalions can only employ so many injured personnel.
Maybe a new unit could be sanctioned for injured troops to serve in.

Edited to add: Yes I am fully aware non infantry units also receive casualties before the REMF's call for the outrage bus to be POL'd.
Some posts on this thread seem to be verging on the hysterical. Perhaps a little distillation is required.

1. If you are not fit enough to deploy and cant get fit within a reasonable time then you have to leave. The army is a fighting force not a social welfare organisation.
2. If you are wounded / injured and can no longer serve, you should be looked after properly, outside of the army.
3. If you are wounded / injured but can still serve, go for it.

Leave the outrage bus parked on the square please.


Book Reviewer
Following on from our German Para Friend above, the situation must of course be especially tricky in the Inf - where being fit to fight is essential - but less so, surely, in many parts of the CSS, where I've seen many a CLM course consisting of nearly 30% not-at-all fit soldiers (Most were trying to return to fitness, but a fair few were good old fashioned malingerers).

CSS Units would be able to absorb a fair proportion of those injured, surely - providing that sufficient retraining was available - and that the Soldiers involved wanted to do it, of course.

As for getting them jobs in Garrisons - why not? People still remember the times when concierges, lift attendants, etc, were mostly disabled Veterans. But of course nowadays giving wounded ex-Servicemen priority would undoubtedly be illegal, under some law or another :(
4. Ammend the law to allow disabled veterans preferential treatment in employment where it is reasonable to do so.
Even if this is just media dramatisation and he wants to get rid of "routine" medically downgraded staff that most units have hanging around, it's still a case of history going unlearned.

In the cullings of the early 90s, they got rid of a good number of fat lads and most of those with a long term P3 medical status, this essentially culled the storemen, the mess staff, "regimental police" and support roles that are traditionally uniformed roles. Only once they were getting their clearance chits signed did it occur to a good number of the senior manglement that they really needed someone in that storeroom or managing their mess for them. Then perfectly good "front line" squaddies were stuck in these roles against their will with a decent number leaving early due to discontentment. A bodged job enforced by politicians who knew the price of everything but the value of nothing.

It's not ideal but it's usually a lot more efficient having these roles run by a military person whose "front line" career has essentially ended due to a minor long-term illness or incurable lard on the gut.
The MoD admitted last week that 14.6% of the armed forces — 25,400 of the 174,000 service personnel — are unfit for combat duties.
ALC, REME, who else? :D

Seriously, all soldiers, etc, need to be able to fight. Remember the Battle of the Bulge? In times of need Cooks, Clerks etc will all need to pick up a rifle, fix bayonet and move forward.

I think the real issue here is that no one believes those discharged will be looked after. £6,000 over 3 years for training, plus the current pension, is pathetic compared to the package offered to our American cousins. Those injured (legs, arms, mental health) and having made a sacrifice for our society and country should not have to worry about making a living or sending their kids to Uni. The wiff of Kevin Jones involvement means that it will be done on the fecking cheap and our soldiers will be left out in the cold. As for the fatties - short spell in MCTC on low cal diet should get them back into shape.


Book Reviewer
CavalryCaptain said:
Seriously, all soldiers, etc, need to be able to fight. Remember the Battle of the Bulge? In times of need Cooks, Clerks etc will all need to pick up a rifle, fix bayonet and move forward.

My bold

No need to go that far back we were using Cooks and Clerks to provide top cover on Telic 4

I must say I agree with Fally and I touched on it in my post just above him
There does have to be a limit to how many injured personell a unit can hold onto
As he says Infantry units are bearing the brunt of it but the nature of the job dictates you need to be fit to do it
Look at the other thread today about the young officer bayoneting some Taliban
Could a one legged soldier run foward with that amount of kit on and do it?
Alot of us would be hard pushed to do it now able bodied

The problem is that the British Forces have always been treated badly once they became deemed surplus to requirement
Yes I know it is not a charity but, there are serving wounded/seriously injured members who can still do a job freeing up jobs that are done by abled bodied soldiers. That way they wounded/injuried are still be cared for "in house"
Fallschirmjager said:
johnboyzzz said:
but, there are serving wounded/seriously injured members who can still do a job freeing up jobs that are done by abled bodied soldiers.
Perhaps he means in the CQMS stores.

Latest Threads