Army weakened by recruitment failure

#1
The British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. An internal Whitehall memo reveals that the British infantry is 1,280 men short of full fighting strength ahead of the fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/27/military.defence

msr
 
#2
So, on the back of a fag packet:

£95,000,000 / 1280 = £75,000 give or take. Sounds like quite a signing on bonus to bring the army up to full strength.

msr
 
#3
At least theres some good news on the payouts for wounded men. How would those £15,000 bonuses for staying on work?
 
#6
And it proves one thing that governments will only ever pay the forces the correct rate for the job or provide good conditions of service if they have to. Not because they work hard are very professional etc etc but because they can't get enough to stay in or join to do the job. These are the prime motivating conditions for our political masters. Seems to work like the rest of the economy! The forces just make it harder for themselves by not having a strong representitive boby.
 
#7
msr said:
The British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. An internal Whitehall memo reveals that the British infantry is 1,280 men short of full fighting strength ahead of the fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/27/military.defence
So look out for them to quietly announce the closing/amalgamation of two infantry battalions then. Hey presto, no more manpower shortage!
 
#8
Offer a re-enlistment bonus to ex-R Irish (HS) not to have to repay redundancy on enlistment (as stipulated when we were sacked) and I can guarantee the shortfall of troops would be immediately filled by Infantry soldiers. We'd be battle ready in 6 months.
 
#9
I wonder why maggie the thatcher hiked up the pay for squaddies in 1979 just after she was voted in. Was she perhaps thinking that she might need the Army to keep her in power?
I for one did not complain at the time.
May_fair
 
#10
msr said:
The British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. An internal Whitehall memo reveals that the British infantry is 1,280 men short of full fighting strength ahead of the fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan.
msr
and they turn me down because of a little eczema.....Dropping standards to meet demands is by no means the answers. They could have however taken in to account experience/education/etc and weighed this up against said medical bullsh*t...rant over
 
#11
Slight change of emphasis- Mostly INFANTRY weakened by acute recruitment crisis! Good job they had a large spate of Inf redundancies a few years ago, now they can hire them all back.

Second point, recruiting offices should spell out what the infantry does, not try to gloss things up. If they were a bit more honest and up front, they might not still meet their targets, but at least they'd keep soldiers/rfn/gdmsn a bit longer. Lie to people, they will leave as soon as they can. In army recruiting, honesty is always the best policy.
 
#12
Its hardly News.

The Army has been robbing peter to pay paul for years.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#13
I think that with with the Ops in Iraq and the 'stan Infantry turnover will always be high, especially for the newer guys.

I know a few people who are signing off or who'd want a posting so they ddon't have to do Afghan again next year. Because they've had their war and don't want to do it again. I'd imagine this is probably the same for alot of infantry battalions.
 
#14
Everyone wants to wear camo and carry a gun in peacetime but no-one really wants to risk getting blown up to do it. I for one wouldn't join up - crap pay, crap accomodation, no appreciation. And why the **** should I risk my life just because some chinless ****** in No. 10 says so. If the country was in danger then I'd be the first up, but not some silly adventures like the ones we're currently packing you lads off for.
 
#15
Spanner said:
Slight change of emphasis- Mostly INFANTRY weakened by acute recruitment crisis! Good job they had a large spate of Inf redundancies a few years ago, now they can hire them all back.

Second point, recruiting offices should spell out what the infantry does, not try to gloss things up. If they were a bit more honest and up front, they might not still meet their targets, but at least they'd keep soldiers/rfn/gdmsn a bit longer. Lie to people, they will leave as soon as they can. In army recruiting, honesty is always the best policy.
Fcuk, something like 200 odd years of recruiting policy was being done the wrong way. Wish someone had thought of this before :)
 
#16
spack_bandit said:
Everyone wants to wear camo and carry a gun in peacetime but no-one really wants to risk getting blown up to do it. I for one wouldn't join up - crap pay, crap accomodation, no appreciation. And why the * should I risk my life just because some chinless * in No. 10 says so. If the country was in danger then I'd be the first up, but not some silly adventures like the ones we're currently packing you lads off for.


F*ck you arrse bandit!
 
#17
msr said:
The British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. An internal Whitehall memo reveals that the British infantry is 1,280 men short of full fighting strength ahead of the fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/27/military.defence

msr
I presume this was a leaked whitehall memo? When the papers say they are in posession of a leaked memo, what they are in fact saying is that they are in possession of information that is in the provenance of another and therefore not for public consumption but which has been passed on without authority to a third party.

Anyone passing such information to a jorno ought to be considered a thief, no matter how well intentioned they may think they are being :x :x
 
#18
TrooperG said:
spack_bandit said:
Everyone wants to wear camo and carry a gun in peacetime but no-one really wants to risk getting blown up to do it. I for one wouldn't join up - crap pay, crap accomodation, no appreciation. And why the * should I risk my life just because some chinless * in No. 10 says so. If the country was in danger then I'd be the first up, but not some silly adventures like the ones we're currently packing you lads off for.


F*ck you arrse bandit!
Whats your point, or are you saying Iraq is worthwhile?
 
#19
I wonder what the wage bill would look like if they paid people for every hour worked and time and a half for overtime. My pal the recruiting officer says the government is just going to have to bite the bullet and pay the rate for the job - the country should show they care, and the way that countries show they care is by putting their hands in their pockets.
 
#20
Ord_Sgt said:
TrooperG said:
spack_bandit said:
Everyone wants to wear camo and carry a gun in peacetime but no-one really wants to risk getting blown up to do it. I for one wouldn't join up - crap pay, crap accomodation, no appreciation. And why the * should I risk my life just because some chinless * in No. 10 says so. If the country was in danger then I'd be the first up, but not some silly adventures like the ones we're currently packing you lads off for.


F*ck you arrse bandit!
Whats your point, or are you saying Iraq is worthwhile?
That is another argument altogether. I dont however think that calling military operations that have killed British Soldiers 'silly adventures' is right. Whatever the reasons we are there, there is fcuk all silly or adventurous about getting killed.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads