Hard sums: can we train enough soldiers to reach the 30,000 target?

polar

LE
That would work.

The figures moving in/out May show a trend but also normal variance.

Wonder if the figures were broken down they would show more useful info? Such as AR significantly increasing in the infantry but equally decreasing in RLC/RSigs


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

Purple_Emperor

War Hero
The numbers moving out are fairly steady - my concern is that without the pipeline we wont see them being topped up as they have been in the past year
 
I don't think even the force exerted by a red-tab motivated CO can overcome the inertia of Crapita.
 
Thanks for that - so my reading of this is:

Overall the trained strength of the Army Reserve has risen by a whopping 170 people from 19,230 last April to 19,400 this April. (There is a caveat in the report that this figure may be 130 out though!)

However of new entrants to this trained pool 1,440 had previous service so presumably ex-regulars attracted in by the rejoin incentives.

Interestingly the number of untrained soldiers who joined last year was only 1,590, as opposed to 2,990 in the year up to April 2013. (I am guessing this means people who attested?)

Scarily 2,910 trained soldiers left last year (along with 1,900 untrained soldiers).

The untrained strength of the Army reserve has dropped by 36.5% from 5460 in April 2013 to 3,510 in April 2014 so there is a huge drop in the pipeline coming through.

My predictions based on this - The AR will shrink next year as the pipeline of untrained soldiers is so much smaller and I cant see the conversion rate getting any higher (unless the £1k for completing phase 2 training keeps people in). This drop off will be amongst the non-ex regs so within a couple of year we will see a smaller AR with a much higher proportion of ex regs.

Emperor,

Your analysis is spot on. You demonstrate that:

1. The pipeline of civvy recruits has collapsed.

2. Were it not for the influx of 1,440 with former military service, presumably attracted by the expensive incentives, the trained strength of the Army Reserve would have shrunk by 1,270 (ie around 6%) in a year.

There's a further point which occurs to me, reading your post. It's easy for ex-regulars to join if they apply before leaving the regs or within a year of leaving. After a year, it becomes a ballache. As those made redundant pass that one-year point, the "recovery rate" (ie the proportion who make it through the faff to join) will decrease. That replenishing pipeline will progressively reduce its flow.

I'm not predicting doom. I'm saying that this must be faced up to and the people responsible for this complete fck-up should be held to account.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS, not the bastardised rip-off)
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I don't think even the force exerted by a red-tab motivated CO can overcome the inertia of Crapita.
Agreed, I'm not sure the club of very grown ups would consider foisting that particular millstone upon the new entrants, after all its hardly within their gift or influence to have any impact until the shiny new applicant sets foot in the ARC. Once inside retention should be a measure though!
 
after all its hardly within their gift or influence to have any impact until the shiny new applicant sets foot in the ARC. Once inside retention should be a measure though!

I'm at the stage where COs are mere "grown ups" and "very grown ups" are senior enough that they, or those they directly influence, ought to be able to do something about Capita. Which needs to be done and done quickly*.

But, I agree. Both retention and unit contribution to wider AR training (pace various other threads) need to be explicit default objectives for all COs and OCs.

* I do believe that "something is being done" but I doubt that it will be quick or effective (they aren't adjectives that tend to be applied to the non-kinetic bits of the MoD) or that they will even attempt** to address the special requirements of the Reserves.

** Because no very grown-up's OJAR*** depends on the Reserves.

*** Yes, I know. But I can't be bothered to fire DII up and look it up. Edited to add - DII now up. "SOAR".
 
Last edited:

mso

LE
I don't think even the force exerted by a red-tab motivated CO can overcome the inertia of Crapita.

But it might lead to some interesting conversations with those who do...
 

Blyth_spirit

War Hero
Emperor,

Your analysis is spot on. You demonstrate that:

1. The pipeline of civvy recruits has collapsed.

2. Were it not for the influx of 1,440 with former military service, presumably attracted by the expensive incentives, the trained strength of the Army Reserve would have shrunk by 1,270 (ie around 6%) in a year.

There's a further point which occurs to me, reading your post. It's easy for ex-regulars to join if they apply before leaving the regs or within a year of leaving. After a year, it becomes a ballache. As those made redundant pass that one-year point, the "recovery rate" (ie the proportion who make it through the faff to join) will decrease. That replenishing pipeline will progressively reduce its flow.

I'm not predicting doom. I'm saying that this must be faced up to and the people responsible for this complete fck-up should be held to account.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS, not the bastardised rip-off)
However this presupposes that the bulk of ex-regular recruits are redundees. Anecdotal evidence seems to show this not to be the case.

My assessment is that £10,000 is the main reason for supply outstripping demand and predict a significant outflow in 2016-2020 of those who have met the criteria for their joining bonuses.

I'm not aware of any statistical breakdown of ex - regular inflow between redundees, voluntary discharges and those leaving at the end of term, but it would make interesting reading.
 
I'm at the stage where COs are mere "grown ups" and "very grown ups" are senior enough that they, or those they directly influence, ought to be able to do something about Capita. Which needs to be done and done quickly*.

What you should be saying is that they should do something about the Army Recruiting Partnership, for it is very much a partnering arrangement. I don't think many in the Army understand either that recruiting has been put into a partnering arrangement or what one is.

Partnering arrangements only ever work if credit for success is shared equally and responsibility for shortcomings is taken equally. My personal view is that the Army entered into a partnering arrangement with no concept whatsoever of how one is supposed to work and no concept of its own responsibilities to the relationship. Rather than put an A-Team of top class individuals into the partnering arrangement, it put B-listers, many of whom were fundamentally suspicious of the arrangement. To cap it all, they then changed the partnering team's mission to include something that was never planned; recruiting for the Reserve.

I reckon the Army Recruitment Partnership will go down as a classic case study in how not to do partnering. Capita will end up (already is?) the scapegoat for the Army's failings.
 
What you should be saying is that they should do something about the Army Recruiting Partnership, for it is very much a partnering arrangement.

Semantics. As far as the Army is concerned, it is a classic outsourcing deal. The Army retains policy and standards, Capita do the work. It is a partnership because Capita have partners - JWT & Kenexa.

To cap it all, they then changed the partnering team's mission to include something that was never planned; recruiting for the Reserve
.

Which is why the initial public announcement of the signing of the contract, from Capita, was described:

RPP will deliver the entire process for the attraction and recruitment of soldiers and officers to the Regular and Territorial Army.

However, you have one point - a significant amount of the blame can be levelled at the extremely poor - expensive and inflexible - DII contract with Atlas.
 
Shame we closed all those TA centres and reduced the TA footprint to such a level that it excludes a lot of the population joining. An hours drive to and from a TAC mid week is hardly for the light hearted and doesnt bait the hook
 
Shame we closed all those TA centres and reduced the TA footprint to such a level that it excludes a lot of the population joining. An hours drive to and from a TAC mid week is hardly for the light hearted and doesnt bait the hook

but does the AR need to do the mid-week evenings or is it just "the way we've always done things"? The RNR & RAuxAF seem to manage with just weekends & an annual block
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
That varies unit by unit, role by role.

If you can crack WHT on a Tuesday night before a range weekend, you maximise time on the range. Same for lots of other stuff that sometimes seems like trivia at shop floor level, but causes real training problems if it isn't done.

For commanders, it is a chance to do all of the routine management stuff without having to take time out of training weekends (or create additional admin weekends).

It also helps create/maintain the "habit" element if done correctly, and is vital for recruit training.

Personal opinion is that the AR as a whole would be worse off without midweek training, but only if the training or admin done is relevant and the need for it is explained well.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
but does the AR need to do the mid-week evenings or is it just "the way we've always done things"? The RNR & RAuxAF seem to manage with just weekends & an annual block

Yes, of course they do. Aside of frequent training being good for the individual and the unit, we (should) have a link with the local community that the RN and RAF do not have. It has been that way for a reason. The lack of the Drill Night is probably why personnel in National units are militarily weaker than Regional personnel.
 
The lack of the Drill Night is probably why personnel in National units are militarily weaker than Regional personnel.

It wouldn't have anything to do with National units having specialist roles largely using their civilian skills? Of course not, no, it's all down to not having drill nights.

If we weren't in the serious bit, I'd be throwing random anglo-saxon about now.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
It wouldn't have anything to do with National units having specialist roles largely using their civilian skills? Of course not, no, it's all down to not having drill nights.

If we weren't in the serious bit, I'd be throwing random anglo-saxon about now.

I like to say contentious stuff, but that was a bite.

I am currently on the strength if a National unit and I can assure you that an individual's civilian occupation has no bearing whatsoever in how they are employed. It may have done in the 1980s, but that isn't how the Army works now. Individual's are responsible and accountable for the training the Army has given them, not for their civilian employment. If you are a member of AMS or RE and there because of membership of a professional body, your argument works, but they aren't proper soldiers, they are technicians in uniform.

Throw around as much Anglo-Saxon as you like, Nationals are generally not as strong militarily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am currently on the strength if a National unit and I can assure you that an individual's civilian occupation has no bearing whatsoever in how they are employed. It may have done in the 1980s, but that isn't how the Army works now.

I'm on the strength of a national unit and have been for some 13 years and that's exactly how it works with us.

Individual's are responsible and accountable for the training the Army has given them, not for their civilian employment.

Actually, I'm not particularly responsible or accountable for the training the Army gives me. Turn up for MATTs twice a year - instructed according to the book and tested. I'm not sure where you get accountability from that.

If you are a member of AMS or RE and there because of membership of a professional body, your argument works, but they aren't proper soldiers, they are technicians in uniform.

Please, can we not have your list of exactly who is and isn't a "proper soldier". Are you contributing to the military effectiveness of HM Forces*? Well, then, you are a proper soldier. Even if you are RAChD and don't even get to carry a gun.

Nationals are generally not as strong militarily.

Didn't say they weren't. Said it wasn't because we don't have drill nights.

* I appreciate there are many in the AR who aren't. But that is a different argument and not, I suspect, one where there is much of a national / regional split.
 

Purple_Emperor

War Hero
Agreed, I'm not sure the club of very grown ups would consider foisting that particular millstone upon the new entrants, after all its hardly within their gift or influence to have any impact until the shiny new applicant sets foot in the ARC. Once inside retention should be a measure though!
Can someone tell my CO this. He seems to think that it is entirely my responsibility to get people through that door!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

Latest Threads

Top