is the army still victorian ??

#3
I'd like to think its because of the "new" fashioned way the army is run!

Then again we could bring in a team of style guru's,spin doctors, image consultants and other liberal drug taking hangers on for a image make over but the household cavalry are a bit busy at the moment :lol:
 
#4
sure thing.......im in a recruiting role..........i have to tell mummy and daddy how good it is !!! i feel like telling them the facts.............................................................na na , your right , ive been fucked over for 15 years and am getting bitter..............but the armys stance on modern policy should move a littlt with the times......................................change isnt a dirty word...........
 
#5
retention is a large problem , with not only choclate frogs but lads and lasses in there mature years..........................there must be a reason for them to find it necessary to jump ship into 3 bde civ div.....
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#6
whytry said:
sure thing.......im in a recruiting role..........i have to tell mummy and daddy how good it is !!! i feel like telling them the facts.............................................................na na , your right , ive been fucked over for 15 years and am getting bitter..............but the armys stance on modern policy should move a littlt with the times......................................change isnt a dirty word...........
No, but sh*te is and your head's full of it.
 
#7
Like it or not, at the core of the reason for having an army is the same as it's always been. To go where the government needs us to be and be nasty to the enemy.

There is no way that it can be done in a PC way. No amount of briefings on Health & Safety, Equal Opertunities or Soldiers in the Community will ever change that. Where the trouble is, is by the army thinking, or should that be the government thinking, that you can combine civilian peacetime principles with an army that does not always have peaceful civilian activities, leaves the soldiers left in a state of confusion.

Examples? Well, you are taught to be aggresive in the attack, fight hard and seize you objective, while at the same time cause no collateral damage, not to kill the enemy if that individual has given up and not treat prisoners in any way roughly.

You are supposed to check for signs of life on a casualty and if you don't find any (as per your Battlefield First Aid flip book) just leave them, but at the same time care about them as a human being up to that point.

You have to treat minorities equally on race and sexual grounds, but you cannot treat them like the reast of the lads incase you offend them.

With soft fluffy lines drawn in the sand like that is it no wonder that lots of soldiers from all ranks, arms and services call it a day because if they make a mistake they know that they will be taken to the cleaners with no support from the top.

Bring back the good old days of Victorian soldiering where you knew whoever you were fighting were enemies of the Empire and there was no doubt that you were doing right and it was for Queen & Country.
 
#8
Youv,e got my vote P-P.

Glad I retired some 8 years ago.Dobt that I would/could put up with the sh-t they come out with nowadays.

Or is it like my kids tell me, that,' Im just a grumpy old man'. :? :? :?
 
#10
whytry said:
sure thing.......im in a recruiting role..........i have to tell mummy and daddy how good it is !!! i feel like telling them the facts.............................................................na na , your right , ive been fucked over for 15 years and am getting bitter..............but the armys stance on modern policy should move a littlt with the times......................................change isnt a dirty word...........
Are you really in a recruitng role ? Because I seriously think you are not the person to do this type of thing. I feel like tellimg them the facts ? what facts ? If you think the army jiff you over try it out here in the real world, NO-ONE gives a shitte about you here its real dog eat dog

Can you seriously say that in 15 yrs you got fcuk all out of it ?> I mean why stay that long if its been so bad ? I can guareentee that I have been fcuked over much much more than you have in my time, there are at least 2 bods on this site know what I'm talking about, and I have no great bitterness against the army. I am bitter against certain individuals but the army no
 
#11
Oh! for the days when a wog was a wog, officers were gentlemen, other ranks knew their place, fairies were confined to the bottom of the garden, ladies were decorative compliant subservient souls, political correctness meant voting conservative and the sun never set on the empire!

Don't advocate going back to that but whatever happened to the fit trained soldier, i.e. one who in all conditions of battle using ground and cover proficient in all weapons can close with the enemy and kill him (or her)? To achieve that (most un-PC) aim tough and realistic training, developed over the history of the British army, must be employed. If THAT is Victorian then I'm all for it.
To dilute it is not progress.

The initiator of this thread failed to offer a solution to his perceived impression of the old fashioned concepts of training and values extant in the army (moral and physical courage, integrity, flexibility, fitness, initiative, knowledge, etc). I firmly believe it IS possible to maintain those standards of world acknowledged professionalism while adapting to changing societal mores.

Change what needs changing though don't fix what aint broke.
 
#12
The US has had to increase bonus' to improve both retention and recruitment. With your great pay rate I would think soldiering would be very competitive with the military getting the cream of the crop. You should have a waiting list.
 
#13
I suspect the army is Elizabethan, rather than Victorian (sadly Queen Victoria passed away some time ago). I am no expert in the description of eras, but I am sure that the current era could not possibly be described as Victorian...

:D

This banality aside, you have not had a good response so far, have you?

:lol:
 
#14
hellfyyr said:
I suspect the army is Elizabethan, rather than Victorian (sadly Queen Victoria passed away some time ago). I am no expert in the description of eras, but I am sure that the current era could not possibly be described as Victorian...

:D

This banality aside, you have not had a good response so far, have you?

:lol:
hellfyyr, posting on ARRSE isn't some childish competition to see how many replies you can clock up. If you find the subject matter interesting then read it. If you feel you would like to add to the comment, post on it. But comments like that, off topic as well, may point to the reason that you don't seem to be the most popular poster on ARRSE at the moment.

Can we get back to the subject in hand before any more children deside to post sh1t.
 
#15
I suspect that if the Army was still run on "Victorian" grounds then there would have been a far faster resolution to the Iraq conflict, no one would be facing trial for being nasty to prisoners, the originator of the post would be in the "glass house" for whining, manning wouldn't be an issue as we would be press ganging anyone we felt like, press reports would all be favourable, slaughtering entire villages would be rewarded with decorations, all guchi (sp?) kit would be outlawed and arrse would be unable to exist in any way, shape or form.

Amazing how we have the majority of the site complaining that the Army has become too PC and cushy whilst others are still whining that it hasn't become PC and cushy enough.

You'll be asking for paid over time, industrial tribunals and the right to strike next.
 
#16
Plant-pilot,
I treat this site like the chuckle it is meant to be...

You like so many others seem to think you are a moderator and can decide what is posted.

I did have a point, although it was obviously to subtle for your limited cranium, which was that the army is clearly not Victorian. Anymore than organisations like Lloyds of London are not Victorian, although both may still have traditions from that era...

Did they have Warrant Officers in Victorian times? What about smart bombs or GPS? The army is no more victorian than it is Georgian or Norman or even ancient Greek! We train according to the equipment we have, how it needs to be used effectively and the individual training of our personnel that has developed over most of history. The Victorian era is not solely responsible for the army we have today; although it clearly contributed many traditions and methods.

So do me a favour Pilot, keep your bandwagon style comments to yourself, as you like others think you are perfect, when that clearly is not so!
 
#17
hellfyyr said:
You like so many others seem to think you are a moderator and can decide what is posted.

So do me a favour Pilot, keep your bandwagon style comments to yourself, as you like others think you are perfect, when that clearly is not so!
Firstly I would like to point out that, if you are going to slag someone off could you at least do them the favour of trying to be accurate. I am not, and at no point have been a moderator on this site, and where your childish mind got that idea from I simply fail to comprehend.

Secondly, the term 'Victorian' is used in the English language to denote something that pertains to or holds the attitude or style of those in a different period of time, specifically in England during the reign of Queen Victoria.

It does not mean that we are still living in that time or that she is still on the throne, something I would expect any child of school leaving age with a reasonable education to know and understand. Why am I not then surprized that you failed to both grasp and understand that one little thing.

Now if you would either get back on thread or just go away. Either way I don't mind
 
#18
whytry said:
do you think the problems with retention etc and recruiting is because of the old fasioned way the army is run?
I think you may find that the majority of problems are society based and little to do with how the Army is run.

Non-competitive sports being taught in school, a general cut back in the physical education. Children prefering to play PS2 rather than footie in the park (jumpers for goal posts).

The expectation of deserving as opposed to have earnt.

A lack of discipline at home and at school.

The populace wanting justification for their taxes which eventually result in the cutting of money to the services.

Instead of trying to change to meet society's wants, the Army should endeavour to increase further it's proffessional standing and standards, become a greater part of society and offer greater rewards to it's members. More involvement in the communitiy and countrywide, let the people see what they are getting for their money.

The only problem with this is the lack of funds available form Government.
 
#20
whytry said:
sure thing.......im in a recruiting role..........i have to tell mummy and daddy how good it is !!! i feel like telling them the facts.............................................................na na , your right , ive been fucked over for 15 years and am getting bitter..............but the armys stance on modern policy should move a littlt with the times......................................change isnt a dirty word...........
Change isn't a dirty word...crevice is a dirty word...(w.a.t. Blackadder)

Change is a dirty word actually, because in IMHE any process of "change" which is discernible, branded or specifically set out upon takes up far more resource than it justifies in terms of results. Doing stuff differently because it works better is fine. Changing an organisational ethos that has stood the test of time, changing adjacent social mores et cetera is generally counter-productive. It's that old cliche of chucking out the baby with the bath water.

New kit, better systems are always good things but why change the fundamental values? If people aren't walking the walk, then changing the talk will not resolve the problem. Moreover you will lose the benchmarks of the organisation. If you are being fcuked up, rather than being made to do things that you don't want to or are too lazy to do, then go for redress. If the chain of command isn't cutting it, taking out four rank stages or building flatter pyramids or whatever management bollux they next come up with won't change the personnel. People are what make organisations work or fail. We are singularly lucky (or well planned, often confused) with our people...
 

Latest Threads

Top