Is your AR unit fit for purpose

ugly

LE
Moderator
The continental model of Military/National Service hasn't continued as a whole past the end of the Cold War very well
Germany finished conscription in 2011 and France still keeps it going, but measured in months.
( the Swiss are special as @stoatman can attest)
Conscripts also come as pressed men rather than volunteers, so there is a difference in quality/motivation/biddability
We don't have to conscription just offer it as an alternative to college for those wanting to be reservists or even regulars
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I think currently reservists are allowed to do regular phase 2 courses though. There are some trades where you pretty much have to, to be in that trade as a reserve.
If it was offered a year of paid training and employment for 17 year olds with the option to go reg or reserve, full time or part time at 18 then it could work
 
No - the Regular Army has chosen, and defended in court, their preference that the Reserve are "casual labour".

If you dislike the consequences of that choice, then only the Regular Army has the power to change it...
have they? can you provide. link to this please?
 
And we are back to 1909 again:

1. Regular
2. Reserve
3. TF/Yeomanry

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I agree. And the "Reserve" element has to be tightened up. Higher paid, higher trained, younger, dynamic and used for operations. The TF/TA can continue to exist for those that want to feel like they're adding value to defence: community engagement, county shows, 2 week camp, drinking...bringing all that valuable civil experience to the table.
 
If it was offered a year of paid training and employment for 17 year olds with the option to go reg or reserve, full time or part time at 18 then it could work
Can you foresee the reaction the wibbly-liberally, leftard wokes would have, given their views on boy soldiers (being under 18 )?

It would be political suicide for any government who tried it.
 
If it was offered a year of paid training and employment for 17 year olds with the option to go reg or reserve, full time or part time at 18 then it could work
Currently you can't join the AR until you're 18. But the REME for example has pretty that offer available. A guy I did by Phase 1 bravo with went through this route and his now a regular REME armourer.
 
I agree. And the "Reserve" element has to be tightened up. Higher paid, higher trained, younger, dynamic and used for operations. The TF/TA can continue to exist for those that want to feel like they're adding value to defence: community engagement, county shows, 2 week camp, drinking...bringing all that valuable civil experience to the table.
First time I've seen a regular call for higher pay for reservists. That being said I think most reservists would rather keep the current pay and not have the MTD cap.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Currently you can't join the AR until you're 18. But the REME for example has pretty that offer available. A guy I did by Phase 1 bravo with went through this route and his now a regular REME armourer.
It wouldn't be AR until you completed your years contract
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Can you foresee the reaction the wibbly-liberally, leftard wokes would have, given their views on boy soldiers (being under 18 )?

It would be political suicide for any government who tried it.
We take them at 16 still
 
Yes, but that's bringing reserve parity to Army Regs, ie, employment rules that apply to you as a civvy don't apply to me as a soldier (ie, minimum wage)?
Its not to do with Army Regs, it's an exclusion for reservists from EU mandated part time workers rights (and the financial obligations that accompany), i.e the same exclusion applied for casual labour.
 

Latest Threads

Top