Loss of another 14 Inf Battalions

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Johnny_Ludlow, Mar 15, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From COS HQ Land Message of the Day 15 Mar 05

    "You may well be alarmed to note that our Non-Fit for Employment rate currently stands at 14.5%, equating to 9000 soldiers or, when viewed
    another way, equal to some 14 infantry battalions. This is a startling figure which represents a significant erosion of our operational effectiveness and places even greater pressure on those who are fit for employment; it is clear that this trend cannot be allowed to continue."

    Perhaps it's just me but if we hadn't allowed physical fitness to slowly slide from prominence and importance of the past decade then we wouldn't be in this situation. Many of the cases are linked to illness and injury but even the cahnces of these occurring are reduced in physically fit personnel.

    15 years ago if you weren't fit for deployment/employment either because you had a sick chit or because you were a lard arrse that couldn't scrape yourself round a BFT then you were made to feel like a second class citizen within the Troop/Squadron. This would probably be unacceptable these days (remember we're all equal). Imagine making someone feel left out because they can't do their job and therefore force others to do twice as much work to make up for it. The sooner we get out of this socialist mind set that seems to be pervading all we do and start rewarding those that achieve and/or punishing those that shirk.
  2. Surely what this actually means is a loss of 14 RLC/REME squadrons, or 14 IPTs.
  3. Or alternatively the loss of the DLO in its entirety which wouldn't represent a significant erosion of operational effectiveness!
  4. What a load of bollox

    Really ? So you think that a CO protecting his Bn from Options for Change wasn't playing the numbers game ? Figures have always been massaged - show me any Regt/Bn with a 100% BFT/CFT pass 15 years ago from their QMs Dept/Offrs Mess Staff or Medics staff - I'd prefer a CQ who I know will deliver the goods under enemy fire than do a sub 10 BFT. Even Tickle tests were fudged by making sure the chefs were on duty !

    T'was always the case, interestingly a very thrusting Inf CO downgraded all personnel who could not pass the BFT, and they lost pay, it did great things for retention & morale (CO is now in insurance)

    Socialist ? we are all Europeans now ...even the foxhunters seek refuge their when British laws are unwelcome

    Pip Pip !
  5. Also you have to remember that the standards were different. 10:30 in boots & putees and there was no gender fair/free because all women were WRAC and not your unit.

    Now things are different and a lot more complicated. Why does a 30 year old man be faster than an 18 year old woman when she's more likley to be on the front and he's sat behind a desk? A 40 year old more so? 5.56mm/7.62mm is truly gender free!

  6. Derrr...but the women aren't members of the Infantry or RAC ?

    now if you want to argue that your Coy Clk pre-AGC was ex-Inf and could achieve phys standards then I might have some sympathy for your point of view. Do remember that the reason that you have the AGC female clerks serving with the Inf was at the direction of the then AG..."Rambo" Ramsbotham" ...a Green Jacket.

    I like running behind 18 year old girls- women should be femine - I have seen enough moustachioed Scammell drivers in the WRAC !
  7. For our new Regiments we thank you infantry warriors!! Certa Cito xx
  8. Has he forgotten that we've just won a war and are fighting for the peace and that its a little bit dangerous!
  9. Has he forgotten that we've just won a war and are fighting for the peace and that its a little bit dangerous!