Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Army recruitment campaign

Measuring the average length of service of those leaving in a given year is not give the same value as measuring the average length of service of a single year of entry. Obviously the latter is a moving average that cannot finally be solidified until the last recruit from a given year departs. However, it will tend to a value quite early on.
 
Yes, but my point is how few are serving beyond it; what worries me is the loss of experience.
To a certain extent it does not matter. The army constantly requires a refresh at the lower levels, both soldiers and officers, so a certain level of wastage is actually required.

The numbers requirement for LCpls and Lts is less than the requirement for Ptes and 2Lts (OK not quite so true for Officers as OCdt to Capt is just a giveaway so the sift really starts at Capt - Maj.)

A Bn with 400 or so 40 year old Ptes would look just like the RAF
 
To a certain extent it does not matter. The army constantly requires a refresh at the lower levels, both soldiers and officers, so a certain level of wastage is actually required.

The numbers requirement for LCpls and Lts is less than the requirement for Ptes and 2Lts (OK not quite so true for Officers as OCdt to Capt is just a giveaway so the sift really starts at Capt - Maj.)

A Bn with 400 or so 40 year old Ptes would look just like the RAF

Agreed; but the infantry is but one part of the Army. I find it surprising that we do not try and get more soldiers in particular to their 12-year point, so that they have given a decent return of service, but if they want to leave are young enough to start again in another career (easier at 30-something than 40-something).
 
Measuring the average length of service of those leaving in a given year is not give the same value as measuring the average length of service of a single year of entry. Obviously the latter is a moving average that cannot finally be solidified until the last recruit from a given year departs. However, it will tend to a value quite early on.

However, until I can find open source information, it’s the best you’re going to get!

In short, IIRC, there are spikes at 4 and 12 years, and then a long tail all the way up to 35 years. And it differs massively by trade and Corps, to the point where “average” is a meaningless discussion point.
 
To a certain extent it does not matter. The army constantly requires a refresh at the lower levels, both soldiers and officers, so a certain level of wastage is actually required.

The numbers requirement for LCpls and Lts is less than the requirement for Ptes and 2Lts (OK not quite so true for Officers as OCdt to Capt is just a giveaway so the sift really starts at Capt - Maj.)

A Bn with 400 or so 40 year old Ptes would look just like the RAF

I disagree, the infantry might need young recruits regularly, most of the rest of the Army could manage with older junior ranks.
Even the infantry would probably be okay if their current soldiers did a few years extra before signing off.
 
However, until I can find open source information, it’s the best you’re going to get!

In short, IIRC, there are spikes at 4 and 12 years, and then a long tail all the way up to 35 years. And it differs massively by trade and Corps, to the point where “average” is a meaningless discussion point.
My take on that response to an FOI request was that it was a classic case of lies, damn lies and statistics! Ms Bourne was misled!
 
I disagree, the infantry might need young recruits regularly, most of the rest of the Army could manage with older junior ranks.
Even the infantry would probably be okay if their current soldiers did a few years extra before signing off.
I don't disagree but it is the way the Army looks at it Many years ago in my father and grandfather's time long serving juniors were seen as the backbone of the Army now it is up or out.

I am also a great believer in passed over Capts, Majs, Lt Cols and Cols rather than the relentless charge to the top which is simply producing medicrity and worse.
 
I don’t think loss of experience is an issue until we get rid of people en-masse like a redundancy tranche. No man is critical l, but a cluster of the same rank and trade going is hard to mitigate.

Depends what their experience is, a simple way of doing something can save literally millions in time and money, but every new new soldier had to relearn it.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree but it is the way the Army looks at it Many years ago in my father and grandfather's time long serving juniors were seen as the backbone of the Army now it is up or out.

It doesnt have to be up and out though, thats what forced upon juniors. the focus isnt making the job enjoyable, the focus is on bribing them with a promotion.

I am also a great believer in passed over Capts, Majs, Lt Cols and Cols rather than the relentless charge to the top which is simply producing medicrity and worse.

I think it depends on what they are doing, Ive met some great officers who havent been promoted but they dont take it out on their soldiers and they arent hanging on for the CEA. Equally Ive met some right miserable bastards who seem to blame their subordinates for their career or dont really give a **** about the job but they arent going to give up 44 grands worth of CEA for their two kids, so bump along doing the bare minimum.
 
It doesnt have to be up and out though, thats what forced upon juniors. the focus isnt making the job enjoyable, the focus is on bribing them with a promotion.
Again I don't disagree even in the infantry there is a huge number of roles that do not need young racing snakes.

I think it depends on what they are doing, Ive met some great officers who havent been promoted but they dont take it out on their soldiers and they arent hanging on for the CEA. Equally Ive met some right miserable bastards who seem to blame their subordinates for their career or dont really give a **** about the job but they arent going to give up 44 grands worth of CEA for their two kids, so bump along doing the bare minimum.

You just need to make it attractive, exchange slow or no promotion with good T & Cs and watch the top third bores compete fiercely for the posts. Also bin CEA except for in the most exceptional circumstances and time bar it into two year chunks.
 
You just need to make it attractive, exchange slow or no promotion with good T & Cs

Indeed and at all ranks, but currently the Army seems to struggle with beards, shirts in/out, plugs on juniors electrical items and all manner of other petty bullshit, so it might be a while before they decide decent morale is the key to a better Army.
 
I disagree, the infantry might need young recruits regularly, most of the rest of the Army could manage with older junior ranks.
Even the infantry would probably be okay if their current soldiers did a few years extra before signing off.

depends on the trade, qualifications and definition of “older”
 
One thing that has to be born in mind is that the under 30s are more career mobile than previous generations

They certainly have more opportunities via the internet nowadays, however in my experience the majority weren't leaving because they had a high paying job lined up, they were leaving because they thought the army was shit.

The Army has had a recruiting/retention problem for the last 3 decades (possibly more) before the internet was around.

A 22 year old soldier at his 4 year point , with no quals on the lowest supplement and having no extra allowances would then be on take home pay of around 25K. And yet they are still bugging out.
 
They certainly have more opportunities via the internet nowadays, however in my experience the majority weren't leaving because they had a high paying job lined up, they were leaving because they thought the army was shit.

The Army has had a recruiting/retention problem for the last 3 decades (possibly more) before the internet was around.

A 22 year old soldier at his 4 year point , with no quals on the lowest supplement and having no extra allowances would then be on take home pay of around 25K. And yet they are still bugging out.
This is an over simplistic view. Describing the Army as shit is completely naive too, anyone that makes a snap decision based on a bad day isn't exactly a leader of the future. Everyone that has left from my current location (juniors) has had a job to go to, and the Officers have similar plans. I think you're over exaggerating how bad things are as usual.
 

Latest Threads

Top