New Army recruitment campaign

Not having a go, but I left a large Signal regt as a JNCO in 2017 where this exact thing is happening - and still happening according to my friends still there. Change is hard to induce in places.
They're obviously not reading the PD.
 
What matters here is that a Signal Regiment has the second best retention rate in the Army. Anyone less up their own ARRSE would enquire how they did it. Interesting that an (?) Infantry unit topped the scores, JPA is probably u/s on their site.
Are those one-offs, or have those rates been sustained as the best over a number of years? If it's only for a single year, it's more likely to be a blip due to circumstances rather than any praiseworthy actions by the CoC.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Not great, but 30 minutes of work far outstrips the shit we've got just now:


P.S - Much love to everyone I ripped off for material. Please direct all lawsuits to @Bad CO . :D
 
Are those one-offs, or have those rates been sustained as the best over a number of years? If it's only for a single year, it's more likely to be a blip due to circumstances rather than any praiseworthy actions by the CoC.
I’ll see what I can find on MODNet next week. However, busy unit, massive training budget.
 
What matters here is that a Signal Regiment has the second best retention rate in the Army. Anyone less up their own ARRSE would enquire how they did it. Interesting that an (?) Infantry unit topped the scores, JPA is probably u/s on their site.
Bollox. Again. Anyone less up their own ARRSE, even if they knew nothing about 21st c ops but had a working brain cell, would realise there are a dozen units in the Army that obviously have a far better retention rate past the five year point.
 
Bollox. Again. Anyone less up their own ARRSE, even if they knew nothing about 21st c ops but had a working brain cell, would realise there are a dozen units in the Army that obviously have a far better retention rate past the five year point.
I’d be very wary about comparing retention rates between units because unit roles, locations, trade structures etc etc vary so much. Using a single point of data to assess retention performance isn’t clever

Infantry units have always had a higher rate of turnover than technical corps. It’s hardly surprising; a three year Sapper will be in the phase of his or her career where he or she will do their B1 Cbt Engr, their A1 trade and probably their JNCO cadre. At the five year point they will post to a new unit. That’s a very different motivational outlook than an infantry soldier will face.
 
I’d be very wary about comparing retention rates between units because unit roles, locations, trade structures etc etc vary so much. Using a single point of data to assess retention performance isn’t clever

Infantry units have always had a higher rate of turnover than technical corps. It’s hardly surprising; a three year Sapper will be in the phase of his or her career where he or she will do their B1 Cbt Engr, their A1 trade and probably their JNCO cadre. At the five year point they will post to a new unit. That’s a very different motivational outlook than an infantry soldier will face.
It's a lot simpler even than that, @ Bob. Just think about some of the units in the Army.

... although your point's very true - in inf, for example, just look at the problems the CO of the bn at Fort George faces compared to one going to Cyprus.
 
I’d be very wary about comparing retention rates between units because unit roles, locations, trade structures etc etc vary so much. Using a single point of data to assess retention performance isn’t clever

Infantry units have always had a higher rate of turnover than technical corps. It’s hardly surprising; a three year Sapper will be in the phase of his or her career where he or she will do their B1 Cbt Engr, their A1 trade and probably their JNCO cadre. At the five year point they will post to a new unit. That’s a very different motivational outlook than an infantry soldier will face.
If you don’t look at the granularity of the data but just take a view that there is a long list and at one of it there exists a unit with “less bad” retention than the other end, then it’s worth looking at.
 
I’d be very wary about comparing retention rates between units because unit roles, locations, trade structures etc etc vary so much. Using a single point of data to assess retention performance isn’t clever

Infantry units have always had a higher rate of turnover than technical corps. It’s hardly surprising; a three year Sapper will be in the phase of his or her career where he or she will do their B1 Cbt Engr, their A1 trade and probably their JNCO cadre. At the five year point they will post to a new unit. That’s a very different motivational outlook than an infantry soldier will face.
Tbf he alluded that the best retention was in a signal unit with a very active and demanding role. Other units probably can't compare.

this is why I'd love to see an actual mechanism to allow, using your example, infantry lads to retrade with ease.

it can't be right that we let good (and they ARE good) blokes and birds walk out of the army once they've 'got it out of their system'.

it would be fantastic to see lads and lasses moving through the trades as well as ranks. Infantry grenadier one minute, driving a truck of supplies the next.

I think there were five retreads in 3 sqn during my t1. Three infantry, reme rd and artillery. Cracking blokes who really brought something into the corps.
 
Tbf he alluded that the best retention was in a signal unit with a very active and demanding role. Other units probably can't compare.

this is why I'd love to see an actual mechanism to allow, using your example, infantry lads to retrade with ease.

it can't be right that we let good (and they ARE good) blokes and birds walk out of the army once they've 'got it out of their system'.

it would be fantastic to see lads and lasses moving through the trades as well as ranks. Infantry grenadier one minute, driving a truck of supplies the next.

I think there were five retreads in 3 sqn during my t1. Three infantry, reme rd and artillery. Cracking blokes who really brought something into the corps.
Is there anything new? Units busy, active and demanding roles have always retained people. Those with boring routine haven’t. It’s also those with boring routine which default to bullshit exacerbating the boredom problem.

Agree wholeheartedly with your point about inter-arm / service internal recruiting. It’s always been a massive fail.
 
Tbf he alluded that the best retention was in a signal unit with a very active and demanding role. Other units probably can't compare.

this is why I'd love to see an actual mechanism to allow, using your example, infantry lads to retrade with ease.

it can't be right that we let good (and they ARE good) blokes and birds walk out of the army once they've 'got it out of their system'.

it would be fantastic to see lads and lasses moving through the trades as well as ranks. Infantry grenadier one minute, driving a truck of supplies the next.

I think there were five retreads in 3 sqn during my t1. Three infantry, reme rd and artillery. Cracking blokes who really brought something into the corps.
TBF he was very obviously talking utter bollox!

Yours, though, is a very good point. It would make so much sense to make transfers far easier, in all directions. The only plan seems to be for moving to and fro between regular and reserve as the mood takes, which has a lot of issues, rather than between Arms. It doesn't seem to happen any more now than it did a few decades ago despite trade pay no longer being an obstacle, which has to be a major waste of talent and maturity.

'One Army' only seems to apply to one aspect.
 
Tbf he alluded that the best retention was in a signal unit with a very active and demanding role. Other units probably can't compare.

this is why I'd love to see an actual mechanism to allow, using your example, infantry lads to retrade with ease.

it can't be right that we let good (and they ARE good) blokes and birds walk out of the army once they've 'got it out of their system'.

it would be fantastic to see lads and lasses moving through the trades as well as ranks. Infantry grenadier one minute, driving a truck of supplies the next.

I think there were five retreads in 3 sqn during my t1. Three infantry, reme rd and artillery. Cracking blokes who really brought something into the corps.
I’ve worked with quite a few ex-Infantry. They always do well in my experience though the Corps seems to put barriers in their way.
 
Is there anything new? Units busy, active and demanding roles have always retained people. Those with boring routine haven’t. It’s also those with boring routine which default to bullshit exacerbating the boredom problem.

Agree wholeheartedly with your point about inter-arm / service internal recruiting. It’s always been a massive fail.
I agree that job satisfaction is important...very. This unit is offering very expensive and lucrative qualifications. The fact that the lads will punch one day and be back as a contractor the next isn’t used as an excuse to make people pay for courses or exams.
 
I’ve worked with quite a few ex-Infantry. They always do well in my experience though the Corps seems to put barriers in their way.
I retraded within the corps. and that was bad enough.

we've recently inherited a sg t from the ra and a sg t from the rlc. I hope we harness their skills and allow them to reach their potential.

Int seems to do much better at redirecting folk.
 
TBF he was very obviously talking utter bollox!

Yours, though, is a very good point. It would make so much sense to make transfers far easier, in all directions. The only plan seems to be for moving to and fro between regular and reserve as the mood takes, which has a lot of issues, rather than between Arms. It doesn't seem to happen any more now than it did a few decades ago despite trade pay no longer being an obstacle, which has to be a major waste of talent and maturity.

'One Army' only seems to apply to one aspect.
Lateral transfer between arms and services should be easy and common, not hard and rare. The question should be “what does he bring”, not “what doesn’t he know”. It shouldn’t involve loss of opportunity. Quite the opposite.
 
Lateral transfer between arms and services should be easy and common, not hard and rare. The question should be “what does he bring”, not “what doesn’t he know”. It shouldn’t involve loss of opportunity. Quite the opposite.
Training burden makes this difficult. If we pull in a class 1 infanteer to be a CS Eng he needs 24 months of training before he reaches the same level in the Signals. So infantry losses a man for 12 months of that, and in a recruiting crisis I can understand anyone’s reticence to make it easy.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top