New female infanteers - how's it going?

The main factors driving this are improved standards of living, healthcare and diet meaning people are living longer, and immigration exceeding emigration.

I’m not sure how this can be addressed.
I'd say a big factor is the younger generations of today simply don't connect with 'the Country' on a cultural and personal level and have been told throughout their education that this country has been historically evil - supporting any physical interests of the country is bad, defending that ideal is bad - they think they live in a world without borders, so why bother protecting them, especially when 'we' owe it to others to give them everything we have by way of inherited guilt.
 
I'd say a big factor is the younger generations of today simply don't connect with 'the Country' on a cultural and personal level and have been told throughout their education that this country has been historically evil - supporting any physical interests of the country is bad, defending that ideal is bad - they think they live in a world without borders, so why bother protecting them, especially when 'we' owe it to others to give them everything we have by way of inherited guilt.
I hadn't looked at it like that before. I was trying to think of reasons why the Army is just another job and you've probably nailed it there. WW3 might change that though.
 
I hadn't looked at it like that before. I was trying to think of reasons why the Army is just another job and you've probably nailed it there. WW3 might change that though.

It’s another job because it is another job? For all the old fart, rose tinted varifocals, back in my day, most people join(ed) for money or to escape their current job.

Nowt wrong with that, but don’t try and suggest it was all for King and Country…
 
Once

But churn is inevitable; every employer experiences it to some degree or other. It's always been particularly prevalent in organisations that employ lots of young people for the obvious reason that they are still finding their way in the world.

It's naive to think that retention measures will solve the Army's manning problems; at best they're only ever going to be marginal. To illustrate; let's say for every 100 soldiers reaching their 4 year point, 25 are Army barmy and aren't considering leaving. 25 are dead set on leaving and aren't going to be persuaded otherwise. That leaves 50 who could be persuaded, but their sentiment will range from being highly likely to persuaded to being very unlikely to be persuaded and the distribution of sentiment will almost certainly be a bell curve. However hard you try, you're only going to persuade a marginal number to sign on.

I suspect that there are far more than 25 % who cannot be persuaded to stay; Gen Z from which the Army now recruits have very different view of loyalty and very different relationships with their employers. The latest Deloittes Gen Z survey The Deloitte Global 2022 Gen Z and Millennial Survey is informative.

So the big issue with churn isn't that it happens, its lag in the operational cycle of someone leaving and being replaced.

What he said
I’d say the majority of those under 32 Will not stay in the same company for 5 years
 
I'd say a big factor is the younger generations of today simply don't connect with 'the Country' on a cultural and personal level and have been told throughout their education that this country has been historically evil - supporting any physical interests of the country is bad, defending that ideal is bad - they think they live in a world without borders, so why bother protecting them, especially when 'we' owe it to others to give them everything we have by way of inherited guilt.
I’m sorry, I was referring to the drivers for the increase in population, nothing more.
 
But that cannot be true - Because you said. and I quote





Whereas the reality is



Which means:



I believe that happened in the last 12 months.

So to re-iterate - Recruitment isn't working and hasn't been working for the last decade. Or there would not be an under-manning problem to the scale of about 10 Inf Bn's.

Whether you like it or not - The answer does not lie in shovelling as much as you can in at the front end.
And yet the recruiting target has been met or very nearly met (>95%) for five years. The recruiting system works; since the installation hubris that fucked up the recruiting partnership was overcome, some very capable people have developed, tested and refined a funnel that works.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
MOD comment:

And we are done with the general recruiting/retention chats. There are a number of other threads where this has been thrashed to death.

Back to women in the infantry please.
 
@Portree Kid the reason why no female infanteers have knowledgeably joined the thread is because they’re too busy cracking on with the job to argue with hand bagging pensioners saying that they can’t do it. The army’s undermanned the equivalent of 10 infantry battalions you know.
 
What if Females by and large simply have no interest in joining/transfering to the Infantry Battalions?

There isn't a lot the Army can offer to at least try and change their minds l would have thought.
 
What if Females by and large simply have no interest in joining/transfering to the Infantry Battalions?

There isn't a lot the Army can offer to at least try and change their minds l would have thought.

Who wouldn’t want the golden opportunity to join the infantry?

It may have appeared ‘attractive’ when it was verboten, but perhaps a strong whiff of reality has surfaced?
 
MOD comment:

And we are done with the general recruiting/retention chats. There are a number of other threads where this has been thrashed to death.

Back to women in the infantry please.
Aren’t they two sides of the same coin?

There are really only two explanations for why the Army is recruiting women into the infantry. Either it has too, because anything else isn’t politically correct / woke / legally defensible or it has to because it can’t recruit enough males.

If the reason is the former, then the follow up issue will be questioning why there isn’t “enough” female representation in the infantry and there will be inevitable pressure to accomodate them (by dropping standards). Massive cultural challenge for the Army.

If the answer is the latter, then the issue is entirely about how the recruiting pipeline works.

Is suspect the truth is a combination of the two.
 
Aren’t they two sides of the same coin?

There are really only two explanations for why the Army is recruiting women into the infantry. Either it has too, because anything else isn’t politically correct / woke / legally defensible or it has to because it can’t recruit enough males.

If the reason is the former, then the follow up issue will be questioning why there isn’t “enough” female representation in the infantry and there will be inevitable pressure to accomodate them (by dropping standards). Massive cultural challenge for the Army.

If the answer is the latter, then the issue is entirely about how the recruiting pipeline works.

Is suspect the truth is a combination of the two.

There could be a problem if a dearth of females in the infantry is attributed to poor recruitment effort/ toxic male dominated environment.

Sometimes you can lead a horse to water…
 
Anyone remember this case?


Felt very strongly that women should join the infantry; didn't want to join herself!
What like most of this thread having a view about women in the infantry yet utterly unable to join it today?
 
What like most of this thread having a view about women in the infantry yet utterly unable to join it today?

That's a bit of a non sequitur isn't it?

Given as discussed above the high churn rate at the 4 year point, and women permitted in all combat roles in the UK over 2016-2018, the Inf ought to be 50% female by now. The reasons will be both on the supply and demand side.
 

Latest Threads

Top