Not just TA recruiting which has hit the buffers

#3
Hmmm, fucking hell, we seem to be fighting a losing battle....

Bring back conscription? :pissedoff:
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
One reason why the RNR is losing numbers (and has been for years) is that it's members do not really have any 'real' jobs. There are very, very few RNR mobilised at the moment, and haven't been for a long while (and those mostly specialists such as Doctors).

Oddly enough, people tend to want to join the Reserves nowadays because they want to go on Ops- and if the RNR isn't doing it, then young peeps join the TA instead.
 
#5
OldSnowy said:
One reason why the RNR is losing numbers (and has been for years) is that it's members do not really have any 'real' jobs. There are very, very few RNR mobilised at the moment, and haven't been for a long while (and those mostly specialists such as Doctors).

Oddly enough, people tend to want to join the Reserves nowadays because they want to go on Ops- and if the RNR isn't doing it, then young peeps join the TA instead.
Or not as the figures would suggest.

It seems the TA has lost somewhere near 2000 people last year....

msr
 
#7
Apart from the fact that 6 SCOTS doesn't have a "D Company" (not any more), apparently they aim to recruit 107 officers to the TA in Scotland next year.

An interesting exercise would be to see how many TA Gp.A officers were actually recruited, each year, from (say) 1986 with the start of TACC for men. This could be broken down into "direct entrant" and "NCO entrant". By way of amusement, compare it against the number of people who sat DAB / TCB in Scotland, each year, over the same period. That should give a rough wastage figure.

Numbers should be easy - RMAS should have all of the historical records. It would be interesting to see whether the system has ever produced 107 TA Gp.A officers for Scotland in a single year. I very much doubt it. Just as well they didn't do a TA-wide target, RMAS would have discovered a need to commission 1000 TA YOs in the next 12 months.

By way of even easier calculation, when was the last time 6 SCOTS (or either of its antecedent battalions) managed to recruit 7 officers in a year? I can't think of a single occasion in fifteen years.

Targets have to be meaningful. If those targets are serious, then the person who set them is a moron. If those targets are in fact "how many people we're short right now" then they've told a porky-pie in a Parliamentary answer. No shock there.
 
#8
Maybe it's something to do with the fact that it feels we are under appreciated and that if you look at other country's they treat military personnel with much higher regard than our government does eg pay, housing etc. Everybody that joins expects the hard work, long weeks, being away from family's and everything that goes with it but would it be all worth it if when we came home we felt that the whole nation was behind us, we could spend the tax free lump sum on whatever we wanted and our best interests were being looked after? i think so. Sometimes it doesn't feel like what we are doing and why is fully understood and alot of stereotyping by civvies p1sses me off too. Maybe if the government backed us and we educated the public it might entice more people to join but at the moment what is the appeal to those that are mis guided? They don't see it as a great job/opportunity they just see it as a crazy waste of time or a game that they can leave whenever they want.

edited cause in a drunken rant i fcuked up.
 
#9
As someone who left the Army many years ago after 22 years service and still has several family members serving I think I can safely say the majority of the decent people in Great Britain do support the Military and appreciate what they do . The problem is that the operations the military is now involved in , Iraq and Afghanistan , are not seen by the general population of being of any of our business and there is no support for them.
There is only one person to blame for this ... Bliar
 
#10
So what is the RMR doing right? At a recruit selection weekend about 18 months ago the RMR drew in over 300 applicants. They had advertised on local radio and in the press, over a long period, stating very clearly how tough it was to get in and pass the training and that once having passed out deployment would be inevitable.

300+ potential recruits, how many of us wish we could get that many through the doors. In the event they only wanted 30-35 so selected the best, many were told to try their hand at joining the TA since they had potential, some acted as if they had been slapped in the face by such a suggestion.

So what is the TA and RNR failing to do that the RMR does well?

Cardinal
 
#11
Gravelbelly said:
Apart from the fact that 6 SCOTS doesn't have a "D Company" (not any more), apparently they aim to recruit 107 officers to the TA in Scotland next year.

An interesting exercise would be to see how many TA Gp.A officers were actually recruited, each year, from (say) 1986 with the start of TACC for men. This could be broken down into "direct entrant" and "NCO entrant". By way of amusement, compare it against the number of people who sat DAB / TCB in Scotland, each year, over the same period. That should give a rough wastage figure.

Numbers should be easy - RMAS should have all of the historical records. It would be interesting to see whether the system has ever produced 107 TA Gp.A officers for Scotland in a single year. I very much doubt it. Just as well they didn't do a TA-wide target, RMAS would have discovered a need to commission 1000 TA YOs in the next 12 months.

By way of even easier calculation, when was the last time 6 SCOTS (or either of its antecedent battalions) managed to recruit 7 officers in a year? I can't think of a single occasion in fifteen years.

Targets have to be meaningful. If those targets are serious, then the person who set them is a moron. If those targets are in fact "how many people we're short right now" then they've told a porky-pie in a Parliamentary answer. No shock there.
Good point on the SCOTS, but 42 (I think) of the Officers required for Scotland look to be PQOs for the AMS units so that's not quite as unreasonable as it looks.

However, the 60 odd remaining across the Bde is still a steep old hill to climb.

Incidentally, anyone know why figures for TA inflow and outflow prior to 2003 are "unavailable"?
 
#12
Cardinal said:
So what is the RMR doing right? At a recruit selection weekend about 18 months ago the RMR drew in over 300 applicants. They had advertised on local radio and in the press, over a long period, stating very clearly how tough it was to get in and pass the training and that once having passed out deployment would be inevitable.

300+ potential recruits, how many of us wish we could get that many through the doors. In the event they only wanted 30-35 so selected the best, many were told to try their hand at joining the TA since they had potential, some acted as if they had been slapped in the face by such a suggestion.

So what is the TA and RNR failing to do that the RMR does well?

Cardinal
The RMR has the advantage that since its formation at the RMFVR in 1947ish its role has been basically to provide IRs so it hasn't had to cope with change in the same way as the TA.

However IMO the big advantage they have is that they have been able to maintain standards and this has reflected in the image that they present to the potential recruit. 4 Para has been able to achieve something similar (supported by their regular brethren) despite the efforts of the bigger TA to impose common (lower) standards on them and this has been reflected in their recruiting numbers. Both RMR and Para Regt Reserve are able to differentiate themselves in the minds of the potential recruit who is looking for something that provides a real challenge.

The RNR really do struggle to find a role for themselves that is attractive to the bloke on the street. They are actually quite well supported by the RN these days (not always the case in the past).
 
#13
Flynn101 said:
By the looks of those figures since when has the RNR been popular? :p
When they had their own ships.

Having said that, I don't know how the crew system worked. In the TA, when only half the Sqn tips up on a Friday, we still go out on an FTX. I'd imagine for the RNR lack of crew might present more of a problem!
 
#14
FluffyBunny said:
Gravelbelly said:
Apart from the fact that 6 SCOTS doesn't have a "D Company" (not any more), apparently they aim to recruit 107 officers to the TA in Scotland next year.

An interesting exercise would be to see how many TA Gp.A officers were actually recruited, each year, from (say) 1986 with the start of TACC for men. This could be broken down into "direct entrant" and "NCO entrant". By way of amusement, compare it against the number of people who sat DAB / TCB in Scotland, each year, over the same period. That should give a rough wastage figure.

Numbers should be easy - RMAS should have all of the historical records. It would be interesting to see whether the system has ever produced 107 TA Gp.A officers for Scotland in a single year. I very much doubt it. Just as well they didn't do a TA-wide target, RMAS would have discovered a need to commission 1000 TA YOs in the next 12 months.

By way of even easier calculation, when was the last time 6 SCOTS (or either of its antecedent battalions) managed to recruit 7 officers in a year? I can't think of a single occasion in fifteen years.

Targets have to be meaningful. If those targets are serious, then the person who set them is a moron. If those targets are in fact "how many people we're short right now" then they've told a porky-pie in a Parliamentary answer. No shock there.
Good point on the SCOTS, but 42 (I think) of the Officers required for Scotland look to be PQOs for the AMS units so that's not quite as unreasonable as it looks.

However, the 60 odd remaining across the Bde is still a steep old hill to climb.

Incidentally, anyone know why figures for TA inflow and outflow prior to 2003 are "unavailable"?[/quote]

Cos they don't want anyone to see just how badly they f**ked up the TA?
 
#15
Gravelbelly said:
Targets have to be meaningful. If those targets are serious, then the person who set them is a moron.
[Fact]The target for 51 Bde is 1 per sub-unit per year, excluding LEs. Those individuals are expected to be a mix of UPOs/DEs trained through RTC & (especially) Fasttrack SC07 plus Gp B to Gp A Transferees from UOTCs, including those who they Commission this year across the 3 RMAS Module 4s.

As "moronic" as that target might seem, anything less than 1 is zero and I hope no-one in these forums thinks that is a credible option. Doing fcuk all is, of course, achievable; but it is hardly an aspiration worthy of anyone who expects to be taken seriously in this arena.

As a side observation, 1 per sub-unit per year is not even sufficient (overall) to match current outflow so I would argue that anything less is further evidence of the slow (but accelerating) death of the TA.

Even at 1 per sub-unit, us morons, when we got together to discuss the art of the possible, recognised that such a low target was PALLIATIVE care rather than the RESTORATIVE care which is really needed. But then, targets have to be achievable as well as meaningful.

And before anyone argues the case for lower targets again, please let me remind you: less than 1 is zero, we cannot set a recruiting target of zero.
 
#16
Could I ask a young question, as someone who hasn't reached maximum bounty level yet, and say did the TA historically have very large numbers passing through RMAS?

Or was it only when, and I don't know how long ago this was stopped as it was only mentioned by a genial colonel so excuse me again, it was a matter of a disctrict interview for comission that there was a decent level of recruitment/retention in the officer corps?
 
#17
Mr_Relaxed said:
Flynn101 said:
By the looks of those figures since when has the RNR been popular? :p
When they had their own ships.

Having said that, I don't know how the crew system worked. In the TA, when only half the Sqn tips up on a Friday, we still go out on an FTX. I'd imagine for the RNR lack of crew might present more of a problem!
I believe that each RNR unit had two or even three crews for its minesweepers. On a Thurdsay night crew lists were finalised, meaning if you said you were attending and didn't you were in deep trouble after the weekend and might even be charged, fined if you were a key member like Chief of the Boat and non attendance meant sailing was cancelled.

If however it was your crew operating the vessel and you said you couldn't attend in good time there was no problem and volunteers could be sought from the other crews.

I understand there was never a shortage of volunteers since most weekends ended up in the Channel Islands, France or at very least the Isle of Man for a run ashore and some duty free shopping.

Great use was made of bank holday weekends for four days at sea training, more runs ashore more shopping.

Similarly if anyone found themselves unemployed or at a loose end all they had to do was ask the PSI's and they could get an automatic 90 days work simply by asking. That could include operational deployments, artic warfare or jungle training with the RM.

One of the minesweepers from Scotland used to join in the NI patrol so over a period many of the crew got the NI Medal by accumulating days at sea.

The Port Clearance Divers used to hold three times a year dive camps, Australia, Hong Kong and the Carribean.

In all much better than the TA or what the RNR has now become.

Cardinal
 
#18
soroban said:
Gravelbelly said:
Targets have to be meaningful. If those targets are serious, then the person who set them is a moron.
[Fact]The target for 51 Bde is 1 per sub-unit per year, excluding LEs.

Even at 1 per sub-unit, us morons, when we got together to discuss the art of the possible, recognised that such a low target was PALLIATIVE care rather than the RESTORATIVE care which is really needed. But then, targets have to be achievable as well as meaningful.
But "1 per subunit" would give a target of four for 6 SCOTS (HQ Coy, A, B, and C Coys) when the recruiting target is stated to be seven.

Now, four is (I agree) a sensible target - and apologies if your target was misrepresented in the Parliamentary Answer (see last bit of post).

But seven? As I said, that's never been achieved in fifteen years. Anyone who said "we've got to recruit seven this year" as opposed to "we've got seven vacancies for 2Lts" (which is kind of worrying, given there can't be more than nine rifle platoons in 6 SCOTS) would be on a different planet.

By way of example - we managed to get two DE TAPO types from our company in one year. Wow, beat the target. Unfortunately, neither turned up as TA Gp.A 2Lts, because both went off to RMAS and are now regular officers.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top