Officer or regular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Hi

I'm twenty six and considering my options in the Army.
I want a trade to come out with, but I do just about have enough points to go officer although it would be very late entry.
If I went officer it would have to be for Platoon commander in the infantry.

However - I spoke to a colonel at my local AFCO and he advised me, that by the time I get commissioned (late 27) - because of my age i would end up in a support company (if I get infantry). He reckoned because of my age I would be at a serious disadvantage. All the guys who are early twenties would be doing the front line stuff. I didn't really understand this. Could anyone explain?

His advice was to go Logistics or Artillery because they are much bigger corps and they would be more opportunities for me.
Maybe it's because just because I'm raring for action or it's just me - but logistics and Artillery sounds pretty boring to me.
If those are my only options then I reckon I'd be better going for Royal Engineers and getting a trade.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Tom
 
#2
archetype said:
Hi

I'm twenty six and considering my options in the Army.
I want a trade to come out with, but I do just about have enough points to go officer although it would be very late entry.
If I went officer it would have to be for Platoon commander in the infantry.

However - I spoke to a colonel at my local AFCO and he advised me, that by the time I get commissioned (late 27) - because of my age i would end up in a support company (if I get infantry). He reckoned because of my age I would be at a serious disadvantage. All the guys who are early twenties would be doing the front line stuff. I didn't really understand this. Could anyone explain?

His advice was to go Logistics or Artillery because they are much bigger corps and they would be more opportunities for me.
Maybe it's because just because I'm raring for action or it's just me - but logistics and Artillery sounds pretty boring to me.
If those are my only options then I reckon I'd be better going for Royal Engineers and getting a trade.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Tom
Welcome to the site, Archetype.

If you are older than the average applicant, you will, in general, be more mature and more focussed on your goals, both of which will help you get through the training. As long as you are fit, you will always beat the younger candidate.

Logistics and Artillery only sound boring to those who haven't done enough research. Get off your arrse and read this site and others. Visit the library and read lots of books on the Army. You will then discover that Logistics and Artillery combine together to deliver a greater weight to the Army's fist, and that your initial choice is just that: an initial choice. Should you get through Sandhurst you could easily be offered a place in the Infantry if you are suitable. It's up to you and your performance in Sandhurst.

IMHO, at your age, you should nod in agreement with the Colonel and sign anything he puts in front of you. Pass AOSB, do well at Sandhurst and make your choice once you have seen what is available.

Lastly, I assume that you spent some time composing your post? Frankly, if you did, and that is the standard of your written English, then you will struggle to write your soldiers' reports. And that, is the last thing I want to see in one of my junior officers, because a badly written report does not help a soldier's career.

Litotes
 

rasselas

Swinger
Book Reviewer
#3
archetype said:
Hi

I'm twenty six and considering my options in the Army.
I want a trade to come out with, but I do just about have enough points to go officer although it would be very late entry.
If I went officer it would have to be for Platoon commander in the infantry.

However - I spoke to a colonel at my local AFCO and he advised me, that by the time I get commissioned (late 27) - because of my age i would end up in a support company (if I get infantry). He reckoned because of my age I would be at a serious disadvantage. All the guys who are early twenties would be doing the front line stuff. I didn't really understand this. Could anyone explain?

His advice was to go Logistics or Artillery because they are much bigger corps and they would be more opportunities for me.
Maybe it's because just because I'm raring for action or it's just me - but logistics and Artillery sounds pretty boring to me.
If those are my only options then I reckon I'd be better going for Royal Engineers and getting a trade.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Tom
Don't know what he's going on about there. If you commission into an Infantry Battalion your first command would be a Platoon in one of the Rifle Companies. Commanding a Platoon in the Support Company (Recce, Anti-Tanks, Mortars, Sniper) is far more to do with experience than age. I know of quite a few 28/29 year old "crows" loving Platoon command and as many experienced guys younger than you who are commanding Support Company Platoons for second (and even third) tour jobs. As the last poster said if your fit and motivated, age won't make a difference.
 
#4
Welcome to the site, Archetype.

If you are older than the average applicant, you will, in general, be more mature and more focussed on your goals, both of which will help you get through the training. As long as you are fit, you will always beat the younger candidate.

Logistics and Artillery only sound boring to those who haven't done enough research. Get off your arrse and read this site and others. Visit the library and read lots of books on the Army. You will then discover that Logistics and Artillery combine together to deliver a greater weight to the Army's fist, and that your initial choice is just that: an initial choice. Should you get through Sandhurst you could easily be offered a place in the Infantry if you are suitable. It's up to you and your performance in Sandhurst.

IMHO, at your age, you should nod in agreement with the Colonel and sign anything he puts in front of you. Pass AOSB, do well at Sandhurst and make your choice once you have seen what is available.

Lastly, I assume that you spent some time composing your post? Frankly, if you did, and that is the standard of your written English, then you will struggle to write your soldiers' reports. And that, is the last thing I want to see in one of my junior officers, because a badly written report does not help a soldier's career.

Litotes[/quote]


Thanks very much for the advice.
Your point about being older and more mature makes perfect sense and is exactly what I thought.

I think the Colonel's point was, that it depends on my long term career aims. If I go infantry and do want a long term career in the Army, then I would always be behind the other officers in terms of career milestones. For example most young platoon commanders are between 24-26 and then when they reach the rank of major, they are in their early thirties, whereas I would be late thirties and so on.
What I didn't really understand, is why this matters?
I got the feeling that when it comes to sponsorship, the infantry regiments won't be so interested in me because of my age. Would that be the case the case?

With regards to Artillery and Logistics.
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
The resources to get big guns and ammunition to the theatre of war is far too costly. Granted, light guns are very useful, but the AS90 and MLRS should be scrapped. We need money fr more useful tools, like decent kit for the men on the ground and helos.

I know both the Logistics corps and the Royal Artillery have a long a distinguished history; but I don't want to join the Army for Logistics!

I didn't spend any time composing that last post. I will make sure I do next time - Sir.
 
#5
archetype said:
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
What about when those fast jets are grounded through weather or serviceability issues? Can those fast jets deliver ordnance within 40 seconds of a call for fire?

Probably the bonest post ever on arrse.
 
#6
archetype said:
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
The resources to get big guns and ammunition to the theatre of war is far too costly. Granted, light guns are very useful, but the AS90 and MLRS should be scrapped. We need money fr more useful tools, like decent kit for the men on the ground and helos.
How do you know? This is a wah surely?
 
#7
Detonator said:
archetype said:
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
The resources to get big guns and ammunition to the theatre of war is far too costly. Granted, light guns are very useful, but the AS90 and MLRS should be scrapped. We need money fr more useful tools, like decent kit for the men on the ground and helos.
This is a wah surely?
Or more likely, the opinion of a never served, no experience student. I can remember being at an O Gp with the late great Lt Col Trigger 1PARA, who, on overhearing a young para reg subbie saying 'What do we need arty for?' berated him for a good 10 minutes for his 'Fecking niavety and complete lack of understanding of all things military'
 
#8
Alright, maybe I'm a bit hasty saying it's not needed at all any more.
I didn't say the light guns were useless. Some new portable 155mm towed artillery pieces would be very handy, just not the self -propelled dinosaur ones.
 
#9
archetype - you really need to do a lot more research before you spout off on here. Anything half-baked will get you shot down in flames - and your two posts don't show much chef potential yet.
 
#10
FiveAlpha said:
archetype said:
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
What about when those fast jets are grounded through weather or serviceability issues? Can those fast jets deliver ordnance within 40 seconds of a call for fire?

Probably the bonest post ever on arrse.
Or has the trawlermeister finally met his match :)

msr
 
#11
archetype said:
Alright, maybe I'm a bit hasty saying it's not needed at all any more.
I didn't say the light guns were useless. Some new portable 155mm towed artillery pieces would be very handy, just not the self -propelled dinosaur ones.
Oh dear... you do realise the 105mm Light Gun is consoderably older than the dinosaur your reffering too?

Also following your train of thought shall we dispense with air defence, tanks and while were at it the navy's ships as there no use at the moment?
 
#12
Listen.
Stop being so defensive and realise I'm slating anyone who works in Artillery.
I'm sure they do a fine job and are excellent infantrymen as well.

My point is that I don't want to serve in Artillery and in my opinion the AS90/Bravehearts are a dinosaur pieces of kit that should be scrapped.
Money would be better spent elsewhere!
 
#13
archetype said:
Firstly I don't think the job of the Artillery is even needed these days. The job can be done by fast jets!
Ask any Infantry soldier in Afghanistan if Arty isn't needed - he might take a slightly different view...and one based on experience...
 
#14
RustyH said:
archetype said:
Alright, maybe I'm a bit hasty saying it's not needed at all any more.
I didn't say the light guns were useless. Some new portable 155mm towed artillery pieces would be very handy, just not the self -propelled dinosaur ones.
Oh dear... you do realise the 105mm Light Gun is consoderably older than the dinosaur your reffering too?

Also following your train of thought shall we dispense with air defence, tanks and while were at it the navy's ships as there no use at the moment?
Maybe it is, but at least it's more portable. As I said some the new 155mm would be handy to replace the 105mm.
I completely agree. Scrap air defence - only time we would need this is if something goes horribly wrong. We've got fighter planes for that.
Tanks, don't need them anymore and your quite right; all the useless Frigates and Destroyers can go too. The primary role for these types of ships is Anti-Submarine Warfare and the submarines threat has essentially disappeared along with the cold war1
 
#15
let's get rid of the armed forces all together, i mean, it's not like britain will be invaded anytime soon.

we could use the $50 billion for MP's claims, welfare and give what's left to the banks in case they have another streak of bad luck in their gambling game
 
#16
archetype said:
RustyH said:
archetype said:
Alright, maybe I'm a bit hasty saying it's not needed at all any more.
I didn't say the light guns were useless. Some new portable 155mm towed artillery pieces would be very handy, just not the self -propelled dinosaur ones.
Oh dear... you do realise the 105mm Light Gun is consoderably older than the dinosaur your reffering too?

Also following your train of thought shall we dispense with air defence, tanks and while were at it the navy's ships as there no use at the moment?
Maybe it is, but at least it's more portable. As I said some the new 155mm would be handy to replace the 105mm.
I completely agree. Scrap air defence - only time we would need this is if something goes horribly wrong. We've got fighter planes for that.
Tanks, don't need them anymore and your quite right; all the useless Frigates and Destroyers can go too. The primary role for these types of ships is Anti-Submarine Warfare and the submarines threat has essentially disappeared along with the cold war1
I wasnt being serious.
 
#17
archetype said:
RustyH said:
archetype said:
Alright, maybe I'm a bit hasty saying it's not needed at all any more.
I didn't say the light guns were useless. Some new portable 155mm towed artillery pieces would be very handy, just not the self -propelled dinosaur ones.
Oh dear... you do realise the 105mm Light Gun is consoderably older than the dinosaur your reffering too?

Also following your train of thought shall we dispense with air defence, tanks and while were at it the navy's ships as there no use at the moment?
Maybe it is, but at least it's more portable. As I said some the new 155mm would be handy to replace the 105mm. Why does the Light Gun need replacing? It still seems to do the job, doesn't it?
I completely agree. Scrap air defence - only time we would need this is if something goes horribly wrong. And when that happens we'll be bloody glad of Rapier We've got fighter planes for that. Not all that many of them, and jets can only fly CAP for so long before needing to refuel, unlike Rapier, which can sit there all day
Tanks, don't need them anymore Despite the fact that we're currently using them in a limited role in Afghanistan and your quite right; all the useless Frigates and Destroyers can go too. The primary role for these types of ships is Anti-Submarine Warfare Total bollocks. The Type 45 is optimised for air defence, something warships need if they're to survive for very long near the enemy and the submarines threat has essentially disappeared along with the cold war1 You know this how? Iran has three Kilo-class submarines, for a start
My bold. You started the thread well, then went rapidly downhill by proving that you don't know shit about matters of defence. Which is unfortunate for you, because potential officer candidates are expected to know a bit about the organisation they're joining, and that doesn't mean make opinionated pronouncements on everything.

An officer is expected to be willing to go one further on everything he or she does; the soldiers whose careers rely on them would expect no less. "Going one further" starts by properly researching your options; it's not tricky, use the internet; not writing things off as "boring" without any prior understanding of it.
 
#18
Litotes said:
Lastly, I assume that you spent some time composing your post? Frankly, if you did, and that is the standard of your written English, then you will struggle to write your soldiers' reports. And that, is the last thing I want to see in one of my junior officers, because a badly written report does not help a soldier's career.

Litotes
You may have a point about his standard of written English, however, your response is a touch pretentious and arrogant. Let's hope that, if he is successful and gains a commission, he doesn't have the misfortune to be one of your junior :roll: officers. Since we are being "picky" some would maybe argue that you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction such as and.
 
#19
Ethel_the_Aardvark said:
Litotes said:
Lastly, I assume that you spent some time composing your post? Frankly, if you did, and that is the standard of your written English, then you will struggle to write your soldiers' reports. And that, is the last thing I want to see in one of my junior officers, because a badly written report does not help a soldier's career.

Litotes
You may have a point about his standard of written English, however, your response is a touch pretentious and arrogant. Let's hope that, if he is successful and gains a commission, he doesn't have the misfortune to be one of your junior :roll: officers. Since we are being "picky" some would maybe argue that you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction such as and.
All correct and duly noted, Ethel, and you missed the comma that I incorrectly used. :D

Litotes
 
#20
I think you should re-consider your offensive remark of "I don't think the job of the artillery is even needed", you my good sir are feckin hilarious. If you were to do some research you would see that when infanteers get in the cacky doo doos they call in ordanance. This thus allowing them to suppress the enemy (although this not being needed anymore) and eventually adding to the ability to withdraw.

As for the fast air strike (as I believe their are cases with ordanance) their have been numerous examples of blue on blue e.g. the American pilot currently under questioning for dropping 500lb bombs on the location of THREE Royal Anglians.

Also you point out that in order to gain more money the way to do this would be to disband a whole ARM (not just a Regiment) of the army and to put it all into the lads on the ground, but once they get ambushed or are being attacked from the top of a large land mark they should get in the aircrafts that have been provided by the disbanded Artillery and take on the task of getting to the top before they are RPG'd out of the sky. Although if the Artillery are about then they are able to call in a grid and get it blown to high heaven , thus saving countless lifes, more rations, more ammunition, more fuel, more helo parts.

Contrary to belief an infanteer can't win a battle all by himself, he needs logistics for his rations,ammunition,kit etc. He needs the artillery for the back up when the situation calls for it, he needs the signals for his comms and the engineers for his water,buildings and mouseholes. The intel corp for the locations of past and future threats, also he needs the lads and ladies who have the red crosses on their arms to save and comfort him in his darkest hour. He also in some cases needs that bloke also known as a Chaplain in order to find a reason for belief when his best mate has just passed away.

Also im going through the process to become a Sapper, and from what I know an officer is needed to lead his men and provide a role model for which they can depend on. He should also encourage the banta between all individuals across all arms, but never should he be considered to encourage the defamation of these arms. This being because as soon as he has done this he has lost what I consider a key quality of any person "Humility", and to be quite honest you haven't shown this quality with the statements you have used.

Also I watched the 24 hour news early hours this morning and MP William Hague foregin secretary was on a half an hour program discussing certain topics. He highlighted that himself and other Mp's believe that hour air defence is necessary and so are our submarines, this being because in his own words "the biggest threat in 10 to 20 years will be from nucleur warheads", now your explanation of this is to put all trust in the Rapier. Well how can this be when it is scheduled to go out of service in 2020?

I know that I am only a future prospect and I am still relatively young(21) but even I know that you should think very carefully before insulting a arm that has existed since 1716 and which individuals have given 22 YEARS of their life to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads