Officer or regular?

Discussion in 'Join the Army - Regular Soldier Recruitment' started by archetype, May 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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. 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
     
  3. rasselas

    rasselas Swinger Book Reviewer

    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. 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. How do you know? This is a wah surely?
     
  7. 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. msr

    msr LE

    Or has the trawlermeister finally met his match :)

    msr
     
  11. 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. Ask any Infantry soldier in Afghanistan if Arty isn't needed - he might take a slightly different view...and one based on experience...
     
  14. 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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.