Six month deployments: Too Long?

#1
Talking to guys that have been called up, I am aware that the usual term of deployment is six months: two months' beat-up training and a month PTL giving a total of around 9 months.

This has had some fairly stiff consequences for some who are running a business or in the position of responsibility within an organisation, and some have voted with their feet and left as they feel ( quite rightly ) that they have done their bit and another 9 months would be catastrophic for their working lives.

Would it make being called up easier if the tours could be cut to say, three months giving a total period of mobilised service of around six months?

Obviously this would have an effect on the number of units / personnel being called up, but I do belive it would be less traumatic and less people would actually leave - giving a larger pool of trained soldiers?

If anyone wants to comment along the lines of " you know the score, just go" perhaps they would expound this line of thought in their own thread.

BB
 
#2
Nope, for me 6 months was just about right. Missed all the family birthdays and Xmas as well. There would have been hell on if I'd been around for one kid's birthday and not the other.

Others in my unit selected R&R dates to coincide with birthdays or anniversaries. I chose bonfire night and Remembrance Day.

As far as work was concerned, I was tempted to extend to avoid going back to the grind. Sadly, common sense prevailed.

Seriously though, if you're away from work for more than a couple of weeks, the firm has to find ways around your absence. If you're away for a month or 9 months, the problems don't escalate other than the wonder whether your temporary replacement now has his feet firmly under the table. Even this wonder doesn't really surface until you get back, when you actually meet your replacement and feel obliged to prove that the firm can't manage without you. (Though they've proven that they have for the last nine months).
 
#3
10 months 15 days i did ... is this a record (and that was'nt through any sicknote as a lot of people on my deployment seemed to have)
 
#4
Is your time based on in-theatre, or are you including the extended ITD w/e beforehand and the holiday afterwards?
 
#6
I think the current term is just right. The problem arises when on return your firm attempts to shaft you with an effective "demotion" thus constructively dissmising you. When you approach the MoD/SaBre they fob you off. The MoD make all sorts of empty promises about supporting you but when it comes to the crunch your on your own. Thats what causes people to shy away the 2nd time not so much the leangth of the mobilization period.

The MoD won't do anything about this because they don't want to p1$$ off the employers, so the troops are out on a limb.
 
#7
Flew back with a load of RMR guys. They had onw month beat uptrg then three months in theatre.

Seemd to work well for them.

I mobilised late, but didn't seem to have missed out on anything important.

msr
 
#8
One month's training followed by three months away (and then a week's hols) would be lovely, especially if mobilisation came round as a matter of course every three years or so. Ten months every four to five years - less nice.

The shorter pre-deployment training period would be justifiable, as there would be less need for beat-up training of two months (of which much would no doubt be sitting around bitching about being called up) if you've got a couple of tours under your belt.

So if anyone important is listening, that's what I'd like. OK?

While you're at it, I'll have a half-caf decaff with a twist of lemon. And cream. On the side.
 
#9
Dr_Evil said:
as there would be less need for beat-up training of two months
Some roles take a slightly longer lead in, I believe those going for IS Eng slots (RSigs) do 3 month beat up training (mainly because we don't have the trade in TA)
 
#10
If we're into wish lists, how about every 3rd mobilisation being to somewhere warm and sunny that isn't a trouble spot? It would do wonders for retention.
 
#11
did one tour about month training 6 months away .offered another tour 3 months training 6months away Cant be arsed to
be away from my family for 9 months .Offer me private security wages and I'll go like a shot :lol: .same job just less cool kit :)
 
#12
putteesinmyhands said:
If we're into wish lists, how about every 3rd mobilisation being to somewhere warm and sunny that isn't a trouble spot? It would do wonders for retention.
I guess. But might fracture the employer link. "You've been mobilised for WHAT???"
 
#13
putteesinmyhands said:
Seriously though, if you're away from work for more than a couple of weeks, the firm has to find ways around your absence. If you're away for a month or 9 months, the problems don't escalate other than the wonder whether your temporary replacement now has his feet firmly under the table. Even this wonder doesn't really surface until you get back, when you actually meet your replacement and feel obliged to prove that the firm can't manage without you. (Though they've proven that they have for the last nine months).
I'm firmly in agreement with this. Your firm has to go throught the complete recruitment nightmare twice as often, and at the back of their mind, they'll be wondering whether or not you will come back afterwards. Plenty of people voted with their feet BEFORE they came back (extending, going on FTRS, and a few from my coy who went private security).

I'm in complete agreement about having to compete with your replacement for the same level of respect you had at work before you left as well.
 

Pob02

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#14
gingwarr said:
I'm in complete agreement about having to compete with your replacement for the same level of respect you had at work before you left as well.
Guess I am one of the lucky ones. I got promoted at work as soon as I walked back through the door, but then I am fecking brilliant (my Mum says so . . any of you want to call my Mum a liar and we may just have a falling out!).

Is tough for some companies to cope when we are away. I have a sneaking suspicion they prefer the away for 9 months, with just feckabout at beinning and end, rather than having that upheaval doubled by a couple of mobilisations (not to mention two 3 monthers would actually equate to 10 months out as opposed to the 9 months out from a 6 month deployment).

Having done both a 3 month, and a 6 month tour found no real difference in readjusting back to the office life between the two of them.

Talking of work, guess I'd best grt back to it. :?

editted because I can't type
 
#15
I agree with some of the problems facing those with difficult employers, but it might do to consider that our regular counterparts do 6 month tours and it might affect relations if we did shorter tours. I'm sure we all have 'regular stories' but I think its fair to say that most now accept that we have a contribution to make. This might be undermined if we start doing short tours.
 
#16
On the other hand, we deployed with Regulars. We did 6 months, they did 4.
 
#17
I suspect it all hinges on the three months work up, anything less than six months is not cost effective. The real question should be why it takes three months to train up an infantryman who by rights should be pretty close to the standard required if he collected his bounty last year.

Personally I could probably manage a three month deployment every 12 months simply because I can effectively plan ahead that far. Email caters for the rest.
 
#18
I agree with some of the problems facing those with difficult employers, but it might do to consider that our regular counterparts do 6 month tours and it might affect relations if we did shorter tours. I'm sure we all have 'regular stories' but I think its fair to say that most now accept that we have a contribution to make. This might be undermined if we start doing short tours.
Bang on target vs_watchdog if we, the TA, keep banging on about the one army concept then we need to take the rough with the smooth.
Someone in the hierarchy needs to look at how much prep does a TA soldier need to do before they deploy though and agree it for everyone!.
When I went on Telic I had just a week pre-deployment training, but enough about my war stories. Lads from my unit who went on Telic 5 did a month build up with our regt before posting them off to Germany to spend a months working alongside their regular counterparts. Okay they ended up doing a lot of duplication but I do believe that if we all want to be accepted by the regs and dispel our dad’s army/ cold war warrior image we need to work doubly hard.
So we should just accept it that 9 months are here to stay, unless the Government finally decides to change the length of op tours from 6 to 9 months. NOW THAT’S A CHEERY THOUGHT!!
 
#19
Bear in mind that the historic role of the TA has been to defend the homeland. Training has been geared to temperate climates while in battle against a european (or thereabouts) foe. I doubt that it's practical to train for anywhere else on a routine basis. (Training for desert warfare on Blackpool beach wouldn't be realistic - even with the tide out). Bounty training covers the basic features of soldiering from which, during beat-up training, those skills can be developed to suit the relevant theatre.

Telic 2 pre-deployment training was little more than a leisurely ITD weekend plus lectures spread over about 10 days. Presumably this has improved into something more along the lines of the actual training needed.

Any comments as to whether anything new was learned during more recent pre-deployment training?
 
#20
As an aside: employers ought to be geared up already to cope with the absence of any given employee for a period of up to one year. They seem to be able to do this without difficulty in the case of pregnant women, even though the law gives the woman the power to choose the duration of her maternity leave (within certain limits).

Why should similar absences by members of the TA (albeit for a different reason) cause special logistical problems?
 

Latest Threads