so how much is HM forces REALLY undermanned?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Speed_Air_Man, Apr 6, 2005.

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. According to my careers officer, all 3 services are not as undermanned as is being made out. He says the official figure from the MOD points to a "rosy" future for manning levels.

    Call me an old cynic but I'm sure the MOD is fudging the figures, esp when I have friends in all 3 services who tell me across the board the figure is something between 10K and 15K undermanned. Anyone shed any light on this? Are the forces not (gasp!) a shiny looking career for todays youngsters? Are all the old hands leaving with the speed of a thousand very fast things?

  2. Beaulurks.

    Perhaps your chum could explain why so many TA soldiers have been required in Iraq/Afghanistan over the last 18 months if the Army is not undermanned?

    Battalions are doing near back-to-back tours. There is minimal time for leave, families, etc and people with young families are voting with their feet.

    The flip side for singlies is that there is a near-unrivalled chance to see active service and rapidly get a chestfull of medals.
  3. In a HQ job, I was browsing the large telephone directory and noticed that the most common surname at SO3/SO2 level was "Gapped"!

    Undermanning goes hand in hand with overtasking - hours worked, tour intervals, untaken leave etc.
  4. Thanks for fast reply!

    Current score - Old cynics 1 - AFCO -0

    To be honest, I'm still not sure whether to join and to what service.
    I've always thought of HMF as being proud,reputable and free of the stupid bureacracy and laziness of civvies. (e.g. I suggest to bloke at work, "why don't you pick that letter up that's jamming your container wheel", his reply "not my job" imagine that in a unit!)

    I'm sure there are many fine parts still in HMF but has the rot really and truely set in? Should I focus on a civvi career instead?

  5. Just as the others are hinting at. The MoD has reduced the numbers of troops officially on the books without reducing the work required. So whilst officially the army and other services manning levels are peachy everyone is really doing the work of 4 people. A good example is a transport unit. A troop may have 30 drops vehicles but only 20 people to drive and maintain them.
  6. you will of course be pleased to know that there is twice the amount of civil service posts than there are military, and all these post are to capacity! After all they do all the important work!
    Was that sarcastic enough?
  7. don't get me started about those idle T*ats. Comfy jobs and 52 weekends off a year and they still blo*dy moan! Their capacity for self importance and martydom never cease to amaze me.
  8. Just seen a copy of the "SSVC"! DVD of "BFBS REPORTS" with that tw*t R. Astbury. Seems the Army is only short 600 pers but is willing to retrain anybody for anything if willing to stay in service and retrain /change capbadge.

    i.e. An armourer will be retraining as a dental assistant. Common skills and still lots of metal?
  9. Okay, not all civil servants are a waste of rations, most are...... but some provide valuable service and do a fine job.

    That said, there are no Budget Managers employed by the civil service that shouldn't be dragged out of their cozy little offices and horse whipped to near death, before being formed into (about twenty) battalions of first to 20th Bugeteers and sent out to Iraq to see if they can get the job done with no kit and 20 rds per man. It's these penny pinching little b4stards that cost the army many more times more than they save. Their tight short sighted scrimpy ways of protecting their little empire, no mater how much it costs the rest of the army as a whole, is nothing less than criminal bad management and it is these inept people that have cost more British soldiers lives over the last decade than any enemy.

    Why can't they see that 'managing' a budget means managing it. If you save save save to such an extent that the people you are budgeting for can no longer do their job, all the savings are for nothing and you might as well get rid of the lot and spent the money somwhere else...... ah, I think they've noticed that little gem!

    Savings on equipment, savings on manning and savings on training do nothing but cost soldiers their lives and every Budget Manager should be brought to account for their actions.

    Right, I'll toddle of and calm down :oops:
  10. And what is wrong in being a Dental Nurse :cry:
  11. Astbury must be talking boll***. The gunner unit I am in is down about 115 (of 211) in the rank of Gunner alone. Or is someone hoarding all the tins of blokes? :D
  12. We don't need more kit - we need to manage it better.

    We don't need more soldiers - we need to manage them better.

    But then we need more managers.

    Soldiers are Leaders not managers (although maybe someone should remind the great and good that all leaders can manage, but not all managers can lead) so we need more civvies.

    C'mon chaps/chapettes is very straightforward.

    8O :roll:
  13. Not sure if the loggie is taking the mick?

    But it comes down to things when 19 full screws from a certain cavalry regt have called it quits and turned in their papers! 8O

    How can you run a unit of whats supposed to be 58 vehicles,when the new whole fleet management has given you 19?How are lads supposed to gain experience working on said vehicles when there isn´t enough to go round?
    And don´t even bother asking for spares,cos there ain´t any!

    Totally agree with Plant-Pilot,grab a few of them so called ´managers´and send them off for a 6 monther in Iraq see how they like it!!!! :evil: :twisted: :evil:
  14. Would that be a Cav Regt serving in Fally per chance?