Soldiers under Training/Recruits

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MoNkEy271, Feb 24, 2008.

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. Not sure if this is the right place to put this but I am on duty on a sunday night reading the emails of all the things I was supposed to do last week and I was just wondering…..

    Why, in training establishments do we now have to refer to Recruits as Solders under Training (SuT) instead of Recruits? All the correspondence from the hierarchy, be it Email or whatever, that refers to recruits now states SuT instead of Recruit. I know that it isn’t the most burning issue in the world today, but it does seem a little petty. As far as I know, recruits have been recruits since time began and in Phase one, the course is CMS(R), the (R) standing for recruit. CMS(SuT) just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

    Surely the PC brigade cannot say the Recruit is a derogatory term. There must be another reason, but I am at a loss to what it is.
     
  2. I offer only that we also use the expression "Soldiers Not Under Training" and "Soldiers Not Under Trade Training" which are reduced to the acronyms "SNUT" and "SNUTT".

    Perhaps some bored staff officer has made the final leap and decided that recruits are actually SUT, so that the 30% of failures can then rightly be called SNUT and SNUTT!

    I wouldn't call them anything other than recruits but I suppose one could argue that once they are in, they cease to be recruits!

    Litotes
     
  3. Perhaps it is because only Soldiers can be sent into Theatre, what ever their level of training,
    The Newspaper headline "Recruit killed in Iraq" is much worse than "Soldier of 3 months Killed in Iraq"...
    Bob