Tale of two Boy soldiers

#3
There seems to be a head of steam growing under the idea that "18 is too young to go in a war."

Personally i was much more physically resilant then than I was 10 years later, recovered from injuries faster and phys was less of an effort.... so I think some of the sympathy is misplaced.

Trotsky
 
#4
Trotsky said:
There seems to be a head of steam growing under the idea that "18 is too young to go in a war."

Personally i was much more physically resilant then than I was 10 years later, recovered from injuries faster and phys was less of an effort.... so I think some of the sympathy is misplaced.

Trotsky
If you can vote then siurely you are mature enough to go to war
 
#5
On my 18th birthday I had been in the Army nearly 3 years
 
#8
maxi_77 said:
Trotsky said:
There seems to be a head of steam growing under the idea that "18 is too young to go in a war."

Personally i was much more physically resilant then than I was 10 years later, recovered from injuries faster and phys was less of an effort.... so I think some of the sympathy is misplaced.

Trotsky
If you can vote then siurely you are mature enough to go to war
I would argue there is no relationship between the two. fit aggressive young animals, well trained and equipped can go to war. However most 18 year olds do not have a scoobie about politics and the economy...

At 18 you are fit and you do recover well but you are still a bit soft around the edges. An op tour goes a long way to hardening the edges and means that the 20/25 year old on the second tour is better adjusted and able to use their increasing stamina.
 
#9
Fallschirmjager said:
We're on about the real army not cadets.
I went into JLR at 15 years 9 months, as soon as my O levels were complete I was on the train for basic.

When I reached 18 I thought I was old FFS. Its only when you are 20 years older that you realise that you were still a bairn.

I would rather have done my fighting when I was 18 though, you need blokes with balls of steel and a little less caution than more experienced people have.
 
#10
I seem to recall that one of the lads we had killed on Granby was 17. I think it was in the blue on blue, but am not 100% sure.
 
#11
In Charles Whiting's book, 'The Poor Bloody Infantry' there is a bit referring to the Army in the NW Europe campaign, the gist of it saying that the 18-19 year old's were more effective and took more risks that the older mid-twenties soldiers.
 
#12
spent_case said:
I seem to recall that one of the lads we had killed on Granby was 17. I think it was in the blue on blue, but am not 100% sure.
Yep, it was in that warrior incident with the A10's (I think). Wasn't there 17 year olds killed in the SA?
 
#13
I am very good friends with the chap who was the youngest Para who fought in the Falklands, he was in 3 Para, he lost a couple of friends who were also under 18.

Edited to add, I joined at 16 in 1984.
 
#15
Filbert Fox said:
I am very good friends with the chap who was the youngest Para who fought in the Falklands, he was in 3 Para, he lost a couple of friends who were also under 18.
Filbert, I have heard a few claims to that particular title. Not debunking your mate but has he got ginger hair and was he a casette head in the RAOC after he left Para Regt? If so I know him too!
 
#16
BPS666 said:
spent_case said:
I seem to recall that one of the lads we had killed on Granby was 17. I think it was in the blue on blue, but am not 100% sure.
Yep, it was in that warrior incident with the A10's (I think). Wasn't there 17 year olds killed in the SA?
There was 3 if I recall. Pte's Burt and Crow were two I can remember.
 
#17
Cuddles said:
maxi_77 said:
Trotsky said:
There seems to be a head of steam growing under the idea that "18 is too young to go in a war."

Personally i was much more physically resilant then than I was 10 years later, recovered from injuries faster and phys was less of an effort.... so I think some of the sympathy is misplaced.

Trotsky
If you can vote then siurely you are mature enough to go to war
I would argue there is no relationship between the two. fit aggressive young animals, well trained and equipped can go to war. However most 18 year olds do not have a scoobie about politics and the economy...

At 18 you are fit and you do recover well but you are still a bit soft around the edges. An op tour goes a long way to hardening the edges and means that the 20/25 year old on the second tour is better adjusted and able to use their increasing stamina.
Experience certainly changes things, my training was relatively long and on completion I met up once again with others who had been on a shorter training path. At that stage they were certainly much more mature, but it took a very short time for us to catch up.

I think that for a properly trained person they contribute differing attributes to their service depending on their age and experience. Thus a balanced unit will field people of varying ages and experience.

Certainly I do feel the not allowing some one you permit to vote to go to war is a step too far, though I can see this attempt to keep them as children for longer process continuing.
 
#18
maxi_77 said:
Fallschirmjager said:
We're on about the real army not cadets.
Some of us can rember when you could join at 15
I certainly can as I joined at 15 and left at 55. Notwithstanding the points already made there was only NI to occupy the mind in those early days ('69 onwards).
 
#19
Fallschirmjager said:
We're on about the real army not cadets.
JLR RAC most certainly weren't fcuking Cadets 15years 6 month and 5 days on the day I turned up at Bovington in 67
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
dpcw The NAAFI Bar 21
B The NAAFI Bar 83
E Aviation 39

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads