Who do you trust more; DEs or LEs?

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by ashford_old_school, Aug 8, 2007.

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. The Director has decreed that the Corps requires more DE's than LE's; what say you?
  2. The surge of FAS DEs is all fair and well, but I get the distinct impression that, as a Corps, we may be lowering standards. In the past the Corps has been very, very selective in choosing DE officers; to suddenly increase the intake of DEs could suggest that the criteria for acceptance has changed slightly.
  3. One of us must be stuck in a time warp here.

    I dont detect that the surge of Gunners into the Corps in the 60's and 70s showed any evidence of selectivity.

    I'm sure there are some who would question our ablility to retain our brightest, most intelligent young officers beyond the 6 year point. Having lost two of our best young officers in contacts over the past 2 years compounds the issue.

    I would rather suggest that we should be asking "DE, Transferee or LE?". Some will say that a number of Transferee officers have a difficulty interacting with our soldiers, that their DE peers do not.

    IMHO the real question is why are we unable to retain many of our DE officers.

    ( perhaps they are going to bring back Technical Duty Officers to keep the " LE" * guys where they belong?)

    *I thought "LE" stopped before I transferred to the reserve?
  4. The Corps has the same problem as all the other Arms and Services-recruiting is fine but retention is the issue. How do you keep a mid-range DE Captain who has had a couple of exciting jobs, a tour where things have been dangerous and are facing, say SO3 followed by a Coy 2IC job to get them the correct "profile" for the Beige list?

    As for LEs, they provide continuity, specialist experience, role model examples and lots of other things debated endlessly on arrse and in messes across the organisation. A reduction of LEs as a policy is a bad idea. Numbers fluctuate naturally as the number of suitable people varies. Don't discourage potential LEs earlier than you need to-you'll loose Seniors at 14-15 years (you'll know who's going to be an LE earlier than this-or you should) to Civ Div or to other cap badges as LEs.

    Pick the right man for the right job and be done with number counting and buggering about with a system that works.
  5. my bold, i think that one is easy to answer a DE orificer with op experience can quite often get a job in a civvy firm that pays at least 3 times what they can get staying in the corps.
  6. The problem is that many DE officers in their late twenties are married or in a long term relationship and aspects that become increasingly important are their spouse's career, children, education, a house etc. Yes, you could have those and a fulfilling career in the Army, maybe 10 years ago, but not these days. Pile on the career courses and revision for the various packages that one must pass, and pass well in order to have a reasonable chance at promotion beyond Major, and some DEs decide it is no longer worth the candle, particularly if they have more than a couple of ops under their belt.

    They look at the options available to them and decide to jump. I heard recently that one of our promising senior Captains has decided to jump - but it didn't surprise me as I had decided that he was leaving some 2 years ago when I met his wife-to-be - who was unusually forthright about her dislike of the Army!

    Maybe we should revert to the days when junior officers had to ask the CO's permission before marrying... and permission will be refused unless the officer is over 29!

  7. very much depends on the individual officer in question.

    personally, i don't trust anyone who uses apostrophes in plurals. :)
  8. There is certainly no shortage of very good people at the Factory asking for Int Corps and being turned down. If they come to us instead of going to their second choices, then we're certainly not losing out. We're not going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for people turned down by [insert regiment/corps here].
  9. Perhaps the apostrophe was being used to indicate an act of abbreviation
    ( as in I've, or don't, or LE Officers) as opposed to indicating the plural form?
  10. I used the apostrophes to prevent confusion; a legitimate use as per OED. However, as per blah blah blah.

    PS Subsonic if I had wanted...

  11. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    It would be a good thing provided that we can get more DE officers into mainstream staff jobs in operational bdes and divs. Otherwise not a lot of point as we will just end up with more frustrated DE officers.
  12. Well I really must appologise from the bottom of my heart, for my unwarranted intrusion here.

    I thought the purpose of a forum like this was to promote open debate. I'll just crawl of into the gas chambers for a shower with the other untermench shall I ?
  13. Yes open debate on the posted topic. A valid question you did indeed put but why not just start a new thread. It's 'untermensch', if you are going to use a foreign word at least learn to spell it! Now off to those wonderful 13 hole showers please!
  14. Perhaps another question is why have we almost done away with the RCMO post? Just as we took three steps forward in soldier management, we have taken 2 steps backwards.
  15. It's 'Untermensch', really ... those Germans do like their capitalised nouns.

    By implying that pernickity grammarians are the same as Totenkopfverbande subsonic is risking a lengthy discourse from me about my great-aunt Pepi who was sixteen when they sent her up the chimmney. But that would be off-topic.