R2OK!

mark occomore · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK

Squaddies could still be serving in the trenches at the age of Fifty Five under the Army’s new recruitment limit.

Top brass have raised the top age for recruits by seven years to 33 to counter their desperate shortage of personnel.

The last time the limit was that high was during the last days of the British Empire 59 years ago in the aftermath of World War Two.

Amazingly it means soldiers who join up on a normal 22-year engagement could be fighting just five years ahead of their 60th birthday.

Defence officials last night insisted the move was to harmonise rules across all three armed forces.

But critics claim it is an emergency measure that reveals the true depth of the numbers crisis facing top brass.

The MoD denied there was a recruitment crisis, saying it was merely bringing the army into line with the maximum recruiting ages for other armed forces.

There were more than 12,700 new Army recruits last year - but almost 14,500 personnel left the service.

I wont be called up Very Happy

Barkingbiker · Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 2313 Location: Lincolnshire

This could be just to bring all 3 services into line, prior to merging them into a Tri-service like the Canadians have. The RAF has for many years accepted recruites up to age 33, I don't know about the Navy, but the Army certainly set their age limit at 26 years. Over recent years much of the 3 services training programmes have been amalgamated, so it would seem logical to extend the cost saving exercise to form a Tri-service. Don't forget that we saw RAF and Navy personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, fighting side by side in the Falkands war of 82 and many conflicts since. Also there is the disparity in the rank structure and pension benefits of the 3 services, all of these would need to be rationalized, but not before time,IMHO. I could of course be wrong, but I don't think that Army recruitment is in such a crisis as the media would have us believe.
BB Twisted Evil

_________________
Old Bikers Never Die, our leathers just get tighter!

Cherskiy · Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:24 am Post subject:

Barkingbiker · Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 2313 Location: Lincolnshire

I would tend to agree about a Tri- service, in the UK, having difficulties, the Canadians did initially, I know this from squadron exchange visits & TAC Weapons meetings in the early 70's. There would always be resentment at the loss of control, this is already evident at RAF Digby. However, much of the resentment and mistrust is down to simple things that could easily be alleviated if common rank and pay structures were quickly introduced. I know that the voice operatives all do the same training, yet the Army personnel pass out with junior non-commissioned officer status, the RAF do not, yet these people are working side by side and it is obvious that this causes much friction between Army & RAF personnel. From a financial point of view, it must look very cost effective, but cost cannot always be the ruling factor. But with civil servants and politicians this is more often the basis for making a decision, no matter what the real experts advise. I do not think that a UK military Tri-service is necessarilly a good way for our military to evolve, yet I do feel that is inevitable, under the current political climate. So again it is my opinion that the Army is simply falling into line with its recruitment policy; as for 55 year old squadies fighting in the trenches, this would never happen as they would be utilised elsewhere. Also the services have an annual combat fitness test, which in the Army's case means you must pass otherwise you are transferred or discharged as being unfit for combat.
BB Twisted Evil

_________________
Old Bikers Never Die, our leathers just get tighter!