R2OK! Forum Index R2OK!
Contact R2OK! admin

Click here for R2OK! Website


 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dads Army

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> Television
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mark occomore



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:45 pm    Post subject: Dads Army Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Barkingbiker



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 2313
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cherskiy



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3699
Location: near Amble, Northumberland

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barkingbiker wrote:
This could be just to bring all 3 services into line, prior to merging them into a Tri-service like the Canadians have. 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. BB Twisted Evil


Combined services go back even further: the Fleet Air Arm was amalgamated with the Royal Flying Corps to form the RAF in April 1918 - and the RAF then provided crews and aircraft for the Navy's carriers and seaplane flights (as the 'Fleet Air Arm of the RAF' from 1924) until 1939 when the Navy finally reasserted control over the FAA.

Of course, this has come full circle once more (BB's example of the Falklands saw at least eleven RAF pilots flying with the two Fleet Air Arm SHAR squadrons onboard Hermes and Invincible, whilst 1 Sqdn RAF operated their GR.3s from Hermes). Since the mid-1990s, the RAF routinely deployed detachments of Harriers from the Cottesmore Wing onboard whichever two carriers were in service, and 'Joint Force Harrier' saw the amalgamation of the Harrier/SHAR fleet in 2000, with the SHARs being withdrawn from service last year. Navy and RAF pilots now operate from the same bases and fly the same types of aircraft - and if JSF ever gets into service, they'll both be flying that.

I'm not entirely sure that forming a tri-service organisation like the Canadian Forces would work in this country wholesale, though - inter-service co-operation works well but each branch has its own little empire which would be fought for tooth and nail. Look at the arguments regarding the loss of identities when Army regiments were disbanded or amalgamated recently - imagine the furore if units from different services were merged together!
_________________
Cherskiy

You call *that* low?

Say hello to me at: http://www.myspace.com/cherskiy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Barkingbiker



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 2313
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> Television All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com