Army beards

[Dan_Brown]

Fair, but feck me, i'm not that old

Tats, beards, yes - no issues with that, but dropping testing standards, laxing security etc, we'll see the results later down the line.

I don't mind tats, but i must be a dinosaur if the tat on the PTI i posted earlier is acceptable - i think it's fricking hideous.

 

[Flumpdaddy]

I'm kind of with you on the look of neck and face tats, I don't like them at all but couldn't justify banning them based on military effectiveness. I'm sure that PTI could still pose in front of a mirror as well as the next one.

As for testing and security, the army already have plenty of people that don't need to meet the same security vetting as everyone in the RAF is expected to i.e. infantry, so that could be expanded but probably not worth the hassle of figuring out who needs what. Things like fitness tests could be more role specific, if a computer geek is going to live in a bunker and fight a cyber war while never deploying why bother running between 2 lines or playing with a rifle once a year?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Did you read my post or just make up what you thought i had written? Won't someone think of the children?!

The tats i refer to is like the image i posted, do you agree that type of tat is appealing? But the point of my post is that we are dropping standards across the board to aid in recruitment/retention, that is a short term fix and may lead to problems later down the line.

However, not that anyone is bothered, the ones who brought in these new 'standards' will have been promoted and moved on.

Chief of the Air Staff 2040:

 

[Tin basher]

Things like fitness tests could be more role specific, if a computer geek is going to live in a bunker and fight a cyber war while never deploying why bother running between 2 lines or playing with a rifle once a year?

OFF TOPIC
Role specific fitness tests hum lets see.



So PTI's and Rocks it is then.

 

[Deltaitem]

I'm kind of with you on the look of neck and face tats, I don't like them at all but couldn't justify banning them based on military effectiveness. I'm sure that PTI could still pose in front of a mirror as well as the next one.

As for testing and security, the army already have plenty of people that don't need to meet the same security vetting as everyone in the RAF is expected to i.e. infantry, so that could be expanded but probably not worth the hassle of figuring out who needs what. Things like fitness tests could be more role specific, if a computer geek is going to live in a bunker and fight a cyber war while never deploying why bother running between 2 lines or playing with a rifle once a year?

Regardless of role, you're in the armed forces, and may have to go to war. The enemy won't leave you alone just because you're a desk jockey. I'd have thought most would be quite glad to at least know one end of a rifle from the other if it ever got real.

 

[Flumpdaddy]

Regardless of role, you're in the armed forces, and may have to go to war. The enemy won't leave you alone just because you're a desk jockey. I'd have thought most would be quite glad to at least know one end of a rifle from the other if it ever got real.

Seriously think the one day a year (or 2) with the Rock Apes doing weapons handling and and a quick blast on the DCCT/SAT range/indoor laser guns (take your pick of name) is actually preparing anyone to fight a trained and experienced infantry force? Basic training covers the basics, what more do you need if your not going to be on the front line?

If things were so bad we needed to drag the cyber geeks out of the bunker and shove a rifle in their hand then we have already been invaded and would have turned to conscription a long time before. At that point beards, tattoos, hair colour and gender identity etc really don't matter

 

[Deltaitem]

Seriously think the one day a year (or 2) with the Rock Apes doing weapons handling and and a quick blast on the DCCT/SAT range/indoor laser guns (take your pick of name) is actually preparing anyone to fight a trained and experienced infantry force? Basic training covers the basics, what more do you need if your not going to be on the front line?

If things were so bad we needed to drag the cyber geeks out of the bunker and shove a rifle in their hand then we have already been invaded and would have turned to conscription a long time before. At that point beards, tattoos, hair colour and gender identity etc really don't matter

The airfields of Crete weren't considered front line until the Fallschirmjaeger started landing, and then everyone in uniform became front line.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

Seriously think the one day a year (or 2) with the Rock Apes doing weapons handling and and a quick blast on the DCCT/SAT range/indoor laser guns (take your pick of name) is actually preparing anyone to fight a trained and experienced infantry force? Basic training covers the basics, what more do you need if your not going to be on the front line?

If things were so bad we needed to drag the cyber geeks out of the bunker and shove a rifle in their hand then we have already been invaded and would have turned to conscription a long time before. At that point beards, tattoos, hair colour and gender identity etc really don't matter

You must have missed submariners patrolling outside the wire in Afghan.

 

[UlsterExile]

I'm kind of with you on the look of neck and face tats, I don't like them at all but couldn't justify banning them based on military effectiveness. I'm sure that PTI could still pose in front of a mirror as well as the next one.

As for testing and security, the army already have plenty of people that don't need to meet the same security vetting as everyone in the RAF is expected to i.e. infantry, so that could be expanded but probably not worth the hassle of figuring out who needs what. Things like fitness tests could be more role specific, if a computer geek is going to live in a bunker and fight a cyber war while never deploying why bother running between 2 lines or playing with a rifle once a year?

People know what the requirements are when they joined, and regardless of where you sit and do. You are required to undergo a basic level of training, if that is every 2 years then so be it.

 

[Flumpdaddy]

The airfields of Crete weren't considered front line until the Fallschirmjaeger started landing, and then everyone in uniform became front line.

Not the front line but a deployed location far from home which intelligence knew was at threat several months in advance. I would expect people going somewhere similar today to have pre-deplyment training to be ready for potential base defence. If paratroopers are landing in mainland UK and they have air superiority, as in Crete, then we are f*ck*d!

As for submariners in Afghan. I'm fairly sure they did pre-deployment training. I might be wrong but I definitely did extra training covering various things that were relevant to the threat.

If the desire is to have aviators () that are actually capable of defending the airfields, radar stations, or wherever else they work, then we need a massive change to the training and exercise regimes. I know I haven't done a multi day field exercise with enemy attacks to repel since 2005. I would be surprised if many joining in the last 10 years have done anything after basic training.

UlsterExile - requirements can change, hence beards now exist. I have no issue with training, I just don't fool myself into thinking that what we do now makes me a decent solider

​