Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Troops are hungry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    ....Career officers tend to go out as full Colonels.

    Only 30-40% of Lieutenant Colonels considered for promotion are selected, so the majority actually retire as Lieutenant Colonels, because all of the General officers come out of those selected for Colonel.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    The barracks tend to be nice, too. The majority of officers leave after their six-year commitment is served, usually as Captains. Career officers tend to go out as full Colonels.

    Warrant officers are either highly trained specialists, or helicopter pilots; in either case they Army wants to keep them. Outside of aviation they are rare. They are neither fish nor fowl, neither enlisted men nor officers, but a separate class all of their own.
    I would say that most officers retire as an LTC unless they have punched a very good ticket. West Point and other needed skills in higher education will give those the edge to get COL and above, unless they are a soup sandwich. I've seen a few clowns achive LTC rank and it was shocking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Stands to reason. While your senior wo salaries look high there aren't many of them.
    A lot in the Uk leave after getting to Colonel. One consultancy firm I worked for had so many colonels in it was like a third world dictatorship.
    The US do get good accommodation though, I remember doing some coaching at Edzell and the family quarters seemed fine.
    The barracks tend to be nice, too. The majority of officers leave after their six-year commitment is served, usually as Captains. Career officers tend to go out as full Colonels.

    Warrant officers are either highly trained specialists, or helicopter pilots; in either case they Army wants to keep them. Outside of aviation they are rare. They are neither fish nor fowl, neither enlisted men nor officers, but a separate class all of their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Around 85% of US enlisted are in for one enlistment (3-4 years) and out. Most officers leave after six years. That's why you see the better pay higher up the rank scale.
    Reference!

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Stands to reason. While your senior wo salaries look high there aren't many of them.
    A lot in the Uk leave after getting to Colonel. One consultancy firm I worked for had so many colonels in it was like a third world dictatorship.
    .
    The Brtitish army automatically retires officers who have failed to reach certain ranks by a specific age. Colonel is one of the break points. if the officer has not been to staff college it is clear that he/she is not going any further. The age chop is relaxed for some who have reached full colonel and have a technical expertise and command things like research or training establishments but for most career officers Lt Col is as far as they go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Around 85% of US enlisted are in for one enlistment (3-4 years) and out. Most officers leave after six years. That's why you see the better pay higher up the rank scale.
    Stands to reason. While your senior wo salaries look high there aren't many of them.
    A lot in the Uk leave after getting to Colonel. One consultancy firm I worked for had so many colonels in it was like a third world dictatorship.
    The US do get good accommodation though, I remember doing some coaching at Edzell and the family quarters seemed fine.
    Last edited by Surrey; 29 Sep 18, 02:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Anecdotally yes. Those I know who have been in the army have mostly been in for longer than ten years. Most of them were officers though.
    Around 85% of US enlisted are in for one enlistment (3-4 years) and out. Most officers leave after six years. That's why you see the better pay higher up the rank scale.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Doesn't your army have a higher retention, in that more of your soldiers are long-serving? In the US Army, only about 15% are career.
    Anecdotally yes. Those I know who have been in the army have mostly been in for longer than ten years. Most of them were officers though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    I was in the Navy Reserve through 2006.

    When I first joined (1985) there were lots of really well qualified people, both officer and enlisted serving. I can remember a number of professional engineers who were Petty Officers, (one First Class / E-6 was the project manager for Tomahawk at Raytheon), and professional tradesmen like welders, electricians, mechanics, instrument makers, etc. There were a number of doctors and nurses in the medical units.

    About 2000 or so that started to change radically. The call ups started and most of those people started to quit. They found their professional civilian lives were being ruined and didn't want that. That's when they started taking people that had no active duty service too. The welfare moms, minimum wage workers, and such started to fill up units. The medical units were getting short on qualified people because of retirements and people quitting.

    The unit mix went from ship repair and supporting reserve ships to units that were basically there to rotate security guards through a base, or supply and support units that didn't require a lot of training.

    Arizona's National Guard got rid of their combat units. They disbanded the Apache helicopter unit at Marana even though that one had plenty of pilots. They did away with most of the combat units and instead got things like quartermaster truck companies and other support units that don't require skilled personnel.

    The Army Reserve downsized and did the same thing.
    I can't comment about the Navy, although the lack of technical skills would have a big impact.

    The Guard and Reserve (Army) are intended as 'round-out' forces intended to bring the Regulars up to full capability; at one time all water purification, long-distance POL and power supply, and other specialized units were in the Guard or Reserve.

    That's what hurt so bad during Vietnam: the Army was designed to call up a plethora of specialized units from the weekend warriors, as well as handing over training and garrison duties. Instead, they had to take over those jobs because LBJ wouldn't call up the reserves.

    Two motivations for the withdrawal of combat units in favor of low-skill units is that #1: that exposes Reserves to less combat; Guard or Reserve casualties create a greater impact than Regulars.

    #2 it is far faster to bring a transport battalion up to speed upon activation than a more complex unit, which shortens the activation cycle, which means the weekend warriors complain less.

    While your attack helicopter units had plenty of experienced pilots, it is maintenance personnel the Army is concerned about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    https://www.federalpay.org/military/army/ranks

    http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypay...p#.W65DdH-Wzwo

    It seems that the US army pays the lower ranks less than the British army does. But then there is more scope for advancement for NCOs and WOs in the US. Swings and roundabouts.
    Doesn't your army have a higher retention, in that more of your soldiers are long-serving? In the US Army, only about 15% are career.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Lots of Ft. Carson troops at the commissary, WalMart and Sam's Club, and for awhile, lots of them on food stamps, too.

    Getting married and having a family is a grown up decision process. If a couple out-performs their income, then they are obviously not mature enough to be in the situation they have created.

    Funny thing, though - they all have nice cares, nice TV's and cigarettes.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Not really. I served in the National Guard in the 1980s, and we fielded an entire Armored (later, infantry) division. Most of the division was NG-only, no prior service.

    Back then no one really believed we would get called up for actual service beyond riot or hurricane duty, and most training paperwork was fudged. The last time the NG had been called up for war was Korea.

    When we got called up for Desert Storm there was a gross shortage of equipment (My unit didn't have a single operational vehicle or radio) and a complete absence of basic soldier skills. They had to run most units through a full training program before they could be committed.

    My unit went from Federal muster to overseas; I hadn't fired a government-issue M-16 since I ETS'd from the Regular Army six years earlier, but since we were based out of a pension in Germany and later a very nice hotel in Kuwait we were able to adapt, improvise, and overcome. Especially since we left the bolts for our M-16s in Texas.

    Luckily Desert Storm wasn't much more than a live-fire exercise.

    Since then you're right, the Guard has turned over completely, and you rarely see a Guardsman without a right shoulder patch. And like the Regular Army most are single-termers. But they actually train, and have achieved commendable service records in their combat deployment.

    Too much peace time makes a military decay. The Regular Army and Marines were not in much better shape in DS/DS because their lifers were just dead-weight military bureaucrats, the Vietnam-era types having largely retired.

    The old Guard had E-5s with a decade+ of service and an iron-clad belief that they were never going to have to perform their mission for real. The new Guard knows it can and will deploy, and they are far better than any since the Korean War.

    The Regular military is the same way: when you have commanding officers without combat service, the quality of the unit steadily decays. People stay in who shouldn't, and too many of the real warriors leave.
    I was in the Navy Reserve through 2006.

    When I first joined (1985) there were lots of really well qualified people, both officer and enlisted serving. I can remember a number of professional engineers who were Petty Officers, (one First Class / E-6 was the project manager for Tomahawk at Raytheon), and professional tradesmen like welders, electricians, mechanics, instrument makers, etc. There were a number of doctors and nurses in the medical units.

    About 2000 or so that started to change radically. The call ups started and most of those people started to quit. They found their professional civilian lives were being ruined and didn't want that. That's when they started taking people that had no active duty service too. The welfare moms, minimum wage workers, and such started to fill up units. The medical units were getting short on qualified people because of retirements and people quitting.

    The unit mix went from ship repair and supporting reserve ships to units that were basically there to rotate security guards through a base, or supply and support units that didn't require a lot of training.

    Arizona's National Guard got rid of their combat units. They disbanded the Apache helicopter unit at Marana even though that one had plenty of pilots. They did away with most of the combat units and instead got things like quartermaster truck companies and other support units that don't require skilled personnel.

    The Army Reserve downsized and did the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    https://www.federalpay.org/military/army/ranks

    http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypay...p#.W65DdH-Wzwo

    It seems that the US army pays the lower ranks less than the British army does. But then there is more scope for advancement for NCOs and WOs in the US. Swings and roundabouts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    https://www.militaryrates.com/milita...rts-e1_e5_2019

    https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Police_Officer/Salary/9d8677f9/Entry-Level


    Less than half what a rookie cop gets. One that can go home every night and take a shower,spend the week end with the family.

    somin isn't right!

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
    I did not get married until I was an E-6, and the salary of an E-6 nowadays if 5 times as much as it was then, I just don't understand how a Military Family could go hungry, unless it is fake news or in most cases Fake Headlines.
    OMG, read the source fkn https://www.military.com/spousebuzz/...ry-hunger.html
    Last edited by Half Pint John; 28 Sep 18, 08:59.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X