Ed Matthews Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Can anyone tell me what the current minimum height requirement is for enlisting in the British Army please? I'm assuming there is one! Many thanks Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Ed - I bet you've seen the pic of the TALLEST Guardsman beside the little Guardsman who is five feet two inches in height! Published in local papers today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Hollington Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 I'm sure you've seen the BBC article on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3602910.stm The little guy is 5ft 2' You could try: http://www.army.mod.uk/careers/army_life/index.html And use the handy "ask a question" box top left. I would have done it but I don't want them knowing where I am. Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 27 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Desmond I have indeed seen the picture of the two Irish Guardsmen in The Times today and this is what prompted my question! The shorter of the two would certainly have qualified as a "Bantam" recruit at under 5'3"....... Rgds Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Checked the Army site, and the minimum requirement is 158 cm, which I think is about 62" or 5'2". I wasn't afraid if they found me - they wouldn't want me anyway - a middle-aged American woman! Cynthia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 27 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Ali, Cynthia Thanks for that. I found another reference via Google which said that the 158cm requirement was applicable to certain trades only (I suppose this might include the infantry!) but otherwise there is no minimum requirement. Does anyone know how tall an Irish Wolfhound can stand? Rgds Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Gimme a minute ... Ok I've got the kevlar vest on now. 1. I know that extremely tall people and relatively short people have all the skills, determination, courage etc required for military service. 2. All credit to both for passing the required tests and gaining their goal of service in the Guards. 3. I think this is a KAPE (keep the army in the public eye) PR stunt which is demeaning to the individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 The UK police used to have minimum height standards for recruits (5ft 8 for men and 5ft 4 for women) but these were dropped over a decade ago for three very good reasons: There was no justification for having a height rule unless they were too short (or tall) to be able to fulfill the established physical tests upon entry. It was illogical, since male and female PCs do the same job, so why would a 5ft 4 inch tall man be less capable of doing the same work as a woman of that height. It indirectly discriminated against certain lighter-framed minority groups such as the Chinese, who rarely met this criteria. Thus, as another government body (although not having the same sex equality regulations applied), the Army could not implement a blanket height requirement unless they could demonstrate a specific requirement for it in a certain trade (e.g. if someone was too short or tall to be a pilot or a tank driver), or else palpably demonstrated that it left them unable to complete the physical training regimen. Richard (5ft 11 in socks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 27 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 27 August , 2004 The UK police used to have minimum height standards for recruits (5ft 8 for men and 5ft 4 for women) but these were dropped over a decade ago for three very good reasons: Actually, a lot of Borough forces prior to the wave of amalgamations in the late 1960's maintained a minimum height requirement approaching 6 foot. Certainly Nottingham City Police maintained such a requirement and was reputed to have been the "tallest" force in the Commonwealth. Of course, this was relaxed upon amalgamation with the County force who tended to be somewhat shorter in stature! Over the past thirty years, as you rightly point out, height requirements have gradually disappeared. Interestingly, I recall a newspaper article a few years back which proclaimed that the average height of policemen was actually falling! There was no justification for having a height rule unless they were too short (or tall) to be able to fulfill the established physical tests upon entry. It was illogical, since male and female PCs do the same job, so why would a 5ft 4 inch tall man be less capable of doing the same work as a woman of that height. It indirectly discriminated against certain lighter-framed minority groups such as the Chinese, who rarely met this criteria. I decline to comment on whether the above are good reasons for the abolition of a height requirement although I remain somewhat bemused by the third point........ Finally, for those of you interested in Police History (a bit of a digression from the original thread!), a picture of Nottingham's once proud Police Force taken in 1934 (parading down Wollaton Street towards the Guildhall): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 27 August , 2004 Share Posted 27 August , 2004 Bemused you may be, as I was when I first heard of it, but I recall reading an EOC booklet advocating such a change for precisely this reason. Anything and everything can be argued as 'indirect' discrimination; especially if you have lots of specialist solicitors being paid for out of the taxpayers' pockets. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Matthews Posted 28 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 28 August , 2004 Anything and everything can be argued as 'indirect' discrimination; especially if you have lots of specialist solicitors being paid for out of the taxpayers' pockets. ........and as the saying goes, society ends up with the Police Force (sorry, "Service") it deserves! Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin1689 Posted 28 August , 2004 Share Posted 28 August , 2004 5'8" and 5'4" were chosen because they were the height over which you would be higher than half the male and female adult poulation respectively. These were nationally laid down. Forces could impose higher ones as recruitment and retention allowed. 5'3" used to be the army height. I know cos my Grandad just got in. The height limit could be waved for individuals at force discretion. This was usually done for ex-servicemen or people who had outstanding qualifications in other respects. I can see no reason why this practice could not have been extended to ethnic recruits, mind you then some gobby white person might have sued because a shorter asian got in. Splendid picture of the Nottingham City men. Newcastle used to have a fine tall police force, they wore caps like the Guards because they "did n't need a helmet to look tall". Like it or lump it (I am 5'9") tallness is a sign of quality, tall men are smarter and more intimidating - I mean look at the Prussian Guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaryFM Posted 28 August , 2004 Share Posted 28 August , 2004 Hi All Many years ago I tried to join the WRNS and was told I wasn't tall enough. I don't know now whether they still have height restrictions. Regards Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 31 August , 2004 Share Posted 31 August , 2004 I have just had a look at my service book - height on enlistment 6'4'' - those were the days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnie Posted 31 August , 2004 Share Posted 31 August , 2004 I have know soldiers of less than 5'3".They were ex boy soldiers who just didn't grow. Tin Tin regarding the Prussian Guard they were seen off at Nonne Boschen by the Ox & Bucks LI. I don't think they were six foot. When the West Yorkshire Bantam Bn relieved the Kiwis in the line. A New Zealander relates that the Bntams took over a forward position. On hand over the Kiwi told the Bantam that gerry was Prussian Guards and a real set of B-----s. Bantam replied 'Don't worry old lad we'll soon sort 'em out'! Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin1689 Posted 31 August , 2004 Share Posted 31 August , 2004 Point taken Arnie, but may have had more to do with the superiority of the SMLE over the Mauser for rapid fire. but Napoleon was a wee man and so were Stalin, William III and Lord Roberts so there might be something in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 When reading a book about the Indian Mutiny I came across a reference to a regiment of 'giants' (don't remember which regiment) all of whose soldiers were over 5ft 8. It shows the change in average height over the 150 years. I was always told that the police were taller than others so that they stood out in a crowd and would be easy to identify as the leaders, and that that was in part the reason for the tall helmet. I don't think the 'standing out' part applied to any of the great military leaders. Nelson, for example, was about the size of a nine year old today (and a thin nin year old at that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin1689 Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 Regiment concerned was probably 2nd Bn The Royal Ulster Rifles (aka 86th Foot) known as the "Irish Giants" they distinguished themselves at the siege of Jhansi, winning 3 or 4 VCs in the one engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnie Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 Tin Tin Your right about the SMLE, however this time it had its bayonet fixed and the did for the Prussians with a bayonet charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 Interestingly (possibly) the increasing height of people in the developed world is not only due to far better nutrition, allowing one to make the most of ones genes, but a significant factor has been innoculation and/or medical treatment to swiftly treat or prevent otherwise commonplace childhood afflictions and injuries. In the past many suffering from diseases and injuries were convalescing for many months (sometimes years - read Recollections of Rifleman Harris, who describes being bed-ridden for over a year with malaria) and during this time their immune system and energies would be pre-occupied with recovery rather than growth; hence many did not achieve their 'true' height. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Hollington Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 For those of you interested in the changes in the average body over the years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3616904.stm Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 Could that bigger waist measurement have anything to do with the higher proportion of baby boomers who are over 50? It seems that washboard abs and small waists disappear once you hit that age, regardless of diet and exercise! I keep wondering where it all comes from! Cynthia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 1 September , 2004 Share Posted 1 September , 2004 I suppose such a rapid change in shape from people who were, no doubt, fairly fit and healthy given the physical workload of (house)work and shopping and that wartime diet rationing only finally ended in 1954. (Although interestingly another study remarked that the level of animal and dairy fat in the diet now is little more than it was then; it is just that people are far less physically active and usually take these fats coupled with the sugars and carbohydrates in convenience food. Are the researchers surprised by this? Do these people never look in the windows of a McDonalds etc. in urban 'olympic villages' whilst they walk down the road and see the kinds of people habitually therein? I suppose it could be attributable to 'glands' rather than the ubiquitousness of the car, fast food and snacking by people pressed for time since both parents often have to work to achieve what could be termed 'aspirational' good living, yet my answer would still be 'Well, how many tons of glands do you eat to get to be that size?' Better let out my dresses... Misanthropic Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now