Originally Posted by subbsonic

Keep your head down Reb, its a jungle out there

Mmmm. Hot and wet.... Mmmmm.........

Originally Posted by Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond

Perhaps it would be invest to deliver. With more regulars embedded in the (V) Bns it could they would actually play more of a role in delivery or trg, rather then playing golf/angling/X-country etc.

Sporting activity is excellent for building team spirit. Swimming, fishing and rock-hopping are my favourites. The sports of Walrus-Kings.

Probably want this still:

Margaret Thatcher's secret war on the CND revealed | Mail Online

:0

Originally Posted by Glad_its_all_over

I'm guessing you've been spending more time than usual with squinty-eyed Jack Tars, recently.

Frankly it's just bloody politeness.

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Frankly it's just bloody politeness.

Perhaps for booties, they at least bother to push back. Jack, frankly, needs to research his etiquette in these matters. Ungrateful so and sos.

Originally Posted by walrusboy

With a reduced military will there be a requirement for two Bn HQs?

...

The single Bn would also diminish the opportunities for inter-Bn pissing contests between the Regulars...

Furthermore with the reduction in sub-units the one Bn model would inevitably create, there would be less OC, CSM, SV, SVWO, Ops WO Trg appointments available. An ideal opportunity would present itself to make the tough decisions to actually retire people who were not competent, not attending, not deployable or simply too old to be in the TA. However, those decisions would require a fair wedge of moral courage. Food for thought, eh? Here endeth the lesson.

reducing to one battalion would also fly in the face of the planned future structure of the army. one shouldn't perceive "reduced military" as reduced TA - the volunteers are going to be massively increased. as SSRD says - quite likely to go in the opposite direction rather than reduce.

so if it doesn't reduce to one battalion, you might take that as sound planning for a future beefed-up reserve, rather than any lack of moral courage!

Originally Posted by CRmeansCeilingReached

reducing to one battalion would also fly in the face of the planned future structure of the army. one shouldn't perceive "reduced military" as reduced TA - the volunteers are going to be massively increased. as SSRD says - quite likely to go in the opposite direction rather than reduce.

so if it doesn't reduce to one battalion, you might take that as sound planning for a future beefed-up reserve, rather than any lack of moral courage!

My bold: I refer the honorable poster to his 1MIX strapline thread.

Unless the plan is to develop a capability to deploy MI(V) elements as formed units, which I would imagine (and hope and pray) is not the case, then ultimate requirement is still for the reserve to provide support to regular units in the form of high quality individual augmentees. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the current system whereby the most suitable soldier for a role may be excluded due to being in the wrong Bn is patently ridiculous and not only greatly increases the scope for letting down the receiving unit, but also the individual. I like the "Special to Role" Coy model as it currently stands, but I am not convinced that it actually works that well. I would propose a Coy as a purely administrative structure that the individual belongs to permanently, however throughout their carrear they are "attached" to a particular specialist pool (and even more than one), depending on aptitude, availabilty and qualification. This in theory would negate Cpl Bloggs being excluded from a job he/she is well suited for merely for being in the wrong Bn
I am not against the establishment of more MI(V) PIDs, per se, as long as it is understood that at present both Bns are considerably under establishment and perhaps that is an issue that needs addressing first. I don't think Walrus is advocating a reduction in manpower -merely recognition of the above.

Originally Posted by theblindking

My bold: I refer the honorable poster to his 1MIX strapline thread.

Unless the plan is to develop a capability to deploy MI(V) elements as formed units, which I would imagine (and hope and pray) is not the case, then ultimate requirement is still for the reserve to provide support to regular units in the form of high quality individual augmentees. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the current system whereby the most suitable soldier for a role may be excluded due to being in the wrong Bn is patently ridiculous and not only greatly increases the scope for letting down the receiving unit, but also the individual. I like the "Special to Role" Coy model as it currently stands, but I am not convinced that it actually works that well. I would propose a Coy as a purely administrative structure that the individual belongs to permanently, however throughout their carrear they are "attached" to a particular specialist pool (and even more than one), depending on aptitude, availabilty and qualification. This in theory would negate Cpl Bloggs being excluded from a job he/she is well suited for merely for being in the wrong Bn
I am not against the establishment of more MI(V) PIDs, per se, as long as it is understood that at present both Bns are considerably under establishment and perhaps that is an issue that needs addressing first. I don't think Walrus is advocating a reduction in manpower -merely recognition of the above.

Originally Posted by CRmeansCeilingReached

reducing to one battalion would also fly in the face of the planned future structure of the army. one shouldn't perceive "reduced military" as reduced TA - the volunteers are going to be massively increased. as SSRD says - quite likely to go in the opposite direction rather than reduce.

so if it doesn't reduce to one battalion, you might take that as sound planning for a future beefed-up reserve, rather than any lack of moral courage!

Both CR and Blind King make fair points. I accept CR’s point that the Reserve ORBAT will expand as Regular Forces reduce and we can’t exclude the possibility that the Corps will push to extend the TA, possibly to three Battalions. I also accept Blind King’s point that we are under strength and may struggle to recruit the numbers required to fill the tashkil.

However, the point I made earlier about cutting the individuals, who add value no longer, remains valid. A private company would not keep on people who failed to contribute. The fact is that there are many seniors and officers in the TA Corps who do not feel obligated to serve on operations, or even attend training, in the same way that many of their Regular counterparts do. I understand that deploying is not everything and some add great value at home but if HMG are looking to increase the reserves some serious thought needs to be applied to how all these new troops are to be maximized. I suspect that conditions of service will change in order that the intelligent mobilization individual augmentee model is changed to something more compliance based. Rewards would also have to be introduce to ensure a fair balance of “carrot and stick”. If the conditions of service do change and that warm feeling of being able to say “No’ is long gone, don’t stand too close as the kit is thrown over the wall of the TA centre.

But if CR thinks that the TA Corps reserves will “massively increase”, I fear he is mistaken. We may end up with three Battalions but the tashkils will be very light. I am certain, however, that if it comes to pass as CR predicts then the “new” Battalion HQ will be fully staffed. As I see it, the simple fact is this. An expansion in the TA Corps requires many more suitable people to join, in a depressed economic climate, to fill the roles vacated by the Regulars. With civilian companies always seeking that competitive edge just to survive how do you think they will view their TA employee? Well, they will view them in the same way as they view a woman of child-bearing age who has the potential to be off work for a year. Will TA service be seen as an advantage in the civilian workplace? I don’t think so.

To summarise. Increased reserve orbat as CR predicts? Yes, I think so. Unable to fill the tashkil as Blind King predicts? I think so as well. Everyone happy so far? Get rid of all the top heavy non-contributors? I don’t think so. We’re going to need them for the new orbat. Final result? Probably another Battalion HQ with a full complement of staff. Anyone for tennis?

Well, I certainly recognise the world Walrusboy inhabits and agree with most of his observations.

However, and let's be honest, you are never, ever going to get a casual labour reserve to look at the world in the same way as a regular. Never going to happen. The issues aren't MI related, but they are exacerbated by the fact we need to keep soldiers around longer than a lot of other capbadges.

At the moment I see several distinct cohorts; the first being the gap year LCpl who wants something a bit more challenging, worthwhile and CV friendly than the usual. Great for filling gaps in regular manpower, keen as anything right up until the point they exaporate post tour. Won't and can't commit to doing the same in five years time.

Then we have the older and bolder seniors, joined in the 90s or earlier and at that point in their civvy job and family life that volunteering for a tour is distinctly difficult. Can and will go without a murmur if told to, but since 2003 or thereabouts the Corps has never, ever thought them important enough to do that. Not about to commit career and marriage suicide because COs these days lack the stones to chuck a brown envelope at them like they used to do.

Then we have a rather sparse infill between these groups; I'd say thats where you need to target retention. Recruiting needs to be done with a view to selling the Corps beyond the gap year. And the old and bold will most likely stick around until they stop enjoying it - which if you manage it properly is when they stop contributing something worthwhile.

Of course should TACOS change all bets are off. Personally, I don't see the current govt having the desire to spend political capital before the next election to push through what will be a deeply controversial and undoubtedly more expensive way of running the TA. Either employers pay under threat of sanction or HMG pays a lot more to keep them sweet. Redefining the employer-employee relationship in such a way is hardly what you'd choose to do in a recession.

So my top tip is learn to live with the casual labour status quo and make it work for you. Get more ex-regs to join, because the Regular Reserve is now a pointless joke. What's that you say, don't want to risk being dragged away from your job/family when it doesn't pay the mortgage or a pension any more ? Mmmm. Now you see the problem.

Also, stop pretending that we all live within 15 mins of our respective TACs. When Int & SY Gp (V) ruled the earth soldiers could train with one Coy, do mil skills etc with another they lived nearer to and never, ever have a problem. Or if we are abandoning the national model make Coys properly territorial, and realise that as a result very little will happen at Bn HQ.

The newly minted lcpls will continue to come off the production line. Indeed given the current state of employment for 16 to 24 year olds the gap year offer will continue to have appeal.but how to retain them?

I see the greatest risk in any TA new employment model based around compulsion is that the old and bold who have careers and families (believe it or not some lcpls do too) cannot meet requirements and have to hand in their kit. The result? An evaporation of trade skills and experience.

To put it bluntly, the corps v is one of the few areas of the TA that has functioned well in recent times. If itaintbroke, dont fix it.

Finally, judging by conversations with regular members of the corps recently many have more respect for the cypressgreen STAB than you might think.and several are planningto join on leaving the ARABs.

Excuse the speeling and punctuashun. I'm on a tablet PC.