Originally Posted by catterick_commando

How many TA Units will make it to the end of TA 100 following the review?

I have yet to see a review that increased numbers, perhaps this one will buck the trend.

I know at least one Regiment that is for the chop!

Really? That review must have flown by. I thought it was not due to produce it's findings until much later in the year?

Originally Posted by StabTiffy2B

Originally Posted by putteesinmyhands

Open the TACs to let the public browse? The ACF do it every year and a TA display would be unlikely to be much more exciting and would certainly attract a smaller audience.

Been there and done that. The result?

The local chav mums offloading their kids onto us for an hour so that they could smoke tabs in peace,

One old doris trying to buy the chefs chopping boards because she thought it was a car boot sale,

Zero recruits and a waste of MTDs for 40 odd people.

Let's give that one a miss eh?

And lets not forget the free minibus service from the town center recruiting stand to the TAC that people used as a free taxi

Originally Posted by Crunchie

So you get £222 a day for yor 36 days?.

Of course not, I'm on less than you, I've done around 60-100 days per year for for the last 20 years.

Alright put another way to maintain a 5 year Op, assuming a TA soldier can only deploy once and the regular twice (on 6 month tours).

That requires that needs 10 TA soldiers and 5 regular soldiers

Regular per soldier costs over 5 years

5 * 55000 = 275 000

TA per soldier costs over 5 years

(on ops cost) 0.5 * 55000 + (off ops) 4.5 * 10 000 = 27500 + 45000 = 72500

Cost saving for using TA soldiers during the 5 years = 1/5 of a million, that can't be correct can it??? Don't show these figures to the PM.

Or put another way by having a TA of 202,620 would save the UK tax payers over 5 years 20 billion

JPALegend and Crunchie - JUST HOLD IT THERE!

You're both wasting your time with the numbers because all you're referring to are pay rates. In the broad scheme of things, the pay costs will probably represent a fairly negligible amount.

If you really want to do a comparison, you need to factor in the following (and more):

Infrastructure and maintenance - The Regular has more buildings to use, so there's the cost of maintenance, power and heating of a barracks to divide by the number of soldiers using it. TA costs will be substantially less than Regular costs.

Transport - Perhaps it's just my perception, but TA vehicles tend to be less abused so maintenance costs are less. The TA also gets a lesser selection of vehicles (and therefore what vehicles they have are more productively used), so initial costs and depreciation are proportionally less. On the other hand, it can also be argued that they're redundant for 5/7 of the week, while the Regular fleet is redundant for only 2/7 of the week. (Anyone want to put forward a case for the TA hiring Land Rovers etc rather than having an establishment?)

Security - without giving too much away, the cost of providing security to a TAC is minimal. TA soldiers sleep soundly without the need for armed guards. The cost of the Regular needs to factor in the cost of MPGS, again,not just their pay.

Ammunition - What's the current cost of a 5.56mm round? And of a blank? Pyrotechnics? Bigger stuff? The TA don't get anywhere near the amount of ammo that the Regulars do. Factor this in.

Clothing/Equipment - The TA gets a lower scale of clothing and equipment. You could also add that the TA soldier tends to buy surplus kit to augment his wardrobe, while the Regular has (ahem) other means.

Medical/Dental - The Regular has almost BUPA-level medical cover. OK, to a large extent, the staffing is provided by other soldiers, but this still represents a cost. The medicines and materials themselves represent an extra cost.

There are lots of other costs - adventurous training, provision and maintenance of sports equipment, the list goes on. Don't even mention batteries!

But that's not the issue. Even though the Regular soldier costs more than the TA soldier, there's the trade-off to consider. The Regular is supposed to be capable of swinging into action at a moment's notice, while the TA soldier is supposed to get a lead-in period. This isn't so much down to the standard of training, but to the variation of training. The Regular can practice more aspects because he has more time available. The difference in cost represents the difference in availablity and versatility. You've got to pay extra to get the service you want, when you want.

Ultimately, both Regular and TA represent good VALUE, regardless of the actual number of £s involved and can't be subject to a direct comparison.

And THAT's why you're wasting your time arguing.

Yes, really Duke; axed even before the review begins, to go within the year.

Putteesinmyhands

Totally agree that it is a pointless arguement, but the way it is trotted out, 'TA soldiers are better value for money' is going to get peoples backs up.

A proffesional standing army is expensive to maintain, you pay for what you get and yes the TA are being abused as a cheaper option to off set the shortages in the regulars through bad management by this government.

Regards to yourself and JPALegend.

At least RP578 got to laugh at my CSE quals

Is it true that 578 is his whole number?

Drinking club or not? Play hard work hard thats what it should be about - if you can trust someone with live rounds and a section you should be able to trust them with alcohol. As for the social element yes it is a valid point.

Would anyone in a full time job not appreciate social / down time / team bonding time?

Same with me work 5 days a week then at the weekend do another job - where is the problem with socialising where appropriate on the job. We are asking ordinary people to do extraordinary things - it helps . Rant over.

As for the TA 100 - all a bit lame I won't say how Sheffield is 'celebrating' save to say it is a mortifying shame. I am sure that if the blokes who went to do the business and didn't come back they will feel ever so slightly under appreciated.

But there again my unit traces itself back to the 1800's , as do many others, when the Frenchies were getting a bit frisky and as it sent blokes to the South African wars so 100 years is a bit academic really.

And if there are any Royal Mongmouthshires reading this - which is older the Jersey militia or the Royal Mongmouthshires?

Light match and withdraw a safe distance.

Originally Posted by 303SMLE

Originally Posted by GuybrushThreepwood

Central News TA Centenary

This is what appeared on Central News last night.

Maybe I'm being a mong, but at the end of that video, why is a line of recruits in ressies being poked in the face with a sausage on a stick?

You have never been subjected to the sausage test ? :D (or had your respirator tested with an amyl acetate soaked swab?)

Drinking club - if that was the 'old TA' or elements of it what about the 'drinking clubs' of 1914 and 1939 not to mention of the Warsaw Pact had decided to road test their T72s on the autobahn.

That really is rant over now.