Originally Posted by msr

Originally Posted by MrTracey

Originally Posted by The_Duke

You say you will be here for the long term, but that decision will not be yours to make. The government of the day will decide which units stay and which go, and what roles they fulfil.

The problem I forsee with the "strategic reserve" and "home defence" roled units is that we hope that we never use them. With our governments, not used = not needed = cut.

All of this theorising about locations, roles and history from the 1800's is all very interesting, but ultimately futile if the powers that be decide they can do without elements of the TA.

I know I am often accused on here of being shortsighted and not thinking about the past and the future, but the simple premise is that you need to be in it to win it. If providing what they want now (lots of IRs) means my units is still in existence, they we will be able to face future challenges as they arise.

If the option is being disbanded in a blaze of self righteous indignation, then no matter now wonderful your history, how technical your skills, or how motivated your soldiers, you are still disbanded.

Duke,

I generally concur with your posts, but I think that Polar has won this one hands down.

Better to quit while you're nearly ahead.

The future of the TA will reflect it's past - like it or lump it. Yes. you may have the upper hand with the lemmings as they rush off to Herrick et al, but ultimately, it will be the enablers that underpin the next 100 years....enjoy it while you can.

MrT,

I generally concur with your posts, but I think that The_Duke has won this hands down.

Better to quit while you are actually ahead.

There is no reason to believe that the future of the TA will reflect its past. Those who are off to Herrick now will become the key enablers of the future provided the CoC can retain them - these are the challenges which all units now face.

I can see resources being allocated to those who deliver what is required and a more explicit contract between the TA and its soldiers: you go on an Op Tour, and this entitle you to...

MSR

You might be right (not about who should quit!) but if you are, and the key criteria of judging a volunteers worth is whether they have been on an Op tour or not with no other criteria, then 'gawd help us'. The TA will no longer be the TA but something else....I think I want to be different.

'Parker' get me out of here.

F.A.B

Originally Posted by Yellow_Devil

The reason why we now have a mobilisation culture in (for example) Inf units is because infanteers are badly needed, so that volunteering for tours is expected.

However, some arms are not currently needed in massive numbers by the Army in either Telic or Herrick, eg RA or RSigs. Would you downgrade soldiers just because they happened to have joined the "wrong" unit for these particular wars 5 or 10 years ago? If you sent their call-up papers in the post tomorrow, I have no doubt that the vast majority would report in at the TAC straightaway, but these guys have effectively been told that they are surplus to requirements for the time being.

If the MoD wants them and their skills, all it has to do is pick up the phone.

I don't think there could ever be a "downgrading" i.e. reducing the remuneration to the lower commitment lads. It's more a case of wanting to reward the Higher Commitment boys with a bit extra.

Originally Posted by MrTracey

You might be right (not about who should quit!) but if you are, and the key criteria of judging a volunteers worth is whether they have been on an Op tour or not with no other criteria, then 'gawd help us'.

And where did he write that?

He was simply pointing out the inevitability of today's Corporals becoming tomorrow's CSMs, ergo a fair likelihood that many of the "enablers" of the future will have come from the ranks of those whom you label as "lemmings".

Originally Posted by RP578

Originally Posted by MrTracey

You might be right (not about who should quit!) but if you are, and the key criteria of judging a volunteers worth is whether they have been on an Op tour or not with no other criteria, then 'gawd help us'.

And where did he write that?

He was simply pointing out the inevitability of today's Corporals becoming tomorrow's CSMs, ergo a fair likelihood that many of the "enablers" of the future will have come from the ranks of those whom you label as "lemmings".

...perception old boy.

Personally, I think that the number of people who stay in the TA long term after a tour (or even two) will be so low that TA CSMs may not even exist!

only time will tell.

PS - lemmings was an affectionate term...

Originally Posted by MrTracey

Originally Posted by RP578

Originally Posted by MrTracey

You might be right (not about who should quit!) but if you are, and the key criteria of judging a volunteers worth is whether they have been on an Op tour or not with no other criteria, then 'gawd help us'.

And where did he write that?

He was simply pointing out the inevitability of today's Corporals becoming tomorrow's CSMs, ergo a fair likelihood that many of the "enablers" of the future will have come from the ranks of those whom you label as "lemmings".

...perception old boy.

Personally, I think that the number of people who stay in the TA long term after a tour (or even two) will be so low that TA CSMs may not even exist!

only time will tell.

PS - lemmings was an affectionate term...

MrT,

There is no denying that there is a high turnover after a tour. Having seen the mobilisisation - tour - return cycle several times, it has become evident to me that the key factors are:

1. The "quality" of the tour.
2. The reception of the TA soldiers within the receiving unit.
3. The mobilisation and demob process.
4. The reception on return to their parent unit.

I would also suggest that it is pretty much in that order of priority as well. A lot of attention is given to points 3 and 4 within the unit - 1 & 2 are pretty much out of our hands.

Whether the tour is an overriding factor in the turnover long term is hard to measure in our unit. Our turnover is as high as any other TA Inf unit I would suspect, but if the soldier serves 3 years (including tour) and leaves or 3 years(no tour) and leaves does not make a huge difference to unit manning. In the first option it did however make a difference to one section on tour - one more person to share out the stags, ammunition, ECM etc at the most basic level.

The truth is that far more leave than ever stay, and it will ever be thus. I would suggest that someone who lasts long enough to be a CSM is likely to do so with or without a tour.

Originally Posted by msr

Originally Posted by MrTracey

Originally Posted by The_Duke

You say you will be here for the long term, but that decision will not be yours to make. The government of the day will decide which units stay and which go, and what roles they fulfil.

The problem I forsee with the "strategic reserve" and "home defence" roled units is that we hope that we never use them. With our governments, not used = not needed = cut.

All of this theorising about locations, roles and history from the 1800's is all very interesting, but ultimately futile if the powers that be decide they can do without elements of the TA.

I know I am often accused on here of being shortsighted and not thinking about the past and the future, but the simple premise is that you need to be in it to win it. If providing what they want now (lots of IRs) means my units is still in existence, they we will be able to face future challenges as they arise.

If the option is being disbanded in a blaze of self righteous indignation, then no matter now wonderful your history, how technical your skills, or how motivated your soldiers, you are still disbanded.

Duke,

I generally concur with your posts, but I think that Polar has won this one hands down.

Better to quit while you're nearly ahead.

The future of the TA will reflect it's past - like it or lump it. Yes. you may have the upper hand with the lemmings as they rush off to Herrick et al, but ultimately, it will be the enablers that underpin the next 100 years....enjoy it while you can.

MrT,

I generally concur with your posts, but I think that The_Duke has won this hands down.

Better to quit while you are actually ahead.

There is no reason to believe that the future of the TA will reflect its past. Those who are off to Herrick now will become the key enablers of the future provided the CoC can retain them - these are the challenges which all units now face.

I can see resources being allocated to those who deliver what is required and a more explicit contract between the TA and its soldiers: you go on an Op Tour, and this entitle you to...

MSR

MSR,

I suggest you have a read of the centenary Territorial book, it does a very good job on the purpose and history of the auxiliaries over time. I was surprised to see comments contained within this thread mentioned so early within the book and constantly repeated when the territorials underwent change/review.

The book backs up my argument considerably but I don't think it is enough to sway it in either mine or the dukes favour. Units capable of providing an op role (volunteer) and IR (militia) will be more likely to survive than one doing the IR role only, I reckon its a mix of the two that is the way forward.
I'd also suggest that reforming 10 and/or 15 Para would be a very sensible thing to do within this review. This would enable more force protection coys, more IR's and enable them to be used for .................................. UK Ops (they wouldn't train for it, nobody would, they'd be part of new Infantry Brigades that could do this role if needed - the main role of these Brigades being Force Protection of ARRC)

Polar,

I am interested to see how being an IR is not an Op role? Obviously the gash that is Op Tosca excluded. Do you deem it to be based on whether the unit deploys as a formed entity rather than a cohort?

By the way - we don't do force protection companies any more, thank God, although I know other Inf units do. I also know that an FP Coy does a lot more than FP currently.


Perhaps sangars and LECs could become the remit of the TA personnel who want a tour, but are not able to find a role within their own trade? This would allow the TA inf to concentrate on the more inf related tasks.

Originally Posted by The_Duke

I am interested to see how being an IR is not an Op role? Do you deem it to be based on whether the unit deploys as a formed entity rather than a cohort?

Sorry I was meaning the role of the unit. Most units can't recruit on a premise of supplying IR's to the regular Parachute Regiment/SAS/RM (from your remarks, this appears critical to the ethos of your unit).

Getting back to the debate, the TA100 book calls a number of Signals units militia, these are 81 Sig Sqn (mainly BT staff), LIAG (IT Security People) and LCISG (other ICS mainly IT). I applied a few years ago to join LIAG but was rejected.

Or in other words I like your ideas and have tried to move to a unit that does this but the important bit to realise is that I would have been employed in a role I was highly skilled in and no some half trained ill fitting IR. I would have had no problem going with my TA Ptarmigan Sqn on Telic 1 but the bit in between does not sit well with my ethos/ego.

Originally Posted by The_Duke

There is no denying that there is a high turnover after a tour. Having seen the mobilisisation - tour - return cycle several times, it has become evident to me that the key factors are:

1. The "quality" of the tour.
2. The reception of the TA soldiers within the receiving unit.
3. The mobilisation and demob process.
4. The reception on return to their parent unit.

I would also suggest that it is pretty much in that order of priority as well. A lot of attention is given to points 3 and 4 within the unit - 1 & 2 are pretty much out of our hands.

Whether the tour is an overriding factor in the turnover long term is hard to measure in our unit. Our turnover is as high as any other TA Inf unit I would suspect, but if the soldier serves 3 years (including tour) and leaves or 3 years(no tour) and leaves does not make a huge difference to unit manning. In the first option it did however make a difference to one section on tour - one more person to share out the stags, ammunition, ECM etc at the most basic level.

The truth is that far more leave than ever stay, and it will ever be thus. I would suggest that someone who lasts long enough to be a CSM is likely to do so with or without a tour.

Another potential factor could be that we are attracting people who wouldn't previously have joined the TA, preferring instead a short stint in the Regulars. With the possibility of doing a tour and then f*cking off after without having to do a couple of years stagging on in Colchester afterwards, makes the TA a more attractive offer. I've met several recruits who have no long term ambition at all, merely wishing to sate their youthful (usually) quest for adventure. Some have been bitten with the Army bug in the meantime and have either stayed on or joined the Regs.

Originally Posted by RP578

Originally Posted by The_Duke

There is no denying that there is a high turnover after a tour. Having seen the mobilisisation - tour - return cycle several times, it has become evident to me that the key factors are:

1. The "quality" of the tour.
2. The reception of the TA soldiers within the receiving unit.
3. The mobilisation and demob process.
4. The reception on return to their parent unit.

I would also suggest that it is pretty much in that order of priority as well. A lot of attention is given to points 3 and 4 within the unit - 1 & 2 are pretty much out of our hands.

Whether the tour is an overriding factor in the turnover long term is hard to measure in our unit. Our turnover is as high as any other TA Inf unit I would suspect, but if the soldier serves 3 years (including tour) and leaves or 3 years(no tour) and leaves does not make a huge difference to unit manning. In the first option it did however make a difference to one section on tour - one more person to share out the stags, ammunition, ECM etc at the most basic level.

The truth is that far more leave than ever stay, and it will ever be thus. I would suggest that someone who lasts long enough to be a CSM is likely to do so with or without a tour.

Another potential factor could be that we are attracting people who wouldn't previously have joined the TA, preferring instead a short stint in the Regulars. With the possibility of doing a tour and then f*cking off after without having to do a couple of years stagging on in Colchester afterwards, makes the TA a more attractive offer. I've met several recruits who have no long term ambition at all, merely wishing to sate their youthful (usually) quest for adventure. Some have been bitten with the Army bug in the meantime and have either stayed on or joined the Regs.

Yup - concur completely. My experience of being close to the recruit process (but not too close) is that about half seem to be joining for the traditional reasons and half specifically to short circuit the regular system to go on a tour so as to whittle that particular notch on their bedpost and then go on to other things. Some will get 'hooked' but it will be the vast minority.

Lesson? We've created a short cut to Ops without the hassle and long term commitment. How long before a lot of those who would have been regulars realise?...and what does this do for the TA when it's full of people who would have joined the regulars in the past but now don't need to?

Moreover, the impact on the TA of the focus on Ops may be that fewer 'traditional' TA will join thus eroding the balance yet further....

only time will tell.