Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

How many Capts and above and CSgts and above have deployed in the last five years as a proportion?

I can't comment on the CSgsts, but judging by those Capts and Majors who attend the TA ISC course earlier this month, out of 54, 49 had been mobilised for either Occulus, Telic, Herrick or Tosca and that's a pretty fair chunk of the active officers within the TA.

dry - good stuff - how many, per year of the TA deploy as a % of the TA?

If the Army needs to send c12000 per year, it would be reasonable to expect the TA to contribute, lets say 10%? So 1200 per year.

On a one in ten tour cycle (ie once every five years) - so total reqt c12000? Add a bit for overhead, say 15000 all up?

You could see sense in these figures, but estb of 35000 people seems very high to me.

Of interest, there are c400 (1%) TA soldiers who have done three or more tours on operations since 1999 (Hansard Jul 0 and a total of 15000 who have deployed in the last five years 2003 -08 (including TELIC1).

i am quite clear of the benefits of the TA and how big a contribution they make. but let us not pretend defence can afford to fund 35000 people's training at a time when we are hurting for every penny. yes it is harsh, yes it will hurt over the long term - but better that than cutting regular funding? or would you rahter more risk taken against training regulars about to deploy in favour of a few drill nights and MATT camps?

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

You have to wonder if having lots of TA Brigs, Cols and Lt Cols is worth the investment I would have thought - when the OPERATIONAL need is for Ptes, JNCO and subalterns, seems a bit top heavy to use COs to manage it. Why not formally create TA pls inside normal Coys? No worries about overheads then?

...see multiple previous threads about the future of the TA, and how most people in the country don't live in the immediate vicinity of London... but here we go again.

Congratulations, you've just made a huge percentage of the recruiting footprint unreachable. There are no "normal" Coys in Glasgow (there are three regular battalions in and around Edinburgh, they should be fighting over the four TA infantry platoons in the vicinity), and regular SF will take a beating when the TA SF all have to travel to Hereford.

See what I mean? "Just attach the TA to regular units" - lovely soundbite, sounds reasonable in theory, complete nightmare in practice, indicates total lack of understanding of the problem. You should try politics...

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

dry - good stuff - how many, per year of the TA deploy as a % of the TA?

If the Army needs to send c12000 per year, it would be reasonable to expect the TA to contribute, lets say 10%? So 1200 per year.

On a one in ten tour cycle (ie once every five years) - so total reqt c12000? Add a bit for overhead, say 15000 all up?

You could see sense in these figures, but estb of 35000 people seems very high to me.

Of interest, there are c400 (1%) TA soldiers who have done three or more tours on operations since 1999 (Hansard Jul 0 and a total of 15000 who have deployed in the last five years 2003 -08 (including TELIC1).

i am quite clear of the benefits of the TA and how big a contribution they make. but let us not pretend defence can afford to fund 35000 people's training at a time when we are hurting for every penny. yes it is harsh, yes it will hurt over the long term - but better that than cutting regular funding? or would you rahter more risk taken against training regulars about to deploy in favour of a few drill nights and MATT camps?

You're right and I generally agree, the TA still has a lot of dead wood and undeployables, med-downgrades etc. Personally I would bin more or less the lot apart from the obvious key-enablers (and they do exist). Certainly CGS expects that the reserves will be make up 10% of all deployed troops at any one time, and he's right however in order to ensure that this is viable, the reserves do need to be treated with a degree of care. Post April 10, we may not have sufficient good will left in the system to ensure that we can meet this obligation. For starters, the mobilisation system is still broken, if troops are needed then the government needs to grow a pair, and be prepared to mobilise without this need for intelligent moblisation lark.

Gravelbelly

No mate, you might need to see what I mean. If you NEED 15000 in the TA, then you have an opportunity to fit the footprint to the requirement. Do not NEED any TA inf to be in Devon? Cool, don't have any. As for needing a shed load of Colonels to manage a disparate bunch of platoons - sorry, that will not wash.

The need is for boots on the ground - not a duplicate chain of command. Are you a TA red tab?

And how have I made any of the recruiting footprint unreachable - I thought the vast majority of regular recruits did not come via the TA - seems they found the army without going through the reserve? Oh, sorry, you mean the CURRENT TA recruiting footprint -QED!

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

The need is for boots on the ground - not a duplicate chain of command. Are you a TA red tab?

Hell no, I turned to the right and fell out a few years ago, after secondborn turned up. Finished with two tours as an OC of TA Rifle Coy (interrupted by SDR - so I did a drawdown of Rifle Coy to Pl, and then a re-role of HQ Coy to Rifle Coy) and then a final tour trying to help out at a UOTC before retirement.

The invitation to TA CSC arrived as the retirement letter was heading in the other direction. So no, I have no vested interest other than 80MTD a year for twenty years, and a lot of pride in what we worked hard to produce.

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

No mate, you might need to see what I mean. If you NEED 15000 in the TA, then you have an opportunity to fit the footprint to the requirement. Do not NEED any TA inf to be in Devon? Cool, don't have any.

In the aftermath of Kosovo and the threatened "Non-compliant entry by NATO", the feeling around the TA was "how the hell will the TA Infantry be used" - the mobilisation which had got to H-24 in APC (rows of brown envelopes ready to go) didn't happen, and there was much uncertainty. Unit deployments weren't plausible, sub-unit deployments only slightly less so.

So: all of the efforts of the battalion over twenty years came to a head to deploy a composite Rifle Company to support one of our affiliated battalions on TELIC 2. Two soldiers died there. Some of the guys who went on TELIC 3 were in the first multiple to make it through to CIMIC House.

All of a sudden in the past decade, we've gone from "nah, we don't need the TA Inf, can't use them, let's cut it in half" to "help, we're desperately short of trained infantry, please can the TA send as many IRs as possible". It gives great confidence in the quality of staff work at LAND.

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

As for needing a shed load of Colonels to manage a disparate bunch of platoons - sorry, that will not wash.

You're absolutely right - the whole aim of SDR seemed to be in a sensible direction, namely to split up the inf battalions into sub-units that had sufficient logistic slices to operate independently. Unfortunately, money-saving was the order of the day, and it ended up without enough resource at unit level to run proper collective training, and without enough at sub-unit level to operate as intended. Some of the best TA units already operated as independent sub-units - I'm thinking of the Cdo Engr Sqn RE(V) who AIUI were employed on TELIC 1 as a formed sub-unit.

Unfortunately, I've also seen what happens when you let a regular A/Major try to run a unit (CO got sacked, young Trg Maj took over, unit went to sh!t) - many just haven't got the G1 experience to cut it, and unfortunately IMHO at unit and sub-unit level that's the key skill; have the right people, and the rest of G2,G3,G4 will work. Have the wrong ones, and it will never quite make it.

Oh - and here's a question I asked at JDSC, which got avoided. If your best officers are understandably streamed to command their Regular sub-units, doesn't that mean that any reserve has a choice between home-grown officers / SNCOs and second-rate regulars? (Note: the sensible answer is to say "it's a chance for the best people to get some much-needed stability after a hard tour")

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

And how have I made any of the recruiting footprint unreachable - I thought the vast majority of regular recruits did not come via the TA - seems they found the army without going through the reserve? Oh, sorry, you mean the CURRENT TA recruiting footprint -QED!

I thought you wanted to generate 1,800 reservists per year for operational deployment (I'm assuming 10% of each HERRICK deployment)? Starting in six months time, repeat as required? Well, if it's that easy to do, fine - stop attempting to recruit them from anywhere outside the Regular Army footprint.

But I think you'll find that somewhere in APC there's a little formula that compares population of appropriate age within an area, knows the fitness rates for the population, knows the average travel duration at which TA recruit attendance falls off, knows the existing uptake rates for TA recruitment, and the TA uptake rates for voluntary deployment among the recently joined (obviously trying to get a fair measurement that cuts out any time-servers and wasters). Want to bet that if you limit it to "within [duration X] travel of a Regular unit" that the numbers just don't add up any more? (Please let someone actually have done this, I'll be worried if they haven't). Example - what's the recruitable male population for infantry within 45 minutes travel on public transport from Aldershot Garrison? Or Colchester? Or Catterick? Can the Int Corps recruit enough from around Chicksands, the RE from Minley, the RA from Tidworth, the RLC from Grantham, or R SIGNALS from around Blandford Forum?

I think you'll also find that once the various arms directorates decide how many reservists they need of various types, they'll find that the mix of skills remaining within the regular footprint doesn't quite match - so they'll have to generate new sub-units from zero, without using existing qualified personnel. Ooooh, recruit these reservists in April, get them through their Phase 1 training by Xmas 2010, special-to-arm training by Spring 2011, OPTAG in the summer, available for HERRICK in late 2011? Was that 1,800 a year you wanted?

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the Regular Army would be more efficient at recruiting and retaining a Reserve Army than the TA has been, with a century of local experience. Fair enough, crack on, best of luck.

Gravel

I am actually suggesting that the size of the TA be driven by the current need, not the vast overblown legacy structures we currently have, fancifully established to allow TA staffs to coordinate vast legions of mobilised TAs soldiers. If the need is for a shed load of Ptes, JNCO, Subbies and afew SO3s/ So2s - we should set up for that. And it is more like 1400 per year (9500 is total, not Army). Give them a structure that is 15 times the requirement 9and require one tour in every five years) ends at bn level and encourages youth over expereince and you are proabably going to get better value for money.

I did not suggest TA recruiting should be centred on garrisons (probably quite the opposite). But the current laydown may not be what we need for the future - so we need to review the utility, structure and demographic of the TA. I think the century of local experience is the vital but here, but I also reckon we will not need to retain that experience everywhere.

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

This is an externally imposed measure to cut costs in year - not about balancing the books caused by full manning, that is next years pain. Are you talking about MoD ineptitude, or CGS focus on the operational bottom line?

Its NOT externally imposed. Its internally created by a staff who cannot manage a budget. Any system which delivers the CT after the FY has started is bad enough but to be that far out on projecting the total spend vs the available dosh is beyond excuse. Has MoD actually had any cuts imposed by the Treasury this year ? - If not then its an INTERNAL fuck-up and inability to plan.

As for 'bloated non- operational' - 37000 people in the TA to provide how many a year? As I said - return on investment?

I could be trite and compare 92,000 Refulars to 9,000 deployed. - The real answer is that the current TA numbers deploying are based on volunteers "intelligently mobilising" rather than any real attempt to mobilise the TA - MoD lacks the cojones to send out the brown envelopes. To imply that the numbers deplying now are a max available is incorrect. Remember as well that its supposed to be a RESERVE for use in extremis. That the TA is actually doing a reasonable job of sustained force generation is a bit of a billy bonus.

How many Capts and above and CSgts and above have deployed in the last five years as a proportion?

Dunno, but in my last unit 3 of 5 majors have at least one recent tour each. I'm on FTRS, with 3 operational tours, for what its worth.

You have to wonder if having lots of TA Brigs, Cols and Lt Cols is worth the investment I would have thought - when the OPERATIONAL need is for Ptes, JNCO and subalterns, seems a bit top heavy to use COs to manage it.

I tend to agree about the Brig/Col level. Not adding much. I TA Col per Bde, a single TA 1* would be enough ? To get usable SNCOS & Offrs ( 50 + SO2 Posts on the FTRS list only a few months ago ?) you need a system that allows at least some rehearsal in an Bn & all-arms environment. It also allows you to have trained mortar-men, AT Pln etc. The "unit" seems a good flexible way of training and progressing all levels up to and incl Lt Col ?

Why not formally create TA pls inside normal Coys? No worries about overheads then?

See Gravels footprinty stuff. Hear Hear my small-bore friend !..................

There is, of course, a way of ensuring you get your pay and training - volunteer for operations.

Many have. The vast majority of the rest would say "I've already volunteered and they know where I am if they want me. Have the balls to brave the political storm - Send the envelope."

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

Gravel

I am actually suggesting that the size of the TA be driven by the current need, not the vast overblown legacy structures we currently have, fancifully established to allow TA staffs to coordinate vast legions of mobilised TAs soldiers. .

You've got me there. What huge TA staffs? There are almost no TA SO2 slots in my local Bde, bar a few watchkeepers with very limited MTDs and a couple of Lt Cols doing some PR type stuff - and one of them is a very senior regional journalist so well worth having on side. I'm not sure there are that many more at Div either ?

Have I been missing out on a gravy-train :( ?

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

I am actually suggesting that the size of the TA be driven by the current need... If the need is for a shed load of Ptes, JNCO, Subbies and afew SO3s/ So2s - we should set up for that.

The key point is current needs. Being a bluff old traditionalist, I rather thought that "maintenance of a reserve" was a principle of war.

The Regular Reserve is currently broken - as proven by the call-out rates in 2003 (over 6 attempts for every mobilised reservist, vs 1.3 for every mobilised Territorial). You're suggesting shrinking the TA down to about 15000, to go with a regular army that's never been smaller.

Essentially, you're suggesting that the British Army abandon any thoughts of real Divisional operations (take a look at the manpower for GRANBY or TELIC 1; could we have deployed a second Division on either?). Not just those "legions of TA SO1s" at risk, we might have to start sacking regular staffs and Generals!

I would suggest that your approach would need the Regular Reserve to be taken seriously again - although maybe it's too soon after all of those quotes about the TA being "the Reserve of first choice".

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

I did not suggest TA recruiting should be centred on garrisons (probably quite the opposite). But the current laydown may not be what we need for the future - so we need to review the utility, structure and demographic of the TA.

When you said earlier "Why not formally create TA pls inside normal Coys? No worries about overheads then" I took that to imply TA recruiting centred on garrisons, as there aren't any regular coys outside those garrisons...

There are a few young reservists willing to travel long distances, but they're the very determined ones (SF(R) for the most part). Young TA soldiers don't, in my experience, tend to keep attending if they have to travel an hour to get to the TAC - and many don't have their own wheels. Public transport is also worse now than in the 1980s. It's different for officers and SNCOs (you'll find plenty who travel over an hour by car each way), but as you've pointed out it's Private soldiers you want.