An Army of 50,000 ?

Capitation.
Regular private: @£28k a year.
Reserve private: @£5k a year

Regular Major: @100k a year
Reserve Major: @10k a year

Reserve figures are 27 days a year plus bounty.

Is it any wonder using reserves to fill the regular recruitment and retention gaps is so popular?

Of course they won't deliver the same effect as regulars, but after the last 16 years with the amount thrown into the bottomless money pit, having a cheaper limiting solution with pre-excused failure/an excuse built in has major attractions to the brutal realist politician.

The advantage of the old TA drinking club, besides an "break glass in an emergency" insurance policy for use in those rare times when using Compulsory Mobilisation legislation would be an encouraged and approved act was in giving a local face and persona to the army.

The British Army is supposed to be good at keeping traditions going.
For nigh on 350 years, having a fairly useless Militia, reviled by Regulars, was the norm.
What it delivered was never military effect, just community and constituency links to local authorities and politicians. It made defence budget cuts a little harder to vote for when a face or a business could be put to a uniform.

The changes wrought by ditching the TA and taking a one army approach may have satisfied current military stakeholders, however for it to work , it requires intellectual, financial and political capital that just isn't there. Until there is a catastrophe or defeat, thereafter there won't be time to create a replacement for what has been willfully trashed.
 
Please Sir, can I rejoin as a Major and get 100 grand a year? Ta ever so much.
Capitation is what the individual costs Defence. About half of it is the person's salary (before tax*) the rest all the other costs, accommodation, pension, housing, feeding, training, allowances etc etc
The exact figures are normally commercial in confidence, however salary x 2 seems to be within +/-5% of ball park.


*the apparent absurdity of a large chunk of one government departments budget spend being allocated to another's revenue stream still needs a good explanation
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
I don't think it could ever be one, the cultures are just too far apart. Perhaps there could be an IA Reserve which would meet the Regular Army need for cheap and disposable labour. Higher Bounty but a real commitment to deploy on normal Army pay? Might meet the needs of the proposed flexible engagement as well moving from Regular to part time and back again?

Next we need to address the 16K sick and lame in the Regular Army plus the tour dodging lazy who probably account for another 15K that is over half the Army at the moment.
Army Emergency Reserve anyone?
The TAER
 
If I was a young fella I'd be happy enough to join the TA and attend training nights and two weeks camp once a year etc; if the balloon goes up then I'd deploy with the rest of my mates/unit.

Making up a spare body in a crowd of strangers - you can sling your hook.
 
A standing army is an expensive luxury. Let’s agree on that.


Few reserve units could deploy and be effective as formed bodies. Calling up IAs on their civvy wage as toms was an expensive way of doing it (compared to 4 PARA’s gap year programme.

The total amount spent on mobilising and deploying a TA Tom being paid 60k+ is an efficient system that is supposed to have the manpower in the first place. We can dance around hidden costs etc all we like and spend a night full of sophistry and rhetoric. However, paying someone three times what the regular next to them earns is silly. Whilst it may help retention, so would free beers all weekend.
Excuse bone question...but...what was 4 Para's Gap Year Programme?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
A standing army is an expensive luxury. Let’s agree on that.
Well, no, it's not. Champagne is an expensive luxury. Quilted toilet paper is an expensive luxury. Buying a Ferrari when you only drive in London is an expensive luxury. A luxury is something you are pissing down the drain because you don't really need it, but is nice while you have it. A standing army is an insurance policy, because a non-standing army has no chance of being stood up in time to be effective against a hostile standing one. If you see insurance as an expensive luxury, then fine, but most people (and legal systems) see it as an expensive way to mitigate an even more expensive risk.

I think the best ideas on here all revolve around having a multi-tier force: both in the Regulars and the Reserves. The "one Army" idea sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice, doesn't actually achieve what it aims to do (holding and treating everyone by the same professional standards) and is incredibly inefficient. Pretending that all soldiers across different trades, ranks, skills and jobs are functionally the same is absurd. A lot of the inefficiencies of the Army come from trying to apply inappropriate measures from one area to another, whether that be Regular training expectations to Reserves, or APC insisting the REME organise into Bns because the Infantry do.

If there was any sense in Andover, they would use any upcoming cuts to get rid of the idea that everyone needs to be treated and behave identically, and start allowing for variation that makes sense for that particular role or skill set. I won't be holding my breath, though.

Excuse bone question...but...what was 4 Para's Gap Year Programme?
Para Reg used to (still do? not sure) have a small number of places available for school-leavers-ish to become an OCdt early, do Reserve RMAS and P-Coy, qualify as a 2Lt and spend 6-ish months as a 2Lt in 4PARA, all on an RMAS OCdt salary. Idea was both to address a lack of subbies in 4 PARA, and as a regt recruiting bonus.

@The_Duke can probably give more informed comment on this than myself, but I always got the impression that by around 2006 PARA RHQ had cottoned on that a lot of guys who were aiming to go Regular RMAS wanted to try out the Army first (esp. while at university); that the TA was where they often went; that 4 PARA (being both national and having a name) was an obvious choice for the keen; and that it would be only good for the Reg if they had a lot of Regular officers in various arms and regiments whose first experience of the Army had been Para Reg.

I also think they were spot on, as, proportional to the number of people I've known in the Army, a disproportionately high % of them first joined 4 PARA, and they pretty much all speak well of it.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
Well, no, it's not. Champagne is an expensive luxury. Quilted toilet paper is an expensive luxury. Buying a Ferrari when you only drive in London is an expensive luxury. A luxury is something you are pissing down the drain because you don't really need it, but is nice while you have it. A standing army is an insurance policy, because a non-standing army has no chance of being stood up in time to be effective against a hostile standing one. If you see insurance as an expensive luxury, then fine, but most people (and legal systems) see it as an expensive way to mitigate an even more expensive risk.

I think the best ideas on here all revolve around having a multi-tier force: both in the Regulars and the Reserves. The "one Army" idea sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice, doesn't actually achieve what it aims to do (holding and treating everyone by the same professional standards) and is incredibly inefficient. Pretending that all soldiers across different trades, ranks, skills and jobs are functionally the same is absurd. A lot of the inefficiencies of the Army come from trying to apply inappropriate measures from one area to another, whether that be Regular training expectations to Reserves, or APC insisting the REME organise into Bns because the Infantry do.

If there was any sense in Andover, they would use any upcoming cuts to get rid of the idea that everyone needs to be treated and behave identically, and start allowing for variation that makes sense for that particular role or skill set. I won't be holding my breath, though.



Para Reg used to (still do? not sure) have a small number of places available for school-leavers-ish to become an OCdt early, do Reserve RMAS and P-Coy, qualify as a 2Lt and spend 6-ish months as a 2Lt in 4PARA, all on an RMAS OCdt salary. Idea was both to address a lack of subbies in 4 PARA, and as a regt recruiting bonus.

@The_Duke can probably give more informed comment on this than myself, but I always got the impression that by around 2006 PARA RHQ had cottoned on that a lot of guys who were aiming to go Regular RMAS wanted to try out the Army first (esp. while at university); that the TA was where they often went; that 4 PARA (being both national and having a name) was an obvious choice for the keen; and that it would be only good for the Reg if they had a lot of Regular officers in various arms and regiments whose first experience of the Army had been Para Reg.

I also think they were spot on, as, proportional to the number of people I've known in the Army, a disproportionately high % of them first joined 4 PARA, and they pretty much all speak well of it.
When the 50 odd billion dollars buys what Britain gets for it's defence budget then yes - this standing army is an expensive luxury that can't deploy and frankly it is doubtful if it could protect Britain.

The defence budget is not here to provide defence - it is here to provide jobs. Once that is agreed then the cuts - and if you think they will end at 50,000 you are an idiot - are not only understandable but sensible.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
When the 50 odd billion dollars buys what Britain gets for it's defence budget then yes - this standing army is an expensive luxury that can't deploy and frankly it is doubtful if it could protect Britain.

The defence budget is not here to provide defence - it is here to provide jobs. Once that is agreed then the cuts - and if you think they will end at 50,000 you are an idiot - are not only understandable but sensible.
I'm not sure we really need a thread discussing how to do Defence badly, we already have a government.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
I'm not sure we really need a thread discussing how to do Defence badly, we already have a government.
But you see it's not doing it badly...it's doing it incredibly well. There is no actual real threat to the UK requiring an Army, therefore the 55 billion dollars or so are used to provide jobs and extremely well paid ones too.

£100k for Major? Does anyone actually realise what a major does during a war?
 
Excuse bone question...but...what was 4 Para's Gap Year Programme?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In 2007/2008 it had people join 4 PARA as privates. Spend 3 months full time going from civvy to soldier, 3 months in 2/3 PARA doing PDT/MST, sox months on tour and then back being a civvy or stay in 4 PARA as desired.

A very, very cheap private soldier compared to full ITC, plus three years.
 
Well, no, it's not. Champagne is an expensive luxury. Quilted toilet paper is an expensive luxury. Buying a Ferrari when you only drive in London is an expensive luxury. A luxury is something you are pissing down the drain because you don't really need it, but is nice while you have it. A standing army is an insurance policy, because a non-standing army has no chance of being stood up in time to be effective against a hostile standing one. If you see insurance as an expensive luxury, then fine, but most people (and legal systems) see it as an expensive way to mitigate an even more expensive risk.

I think the best ideas on here all revolve around having a multi-tier force: both in the Regulars and the Reserves. The "one Army" idea sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice, doesn't actually achieve what it aims to do (holding and treating everyone by the same professional standards) and is incredibly inefficient. Pretending that all soldiers across different trades, ranks, skills and jobs are functionally the same is absurd. A lot of the inefficiencies of the Army come from trying to apply inappropriate measures from one area to another, whether that be Regular training expectations to Reserves, or APC insisting the REME organise into Bns because the Infantry do.

If there was any sense in Andover, they would use any upcoming cuts to get rid of the idea that everyone needs to be treated and behave identically, and start allowing for variation that makes sense for that particular role or skill set. I won't be holding my breath, though.



Para Reg used to (still do? not sure) have a small number of places available for school-leavers-ish to become an OCdt early, do Reserve RMAS and P-Coy, qualify as a 2Lt and spend 6-ish months as a 2Lt in 4PARA, all on an RMAS OCdt salary. Idea was both to address a lack of subbies in 4 PARA, and as a regt recruiting bonus.

@The_Duke can probably give more informed comment on this than myself, but I always got the impression that by around 2006 PARA RHQ had cottoned on that a lot of guys who were aiming to go Regular RMAS wanted to try out the Army first (esp. while at university); that the TA was where they often went; that 4 PARA (being both national and having a name) was an obvious choice for the keen; and that it would be only good for the Reg if they had a lot of Regular officers in various arms and regiments whose first experience of the Army had been Para Reg.

I also think they were spot on, as, proportional to the number of people I've known in the Army, a disproportionately high % of them first joined 4 PARA, and they pretty much all speak well of it.
For all the existential threats to Britain since the Berlin Wall came down, I’d say it was a luxury.

As an Island nation we could probably fend most things off with the navy and raf.

A lot of soldiers spend a lot of time sat around or on phys/AT earning a lot of money for a country at low existential threat. I’d call that a luxury.
 
Last edited:
In 2007/2008 it had people join 4 PARA as privates. Spend 3 months full time going from civvy to soldier, 3 months in 2/3 PARA doing PDT/MST, sox months on tour and then back being a civvy or stay in 4 PARA as desired.

A very, very cheap private soldier compared to full ITC, plus three years.
What a brilliant idea.

No future in that then...:(

But seriously, it's an idea that could be significantly expanded.

Shades of 'Service brings Citizenship'

Offer 18 year olds a gap year. Pay their Univerity, give a scholarship or pay for an apprenticeship. They do a year in, take 5 years of reserve liability. You get all the benefits of national service (pool for expansion in times of crisis, links between the military and civilians) but it's still voluntary, so none of the downsides of compulsory service.

Finish off with a bit of AT, encourage them to join as regulars or AR...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If I was a young fella I'd be happy enough to join the TA and attend training nights and two weeks camp once a year etc; if the balloon goes up then I'd deploy with the rest of my mates/unit.

Making up a spare body in a crowd of strangers - you can sling your hook.
That is starting to be addressed. AR Bn's are starting to get paired up with Reg Bn's. There is some commonality of training and it gives the reserve personal something to look towards. Annual Training Exercises can be done with the regular battalion if it is feasible with locations etc.

I understand the thinking is that if you get called up as an Individual Replacement you will at least understand where you are going and you would have met some of the people you will be working with.
Not sure how many units are officially paired up with a unit that they can work with yet. It is a start at integration but from the AR side of things it feels like a sticking plaster to cover up the, sometimes horrendous shortfall of trained people in the regular unit.
 
What a brilliant idea.

No future in that then...:(

But seriously, it's an idea that could be significantly expanded.

Shades of 'Service brings Citizenship'

Offer 18 year olds a gap year. Pay their Univerity, give a scholarship or pay for an apprenticeship. They do a year in, take 5 years of reserve liability. You get all the benefits of national service (pool for expansion in times of crisis, links between the military and civilians) but it's still voluntary, so none of the downsides of compulsory service.

Finish off with a bit of AT, encourage them to join as regulars or AR...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It was great.

Cheap toms for a tour. No pension.

Some stay in and be experienced members in the TA. Great model.
 
...
I understand the thinking is that if you get called up as an Individual Replacement you will at least understand where you are going and you would have met some of the people you will be working with.
...
As a TA the very threat of getting called up as an IR would be a deal breaker. I joined my TA unit and I'd serve with my TA unit - anything else would only be as a volunteer.

It would appear to me that there's two different requirements here; a TA force and ex-regular pool for IR.
 
If I was a young fella I'd be happy enough to join the TA and attend training nights and two weeks camp once a year etc; if the balloon goes up then I'd deploy with the rest of my mates/unit.

Making up a spare body in a crowd of strangers - you can sling your hook.
Shame. That’s where The TA did their best work.

When surrounded by Regulars and fully emersed most Junior ranks learned quickly to the point only their dodgy beret shaping stood them out as someone different.

When mobilised as formed units they were destined to struggle as their Seniors and Officers let them down. Their lack of experience showed and they acted like it was one really long TA weekend.

I’ve said it for years. The best value for money volunteer Army Reserve would be made up of units no bigger than Platoon/troop Strength.

All Coy/Sqn level positions being filled by Regular PSI’s or at the absolute least, ex regulars who have previously held the rank or suitably qualified reservists.

When I say suitably qualified I don’t mean someone who’s spent a couple of weeks in Brecon. I mean someone who has completed all of the training required of an officer or soldier holding that rank in a regular Bn.

It’d give you young, fit, cheap and capable soldiers and do away with a lot of the underqualified, experience lacking, waste hiding inside XXXL uniforms.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top