Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Bob65

War Hero
Ok Mr Sourpuss, tell me: How will the AR suddenly increase ?
As I see it, if you lose 20k Regulars, then the historic evidence is the reserves will go down as well.
The historic evidence is that the government of the day has chosen to cut both at the same time. Closing TACs/ARCs as part of the same drive for cost cutting by any means. But there's no hard-and-fast reason that a government couldn't choose to (or at least attempt to) grow the reserve whilst retaining the same size regular army, or while even shrinking the regular army. It just hasn't tried that yet, for whatever reason. As I mentioned before there are countries with bigger reserves than regulars, that proves that it is possible.

A government that wanted to do that has all kinds of levers it could pull to do so, if it had the will and the money. Free university for reservists for example. Or tax breaks for companies with so-many percentage of their staff in the reserves.
 
Please Sir! Please Sir!

Fast track any redundant regulars into the CS and de civilianise MOD CS.
A lot of CS are ex-military already.
You wouldn’t know that though.
 
I think hes getting hung up on the "ex forces called up if required definition of reserves" -
If your reserves are all ex forces then of course fewer regulars = fewer reserves.

That isn't the case if like the UK you recruit never been a regular and other part time soldiers into the reserve and that's the bit wooshing past.
.
The biggest object to a large reserve there (budget aside) is visibility ie having them be high enough profile and distributed enough** to recruit - but even here as the reserves get bigger theyre more distributed so more visible.

Actually equipping them would help as well. Buy sufficient armour to equip the regulars and reserves rather than the current enough to field some of the reserves - and again people will join up to play tank commander vs pretend this beat up old landie is a cvrt etc


** You may drive from Bath to Bristol for an evening bath to London isn't so appealling
I know exactly what he's hung up on, he does it all of the time, talks bollocks and can't back out, no matter how much he flips the meaning of his words.

I don't think we'll get a larger AR and nor do I think any cuts will be as big as suggested, as I've said a couple of times, it's a flagpole exercise but one thing's for sure. The armed forces are going to be back of the queue again.

Regulars aren't biggest friends of AR but will need to be a bit more sympathetic if they're facing more cuts, AR will need some investment. Armour will be lucky to stay full stop, unless they can give some guarantees on price creep.
 
Ok Mr Sourpuss, tell me: How will the AR suddenly increase ?
As I see it, if you lose 20k Regulars, then the historic evidence is the reserves will go down as well.
Cheers Lightning Experience...

Who said the AR would increase? Suddenly or not?

The historic experience is that reserves have gone down as well. That doesn't meant that they definitely will.
 
What!!

It would make a change to hear some of the ranges actually used more than once a workiing week, FFS!!
Very true - I drive Tidders to Bulford most weekends and nobody is shooting on all those ranges. They’re barely used on weekdays.
Amazing, I think I did more shooting in the TA than I did in parts of the Regular Army .
 
Your posts on other threads have demonstrated a staggering ignorance on how central government works, so this criticism is valid.
Normally I would articulate a response but I bet you think that was a cool big boy ost? Actually just made yourself look a bit of a prat.
 
Last edited:
As always, the manpower statistics in the AR are all smoke and mirrors.

They are now extending engagements up to age 65. What youngster wants to join an org, where many of the Offs and SNCOs are older than their parents.
 
,
A youngster walking into an ARC and meeting a PSAO and a Recruiting WiO2 that are both hitting 60. The Chef and Storeman shuffling about will be a good few years older. He hangs about and goes into the bar at the end of the Drill Night, to meet the lads. They are all late 40s and can't drink alcohol because they are all on medication. They can't stand at the bar, because their obese bodies need a seat. Sad, but a reality in many AR units.

These Units can't retain youngsters, so let's extend the oldies even longer....
 
nobody is shooting on all those ranges. They’re barely used on weekdays.
I used to see the usage stats, in G3 Training at HQ SW District 35 years ago.

The figures had been computed manually, and recorded in a ledger dating back over a decade before I was posted there. Result hardly varied year on year.

Booked - 100% of the time

Weekdays: Used 2% of the time, most cancellations occurring at <24 hrs notice. 2% usage was calculated across the entire calendar year, and included high summer, when ranges across UK were in heavy use by TA and by ACF units (who had the highest priority during that peak period). This further diminishes the minuscule proportion of time available to regular field army units for live firing training that was ever exploited.

Weekends were peak usage - TA units, mostly on Saturdays. If that ain't so now - well, then gawd'elpus.
 
Last edited:

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Very true - I drive Tidders to Bulford most weekends and nobody is shooting on all those ranges. They’re barely used on weekdays.
Amazing, I think I did more shooting in the TA than I did in parts of the Regular Army .
It's not as if basic skill at arms and musketry is a relevant skill in today's military.

When Service regulations (only a decade ago) described how to prevent and dissuade some members of the Armed Forces from indulging in the shameful luxury of basic training with weapons... the attitude was clearly embedded and top down that wanting to be at least minimally competent was dangerous and subversive.

Has it changed? Not convinced.
 

bluebell99

Clanker
It's not as if basic skill at arms and musketry is a relevant skill in today's military.

When Service regulations (only a decade ago) described how to prevent and dissuade some members of the Armed Forces from indulging in the shameful luxury of basic training with weapons... the attitude was clearly embedded and top down that wanting to be at least minimally competent was dangerous and subversive.

Has it changed? Not convinced.
I left the army in 1978, and apart from the odd pipe range in NI would have only fired live rounds at annual Classification (I think it was called). OK, it was REME, but it's not a new phenomenon.
 
Actually equipping them would help as well. Buy sufficient armour to equip the regulars and reserves rather than the current enough to field some of the reserves - and again people will join up to play tank commander vs pretend this beat up old landie is a cvrt etc.
To be fair, the beat up landie was pretending to be a Jackal (for the preceding 20 years it was a CVRT), and it’s now been replaced by an actual Jackal. The problem isn’t recruiting people to crew them, but ones willing to spend the time now needed to get all the qualifications necessary to do so.
 
The historic evidence is that the government of the day has chosen to cut both at the same time. Closing TACs/ARCs as part of the same drive for cost cutting by any means. But there's no hard-and-fast reason that a government couldn't choose to (or at least attempt to) grow the reserve whilst retaining the same size regular army, or while even shrinking the regular army. It just hasn't tried that yet, for whatever reason. As I mentioned before there are countries with bigger reserves than regulars, that proves that it is possible.

A government that wanted to do that has all kinds of levers it could pull to do so, if it had the will and the money. Free university for reservists for example. Or tax breaks for companies with so-many percentage of their staff in the reserves.
1. We aren't reaching the army reserve target today ? its supposed to be 30k.
2. Lose 20k regulars and you will have reduced the pool of exServicement for either the AR, or the reserve.
3. The message overtime it sends, will likely reduce recruitment to the reduced regulars and that recruitment trend will hit the AR.

My analysis is in 10 years, if we had an army with 50-60k soldiers, we would be very lucky to have 27k AR and have to really chip up money to even hit that target. With the reduced army struggling to hit its headcount, train the AR and still be able to deploy overseas without even more AR and that overstretch on manpower will squeeze recruitment.
 
Cheers Lightning Experience...

Who said the AR would increase? Suddenly or not?

The historic experience is that reserves have gone down as well. That doesn't meant that they definitely will.
You should engage your critical thinking and try to consider all eventualities. In defence planning, its hard to get a second chance, if your army has suffered some calamity and that included a sizable amount of our useful reserve.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
Lose 20k regulars and you will have reduced the pool of exServicement for either the AR, or the reserve.
Not a dig, but how many Ex-Regulars actually go over to the reserves?

Maybe more at the SNCO level but alot of juniors are completely dissatisfied they don't even look at the AR. The loss of the £10k bonus for Ex-Regulars is also likely to affect it.

To be fair I enjoy the Army, but I don't think I would join the AR if I was to get out. The Cons seem to outweigh the benefits.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top