Even the Archbishop of York as got it in for The TA

#3
B-C has has some actual influence or ability to lobby then?


Clearly certain people are trying to use their position to influence, by whatever means. Worrying, that at their level, they cannot still understand the "bigger picture" or realities of life.
 
#5
I'd have thought by now people would have divorced the idea that the TA is being increased so the regular army can be cut.
Why should people be divorced from that reality? The TA is being increased to backfill the regulars who have been cut beyond sensible levels. The politicians excused this decision by grasping onto the vain hope that they could plug the gap with reservists. Of course anyone with any ounce of sense (including, perhaps amusingly, senior Army officers) know that this is arrse. The small fraction of the TA that are actually able and willing to deploy has seen it, done it, got the medal. Many of the rest are too old, too fat and only in it for cheap beer, the bounty, an escape from the missus and the cudos. Of course the hope that regulars, made redundant or hacked off with repeated Helmand deployments or no Helmand deployments (depending on capbadge and role) would sign on to join the TA have proven to be nonsense too.

Shite isn't it?!

uqfegd

pp
 
#6
What has a Ugandan got to do with our military system.

He might be better used to serve all under his diosise (including reservists) and get on with his job that he his paid for.
 
#7
The politicians excused this decision by grasping onto the vain hope that they could plug the gap with reservists.
However, it is also difficult to fill some gaps with regulars - it's easier to get more experience from the civvie street/TA (e.g. medics, IT staff). Also in some trades, especially in peacetime - the jobs are done by civvies (contractors) anyway i.e. chefs, drivers, IT staff.

I also like the implication that a regular Archbishop of York would be a better one than a TA one and so a civvie one? So we can safely ignore his comments as he's potential STAB?
 
#8

I am concerned that he lacks a little credibility when it comes to matters of defense.

Has he asked his big invisible friend for advice?

...or is God pulling an Emperor Mong act here - "Go on, gob off about defense and matters military. I know you know eff all about it...YOU know you know eff all about it...but the punters will listen to a Man of God and take you seriously as you automatically have a mandate to talk bollocks about everything under the sun."

Rodney2q
 
#9
Well Rodney it was in an interview for BFBS so I expect he was asked a leading question...usually the way it works.

And Polar, I have no issue with reservists filling niche posts and even in formed specialist units. However, to backfill 20K of regulars...I am sorry, I don't think so. You would be pretty pissed off if I rocked up to refit your gas boiler with a couple of weeks training and and a few evening sessions in the bar behind me!

uqfegd

pp
 
#10
The small fraction of the TA that are actually able and willing to deploy has seen it, done it, got the medal. Many of the rest are too old, too fat and only in it for cheap beer, the bounty, an escape from the missus and the cudos.
I'm involved in TA recruit training and feel pretty confident that most recruits I see are willing and able to deploy. Naturally many of the rest are too old ( a rule introduced by the Adjutant General, not the TA ) etc. but the rest of your criticism can I suspect, be equally levied at our Regular brethren.
 
#12
Well Rodney it was in an interview for BFBS so I expect he was asked a leading question...usually the way it works.

And Polar, I have no issue with reservists filling niche posts and even in formed specialist units. However, to backfill 20K of regulars...I am sorry, I don't think so. You would be pretty pissed off if I rocked up to refit your gas boiler with a couple of weeks training and and a few evening sessions in the bar behind me!

uqfegd

pp
Having dealt with some of the staff British Gas and National Grid have put on a project in our area recently I'd be happy if you could speak or even understand English.
 
#13
BB,

Too old - not to the same extent as the TA

Too fat - PAP 10 and manning levers are thinning out the lardies (see what I did there?)

Cheap beer - perhaps in Germany

Bounty - yeah right!

Escape from the missus - yes, especially if you want it to be permanent - check out relationship breakdown stats for regulars

Cudos - well something has to make up for the negatives!

uqfegd

PP
 
#15
I can't disagree with much of what he says. One would have thought that if it was obvious to the Archbishop of York it would be obvious to both our political masters and some of the posters on Arrse as well. Personally, I don't believe the reserve forces are particularly good value for money or have the potential to deliver the capability we need (less for sponsored reserves and some specialists).

A bit like the equally silly/difficult decisions to delete carrier strike and maritime recce (Nimrod), the order has been given (for understandable financial reasons) and we are going to have to get on with it, however stupid the plan is.
 
#16
W.T.F. Guy sounds like he can barely string a sentence together, let alone say anything vaguely sensible about what the Army's going to look like for the next few years. Could have come straight from the comments section of the Daily Mail; utter conviction that soldiering can only ever be done by professionals + misplaced reverence for an Army which, by and large, actually hasn't done very well at all over the last ten years + a refusal to learn from how other people do military stuff a lot cheaper in other countries. Adds nothing to the debate.
 
#17
misplaced reverence for an Army which, by and large, actually hasn't done very well at all over the last ten years + a refusal to learn from how other people do military stuff a lot cheaper in other countries. Adds nothing to the debate.
Mr Pink, so where has our Army underperformed recently? I presume you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan primarily? Biased though I may be having served in both theatres, I am bemused by your broad sweeping criticism of our military performance. Also, your obvious knowledge of the procurement process and those of other nations should see you as Min DP as opposed to a junior on ARRSE!

uqfegd

pp
 
#18
Mr Pink, so where has our Army underperformed recently? I presume you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan primarily? Biased though I may be having served in both theatres, I am bemused by your broad sweeping criticism of our military performance.
Yup. Those are the ones. I served in both too. I think Iraq was a cluster and very hard to spin as anything approaching a success; we were, after all, more or less kicked out of Maysan and Basra, albeit with Union Jacks on the WR to make it look like it was all part of a grand plan. And while the jury may still be out on Afghanistan, it's not looking amaaaazing to date, is it? (though I accept that your bits in both campaigns might well have been top drawer).

Not all the Army's fault of course, but very definitely could have done a lot better, and in ways well within its own remit. Don't know anything about procurement - the 'military stuff cheaper' was a reference to using an intelligent mix of Regular and Reserve.
 
#19
Mr Pink, so where has our Army underperformed recently? I presume you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan primarily?
You mean to say that we have f*cked up somewhere else too?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
Yup. Those are the ones. I served in both too. I think Iraq was a cluster and very hard to spin as anything approaching a success; we were, after all, more or less kicked out of Maysan and Basra, albeit with Union Jacks on the WR to make it look like it was all part of a grand plan. And while the jury may still be out on Afghanistan, it's not looking amaaaazing to date, is it? (though I accept that your bits in both campaigns might well have been top drawer).

Not all the Army's fault of course, but very definitely could have done a lot better, and in ways well within its own remit. Don't know anything about procurement - the 'military stuff cheaper' was a reference to using an intelligent mix of Regular and Reserve.
Firstly, it's clear tha the ****-ups weren't the Soldiers' fault. However, it is equally clear that the British Army made a complete horlicks in Iraq and, although we are doing pretty well in Helmand, we're stymied by a lack of genuine strategy - i.e. what are we actually there for in the first place? We'll be out of there shortly, though, and get back to peacetime soldiering. I just hope that this time we have not just identified 'lessons', but learned from them as well. Anyway...

... There's the rub - peacetime. There is NO current, or even likely, exisitential threat to the UK. We do not, therefore, need a large standing Army (note: standing Army) for defence. We do however (and this hurts to say, but it's true) need a good size, effective, blue-water RN, and an RAF with enough Ooomph to defend our skies. The Army is, as in Napoleonic times, nice to have, but must be very very much the smaller Service to the RN.

As for the original comment - the ArchBish is a pretty switched-on chap, and what he says can be seen to be representative of a large number of people.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top