Goodbye 33,34 and 35 SR

#1
and 12 Sig Gp, who did a great job to fight your corner </sarcasm>
 
#5
I am really very sad to see 33 Sigs go. Decent bunch of blokes.

Less worried about 34 and 35 - bunch of crackpots who couldn't communicate with the man sat next to them.
 
#9
The only cnuts I ever encountered were from 33.

But let's not turn it into a pissing contest, we all know who the boss mans favourite were.

Does anyone have any idea what they're likely to do with us now?
 
#11
Not the detail but this might be helpful http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...fall+to+25,000+after+Treasury+cuts/article.do

TA fighting strength will fall to 25,000 after Treasury cuts
Robert Fox
28.04.09

BRITAIN'S reserve armed forces are to be radically cut, under plans to be announced by the Government today.

The effective fighting strength of the Territorial Army is to be slashed to around 25,000 and tailored to specific operations such as the campaign in Afghanistan.

The move has raised fears among army chiefs that the Government will use the recession to impose a ceiling on recruiting for the forces.

As unemployment grows more people are applying to join, but the Treasury wants to limit the number of new recruits.

One senior officer said: "We're getting a better quality of recruit now. To impose a cap on numbers now would be a disaster - you cannot turn recruiting on and off like a tap."

According to MoD manning targets, the TA should have 38,500 members overall, but the most recent figures show it has only 28,920 people.

Among the units to go under the new proposals, which come after a year-long review, will be specialist ones such as signals detachments attached to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps HQ, currently being transferred from Rheindahlen in Germany to Gloucester.

However, Army chiefs believe numbers will need to expand by up to 10,000 if the present high tempo of operations continues.

They would like the standing strength of the Army to come up from the present limit of 102,000 to 110,000, with an active reserve, whereby reserve volunteers serve up to a year on operations, taking the total figure to around 140,000.

The chiefs insist this number is needed to provide adequate forces for the Afghan conflict and humanitarian operations.

More troops are required to provide a reserve of manpower for emergencies such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and to augment public services during pandemics like the one threatened by the swine flu outbreak.

A cap on recruiting was imposed after John Major's government introduced a severe round of cuts in the Options For Change programme of 1991, causing lasting damage to many infantry regiments.

In 1998, the Labour Government's Strategic Defence Review hit the territorials hard with 87 companies in 33 battalions reduced to 67 companies in 15 battalions.

But in recent years, the TA has assumed a higher profile as the regular army became increasingly engaged in operations overseas.

Around 6,900 personnel from the territorials were mobilised for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 1,200 troops each year support the regular army in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Officially created after Parliament passed legislation in 1907 which saw the yeomanry and volunteers consolidated into the Territorial Force, the first TA units stood up for action on 1April 1908 and it was first mobilised in August 1914.
 
#12
It'll be a shame to see components of 33 Sigs disappear. Hopefully the decent guys will choose to stay in the TA and share their quality and experience with which ever unit they decide to join.
 
#13
Just heard this. Given the fact that these three Regiments are getting the chop, surely some Sig Unit must move in to cover their footprint.....

More to the point, what about the regular units these guys support. They will STILL need the support so surely instead of the whole lot going, we could reduce it down to a Regiment?

That is what I hope anyway.

As mentioned above, hopefully, we don't end up re-forming these Regiments when the new kit comes in. As one of the reasons given on BFBS for their demise was their outdated equipment and skillsets!!!!
 
#14
chocolate_frog said:
As one of the reasons given on BFBS for their demise was their outdated equipment and skillsets!!!!
Were the others weak leadership and pig headed ignorance in the face of undeniable facts?
 
#15
What I love most about this, is that the chain of command didn't get a chance to brief those their respective Sqn OC's etc. So whoosh... 1:30pm on a Tuesday (that's a drill night for many of us Mr Brown), we have to get a salient act together so when our guys ask us what's the deal? What's the future? Who's next and all those pertinent questions, we can actually put an answer together which is a bit more than "Wait out". :?

I mean for Chr$st sake this review's been going on for a year nigh, couldn't CGS let the smegging chain of command know in the R Signals units, instead of my CO having to get something out damn quick today and then us having to disseminate? Concept of warning order? You know intent, main effort? Maybe?

FFS. Increase the tempo of ops? And cut back? :x
 
#17
I haven't read the review yet so could anyone tell me if your cousins up in Jockland are safe?

Edited to add, I hope so as we are about to get some shiny new kit.
 
#19
irlsgt said:
.... and tailored to specific operations such as the campaign in Afghanistan.
So what are they going to do when the Afghan war is over?
I seriously cannot see it being over in say the next 20-30 years. It's our only foothold in the middle east.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads