How should the TA be Revamped

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by polar, Sep 3, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following on from

    http://217.146.105.5/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=8641#138966

    In what way should the TA be revamped? Many of us are have different roles:

    Supporting ARRC
    Providing In Theatre Replacements
    CCRF/Home Defence

    Some units such as Sigs train to support ARRC and Home Defence organisations, but they were needed to bring regular units upto full manning. For some of the trades they would have had very little experience of working in a Bde/Div Hq (many have never exercised with a HQ of any type - even tho thats a core role)

    I would guess this may go for other corps, maybe TA Dressing Stations not exercising with Inf RAP's, etc. RMP's not having to deal with a Bde move.

    Last time I remember everyone working together (in a way we would be deployed on Telic) was an 2 Div ex in 98/99.

    I suppose this doesn't matter if we are only provinding Ptes/JNCO's
     
  2. I'm surprised a topic like this hasn't had any replies before now.

    In an ideal world the regular army would have sufficient units all at War Establishment and able to deal with routine operations. The TA would then exist to provide extra formed units for unexpected large scale operations that were essential to the safety of the United Kingdom or its close allies, obviously excluding France, Belgium or Germany.

    In our real world of a tiny regular army, with units that barely reach peace establishment, the TA is getting used as a Temping Agency to try and make up the numbers.

    Within that picture it might be better to have two categories of TA, one for frequent part time service with the regulars and a second one that only serves in the Home Defence role in peacetime.

    New recruits would only be able to join the "General Service" TA and be well informed of their liabilities. After serving for 3 or 4 years they could transfer to the "Home Service" TA. A natural transition as after one deployment they could well lose interest, plus have settled jobs and families that resent them vanishing 1 year out of every 3.

    The "Home Service" TA would contain experienced old and bold types willing to do CCRF missions and provide a basis for regenerating larger forces in wartime. These would also be the people most likely to fight to retain TACs and keep the TA going whenever cuts were threatened.

    Perhaps I've been patronising here but I think there is a need for this Home Service TA, if only to keep the TA a sustainable size. Otherwise a TA that only consisted of a pool of constantly deployed Privates and JNCOs, and dependant on the Regular Army to administer them would fade away to nothing very quickly.
     
  3. Good post, IT rogue,

    The TA are a reserve, the biggest gripe about mobilisation was being told "we all go together" and then mobilised as individuals :?

    Revamping the TA may not be needed, it works well for what it is, if you want a body of 1 year in 3 soldiers then the TA is not what you want.

    Anyone who knocks the TA forget that without the old and bold support staff within TA units the young soldier would not get trained or paid or fed, therefore you will never be able to mobilise 100% of the TA unless its Total War.
    I work with a number of employers and all were proud to have TA soldiers deploy on Telic 1, most if not all now resent continued mobilisation of their manpower. If this contimues all support for the TA will end.

    Maybe another part time orgaisation should be formed, but don't call it reserve if you are going to use it all the time. :wink:
     
  4. The how to run the TA differently is due out soon, watch this space, it makes great reading and proves that they have finally listened! The news is good and positive!
     
  5. msr

    msr LE

    Really? I'll believe it when I see it.

    Does it involve giving the Regular Army sufficient resources to do their job?

    msr
     
  6. No, but it does show that based on the limited training and resources the TA has it has continued to punch above its weight!
     
  7. Brilliant.... in the same vain of ammunition demands: don't demand enough / don't use it all and your next demand gets cut the bigwigs have noticed that TA has been performing on limited resources hence will see how far they can cut back and still get a result.

    Dangerous business in my book....
     
  8. More reason to leave well alone and make the cuts elsewhere (regular army).
     
  9. Like I said, having seen the paper things will change for the better. It will not happen overnight but it will change.
     
  10. Admin_Spice...

    Are there any timescales for the release of the paper?
     
  11. IT Rogue - sounds like a return to yeomanry, militia, reserve and vlounteers of the napoleonic era!

    TJ
     
  12. The Napoleonic era Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteer system wasn't a very efficient organisation then and wouldn't suit today either.

    None of the historical models are right for now. Most were based purely on Home Defence, even in wartime.

    A modern TA would have to allow for some troops to be better trained (more MTDs) and available for compulsory overseas peacetime missions. With a larger number of troops only available for missions within the the UK in peacetime, unless they volunteer for overseas or a war is declared.

    My TA days were long ago, but I await the paper that Admin_Spice mentioned with interest.
     
  13. The cynic in me would point out that our recent optempo is unsustainable; that we are driving soldiers away through overuse; that a deployment cycle of one year in three is wholly unsustainable for most people; that employers and spouses now see the TA as a problem not an asset.

    Therefore, basing your plans for the future on the assumption that the recent all out max efforts can be sustained indefinitely means they are doomed to failure.

    Bluntly, unless future plans dramatically scale back on peacetime ops, increase MTDs, training assets, equipment etc and increase peacetime compensation for reservists and employers affected by compulsory mobilisation they are nothing but bad news for the TA.

    Let's not forget that prior to Sept 11th TA were voluntarily mobilising for service all over the place - FTRS, six months in the Balkans etc etc . There will always be a supply of TA for peacetime tasks - we just need to match demand and supply so that we can keep compulsory mobilisation for crisis or war.
     
  14. Seems to me that the MOD are missing the point of the TA. It is and should be there in order to provide emergency cover for the regular forces in time of great need. It is not there to cover for third rate politicians (are there any first rate ones?) to play Bentley diplomacy whilst paying Mondeo prices.
     
  15. For some maybe, rumors appearing on this site will probably mean good news for the Infantry (more Battalions).

    As for the other corps, heard nothing. Is the report based on the performance of the TA on Telic and CCRF? If so does that mean they'll be changing Signals Ptarmigan operators into Drivers and IS Engineers.

    I expect RSA/RHA to be sorted out (maybe not in this paper)