Is TA still Revelent in 21st Century British Defence policy

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Greyman, Sep 28, 2005.

  1. Yes, it still

  2. Yest, but major reform is need for today need

  3. No, let sack the whole lot


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. After a rather interesting discusion on another thread "The Fourth Will Rise Again...RGJ leaving Londons and RRV" and the kind sugestion from Mr McKay.

    A question are raise is TA relvelent to modern British defence? as Everyone aware, The TA have been thought a lot of change thoughtout the 100 years of it existence. It is an organisation formed to deal with a major war in Europe when it first start, and it see thought the very kinds of conflict it suppose to deal with Twice in the 20th Century and was the maintain that role thoughtout the Cold War. Since the Cold war, we have been though the SDR, option for change, CCRF and latest use as gap plugging for the regular Army. Which is an expensive options for the government when it done on a regular bases. In the same time a lot of units are facing possible disbandment, manning crisis and low turn-out and recuits diffcultity. And above all what is TA suppose to be after the forcoming cut?Is the current structure which at least in infantry more suit for a mass mobilsation and to fight the world war 3 actually providing the "goods" for the taxpayer?
  2. Why expensive? Keep 1 regular Sqn/Coy undermanned and then maintain 1 TA Pln/Trp to support them, TA cost is 1/7th of a regular during peacetime or non mobilised periods, how can this be expensive (note I'm excluding the Londons lawyers, solicitors from the equation)

    But looking if we consider defending this country, then the TA is far more viable- cut 1 regular Div and get 7 TA Divs in place. The amount of warning we'd get to an attack would allow the TA to get trained up very high standard.

    Is the main aim of the army defending this country or enforcing its foreign policy?
  3. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The last round of reforms did for the Infantry in large parts of the UK, and would have done for damned near them all if a strong rear-guard action hadn't been fought.

    Whether this was a good thing, I can't say - but face it, apart from the Company on TELIC, it's not Infantry the Regs want or need. (I won't go into this in too much detail, as the rabid Regimentals will be baying for my blood - but note that I was in a County Regiment for longer than almost all posters on this site, and successfully re-roled/traded/cap-badged, along with plenty of other Inf).

    I think the balance is still weighted far too heavily towards Infantry, and what we need are more Enablers. I am sure that the next round of FAS(TA)/SDR/Options For Change/Whatever will go a long way to changing things in this direction.

    The Army certainly get value for money out of us. We cost very little to train and maintain, provide quiet 2 years postings for Offfrs/SNCOs in a stable environment (i.e. less chance of a Tour) and have shown we can do the business.

    So, summing up - TA = good VFM, but there's still too many PBI Units, nad not enough Logisticians.
  4. Snowy,

    Is it thou, my current corps has mobilised about 50% of the JNCO's but not many else (20% in total) but the Infantry it must be about 33% at least. The TA Inf seem to be the main part of the TA that came back with glowing reports but that may be the nature of the job (u can remember all the AMS bitching on here can't u?)

    If back filling is to be the norm in future (and no formed units - unless teeth arms) then we ain't at end stage yet.

    p.s. I thought SDR was all about teeth arms doing the back fill roles and support arms forming units???
  5. Polar, I think the role of Army thoughout the British history is enforcing foreign policy, defence always left for the Navy & Air force. If the Army are defencing this island, then something must have gone really wrong. And the figure of 1 to 7 between regluar and TA, may I ask where is it from? Also, with the exception of 1968 the British Army are deployed in operation every year since 1945. How the maths for peacetime going to work. Under the current mobilisation regime a £100 per day private is rather common in a few infantry units. And how can we justify paying 1 TA private the wage of 3 regluar one. That haven't include the £40k that his employer can claim from the government! Under-manning again led to problem especaily for the commanders who end up with no experience in doing his job. What the point of having Majors when you only have a platoon of men? And centainly the amount that a mobilisated TA battalion from the South-East and London can easily buy us a full armour division from Poland. Also if the regular army only need men not unit why should we brother with all the regiment and cap badge, why not just turn the TA into a Army training regiment like Pribright or Catterick?

    I think Snowy is right to say there is not enough Logisticans, and same is go for medics, engineer and everyone beside the infantry, Gunner & tankee.
  6. Funny how Chilwell is always wanting more drivers and yet I've been told for that past 'x' (where x is considerably greater than 1) years that there is no money for driver training and that if a TA soldier needs a class 'y' license he will get the appropriate training at RTMC. Marry this up to the UK haulage industry estimates of a shortfall 12,000 C+E drivers (HGV1 in old money) due to the reduction in (regular) military driver training and you have a supply/demand equation that the MOD cannot compete with.

    "Cause" and "Effect" two words a staff officer cannot get in the same paper let alone the same paragraph.
  7. Greyman's profile says "Occupation: Accountant/Infantry".
    Says it all, really. :wink:
  8. I dont think the history of the TA stops at WWI. The TA provided formed units for the Boer War and a large percentage of troops deployed to Flanders to reinforce the BEF. I also think the HAC would probably give you a good run for your money in terms of relevance to defence policy over at least a couple of centuries. Citizen forces provided the backbone of this countries defence before there even was a formed army. So the TA, in it's modern form, is merely an extension of that.

    21st Century UK Defence policy does not exist in a vacum(?). I think a more relevant question following from that is - Is UK Defence Policy relevant in the 21st Century? You have only to see from the contents of all the threads on this site what a wide difference of opinion there is around that issue.

    There also seems to be an implication that TA solidiers get something for nothing. I certainly feel that after 18 years my account is just about even and I am sure a lot feel the same.

    I would agree that there is room for reform. Yes maybe more loggies, technicians and the like, but people still want to join teeth arms, so how do you cater for them?

    As to the expense. Well what does your average nuclear sub cost? Why continue to spend billions on something we never intend to use? What about the massive expense on government consultants and overseas aid (that never reaches those truly in need)?

    I think the TA is a pretty good value for money organisation that punches well above it's weight and is criminally undervalued by this country. But hey that is only my opinion.
  9. Someone mentioned the C (Chilwell) word. Chilwell is to the TA what Glasgow is to the Regulars (though as a Territorial I get more sense out of Glasgow). Chilwell has been trying to set itself up as the experts on the TA, when in reality it was unable to successfully mobilise the troops for Telic 1 and look after them.
  10. TA = VFM.

    end of story.

    try being a TA CO and then compare that to the cost of a regular CO.

    TA CO = MTDs

    Regular CO = private school for the kids, domestic assistance to assist wifey, free accommodation, staff car on constant call, loads of claims, etc etc bl**dy etc.

    Oh, and they both have the same liability and command.

    ...........don't start me on this one.
  11. and..................from another thread - draw your own conclusions.

    'A regular CO is sent trained soldiers from a slick and well tried trg org within the wider Army. His job is to use their skills to best effect in pusuit of his mission, retain them and their interest, and keep the Regiment on the straight and narrow. He has a well established command structure that is available 24/7 and he doesn't have another job.

    A TA CO has to advertise, engage, retain, recruit, retain, attest, retain, train, retain, trade train, retain, then use their skills to best effect in pusuit of his mission, retain them and their interest, and keep the Regiment on the straight and narrow. He does not have a well established command structure, only small elements of which are available 24/7 (assuming their mobiles are switched on), and he has another job.'
  12. And that is so ture that people still want to join the teeth arm while the nations need is not, and many of those are actually more experts in other areas and can contribute more to the forces then being man with a rifle. So isn't it back to the issue that it is a taxpayer funded hobby that like our nuclear sub that one day may be useful to the nation (And mine come a couple years ago).

    A citizen force that debateable given that we are queen subjects to start with. And is a citizen force/militia/voluteener organisation serve the defence & foriegn policy requirement? or would it be better done by a full time force that can be always deploy in short-notice. And would the employment of foriegn troops such as Gurkha, Fujian, Romanian etc be more economical and less disruptive? Isn't it that the bulk of the British Army in India were sepoy?

    The massive expense on consultants that is criminal, especial the amount MOD have spend on it instead of soldiers and equipment.
  13. No, the vast majority of the British Army in India were British and Irish. You are thinking of the Indian Army, which still had a sizeable contingent of European troops.
  14. No longer in the Army at all, and Ex Reg and TA, so no axe to grind.

    This thread poses the bonest question I have heard in a long time.

    What proportion of the TA have been deployed on operations in the 21st century?

    A far bigger proportion than Regular soldiers have been deployed for long periods in the past. To suppose there is no role for the TA is like presuming we don;t need a Regular Army if we are not at war.

    Sure that size and shape will change, it always has, but fundementally the cheapest reserve forces are the ones you either don't pay or those you pay only for a limited amount of hours.
  15. Is there a need for Britain to maintain a reserve of part trained soldiers?

    If the answer is no, you have more confidence in this Governments ability to seek political solutions than I do.