Just one in 20 TA soldiers trained to serve on front line

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Hellzapoppin, Jan 2, 2012.

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. :) I wondered how long it would take before the fight-back started. It seems that someone has decided to break cover......
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Mmm - That article seems to amount to a few words put around a politicised press release from MOD/Army seniors. For example the 1500 deployable figure would seem to be the average number mobilised for any given Herrick tour rather than the full deployable figure?

  3. Quite. And poorly briefed it would seem - surely this level of readiness is through design? Have the authors heard of the Graduated Commitment Model and the Tiered MATTS system? Initiatives that were thought up and deployed by a cash strapped LAND command?

    Oh, and didn't the in-year savings of 2009, put paid to a lot of planned training too, leaving a training/skills gap that we are still struggling to put right?

    The majority of the TA is on MATTS 2, and the GCM means that once warned for ops, you up the level of training, feeding into the PDT/OPTAG of your recieving unit. This was sold as a cost effective way of managing readiness, resourse and cash.

    I notice that one of the authors is from the spectaularly ineffective NDA.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. I read the article and agree with your conclusions, it appears to give the lie that there would not be time to initiate upgraded training prior to operations. This is patent nonsense, only one or two regular units could really deploy without intensive pre-op training, all cannot be kept a a constant state of high readiness any more than the TA.
  5. So does that mean only 1 in 20 qualified for their bounty?
  6. No.

    In brief, as mentioned above, the GCM means that some people will have to do more in order to earn the bounty, some will do less.

    Edited to add-
    The article does add some balance by suggesting that senior officers have diverted TA money into the regular army.... as if that would happen.

    It is a weak article because it does not say how they are defining 'ready to serve on the front line', and by the same measure I would be interested to know how many regular soldiers are trained to serve on the front line, at this moment in time.....
  7. It is not the content of the article that is interesting so much as the fact that it is being written now. Who benefits ? Why is this being said ? I think you may find that this is part of a wider effort......
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Does anybody know what proportion of the regular army would qualify as adequately trained to serve on the front line, using the same criteria as got 5% of the TA?
    • Like Like x 4
  9. This is old hash – using statistics in the normal miss quoted, miss analysed and therefore presenting a case that is just plain misleading. I expected better of some of those who put their names to this letter.

    The TA are not resourced (time and money) to train to MATT level 1 and conduct Special To Arm training and CT 5. This lower level of readiness is laid down by Land (Regular). Only those warned off for Ops get the resource uplift to get to MATT Level 1 and take part in the relevant Operational Training, hence the magical 1 in 20 figure.

    Coincidentally, only a certain small number of regular troops were trained to deployable levels. Possibly somewhere in the region of 9.5k in 102k at any one time, or 1 in 10. Now the TA figure doesn’t look so bad.

    Lies, damned lies and of course, statistics. Unfortunately even a GCSE level mathematician could have seen through this one.

    Colonels, sorry, but C-, must do better.

    Already discussed here.

    • Like Like x 3
  10. Does this have any relationship to Workplace Training Statements too? Very few people tick all the boxes for that. I noticed on Remembrance Day that over half of those present had operational experience. OK, doesn't mean they are ready to go as of today but quite significant I thought. Of course that is just the ones who turn up......
  11. Maths has never been my strong point but i thought that Fr20 said that the TA was down to 15000 bodies. Meaning that the figure would be 1 in 10. However this article seems to suggest that it is already up to 30000. All i can say is that the recruiting drive seems to have worked, doubling in size in 6 months, the RTCs must be swamped.
  12. as many of us know, many TA units are holding on to p7s and perm down grade's. unit commanders do this due to NUMBERS on books.
    as the TA is a smaller number compared to the regular army, statistics, and percentages will look higher. we all know MATT'S are not a true bench mark of deploy ability, however, would we need a TA R.A.M.C, plastic surgeon, or annethatist to complete a 8 mile cft ? many of the top tier specialists cannot be found in the regular army, with the experience that is needed. yes, a lot of money is simply thrown away, ie,
    p7's and perm down grades not doing a lot to qualify for bounty, this is why p7's and the like should lose 50 percent of their bounty until they become ''up to scratch''. strong questions should be asked to those that have never been on a op tour and i dont class op TOSCA as such. the powers that be, shouldn't ask us to volunteer, compulsory mobilisation should be the order of the day !, however we all know the problems this would cause with employers, and employability of said TA personnel..

    here endeth the sermon,
    i will climb down from said soap box.
  13. - exactly what he said