Not one to moan but.......

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by brucewillis, Nov 9, 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. This probably flies in the face of current thinking. But does anyone think it would be a good idea to disband the TA altogether? The regular army and most of the general public (the ones who think of us as a "Dads Army" type thing) seem to doubt our ability, so what is the real point in having us? I have just filled in an application for a job, in the hobbies bit I listed among other things "TA". In the "Previous Employment" section I listed being mobilised for three out of the last four years. This will no doubt be the kiss of death for this application, even though I have years of experience in the type of work I am applying for.

    Suppose my question is...

    Should I lie on application forms for full time employment?

    Leave the TA and concentrate on civilian employment?

    I should add as well, I am not in favour of the current cuts to the regular army and increasing the reserves. Its a dodgy plan and at some point will bite us as a nation, in the arse!!
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Tis tricky given that the likely hood of us being mobilised in the future is pretty slim (H20?) it does sort of beg the question 'whats the point?'. However I suppose it's an angle to use when applying as it snt really a lie, depends how much you want to stay in
  3. Shit. The Veil is not parting. Give us five minutes. I'll sit down and have a cup of tea. Then I shall come back to you.

    Are you Taurus BTW?
  4. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    it should be declared unfit for purpose then rebuilt with a proper support program.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. It is a good job you are not one to moan isn't it? ;)
  6. No and I don't have a middle name beginning with "T"
    • Like Like x 1
  7. The whole TA reborn as AR business is the obvious answer to a situation we're in, namely where

    a) We're skint
    b) We're going to pack in all this expeditionary warfare bollocks because of a
    c) you'll be mobilizing the army less because of b, in turn because of a.

    Did I mention we're skint?

    So rebuilding the TA/AR/BrokeArmy in god's own image isn't going to *ever* be funded properly even if it's imagined so it's actually not as risky a strategy so long as you stick to point b of the plan.

    Problem is can the government bank on avoiding staying out of Operation Can't I Just ******* Nuke 'em World Wide Global Freedom (hold the fries) and the ensuing Operation Tatooine Cluster ****, the NATO codename for the American Sidekick invasion of Iran. I doubt it.
  8. 123

    123 LE

    Its going to take one hell of a lot or reorganising of things outside the Army to make this one work. They surely can't just rely on the goodwill of employers - they'll have to legislate to mandate.

    Plus, how do you lure potentials. The TA has to recruit approximately 100% of its current manpower. It has to double in size, but what's the carrot? In the modern world, money talks, but if they speculate will they necessarily accumulate? Will they break even or take a loss. I think setting up all the conditions and putting in place compensation mechanisms is going to prove pretty costly and it will be years upon years before it pays for itself. But that's just an opinion on the face of it. I imagine they had answered every possible scenario based question they could think of. Or I'd certainly like to hope they have.
  9. msr

    msr LE

  10. Don't lie about your service, just put down Army instead of TA - it'll explain the career gap and doesn't let you fall into the Gareth filter. (and if you use linkedin, don't put a picture of you on in uniform, not for OPSEC but it's a obvious walt/stab indicator)

    Explain your responsibilities accurately and don't go into army 'small penis syndrome'

  11. Not before it has reveiwed what it has got already and ruthlessly cut out deadwood - non attenders, bed blocking SNCOs, Ruperts that are there for the social life and stopped it from becoming a rest home for ex Regs that fancy some pocket money and easy respect in civvy life. That has to be the priority. Prune it so it can grow.

    Only then will you have a core of decent troops to form the basis of an AR with operationally experienced and enthusiastic JNCOs promoted into now vacant SNCO roles. Only then will you be changing the TA's image and only then will you get the recruits of the calibre you need to fulfill the AR Terms of Reference for the future.

    Want a better image? Then **** off the ones that are cocking the image up
    • Like Like x 1
  12. 123

    123 LE

    i concur, but the Army isn't allowed to be so selective as all that. It is bound by rules of correctness is it not. That's why redundancies are done according to criteria other than judgement of competence and suitability. It's done according to cold statistics isn't it and whoever applies. They should just ruthlessly get rid of whoever is shit, Stalin-style, but can they do that in the modern world?
  13. Shame a lot of the old TA centres were sold off so reducing the potential recruiting foot print.
  14. So what about those that are to fat or idle to do their PFT/AFT do they now do it or leave?
    And if the TA is replaced by the more modern Army Reserve will the Regular army view them any better?
    Or is it a case of once a STAB always a STAB
  15. If they don't it will be a bodge. A new Model Army built on crap foundations

    But, as it's a numbers game and Hammond will want to show the plan works I have no doubt the hodge will happen. He won't have to fix it and he knows that