Potential to Mobilise as Formed Units?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by abacus, Dec 8, 2005.

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 pulled this thought of mine from the 800 Reservists for Iraq thread because it seemed to generate a bit of debate in there and I thought it might get a wider audience amongst those of you who are "Iraq Discussion Fatigued" (surely not :D) with a different thread title.

    I haven't come to a conclusion of my own yet but I'm sure my fellow ARRSErs will waste no time in seeking to persuade me in one direction or another.....
  2. I deployed as an individual replacement and to be honest i'm glad i did.
    Don't get me wrong there are a couple of good seniors and a couple of fairly competant officers in my unit. However I don't feel i could have trusted a couple of the "personalities" with some of the things we did on tour. I am not making this statement for the whole of the TA but can only form my opinion on the officers I have served with in my Corps(R Sigs), one in particular springs to mind. I have the feeling that it would be differnt in a "teeth Arm" unit.
  3. In my opinion it would not work. We have agood turnover of junior ranks and junior officers volunteering/making themselves available for ops. The problem falls with senior officers and SNCOs. They are very backward in coming forward. Many have high powered jobs that they can not break away from.

    In terms of experience and quality, you can not compare them, and a TA major is unlikey to disagree with you. The good TA officers know their limits and are and are not proud to let you know. For that I respect them.
  4. I understand where your coming from, I find too many in the Sigs who step back admit their 2nd best without trying. In Ptarmigan units its slightly better, they exercise with the regulars (sometimes). Comparing ability is a lot easier and at times it leaves you with a poor impression of regulars (i.e. comms only established when the regular unit has been replaced by TA), but I put that down to worst aspects of the ARAB/STAB banter - regulars assuming TA can't do the job, but its quite ironic when TA get the reverse impression :twisted:

    NC units would gain more confidence if they supported their customers in a more demanding environment (i.e. regional bdes turned back into inf bde's)
  5. I'm not so sure we were due to mobilise onto Telic 1 as a unit, we would have been augmented by both TA and regular soldiers and as such I am sure we would have done a good job.

    Depending on which way you look at it we were either lucky (or not) that the plan changed 8O
  6. 202 FH did mobilise as an entire unit but had so many people from other FH's with it (TA and Regs)by the time they hit the sandy stuff it was 202 in name only (interestingly I believe a Reg FH set up the FH then were relieved by 202 which caused a lot of bad feeling so Im told, but this was 2 Med Bdes plan all along?)
  7. I think it depends on the type of unit. I can only speak from a Field Hospital stand point, but when my lot went out to Telic they took over from a regular hospital, got loads of sh!t for being stabs etc and ended up doing a much better job. In medical units TA personnel often have more experience any way (i.e CMT's that work for London Ambulance) etc who do more healthcare work than the regs. and I’m sure this isn't localized to medic units only.

    T C

    Not sure about it being 202 in name only... but either way, there were 3 Fd Hosps out there, 2 reg and one TA and th Reg hosp got sent home. Not saying that the Reg hosp is worse (it had been in the sand box for longer) I'm just saying that the TA Hosp did the same job to the same standard.
  8. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Surely you mean 1st XV :wink:
  9. JB

    JB Clanker

    Can see where abacus is coming from, but reckon it's a non-starter. Despite the whole One-Big-Army Concept, the level of draw-down in TA units just makes it a non-starter: simply too few blokes. The level of back-filling would mean ending up with, as someone else said, more Regs than TA. Even now TA Inf Bns being asked to find a second composite FP Coy for Telic are having to combine with another Bn to get 3 Pls out. This is certainly the case in my Bn and is going to get worse under FAS/FIS(TA) as a consequence of:
    1) recruiting/retention crisis
    2) reduction in establishment of Bn.
    To put it in perspective, after FIS(TA), our Bn will be established (and nobody's promising it'll be manned) for 5 Rifle Pls, split between 4 Coys. There's just no way that 5Pls can take on a Bn TAOR without backfilling that changes the Bn's identity in all but name; nor that 1Rifle Pl, plus some Manoeuvre Spt bods, can take on a Coy task. And that's before you starting counting out sadly substantial numbers of sick, lame, lazy and out-and-out mongs.
    The Regular Army may not be clear on whether it just wants the TA as IRs or as composite formed sub-units (and current restructuring plans and new legislation don't seem to make either any more efficient), but they certainly don't want TA units cutting about the place.
    Also, would you want to go to war with your CO?
  10. I have been lucky enough to have served (and still do) with some very fine TA officers and I actually felt happier in the knowledge that if I had to go to war, I'd rather go with them than as an IR.
  11. Being the TA part of a regular unit (given away my grid!) The Sqn has been on many an exercise with the regiment. It really seems to help the better officers/NCO's and OR's. they officers i am talking about arn't the ones who admit they are second best. I find those officers are the ones who are more willing to learn from others and therefore become much better at their job. Its the ones who have a bit of a chip on their shoulder, the ones who think they know it all and are not willing to listen to anyone for advice Reg or TA. they are the ones I would be worried about deploying with
  12. While I raised the issue of not wanting to deploy with some members of TA units, I don't think that we should focus on that in this thread. Mainly because if we were in a Regular unit, there would still be biffs that we wouldn't want to deploy with.

    The main reason for it being impractical is the numbers. It just wouldn't be right having more Regulars attached to a TA unit, than there are TA people.

    Secondly, there are certain areas where TA simply cannot do the jobs of the Regular. For example: There is a requirement to do overhead fire (build up training, possibly). TA Armourers cannot sign off the weapons for this.
    I'm sure there are other trades where this is applicable.

    Experiance would be a major disadvantage. How much has the TA learnt from the Regular Army? Quite a lot.

    How much did the Regular Army learn from the TA? A lot less.
  13. There is I have to say, a massive disparity in standard between the best and the worst that the TA has to offer. I'll use the officers as an example, purely on the basis that they are refered to above.

    Whilst, as individuals, there is probably little difference between the range from good to bad in the TA and the Regular Army, there is the issue of time and application. The best officers (V) with whom I have served could hold their heads high in whatsoever company (no pun intended) they mixed. The worst, on the other hand, suffer from a lack of 'improving exposure'. Having the CSgt on one's case for a year must have an effect, life day in and day out under the gaze of you 1RO and 2RO not to mention Tp Sgt, is both salutory and educational. The poorer variety of TA officer starts off no worse than his Regular equivalent but the fact that he is poorer part-time gives him only 10% of the chance to imporve himself - this bearing in mind the fact that he probably started off at the lower end of the scale because he wasn't that interested in self imporvement in the first place.

    A certain Major (V) springs to mind, who's response to any form of suggestion or criticism from either up or down the chain of command was, "NMC!", not my career. Now I'm not saying where on the scale of Pte Bladrick to FM Lord Wellington, I think this bloke fell, but if that is an attitude which is espoused by (some of) those of field rank, then what of the Subbies? I think that formed units could work admirably, bearing in mind all the doubts expressed above - but on the understanding that those of us who pride ourselves on professionalism, rather than a pretty mess-kit to impress the ladies, are in a position to 'nuture' the growth of those who fall in the latter category. Afterall, we've done it before, three times in the last century and it seemed to work then.
  14. Not if they backfill the unit with TA.

    However I believe their is an unconfidence within the TA thats got far worse since SDR. We don't do the large TA Inf Div/Bdes exercises anymore, so we don't see how we fit it. I find it ridiculous that the first time I (and the rest of my Sqn/Coy) do my job properly is when I get mobilised, pre SDR I would have done my job regularly on exercise.
  15. So you're arguing that we mobilise a TA unit, then fill in the blanks with people from other TA units?

    That has potential, but with the current 1 in 5 year policy, you'd use up a lot of "resource" very quickly.

    Also, it does not address the experiance problem (in fact, it would make it worse).