Report of the All Party Parliamentary Reserve Forces Group

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by soroban, Jun 5, 2007.

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. A good report. Do you reckon they might have been scanning the boards here?

    Hope people listen to it
  2. I interpreted that as proving that the issues that get talked about on here are of real-world relevance.

    If people don't want to read all 26 pages the bullet point summary starting on p25 will suffice.
  3. Good report, well worth reading and passing on to all members of TA
  4. Reckon so..... several points I don't think we've discussed:

    Too sensible and yet another change

    Moaning about One Army recruiting so soon!

    Haven't the infantry regained full signal platoons?

    Eh, can't get mobilised for my civvie skills - thats me not going anywhere (and I know several who should not have been mobilised)

    Fcuk me.... how long as it taken to work that one out??
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Good report? It's 75% rubbish. It represents the last gasp of a breed of TA and, mostly, ex-TA, Senior Officer (NOT Soldier, please note) who hark back to the days when the TA was a home defence force. Well it isn't any more, and they will just have to get used to it - the TA has, much to the benefit of the the Army as a whole.

    My opinions on this are well known, see threads passim, but anyone who has read this report will see immediately how out-of-touch the Authors are.
  6. Dunno, reckon this may carry some weight

    moving a small number of units in areas with no immediate operational roles from the OrBat of the Regular Army to the TA

    I think of two logistics signal squadrons doing a job a TA unit could do. Don't let GB look at this diagram, not difficult what idea it could give him.

    Attached Files:

  7. Methinks RFCA sent us a copy this morning
  8. Don't know what report you were reading Snowy. Most of the recommendations are bang on. In addition they do not require rafts of new legislation or spending; many are commonsense recommendations which have been brought up and discussed on these boards.

    My complaint is the report does not go far enough. It mentions the MTD issue but does not develop it or make recommendations and fails to address the long term impplications of mobilisation on employment and family.

    The only real jarring note I felt was the assessment of the utility of reserves in enduring operations:

    This is one aspect, and to be fair the committee's recommendation is a register of civilian skills and qualifications with a no compulory mobilisation policy for those with these individuals. The phrase 'more cheaply' is telling, though.

    By just focussing on this point it fails to address the question of whether the reserves should be permanently committed to enduring operations, arguably the elephant in the room for this report.

    Overall a good report dealing with details but not getting to the heart of the problems with the TA today.
  9. A few good (if not original) points (offr recruitment/drivers hours/dental treatment) but quite a lot of pish.

    CCRF is a good concept? CCRF is c*ck.

    Territorial Army is a good brand name & supported by majority of reservists? TA is c*ck.

    Whilst it is perhaps both churlish & chippy, it is also worth mentioning that there is more to the TA than 4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment & the Royal Yeomanry (presumably the only units visited). Whilst I appreciate that Inf/Cav have some problems that need addressing, to write a report like this and not even mention the huge contribution of other cap badges (esp CSS) is a bit poor.
  10. Well, I guess they only came to the best! :D

    Presumably they talked about the RY because of the mobilisation they carried out, providing a formed squadron on Telic 1 as per the 'formed sub-unit in support of their regular counterpart' model of the TA. (I know others have done this too).

    TA is a good enough name. You just need to do 'Skoda' on it and sort out people's perceptions.

    CCRF is a good concept - and potentially very good for our image, helping cats out of burning buildings and getting old ladies out of trees and stuff) (see Skoda point above). It's just a pile of pants because of the way it is mnaged and (not) resourced.

    Can anyone tell me why they think the new inf and Yeomanry squadron orbats need changing. All I've seen of them (RY anyway), makes sense.

    Their point one
    is exactly what everybody has been saying on these boards, isnt it?
  11. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Nope, not everybody. While it's good for the TA to operate within its comfort zone, let's make a couple of things crystal clear:

    1. The TA does not exist for its own benefit - it is there to support the rest of the Army, not to wait for the Russians to storm across the IGB.......

    2. The Army, which runs the TA, pays its bills, etc., should be the ones who decide what they want. And mostly, what they want is NOT formed sub-Units.

    If this results in there not being a 'career path' for TA Officers, then tough. Is there any need, apart from a few specialists, for ANY TA Officer to be above the rank of Major?

    In short - there is no God-given right for the TA to exist, in its present, or in any other, form. Money is tight, will get even tighter, and if the Army can't use theTA, it won't pay for it. Simple.

    Oh,and Dilfor is 100% spot-on as regards the CCRF. One day the history of it's 'conception' will come out, and will give us all a few wry laughs, but it always has been, and remains today, an unrequired solution to a non-existent problem (even more so since Whole-Fleet Management came in!).
  12. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    Perhaps not entirely unrelated to the fact that the MPs did not have to move too far out of their comfort zone to go and visit these units.

    Nice and close to Westminster, and even then we were kept waiting. Imagine if they went further afield! Oh, and one member of the committee was ex 10 Para.
  13. OK - CCRF is an entirely 'political' creation. Doesnt mean that it couldnt function.

    The army is currently running on empty and using any resources it has, I agree. However, lets not think that his will happen long term. The point is made that it takes a long time to rebuild the capability of the TA,longer than the regs, and in three years time when we are out of Iraq and the regs arent as stretched, what will the role of the TA be then? Presumably it will be the role that is mandated to it in the SDR or wherever it is to support the army on large scale ops?

    It's nothing to do with a comfort zone - the boards are full of young guys wanting to get out and do a tour, and we've mostly been and done one anyway. It's all about maintaing a credible reserve for the long term security of the country. That is why it is a report carried out at parliamentary level not operational level.

    Re officers. I dont care if there arent any TA L Cols. but you wont get any subbies, captains or majors if you dont give them a career path, and even you must agree we need a few of those?
  14. “Every soldier — without exception — whom I have
    ever put on a potential NCOs cardre has been
    promoted at work within six months.”