Restructuring - FAS

#1
Borrowed, these from the 'Cockney Whinging Barstewards' thread

The_Monocled_Mutineer said:
The new structure that is planned is going to have winners and losers, and this comes at a time when there are problems in the TA.

At the moment recruiting is not the problem it is retention that is the main headache.

It is a delicate situation at the moment with numbers and it is possible that anything could tip the balance.

What is not needed is a large mass exodus from the TA down to something like a reorganisation or even re-badging.
Pob02 said:
All I know about all this is that looks like Recce will be no more . . and quite frankly the whole idea of becoming SF and spending my life scrapping crap off GPMGs is really not at all appealing.
So FAS an unneeded exercise? (Hm, lets alter the regular structure and also include the TA for good measure.)

Its going to lead to people leaving, inf plns going to a support pln (my old pln losts its seniors and many soldiers when it changed to mortars), Inf/Sigs going to Eng (I'm sure a lot of comfy Sigs and warry Inf won't relish becoming engineers), etc, etc.
 
#2
I think most of us have been here before. SDR and all that old pish. I am secertly amused when I see the new Great White Chiefs introducing "sweeping changes" designed to produce a more "usable TA". Son, I've seen it ALL BEFORE, so please don't lie to me. What worries me is that PSIs, TMs, COs etc come and go, tinker around a bit and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces. Don't get me wrong, some of these do an incredible job, but it only takes one bad apple to completely muck things up. I would suggest what we really need is someone in a postion of power who knows what is like to be a TA soldier at every level, on operations and everyday life. In the mean time the rest of us will make what is left work.
 
#3
Mr_McKay said:
I think most of us have been here before. SDR and all that old pish. I am secertly amused when I see the new Great White Chiefs introducing "sweeping changes" designed to produce a more "usable TA". Son, I've seen it ALL BEFORE, so please don't lie to me. What worries me is that PSIs, TMs, COs etc come and go, tinker around a bit and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces. Don't get me wrong, some of these do an incredible job, but it only takes one bad apple to completely muck things up. I would suggest what we really need is someone in a postion of power who knows what is like to be a TA soldier at every level, on operations and everyday life. In the mean time the rest of us will make what is left work.
The question is if I get anywhere, if there will be a recognisable TA to salvage.......
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
SDR? We managed to salvage around 30 out of a Company of over 100. Of these, 25 went to a new and welcoming cap-badge. The others braved a long 'commute' to the nearest Inf cap-badge drill hall.

The closed drill hall is still standing, can't be used for anything else, so no saving there.

Oh well, we're just seeing a small part of the Big Picture, I suppose. Troouble is, the small part we see is all dull and grey, and the bright bits must be somewhere else. Mustn't they?
 
#5
OldSnowy said:
SDR? We managed to salvage around 30 out of a Company of over 100. Of these, 25 went to a new and welcoming cap-badge.
We had about 50 come to my old Regt, around 95% have since left.

Now in my 4 Coy/Sqn thats been disbanded (is it me :twisted: :!: ), at least this time I've kept my job (have I :?: ) and cap badge.
 
#7
benjaminw1 said:
Ah! Hark, I hear the dulcet sounds of "The Magic Roundabout"... again....
Ah, battalion cuts. A guaranteed way to turn two slightly undermanned battalions into one slightly undermanned battalion (with an all-too-brief period of overmanning in between). Happened to the TA in 1967, happened in 1992, happened in 1999. Anyone who thinks that it won't happen in Regular Infantry FAS is deluding themselves.

Secondly, never underestimate how individuals can affect the system! For example:

Options (early 1990s) saw a Company disappear. The OC concerned had such a grasp on reality that he "strongly encouraged" all of the troops to remain within the battalion and travel the twenty miles up the road and across the city centre to their nearest Bn TAC, rather than the mile across the river to a Company with the same Regimental affiliation that was part of another battalion. Result? Soon, nearly no-one from his Company remained in the TA. Still, it didn't stop him making CO...

Came SDR. Two battalions are amalgamate to one. One (Regular) CO devolves the task to the OCs, keeps everyone informed of the latest ORBAT, invites the OC of the other unit who is about to receive a platoon from our down-sized Company. The other (TA) CO insists that it will be a unit-level exercise, all done by BHQ, no OC involvement, to the point where his Adjt is tasked with removing the ORBAT given to the OC who had come to our manning conference. Charming. A year later, and this CO's ORBAT has been so successful that promotions are completely blocked in "his" half of the new battalion because the promotable people were all put in as overborne while the older and bolder had been given all of the LSN slots, with no real "pyramid" shape to the rank structure. Still, it kept the promotion conferences short. Have you got a slot? No? Tough, APC will knock it back.

Another SDR story had an RE Squadron to be re-roled as R SIGNALS. As I understand it, it took the scaleys' CO (a man whose exit from his dining-out was stylish, if a bit man-on-the-black-magic-box) to resort to "unsubtle actions" to get it through to the RE OC that re-roling was going to happen, and that he should really consider let his guys listen to the scaleys in advance of "Der Tag", rather than insisting it wasn't going to happen.
 

stab

Old-Salt
#8
Rebalancing.

I'm glad that others have finally realised what is happening - I have been quoting it in all of my recent posts. Decision may now be put back to Nov (originally Oct).

The 1* draft is out and makes interesting reading. It's the spin-offs that hide much of the detail. There will be TAC movements but this is not the place to discuss and in any case, the ink isn't dry. The real essence is to align the TA with the regulars - part time and full time. C2 is the key issue whilst manning, and the subsequent provision of IRs the real driver.

Wait til you see the TA Fitness paper.......if you though Fit for Mobilisation (FFM) and Fit for deployment (FFD) were steps too far, you wait til you see the revised fitness standards. Get your running shoes out.
 

Bits

War Hero
#9
stab said:
Wait til you see the TA Fitness paper.......if you though Fit for Mobilisation (FFM) and Fit for deployment (FFD) were steps too far, you wait til you see the revised fitness standards. Get your running shoes out.
Any Int on this one?
 
#10
I'll do a post on this tomorrow. Suffice to say that the TA will be required to achieve regular fitness standards including CFT and the swim test. The plan is to train more TA PTI's in order to avoid failures at Chilwell.

It's hard enough to be able to deliver capability, but now we'll have to be sporting a six-pack as we do so! - cancel those real jobs, there wont be time for them.
 
#11
stab said:
C2 is the key issue whilst manning, and the subsequent provision of IRs the real driver.
Which is why I don't get the Sigs one

Ptarmigan units deliver C2 support and IRs
As do the (2 Sig Bde) Brigade Close Support Sqn

but contingency component Sqns? Sounds like another rebalancing waiting to happen, although I'm grateful we've got them
 
#12
polar said:
stab said:
C2 is the key issue whilst manning, and the subsequent provision of IRs the real driver.
Which is why I don't get the Sigs one

Ptarmigan units deliver C2 support and IRs
As do the (2 Sig Bde) Brigade Close Support Sqn

but contingency component Sqns? Sounds like another rebalancing waiting to happen, although I'm grateful we've got them
Contingent component and Trg margin should, in my view, only be useful in justifying the critical mass required to achieve a required manning state to deliver capability - they're an accounting basis, not reality (surely?). If we start putting units together with multi skills in case CC's are required, how will we function for the rest of the time - whoo whoo (barking).

Stab
 
#13
Stab, I'd like to reply but in doing so I could talk myself out of a job. The plan as it is could give me the job(s) I'm after but then again I could become an 'overmanning'.
 
#14
polar said:
Stab, I'd like to reply but in doing so I could talk myself out of a job. The plan as it is could give me the job(s) I'm after but then again I could become an 'overmanning'.
Polar - if your future relies on some half-wit interpreting cc as a posting, you're in real trouble. The reality is that with the TA 50% manned (effective) then no CC unit can realistically be formed or sustained. The members of the APRC need to get out and attend a drill night and see for themselves.

It's a means to an end, not the end in itself.
 
#15
^Not exactly what I meant. My unit will probably have a number of seniors without a job, for example at least one SSM and one YofS, we've been told we can carry the overburden for 2 years. CC structure may be different, i.e. they may not need a TA supervisors.
But as you implied the CC title may mean very little
 
#16
polar said:
^Not exactly what I meant. My unit will probably have a number of seniors without a job, for example at least one SSM and one YofS, we've been told we can carry the overburden for 2 years. CC structure may be different, i.e. they may not need a TA supervisors.
But as you implied the CC title may mean very little
spooky
 
#18
polar said:
Why spooky? or should I panic and change used ID :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Spooky because I can't believe that units are starting to discuss re-organising before the paper is out. That just leads to confusion and wasted effort.
 
#19
^Point taken but what did you expect? This is a rumour site and most have been briefed on the paper, indicating its very likely to happen. (Although I do know our new subunit hasn't been officially told)
 
#20
TA Fitness Policy:

I am told that all TA soldiers will adhere to MATT (Military Annual trg tests), inc BPFA, 6 mile CFT (15-25g), swim test. CFT will grow to 8 miles by 2008. MATT will be a required pass not simply an attempt.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
spaz REME 42
beagleboy Australia 6
greysuit Armed Forces Jokes 6

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top