Searching for a Future/Securing the Past

#1
I have been reading, with interest, the thread about employing TA personnel and reflecting on my time since I have both served and been in the civilian workforce. In my opinion there needs to be a review both by government and other agencies to work out just what is happening and where we as a country are heading before there is a great big bloody disaster.

The combined size of the regular military is now so small that it is in danger of imploding and that is understandable. The government continues to, it seems, without any consequences lumber this ever depleting force with more and more commitments oblivious to the fact that this has a debilitating result on each and every member irrespective of rank and arm.

The TA is now being used , in my opinion, in the same way that Regular Reserves were intended to be used that is back up in times of need. That is sloppy, crap management and taking the cheap option to the detriment of those who serve.

The role of the TA should be basically Home Defence unless there is a General Call to Arms, that is to say we are invaded or war is declared.
Government, who mostly do not have any experience of anything military and that includes a lot of the whozzos on the General Staff need to understand that having a military presence doesnt come cheap and having a world class military is fcucking expensive.

With the best will in the world who would be a career soldier now the way in which they and their families are treated. The whole bag of crap needs a major review and they need to stop trying to run things on the cheap it costs live and anguish.
Finally I would remind all of you that this has been discussed to my knowledge for about the last 40 years and it is still not sorted.

Its time for a proper review and not relying on the TA, as good as they can be to back up and bail out bad planning
 
#2
An easy answer would be to create three broad types of reserve for the Army, with mission specific roles i.e.

(i) the inactive (Regular) Reserve, although an annual kit check, MATT Level 3 training/testing might prove useful (with a tax-free bounty thrown in as an inducement, set at the call-out gratuity level, for example)

(ii) the General War (Territorial Army Group A) Reserve with units roled for UK Ops or Regular Army reinforcement according to need

(iii) the High-Readiness Reserve, with IRs roled for UK Ops or again Regular Army reinforcement (predominantly specialists, so based upon the National TA)

Ultimately, functionality is key, but can the new team at the top recognise this?
 
#3
An easy answer would be to create three broad types of reserve for the Army, with mission specific roles i.e.

(i) the inactive (Regular) Reserve, although an annual kit check, MATT Level 3 training/testing might prove useful (with a tax-free bounty thrown in as an inducement, set at the call-out gratuity level, for example)

(ii) the General War (Territorial Army Group A) Reserve with units roled for UK Ops or Regular Army reinforcement according to need

(iii) the High-Readiness Reserve, with IRs roled for UK Ops or agin Regular Army reinforcement (predominantly specialists, so based upon the National TA)

Ultimately, functionality is key, but can the new team at the top recognise this?
That's an excellent suggestion, just a shame those clowns at the top can't think of something along those lines
 
#4
Nothing will be done until the British army loses a war. Then all hell will let lose and the politicians will look at each other wide-eyed and wonder where it all went so wrong.
 
#7
You're not wrong, but the price will be good men (and women's) lives.
You know what though when you think about it. It's a ******* scary prospect that we'd have to lose to have something like this brought in really.
 
#8
An easy answer would be to create three broad types of reserve for the Army, with mission specific roles i.e.

(i) the inactive (Regular) Reserve, although an annual kit check, MATT Level 3 training/testing might prove useful (with a tax-free bounty thrown in as an inducement, set at the call-out gratuity level, for example)

(ii) the General War (Territorial Army Group A) Reserve with units roled for UK Ops or Regular Army reinforcement according to need

(iii) the High-Readiness Reserve, with IRs roled for UK Ops or again Regular Army reinforcement (predominantly specialists, so based upon the National TA)

Ultimately, functionality is key, but can the new team at the top recognise this?
That sounds remarkably like 1968/1971 (when I took the Queen’s shilling in the TA / when I was commissioned in the TA) :)
 
#10
The combined size of the regular military is now so small that it is in danger of imploding and that is understandable. The government continues to, it seems, without any consequences lumber this ever depleting force with more and more commitments

The TA is now being used ,
The whole Armed services have always been used by the upper echelons of the "Establishment" my friend, always has been, always will be.

On the other side of the coin, i suppose "we" have used the military by way of gaining whole variety of skills to help propel us through life, as well as personal satisfaction of knowing our own personal limitations.

As for the combined size of the regular military being so small that it is in danger of imploding, i would agree with you that it will soon have to come to a dramatic conclusion sooner or later regarding the pace of sustained cutbacks especially since the end of the cold war!

May be in another 10-20 years the United states will fight our battles for us if we agree to be their 51st state. :)
 
#12
That sounds remarkably like 1968/1971 (when I took the Queen’s shilling in the TA / when I was commissioned in the TA) :)
It's remarkably like it was before the amalgamation of the TA with the Volunteer Reserves which became the TAVR. Also at the same time anyone demobbed could still be called to the colours for a fixed period as a reservist.
 
#13
Nothing will be done until the British army loses a war. Then all hell will let lose and the politicians will look at each other wide-eyed and wonder where it all went so wrong.
How do you define a loss though? Losing the most troops in battle, or running out of money quickest? Our gormless politicos will continue to sport vacant expressions regardless of which occurs first.
 
#14
How do you define a loss though? Losing the most troops in battle, or running out of money quickest? Our gormless politicos will continue to sport vacant expressions regardless of which occurs first.
We haven't lost the most blokes yet, thank God, but we're doing a good job of running out of dosh. Our lords and masters aren't up to much, but Philip Hammond (my local MP) strikes me as an honourable man who is trying to do his best. I thought that he was a good Sec of State for Transport, although I didn't agree with him about shitcanning Airtrack; nevertheless, it proves that he is able to make difficult decisions. I guess that his next difficult decision will be which equipment platforms to chin-off next and how many more Regulars to sack. The problem is that Libya has deluded Cameron and Osborne (Hammond doesn't really come into this and, as for Cleggy, he's nowhere) into thinking that regime change can be done on the cheap, even though we lacked the maritime and air assets to do it properly and relied on large degree of luck, combined with a little i.e. a lot of help from our (French) friends.
 
#15
Your missing the point, we don't need a military anymore, we have moneyed men in Saville row suits who have never served, to look after us now!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#17
H-M
I agree with you that Cameron now thinks regime change is easy and cheap. Trouble is, if our armed forces continue to shrink with subsequent consequencies to skills and capacity, then that change may just happen on these shores.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using Tapatalk
 
#18
Nothing changes does it. The reason why I started this thread is that it really needs to get an airing because society has changed and the demands placed on society have. I dont mean to be heavy but this is a very serious subject and it needs addressing before we get to the point of implosion and the point of no return which is when we lose.

Consider: It used to be said that it took 3 years to train an infantryman. not to perfection, to standard. Continuation training then carried on from there. Is that still the case?
Training is dependant on the individual being released from normal duties to undertake that training. Is that still the case?
Deployments appear to be more frequent and for longer periods causing grief to those with families, the families themselves and to the general well being of those family units where those who will serve are more likely to be seniors and the more experienced in their role

Civilian companies who may employ reservists will be tending to be smaller (industrial trends) and in harsh economic climates which are inclined to persist are unlikely to be able to sustain an absent employee, particularly in a technical or skilled role.

I can remember it being discussed many years ago at which time I seem to recall there were in excess of half a million serving.At that stage the talk was of rationalising command structures and combining the three services into one.Frankly I havent seen any sign of of a rethink at all only increased deployments and all those on the sideline waiting for something to give.
 
#20
An easy answer would be to create three broad types of reserve for the Army, with mission specific roles i.e.

(i) the inactive (Regular) Reserve, although an annual kit check, MATT Level 3 training/testing might prove useful (with a tax-free bounty thrown in as an inducement, set at the call-out gratuity level, for example)

(ii) the General War (Territorial Army Group A) Reserve with units roled for UK Ops or Regular Army reinforcement according to need

(iii) the High-Readiness Reserve, with IRs roled for UK Ops or again Regular Army reinforcement (predominantly specialists, so based upon the National TA)

Ultimately, functionality is key, but can the new team at the top recognise this?
The problem is this is a really good idea, if you can come up with original and workable ideas you tend to find high paid employment where your brains can take you to the top. People who think like this dont go into politics where being a prick following the party line no matter how retarded and ******* over people is the way to advance oneself.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top