Statistics - got any?

We're all interested in the TA of today and that of the future - but much of what we think about or comment on is often anecdotal or hearsay - have you got any really factual statistics?

Like, say the TA (exc OTC) is really only 28,659 whereas two years ago, it was 30,567?*

I'm sure that serial posters on these threads have access to some really interesting (unrestricted and would normally be within the public domain) numbers.....any takers?

* PS I made this up (although my suspicions are that it's not far off the truth...)
Mostly from memory:

35,300 including UOTC, NRPS, untrained etc.
deduct 4,300 for UOTC
deduct 1,080 for NRPS

= 29,920

Untrained strength is about 10,000 (well, was last year)

Trained strength: ca. 20,000

Of which qualified for bounty: about 15,000

The effective strength of the TA is between 15 and 20,000
On a similar tack - does anyone have any stats that relate not only to the "deployable" ability - (I tend to go along with Sapukay's 15 -20k), but also what the average length of service / experience is for the deployable strength?

Is the "reserve" in all senses, more stretched than at any point in the past?

Not after a ruck, but there are many threads here, that woud indicate that the reserve is suffering overstretch in some respects.

Is the TA more or less overstretched than the regular army?
I wouldn't say the TA is over stretched but very much under-funded, cost cutting has a large impact on retention. The more the TA seem to be getting used on operations the less training can be done due to budget constraints. Our vehicle fleet is falling apart, MTD’s are being cut or capped, training weekend cancelled and although many TA soldiers would commit more we get no support from the government i.e. A reserve force in a similar style to the US or Australia. :x
I refer honourable members to Mr Ingram's contribution to a parliamentary debate on 26 Apr 07

I could ask, "What do we all intend to do about it?" There is an issue: clearly, we have a particular problem in terms of TA recruitment. It is one of the reasons why we have restructured the TA to make it more integrated into the one Army. That is beginning to pay off. Recruitment strength is currently standing at about 79 per cent., which is very low, but in 2006 we had the best recruiting period since 1999. Therefore, we must be doing something that is beginning to have a beneficial impact, but we face an uphill struggle. Interestingly, as Members will be aware, we are increasingly using reserves across all our theatres of operation—and reserves are queuing up to serve. I agree that we must address the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am unsure whether there are simple or off-the-shelf solutions. We must have intensive recruiting efforts, and we need to keep on articulating that the reserves are important and emphasising what people can get back from serving the country.
Which translated means "Following our second successive year of improved TA recruiting, TA manning is actually less than last time"

I posted some interesting public domain statistics here

a year in parliament.pdf

The DASA site is only really useful for historical information and the manning figures as at 31 Mar 07 will probably not be available for several months.

The place to look is MOD answers to PQs recorded in Hansard via the the theyworkforyou website.

In order to keep the figures up to date, it would be useful if Arrsers were to get their local MPs to ask the right questions on a regular basis.

Perhaps I am just being slightly cynical, but you may notice that ministerial replies generally seem to be constructed in such a way as to prevent straightforward comparison with previous replies. You may also note that sometimes the question appears to be (deliberately?) misunderstood with the result that a less revealing answer is given and, on occasion, some parts of the question are just straightforwardly ignored.

The other ploy used to avoid providing embarrassing statistics is to claim that data is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost - which means "the grade D (SO3 equivalent) couldn't find his/her calculator to add up a few sets of figures which could have been obtained by making a couple of phone calls - and anyway I don't want to tell you the answer"

Similar threads

Latest Threads