TA Article in British Army Review

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by msr, Mar 23, 2010.

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. msr

    msr LE

    In the spirit of promoting thought and discussion and with permission from the Editor:

    Did anyone else catch this article and the comments from Col Mike Scott?

    Attached Files:

  2. So should we be looking forward to what the BGS says in the next installment?

    I don't see how they can argue the future of the TA is certain when future plans for the TA are still being drafted... plans which may kill off the TA.
  3. . Like what
  4. msr

    msr LE

    Graduated Commitment Model for starters
  5. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Its pretty much what I offered a year or two ago, go down thw Pre WW1 German road of reserve companies to reg Bns.
  6. The original article made some good points, although the particular situation of the PWRR spread across 2 Bde areas is, I'd have thought, unusual and a tad irrelevant to the bigger picture - (though you could indeed ressemble the Portsmouth Coy with the Reading Coy and so on. It will need a new name. Why not call it 2 Wessex ?).

    I wait and see what Brig O'Brien has to say. As I've said elsewhere one idea might be that the TA will be increased - on the basis that its cheaper to use one-shot Reservists for ongoing Ops than retain a large Regular Army who have to be paid and earn pension between tours.
  7. . So training soldiers primarily for an op tour in the sandy place instead of hanging around a TAC thumbs up arse is a bad idea is it. Mabey you should consider the current situation of the British armed forces in Afghanistan. We are at war the whole armed forces has had to change because of it. I'm all for part time regulars.
  8. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Dont the americans have a similar model, albeit on the brigade level? Each US division has a National Guard brigade as part of its ToE, a "round out" brigade?
  9. msr

    msr LE

    If you have nothing positive to contribute, please can you make your contribution elsewhere?
  10. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    MSR can you enlighten me as to this model?
  11. . No
  12. I occasionally work along side Major Long and know that he speaks with a good deal of Regular experience. For him to speak as highly of the TA as he does is noteworthy IMO.
  13. Ugly

    Its been discussed in some detail on ARRSE. Possible search "GCM".

  14. No, but I have now. Gerry Long's IRCC concept has been discussed before and I would agree that in my experience in 4 different units the ones with the closest links between the unit providing PSIs and the TA unit, work the best. It helps to be geographically proximate but this can work against the TA unit in that the Permanent Staff are too easily dragged off TA work to support the Reg unit.

    Closer links TA/Reg are definitely the way forward as far as I'm concerned.
    I also think that Reg soldiers contracts should be more flexible in allowing them to go part time to support family commitments etc in much the same way just about every other public service body does, but I'm drifting off topic.

    Mike Scott is wrong to say that there are 'factual inaccuracies' in the article, there's only one and that's the SRR. Otherwise:
    - 'Currently undertaking a detailed examination' does not constitute certainty.
    - Mike Scott may believe that the proposed, hastily modified and then implemented 2009 training reductions were carefully considered and proportional, but that's a subjective opinion and there's also plenty of evidence that it was a hasty measure in response to a treasury driven MOD requirement to save money regardless (which is what it looked like from the shopfloor).
    - Long says the TA is too small to support mass mobilisation; Scott says the size of the TA reflects the regular requirement. These are different things and Long is not guilty of a 'factual inaccuracy'.
    - The point about Community Engagement is moot since loads of us commute many, many miles already; that footprint won't change much even if a number of TACs move. The presence of the TAC itself doesn't automatically mean the community is engaged; in the case of one TAC I was based at, the nearest soldier lived 2.5 miles away. I particularly like the idea of access to a decent gym, messes and sports facilities that is afforded by an on Garrison TAC, and I think this plus the wider impression of TA/Reg integration and associated credibility could actually boost recruiting. (Mind you, the PAYD facilities might counterbalance this).

    That having been said, Long should perhaps have toned down that first paragraph which comes across as overly emotional.

    He is also guilty of using that very hackneyed phrase 'The TA drinking club culture is gone'. I first heard this in 1986 when I joined as a recruit, again in 1989 when I transferred to a newly created Inf unit, in 1996 when people started getting mobilized for the Balkans, then for TELIC, then HERRICK and now here it is again. I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a drinking club culture, I've certainly never been in a unit which had one (I'm not saying there hasn't been the odd pint over the years, just that it was always fitted in around the training, not the other way round).

    Look forward to Brig O'Briens article & hope you are able to post it here in the same way.
  15. I'm not sure anyone is saying the TA should not be deployed - its the particular mechanism - GCM - thats got problems. It starts with the assumption that 27 MTDs is enough to maintain folk through periods when they are not warned off for Ops - its not enough to be useful. The assumption that folk will do a tour every 5 years means that it basically f@cks anyone looking at a real "career" in a civvy job. It seems aimed a delivering a pool of "basic" soldiers for a single tour - which is a huge waste of the actual potential out there in the TA.