• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

TA Article in British Army Review

#1
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?
 

Attachments

#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
TopBadger said:
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.
. Like what
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#5
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
msr said:
Graduated Commitment Model for starters
. 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.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
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
the_creature said:
msr said:
Graduated Commitment Model for starters
. 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.
If you have nothing positive to contribute, please can you make your contribution elsewhere?
 
#11
msr said:
the_creature said:
msr said:
Graduated Commitment Model for starters
. 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.
If you have nothing positive to contribute, please can you make your contribution elsewhere?
. 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.
 
#14
msr said:
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?
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
the_creature said:
msr said:
Graduated Commitment Model for starters
. 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.
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.
 
#16
The TA is dead, or at least being killed by "thought speak". I can think of 3 occasions when senior officers have said Territorial Army or TA in a conversation and then automatically corrected themselves and said "oh sorry, I meant the reserve"
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
Bravo_Bravo said:
Ugly

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

BB
Thanks, done that and commented a little, not about the model but about the attempted witch hunt!
 
#18
Comment on the 'response to the article:


● Firstly the future of the TA is not uncertain; Brigadier General Staff (BGS) is currently undertaking a detailed examination of what the requirement for the future TA and Reserves will be. Until BGS has
reached his conclusions there is no change to role and size. Future Army Structures Next Steps (FAS NS) may well have a different operational requirement than currently exists.


Um, excuse me, but this statement is a contradiction in terms. If BGS is undertaking a 'detailed examination' then it IS uncertain - by definition.

● The temporary reduction in training that hit the headlines in 2009 were measures taken after careful consideration and proportional to the TA’s requirement to be placed on a Campaign footing to support operations in Afghanistan.

Knee jerk short termism to save a few sheckles in the hope that it would divert attention from the regular budget morelike.

● The size of the TA reflects the Regular Army reserve requirement and this is currently based on large Scale Deliberate Intervention type operations.

Which we all know is to be removed from the next iteration of the TA Mission and thus anything could happen - if that's not uncertain, I don't know what is.

● The TA has a very important role to play with Community Engagement and the footprint it lays down is at the forefront of this. (There are currently over 370 TAC locations with 47 of these sites Infantry Platoon
out stations).


Ha ha ha ha - being in the TA 'is' community engagement - we are the community! The TA is neither funded, trained, or has the necessary critical mass or equipment to properly engage with the Community. This is sloping shoulder exercise to hand off the onus to the TA.

● The Strategic Review of Reserves is far from ‘dead’. Work is ongoing across 3 strands (Define Capabilities Required, Develop the Graduated Commitment Model, and Develop Options for TA C2 and Estate Laydown) with 15 of the recommendations already in place and a further 32 on track for completion. This work has been shaped and complemented by the development work carried out by CRF (now AG) and D Reserves (A) in early 2009.

Oh yeah.....of course.
 
#19
Having read through it in about 5 minutes the article and response were so bad I can't be bothered to even think of anything clever to say. Andoyne, dull and lightweight.

If nobody in the army can not be bothered to write an article that reflects the intellectual depth that sometimes pops up in BAR then what's the point ? Has anyone actually given any real thought to the structure of the Army as a whole? At the moment it looks like the shite dribbled out by New Labour Spin Doctors.

You might be able to tell I'm not impressed
 
#20
Kitmarlowe said:
Having read through it in about 5 minutes the article and response were so bad I can't be bothered to even think of anything clever to say. Andoyne, dull and lightweight.

If nobody in the army can not be bothered to write an article that reflects the intellectual depth that sometimes pops up in BAR then what's the point ? Has anyone actually given any real thought to the structure of the Army as a whole? At the moment it looks like the shite dribbled out by New Labour Spin Doctors.

You might be able to tell I'm not impressed
If you are going to have a pop at the author and reply, you badly need to come up with something better...
 

Latest Threads