TA faces big cuts to save a regiment

#21
Stab, look at what i said, this is a serious suggestion
The funding those idiot children get ,could financially save at least 2bn of infantry.Most of them have no intention of ever joining up, and they spend 2 years doing the training that a TA recruit does in 3 weekends then basic training
This way at least we'll have the 'trained' pool of soldiers to draw from, AND FEW IF ANY HAVE COMMITMENTS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM MOBILISATION.
Also the TA will potentially get more junior officers , an identified shortage they already know about.
 
#22
Ok then.

A r'einforced platoon' is about right. A reduction in numbers from about 250 to about 40 is a pretty fair estimate when the punters are all faced with a TA unit of real people, most of whom don't have degrees and have no intention of getting one - gosh!

Not to mention that the obligations for list A and list B are entirely different. Not to mention that even if some did go on list A most would have appealed mobilisation due to studies. Not to mention that TA's job is to reinforce reg army by individual or sub-unit, while OTC's is a PR exercise (see other threads; main purpose is to increase %age of civvies in 'decision making' positions in industry who are well disposed to the Army).

I've no problem with the funding issue - fine, spend the money saved on OTCs wisely, but as for merging them into the TA? Nope. Students can join the TA anyway - OTCs exist for an entirely different purpose.

Was the ACF mentioned in that post as well? Yeah, I'd like to see a platoon of 14 year olds in the company.....

Can't see it myself.
 
#24
I reckon you'd be hard-pushed to get most members of an OTC to actually sign on the dotted line to a call-up liability. As someone's already said, many join because that's not what the OTC does.
Plus, and I'm not saying OTC training is by any means "bad," but it would have to be stepped up considerably should they be presented with that sort of commitment.
 
#25
This has been said before and no doubt it'll be said again...

Undergraduates are NOT LIABLE FOR MOBILISATION. They are, by definition, in full time education and that puts them out of the picture. The only ones for whom this is not the case are those who have graduated within the previous 12 months and have not yet either resigned or transfered to a Type-A TA unit.

Does anyone actually have the budget figures for either the TA generally or the OTCs particularly. I suspect that in purely budgetary terms the TA is providing far more in real terms than its raw budget would suggest, whilst the OTC are actually expensive, in "I've been shopping, Darling" terms, they represent a vanishingly small proportion of the TA's budget and that in turn is paltry in MoD numbers.
 
#27
claymore said:
....not to mention OTC's role as a recruitment pool for the spooks. 8)
and a valuable source of wives for PSIs hoping for short-lived marriages and complications back in battalion, and for 'third parties' in divorce cases.
 
#28
stabtastic said:
claymore said:
....not to mention OTC's role as a recruitment pool for the spooks. 8)
and a valuable source of wives for PSIs hoping for short-lived marriages and complications back in battalion, and for 'third parties' in divorce cases.
That about covers it, I think. :lol:
 
#29
Army scholars and those awarded busaries are required to attend the UOTC as a function of the award.

An article in the Telegraph last year indicated 210 busaries awarded each year - say 600 students at University in the UOTC at any one time.

There are 19 UOTCs which according to my Maths is about a platoon of soon to be regular army officers per UOTC. I don't think thats a bad return, and I'm sure that they represent a significant minority of any UOTC.
 
#30
Bursars are required to join the OTC as a function of their award but they are not required to attend so long as they can show that they have other things to do. In my day, Baaaah!, bursars and cadetship officers formed a core within the corps (do you see what I did there...?) as well as collecting our blues or whatever else it was that needed doing. Now, in my experience, its unsual to see most bursars at anything other than mandatory annual events where they are looked upon as pariahs.

If they're not willing to join the OTC on the back of the commitment requirement, then you're unlikely to find any signing up for TA soldier service, even with the new TAPO system (or whatever it's called...)
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#31
Tommy said:
TA faces big cuts to save a regiment
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 13/12/2004)

The Territorial Army is to be cut by 40 per cent in a move that could save one of the four infantry regiments due to be axed this week.

The cuts to the TA will be part of a major revamp demanded by ministers after too few of its soldiers declared themselves available for operations in Iraq.
This has made me f**king furious. I have lads who are on their SECOND TELIC tour - they volunteered even though they were still in the embargo period. Nearly everyone in my unit has done TELIC or a Balkans - its easier to count those that have not - and they're waiting for the brown envelope to arrive.

The sick, lame, lazy and bounty hunters have long gone. The Torygraph HQ should hang its f**king head in shame after falling for this piece of spineless kite flying by some cowardly politico.

A pox on them all :evil:
 
#32
well said, fozzy. F*cking nightwa*tchmen (see poetry thread!)

If there is any truth in this Torygraph story, any reorganisation will result in the loss of capable personnel who currently hold themselves available for mobilisation. You cant discharge everyone who has not been available for recent expeditionary operations, without making a swathe of units and subunits across the country non-viable. Not to mention the loss of more experienced members who havent been available this time round due to the stage of their careers or whatever.

Of course everyone in the reserve forces must accept the duty and liability to be mobilised in extreme national emergency. If the terms of service have now been changed to an obligation to volunteer whenever the regular army is overstretched (ie all the time), the Government will have to review terms of service and pay more for the commitment.

BTW, can someone please come up with a new and preferably more insulting nickname for the Torygraph? As several Conservative MPs HAVE served on Telic and as this kind of story is inspired by the present Govt NOT HM Opposition, it seems increasingly unfair to keep tarring the Tories with the same brush. Any ideas? Over to you, ladies and gentlemen.
 
#33
I suspect the Torygraph gleefully ran the story knowing full well that much of the brown stuff would be heading the way of MoD, rather than as an attempt to undermine the TA.

If this isn't the case, then how about the Blairygraph?
 
#34
Whilst talking over a cup of coffee we were discussing the this and we were both quite angry, during the conversation we joked that maybe they were going to cut those units where mobilisation had worked as they were no longer liable for 2 years or so 8O

Then it hit me, maybe that is the plan, as I understand it some units establishments are being reduced even where they had a large number deploy on telic or do service in the Balkans :evil:

just think if they cut the Black Watch why couldnt they cut the TA that served?
 
#35
The story has to be a pile pap. A reduction of the TA would involve a big change in the regulars to cover TA G4/G6 roles (a large increase in the size of the AMS for starters, new signal regiments, new loggie regiments etc, that would also mean the loss of a Bde or two and possibly cut/reroling of 4-6 infantry battalions).

Why not cut two more regular infantry bn's - and use the money instead to (re) form 14 TA bn's allowing everycap to remain (i.e. Black Watch would be TA only)
 
#36
polar said:
The story has to be a pile pap. A reduction of the TA would involve a big change in the regulars to cover TA G4/G6 roles (a large increase in thesize of the AMS for starters, new signal regiments, new loggie regiments etc, that would also mean the loss of a Bde or two and possibly cut/reroling of 4-6 infantry battalions).

Why not cut two more regular infantry bn's - and use the money instead to (re) form 14 TA bn's allowing everycap to remain (i.e. Black Watch would be TA only)
had to chuckle at that, since we can't recruit new bods anyway, people are leaving hand over fist, and now we have agenda for change to cope with!

Sorry, ranting on the wrong board 8O
 
#37
Can't see the Duke of Westminster swallowing this one - 40% ??? Sounds like someone's had the consultants in :lol:

What p*sses me off is that this sort of sh*te is actually said by someone - even journos can't make this stuff up. It's a kite flying exercise and some low level spin doctor has fed the story to the Telegraph for a reason.

I think the reason may be:-

1. Take the heat off the Regular cuts - why not ? It's not actually about saving money these days, it's all about 'headcount'. Think like bean counters. If you can say we have reduced by 3,000 pax, does it really matter to the Treasury (or the British public for that matter) that a large number of them are TA? I'll bet that the Treasury tw*ts view the TA in the same way as contractors are viewed in private enterprise - headcount is all that matters.

2. Leak to hide cuts of 20% - 'Now there, wasn't that bad was it?' This is how TCH operates, he has form on this.

Could also be a legalmine field if they started booting out those that objected on reasonable grounds - constructive dismissal.

And for the record - over 50% of my unit have gone or are on Ops - they others just haven't been asked yet.

Also, I recall that there has only been about 120 appeals since Telic began -I think someone is feeding the 'Ministers' bullsh*t.
 
#38
Hootch said:
Can't see the Duke of Westminster swallowing this one - 40% ??? Sounds like someone's had the consultants in :lol:

What p*sses me off is that this sort of sh*te is actually said by someone - even journos can't make this stuff up. It's a kite flying exercise and some low level spin doctor has fed the story to the Telegraph for a reason.

I think the reason may be:-

1. Take the heat off the Regular cuts - why not ? It's not actually about saving money these days, it's all about 'headcount'. Think like bean counters. If you can say we have reduced by 3,000 pax, does it really matter to the Treasury (or the British public for that matter) that a large number of them are TA? I'll bet that the Treasury tw*ts view the TA in the same way as contractors are viewed in private enterprise - headcount is all that matters.

2. Leak to hide cuts of 20% - 'Now there, wasn't that bad was it?' This is how TCH operates, he has form on this.

Could also be a legalmine field if they started booting out those that objected on reasonable grounds - constructive dismissal.

And for the record - over 50% of my unit have gone or are on Ops - they others just haven't been asked yet.

Also, I recall that there has only been about 120 appeals since Telic began -I think someone is feeding the 'Ministers' bullsh*t.
Agreed except ref "legal minefield" - no employment protection, and TA has been arbitrarily cut many times before.

Ref the "120 appeals", some of those must have been justified. If this figure is correct, only one inf coy's worth have appealed.
 
#39
Hootch said:
And for the record - over 50% of my unit have gone or are on Ops - they others just haven't been asked yet.
Well mine must up for cuts if this is a real story - compulsary mobilised around 10 voluntarily mobilised 30 - which is about 5%..... but we're still looking at expanding..... confused :?
 
#40
The first big mistake the Govt made was to lump the TA budget in with the Army budget. Until trots'r'us bluffed their way to power the two were separate.

Wait and see what happens but don't be surprised if another load of turkeys vote for Christmas.
 

Latest Threads

Top