TA faces big cuts to save a regiment

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#61
Mr H - if you get a wealth of ex-Regs, then you are extremely lucky! Most of the TA get very, very few ex-Regs, and I would presume that the number will get even fewer now that they will have so much opportunity for Foreign Travel 8O

As to people joining up to be Infantry, well, most people just join their local TA Unit - loyalty comes later. I have known - and served with - many Soldiers who have had more than one cap-badge, while serving at the same TA Centre. The record I know is 4 Corps/Regiments, not just re-badging (e.g. not Queen's to PWRR).

What it boils down to is that it is essential to keep the TA Centres open, and keep on recruiting - any more closures could affect the 'critical mass' of the TA; we're perilously close to the edge as it is.
 
#62
HVM_Boy said:
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0

Sir – If it is true that ministers are "angry" at the inability of the Territorial Army to mobilise for operations in Iraq/Afghanistan (News, Dec 13), I suggest they direct their anger towards the Regular Army, not the TA.

In January 2003, my unit was given the task of providing in excess of 100 soldiers for the war-fighting phase of Operation Telic 1 (the invasion of Iraq).

To my knowledge, only one soldier in my sub-unit asked not to be mobilised and his reasons were legitimate. Of those who were mobilised, the only ones who stayed behind were those who failed to meet either medical or dental requirements.

A further deployment on Telic took place from my unit, taking the percentage of those mobilised (and eligible to be so) to approximately 60 per cent of the total strength. This was within a 12-month period. If this is not good enough, ministers should ask the Regular Army why soldiers in the TA are not being used.

I am tired of the criticisms being aimed at the TA. If ministers want more TA to be mobilised, they should express that wish through the MoD and the chain of command.

It seems clear that the real reason for non-deployment is a lack of trust on the part of the Regular Army in their TA counterparts.

Finally, if the Prime Minister wants to continue to deploy the Armed Forces, might I suggest he ensures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer funds the military adequately?

Name and address supplied
Sir – The Territorial Army will not reduce in size by 40 per cent. In fact, we do not anticipate that we will need to change the size of the TA significantly from what it is today under our planned restructuring of the Army.

Our strategy for the TA and regular reserves is to make the best use of the broad range of specialist skills they offer, to fortify the overall capability of the Army. As such, the reserves will be more closely aligned with the evolving structure of the Army. This may require slight readjustments to TA units to ensure they can reinforce the Regular Army, and we will announce these small but necessary changes to the TA's structure this week.

The debate around how best to restructure the Army to meet the demanding challenges of the 21st century is not served by wild and inaccurate speculation.

Adam Ingram, Minister for Armed Forces, London SW1
Noted that Ingram only denies the "40% reduction" part of the D Telegraph stories. He could easily have disposed of the allegation that "Ministers are angry" etc, but he didnt. TA members have already convincingly argued on this site and the above Tel letter that there is in fact no reason for ministers to be "angry" about the mobilisation response. You have to wonder what information has been fed to ministers - unlike all previous governments, none of them have any military background to be able to recognise bullshit when they see it.
 
#63
we do not anticipate that we will need to change the size of the TA significantly

This may require slight readjustments to TA units
Stand by , this is going to hurt.

The TA were not in the frame 2 weeks ago , well not publicly so anyway, and now we are. Every time I hear the phrase "Not significant" or "slight" from a Governement Minister's mouth , I fear the worst

"Slight over-run of Typhoon II budget"

"The budget for the building of 2 new capital ships , will not be significantly increased by these design delays"


This may require slight readjustments to TA units to ensure they can reinforce the Regular Army, and we will announce these small but necessary changes to the TA's structure this week.
This is almost the exact phrasing from SDR.
 
#64
PartTimePongo said:
Stand by , this is going to hurt.

The TA were not in the frame 2 weeks ago , well not publicly so anyway, and now we are. Every time I hear the phrase "Not significant" or "slight" from a Governement Minister's mouth , I fear the worst
I hope your wrong, but rumours do indicate disbandment of most of the TA regts formed at SDR, small increase in the number of Coys to facilitate the new units and possibly enlarged/proper Bn HQ's with support plns.

Could a cut in the TA have been formed this rapidly or is this the warning off for cuts in April
 
#65
If it is disbandment and a return to our organisatio Pre-SDR , brilliant.

But I doubt it.

Since SDR, my Battalion as was , has lost one drill hall, bulldozed, sold to Tesco's , another taken up by the local UOTC , and I can't see them going back to their previous accomodation. Another drill hall we used to "own" , we are now guests in.

That leaves us with one , maybe 3 if we enlarged our share of drill halls. They're not going to build more TACS , I think we can agree on that.

Therefore , either we will get another detached COY , or as I fear, our 2nd Battalion will be chopped , and us with it.
 
#66
OldSnowy said:
Sorry, but there are STILL too many TA Inf Units. The numbers of TA Infantry are not, and never have been (since the end of the Cold War), justified - they are there for political reasons only ......


So, although many Inf have been and are being called up for 'force protection' reasons, we would stillbe far better off as an Army with more TA CS and CSS Units, rather than TA Infantry. Sorry, but it's the truth.
OS: if you had to go to MNDSE and have a TA unit as Guard Force, would you rather have an Infantry unit, or some Signallers?

I think its the Inf that have the worst manning figures, and so most need of TA infills and in-role deployments such as FINGAL.
 
#67
Where I work significant change is above 10% of original figures, ie 4100 8O So you could cut 4000 and be ok. :evil:

Also I'm sure these changes will effect most Corps, even Signals units will have reduced establishments.
 
#68
Basically, the whole shooting match, Army, TA, Navy and RAF are all f*cked.

None of the proposals hold water or make any sense, no matter how you look at them.

All in all bitterly disappointed and disillusioned.
 
#69
PartTimePongo said:
If it is disbandment and a return to our organisatio Pre-SDR , brilliant.
I didn't mean disbandment in that sense, more the breaking up of regiments so they match the new regular bn's.

Some adjustments may have to made 1 new coy for the new 4 RAng bn. 1-2 new coys for the new Mercian TA Bns - 3 (Cheshire & Staffs) and 4 (WFR) Bn's and poss something similar for 1 & 2 Volunteer Bns Yorkshire Regt
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#71
We should get rid of the RNR:

1. They've no boats
2. They're no good in Basrah
3. The rank system is complicated and gives me a headache
 

Top