Not sure either is all that accurate at present; polar bear says some units haven't had a call-up since Telic 1 which I can well believe, but it does vary and our unit has sent people for all four.
Territorial seems to suggest a Home Guard-type role.
Reserve suggests something you call on less frequently, when you are really stuck.
Any ideas for a third choice?!
To me it suggests 'local', as in 'with your mates', not local to the UK.
When they closed the TAC in Newbury, the next nearest TACs were Reading and Swindon (about 30 miles in either direction down the M4), rather unsurprisingly only a couple of people from the Coy transferred, the rest just left.
I think the benefit of having the 2 catigories of reserve is that it keeps the less deployable people in the Army, rather than kicking them out because they cant deploy at the drop of a hat. We need people to keep training recruits while the rest of the unit is away other wise units will die from lack of people.
I know HSF has a bit of a "dads army" ring to it, but it does what it says on the tin, ie if there is a problem in the UK I'll turn out, but I cant leave the kids/ job etc to play in the sand box because the Govt cut too many regs.
As for CF it is no change to the mob comit ments that we are all under now. 1 year/ mob in 3 shortly to be 1 in 5. It doe however demonstrate what we really are now: the reserve of first choice.
You're right on the stigma thing though. I would probably say I was in "the reserves" or "reserve forces" in preference to "in the TA".
Is your unit totally free of weirdos, saddos, knife/gun freaks, though? Seems to vary from one to the next but as a whole I get the impression that it's less "normal" than the Regular army. Perhaps this is unfair?
Oh yeah - see the "called up!"thread for more excuses/background for me but after inadvertedly becoming the subject of an article in the newspaper where it was claimed I had "moral objections" to going to Iraq - I had never said anything about it either way, nor even spoken to them - they had a comment from some stupid old f***er from the British Legion who had the cheek to come out with this:
Soldiering isn't just jolly japes, drinking lager and playing football!!
I'm a Territorial and proud of it. My regiment has more TA VC's than Regular ones (and it has more than most), and the TA Bns as part of 50 Div in two World Wars have a record of service second to none.
I notice pb is a Leeds Rifleman, these were the boys who were ordered to hand over their armoured cars back in the 60's. The next inspection the Inspecting Officer said 'I thought you'd handed your cars back'. Yes General we have but when the MOD sold them the officers clubbed together and bought them back for the Bn came the reply.
The Leeds Rifles band kept on soldiering even after being taken off the Army list. They were eventually reinstated as the Yorkshire Vols band and taken off the Army list under SDR. They still march on with their proud title as civvis. God bless them for their bloody minded attitude.
I look at the history of the TA and it fills me with pride. I'm not saying it's a perfect organisation but I'm proud to be a stab.
Visited the many 50 (Tyne Tyes) Div memorials last year in Normandy -cant agree with you more. Wasn't they the most sucesfull Division on D-Day and achieved the most objectives, including a well deserved VC for CSM Hollis (Green Howards).
The Leeds Rifles still soldier on as a platoon of the East & West Riding Regiment, but me I'm with the remains of the Hallams.
p.s. Any other Leeds Rifles please PM me I'd like to rejoin the Sgts Mess
I agree the name TA should go, since we've not been an army for a while and it doesn't conjour up the best impression.
Yes the PARA Reserves and SAS Reserves sounds far better than having TA tucked in at the end. Maybe it would increase recruitment to these units, but they hardly need it?
But for the rest, I think the term 'reserves' is just another ploy to break the TA's links with their past. Maybe to make them more malleable to further changes, past unit histories and local territorial regimental associations have been a major source of resistance to change (see mushrooms comments for an example).
Where you as a Para look towards your parent regiment with pride, we tend to look in at our own territorial history again with pride. Possibly this makes us less likely to join the regular part of regiment?
So I'd go for removing the Army bit and changing the name back to Territorials. (Plus this would make us STBs, doesn't have the same ring to it)
I hate to agree with a para but I do! PB until we get away from Territorial we are always going to be STABs to the ARABs.
The Bn that I joined did not have a territiorial remit beyond London and SE England with our sister Bn being Central and Southern England.
The Corps do not really have a territorial remit beyond being brigade structured so unless we are trying to go back to 1966 in our case why ressurect territorial forces. I have never considerd myself to be part of a 'county regiment' and even when we got amalgamated in 1998 quite a few of us still don't.
I still respect the old and bold of the former regimenst who were amalgamated to form us and we still carry their battle honours but they do not expect us to be like them. Recruiting may be helped in London but then again therE are so few drill halls left anywhere choice is limited anyway.