While thinking about a witty retort to add to http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=105542.html , it occurred to me that what I was going to write was, possibly, a little close to the truth. You decide. Discussing the relative merits of joining the RA(V) or RE(V), I was going to comment that, in the event of mobilisation, at least the RE stand a reasonable chance of doing what they'd been trained to do. Take this a little further. Once an operation passes beyond the war-fighting phase, the requirement for large numbers of artillerymen reduces substantially. I'm guessing, but I surmise that the Regular component of the RA probably have sufficient personnel to staff their (gun-manning)roulements without the need of much asssistance from RA(V). Obviously, if the RA role as infantry (as in Telic 2+), then they'll need extra bods, but then the emphasis would be infantry-trained, rather than artillery-trained. Ultimately, will we be looking at the disbanding of much of RA(V), to be replaced with Infantry or other units that are in short supply, when somebody cottons on that the expense of training is largely unjustified? Sorry if this appears to be a dig at RA(V). It's not meant to be. I could have picked RSigs instead, but their allocation of the defence budget generally returns to the G10 shelves at the end of the weekend, rather than being expended to redistribute parts of training areas. If the current philosophy of using the TA as individual supplements rather than as formed units continues, can we expect to see the TA ceasing to be a "Reserve Army" due to the loss of the various components that distinguish the difference between an army and a pool of substitutes?