Weekend warriors no longer

#1
Sorry, fat fingers, I deleted the whole thread, not just the dribble:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qcjdn

Martin Bell investigates how the part-time Territorial Army is surviving full-time warfare.

The TA was at one time dismissed as 'weekend warriors', but now the military admit they couldn't do without them. Martin finds out what makes ordinary people want to give up their civilian life to fight in Afghanistan.

HAHAHAHA. Still didn't stop them from cutting the last £20m from the training budget.

msr
 
#2
Well, when they slash 20000 from the regular army, and 10000 from the Navy and RAF, they can use the TA numbers to make the cuts look less like Pol Pot's killing fields. Good PR all round.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#3
msr said:
Sorry, fat fingers, I deleted the whole thread, not just the dribble:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qcjdn

Martin Bell investigates how the part-time Territorial Army is surviving full-time warfare.

The TA was at one time dismissed as 'weekend warriors', but now the military admit they couldn't do without them. Martin finds out what makes ordinary people want to give up their civilian life to fight in Afghanistan.

HAHAHAHA. Still didn't stop them from cutting the last £20m from the training budget.

msr
Ta, I thought I was on the naughty step....
 
#4
Forced to choose between adequate provision for the regulars and saving the TA, they've had a good run but it would appear we can't afford both. The changes that are going to start happening in the regular army will have a long term detrimental cascading affect to our country's defence capability. The vastly extended deployment of TA personnel results from limitations within the regular, I'm not sure you can justify taking more from the regular and still pumping money elsewhere to the point where the Army as an organisation suffers. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely the fault of the Government and the MoD, but I'd rather the TA got the shittier end of the stick than the regular Army. 20% of it's number to be slashed in the next 10 years and still expected to carry on as usual? Something's got to give.
 
#5
IMO, the damage has already been done to the TA, inasmuch as that for 102 years it has been seen largely as a joke by both the general public and large elements of the regular army.
The fact that there isn't a trained member of my squadron who hasn't got operational experience of one kind or another, and we have lost a member in an ied incident makes no difference, we will always be seen as playing at soldiers - ied's and bullets seem to be one of the few things that don't argue the "Regular and Territorial; one army" line.
 
#6
shape.when.wet said:
Forced to choose between adequate provision for the regulars and saving the TA, they've had a good run but it would appear we can't afford both. The changes that are going to start happening in the regular army will have a long term detrimental cascading affect to our country's defence capability. The vastly extended deployment of TA personnel results from limitations within the regular, I'm not sure you can justify taking more from the regular and still pumping money elsewhere to the point where the Army as an organisation suffers. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely the fault of the Government and the MoD, but I'd rather the TA got the shittier end of the stick than the regular Army. 20% of it's number to be slashed in the next 10 years and still expected to carry on as usual? Something's got to give.
so whats 20mil going to do for you then?
when it seems todo alot more for us STABS,
and if were not wanted or "needed" why are there 1200 STABS on the ground every year not including the FTRS post (yes i know these are getting smaller)

well done for starting this into another us and them post :roll:
 
#7
I think it would be a terrible shame if the TA went. However, if one accepts that one cannot do anything at all about the PFI deals and part privatisation of the Army and the procurement strategy that costs billions and are the zeroth order problem with financing defence, then just look at the way the TA is run. Some top guys not withstanding I was truly disappointed with the TA.

I found the lack of discipline astonishing, and it's a good thing boards are so selective about the TA personnel they do deploy, for to mobilise en mass would be a disaster. I've seen Officers who've been in post 10 years or more claiming over 110 days a year, who don't think twice about billing the TA for a quarter or half day's pay for a phone call. That combined with mileage they take home over £12,000, which isn't far off a regular soldier's training salary in their first year working full time.

The TA is brilliant in a lot of ways, AT, a taste of the Army and mobilising a few civilians with exceptional ability, training or enthusiasm. The previous model was great in times of plenty but limit the funds and the model must adapt or the organisation can not be justified.
 
#8
a taste of the Army and mobilising a few civilians with exceptional ability,
Imagine if your attitude had been the attitude in WW2? Where would the troops have come from? Believe it or not you were a civvie at one time. The TA is a good recruiting tool for the regs as it gives that taste
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#9
spad said:
shape.when.wet said:
Forced to choose between adequate provision for the regulars and saving the TA, they've had a good run but it would appear we can't afford both. The changes that are going to start happening in the regular army will have a long term detrimental cascading affect to our country's defence capability. The vastly extended deployment of TA personnel results from limitations within the regular, I'm not sure you can justify taking more from the regular and still pumping money elsewhere to the point where the Army as an organisation suffers. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely the fault of the Government and the MoD, but I'd rather the TA got the shittier end of the stick than the regular Army. 20% of it's number to be slashed in the next 10 years and still expected to carry on as usual? Something's got to give.
so whats 20mil going to do for you then?
when it seems todo alot more for us STABS,
and if were not wanted or "needed" why are there 1200 STABS on the ground every year not including the FTRS post (yes i know these are getting smaller)

well done for starting this into another us and them post :roll:
Put simply, out of an establishment of around 30,000 that figure is not deemed to be an acceptable return on investment.

People will now chip in with comments about "never using your reserve" because they do not understand that a reserve is there to be used but must be reconstituted, or "if they need us they should call for us" etc.

All points with some validity and discussed to death, but the bottom line is that viewed in the context of Op ENTIRETY, the TA as it is currently structured does not provide value for money.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#11
msr said:
Then LAND should ask for more.
Great soundbite, but frankly ridiculous. Do you imagine that they haven't?

That is as logical as The_Duchess spending more than I earn and then suggesting that the solution is as easy as me walking into my boss and demanding a payrise.

In reality, the first thing to do is look towards your non-essential spending and seeing where savings can be made. Frankly, there are areas across the whole military budget that can be classed as non-essential. These include elements of the TA, OTC, Cadets, AT, SLA and SFA refurbishments, T&E etc - hence the recent cuts.
 
#12
The_Duke said:
spad said:
shape.when.wet said:
Forced to choose between adequate provision for the regulars and saving the TA, they've had a good run but it would appear we can't afford both. The changes that are going to start happening in the regular army will have a long term detrimental cascading affect to our country's defence capability. The vastly extended deployment of TA personnel results from limitations within the regular, I'm not sure you can justify taking more from the regular and still pumping money elsewhere to the point where the Army as an organisation suffers. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely the fault of the Government and the MoD, but I'd rather the TA got the shittier end of the stick than the regular Army. 20% of it's number to be slashed in the next 10 years and still expected to carry on as usual? Something's got to give.
so whats 20mil going to do for you then?
when it seems todo alot more for us STABS,
and if were not wanted or "needed" why are there 1200 STABS on the ground every year not including the FTRS post (yes i know these are getting smaller)

well done for starting this into another us and them post :roll:
Put simply, out of an establishment of around 30,000 that figure is not deemed to be an acceptable return on investment.

People will now chip in with comments about "never using your reserve" because they do not understand that a reserve is there to be used but must be constituted, or "if they need us they should call for us" etc.

All points with some validity and discussed to death, but the bottom line is that viewed in the context of Op ENTIRETY, the TA as it is currently structured does not provide value for money.
By the same token, the Regular Army can only manage to deploy 9,000 in Afghanistan...
 
#13
msr said:
Then LAND should ask for more.
I think they frequently do! I was told be someone there that one of the causes to the present axe facing the regulars was to do with bean counters over-estimating both effective numbers and equipment, the books looked swelled by 20% so had to be sliced. These numbers had nothing to do with the actual state or even projected state of the Army. MoD have a lot to answer for in this case. Now you have hundreds of very good Officers who had expected to convert to a Regular Commission for example, being told there just aren't the spaces because they have to make cuts. Meanwhile you have one person doing the jobs of 2, getting a duff post and rapidly becoming disgruntled and less apt at putting up with things like being away from their families for extended periods of time.

A friend of mine with some 28 years in who regularly works 12 hour days because they're too short staffed in some shite hole in Germany, has just had his next posting changed 2 months before he's due to go, because they know he is doing the work of 2 people and they don't want to lose him. I'm pretty sure he's had enough.

On the other hand, a friend of mine works in Main Building recently told me last year they had a quiet cull of 25% of their staff, so I suppose they now know what it's like to be over-burdened.

The state of our defence funding is far worse than I think anyone appreciates. Money's going from everywhere, not just the TA, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
 
#14
shape.when.wet said:
The state of our defence funding is far worse than I think anyone appreciates. Money's going from everywhere, not just the TA, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
We'll not disagree there...
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#15
9000 per rotation, 18000 per year vs the TA 600 per rotation, 1200 per year.

The regular army also mans Cyprus (less the TA sunshine and Keo tour intervals), FI, Kuwait/Iraq draw down etc, etc, etc.
 
#16
Regular 100000 appox strength divide by 18000 per year equals 18% (Full time job)
TA 30000 appox strength divide by 1200 per year equals 2.5% (part time job)

Bearing in mind that 9000 is the total strength which combines the RAF and NAVY
1200 is just TA you have RNR RMR RauxAF on top of the 1200

Then as for the guys claiming everything they can. I know and can shame 2 regs that will claim every bit they can including the £5 a day un receipted allowance,
So it’s not just a TA thing!

and before someone cries that I should report them, STAB reporting a reg is going to fall on deaf ears and upset the balance with in our close knit regiment.