What does the Corps want from it's reserve?

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by theblindking, May 15, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following on from a quite interesting (in parts) thread in the STAB forum, one of the points raised was that no one has asked the regular army what kind of reserve it wants. Now I have always thought that 3 and 5 MI are to a certain extent exempt from the existential issues that dog other cap badges for the following reasons:

    1. The contribution to Ops is considerably more than 10% (percentage of TA pers on Ops at any one time) in fact over 20% of all deployed Corps personnel apparently.
    2. Many members of 3 and 5 come from other parts of the UK INT architecture.
    3. 5 have a direct relationship with 1 and 4 MI.
    4. 3 provide constant support to strategic customers without "nicking" PIDs.
    5. All the 3 MI coys are special to role - and in a form that has no equivelent amongst the reg Bns.
    6. The regs are well exposed to, and understand reservists.

    Am I wrong about this? Do the reg Bns want and (more importantly need) support from 3 and 5 in the current form? If not what would be better?

    Furthermore (following on from another point in the aforementioned thread) RUMINT has it that there may be an increase INT Corps (V) manning on the cards. Are the CO/RSM/ADJT/PSI roles valued by the Corps as a whole or are they a drain on manpower?

    Just wondering.
  2. Bump. In the context of the publication of FR20 and general SDSR upgrades. Not even a bit of piss-taking?
  3. You smell off elderberries, feel better?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Much. Cheers.
  5. msr

    msr LE

    The ability to use apostrophes correctly?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. It would be nice to think the silence is because we're getting it about right ... no idea whether that's true or not, but it's not like they throw stones at us these days when we turn up, which I suppose is a positive sign.

    Whatever the Regs think, I feel that having a Reg CO, RSM etc is central to our success. Long may it continue.

    From my perspective our biggest need is to transition from a rather exclusive gap year provider to a TA unit. Not an easy thing to do as nearly all the drivers are outside our control. The fact that TA units keep all recruits, mobilised, FTRS etc bods against unit PIDs does rather obscure the yawning demographic trough we have. You don't have to lose many of the old and bold before the value we add on weekends plummets.

    If I ruled the world ... I'd drop the fantasy that it's 1913 and soldiers can walk to the TAC. Some of the Coys should be relocated geographically to suit their sponsors, target recruiting in the surrounding areas and start separate training nights. I'd argue that now we have too strong a Bn focus, which can detract from the Coy level mission. That said, some of that is inevitable as lack of people means you can only organise some things at Bn level. Chicken and egg.

    Oh, and the whole 3 vs 5 thing got old very fast. It's childish, demeaning and can get in the way of doing useful things. I'd be happy to see us go back to 1 Bn to avoid that sort of crap. Call it the MI Group (V) maybe ?
  7. Realistically an RSM is an RSM regardless and a former RSM 3 has made Corps RSM. Due to how officer jobs are perceived, I'll be very surprised if an ex CO 3 or 5 ever makes director (although that might even be difficult for those in command of regular units shortly.............).

    Still some like jobs in London and I'm sure Coulby Newham must have some attractions............................
  8. Agreed. The worst side effect of the 2Bn model, for my money, has been the strategic/tactical role nonsense whereby the most suitable troops for task are excluded by dint of being in the wrong Bn. However I would still like to now what our regular brethren think.

  9. ***********
  10. we think you're a vast impovement on some of the numpties sent out to bosnia in '95. now stop fishing and get down the bar :)
  11. Huge changes are in the pipeline for the whole Regular - TA relationship; but I feel that MI are better placed to ride them out than most. The recent Reserves review and cut in the size of the Regs should have alerted us to the fact that the Regs don't get to decide the fate of the TA any more. Indeed, if you think that the cuts to the Regs will stop at the current 82,000 target you are far more optimistic than I am. So we are looking at a military structure that has to mobilise the TA en masse to do any operation of any size. Indeed, I assess that this is a deliberate feature, not a bug, and is the reward the Army gets for not telling Brown what a ******* stupid idea the last two wars of choice were, and for losing them.

    So we face a future where one of the core jobs the Regs have to do will be to train the TA up. For if we do go somewhere and the TA get minced through lack of training the Regs will get nailed to the wall because of it. I can hear the whining, whinging and mutters of "STAB shitcunt" from here as I type but get used to it ladies and gents, the future is here.

    And here MI is very well placed. 3 can just keep on sending people off to do real work at weekends as at present and if properly sold that is a really attractive offer. 5 are a bit more problematic as once HERRICK has gone they will need the reg Bns to devote some serious effort to them. That said, with a bit of thought they can be used to get some proper work done too. (Hey, maybe we can set up Int Coys and Sy Coys and Group them together ....)

    Junior retention - again, not an exclusively MI problem. From the ones I talk to the elephant in the room is the lack of TA friendly employers. Youngsters can afford to chuck in a job for one tour, but to find a career afterwards it's time to go. I think the best way to tackle this would be to set the Coys up with independent TACs and recruit far more locally. Maybe even move the Bn out of London, leaving a Coy det.

    Senior transferees - they need to get their A1 in and master the Coy speciality to be credible with the juniors and be any use to anyone. The ones I see have. Those that don't should get binned by the management - easy to spot mind as they'll be sat there telling increasingly out of date "when I" stories to juniors who think they are tools and looking like a deer in the headlights when anything remotely trade related gets mentioned.

    Things that can be improved: Make a point of ensuring that every single course can be done in weekends and two weeks per training year. Setting the bar to entry as a four week course and then expressing surprise that not enough people go on it is, shall we say, not the signature of an operator who understands that particular battlespace. There's shedloads that could be done in terms of recruiting, restructuring and so on but without a budget it's pointless fantasising.
  12. You've been sitting thinking again haven't you?
  13. Someones got to. I've just been sitting.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Surely the question about 'what next after Afghan' applies to the whole Corps and not just the reserves? If you have seen the size of some of the regular squads going through Templer recently you would quickly realise that the inflow is significant.

    5 MI could have a problem after Afghan, less so 3.