Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commission on the Defence Forces - Reserve Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In the 1990 Commission on remuneration and Conditions of Service
    was that Gleeson or PWC
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      In the 1990 Commission on remuneration and Conditions of Service the following Establishment and Strengths applied:

      Officers E: 1895 S: 1618

      NCO's E: 5,982 S: 5046

      Privates E : 10,101 S : 6,569.

      If you take the Officer Establishment and compare it to actual Strength it highlights "extras" in 1990.

      Lt. General E: 1 S:1
      Major Gen. E:2 S:2
      Brig. Gen. E:8 S:8
      Colonel E:36 S:41
      LT. Colonel E:135 S:152
      Comdt. E:428 S:498
      Capt. E:783 S:537
      Lieuts. E502 S: 379 Note this strength includes 2nd Lieuts and 61 cadets.

      The extras occur at Colonel , Lieutenant Colonel , and Commandant with obvious shortages at the coal face. Similar applies in the relative strengths of NCOs and Private showing something wrong with recruitment at the time.
      Were people promoted on tenure then? How could people be promoted to a non existent post, or was it due to previous reorganisations?
      German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
      German 2: Private? I am a general!
      German 1: That is the bad news.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        Were people promoted on tenure then? How could people be promoted to a non existent post, or was it due to previous reorganisations?
        Some of it was caused by promoting up to replace officers gone overseas and retaining rank when office holder returns. Some were retained in rank when allowed to continue in rank to age 60. Not sure how all can be accounted for but those were common reasons at the three ranks mentioned.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
          was that Gleeson or PWC
          Gleeson

          PWC was 1998

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Gleeson

            PWC was 1998
            Reserves, and how they are classified , is a matter that must be fully resolved. Reserves come from two sources--those that are put into that category at the end of a specific enlistment and those that join reserves from civvy street. The former pass into Reserves as a trained person with a particular range of skills and rank while the latter may have skills but requires military training and assimilation. All reservists need to be usable for all deployments, including overseas. It is important that those coming from civilian employment are given initial periods of full time training. Provisions for release from employment of reservists needs to be negotiated with some form of compensation to employers. The Brits are proposing to offer £500 pm for each release to employers. Financial arrangements would also have to be made to each call-up to offset salary losses. The biggest problem is assimilation and acceptance by units and peers.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              ...The biggest problem is assimilation and acceptance by units and peers.
              I don't believe this is true - culture in a military exists because either someone encourages it, or because someone ignores it.

              The culture of an organisation is set by its leaders, what they promote, what they ignore.

              If leaders - whether at Pln, Coy, Bn, Bde or service level - think/talk about only reservists, or only use reservists where there's a hole,then you get a culture that says reservists are not good enough to be us, but can be used as sandbags - this is where the problem of acceptance/assimilation come from.

              If you want reservists to be welcome and accepted you have to create and enforce policies that promote that: reservists on every exercise they could possibly take part in, reservists on operations - and shouting about it - regulars providing support to reservists training and being rewarded for it career-wise, Officers at Bde/Bn/Coy level who don't really bash into this stuff don't get promoted. Give it 3, 4, 5 years of that and the culture will have changed.

              There are reservists on every single overseas exercise and operation the UK is currently engaged in - not because we can't can't find a full regular Coy to do the RIC in the Falklands, but because we want to raise both the profile of reservists and the skill sets that those individuals will take back to their units.

              If you - through words and actions - only use reservists as the the tool of last resort, the absolute bottom of the barrel bar conscription, then you shouldn't be surprised when regulars treat them like that...

              Comment


              • The biggest problem is assimilation and acceptance by units and peers.
                Assumes

                a) deployment piecemeal
                b) deploying with non-peers ?

                Assume Dr Jones deploys as MO
                "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  Reserves, and how they are classified , is a matter that must be fully resolved. Reserves come from two sources--those that are put into that category at the end of a specific enlistment and those that join reserves from civvy street. The former pass into Reserves as a trained person with a particular range of skills and rank while the latter may have skills but requires military training and assimilation. All reservists need to be usable for all deployments, including overseas. It is important that those coming from civilian employment are given initial periods of full time training. Provisions for release from employment of reservists needs to be negotiated with some form of compensation to employers. The Brits are proposing to offer £500 pm for each release to employers. Financial arrangements would also have to be made to each call-up to offset salary losses. The biggest problem is assimilation and acceptance by units and peers.
                  Not just the employer but the reservist if we go down that road!

                  New Zealand, Canada, USA, and Australia all have volunteer reservists (as opposed to equivalent of FLR) like us but who must complete much more substantial periods of FTT as part of their recruit training.

                  I think Canada may also have a more modular part-time version similar to ours.

                  The U.K. offer both options for recruit training, a more modular part-time version similar to ours and a complete FTT block.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    I don't believe this is true - culture in a military exists because either someone encourages it, or because someone ignores it.

                    The culture of an organisation is set by its leaders, what they promote, what they ignore.

                    If leaders - whether at Pln, Coy, Bn, Bde or service level - think/talk about only reservists, or only use reservists where there's a hole,then you get a culture that says reservists are not good enough to be us, but can be used as sandbags - this is where the problem of acceptance/assimilation come from.

                    If you want reservists to be welcome and accepted you have to create and enforce policies that promote that: reservists on every exercise they could possibly take part in, reservists on operations - and shouting about it - regulars providing support to reservists training and being rewarded for it career-wise, Officers at Bde/Bn/Coy level who don't really bash into this stuff don't get promoted. Give it 3, 4, 5 years of that and the culture will have changed.

                    There are reservists on every single overseas exercise and operation the UK is currently engaged in - not because we can't can't find a full regular Coy to do the RIC in the Falklands, but because we want to raise both the profile of reservists and the skill sets that those individuals will take back to their units.

                    If you - through words and actions - only use reservists as the the tool of last resort, the absolute bottom of the barrel bar conscription, then you shouldn't be surprised when regulars treat them like that...
                    And part of that is a common standard.

                    But, as you may allude to, how that standard is achieved needs to be, I don’t like using the word flexible but reservist friendly or enabling. No point saying every reservist has to do a medical with an army doctor if there isn’t enough army doctors to do PDF medicals and/or you need to take 3 half days off work to get it done.

                    Comment


                    • Flexibility is the absolute key here - but it also applies to 'the standard'. If a reserve Inf Coy has 100 members, but only 30 of them are usable because of the ebbs and flows of job, home life, training and fitness standards, you need to be unafraid of using those 30 and not using the other 70. In another year some of those 30 will have dropped into the less usable cohort because of a different job/new baby, and some of those in the 70 will move into the 30 because they've had access to more training or time.

                      You absolutely should use individual reservists as and when they become available - but I also think that setting a goal of having X(Reserve) Coy ready for operations as a formed unit in Y period of time, and cranking training and resources into making that happen has a huge impact on wider training standards/morale within the reserve force.

                      Comment


                      • What the commission does/does not report for the Reserve, will be the making or the end of it. Some good points made above and all are doable.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
                          What the commission does/does not report for the Reserve, will be the making or the end of it. Some good points made above and all are doable.
                          This is the one point we can all agree on.

                          If a half baked approach is taken to reinvigorating the reserve, I fear extinction is inevitable.

                          We've great ideas and I'm sure numerous others will be communicated to the Commission.

                          The sticking point will be resourcing with funding (wouldn't be tiny in overall budget but plenty of other areas looking for money) and manpower assistance from the PDF (the PDF manpower crisis is one of the primary reasons we have a commission so much stress here).

                          Trying to sort out the RDF with a neutral funding and resourcing impact would be a disaster in my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                            This is the one point we can all agree on.

                            If a half baked approach is taken to reinvigorating the reserve, I fear extinction is inevitable.

                            We've great ideas and I'm sure numerous others will be communicated to the Commission.

                            The sticking point will be resourcing with funding (wouldn't be tiny in overall budget but plenty of other areas looking for money) and manpower assistance from the PDF (the PDF manpower crisis is one of the primary reasons we have a commission so much stress here).

                            Trying to sort out the RDF with a neutral funding and resourcing impact would be a disaster in my opinion
                            Regrettably, someone in DOD will doubtless try and improve funding in this regard by offsetting elsewhere in the existing budget, i.e. the PDF will end up being deficient somewhere

                            And that would not be a good scenario, as our Permanent colleagues are stretched enough and underpaid enough as it is
                            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                              Regrettably, someone in DOD will doubtless try and improve funding in this regard by offsetting elsewhere in the existing budget, i.e. the PDF will end up being deficient somewhere

                              And that would not be a good scenario, as our Permanent colleagues are stretched enough and underpaid enough as it is
                              Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Given the issues with pay, retention and capability - it's difficult to see this Commission not recommending increased defence spending.

                              There is a Nordic twist to the Commission and they've increased there's in recent years. Now of course, their states aren't situated in such a benign environment as ours. It would be interesting to see how the Government would react to such a report suggesting more funding. 'Fiscal Pressure' from the pandemic may be a useful get out of jail free card for them.
                              Last edited by Auldsod; 10 February 2021, 15:37.

                              Comment


                              • The key is the implementation not the report as we have seen in 2 PDF and 2 RDF reorgs, 2 White Papers and other reports

                                RDF pay could be improved drastically by making it easier to admin. It is improved in fairness. Just use more of the current financial allocation

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X