Commission on the Defence Forces - Reserve Discussion

[ropebag]

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.

[DeV]

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.

[DeV]

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.

[trellheim]

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

[ropebag]

...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...

[ancientmariner]

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.

[DeV]

was that Gleeson or PWC

Gleeson

PWC was 1998

[ancientmariner]

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.

[na grohmiti]

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?

[trellheim]

In the 1990 Commission on remuneration and Conditions of Service

was that Gleeson or PWC

[Flamingo]

@ Auldsod - I honestly don’t know at this stage. I’m out 20 years now (eek!) but I never heard that mentioned as an organisational thing, only at unit level. Maybe Ropebag or RGJ (when he’s back from his holidays) might know.

[ancientmariner]

It has happened in reorgs but not by design (higher ranks holding appointment of a lower rank). If there is extra of a rank they are supposed to be supernumerary and generally will cause a halt to promotions (eg unit a has an extra Comdt, unit b has 1 too few but can’t promote as the total number of Comdts is correct)

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.

[Auldsod]

Yea, what I mean is could it have 2xCol, 1xComdt, 3x Cpt and 3x Lt if that was the ranks of the people available?

It’s the same numbers of MO’s, but the rank is reflecting the individual’s experience rather than being bound to X numbers at each rank. People could still be promoted as required by time served etc, but the specific role is depending on qualification of the holder, not their rank (which can be flexible)?

Or is that how it is already and I’m just displaying my ignorance?

Quick question. Whilst there are rank bands from which appointments can be filled at the unit level - are there overall limits within the British Army and the RAMC in particular for the number of personnel in each rank?

Similar to how DeV has described as operates here?

[DeV]

Yea, what I mean is could it have 2xCol, 1xComdt, 3x Cpt and 3x Lt if that was the ranks of the people available?

It’s the same numbers of MO’s, but the rank is reflecting the individual’s experience rather than being bound to X numbers at each rank. People could still be promoted as required by time served etc, but the specific role is depending on qualification of the holder, not their rank (which can be flexible)?

Or is that how it is already and I’m just displaying my ignorance?

It has happened in reorgs but not by design (higher ranks holding appointment of a lower rank). If there is extra of a rank they are supposed to be supernumerary and generally will cause a halt to promotions (eg unit a has an extra Comdt, unit b has 1 too few but can’t promote as the total number of Comdts is correct)

[Flamingo]

Yes
Picking numbers out of the air here but the Med Coy could have 1 x Lt Col (MO), 2 x Comdt (MO), 4 x Lt (MO), 1 x Lt (Line)

Yea, what I mean is could it have 2xCol, 1xComdt, 3x Cpt and 3x Lt if that was the ranks of the people available?

It’s the same numbers of MO’s, but the rank is reflecting the individual’s experience rather than being bound to X numbers at each rank. People could still be promoted as required by time served etc, but the specific role is depending on qualification of the holder, not their rank (which can be flexible)?

Or is that how it is already and I’m just displaying my ignorance?