skinz Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Be that as it may, but the nett result will be that more reliance will be placed on TA soldiers being on the front line in places like Afghanistan (they already are actually), and I don't agree with sending part timers to war. I know that 'allegedly' they are trained to the same rigorous standards as full time soldiers, but I really don't see how that is possible. Part time, is part time. Full time is full time! So they're not as professional? Why do think a TA recruit can't be trained to the standard of regular army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who would want to be a member of the armed forces today, soldiers fighting for this country laying their lives on the line are being stabbed in the back by their own Government. What a morale booster this is for our troops. An MP who was a former high ranking officer said this morning that any army under 100,000 is not an army but a defence force. What happens if there are still troops in the middle east and another conflict arises who is Cameron going to send, the Boy Scouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who would want to be a member of the armed forces today, soldiers fighting for this country laying their lives on the line are being stabbed in the back by their own Government. What a morale booster this is for our troops. An MP who was a former high ranking officer said this morning that any army under 100,000 is not an army but a defence force. What happens if there are still troops in the middle east and another conflict arises who is Cameron going to send, the Boy Scouts? Maybe they could afford more troops if they scrapped their plans to replace Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who would want to be a member of the armed forces today, soldiers fighting for this country laying their lives on the line are being stabbed in the back by their own Government. What a morale booster this is for our troops. An MP who was a former high ranking officer said this morning that any army under 100,000 is not an army but a defence force. What happens if there are still troops in the middle east and another conflict arises who is Cameron going to send, the Boy Scouts? You could equally ask why we have to send our lads into conflicts in the first place. What are the real motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 So they're not as professional? Why do think a TA recruit can't be trained to the standard of regular army? I knew someone would come back with that! It's only my opinion of course. That's the first thing. To me, the logic would be that they can or could be just as professional, but it would take far far longer than a regular soldier. I may be wrong, but the TA soldier trains a couple of days a month, with a few weekends a year on exercise. A regular, does it day in and day out, he lives works and breathes 'the army'. There's also the comaradery thing too. He develops a trust and working relationship with his platoon. It happens much faster and is far more intense than a TA. Don't get me wrong I'm not deriding the TA, I think they are all fine men, but I don't think they should be our first line of defence...Only in times of national emergency. (Just a minute....Where's that tin hat?...Ok, found it now!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I knew someone would come back with that! It's only my opinion of course. That's the first thing. To me, the logic would be that they can or could be just as professional, but it would take far far longer than a regular soldier. I may be wrong, but the TA soldier trains a couple of days a month, with a few weekends a year on exercise. A regular, does it day in and day out, he lives works and breathes 'the army'. There's also the comaradery thing too. He develops a trust and working relationship with his platoon. It happens much faster and is far more intense than a TA. Don't get me wrong I'm not deriding the TA, I think they are all fine men, but I don't think they should be our first line of defence...Only in times of national emergency. (Just a minute....Where's that tin hat?...Ok, found it now!) 1st and 2nd world wars...conscripts with little but important training achieved all the things you feel important over a short period...and won, and achieved great camaraderie, and still do right up until this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 1st and 2nd world wars...conscripts with little training achieved all the things you feel important over a short period...and won, and achieved great camaraderie, and still do right up until this day. I did say, "only in times of national emergency"...There was no choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 You could equally ask why we have to send our lads into conflicts in the first place. What are the real motives. Ah!...There's another topic entirely, and I'm sure there's already several threads devoted to that connundrum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The commanders in the idf keep stating during basic training that 24 hours into any conflict, a conscript or reserve is of exactly the same value as a regular. I believe that is true. In a country so rich and developed as Britain there's really no excuse for relying on reservists other than greed and bean counting. On the other hand, is there a need for such a big standing army when it seems most of them are only used as an occupation force that parade around to assert a presence As long as we have the navy,airforce,marines, paratroopers and armoured divisions, do we really need much of a full time army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Am I mistaken, or didn't most of the regions represented by/associated with that list, vote generally against the ConLib majority? ...seems fair if that's the case Wouldn't surprise me, as that's what happened in an early 90's defence review, which resulted in the closure of RAF bases, most of which we're in Labour dominated areas.. Finningley being just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.