Talk:Army Reserve (United Kingdom)

Historical corrections and new section

I propose to make a few changes on the following points. First to make it clear that the TF was designed by Haldane as a second line for the BEF and he maintained that purpose right up until the Army Estimates debate the week before he introduced his bill. Faced with opposition on all sides, he changed the nominal purpose to home defence at the last moment and removed compulsion for overseas service but explicitly kept the door open for volunteering to serve abroad and continued with a design (including all the supporting arms and services) aimed at overseas warfare, rather than the mix of infantry and coastal artillery which had been the staple of home defence (These changes are in line with main articles on the TF and Territorial and Reserve Forces Act). Second, it needs a short entry para on the Second Boer War, as that was the 'rehearsal' which was a major driver for the establishment of the TF. Third, I wish to add some material on Kitchener's attitude to the TF at the outbreak of the First World War. Fourth, I suggest we need to replace the current section '1998 Onward' (which, strangely, contains 1995 deployments to Yugoslavia and the 1996 Act) with one section for 1979-1996 and one going from the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to 2011. Finally, I propose to add an update as a final paragraph on deployments of formed units to Estonia, Cyprus etc. Any views before I crack on?Julian Brazier (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@dormskirk Point noted on sources. Where they have come from one of the cited main articles, I have not always bothered but will tighten up in line with Wiki policy. I see Buckshot06 has done one - will do the otherJulian Brazier (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Working through this, I have come to para as follows with no citations:

The use of the word territorial signified that the volunteers who served with the force were under no obligation to serve overseas—in 1910 when asked to nominate for Imperial Service overseas in the event of mobilisation, less than 10% of the Force chose to do so. In August 1914, after the outbreak of the First World War, territorial units were given the option of serving in France and, by 25 August, in excess of seventy battalions had volunteered. This question over the availability of territorial divisions for overseas service was one of Lord Kitchener's motivations for raising the New Army separately.

The first statement is certainly false as the title was 'Territorial Force' from the first announcement of the Bill - long before the last-minute change of plan restricting service to home service. The last statement is also untrue (whether or not Kitchener later claimed it during his rows with Parliament) because of a series of remarks he made at the outset, which are well-sourced. That leaves the sentence in the middle about only 10% choosing to nominate for imperial service which has the ring of truth but - again - no source. Can anyone help me on that last point?Julian Brazier (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If it has no reliable source it should be deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk I will take the first and last sentences out now but am inclined to leave the 10% stat until I can get to a library to see if I can source it. I have read elsewhere that there was a big difference in attitudes between getting sucked into colonial adventures and fighting for Britain on the Continent. The other statistic in the para is roughly right - Dennis confirms it (P31) but it was 70 units, not battalions - they were not all infantry.Julian Brazier (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

South African War section

Dormskirk Thanks for cleaning up my text and for your advice earlier, but I am a bit puzzled as to why you have removed the sentence 'Nevertheless, the structure remained as planned.', on the basis that there is no citation. What would a citation for this look like? All the sources show that the new TF establishment replaced a mass of infantry, yeomanry, and (largely fixed coastal) artillery units with all arms infantry divisions and yeomanry brigades, with formation HQs, organic field artillery, engineers, commissariat medical etc, designed for war. This was still the establishment in 1914. This is all recorded - and sourced - in the earlier text. No source suggests that there was a last-minute change in structure between the Army estimates debate and the introduction of the bill 8 days later (when the purpose of the TF suddenly changed under pressure). The final sentence is a summarising conclusion, not a new fact - which bit of it would you like a citation for? Best Julian Brazier (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi - To be honest I think it would be difficult to cite. But an additional concern would that the sentence looked a bit like a commentary and we should avoid commentaries - just keep to the facts and cite them. Just my opinion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it Julian Brazier (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1988-2011 Section

This section is a mess. It has very few citations, contains several inaccuracies (eg all TA called out for Korea, main role was unofficially for home defence etc) and is a chronological muddle jumping back and forth on dates - and including a 'current' statistic for recruiting in a historical piece. I propose to completely rewrite it in chronological order and keeping only those bits for which there are citationsJulian Brazier (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree: that sounds a very good course of action to me. I would be ruthless with removing anything that is not properly sourced. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dormskirk Julian Brazier (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is going to take a bit of time. I have found sources for a lot of the existing material but the previous section - which prima facie looked quite good - needs some work firstJulian Brazier (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

J-Man11 Dormskirk I see you have just changed the heading for the penultimate chapter from '1998-2011' back to 1988-2011'. After working right through the article from the beginning, I am redrafting the final chapters to get it into chronological order, fill in gaps, and provide missing citations. I changed 1998 to 1988 because the chapter contains material from the early 90s on the Gulf War and Balkans, plus 1988 symbolises the end of the Cold War. An additional issue is that the chapter before is dominated by a long account of the 1967 blueprint, in a bullet point format which does not all make sense (eg why is 'Individuals from TAVR 1A & 1B' shown as a separate category of unit?). The 1967 structure was rapidly and repeatedly revised anyway. I will post my attempts at two improved sections for 1967-1988 and 1988-2011 here for comment before putting them in the main article.Julian Brazier (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It was not me that changed it: I agree that the final section could do with some redrafting, rationalising and extra references. Dormskirk (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, Dormskirk, that remark was addressed to J-Man11 but I copied you in as you have been taking a keen interest in this articleJulian Brazier (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk,J-Man11 I propose the following to replace the subsection headed Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (TAVR)Julian Brazier (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

1966 White Paper: major cuts and a new name

This was followed by a complete reorganisation announced in the 1966 Defence White Paper from 1 April 1967, when the title Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (TAVR) was adopted, that abolished the former regimental and divisional structure of the TA.[76] The size of the TAVR was to be reduced from 107,000 to under 50,000, with the infantry reduced from 86 to 13 battalions and the yeomanry (armoured units) from 20 to one. Units in the new TAVR were divided into various categories:[77][78]

o TAVR I - Special Army Volunteer Reserve or 'Ever Readies', bringing the Regular Army to war establishment and replacing casualties. These were to be given extra training and equipment and could now be called out by Queen’s Order rather than proclamation and

o TAVR II - forces called 'The Volunteers', for whom the old call-out arrangements continued. This category was split further split into TAVR IIA (Independent), eg: 51st Highland Volunteers and TAVR IIB (Sponsored), eg: Central Volunteer Headquarters, Royal Artillery

In addition were various miscellaneous units, such as OTCs and bands eg Northumbria Band of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

In the face of a considerable Parliamentary battle, and a public outcry let by the county associations, the government agreed to retain some 28,000 men in 87 ‘lightly armed’ infantry units and a few signals units in a category called TAVR III, designed for home defence, but these were disbanded two years later in 1969, with the units being reduced to eight-man "cadres".

In 1971, the new government decided to expand the TAVR which led to the formation of a twenty infantry battalions based on these cadres.[79][80] In 1979, again a new government planned further expansion. In the Reserve Forces Act of 1982, the Territorial Army title was restored, and, in the following years, its size was again increased, together with new equipment and extra training, The target being 86,000 by 1990. Some brigades were re-formed which consisted mostly of TA units, including two out of three brigades for a new reserve division for the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR).

References

Hi - It could do with an additional citation after "cadres" (I assume it is the same source) but it looks good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLDLY copied from User talk:J-Man11 for information to all

Difference in Territorials (T) and Volunteers (V)

I used to be horrible at this, but spent around a year of research and have this down pat.. @SmartyPants22 following the formation of the TAVR in 1967, the units in the TAVR III Category held the designation '(Territorial)' and were all disbanded by 1971 and reduced to cadres in 1975 along with new company units. These units (no-matter their corps/title) were all infantry units tasked with home defence/nuclear support. However, those in TAVR II Category (Section A) had NATO roles and held the designation of '(Volunteer)', and these were formed in 1967 or formed part of the expansion of 1971/75. So, the reason I bring this up is because in the example of the Queen's Regiment, the 5th (V) Bn was in the IIA Category, while the 6th (T) Bn (Queen's Surreys) was in the III Category, and therefore separate from the volunteers. Again, in the example of the Queens, the 6th and 7th (V) Bns were formed in TAVR IIB and were formed from elements of the former Territorial battalions, they were not successors to the former. I understand this can be confusing even for myself early on, but now after much research I understand the difference here. Hope this helps, and this is why I reverted your edit. J-Man11 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Copied by Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC) ; also thanks to Thewolfchild

• • J-Man11 That seems fine to meJulian Brazier (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of spurious link

Dormskirk,Buckshot06,Thewolfchild, May I raise the issue of the annoying link at the top of the article - I see someone did so a few years ago? I understand that 'TAVR' has two unrelated meanings but we could solve it by simply making TAVR redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcatheter_Aortic_Valve_Replacement instead of this page. The name 'TAVR' comes from a long time ago and in the rare cases where someone uses it for a search, they will certainly know to try Territorial Army, not least because it is the first two words of TAVR, if they have not heard of the Army Reserve. Julian Brazier (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I do not have strong views one way or the other on this. I can see why it looks silly but I can also see why it has been placed there. Dormskirk (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy either way. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if you redirect it to the other page. I take you'll then add a hatnote there; "For TAVR see Army Reserve (UK)"...? - wolf 13:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk Buckshot06 wolf Thanks, Guys. I would like to do this but I don't know how to. Could I ask - so I learn - where to find the code for tricky bits like this? On a separate note, I have started completely rewriting the article on Reserve Forces and cadets Associations - which ties in closely to this article. The current article had no history and virtually no citation. Grateful if you dudes could cast your expert eye over my handiwork, if you can spare the time. Also, how do I change the title - it needs an s, plural, on the end (there are 13 of them)?Julian Brazier (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I have redirected TAVR to Percutaneous aortic valve replacement, removed the hat note at the top of Army Reserve (United Kingdom) and have also added a hat note at the top of Percutaneous aortic valve replacement giving a link to Army Reserve (United Kingdom). Your improvements to Reserve Forces and Cadets Association look good, although there are some paragraphs you have added without citations at the end: that needs addressing. And don't forget to convert your url's per WP:BAREURL. Also you should not copy and paste from primary sources i.e. the RFCA website. It is probably worth a discussion on whether to put an 's' on Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. There are many town halls but that does not mean we should put an 's' on Town hall. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk Have been away for 24. Thanks for fixing the TAVR link, which was bugging me! Will try to fix the BAREURLs although you seem to have done much of it for me. Will carry on other conversations ref RFCA/RFCAs on that article's talk page Julian Brazier (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious claim in the lede of this article

'The Army Reserve was created as the Territorial Force in 1908'

I vehemently disagree. The Army Reserve was created in 1871 as a consequence of the Cardwell Reforms. This statement in the existing article is wildly incorrect.

There are surviving attestations for those in the Army Reserve who extended their time in Army Reserve Section D. In so doing they were not enlisting in the Territorial Force, or its predecessor, for that matter. Keith H99 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The other article Regular Reserve (United Kingdom) Keith H99 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Outdate Basic Training section?

This article and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_and_training_in_the_British_Army#Army_Reserve_training seem to disagree on lenght and structure a fair bit. 83.255.116.83 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)