Yes they could, but they shouldn't. I base this statement on the good old days when I personally experienced both. Maybe we were unlucky but as a newly minted LCpl in the then Int & Sy Gp (V) we had a succession of TA RSMs who ran the range from incompetent to barely adequate. Looking back I suspect that to get there they'd had to abandon the trade side of things and concentrate on the shouting, waving silly sticks and concentrating on trivia agenda - in other words, nothing relevant to the job or why people joined. Either way, they were most definitely not regarded as role models by me or my peers.

Then, following one particularly awful example, we had one of the PSIs take over. And my God, what an improvement that was. All of a sudden we saw what being an RSM was all about. Not they they've all been perfect, some are better than others at getting what the TA is and how to get the best out of it. All in all though, far, far better.

As to TA COs, I only had one in my time and I struggle to remember either his face or his name. His regular peers - well, I know who they were. Says it all really. Again, not all the same quality wise but never a bad one. And the one in particular who undertook a reign of terror in the Officers Mess to raise the quality line ? Again, helped to redefine leadership for me. And get rid of a lot of Cold War ballast who, again, were not regarded well by the rank and file.

I think I'd sum it up as seeing the value they add for MI as being primarily focused at their ability to connect us to the rest of the non(V) world. A TA candidate, (unless they're just retired of course) cannot hope to have the same breadth and depth of knowledge, experience or contacts. If they did, then yes they'd be good enough. But we have turned ourselves into what we are today because we have had competent, unwavering and dedicated support from the management. We move back to the unavoidably insular casual labour version at our peril.

No.

I agree with the majority of responses to this thread. While it is theoretically possible for a TA Int Corps Lt Col to command either 3 or 5 MI and equally possible that a TA Int Corps WO1 could be appointed RSM of either unit, for all practical purposes it won't happen unless there are some major undefined changes. There are too many ambitious and capable regular army officers and WO's who are available, full time, now. So why go through the the rigmarole of trying to find someone from the TA, in the right rank and with the right experience and capability who is prepared to put their civvy job on hold and has an understanding spouse/partner etc? It's a nice idea, but one that doesn't really pass go.

Well, look at history please posters! By the end of WW2 most Commanding Officers, Brigade Commanders and even Divisional Commanders were TA. Historians will tell you that the best formation fighting out of and onwards from Normandy was 43 Wessex Division, a TA Formation. The Int Corps had a 26 year old Brigadier, one Enoch Powel. Now to the question, the reason why you seldom get TA Commanding Officers is that all TA CO Posts have become havens for Regular Lt Colonels, this will increase as Regular Command slots become rarer. My view is that some are very good, others are appalling and use the TA as a stepping stone. One of the current roles of the TA is regeneration in the event of mass mobilisation, not properly preparing and selecting suitable TA Officers for Command will jeopardise this function. What a TA Major unit needs is an efficient LE 2IC who will do the J1/J4 stuff and a good Training Warrant Officer to deliver J3. You can then have a TA CO and RSM, I again reiterate that they must be properly trained before hand.

Why would the training Warrant Officer be doing current ops instead of Trg (Ie G3 rather than G7)? Perhaps showing you are a little out of touch?

More importantly, are you suggesting that a TA unit with a regular CO would somehow fail to respond if they were called en masse for a full scale LSDI? If so, why? Surely the CO (reg or TA) would be in post and ready to take the unit away?

Originally Posted by selectvestry

Well, look at history please posters! By the end of WW2 most Commanding Officers, Brigade Commanders and even Divisional Commanders were TA.

I rather think this comparison might not be apt. Given they come off the arse end I the biggest war the world had seen. Not 20 consecutive annual camps.

Reg Hollis Armoury is a closed shop. STABs not welcome.

Originally Posted by Cpt_Darling

I rather think this comparison might not be apt. Given they come off the arse end I the biggest war the world had seen. Not 20 consecutive annual camps.

Plus the fact that MI(V) will never deploy as a unit - just like the regs. A steady stream of competent bodies to fill specialised slots is what we do. We don't even do annual camps any more, preferring to send soldiers to do something useful instead. One size does not fit all in the TA and we should be careful to remember that.

Originally Posted by The_Duke

With FTRS not an option for a TA CO, you are left with the need to find someone who is able to do well over 100 days per year around their normal occupation, many of which will be during the normal working week.

Whilst possible, this seriously limits the number of applicants. Once quality is then factored in, you may not have a genuinely viable TA candidate very often. Does a second rate TA CO trump a good quality Regular one just because they have a better knowledge of the TA?

Again, not Int Corps, but I have never had a TA CO or RSM, and am very happy with that state of affairs.

I did have a TA CO and after he finished he went full time. He was excellent, he could spring the time because he was a farmer and his Mrs did the farming. I suspect my impression of him was helped because he followed and was followed by an indifferent reg CO.

Originally Posted by selectvestry

Well, look at history please posters! By the end of WW2 most Commanding Officers, Brigade Commanders and even Divisional Commanders were TA. Historians will tell you that the best formation fighting out of and onwards from Normandy was 43 Wessex Division, a TA Formation. The Int Corps had a 26 year old Brigadier, one Enoch Powel. Now to the question, the reason why you seldom get TA Commanding Officers is that all TA CO Posts have become havens for Regular Lt Colonels, this will increase as Regular Command slots become rarer. My view is that some are very good, others are appalling and use the TA as a stepping stone. One of the current roles of the TA is regeneration in the event of mass mobilisation, not properly preparing and selecting suitable TA Officers for Command will jeopardise this function. What a TA Major unit needs is an efficient LE 2IC who will do the J1/J4 stuff and a good Training Warrant Officer to deliver J3. You can then have a TA CO and RSM, I again reiterate that they must be properly trained before hand.

deleted