I'm currently with 16 AA brigade, and on our PDT we are trialling the new CFT/PFT. 10 miles (with two treats midway and towards the end like jerry can lifts and casualty drags) carrying 35kg. With this in mind most people really need to ask whether they can complete this sort of task.

I could walk backwards for 10 miles but it'd take a while. How much time would i get for going forwards?

Originally Posted by Maximillian

I'm currently with 16 AA brigade, and on our PDT we are trialling the new CFT/PFT. 10 miles (with two treats midway and towards the end like jerry can lifts and casualty drags) carrying 35kg. With this in mind most people really need to ask whether they can complete this sort of task.

What time are you given for this?

Originally Posted by Sentinel

Why should reserve soliders meet the same standards of physical fitness as a regular army solider?

If this actually happens then the TA would actually be fitter than the Regular Army, where a high proportion of soldiers cannot pass a CFT and many are medically downgraded. As I've posted before, in the Reg Bn I served with all bar 1 member of the MT platoon was P3 LE. This line of " We're going to bin all those who fail the PFT" or similar has been going around for at least 20 years. It simply will not work, Regular or TA.

Originally Posted by msr

What time are you given for this?

The current standard of (MATT) fitness in the TA is not particularly demanding. There should be an expectation that TA soldiers should keep themselves fit in there own time, and failure to meet the current standard is in-excusable.

However if there is a step change in standard requirements, like that mentioned above, soldiers should have the opportunity to train (not just be tested) in paid army time. The proposed GCM, and withdrawal of adventure training etc reduces the scope for this to happen.

To deviate slightly, soldiers are increasingly saying that; to pay mess bills, corps funds, gymn memberships etc, and yet be restricted to reduced MTDs reduces the attractiveness of remaining in the TA.

To expect soldiers to increase the amount of fitness training, that they would be expected to do in their own time, to meet increased standards would appear to be ill timed in the current climate.

Originally Posted by Richard_Hannay

BTW, as a side issue everyone is also talking about fitness to mobilise (both from a med and physical fitness point of view). Standby for 1.5 mile run and 8 miler (oh yes - incoming) failures being exited sharpish. Its going to start happening within the next 12 months.

What a load of horse sh1t.

Originally Posted by Panic-in-Detroit

The current standard of (MATT) fitness in the TA is not particularly demanding. There should be an expectation that TA soldiers should keep themselves fit in there own time, and failure to meet the current standard is in-excusable.

Why? We are not expected to buy our own uniforms, pass our HGV license or attend ranges in our own time...

MSR

Originally Posted by msr

Why? We are not expected to buy our own uniforms, pass our HGV license or attend ranges in our own time...

MSR

No, but you do comply with the Army's grooming standards by getting your haircut and shaving in your own time. The Army has a requirement that you meet certain physical and medical standards, isn't it in your own interest to do as much as you can to meet them?

In truth though, I'm with you in that I believe that phys should be incorporated as much as possible into normal training even a forty minute PT session on most drill nights would go a long way. Even if it's just a boot run or circuits in tshirt & boots order to save on the faff around factor.

I don't believe it's just a TA thing though. If you just relied on the scheduled weekly PT sessions in a regular Infantry battalion, I don't think you would achieve the standards expected (which are naturally far in excess of being merely PFT/AFT fit) and all except the laziest (and they did exist to be fair) usually averaged half hour to an hour of phys in their own time on weekdays. It was just the norm and you factored it into your day. It's a habit I've fallen out of since demob, so maybe it was a peer pressure driven thing.

I hate to do this, as I'm something of a fan of the TA - (cross-polination, variety, BCRs etc), but...

Originally Posted by ADSOL

Germany - masses of troops there. Do we need masses of troops there ? Probably not. I believe that, militarily, we do not need them there.True However, we have a NATO commitment to fulfil So what? we can do that from mainland UK.and we need to keep the troops who are to be rested between op tours somewhere."Rested?" You are joking, surely? As such Germany is a good option. That said I would be amazed if BFG does not get a kicking.Concur.

I sense you're in the TA old son...

Originally Posted by ADSOL

Elsewhere - the TA are cheap.

Not as cheap as you think. How much does it cost, on average, for the total deployment costs of a TA soldier, as compared to the Regulars?

And in an SDSR that is majoring on flexibility and agility, how does the TA compare to the Regs in terms of ease of deployment?

The only thing protecting the TA from the axe is politics, and that shield is wearing thin.

The Army would do well to maintain the TA for the following :

AAC Officers - Squeeze a bit more out of that expensive pilot training from ex-regs who get bored of flying civvy, get some broader experience in from ex-pilots of other services and maybe even free up some desk-jockeys with wings (don't know how a desk flying deployment could be sold though).

RAMC - It is well known that medical professionals, whether ex-reg or not, who come from civvy street can bring a great deal of wider experience and skills with them. And like pilots the training is long, hard, and very expensive. The Army will always be quids-in with TA doctors, dentists, nurses and medics.

Intelligence Corps - Similar to medical personnel, part-time Intelligence operators who have broader experiences and contacts cultivated in civvy life are a great asset. Languages are expensive and time consuming to learn formally and are tricky to master if not learnt from a young age. The skill required means that a good linguist who is also a competent intelligence operator is a gift. People who speak other languages in their private lives or for business will be able to bring invaluable depth of knowledge and experience with them.