Hmmm, self-inflicted wound, so no sympathy required (but a bit of empathy wouldn't hurt and would prove you weren't a Tyrell Corp Nexus-6).

Any one been and what should I be expecting? The web site is 'thin' on detail and a heads up would be really appreciated. Right, so, now off to Milittery and Bloodletters bookshop for a copy of Sun Tzu.

Try posting in the Staff Officers forum as well.

Originally Posted by Strikesure

Any one been and what should I be expecting? The web site is 'thin' on detail and a heads up would be really appreciated. Right, so, now off to Milittery and Bloodletters bookshop for a copy of Sun Tzu.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

MSR

MSR, not knowing whether to laugh or cry is not what you want to be saying in an empathy test. I now have to 'retire' you.

But, the slaying aside, I now want answers. Someone must have done it and knows whether I am looking at operational staff work and smashing things up (good) or Bristish Defence Policy and haute strategy (bad).

Ring up the DS? Or in MSR's words, ask your PSI!

Would it be too harsh to make the observation that if you have ask on a random internet website for information about the most senior course the TA offers, rather than contacting the Defence Academy who run it, then Lt Col may not be for you?

Originally Posted by msr

Would it be too harsh to make the observation that if you have ask on a random internet website for information about the most senior course the TA offers, rather than contacting the Defence Academy who run it, then Lt Col may not be for you?

I have some sympathy with him.

If you contacted the Defence Academy to ask what is involved in ISC(TA), they would probably read off the usual bumpf about preparing TA Officers for appoints at SO2 level and (depending on the latest gen) qualifying for promotion to Major.

However, the reality from who have done it is that it really just a very basic skim over the top of a wide range of subjects, from revision of the 7Qs and staff writing, to Defence Policy and Force Generation. Pretty much summed up as "Here is a bunch off stuff we really don't have time to teach you on this pathetically short course. You'll find out more if you mobilise or do FTRS, when you might just know enough catchphrases to stop you looking a *complete* arrse in front of your regular colleagues, who will be throwing this stuff around like Ninja Shuriken..."

I'm guessing ACSC(TA) is probably similar, only the potential for embarrassment alongside regular officers is higher...

Originally Posted by msr

Would it be too harsh to make the observation that if you have ask on a random internet website for information about the most senior course the TA offers, rather than contacting the Defence Academy who run it, then Lt Col may not be for you?

This is hardly a random internet website!

Good luck Strikesure

Originally Posted by Strikesure

Hmmm, self-inflicted wound, so no sympathy required (but a bit of empathy wouldn't hurt and would prove you weren't a Tyrell Corp Nexus-6).

Any one been and what should I be expecting? The web site is 'thin' on detail and a heads up would be really appreciated. Right, so, now off to Milittery and Bloodletters bookshop for a copy of Sun Tzu.

I wouldn't waste your money. The most important piece of pre-course prep for this course is to make sure that you have barrack dress. Those who attended ACSC(R) #1 in CS95 were duly rifted.

The course is woeful and the product of a "me too" mindset. The TA Staff Course I am given to understand was a pretty useful 2 weeks (plus a few weekends) dive into BG and Bde ops and lots of estimates and planning exercises along with a staff ride.

Unfortunately the benefits that the regular course sees from joint staff training don't apply to the reserves. You will not meet fast jet pilots, submariners or seamen, instead a bunch of charming, talented and in the main highly capable but slightly confused naval and airforce reserve specialists (medics, int analysts, humint types etc) who have never seen a 7Qs before (and why would they?) who are presented in week 2 with a campaign planning estimate. That is not to say that they are not good people, but the course just doesn't make sense. In short, probably the most disappointing course in my military career.

Nemesis, an interesting (and rather alarming) viewpoint, which frankly doesn't surprise me. The old TA CSC was, I think (because I have never been a student on it) 3 weeknds and 2 weeks and was certainly in excess of 20 days - not enough perhaps, but better than the current situation. As someone who may well be attending the ACSC(R) in the next 24 months, your viewpoint concerns me and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say. It is hardly a good omen for an expanding TA where TA primacy in command is the preferred solution. Quite why the MoD felt that what appears to be such a poor quality solution was the way ahead, other than on cost grounds alone, remains to be seen. If it is honestly as crap as you say, I will be thinking very carefully about taking two weeks off work to attend it.