Originally Posted by STARDUST

How can a civvie with a job, doing a drill night-the odd weekend-annual camp, then a months pre op training be EQUIVALENT to a full time committed regular with lets say 3 yrs service, some in combat?

Its a sad illusion, and a dangerous one.

Perhaps you should (at one end of the warry spectrum) ask 21 or 23 SAS. At the other, ask one of the RAMC(V) units whether they're up to the task. My ability as a TA line infantry type to pass a selection board, bang in a perfect score in an APWT, run a mile and a half in under 8 minutes (back then, I'm an old knacker now), actually be quite capable with map and compass, not embarrass myself when operating on a BG net, were of course a complete fluke even though I was never a Regular.

The "civvies with jobs" can't do everything to the equivalent level - but having any TA has the advantage of having available warm bodies, at "trained soldier" level, and sometimes rather better. They might even outperform the regular in certain narrow skills. I mean, when you hold a DIVSAAM and the highest-scoring regular comes in 17th place... (shock horror, scratch teams from two regular inf bns fail to beat the shooting teams of 3HLDRS and 7/8A&SH); our TA Bn MG Platoon coming 2nd in the UKLF match, two years after it was formed (3HLDRS came first - obviously, there's not much else to do in Stornoway apart from practice skill-at-arms, ask Hackle).

Thankfully, all regulars are fully committed individuals, who passed all of their courses with distinction. The professional skills demonstrated by certain regular soldiers thirty years ago, fresh off public duties and thrown into a war they hadn't trained for, obviously wasn't a fair reflection of the regular army - after all, the Guards who were slagged off for not being fit enough to tab, went on to take Tumbledown in the face of the Argentinian Marines (yes, nitpickers, I know there were two units involved). And that it was a Regular Para officer who came up with the unworkable plan involving IIRC a seven-phase deliberate battalion attack (just as it was regular Paras who binned it, pulled it out, and won the battle).

I am fully aware of the skills gap between the average TA and Regular soldiers; I am in no way claiming that the two are equivalent, or that it would have taken a serious chunk of time. But let's face it - the politicians have decided that the country can't afford a large standing army. It's more like "TA or nothing". The dinosaur who gobbed off to the Telegraph journo (probably a bitter passed-over Major who drinks in the same pub ) has completely missed the point - the only people who are blamed for poor TA performance are the regulars.

Apocryphal tale (Slim: The Standard Bearer, thankyou google books) about Field Marshal Montgomery's handover to Slim as CIGS - Monty does a big whinge of complaints about all that is wrong with the Army; Slim says "Yes, but why didn't you do something about it?"...

Originally Posted by STARDUST

How can a civvie with a job, doing a drill night-the odd weekend-annual camp, then a months pre op training be EQUIVALENT to a full time committed regular with lets say 3 yrs service, some in combat?

Its a sad illusion, and a dangerous one.

Or am i wrong?

This was what the force protection company I was on telic 3 was made up of it was a fairly benign environment.Various people seemed to be impressed with our performance. Though if that was because they expected nothing of us being stabs or
we were adequate at our job I don't know.We are still being asked to provide troops for tours so either their is no other choice or the TA can be good enough.

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

And the fightback begins. Perhaps those Generals should make the TA 'fit for purpose' instead of whinging about it all.

Of course that's the answer. Maybe when they've finished with that they could spin straw into gold, stop famine in the third world, make Greece financially viable, stop Piers Morgan being an utter cnut, make bankers popular and Cherie Blair sexually attractive?

It seems to me that whenever this issue is discussed, the stand TA response to having its shortcomings highlighted is to whinge about how it is all the fault of the awful "Regs" who are just beastly towards the TA and willfully deny it resources due to some deep-seated hate of part timers. The truth is that the MOD has for some years been under a huge amount of pressure to do a lot with very little (about to be even less) and frankly it has not had the time or money to waste on providing entertaining training to keep the TA interested while getting little in return. My view is that there is little point in funding training for a company that can only expect platoons worth of people to attend. Even if we could get past the issue of delivering military capability on the basis of one evening a week and a weekend a month (which is insufficient for many roles), the TA chain of command need to step up to the leadership challenge and get their soldiers to actually show up (95% attendance to every training event would be a step in the right direction in demonstrating that the TA is more than a social club).

I also note that there seems to be a general recollection of a golden age of the TA, when they got to do some interesting training on a relatively regular basis. The problems with this are that often this training was structured to be interesting in order to ensure attendance, often at the expense of being particularly useful in training terms. Linked to this are the general misconceptions in the TA concerning just how much training and other work is needed to deliver a particular capability. This seems to lead to the belief that part time forces can achieve much more of what their regular counterparts currently struggle to manage. For too long TA officers have been patted on the back for turning up to a training event that has been organised by somebody else and achieving standards that would result in a regular officer being sacked.

The "Regs" are not inherently "out to get" the TA and instead are more interested in delivering capability rather than providing an amusing hobby for a bunch of people who will not show up when they are really needed.

I fully expect some TA outrage and stand by accordingly, but time to face facts, the TA cannot achieve the required standards however much resource if thrown at them. It is a real pity that there are not a few more TA officers with the experience to really understand what the regular component have to achieve and how. A good place to start are the TA versus Regular training standards (fitness, shooting and pretty much everything else). Irritated rant over.

Originally Posted by Ethel_the_Aardvark

Of course that's the answer. Maybe when they've finished with that they could spin straw into gold, stop famine in the third world, make Greece financially viable, stop Piers Morgan being an utter cnut, make bankers popular and Cherie Blair sexually attractive?

Except that unlike your other examples, it's the Generals who deserve any blame.

Unless, of course, you think the reorganisation-every-five-years, repeated cuts to MTDs, "let's stop the TA training for six months" stuff was done by a big boy who then ran away...

Originally Posted by brave-coward

My view is that there is little point in funding training for a company that can only expect platoons worth of people to attend. Even if we could get past the issue of delivering military capability on the basis of one evening a week and a weekend a month (which is insufficient for many roles), the TA chain of command need to step up to the leadership challenge and get their soldiers to actually show up (95% attendance to every training event would be a step in the right direction in demonstrating that the TA is more than a social club)....

When I joined, we trained two weekends a month. My platoon was almost fully employed; we managed about 60-70% attendance on training nights, and about 35% on weekends. Strangely, we were funded for about that level of attendance. By the time I was OC, we were at the point where the regular CO was willing to cancel training to avoid MTD overspend; remember that the TA only pays you if you turn up, so that "attending platoon" wasn't taking a Company's wages.

It must have worked, our battalion provided a company for TELIC 2.

Originally Posted by brave-coward

I fully expect some TA outrage and stand by accordingly, but time to face facts, the TA cannot achieve the required standards however much resource if thrown at them. It is a real pity that there are not a few more TA officers with the experience to really understand what the regular component have to achieve and how. A good place to start are the TA versus Regular training standards (fitness, shooting and pretty much everything else). Irritated rant over.

Is that all of the TA and all of the required standards? You see, I agree with the bit about regular standards - I rather enjoyed beating our PSIs whenever it came to a fitness or skill-at-arms test, it was nice to know that no-one could whine that my test was somehow easier (I was rather disappointed at the half-distance TACFT when it was formally introduced, our lot had always done it informally as an eight-miler before that was introduced).

Quite right - one standard for all. Now, please tell us what the SAA and fitness test pass rates are for your unit, why it isn't 100%, and why that's OK for regulars. Oh, and what your attendance rate is during the working week, and why you bother training when it isn't over 95% (which I suspect is most of the time). Mildly amused rant over.

For your next trick, you can defend why the regular army hasn't disbanded all units not manned to 95% of establishment (that's most of the infantry, for most of the past few decades).

Originally Posted by woody

This was what the force protection company I was on telic 3 was made up of it was a fairly benign environment.Various people seemed to be impressed with our performance. Though if that was because they expected nothing of us being stabs or
we were adequate at our job I don't know.We are still being asked to provide troops for tours so either their is no other choice or the TA can be good enough.

Could it be that the regular army is undermanned, and the TA is filling the gaps? and when the next round of cuts arrive even more TA will be needed, IF AFGHANISTAN IS STILL HOT until the pull out.

And the TA soldier is cheaper to run is he not? but after our pull out and the regular army is back in the UK, the TA will be thinned out as not cost affective with no role.

Perhaps in the future the regular army will need to find another war to keep going, IRAN/AFRICA.

Lets be honest we do seem very quick to get our boots on, at the slightest excuse, but public opinion may in the future put an end to that, after the public horrors of AFGHANISTAN.

I just hope that any front line TA troops are fully trained, up to regular standards, for their own sakes, and return home safe.

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Quite right - one standard for all. Now, please tell us what the SAA and fitness test pass rates are for your unit, why it isn't 100%, and why that's OK for regulars. Mildly amused rant over.

Good point, as it happens the last time I did both PFT and APWT, 100% passed in both cases. I will concede that there where a few of individuals who where temporarily downgraded and not all of these passed the PFT. I don't know whether this is representative, but remember if regular officers/soldiers fail (particularly fitness) tests, they pretty much kiss goodbye to their promotion prospects and are given remedial PT training. I suspect that a TA soldier who failed his PFT would not be expected to parade before his (civi) work every day for remedial PT!

Originally Posted by brave-coward

It seems to me that whenever this issue is discussed, the stand TA response to having its shortcomings highlighted is to whinge about how it is all the fault of the awful "Regs" who are just beastly towards the TA and willfully deny it resources due to some deep-seated hate of part timers. The truth is that the MOD has for some years been under a huge amount of pressure to do a lot with very little (about to be even less) and frankly it has not had the time or money to waste on providing entertaining training to keep the TA interested while getting little in return. My view is that there is little point in funding training for a company that can only expect platoons worth of people to attend. Even if we could get past the issue of delivering military capability on the basis of one evening a week and a weekend a month (which is insufficient for many roles), the TA chain of command need to step up to the leadership challenge and get their soldiers to actually show up (95% attendance to every training event would be a step in the right direction in demonstrating that the TA is more than a social club).

a). Chicken and egg; Is MoD funding a Coy? the answer is no, they are funding a limited coy HQ. If funding was like for like then you would have a good point but frankly I think getting a plt out of a Coy on TA rates is value.
b). The training limitations are ridiculous - so increase them. Oh, hang on we haven't got the funding. How do you expect 95% attendance if it won't be paid for (which it won't)?

Originally Posted by brave-coward

I also note that there seems to be a general recollection of a golden age of the TA, when they got to do some interesting training on a relatively regular basis. The problems with this are that often this training was structured to be interesting in order to ensure attendance, often at the expense of being particularly useful in training terms. Linked to this are the general misconceptions in the TA concerning just how much training and other work is needed to deliver a particular capability. This seems to lead to the belief that part time forces can achieve much more of what their regular counterparts currently struggle to manage. For too long TA officers have been patted on the back for turning up to a training event that has been organised by somebody else and achieving standards that would result in a regular officer being sacked.

I wouldn't know. I'm genuinely not being glib but I and all my contemporaries (intake wise) have been in uniform more than out, and in many cases, on Ops more than not.

Originally Posted by brave-coward

The "Regs" are not inherently "out to get" the TA and instead are more interested in delivering capability rather than providing an amusing hobby for a bunch of people who will not show up when they are really needed.

So are the generic 10% on any given Herrick not needed?

Originally Posted by brave-coward

I fully expect some TA outrage and stand by accordingly, but time to face facts, the TA cannot achieve the required standards however much resource if thrown at them. It is a real pity that there are not a few more TA officers with the experience to really understand what the regular component have to achieve and how. A good place to start are the TA versus Regular training standards (fitness, shooting and pretty much everything else). Irritated rant over.

I'm not outraged, but you are wrong. Resources is 100% of the problem , and it's not just to do with training - it also extends to direct support to Ops. I can gaurantee you that in MB/OWOB at any one time you have a considerable number of reservists (not all in PIDs, therefore buckshee and probably on MTDs) allowing there reg counterparts to get on with doing.....well, something else, but they can only do this for as long as they have non-x factor, med or pension MTDs allocated to them.

Originally Posted by STARDUST

And the TA soldier is cheaper to run is he not?

And here lies the great misconception. It is true that a TA soldier is cheaper to run if you do nothing with him (i.e. you do not want to train him to deliver a military capability). If you want your soldiers to provide some level of military training, which will inevitably require training, then the regular soldier becomes cheaper very quickly. This is because in order to get 10 TA soldiers to turn up, you need to have 30 on the books. Because part time units take longer to train (because training must be spread across weekends and two week chunks and because of the greater churn in ORBAT over that time), you need more TA units to deliver enduring readiness (effectively a FORM cycle extended to about 5 years!). The more you delve into this, the more clear it becomes that in many cases (those capabilities that require a lot of training), regular forces are significantly cheaper in terms of £s for capability. This is not to say that the TA is not the answer in some cases, just not all. Perhaps unfortunately for the TA, many of the areas where reserve or part time forces are the best option tend to be the less glamourous (but no less important) ones.