a stupid question asked by a stab

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Nutter, Dec 14, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. how different is the regs from the ta i mean the people and training

    i know i may seem very very green asking this, but i havent been out on ops yet with the regs and i just wondered how different is it as i wouldnt mind joining the regs when im finished at college. i have been ta inf for about 2.5 years
  2. As a stab who has worked with the arabs for the past 15 years, not as much as you'd think.

    There are good and bad on both sides. The Regs are better trained (but so they should be) and there are less walts/******* because constant exposure to each other roots them out far more quickly. Few Regs are promoted because they good attenders.

    The quality of the people is the same but the training and exposure to a core set of values sets the Regs apart.

    If you are thinking of going Reg then go for it.

    Mushroom wanders off into dreaming about if only he was a young shaver again etc
  3. yep - good and bad in both - but I found that due to the size there are more numpties in the regs. Not slagging but a mathematical fact.

    Of course the TA skills are not honed as much as the regs but the difference is minimal and TA soldiers are normally up to speed after build up training before going on ops.

    Also, the regs don't like mentioning the fact that they do feck-all during most weeks apart from constantly moan (knowledge first hand - been there, done that, etc..)
  4. thanks all was thinking about it soon wasnt thinking of inf was thinking of maybe reme or re though but its nice to know
  5. Nutter - pardon me for being honest, but that is a feckin bone question and the wonder is that these pages aren't full of comments which may be, well a little less complimentary than you want.

    What's the difference? I won't go into the training and experience issue - one would hope you can work that one out yourself (please).

    Mainly the difference is that we have certain civilian values that can't help but influence our behaviour to some extent when we're 'in green'.

    Here's some quotes - hope you understand because they explain better than I can (and I can't really be arrsed, to be fair):
    "It is said that the Army should reflect society, but what an
    army does, and what in the final analysis it is for, do not
    reflect society. The Army defends society but it cannot
    share its values, for if it does it cannot do its job."
    Major Gordon Corrigan RGR, Mud, Blood and Poppycock,

    "…although war may be bad, fighting may be bad,
    application of force may be bad (none of which is selfevidently
    true, but assuming it to be so), the military life,
    which would disappear if violence vanished among men, is
    in many important respects good.
    Why this should be so is not difficult to see if we look at
    what have been called the military virtues. These, to quote
    an impartial witness in Toynbee, ‘confront us as a
    monumental fact which cannot be whittled down or
    explained away.’ But the military virtues are not in a class
    apart; ‘They are virtues which are virtues in every walk of
    life…nonetheless virtues for being jewels set in blood and
    iron.’ They include such qualities as courage, fortitude
    and loyalty.
    What is important about such qualities as these in the
    present argument is that they acquire in the military
    context, in addition to their moral significance, a
    functional significance as well. The essential function of an armed force is to fight in battle. Given equally
    advanced military techniques a force in which the qualities
    I have mentioned are more highly developed can
    confidently expect to defeat an equal force in which they
    are less and will often win when the opposing force is
    stronger. Thus while you may indeed hope to meet these
    virtues in every walk of life, and a good deal of educational
    effort is spent on developing them as being generally
    desirable, in the profession of arms they are functionally
    indispensable. The training, the group organisations, the
    whole pattern of life of the professional man-at-arms is
    designed in a deliberate effort to foster them, not just
    because they are morally desirable in themselves, but
    because they are essential to military efficiency…
    In consequence the moral tone in a military group tends to
    be higher than in a professional group where the existence
    of these qualities is desirable but not functionally essential,
    where their presence will make life for the members of the
    group more agreeable but will not necessarily make the
    group functionally more efficient. This is one reason why
    officers do not always find it easy at first to settle down and
    earn a living in civilian life, where the functional aspects of
    moral obligation are less apparent and the ex-officer is
    puzzled and sometimes distressed to find, for reasons he
    cannot always comprehend, a moral tone lower in some
    respects than that to which he is accustomed."
    General Sir John Hackett, The Profession of Arms, 1983
  6. Considering that the title of the thread indicates that nutter knows it's a bit of a 'bone' question, but one he is willing to ask anyway, yours is more of a 'bone' answer. Proving that there is no such thing as a stupid question, just a stupid answer.
  7. So you're saying that TA soldiers retain civilian values and are therefore presumably deficient in military values (courage, loyalty, fortitude etc)?

    Say again, in your own words, over.
  8. No. Just re-read it.

    Notice: "But the military virtues are not in a class
    apart; ‘They are virtues which are virtues in every walk of
    life…nonetheless virtues for being jewels set in blood and
    iron.’ They include such qualities as courage, fortitude
    and loyalty.
    What is important about such qualities as these in the
    present argument is that they acquire in the military
    context, in addition to their moral significance, a
    functional significance as well. "
  9. I think the main difference that you'll notice is the change of pace.

    Whereas you currently strive to take in all that is thrust at you over the course of 2 drill nights and a weekend, in the Regulars you'll have at least two weeks to cover the same content, giving enough time to allow weekends off and entire afternoons devoted to sport without detriment to the military training.

    The TA learns at quick time (and therefore may have to gloss over some aspects of training, picking up the missed pieces over time or, in the case of mobilisation, during OPTAG). The Regulars learn at slow time, learning by drill (and thereby reinforcing lessons learned as they progress through training).

    You'll have heard gripes from Regulars that current operational commitments leave them with little time off. In reality, they still have a fair amount of time off, but not at preferred locations. So the married soldier, when on courses between periods of deployment, still gets weekends off but may not be able to visit family and friends (and properly escape from the green) so morale suffers.
  10. Qualities like 'courage, fortitude and loyalty' are indeed qualities that are virtues in all walks of life. They can however not be taught as such, but can be instilled in those around you by demonstrating them. You don't know you have them until the time comes that they are needed.

    The fact that they are more apparent in the Military is that there are reletivley few oppertunities in civvy street that require courage or fortitude and true loyalty are not as apparent in a world of 9-5 jobs. It is far too easy to take the 'line of least resistance', leave it to someone else or just call for help, which is an option not always afforded to soldiers on Ops.

    The TA does allow more of our society to recognize these virtues, and they are virtues, which can only be a good thing. Too many of today's society have never needed them, will never need them and quite frankly, couldn't care either.
  11. Thanks Plant-Pilot - think that's spot-on, and probably why TA soldiers (usually) rave about their part-time job - because it allows them to enjoy working in a real team with a proper sense of togetherness. Apologies for misunderstanding.

    Good to see a thread focussing on what we have in common rather than the differences.
  12. Like has been said before there are good and bad in both. Ive worked with quite a few TA on ops and the majority have fitted right in so you wouldnt know they were TA. I did have the misfortune of bumping into one who was out for glory and plenty of tales to take back who said "he'd rather have a tour with lots of incidents even loss of comrades life than a boring one". My response to him was thank f""k i wasnt in his unit as he was a c""t. As for the regs not having much to do that depends on your unit but there arent many with the current commitments who arent training for ops/ returning from ops or on ops.
  13. Just talking in generalisations here.

    The regs get more intensive training and work better as a unit, and I believe the mitties are rooted out pretty quickly. They are often more conversant with the tactics, IA drills and kit.

    The TA has more mitties, but they are generally more enthusiastic and on the whole brighter due to the demands of civilian jobs.

    Reg squaddies are just that, whereas a TA squaddie might also be a doctor, lawyer or scientist. Downside is, they might also be a shelf-stacker in Tescos and just want to play with guns.
  14. Don't ever let slip that you have any special skills from civvie like, like welding or carpentry.

    You can bet you bottom doller you'll be the go to guy for all of these things when needed, as you'll be closer than the RE. It feels nice at first but when you spend you days off welding sniper shields to posts on a wall around a school in Karbul you'll being to regret it.
  15. ooooohh, that explains it then.

    I was wondering why, when I mentioned my civvie trade, they kept giving me money and asking me for sex.

    I thought it was just a regs thing?!?