Arfurs views on TA officers

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Arfur, Nov 15, 2005.

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. Actually, having been TA and now in the regular Army, I think the biggest difference between the TA and the Regs is the officers. You could take any TA soldier I know and, with a bit of training, get him to fit in with a regular unit no problems. Trouble is, the gulf between regular officers and TA officers is vast and unbridgable - how could it not be? We get a year of 14 hour days training, TA officers get something like (off the top of my head) 12 weekends and two three-week courses. I'd say that was the TA's biggest weakness in terms of working with the regular Army.
     
  2. I'd agree with Arfur, but with the qualifier that a TA unit headed by a TA officer would probably achieve the same outcome if set the same task as a Regular unit headed by a Regular officer, though by different means and almost certainly not in accordance with the DS solution. (But as DS are almost invariably Regular, they are biased anyway ;) ). The problems come when you start mixing them as TA and Regular have different mind-sets - different, but not necessarily inferior.
     
  3. msr

    msr LE

    It's attitudes like this which cause problems, not solve them. It's not like TA officers are on the dole when they're not in green.

    msr
     
  4. No, I think it's fair comment. I'm not having a go, per se, I'm merely pointing out that I've done both TA officer training and regular officer training, and there's a massive gulf between the two in terms of actual work done, practice, and standards expected. It was supposed to be constructive criticism!
     
  5. However, qualities like enthusiasm, lack of cynicism, positive upbeat attitudes and a host of other pleasant attributes have a value all their own.

    Your posit would be correct if by extension all Regular Army officers were utterly professional, incapable of errors and never wrong - I don't think that is the case, somehow.

    We're a broad church, and long may it remain so, and god forbid we should ever expect our TA chums to be fully swept up soldiers, anymore than you or I could run ICI or a classroom full of screaming kids.
     
  6. msr

    msr LE

    Obviously you've never served with the TA on Ops. If you think we were expected to produce a lower standard of work, then you are clearly mistaken, and I may even venture to add you will find yourself measured by goon-bde's standards, not mine.

    msr
     
  7. msr

    msr LE

    Sadly a year of 14 hour days, having it drilled into you that you are the best, makes the intellectually idle believe it...

    msr
     
  8. Sorry chaps, just speaking it as I've seen it. I'm not saying every Army officer is perfect, nor that I am, nor that all TA officers are bad. It's just that I don't think TA officer training, as I've experienced it, is as effective as Reg training, and from what I saw of the TA officers in my unit, there's a certain gap in skills there. It's obvious! The more training you get, the better you will be.

    Might I suggest you've been slagged off too many times by arrogant regs and you're knee-jerking at valid criticism?
     
  9. Given that the topic originated as a query about joining the TA by an IKEA shop assistant, also wanting to know about animosity/banter between Regulars and TA, have we not digressed into a bun fight more suited to the Officers' Mess?

    Stumann73: If you're still following your topic, what you see above is a prime example of the deities having a go at one another. The next extension of this is where one decides to prove his prowess and the other is unwilling to be outdone. As officers can only show their ability in terms of the degree of impossibility that they can get their troops to accomplish, it follows that the troops get run ragged. This urge to sacrifice the troops began in WW1, though at that time the officers in question were on opposite sides of No Man's Land. Because of politically correct sensitivites, it is incumbent on the officers of today to pitch their own troops against each other, in order not to offend other nations. A shame we cannot return to more honourable times when one of the antagonists would throw down a gauntlet at the other person's feet in prelude to settling the matter at dawn the following day. This would engender camaraderie between the Regular and TA ORs as they settle down in deck chairs with flagons of ale to watch the outcome of the duel.

    Author's note: This thread started elsewhere with a different subject. Extracts have been moved to form what you see here. Confused the **** out of me.
     
  10. Good idea Puttees

    May I suggest we start the ball rolling with the 7 Paras just acquitted vs, say, TCB?

    Winners go through to the next rounds to face Gordon "miserable fat git" Brown, John "oh fcuk, not Health" Reid and Charlie "Fungus the Bogeyman" Clarke.
     
  11. Hooray, my own thread, I feel so validated. Seeing as it upsets you all so much, I'll say there's nothing wrong with the system and there's no possible way the Army could be improved in any way. It is utterly perfect.
     
  12. pmsl@Arfur - quality post

    How about the thought that a cr4p Regular is treated as the exception that proves the rule whilst a cr4p Territorial is somehow taken as indicative of the entire TA.

    Throw into the mix the fact that the two main interfaces between TA and Reg are:

    a) Regs posted into TA Units - a minority (significant but a minority nonetheless) of very, very good guys (typically either on a career rebuild or on a career fast-track) but far, far too many final tour "NFI", anti-stab PSIs polluting the system - and a few bad-egg Officers infesting RHQs with anti-stab atmosphere.

    b) TA Officers and a few Soldiers on FTRS appointments. A minority (significant but a minority nonetheless) of very, very good ones determined to "do their bit" but a disturbing number of not very good civilians who can't get a civvy job and who seem to just be doing it for some no risk, easy cash with plenty of time off, meanwhile letting their Regular colleagues see the TA at its worst.


    OK, enough negativity, here's one I rather like - how about the thought that the above examples really are the exception and we consider that the VAST majority of Reg and TA alike are well above the quality line, can and do work together comfortably and effectively, both bring their own skill-set to the party and display the ATTITUDE that we need to keep the whole thing working despite everything that Govt, Society and our enemies around the World throw at us.

    Arfur - you'll need to work harder to convince me that you're not one of the good guys ;)
     
  13. Actually, re. your first post, the PSI's I came across were mostly excellent, I thought they were one of the things about the TA that worked really well. Ditto the two regimental adjutants I worked a lot with in my last year as a TA OCdt.
     
  14. Many are - I hope I wasn't too "sweepingly general" I merely sought to highlight where the interface goes wrong. Anyway, it is still entirely possible that it is all just down to shouting. BAAAH! :D
     
  15. Rubbish, the interface is perfect, and you know it.