Is your AR unit fit for purpose

#21
Wait, who do you think runs the majority of career courses now for the AR?
I would hope that maintaining the desire and motivation of the trainees either AR or regular would be the same, the AR aren't trained in basic by AR staff are they?
Phase 1 training is conducted by TA instructors.
Phase 2 was always done by regulars but that is now changing.Some ATU's are now doing phase 2,sometimes with regular instructors mixed in,sometimes reserves to a man(or woman).
Seems to be working.
BTW,we conduct recruit training.Americans do 'basic'.
 
#22
I like it that you are lapsing into the vernacular for our US brethren. 'Buddy' ; 'Coupla'. I'll be really impressed if can get 'howday' or 'hitch yer critter to the post and grab yersel some chuck' in to the chat :)

My cultural references may be out of date...
Hey he is bilingual which is important when working with Allies and educating us across the pond!

But instead of chuck try Pogey Bait.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#24
Phase 1 training is conducted by TA instructors.
Phase 2 was always done by regulars but that is now changing.Some ATU's are now doing phase 2,sometimes with regular instructors mixed in,sometimes reserves to a man(or woman).
Seems to be working.
BTW,we conduct recruit training.Americans do 'basic'.
So about the career courses? You honestly believe the AR can run them?
After all its only the kit, doctrine and working with regs that's missing. How will the AR do that when it can't deploy a Bn of troops but has all the officers snco's and psi's it needs
 
#25
Seen it happen, its tough if the army wont stick to plans then they have to put up with the results. Forget the old the Regs dont understand the AR line, they dont currently have much exposure but its still light years ahead of 30 years ago when I met my first TA troops coming on a regular six week course.
A number of TA soldiers deployed on Granby, up until then the TA was little more than a social club.
I worked with TA lads in Bosnia,some were utterly useless and others were good,just like any unit.
The regiments attitude toward them though was very negative,in fact they were treated like s**t.
I was still a regular then and I found it embarrassing.
 
#26
So about the career courses? You honestly believe the AR can run them?
After all its only the kit, doctrine and working with regs that's missing. How will the AR do that when it can't deploy a Bn of troops but has all the officers snco's and psi's it needs
I can think of two blokes who delivered a hazmat course to regulars,one Sgt.and a WO2.The feedback was quite positive and most if not all on the course didn't realise that neither of them were regulars.
I agree though,it wouldn't always work.Not many bosses will give some one perhaps six weeks off.
 
#27
Way out of touch here, but with the shift from Cold War to Middle East conflicts the role of the active reserves changed, or rather the TA was seen as a cheap way of maintaining the conflict by allowing more soldiers on the ground by making up numbers rather than taking the plunge and calling up units.

Now we have pulled out of those conflicts and the nature of future conflicts seems to be pointing towards those of yesteryear is there not a case to be made for an old style TA with formed units for certain tasks? Even if not to the scale of the past.

This might have the effect of allowing the unit to train for a specific task or range of tasks, rather than just (as I understand it) to be a filler for the Regular units which appears to be mistrusted by many. The army could then concentrate on helping train part-time troops to a reasonable standard and not have to worry about the inevitable dilution they seem to think it will bring them when the reserves are activated.

The TA was never seen, even by its most optimistic members, as an equal with the regulars, but certainly as capable of doing certain tasks competently and to a good standard. Should we not be aiming at that again?

I'm with Ugly here, a renewal seems to be in order, but then again, like I said I'm way out of touch and well liable to be shot down.

It might also go towards repairing the image that the public seem to have of the reserves.
 
#28
Way out of touch here, but with the shift from Cold War to Middle East conflicts the role of the active reserves changed, or rather the TA was seen as a cheap way of maintaining the conflict by allowing more soldiers on the ground by making up numbers rather than taking the plunge and calling up units.

Now we have pulled out of those conflicts and the nature of future conflicts seems to be pointing towards those of yesteryear is there not a case to be made for an old style TA with formed units for certain tasks? Even if not to the scale of the past.

This might have the effect of allowing the unit to train for a specific task or range of tasks, rather than just (as I understand it) to be a filler for the Regular units which appears to be mistrusted by many. The army could then concentrate on helping train part-time troops to a reasonable standard and not have to worry about the inevitable dilution they seem to think it will bring them when the reserves are activated.

The TA was never seen, even by its most optimistic members, as an equal with the regulars, but certainly as capable of doing certain tasks competently and to a good standard. Should we not be aiming at that again?

I'm with Ugly here, a renewal seems to be in order, but then again, like I said I'm way out of touch and well liable to be shot down.

It might also go towards repairing the image that the public seem to have of the reserves.
I'd agree a renewal is in order, however the last time they tried to do any primary legislation changes back in 2011 (mid Coaliton Government ) it got toned down and defanged.
Currently the AR runs on late 90s legislation that was put in at short noticve to get regulars made redundant under options for change back into uniform for the Balkans.
That the Reserve Forces Act 1996 still works (though not as shinely as Andover would like) is a tetstament to how much it still relies on volunteer ethos and goodwill on behalf of the reservist - it still is all "carrot" though, needing good leadership at all levels (no AGAI stick realistically available).

Bits I'd like to see; compulsion on employers to release for training and excercises, making discrimination against an employee because of his reserve service illegal
 
#29
A number of TA soldiers deployed on Granby, up until then the TA was little more than a social club.
I worked with TA lads in Bosnia,some were utterly useless and others were good,just like any unit.
The regiments attitude toward them though was very negative,in fact they were treated like s**t.
I was still a regular then and I found it embarrassing.
A social club was a danger, but I served in a quite good unit, so I think it is often a question of perspective. Yes there were those who turned up for the easy stuff and those that loved the harder green stuff, as you say like any unit. We achieved for a time quite a good level, but that came as a surprise to regulars when we worked with them, and that I found was a pity.

I can think of two blokes who delivered a hazmat course to regulars,one Sgt.and a WO2.The feedback was quite positive and most if not all on the course didn't realise that neither of them were regulars.
I agree though,it wouldn't always work.Not many bosses will give some one perhaps six weeks off.
Three of company, and two were from my platoon, spent a year with a regular battalion and their standards certainly did not shame them.

Mind I did the NBC course back in 84 and at the end a female Crab officer discovered I wasn't regular. "Oh, I thought you were too zany, that explains it". :relax:
 
#30
Iirc the Bundeswehr used to have units wherein the apc/ifv driver/gunner/ commander were regulars, the blokes in the back reserves.
In that scenario the regulars keep the wagon maintained and their skills up to date, the reserves get to play with armour instead of a helibedford, and everyone's happy.
 
#31
Infantry reserve:

Do units really need to regularly turn out a minimum of a full Coy Gp (full Coy HQ, full echelon, three fully manned rifle pls, GPMG SF sect, Jav sect and mortar sect with MFCs) once a month for the battalion?

If our mission is to turn out competent soldiers who can backfill the regular army then my units does that despite ‘low’ turnout.
Over the past year or so we’ve had half a dozen volunteers deploy with our paired battalion and no problem with quality of soldiering.
Retention and manning is a problem across the Army. It’s peacetime: the bullsh*t goes up and blokes get restless.
 
#32
Boring has-beens are talking of a difference in standards of soldiering which no longer exists.
It’s not an institutional difference anymore. In my experience of both regular and reserve infantry, the TA/AR have come a long way and Reserve infantrymen now are absolutely on par with regs. Of course, you get some people who are frankly sh*t soldiers or just n*bs. But n*bs and sh*t soldiers are to be found in regular battalions. There is no longer an institutional difference in competency (though there will always be individual exceptions on both sides) and anybody who has recently worked with reservists will agree I’m sure.
 
#33
Boring has-beens are talking of a difference in standards of soldiering which no longer exists.
It’s not an institutional difference anymore. In my experience of both regular and reserve infantry, the TA/AR have come a long way and Reserve infantrymen now are absolutely on par with regs. Of course, you get some people who are frankly sh*t soldiers or just n*bs. But n*bs and sh*t soldiers are to be found in regular battalions. There is no longer an institutional difference in competency (though there will always be individual exceptions on both sides) and anybody who has recently worked with reservists will agree I’m sure.
Interesting point, but is that true across the board or just in some units? In another thread the OP was complaining about the low standard of training and morale he found? Asking for information here, -I'm really old n bold
 

Pob02

LE
Book Reviewer
#34
As a SNCO did you guys get come visit a lot if you wanted to?
If was via an exchange programme, which is run every year.

I did the same thing a few years after BB. Had the joy of being knackers deep in Arkansas swamp water for a couple of weeks doing an EIB cadre.

We then hosted , in return, 4 National Guardsmen ( my exchange partner, another guy who had done the EIB with me, plus two others to help out 5RRF who had fecked up there hosting duties) who had the “joy” of Garelochead ( and the midges) as we carrried out some build-up training for a Coy’s worth of guys aboutvto deploy to Afghanistan.

We broke 2 of the Guardsmen :) Happy days.
 
#35
Iirc the Bundeswehr used to have units wherein the apc/ifv driver/gunner/ commander were regulars, the blokes in the back reserves.
In that scenario the regulars keep the wagon maintained and their skills up to date, the reserves get to play with armour instead of a helibedford, and everyone's happy.
Or light role infantry reservists can backfill as dismounts as happens? Example: 3 R WELSH send blokes to 1 R WELSH for BATUS. The Reservists aren’t crew-qual’d so they jump in the back. Armoured Infantry is easy to pick up and junior level - once you dismount it’s the same.

It already happens mate, just not in such a fixed manner.
 
#36
If was via an exchange programme, which is run every year.

I did the same thing a few years after BB. Had the joy of being knackers deep in Arkansas swamp water for a couple of weeks doing an EIB cadre.

We then hosted , in return, 4 National Guardsmen ( my exchange partner, another guy who had done the EIB with me, plus two others to help out 5RRF who had fecked up there hosting duties) who had the “joy” of Garelochead ( and the midges) as we carrried out some build-up training for a Coy’s worth of guys aboutvto deploy to Afghanistan.

We broke 2 of the Guardsmen :) Happy days.
You mean, mean man!
 
#37
Interesting point, but is that true across the board or just in some units? In another thread the OP was complaining about the low standard of training and morale he found? Asking for information here, -I'm really old n bold
Yeah I think I saw that thread. It’s a slightly different (but obviously closely related) issue though: morale versus professional capability.

Morale is a problem across the army currently, regular and reserve. The standard of drill nights (Pte Pikey I think?) described should be unacceptable but it happens so often.

So I think it’s across the board on both fronts: low morale and poorly-executed drill nights but still a good general standard of soldiering.
 
#38
Yeah I think I saw that thread. It’s a slightly different (but obviously closely related) issue though: morale versus professional capability.

Morale is a problem across the army currently, regular and reserve. The standard of drill nights (Pte Pikey I think?) described should be unacceptable but it happens so often.

So I think it’s across the board on both fronts: low morale and poorly-executed drill nights but still a good general standard of soldiering.
Thank you.
 

Pob02

LE
Book Reviewer
#39
Interesting point, but is that true across the board or just in some units? In another thread the OP was complaining about the low standard of training and morale he found? Asking for information here, -I'm really old n bold
It is a pretty fair comment for a large number of AR infantry Battalions.

However, as commented on elsewhere, some units really are a bit dog-toffee.

I would not dare to presume on AR units with different roles, as I do not have the experience there.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top