• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

ITDs/MATTS Creating a Three Tier TA

#1
Apparently my Regt is trailing the new MATT system, Military Annual Training Tests.

As I understand it, and I am the first to admit that I am not a MATT expert, the tests are divided into three tiers based upon a regiment’s operational readiness. The higher the level the more work you have to do.

My regt, RAC, fits in to the cat 2 readiness which means to pass my shooting test I have fire at a 25m range and get a zeroed group of:
60mm prone
70mm sitting
80mm squatting/kneeling
140mm standing.

So what I am asking the wider TA Arse community is:

1. Anyone come across MATTS
2. Is this really all I had to pass ITD
3. What do you think of this new system. Personally I think its barking

I am concerned that this is another way for the MoD/Treasury cutting costs by cutting our range time. The actual ITD shoot took less than 30 minutes.
 
#4
While you are right about the three tiers they are as follows:

Level 1: Regular Army Units is all commands, individuals deployed on enduring Ops, TA Units and individuals warned for Ops, TA individuals serving full time with Regular Army Units, Staff at training establishments, Individuals in deployable roles.

Level 2: The TA not warned for Operations and not at level 1 or 3.

Level 3: Individuals in non-deployable HQ roles (eg MOD, LAND) and non-deployable Units (eg ACIO).
 
#5
Krettin said:
Apparently my Regt is trailing the new MATT system, Military Annual Training Tests.

My regt, RAC, fits in to the cat 2 readiness which means to pass my shooting test I have fire at a 25m range and get a zeroed group of:
60mm prone
70mm sitting
80mm squatting/kneeling
140mm standing.


The actual ITD shoot took less than 30 minutes.
Shirley these group sizes cannot be correct... a 60mm group at 25m equates to 240mm at 100m; 720mm (almost 2 and a half feet!) at 300m!

No wonder the shoot took less then 30 minutes, can't imagine even the biggest Pte McFcuknuts needing to re-shoot :roll:
 
#7
Krettin said:
I am concerned that this is another way for the MoD/Treasury cutting costs by cutting our range time. The actual ITD shoot took less than 30 minutes.
I doubt it, just another idea that has good aims but will foul of treating the entire TA as having the same needs. In an infantry lowering the shooting standards will just end up being another reason for lads/lasses to leave. From what I've read it could also mean my Signals unit has to be at a higher standard of shooting than they are, even though in our primary role we deploy without rifles.

Someone with some balls needs to stand up and tell people they aren't getting the results they want, i.e. the number of TA who've pass XYZ test may look good during a powerpoint presentation but its actually achieved nothing on the shop floor. Spending a weekend doing ITD tests achieves loads of cash (bounties) and good stats but it isn't developing anyones abilities. ITDs should be focused around training not testing.

I rather see an independant body be formed that visits units during ITD training, they inspect the training looking for a well put together training programme, all TA attending the training get given passes if they've attended (and attempted the training) BUT the CO/OM gets reported on. If the training was naff it would then look bad on the CO/OM's prospects.

It may sound barking but if you consider PT, for the lazy/unift/fat unit ABC has decided to run lectures on healthy eating/living for the fat cnuts, gentle runs and this group will do remedial PT when possible. The fitter group does harder training etc but doesn't get bored on stupid walks with a small amount of weight.
Maybe a unit shouldn't visited maybe they need to justify their training.

This is a major retention factor for me, completing the minimal standard every year pisses me of. Even my trade training (towards CPl/SNCO level) has been piss poor. I can take being called a STAB but having training thats specifically aimed at making you feel that way !!!!!!

I won't even start on weekends where you play soldiers (infantry), its not our role to do section attacks etc ....... witnessed a medics unit doing one last year, it was soooooooo awfull, made my sigs unit look like special forces. (mainly funny, as each section had several nurses/doctors in it)
 
#8
As Siggies you'll never get hit by the bad guys? One doesn't expect the Royal Corps(v) to be infantry, but they should be able to defend themselves and part of defending themselves means clearing an enemy position.

Yes someone needs to tell Upavon or wherever some truths if the TA is going to move forward and provide what is expected of it, but it must be done positively.
 
#9
Right then - ears back, eyes down and look in for the answers :D


Krettin - no you're not trialling it - we're all doing it wef 1 April 06 - you're just better briefed than most :D

Answers to your questions.

1. Yes - see the APWT thread quoted below.
2. No - it isn't called an ITD it's called a MATT and there are 6, but yes this is all you are REQUIRED to do - many units will do more.
3. It's a good idea as it will enable us to concentrate on the trg we need for the role/operational commitment we actually have at the time instead of everyone slavishly doing the same old thing year in and year out. See my comments on the APWT thread quoted by Carlos for more.

It's nothing to do with cutting costs. It means you can spend more time doing USEFUL shooting like actually applying marksmanship principles instead of all those people wasting rounds by simply "attempting" the APWT (aka firing the requisite number of rounds with no clue what they are doing)

Carlos - I really know - trust me on this.

msr - not yet but there is a major review of bounty underway - no dramatic changes until JPA is in - 2008 or 2010 at the earliest although standby for some possible changes in the differential between years 1 and 2 and the rest. Bounty may indeed get aligned to some sort of fitness for mobilisation.

Captain Plume - you missed out from lvl 1 - TA at R0-R5 ;) (but you've read the paper too I see)

Darth - PM me if you want to hear more (assuming you don't know it already)

Merlin - you've missed the point - it gives the infantry MORE time to do decent shooting and less time spent slavishly firing a set test. There will be no more "attendance" stuff - it's pass all 6 MATTs, not attempt all and pass 3 as for ITDs. Actually the fitness one will be a a higher standard than now - 6 mile CFT within 2 yrs plus BPFA annually.

Mushroom- everyone who deploys on ops regardless of capbadge will be required to qualify at level 1 BEFORE starting pre-deployment training so this point is irrelevant.

Guys - don't start knocking this before you've even been briefed on it. I have read the paper and it is a good idea intended to give us more flexibility with training and to train people for the role they are actually going to perform while leaving more time for us to use our imagination and put retention positive training in. (come on - ITD weekend? retention positive? Wouldn't you rather have a decent shooting weekend without the "oh we must all fire an APWT" waste of time for people who've never really been taught how to shoot? Well now you can)

OK - at your target in front (me) carry on.
 
#12
everyone who deploys on ops regardless of capbadge will be required to qualify at level 1 BEFORE starting pre-deployment training so this point is irrelevant.
If the majority of TA soldiers are being called up as IRs, how do they find the time to reach this standard when the rest of the unit wont be doing it?
 
#13
Purple - I've commented on this point in the other thread here. I think Units will still train to this standard but they will have time to do it their way, not the slavish ITD way.
 
#14
Scaryspice wrote:

Captain Plume - you missed out from lvl 1 - TA at R0-R5 (but you've read the paper too I see)
Yep, fair one, but I got bored typing all the categories. I agree the paper makes interesting reading and is overall very sensible but one thing that does not appear to have been addressed is the issue of bounty. Surely there will need to be a change in TA Regs to bring MATTs into the system. How easy will it be to do this?
 
#15
scaryspice said:
Merlin - you've missed the point - it gives the infantry MORE time to do decent shooting and less time spent slavishly firing a set test. There will be no more "attendance" stuff - it's pass all 6 MATTs, not attempt all and pass 3 as for ITDs. Actually the fitness one will be a a higher standard than now - 6 mile CFT within 2 yrs plus BPFA annually.
Not sure if I have, yes it allows more time for training but will that happen in practice. I currently have to do just zeroing for APWT, which could mean I'm spending a weekend shooting or spend 40 mins zeroing the rifle and then moving onto other ITD's.

Its similar with recognition, we get 40 mins presentation on AFV's, less than 10% pass the test, but we all get signed off.
 
#17
jock_sinclair said:
Rumour has it that there is a new TA CFT as part of the MATT program. Anyone have details?
PTIs said that at the moment it was staying as a four miler but was a chance it was going up to either 6 or 8 miles
 
#18
Merlin745 wrote:

I currently have to do just zeroing for APWT
[Pedant on]

No you don't do zeroing for your APWT. You do zeroing to qualify you for ITD(A) 1 Personal Weapon Training. The APWT remains the APWT, albeit with the changes discussed on the APWT thread.

[/Pedant off.]
 
#19
Jock - it's not a rumour - as I said in one of my previous replies the TA CFT (required at lvl 2 MATT) will go up to 6 miles over the next 2 years. The lvl 1 MATT will be 8 miles so what you are required to maintain will depend on your role (as it should do)

Captain P - I understand that legislative change will not be needed at this stage. Re further changes to the Bounty system, the legislative issues, the need for tri-service agreement and the JPA issue are the three things preventing any significant changes to the bounty system at the moment - i.e. allying states of readiness for mob to the payment of different amounts. There is a full review taking place on this, although there will be some minor changes for 2007 (not so minor for those that will benefit - yrs 1 & 2 Bounty probably) Glad I'm not the only pedant on this thread though :)

Merlin - that will really be up to the heirachy of you Unit won't it? I hope they will see this as a positive opportunity.... BTW you won't be doing veh rec for mandatory bounty tests any more (hurrah!)

And all those people who've PM'd me for further detail - I don't mind answering specific queries but sorry guys I'm not typing out the whole umpteen page paper for you (the only reason I have said as much as I have is to scotch the usual rumour mill and try to make poeple see the positive side so they don't dismiss it before they've even had the brief - which I know is imminent). You should be hearing more very soon through your chain of command - why not ask them and see?
 
#20
The increase in timings for the CFT will require people to train more in their own time. At the moment there is no provision to pay people for this training nor for any form of insurance should someone training in their own time, but specifically in order to pass the CFT. be injured. Have the great brains thought this one through or are they going to wait for a court case and waste of public money on Treasury Solicitors before they come up with a viable scheme?
 

Latest Threads