Plan to alternate between Regular and TA COs

#1
A fellow officer who knows his MS stuff e-mailed me the following "It would appear that IGTA is challenging TA primacy on E1/E2 commands and has stated that command should alternate between TA and Reg unless the TA candidate would be too old the next time the appointment came about. This issue may affect any commands you have applied for (less RTCs) if the present incumbent is already TA."

Greedy aren't they.

Why are they doing this? More command posts for them (of course but ungenerous) or a real unease concerning the quality of TA soldiers (it can't be the units as they never get tested). If it is the latter, and there are several posts here that hint at this, then what we need to do to remedy the problem is to tackle the cause - trg quality and quantity.

My thinking is that what we need to push for is an improvement in the quality of the Trg Maj and leave the CO well alone. Trg is the area we must continually update and drive forward not the role and post of the CO. Like you all, I have seen good COs done down by bad Trg Majs but never bad COs done down by a good Trg Maj. And again probably like you all the wost CO who ever had the honour of commanding me was a Regular.

If the Regular Army really wants to address the ability of the TA then they need to be told to look elsewhere for the answer. The problem does not lie with the CO, it lies with the profile of Trg Maj. Give us some pre-command thrusters and then we'd be cooking.
 
#2
I don't think that I have ever had a TA CO...

msr
 
#5
Umm I know of one unit in particular that have been unlucky on two occasions in the past 6 years with micro-managing, socially inept, pontificating, untrusting, moral sapping etc... regular COs and a break of one reg CO in two at least gives the sub-units back their moral for a wee while.
 
#7
Strikesure said:
A fellow officer who knows his MS stuff e-mailed me the following "It would appear that IGTA is challenging TA primacy on E1/E2 commands and has stated that command should alternate between TA and Reg unless the TA candidate would be too old the next time the appointment came about.
So that's going to be "Well Bloggs, you're the best candidate but we think you should try again in three years while we put a regular in (but we don't really want to see you back in three years, we're rather hoping you'll get hacked off and hand your kit in)..."

Pants.

Looking well out of my league to the TA Col posts and I seem to recall that unit command is essential. So logic says they'll be no candidates for these posts and they'll remain unfilled unless... thinks hard... ah! more jobs for reg full cols... Genius!

Let's hope the TA two-stars mount some effective lobbying.

You just can't make it up!!
 
#9
The_Duke said:
Never had a TA CO, never expect to have one, know for damn sure I will never be one! What is the problem?
It's a problem for those units which have traditionally viewed a TA CO position as "second best", and didn't have as tight a relationship between regular and TA units as yours.

The personal qualities and skills needed to be a good regular CO of a TA unit aren't quite identical to those needed for a regular unit. Some postings branches don't quite realise the subtle difference.

See numerous threads on the subject.
 
#10
I've known loads of TA COs (even infantry) and they've been mostly good chaps and had a beneficial impact on the Unit (one or two have been to55ers). I've known loads of Regular COs who for the most part have also been OK but invariably, they run out of steam towards the second half of the tour - partly because they realise that they have time on their hands and partly because they are used to the two and half year cycle so don't start anything new in year two. The TA blokes keep going to the end.

Both have their benefits and a few downsides - a 'balance' is the key and with proper MS management, it should alternate or be slightly biased towards the TA.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#11
Gravelbelly said:
The_Duke said:
Never had a TA CO, never expect to have one, know for damn sure I will never be one! What is the problem?
It's a problem for those units which have traditionally viewed a TA CO position as "second best", and didn't have as tight a relationship between regular and TA units as yours.

The personal qualities and skills needed to be a good regular CO of a TA unit aren't quite identical to those needed for a regular unit. Some postings branches don't quite realise the subtle difference.

See numerous threads on the subject.
I am sure that many of our regular COs would rather have picked up command of a regular Bn as well.

We have certainly had the usual mix of good/bad/ugly, but I would still rather have a CO fighting our corner on the Regtl council amongst his counterparts who he may well have been a subbie/Coy Comd etc with.
 
#12
Strikesure said:
command should alternate between TA and Reg
Has already happened / is happening.

Was previously in a Regiment where this was normal practice, though that is not the case where I am now.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#16
I've had more TA and Reg CO's than I can shake a stick at. No real issue at all between either.

The best of CO was TA and I don't mean for his 'comraderery ways' - I mean for his leading by example...

Nope, I matters not to me and I don't really see how it impacts most folk. If it does impact you then I'd be interested to know how?
 
#17
Mr Happy said:
I've had more TA and Reg CO's than I can shake a stick at. No real issue at all between either.

The best of CO was TA and I don't mean for his 'comraderery ways' - I mean for his leading by example...

Nope, I matters not to me and I don't really see how it impacts most folk. If it does impact you then I'd be interested to know how?
Currently the rules on precedence dictate that, if there is a suitable available TA officer, then he/she will get the job in priority to a regular. In theory, this means that, if there were sufficient suitable available TA officers, all TA units would have TA COs all the time, although it doesn't work like that.

How it would affect you would be if you were suitable and available for command but the existing CO was also TA, you wouldn't get the job and would have to wait for 2 years, by which time you might no longer be suitable or available - thus meaning you would never get the chance to command.

Its been talked about for a long while. If the reasons are to give regular officers more command slots, then its a little disingenuous, although not totally bad. If its to ensure greater integration, then it probably has rather more merit. If it is because it is perceived that TA unit command is now so important that you can't trust too many STABs on the trot, then this is probably also disingenuous - a TA unit is really only a holding/training organisation anyway.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#18
Dilfor said:
How it would affect you would be if you were suitable and available for command but the existing CO was also TA, you wouldn't get the job and would have to wait for 2 years, by which time you might no longer be suitable or available - thus meaning you would never get the chance to command.
My point, it effects officers only with their chances for promotion. Which means to the average TA soldier who does 3 years its doesn't matter an orgasm in a condom.

If it effects you and your ambition to be a CO, isn't it reasonable to say that maybe you should have gone reg? Or if it is to do with cross-training I like it, but then, dump all TA CO's and only have Reg CO's, or OC's for that matter...
 
#19
Mr Happy said:
Dilfor said:
How it would affect you would be if you were suitable and available for command but the existing CO was also TA, you wouldn't get the job and would have to wait for 2 years, by which time you might no longer be suitable or available - thus meaning you would never get the chance to command.
My point, it effects officers only with their chances for promotion. Which means to the average TA soldier who does 3 years its doesn't matter an orgasm in a condom.

If it effects you and your ambition to be a CO, isn't it reasonable to say that maybe you should have gone reg? Or if it is to do with cross-training I like it, but then, dump all TA CO's and only have Reg CO's, or OC's for that matter...
That's certainly a point of view - and one I held for a long, long time myself - but there are clear benefits in having TA officers hold senior rank - eg we get a DIGTA and a ACDS R&C speaking for us. For them to get to 1* & 2* level requires some career progression ie a TA General needs to have been a CO.

So, no, it doesn't affect the huge majority of the rank & file directly, but there is an impact on the organisation as a whole.

The flaw in your argument over ambition/cross training is, of course, that you could probably apply that to any TA rank over private, with increasing justification the further up the chain.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#20
Dilfor said:
The flaw in your argument over ambition/cross training is, of course, that you could probably apply that to any TA rank over private, with increasing justification the further up the chain.
Indeed it can! And then we come full circle to why have TA formed units when we should just have BCR's... And so the argument goes on...

Certainly in the cold war, formed units with cohesion and officers as high up as it can go makes sense. Now though, I feel, with the use of soldiers as BCR's or guard platoons it makes sense to address the whole thing perhaps? Can of worms opened...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top