Should the TA train the TA?

Some things really do need to be delivered by Regulars - OPTAG don't have a TA component, for example.

But should basic functions be taught by TA or by Regulars?

I'm a strong advocate of the STABs training themselves whenever possible. Insisting that, say, harbour drills are taught by Regulars will very rapidly lead to anyone over the rank of Private wondering why they bothered with career courses. If that continues, you'll end up with a unit that very rapidly sees an "us and them" divide between Regulars and Reservists.

I've heard of one very experienced SNCO being told that he can't deliver training based on the Forecast of Events because the (Regular) training team - PSIs, presumably - "will deliver that". On asking what he should do with his platoon for the four drill nights prior to that weekend, he was told "Battle Prep"...

I've heard a fair bit more, but thats enough to be getting on with for now.


Wherever possible (ie you have a current and competent instructor) the TA should, indeed must, train the TA.

If you don't have anyone qualified, the regular staff should conduct until such time as a TA soldier gains the qual. They should shadow the regular staff to gain an insight how to do it until they go on the course.

Qualified but not competent - EDIP from the regular staff until they are either competent or sacked.
As above.

PSIs should be the backstop, not the bowler.
Yep. They're there to make sure that Training can be delivered with the right equipment, on the right training area and make sure that the right training is being delivered. They may conduct some training where nobody in that unit has the right qual OR provide up to date instruction where things have changed
One army!

In my old unit, we taught most things ourselves. We had the qualified personnel, who had attended AFV, Ranges, First aid courses etc and they were key in bounty weekends, as were the PTIs who took the CFT.

Bearing in mind that the courses attended were run by regulars - Section Commanders course, Field Sgts, Dems safety, water safety etc. These people who attended are all competent, otherwise they would not have passed.

Oh and as a footnote, we used to spend a fair bit of time teaching regulars, mine clearance and watermanship etc.
The idea reminds me of a saying....... Something about the blind leading the blind........
Depends on the trade. TA CMT's being for the most part NHS Ambulance are as a general rule more highly trained than a reg CMT, A TA Chef who most of the time is in a top bollocks Hotel/Restaurant is probably going to be better than one of Andy Capps' Commandos.

Field Skills and Teeth arms are a different thing, clearly, but none combat trades the TA may well lead and be able to show the Regs some things
If TA is competent Regs should take a back seat. Intelligent TA will consult Reg before he instructs. If expertise is not there Reg should instruct.

Now I'll come back and train 'em. Just let me grab my trusty SL...........oooooops.
The idea reminds me of a saying....... Something about the blind leading the blind........
Dingerr - not entirely true in all circumstances. I can think of circumstances where Regular staff may indeed be less competent and experienced than TA staff and Regular staff defer to their knowledge. Sure, these are rare situations, but when you have experienced blokes leaving the Army after 22 years, joining the TA and getting a job as a Defence contractor or civilian Instructor, then the situation complicates.

We have the situation now where you may have a full screw in a CR2 Regt that hasn't been near a tank since phase 2, done Ops on something else and a TA Sgt/ SSgt with Op Battle Group experience on Granby who is a full time VT Land Instr during the day, who was on Ops with the Cpl - who is the more experienced?

UK Ops - rather be taught by a bloke who just read the pam or the TA Officer who is the expert in such matters for a large local authority that has briefed COBRa?

Strange things are happening.

Similar threads