I have to agree with Allan Luomala on this one....
It is easy to blame the "Army Training Establishments" for changes in Res F course dates, seemingly endless amendments to the TSs and TPs, "Mods in/Mods out" changes, etc, etc. And certainly, at the end of the day the Regular Army in the form of LFDTS bears some responsibility for this fluid (and therefore difficult to cater to) situation. But at the same time, having served on both sides of the fence as have other members here (PBI by all means speak up), this is not in the least a one-sided situation.
The brutal truth of the matter is that the Res F senior leadership bear equal responsibility for whatever "heart-ache" that hopeful summer trainees are currently enduring. First and foremost, the semingly ceaseless "module" adjustments for both officer and NCM professional development training most often occur at the behest of the Reserve Force. Not all, but most. Where the PLQ is concerned, some of the grief is certainly due to the ongoing agony and resultant "negotiation" between the various factions of the "purple" versus "brown" verus "green" Army. At the end of the day however, the modularization of training is a genuine effort on the part of LFDTS to cater to Res F needs while simultaneously preserving minimal training standards in accordance with a common training standard. The Army Training Establishments (Inf Sch, Armd Sch, Arty Sch, Tac Sch) simply dance to the tune that LFDTS HQ directs.
At the end of the day, we have all been down this road back and forth for more years that I can personally keep track of. Does the Res F want the same standard and course-code? Fine - the Reg F designs modular courses so that they can attain that standard (with "no train" limitations). Does the Res F not want the same standard and course-code? Fine - the Reg F designs Reserve-specific training courses. The ongoing ACT Infantry Reserve Dismounted Company Commanders' Course that I teach every year would be a "non-total-force" case in point of a course that seems to work just fine for the Reserve Force. The alternative to this "Reserve-specific" course would be to load Res F candidates on the annual Reg F "Combined Arms Team Commander Course". And I am here to tell you that based on first-hand experience, any such initiative would be an utter and complete disaster for all concerned.
At the end of the day, the Res F senior leadership needs to (finally!) decide what it wants/needs out of training courses. The endless cries for "training equality without equitable training commitment" are complete and utter crap. I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't work that way. "Less" truly does mean "Less". You either commit to the time, or you have one of two choices -You can accept an identical standard with a reduced range of tasks/expectations, OR you can accept a lower standard across the full range of tasks/expectations
When my Training Establishment (the Army Tactics School) receives students for the annual ACT Infantry Course (eg. the Dismounted Company Commander's Course), the time available precludes us from teaching anything more than the most basic of dismounted tactics. We are constrained by a 14-day window, of which 2 days are devoted to travel based on the average civilian holidays of Res F participants.
Hey - genuine kudos for spending your annual holidays running up and down the Gagetown training area, but that doesn't change what I can and cannot achieve with the average Phase 3 Infantry-qualified Res F candidate in 12 training days. The field-based company group-level curriculum is VERY basic, and most of the students seriously struggle with that. I can not accomplish anything more advanced than the utter basics, and to be brutally frank, the average candidate couldn't handle anything more challenging. Just ask any past graduate - they were maxed out, big-time.
The same applies to the Res F version of the ATOC (Army Tactical Operations Course) that the Tactics School runs every summer. The average Res F candidate is an order of magnitude below the experience level of the average Reg F candidate, and it clearly shows. And trust me, that isn't say much for either component....but I digress.
The Tactics School DS bend over backwards to address the experience and training "delta" of our annual Res F candidates, but it is a seriously uphill battle. Do the Res F candidates leave better trained and more confident/competent that when they arrived? Most assuredly. That is our job. But do they meet the same standard as their Reg F counterparts? Not even close. Yet both categories of student (by virtue of demands from the Res F senior leadership) receive the same qualification for having "attended" the identical training.
Could someone please tell me just why it is that the Res F senior leadership insists upon ATOC participation in the first place? The course curriculum is based on a mechanized Combat/Combined Arms Team, whereas the typical Res F candidate these days has no exposure (and no need for exposure) to mech operations. Unfortunately, this fundamental disconnect means that the Res F candidates are studying and focussing on employment as Cbt Tm/CAT 2ICs, BCs, LAV Capts, etc, that they will NEVER exploit within their professional constructs. The things that make you go "Hmmmmm.....". And at the end of the day, the only conceivable reason for the mutual anguish that both the Res F ATOC students AND their Instructors endure is that some politically-motivated "Colonel Blimp" has arbitrarily insisted that all training be "equal". Well sorry, but that sort of completely ludicrous and unsubstantiated justification for unwarranted (and inadvisable) training simply hurts everyone involved.
The Res F ATOC students (quite understandably) end up WAY over their heads, and the Tactics School Directing Staff end up working themselves far beyond the call of duty to do the best that they can in the extremely limited time that they have allotted for instruction. At the end of the day, this situation is equally unfair to both parties involved.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the responsibility for ever-changing Res F course dates and training curriculum rests equally with their very own senior leadership. Perhaps not knowingly, but the fact remains that every time some completely disassociated senior Reserve Force officer bangs his fist to make a point, the national training system attempts to accomodate his/her irrational whims in the interests of inter-component peace and good-will. More often than not, this results in "trickle-down" changes that take effect to the utter detriment of all concerned.
Don't believe me? Here is an honest, non-confrontational challenge for any Reserve F senior Lt or Capt who thinks that the Reg F are "ruling the training roost". By all means, please, PLEASE take 2 weeks this summer and get yourself loaded on one of the upcoming ATOC-Combat Arms P Res serials. And when you're done learing all that you can cram into 2 weeks about the employment of a square combat team in conventional combat operations of war with an assessed focus on your commesurate role as a Combat Team 2IC, LAV Captain, Armoured Squadron 2IC, etc??? Well, then ask yourself just what (if anything) your 2 week summer vacation had to do with your future employment within your Reserve unit. And then ask yourself what your own senior Reserve Force Leadership is doing to you in the parochial interests of non-existent (and completely non-necessary!) "equality"......
Enough about "Res F summer training blame" for now. I can go on (and on), if required/desired....
Cheers,
Mark C
Edited to add:
Garret Hallman, a Res F member of this board who has been employed as a DP1, DP 2 and DP 3 NCM Course Officer at the Infantry School for the past year can undoubtedly shed some light on the Res F course-scheduling issue. Suffice it to say that "we/them" Regular and Reserve animosity does nobody any good and is entirely unwarranted. Anyone who attends a training course at CTC Gagetown will find that the staff are totally (and I mean TOTALLY) committed to their success - assuming that the candidate has the requisite basic parts. As far as course scheduling is concerned? Well Garret can speak to the Infantry school situation. Suffice it to say that the inavailability of increment staff (based on invariably inflated Res F expectations for course-loading) have a significant impact in terms of what is physically achievable.
For my part, at the Army Tactics School I have a staff of 20 all ranks running 2 x PRes ATOC-Combat Arms Serials, 1 x ATOC-Combat Service Support, and 1x ACT Infantry serial during the coming summer. Aside from the LCol Commandant, RSM, myself (DCmdt), our C Sp, Ops/Trg O, 2 civilians, 3 Standards staff, and a support staff of 5 NCMs, we are left with a grand total of 5 Instructors. Oh, but of course 2 of our 5 instructors are posted out this summer. This leaves 4 instructors (one non-"indocrinated") to run 2 x serials of ATOC-CA (P Res), 1 x serial of ATOC-CSS (PRes) and 1 x serial of ACT-Inf. Each course requires a Course Officer and 3 Directing Staff, not to mention the Ops/Adm support.
Can you say "fully engaged in the interests of Res F training? Can you say "no summer leave" (as usual) for the Tactics School?". I knew you could. We do this for a living, and by the time that most of us take leave every year, our kids are back in school due to the requirement to support Res F summer training.
All of that to say that whinging about scheduling changes or conflicts don't hold a lot of weight with those of us engaged full-time within the Army training system. Changes don't occur on a "whim". Changes to the Reserve Force Summer Course scheduling generally happen for one of 2 reasons:
1. A lack of resources or staff - both of which were usually "promised" by the Res F but weren't counted upon because historical precedent strongly suggests that "self-support" is an abject pipe-dream, and
2. A lack of Regular Force "backfill" augmentee staff. The Field-Force is maxed-out for taskings 12 months out of the year. And then we ask them to support (and more typically fill vacant) Res F instructor positions during the Summer months. No offence, but I also need my time-off with my family - preferably when it isn't snowing outside. Those of us who fill full-time training positions bend over backwards (and then some) to deliver the mandated Res F training at the expenses of our personal lives. Yes, I know that the Res F candiates are on their holidays during summer courses. And so should I be. Lest the Res F folks forget, we get to teach the Regular Force throughout the rest of year. At the end of the day, it is what it is - and we both get to suck it up.
All of that to say that there are two sides to every coin..... Don't like the course scheduling changes? Suck it up, Buttercup. Either that, or take off the uniform. I'm not at all sorry to say that you will get no sympathy from me. I am not a "Reserve-Basher". Indeed, some may be disappointed to hear that I was a Reserve NCM (Infantry Recruit to Sergeant) before I went full-time as an officer. At the end of the day, you either adapt or overcome the circumstances. If the the scheduling of training doesn't suit your needs, then you don't expect the rest of the world to tilt upon its axis to accommodate your specific needs. You sort yourself out, or you move on. Very simple, sorry to lose you, but no man/woman is irreplacable. And that is the hard thruth.
I for one refuse to be a Regular Force "victim" of implied "guilt" from the Reserve Force. Not after everything that I have given up over the past 3 summers to specifically support Reserve officer training. Anyone who tries to tell me that they have been "screwed" by the course-scheduling offered by CTC Tactics School is asking for a serious kick in the nads, full-stop. There is NOTHING to complain about until such time as the Res F is capable of providing its own equivalent training. Full-stop.
Sorry to sound a tad harsh, but there it is. Nobody wins in terms of course scheduling, and everyone ends up sacrificing for the collective good. Let's keep that in mind....
Cheers,
Mark C
(Ok, maybe not THAT much! LOL)
