Active duty guys, rather be deployed with reservists or guardsmen?

I have been active and I have been Guard. The thing the Guard brings to the game is skill sets beyond MOS which come in handy while deployed. Carpenters, electrians, plumbers, master welders, mechanics, law enforcement officers, and many others.

Having been active and guard I feel National Guard troops in general have more job skillets and are more “street smart” about life. This gives them the ability to think out of the box.This is their advantage. However they are not nearly as disciplined and most likely their general fighting skillsets will not be as sharp as an active duty unit. Having said this I would want to deploy with Guard troops over reservists because the guard is more combat oriented than Reserves.

I've been on both fences of this yard. I've been Active. I've been Reserves. I've worked with all three components in all types of situations/missions/theaters. Each one brings to the table some very important skill sets. And each one brings to the table some not so desirable traits. I personally don't care what component they are....as long as they get the job done right.

Whoever gets the job done.

I have seen good and bad in all three segments. I always attribute it to the indivodual or the unit (as appropriate) and not to the component. If the one AD gal is super squared away, it isn't because she is AD. If that reservist over there can't read a map, it isn't because he is in the reserve, it is because he (and his NCOs) suck at life. If the NG unit conducts the best battle update brief ever, it isn't because theu are NG, it is because they have taken the time and focus to get it right.

I did 26 years total. Half active & half Guard. The active duty is great as being well trained, disciplined, & structured. The Guard can seem like a bunch of old fools at first. But that 40 year old E-5 has been doing his MOS duties for a very long time. Many times without the manual, proper structured training & not the right equipment yet they get the job done. My Guard unit did a JSOC mission in Iraq & I asked the one day who's idiot idea it was to have Guard doing such a mission. I was told that the Guard is like a blank slate. Much more easily trained on the fly. We have people who learned civilian jobs & went to college or trade schools. We don't care about regs, TM's, FMs, or any of the other non-sense. We are focused on mission. It is not a career for us where we are trying to get promotions by trying to be heroes. We do listen to orders & are used to dealing with civilians, others militaries, & whoever, just to get the job done. The active duty is too hard-wired & overly structured. Somebody will always foolishly screw things up trying to enhance their career which can hurt the mission. Also, the Guard is willing to put the right people in charge without concern on who is the highest ranking. If an E-5 is better for a mission than the E-7, the E-5 gets put in charge. The E-5 & E-7 are still friends at the end of the mission. We are more like military employees, not soldiers in some way.

When I was active duty, I would not have cared WHO I deployed with. Because in the end, we are all on the same side, fighting the same cause/thing/etc., and rely on eachother to stay alive and accomplish the mission.
As long as the other person is properly trained, and has a proper head on their shoulders, and takes the mission seriously, I don't care who is next to me in the fox hole.

When my Guard unit went to Iraq we did detainee operations. A third or more were law enforcement officers and many of them were corrections officers they already knew the job. Our battalion headquarters was sent to Baghdad to oversee the construction of 2 more detention facilities and run a school for juvenile detainees. Our Bn XO and Assistant S3 were both teachers and our S3 was a civil engineer and partner in a construction company so again we had people with expertise in those areas that allowed us to be successful in that mission. An active duty unit would only have people skilled in their MOS’s but would have no knowledge at all in education and construction project management

When I was active- My unit was replaced by NG. They were more lax then I think they realized and it led to some “self-correcting” problems. But they were a team who trained together and deployed together.

As a current reservist on AD, I’d say my time in the reserves has showed me that reserves are much more compartmentalized and individually focused. Not saying there isn’t a team... it’s just different.

I was in a unit of about 30-40 soldiers. 90% of them were E4 or below and held one of two jobs. When deployments came around, it was only a couple to a handful who deployed. They weren’t necessarily in the same team or small unit. From what I hear, it’s like that. With the reserves being the support-focused component, it’s really all mission dependent. Do I need a coach’s assistant, water boy, equipment guy... or do I need other players who may not be as experienced (for lack of a better term) to relieve my every down players?

It’s all mission dependent. Regardless of component, active included, there are less than stellar soldiers who suit up and boot up.

Like MSG (Join to see) said, I could careless your component. Are you here to put in work and improve the organization while working to accomplish the mission?

Lots of varabiliy in that question. Some National Guard or Reserve units are terrible. Likewise there are plenty of terrible active duty units. The Army Reserve has an amazing percentage of technical capacity specialties such as engineering. Many of these soldiers work in equivalent fields on the civilian side were they are exposed to market forces, the infusion the latest research/ideas, and where organizations that fail to innovate go bankrupt. Compare this to active duty units that are not engaged or preparing for war... Without the right leadership, not a lot of a learning occurs, so organizational capacity stagnates at the level of the last conflict they were engaged with. Then take into account organizational churn - the individuals with the deep knowledge leaving the military.
There are definitely situations overseas where active duty is way over their head, but they play political games with resources and opportunities just because they don't want to be out shown by the part-timers.

The Guard is over age, over weight, and over educated compaired to Active. Yes you'll see a cubby 30 year old E5, but that Soldier may have his MBA, have worked a trade for 10 years, or runs there own business.