Are active duty and national guard units interchangeable? Troops?

2014-01-13T16:54:10-05:00

The CSA has recently came under fire for insinuating that the NG and RA are not interchangeable. Thoughts?

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Jan 13 at 2014 5:11 PM

2014-01-13T17:11:00-05:00

I'm not familiar with the controversy, but it's quite true.

RA is not permitted to perform many of the roles that the NG does on a regular basis. The USAR is designed to fill a completely different role. There are 0 shower and laundry specialists in the RA, but I've got a unit full of them just down the street.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jan 13 at 2014 5:22 PM

2014-01-13T17:22:19-05:00

I think he is correct, the forces are inherently different. Unfortunately this is mostly manifest in the fact that the National Guard receives less training, has lax standards, etc. However, there is a school of thought that says the National Guard and Reserves (i.e. our 'citizen-soldiers') should have a different role, preparing for the next big war (WWIII, Korea pt. II) and that the Regular Army (professional soldiers) should be prepared for any combat contingency in which our country needs them, usually small wars, counterinsurgency, intervention, and the like. I tend to agree with that school of thought

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 5:25 PM

2014-01-13T17:25:08-05:00

I'm in the Guard and I've been Regular Army.  I agree that Reserve Components frequently aren't interchangeable with our active forces.  We're a tremendous augmentation for them.  But we can't replace them in total without a quality train-up.  To say that we can is a case of ego, denial, or both.  We're very good at a lot of stuff.  But we are part timers.  This is the only job I know of in which part timers angrily state that they're "just as capable".  Just because you aren't "just as capable" doesn't mean that you're not of value.  If we were just as capable, the USGOV would save a lot of money by making the whole DoD a reserve force.  To get pissed at the CSA over this begs the question "don't you have something more important to worry about?".  We have strengths and limitations.  Everybody has limitations.  Especially when you don't do this stuff constantly.<br>

Response by SFC Joe Ping made Mar 16 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-03-16T13:42:12-04:00

Having served in the Marines and the National Guard and Active Army, the active army needs to pull its collective head out of its ass and see that the National Guard and Reserve are an asset not a hindrance to their mission.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 12:25 AM

2014-03-28T00:25:17-04:00

I'm a Guard baby, and have been for the last decade. From my interactions with the USAR and the RA, both stateside and on deployments, I think we all have different and tremendous roles. I am intensely jealous of the USAR having majority of Civil Affairs units, but I also have seen the roles the ARNG plays in stateside missions. My state's MAST/MART (air rescue) is extremely active in search missions as well as during fire season. Perhaps my vision is tainted from all my experience in aviation (which gives me a positive view), but I will never claim that we have the same role and readiness as 'big Army'. However, in certain circumstances, we are leaps and bounds ahead of the RA, and they could follow our lead (this is specifically in regards to the medevac mission, for various reasons I won't clog up this thread with. Doctrine is finally catching up with standards that we've set in place years and years before now). There is a reason we aren't interchangeable, but that doesn't mean we aren't viable. We are prepared to do different things than the RA, and there is a reason for this. We can all combine and serve overseas together supporting the federal mission, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily interchangeable as a whole. I don't think the word interchangeable is an insult, but context is also important to consider. As long as we are not considered a hindrance, I am fine. There's a place for all of us, and I have seen a tremendous amount of excellence coming from active and reserve Soldiers alike.

My husband's first deployment was 10 years ago this month (BOG), and this was after a six month train up (my deployment's pre-mob was close to 3 months). They were put through the wringer and then sent with 1st CAV to Baghdad, doing a full spectrum ops mission that more than proved that the ARNG is combat effective - when trained properly and thoroughly, but even then, training can't always prepare you for what happens in war. Character, guts, and the like, are what push you through. Give us a mission, we will work hard with limited resources to exceed the standard. We do have a great pride in that, and most of us are more than willing to rise to the occasion. This is something that all components have in common - even if our stateside missions differ. This is not an insult to me, it's just reality.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 12:34 AM

2014-03-28T00:34:10-04:00

As someone who served several years in the Reserves before the wars kicked off I can say absolutely not. The RES/NG tend to be really good at their specific job but tend to suck at the Army tasks. They are great to assist but as an element on their own they just do rate the same.

So after 12 years of war there are some great trained units but as the budgets disappear they will go back to being the untrained and unprepared units that existed in 2000. When the call came there were many units who were unable to go and we still have to wait 90 days for a train up to happen.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 31 at 2014 8:09 PM

2014-03-31T20:09:28-04:00

This one is easy. Let's try and look at it objectively. On an individual basis, a Reserve or NG unit is far cheaper to maintain than it's Active Duty counterpart. If Active and Reserve/NG units were interchangeable, then the Active component would have been eliminated decades ago for budgetary reasons. The fact that we even exist, in all of our resource draining glory, is evidence enough that we exist for a reason, and we are not interchangeable.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 7 at 2014 8:19 PM

2014-05-07T20:19:17-04:00

I know the Navy and Navy Reserve are not interchangeable. I prefer a Naval Reservist over a civilian but they were never quite up to the standards of a CTO in the field.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made May 28 at 2014 4:05 PM

2014-05-28T16:05:21-04:00

I do not feel that they are not interchangeable in whole. The NG and Reserves are a great augmentation to the Active force. If they were interchangeable, then the NG and Reserve would not have to go through a train up before they deploy. Unlike the Active component that trains all the time for their missions and are ready to deploy at any given moment, the NG/Reserve do need some time to fine tune their skills.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 10 at 2014 3:36 PM

2014-06-10T15:36:26-04:00

from a federal vs. state asset point of view no because USAR and AD as federal assets can not perform a NG state mission. Guard units from surrounding states will more likely be brought in before federal troops are provided to augment a state situation. A thin but mandated line.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2014 11:20 PM

2014-08-06T23:20:03-04:00

I've been on both sides of the AC/RC fence. There are just as many ate up units in Active Army as there are in the Guard and Reserves. There are also just as many squared away units in the RCs as there are in the AC.

Me personally, I'd take a squared away RC unit over an AC unit on most days. In my experience, AC tends to be by the book and between the lines. In the RCs, you have people who have a life and a job outside the military that bring a huge wealth of knowledge and real outside the box thinking into the military. If you have a NG MP unit, most of the people in that unit will probably either be some sort of LE or Corrections.. or will be aspiring to be. Everyone else works in sales, food service, hospitality, construction, etc, etc. If given the resources, they could be pretty much self-sustaining because of all the different professional skills that they're bringing with them to the fight.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Aug 7 at 2014 11:30 AM

2014-08-07T11:30:39-04:00

I do not know about now. But during Desert Storm I was training and certifying
them to be deployed. We sent a few Vulcan units over ( I don't know why no air force to engage). Some of them could not even load the guns. To be fair it is a complicated process. But one every private in my unit could do. I had to retrain E-6s to do it! I also had to dress down several troops for not keeping their personal weapons pointed down range WHILE LOCKED AND LOADED! I will not even get into what a nightmare the M-60 and M-2 ranges were.
In all fairness I must add that some of them did know they were lacking. And almost all of them were thankful for the training and advice we gave them.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 14 at 2014 2:22 PM

2014-08-14T14:22:39-04:00

I would say kinda. First off we need to look at what each component is set up to do. AD is, well, AD and are "the first string" ready to go right away. Without the training cycles that AD units have, it is almost impossible to maintain this level of readiness. USAR contains the bulk of the Army's CS and CSS assets beyond the minimum we need to keep on AD to support the AD role. Note, there is only ONE CA unit in the USAR, and that is the 100-442INF. So in that sense, no, AD and USAR are not interchangeable. In this case USAR are designed to be an augmentation to AD when the long term support needs outstrip the ability of AD units to provide. Beyond the state mission, ARNG is the Army's strategic combat reserve, that has the balance of reserve CA and CS and CSS assets. So yes, while the ARNG can duplicate AD unit capabilities, this rolls into the next issue: unit readiness. AD has simply more time training their METL tasks than ARNG units. So AD units are more proficient initially, than ARNG (which makes sense). However, given equal training time, ARNG can and do eventually catch up. One advantage that the ARNG has now is that they have more stable unit cohesion and due to the high OPTEMPO guard units are now also seeded with combat vets (both AD going into the ARNG and guardsmen who have deployed with the ARNG), so the historic quality disparity is much lower than pre 9/11.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 8:50 PM

2014-09-21T20:50:34-04:00

I would say my experience as an active duty guy once assigned to the California Air National Guard that they were extremely professional in carrying out the mission. In fact they were developing best practices and had access to try out new equipment before it was fielded to the AD units. The one benefit to the guard/reserve is that they can devote more time to just the mission and not worry about the back shop extra duties that gets stuck on AD units.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 17 at 2014 2:08 PM

2014-10-17T14:08:12-04:00

I was an active duty officer for almost 30 years and have very strong opinion about the Reserve Components and their value to the Army.

My feelings about the Reserve Components (RC) took a dramatic change of course during Operation Desert Storm. Prior to that, the only experience I had with the RC was as a young captain/company commander at Ft Benning, Georgia, in the mid-70’s, and that experience was anything but good. However, my experience with the RC during Desert Storm and thereafter has been nothing but positive and I have become a big supporter of the RC.

At Ft. Benning in the mid-70’s, I was tasked with evaluating several Army National Guard MP companies during their Annual Training (AT). Almost without exception, the companies did not want to go to the field for tactical training and were only interested in performing garrison MP law enforcement duties and partying. I insisted they follow their training plan, which was mostly tactical training, and they openly resisted me. What they did accomplish in the field was unacceptable and that is how I evaluated them. I “failed” three of the four companies I evaluated and gave the other one a barely passing evaluation. That rankled a few feathers with the folks at the Reserve Components Training Division and I was asked to change the ratings, which I refused to do. It went all the way to the CG, USAIC & Ft Benning and I stuck to my guns. Needless to say, I had a bad taste in my mouth about the RC for years thereafter.

Flash forward to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. As a battalion commander, I had four active component companies and six National Guard companies (one each from Missouri, Oklahoma, Virginia and Georgia and two from Puerto Rico). From the very beginning I saw how much the RC units had improved from my last experience with them. The soldiers were well trained, well equipped, professional and had outstanding NCO and officer leadership (with the exception of one company, which I quickly rectified). Although some of my sister battalion commanders did not do so, I assigned my RC companies the same missions and areas of responsibility as I did my active duty companies. They never let me down (OK.. one did, once … hence the leadership change mentioned above).

Another distinct advantage I found with having RC units assigned, which is a real plus when you are deployed, is that, besides being good soldiers, NCOs and officers, most of them had another profession that they brought with them. I had lawyers and judges, barbers and beauticians, heavy equipment operators, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, brick masons, social workers, corrections specialists, policemen, accountants, etc., etc…. What a great asset!!! There was nothing that I had to do that I did not have a ready-made cadre of people who could accomplish it; regardless of what it was. I became a big believer in and supporter of the Reserve Components and have told folks over the years that I hoped to always have them available if I had to deploy units again.

Following Desert Storm, I told my brother, who, at the time, was the two-star commander of a US Army Reserve Regional Support Command (RSC), about my change of heart. He asked me to write an article about it, which I did, and it was published in the Army Reserve magazine. I also gave several briefings about my experience, as I had an opportunity.

When I retired and became an executive in a large corporation, I continued my support of the RC by becoming involved in the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) and was very vocal about the change I had seen over the years and the value of such a dedicated and selfless cadre of people who make up the RC.

The Reserve Components are critical to the success of our military. We need to ensure they get the funding, the equipment, and the training they need to stay at an acceptable level and not revert back to what I saw in the early to mid-70’s.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2014 4:54 AM

2014-10-18T04:54:37-04:00

No, I do not feel that AD and NG troops are interchangeable in any fashion. AD troops are Federal troops. Reserve troops are Federal troops. NG troops report to the Governor of their state, and I do not believe are even federalized when they are mobilized in support of the GWOT. I could be wrong on that, but their pay issues, everything they do as a separate entity, promotions for example, goes through the National Guard Bureau (NGB).
Reserve soldiers only recently began to be able to assist and support in CONUS only if they were requested for such assistance, prior to that it was illegal.
While all of the US Army as a whole shares the same MOS pool, what they do and how they do it, are the difference between night and day. To switch out an AD soldier with a NG troop would be putting that NG troop in a severe learning curve that he or she might not be able to overcome. While making that same switch with a Reserve soldier, the learning curve might not be as steep, but they’d still be at a disadvantage. Plugging an individual into a unit situation might not be the most advantageous thing to do either. A simple move such as this, might entirely destroy team cohesion, from the point of view of the team and the placed individual. Those soldiers that train every single day together, from PT until COB, are an exceptionally valuable team, as a solid cohesive unit.
The same could be said about a Reserve unit or a NG unit, who’ve drilled together for years and years and years. I know this one from personal experience coming from my AD unit to a Reserve unit. I was the “new guy/girl.” No one wanted to make the effort to get to know me, they didn’t need anyone new. While on AD, when someone new comes in, they are not always welcomed with open arms, but they are instantly part of the family that unit makes up.
I will make the same argument that AD and NG units are not interchangeable either. When you train and train and train, and repeat the same motions every single day, you don’t have to question what the soldier to your right and left are doing. You know what they are doing, because they know what you are doing. It’s muscle memory, so that when something happens and you don’t know what to do, you don’t have to think about what to do. You rely on what you’ve been trained to do, it’s second nature. It’s not a Stop. Pause. Think. Act. type of situation. Action will beat reaction every day.
Training time as a NG or Reserve unit is precious time. You have to carefully decide what you’re going to train on each month and be prepared for that training to happen. When you sit around and tell deployment stories for 2 days a month, that’s fun, but doesn’t do anything to further or accomplish the mission. When you train and retrain on the same things every month, again, that doesn’t really accomplish anything except to become proficient at an exceptionally limited number of tasks. (These are reasons I switched from TPU to IRR.)
Now, you can take a motived IRR soldier and put them into an AD unit and not be far off the mark, shallow learning curve. I’m a shining example of that! : ) I’ve been on AD since 17 JUL 11. I’ve served long enough to get a Good Conduct Medal, and not the Reserve version.

Response by 1SG Mark Colomb made Oct 18 at 2014 5:23 PM

2014-10-18T17:23:51-04:00

I was an AC/RC advisor from 1999 to 2004. IMHO one cannot compare the ARNG/USAR force to the active force and here is why.

In the Reserve component they have, on average 39 days a year to train on specific critical tasks (used to call them METL tasks, not sure if that doctrine is still valid) compared to approximately 200+ days a year in the active force. Add to that many never get training guidance from their uptrace (none of my client units ever got it).

The RC does well things they practice, they do well in problem solving, they do well in critical thinking. But when it comes down to specific steps they tend to short cut (not a bad thing most of the time). Also think of this, if any of you had the opportunity to have your crews (howitzer, tank, stryker, or bradley) be the same set of Soldiers, for six, seven, eight years, working the same exact piece of equipment would you really care if they called each other by their first names? Would you care if crew commands were strictly followed? If they hit every target, every time, does it matter?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 2:15 AM

2014-10-23T02:15:33-04:00

Only units with the same composition and the same (or extremely similar) training might be considered interchangeable. Soldiers with the same MOS might be interchangeable, but there is always a learning curve when changing units as the way if doing business from unit to unit is different. Yet, there are some specialties which are not represented in the NG, such as Civil Affairs. 95% of CA forces are USAR and the other 5% are active duty, but the NG has no CA forces at all.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 2 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-06-02T15:57:45-04:00

In theory, they're supposed to be interchangeable. After a brief spin-up, ARNG units should be deployment ready. Reality, however, is another story. From what I remember - it's pretty hit or miss.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 2 at 2015 4:03 PM

2015-06-02T16:03:44-04:00

I feel the RA has an edge over NG in regards to large combat maneuvers.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 19 at 2015 5:24 PM

2015-06-19T17:24:54-04:00

In disasters the RA can't do what the NG can do. The NG has to have a lot of collective training for train up for deployment. I have seen the trend that large NG combat arms units were not given battle space or command probably due to the lack of requisite training.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 19 at 2015 6:27 PM

2015-06-19T18:27:46-04:00

For OCONUS operations and functionality Regular Army (RA) and Army National Guard (ARNG) units should be interchangeable given equivalent equipment and support.
Within CONUS, RA and ARNG units are not interchangeable. The ARNG units are legally authorized to operate within CONUS is support of the respective Governor's directives frequently in responsible to natural or man-made disasters and threats or NORTHCOM requirements.
Background" Although my military career was spent in Regular Army and USAR units, I spent roughly one year as an on-site consultant supporting the Logistics Directorate at ARNG HQs in Arlington, VA after I demobilized in 2004.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Jun 19 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-06-19T18:57:40-04:00

The two components are much closer than they used to be.

Response by MSG Alfred Aguilar made Oct 23 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-10-23T15:56:23-04:00

First, soldiers are soldiers. That said, the Army places many of the combat service support functions in the RA and many of the Combat Support functions in the NG. An example, close 70% of medical assets are in the RC. What drives these decisions?, funding. It cost less.

Response by SGT Matthew Enders made May 21 at 2017 7:41 AM

2017-05-21T07:41:57-04:00

No they're not interchangeable. Give a guardsmen time and dedication then maybe, but for a good majority I've met a bunch of chewed up NG' that need training for proficiency at their MOS.

Response by CPL Ralph Moschler made Jun 29 at 2017 10:43 PM

2017-06-29T22:43:26-04:00

No reg army is a lot hard than ng

Response by CPL Ralph Moschler made Jul 14 at 2017 1:06 AM

2017-07-14T01:06:55-04:00

They are not

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2017 1:10 AM

2017-12-23T01:10:37-05:00

I believe the Reserve and National Guard can replace the regular Army.

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Jun 20 at 2018 12:12 AM

2018-06-20T00:12:19-04:00

As a career reserve component soldier, I am a little biased but my challenge is this -
Please name a time a reserve component unit was given a task they could not accomplish but an active duty unit could?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jun 20 at 2018 11:38 AM

2018-06-20T11:38:06-04:00

Since the GF1- NG troops have received better training and issue. Many NG units have replaced AD units around the world- MFO (Sinai), Bosnia, etc. With that being said I shudder to think of the learning curve trying to swap a AD company in an AD BN for a NG company just before deployment.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2019 8:31 PM

2019-12-18T20:31:14-05:00

While I feel we reserves are sometimes at a disadvantage because of the nature of our service, to deride the reserve components entirely would ludicracy. Others have mentioned good points on this so I’ll just add one other.

Coming from the medical field, you will find some of your most experienced and best educated medics and professionals in the reserves. Our civilian experience often gives us a significant knowledge and skill edge. Likewise, I am sure MPs with civilian law enforcement experience are a force multiplier as reserve/NG service members that aren’t quite matched in AD. There are things each component will be better at simply based on training and experience availability.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Sep 7 at 2020 5:51 PM

2020-09-07T17:51:45-04:00

My experience would say active, Guard, and Reserve are close to being the same. Back in the 80s that not so true. Today Reserve and Guard are so busy they are much better than they were after Vietnam era.

Response by 1SG John Millan made Feb 23 at 2024 11:41 PM

2024-02-23T23:41:33-05:00

They are not, at least operationally. Guard is Title 32, state status in peacetime, while Reserves are federal Title 10 always. The Guard is a state agency, one or more of 54 in peacetime and it's often a cluster-F!