Posted on Oct 21, 2015
Is 39 training days good enough for the National Guard and Reserves?
82.5K
428
200
34
34
0
So the First Army Boss is stating that the Reserves, to include the National Guard, don't have enough time for training. I think the 39 days a years is not horrible. You really can never get enough training but I don't think that took some of our systems into consideration. If you look at a Armored Brigade Combat Team you have a lot of moving parts. Getting your soldiers from various Armories throughout the state and to then to get them to their vehicles so they can do a gunnery is extremely difficult. Gunneries are usually left to do at an Annual Training when you can have more time but then that takes a lot of resources and that is pretty much all that you will do.
Keep in mind that the First Army is viewing as a means to mobilize and deploy reserve forces quicker. They are focusing on their ability to deploy in a short time frame.
What is your experience with this?
Keep in mind that the First Army is viewing as a means to mobilize and deploy reserve forces quicker. They are focusing on their ability to deploy in a short time frame.
What is your experience with this?
Army National Guard
Reserves
Training
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 98
5
5
0
They'd be better served to let us do our training and accept it when we arrive at the mob station instead of making us do it all again and wasting three months. Or, if they just have to have their own eyes on, follow us for the year prior to mob a we prepare and validate us as we train ourselves.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
They do try this. They had the Pre-deployment Training and Assessment Element. I worked on one for a year before one of our tours. But it was more like a prep than a means to knock out tasks. It did help. One of the more unique things we have done is to use State Active Duty to get Mob Training out of the way. It did add on to the whole tour and enable us to have more time on ground but it came at the expense of the state.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) Brian Kliesen
I worked at North Fort Hood in 2014 and the majority of units that transitioned through had this same complaint. Three months (+/-) to train up was far too long a validation period. The problem is that there is that occasional unit that requires additional training and rather than mess up 'Big Army's' time table, everyone has to go through everything. It is a huge waste of time, energy, funding and resources. The deployment schedule does not allow for any flexibility, thus everyone spends three months in training. Having a traveling assessment team visit the unit, brief and inspect them and determine their readiness would be invaluable. Once they arrive at the demob site they can go through either a 'fast lane' to deployment and be there three weeks or a 'slow lane' and be there three months. The incentive to have your act together would be huge.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
The question should be "what is the priority for training in the time allowed?" Do to the recent budget constraints for the Guard and Reserve we have less funding for the same amount of needed training. Even when units receive a NoS, there is no sure funding.
And I know I can only speak for the NDARNG, but we do our jobs better than our AD counterparts. Last rotation in NTC our AD counterparts were in dire need of remedial basic training. I as a CMO at a CSSB had to supervise every convoy breif to make sure that they knew what their mission was and that they had all of the commodities requested and loaded, every single one I had to "remind" them.
And I know I can only speak for the NDARNG, but we do our jobs better than our AD counterparts. Last rotation in NTC our AD counterparts were in dire need of remedial basic training. I as a CMO at a CSSB had to supervise every convoy breif to make sure that they knew what their mission was and that they had all of the commodities requested and loaded, every single one I had to "remind" them.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
From the 2 times I've rotated to NTC I could honestly say that 39 days weren't enough but that the Guard and Reserve units attached to us did learn some valuable lessons, however more training never hurt anyone.
We all have to understand that we are fighting the "War on Terror" of which there is no end so the more you can spend time training and preparing ourselves for combat the less we may bleed on the battlefield.
I did learn that from training with both components that the Guard/Reserve have a great many prior service personnel but even the TPU members are more mentally prepared to deal with whatever they have to when the time comes, plus they all have the "Warrior Spirit".
We all have to understand that we are fighting the "War on Terror" of which there is no end so the more you can spend time training and preparing ourselves for combat the less we may bleed on the battlefield.
I did learn that from training with both components that the Guard/Reserve have a great many prior service personnel but even the TPU members are more mentally prepared to deal with whatever they have to when the time comes, plus they all have the "Warrior Spirit".
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
Is 39 days good enough?
Probably not, but you get what you pay for. The biggest issue is that the military (especially the AF) relies too heavily on the Guard/Reserve to round out its manning and equipment. Its a cheap option for the military however, the Guard/Reserves were never designed for long term deployments and as a replacement for the AD. However, that is exactly how they are used.
The better way would be to increase the use of IMA's (Reservists assigned to active duty units). Instead of having whole units that are Guard/Reserve that train only 39 days a year, you could have a 50/50 or 75/25 mix. That way, it would only take a shorter time to get the unit up to speed.
Probably not, but you get what you pay for. The biggest issue is that the military (especially the AF) relies too heavily on the Guard/Reserve to round out its manning and equipment. Its a cheap option for the military however, the Guard/Reserves were never designed for long term deployments and as a replacement for the AD. However, that is exactly how they are used.
The better way would be to increase the use of IMA's (Reservists assigned to active duty units). Instead of having whole units that are Guard/Reserve that train only 39 days a year, you could have a 50/50 or 75/25 mix. That way, it would only take a shorter time to get the unit up to speed.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Never enough training days with all required individual, leader and collective task required to say your formations are trained. Every unit has its challenges. Make use of every second and you still will fall short. A delicate balance between civilian and military, but that is what makes it so much fun! Pre and Post MOB needs to be managed as well by the leadership of the unit. We are doing something right, just look at the numbers Guard and Reserves have provided for the war effort following 9/11 until present day?
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I agree. I think leadership in the reserves does have its challenges. I do enjoy it often but it can also be a headache. If they add anymore powerpoints........ you get the point.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Is it good enough? Yes. Could there be larger emphasis and larger intents to train? Always.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Considering their roll in the "big picture", plus the benefits of having a diverse group of backgrounds and proficiencies especially (civilian education and job background), for most jobs in the Guard or Reserve, 39ish training days is fine...too bad with all the "check the box" required classes and administrative work, anything resembling training really amounts to just over half of those "training" days.
THAT, is what I would consider "not enough".
THAT, is what I would consider "not enough".
(4)
(0)
IMHO, no. 39 days is not enough. Especially for those small (12 pax or so) units without full time staff. My unit has 14 pax and no FTS. When we come in for our monthly 2 day BTA, we honestly spend more time catching up on admin and other stuff that needs doing than we do on MOS training. Very taxing.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I didn't think of that. I would have thought they would have attached them to another unit so they could share some FTS.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think so... I am in a line unit, and all our NCOs got together to discuss training and such. Our biggest complaint was not enough time in general, but more specifically, not enough trigger time. We are 11Bs, but only get to fire live rounds once a year, and it is for IWQ. I feel as if I am not training my soldiers well enough. How can we develop on our shooting if we never get to do it? I for one, would like more training time...
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I think it's good training that they get. You have to remember that they have regular jobs they have to go to. The training they get is good and useful. If they get deployed I think they would get more trying before they go. Plus they have did a good job while being deployed in the last few years.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google