"US Reserves and National Guard - Difference?" Topic

In Canada, we have regular force units and reserve units. The reserve units are sometimes called "the militia", typically trains on one night of the week (often Thursdays here where I am) and will frequently provide soldiers on full time call out to regular force type duty. For example, some of our reserve engineers from the reserve 56 field regiment get deployed to Afghanistan for 6 month tours of duty with the regular force regiment stationed there. I believe the British territorial units are their reserve units, too.

What is the difference between the US National Guard and US reserve units?

Thanks in advance,
--
Tim

U S reserves are servicemen who have served their 4 yrs and are subject to recall.
National Guard are states militiamen.
They are separate entities

@Raven, partially right sir. There are reservists that serve actively as well. What you refer to are former military that can be called up and your example is only partially true. Retirees are often subject to recall and in 'reserve'.

The Reserves are a standing body of military members that usually only "drill" on weekends and extended time for summer training. But many reservists are also "full timers".

The basic distinction of reservists vs. national guard in your statement is basically correct in that national guard reports eventually to individual state governors (ie. Texas, Missouri, etc.) While the reserve's hierarchy eventually reports to the executive branch of the national government, or the elected president.

As a result the NG will sometimes be called out for civil unrest (like the LA riots) or disasters (like Katrina Hurricanes).
Also, generally speaking, NG tends to be combat units whereas Reserves tend to be support and training units. At least that is what they told me 20 years ago when I was a weekend warrior.

Practically speaking there is no difference except as mentioned most Reserve units are now service and support. They moved the combat types to the National Guard somewhere around the mid 90s (maybe there are still a few leftovers?). You do the same basic (initial) training regardless of where you are going to end up. You also do the same one weekend a month, 2 weeks in the summer type of training. You also fall under the same rules and regulations as the regular army. If you don't know the specific units, you will not be able to differentiate one from the other.

Now technically, there is a world of difference. The Reserve units are under Federal control. They are not used except when authorized by the federal government. National Guard troops belong to the state in which they are assigned and report to the Governor of that state. That's why they can be activated for local emergencies.

When needed for a national emergency/war, a National Guard unit will be federalized which means they are no longer under the control of the governor of the state. At that point you are paid from a different bucket and some minor things change as far as pay, retirement stuff, etc. Either way once activated for federal service, both Reserve and National Guard units are then just part of the regular army deployment in which they are assigned.

Edit:
Soldiers in either type of unit can be guys who served in the regular army at one point or guys who have spent their entire career in the Reserve or National Guard system. In today's world you can also be a career National Guard soldier with multiple combat tours with the National Guard.

And to make it even more confusing we have "inside the state only military units". See:

gasdf.com

And where does the Montana Mountain Militia fit in the overall scheme of things?

Borderline terrorist organization.

Also the the National Guard traces it's roots to the early Colonial Militiamen (Minute Men) and the US Army Reserve to the Civil War era where the veteran disabled or not fit for combat filled posts as garrison guards, prison guards things like that.

Steve Hazuka Sgt
Michigan Army National Guard
Soon to be retired after 26 years of active and guard service.

Tim

You should know by now that nothing is EVER simple when the government get involved! LOL

In an attempt to summarize and explain however the US Army is composed of 3 components: Regulars, Reserve and National Guard.

The Reserve is the Federal Reserve Force for the Army. The commander of the Army Reserve, a 3 star general actually reports to two individuals. He reports directly to the Army Chief of Staff in an advisory capacity. He also is the commander of the Army Reserve Command and operationally reports directly to the commander of the Army Forces Command. The Reserve is authorized under Title 10 of US Code. All four services maintain a Reserve force.

The National Guard has two components, Army and Air Force (there is no Marine or Navy "National Guard" the way there is in the Reserve force). Administered under Title 10 and 32 of the US Code these State "militias" were authorized under the Militia Act of 1903 which set up the National Guard. The National Guard can ge federalized by act of the President or Secretary of Defense in which case, like Reserve units called to active duty, they fall under their respective services. State Govenors may also call up their Guard component to assist the State in declared emergencies to include natural disasters. An interesting note is while there is no "Navy National Guard" naval militia forces are authorized under the various acts, just not implemented as such.

Mention was made of the State Defense Forces. These forces are NOT part of the Guard or Reserve, report to their State Govenor, serve only within the State and may NOT be federalized. Not all States maintain a Defense Force.

Hope that is of some help.

Well for what it is worth the 19th and 20th SF groups are National Guard but they have units (companies) in many different states. 11th Group use to be reserve but was deactivated in the mid 1990s. SF are combat units as well.
VR
James Mattes

I've always been a bit confused by the Air National Guard being under the control of a governor.

Now, the Army National Guard makes sense. The troops can patrol and secure areas after a disaster or control riots. Combat engineers can repair bridges and roads or clean up rubble. Medical units have obvious uses.

But the Air National Guard has, umm, airplanes. In Wisconsin we have KC135 tankers in Milwaukee and F16 fighters in Madison. Just exactly what is a governor going to do with those? Other than reconnaissance, I suppose the F16s could always put a hurt on rioters with some strafing and bombing, and the tankers could always, umm, dump avgas…on…something?

Unless a governor decides to invade his neighboring states, just what the heck is he supposed to do with the Air Guard?

Soldiers in either type of unit can be guys who served in the regular army at one point or guys who have spent their entire career in the Reserve or National Guard system.

Or like me and have served in Regular Army, Active Reserves, Inactive Ready Reserves and National Guard.

And to make it even more confusing we have "inside the state only military units".

Texas has a state guard as well in addition to Texas Army/Air National Guard units.

gotxsg.com

The Texas State Guard has undergone a lot of changes from what I remember of them in the mid-seventies. Back then, I only remember the state guard consisting of a single military police company and their big thing was handling the parking for the Texas Prison Rodeo in Huntsville every weekend in October. Now there are a number of units across the state that are for the most part civil affairs units and named after Texas military units that served in the civil war.

State Guard formations are fully funded by the state that raised them and not subject to federalization the way national guard units are. Here is a quote from their web site:

The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is a State Military Force which assists Texas Civil Authorities in times of Texas State Emergencies and in On-Going Support of Local Communities; and consists of six Civil Affairs Regiments, The Air Division, The Medical Reserve Corps, and Maritime Regiment.

Dave

There was a New Hampshire governor back in the 60s who demanded nuclear weapons for the NH National Guard.
I don't remember if he got them, but it was in all the papers.

Hi

As a further quibble, in the US, NG, reserve, inactive reserve and so on are not considered "militia" because they are entities called up by one or another arms of government.

The militia is considered the whole body of adults who might rise up for an emergency. This includes things that happen here in the rural west all the time. Groups which form up to do search and rescue as one example.

Rocky

But, they ARE well regulated.

Sorry Rocky but you are wrong, at least as far as the National Guard. From US Title 10:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The US National Guard was organized as such in 1903 according to thier web site. Prior to that each state had a state militia and some of them date back to pre-revolutionary war colonial militia's. There were sometimes local militias raised by a town, county, or territory especially in areas where there was danger of attack by indian tribes or similar threats. Local militias eventually are replaced by police forces which provide a more permanent and (usually) better trained force to deal with threats to the local community.

The state guard would fall under the class of unorganized militia. I don't think the US government recognizes groups of folks who for various reasons put on uniforms and go running around in the woods on weekends with guns calling themselves a militia. But lest we cross over into Blue Fez territory, the less said about those folks the better.

Dave

State Guards have been around since WW1 (when the NG was federalized). While membership in the SG (or whatever term the state uses, although mosthave standardized on State Guard). does nto prohibit being drafted into the army if need be, the state guardsman cannot be otherwised called to duty outide of the state.

In some states it's a total joke and allows the Govenor to appoint people generals and coloonels at such as political favors. In others its taken really seriously – although no one gets paid in the State Guard and either buys their own stuff or gets hand me downs from the state.

If they are called to serve in the State they get paid the same as a Guardsman of their rank would be.

But they are a recognized part of the official military structure of the USA. Various random non-state sponsored militias are bands of guys with guns. Legal (until they break a law) but not Legally recognized.

Hi

Marc, you are correct in the legal definition, but not the held position. This definition is much later than the Constitution which, i think it is title 8, specifies other than the forces under the command of the government and at the call of the government.

When was the last time the NG or irregular reserves were referred to as "militia"? The legal distinction is that the second provision is the traditional one, while the first is the one the canadians mean when they cite "militia".

Thus, what I was explaining was the difference between the Canadian version and the US.

Rocky

Hi

Oh, and the other part is age. The original involved "adult MALES 16 to 60" but has since included women and, in the provision of locals, not National Guard, has no age limit.

Rocky

I must disagree Rocky. Just because we dont refer to the NG as militia doesnt change the fact they are.

The fact that the Canadian Militia forces correspond more directly to our Reserve forces rather then our NG is a point worth making but doesnt change the fact that in the US the NG is militia.

We really should get together again sometime and talk over old times!

Thanks very much everyone – you've made it fairly clear on the distinction between NG and reserve (federal versus state control). My step son was on some kind of reserve duty after he left the Marines – some sort of call up list as opposed to being in active reserves – for four years, I think. We have similar obligations in Canada, I believe.

Possibly blue fez territory, is there ever any debate on the cost effectiveness of having what sounds like two different and separate sets of reserve forces?
--
Tim

You have it correct about your stepson. It's just a list although people do get called up from it occasionally.

A soldier will often have a contract that allows them to fulfill the rest of their time in the Inactive Ready Reserves (IRR) after serving for a specified period as a more active member of the service.

As for cost effectiveness, there may be others that have more insight into that. Keep in mind, there is not a lot of duplication between the two at a unit level. The entire force structure is designed from the top (in theory at least) so if the Reserve component disappeared today, those units would have to be moved somewhere. Actually, a good number of the units that are in the reserve components now are there because they found it more cost effective to have them there than in the active army component.

Good question on cost effectiveness and dont think we are veering off course here.

My wife recently retired as an Army Reservist. During her time in she was in the engineers. One of her units was charged with heavy construction/reconstruction of port facilities. It was one of only two such units at the time in the Reserve. Think Normandy and having to reconstruct a port like Cherbourg.

From a cost effectiveness issue it didnt make sense for the Army to have this type of unit as full time counting against the number of active duty military allowed given its specialist nature. As well it didnt fit in the National Guard either once again given the specialist nature.

One thing to remember is the States bear a certain amount of the cost of maintaining the National Guard. In addition many States add incentives, usually for things like tuition assistance, to encourage recruiting and to keep qualified National Guard personnel.

Actually the NG is not a milita…there is actually a provision for state militias…they are to be organized and called up as a replacement force for the NG.

As I stated lasalle012 you need to read US Code 10 which I quote from above. They are the ORGANIZED militia.

Hi

Marc, as I said, the law was rewritten in an attempt at a different political point that puts us in "blue fez" territory. Sort of "just saying doesn't make it so".

In my part of the rural west, the "posse" is the militia! There are any number of small political entities where "the law" is a part time officer, and the locals turn out armed for emergencies…or in essence just like the militia of colonial times.

The cultural difference is that Canada is much more concerned with the "regulated" part for the concept of maintaining "good order".

Rocky

We dont disagree that much Rocky. There are various militias. My point is that the NG IS a milita and in fact the homepage for the NG traces its roots directly to the continental militias.

But by now have run this one into the ground I think. Much more fun to talk about more recent gaming projects! For example finishing up some early WW II German vehicles for use in our scenario we will be running at this years Hurricon in Septmeber in Orlando.

Don't forget the Coast Guard Auxiliary cgaux.org and the Civil Air Patrol link

The National Guard is the modern version of the "well regulated militia" from the 2nd amendment. All the other "militias" are playing soldier in green pajamas. Sorry couldn't resist. On to the Blue Fez!

And just to make it all very much more confusing, sometime during my military career, all the National Guards were "Federalized" more or less permanently. Never having been in the Guard, I have no idea what that means, either legally or practically. But, I did my 14 years active duty Army time plus 10 years of Army Reserve time – two wars – and retired in 2007 with 24 years.

To our Canadian Cousin: by the way, have we thoroughly confused you, yet? :)

Hi

It altered the chain of command. In essence changing who could call out the troops.

One of the better results from this was that "once upon a time" the NG had hand me down equiipment and were only considereed "support"…after the airguard is flying the same current stuff as the regulars.

Rocky

The problem with the National Guard, you have fifty (fity one? 52?) separate networks of cronyism and patrongage;

UNTIL they are federalized, they are only loosely under Federal control. The best of them are AWESOME. (They are doing it becuse they volunteered after all); But the worst are well, they can be pretty bad. It's just another bit of federal pork.

Locally (where I live) the Army NG armories are being "consolidated" to a single training site; I know, all the rhetoric about training efficencies, etc. Truly local guardsmen will now have to drive an extra thirty miles to drill, but hey, for the Junior Enlisted, that sounds like a personal problem. And there is a nice construction contract (90% federal dollars) AND the vacated land is in a really attractive location for development.

Like I said, cronyism and patronage. Don't get me started on the (over officering) and patronage networks there.

Just to muddy things up a little more. Over on a US militaria and insignia site I frequent we were discussing the many changes of designations for the State Militias. For example the OSDF (Oregon State Defense Force) AKA the the Oregon National Guard Reserve. Robert