# Instructors giving students pushups - yay or nay?



## Bzzliteyr (14 Nov 2005)

Okay, here we go.  This question has been asked through the chain of command but I am going to ask it here while waiting for the answer:

What is the Canadian Forces policy on giving a student (subordinate?) pushups?  I have sometimes heard that the instructor must do them with the student and other times, not.

Some people have suggested as punishment you must do them with the student, to that I ask this:  If a mother sends her kid to his/her room, should she also go to her room?  If a police officer arrest someone and jails them, do they go to jail?  Why should the instructor be punished too?

On another note, if I suggest on PT to a student that he/she should be able to do 20 pushups, then I must be able to do them myself or it is unreasonable to ask them to do it.  I understand that side of the argument, but a punishment is a punishment.  If I give a 300 word essay as to why Jewellery is not worn while working on AFV, then should I have to hand one in too??

I don't need anecdotal evidence, I need PROOF, in writing, in a policy, CFAO, etc... that says instructors have to do pushups with students.

I'll be darned if it is WRONG in the army to ask someone to do pushups!!

Comments please

Thank you,
Bzz


----------



## Daidalous (14 Nov 2005)

From my experience if the course, section or group of solders  is punished together the instructor does the push ups with them,  but if it is  Pte bloggins"  ah bloggins "  messing up by himslef he is given his own pushups to do.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2005)

I have run into some explanations of it being a "Harassment Thing".  Same as, when conducting a run, you don't have the whole group circle back to pick up stragglers, as it is a form of Harassment.   :


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have run into some explanations of it being a "Harassment Thing".   Same as, when conducting a run, you don't have the whole group circle back to pick up stragglers, as it is a form of Harassment.     :



What? Jeez... then there was a fair amount of harassment going on last summer on course. 

I imagine the staff having to do pushups with the recruit/ocdt would stem from the "lead by example" thing, but I could be wrong. I don't see the harm in using push-ups as a punishment - it benefits the punishee doubly by disciplining him/her as well as getting them in better shape. 

I swear, by 2010 we'll have the only sanctioned punishment being "mildly unpleasant criticisms" and only then with an apology by the staff afterwards for their having to take corrective action.


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Nov 2005)

This is gonna be goooooood!! I can't wait until all the barrack block lawyers get onto this. 

I am actually quite curious now on the "legal" aspect of this whole can of worms. I'm sure someone will produce some reference that the "pushups as punishment" can be applied to (or against). 

Not that anybody cares, but I don't think push-ups (in and of themselves) are an effective form of punishment (correction is the current PC word, I believe). I like to come up with imaginative punishments that are more insiduous and evil than the mere pressing up and down of one's body weight. But, seeing as they are a time-honoured tradition, who am I to say they shouldn't be handed out. Don't get me wrong, push-ups are an effective form of exercise, but let's say a soldier can do 100 push-ups with little or no problem. Are 50 push-ups then a punishment, or a warm-up. OK, make it 150.... But if you fall into the group of people that can only do, say, 50-60, and agree that the instructor should do them alongside the subordinate, then what??? And if you don't agree with it, what's to stop one from decreeing 500 pushups are the punishment? Again, there are far more effective means of correction. Taking away free time. Cleaning kit that needs to be cleaned, while others are off drinking their faces off. Drill. Cleaning up the base of garbage. Name something constructive, and I will go along with it (not that PT isn't constructive, but that's where it should stay.... in a PT period).

Anyway, had to say my bit, but again, I am curious where the "law" is on all of this (if anybody can be arsed to actually look it up).

AL


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Nov 2005)

Because I have to raise my post count (as that is what REALLY matters around here), here is a story about corporate policies that might amuse some....



> Experiment
> Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, and all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon the monkeys will try to prevent it.
> 
> Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
> ...



Al


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Nov 2005)

I would suggest that in the face of a complaint, unless you could clearly show that the assignment of pushups was directly related to correcting the identified training deficiency, then the reference you are looking for is:



> 103.28 - ABUSE OF SUBORDINATES
> 
> (1) Section 95 of the National Defence Act provides:
> 
> "95. Every person who strikes or otherwise ill-treats any person who by reason of rank or appointment is subordinate to him is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment. "



You would be hard-pressed to justify to the delegated officer that your time and attention might not have been better spent focussed on what the soldier was actually doing wrong. Training, rather than punishing. If it requires more stringent action, better to use your own extra energy to draft a clearly worded "red chit", so that when the file does land in front of the Commanding Officer, there's something in there that justifies your claims of unsuitability for military service. A soldier who understands your willingness to help through attention to extra training will be much more likely to ask for it in the first place, and much more likely to do his/her best to measure up in other ways to avoid your disapproval.  


And just out of curiosity: since you asked the chain of command, what answer did you get?


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2005)

This could be just the fact I finnished the Mil Law OPME or something, but last I heard, only a delegated officer can give out a punishment.  Giving out pushups is a form of "corrective training", which, if I'm not mistaken, a supervisor can dish out (within reason of course).  As for circling back for a slower runner, I'd have a hard time as a Harrassment Investigator to find harrassment there, unless something was said or done that violates the Charter crash landings.  The idea of teamwork I think has been lost on alot of recruits these days IMO...

MM


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Nov 2005)

Quote,
The idea of teamwork I think has been lost on alot of recruits these days IMO...


....but who's fault is that, certainly not thiers....whine in, whine out.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have run into some explanations of it being a "Harassment Thing".   Same as, when conducting a run, you don't have the whole group circle back to pick up stragglers, as it is a form of Harassment.     :



I'm calling 3VP CO, the company commanders have been harassing the troops for years! What is the statute of limitations on that, I want to see every Major and Pl Comd doing the hatless dance! Written apologies to every man in the coy!    

Why do I think I would be laughed out of my unit for bringing this particular form of "harassment" up? I can't even write it with a straight face!   

Has this ever really happened?

Also, considering that the PIs in Trenton hand out pushups like Halloween candy, and they dont' do anything but "encourage you" to correct your deficiencies between "begin" and "recover" so I can't see there being a policy against it. They are pretty by the book out there.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Nov 2005)

If Pushups form one test of the Express Test, then how can assigning them be considered abuse of a subordinate?  Is it not a task that a CF solder can be expected to perform (by day or by night, regardless of weather or terrain....)


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2005)

"....but who's fault is that, certainly not thiers....whine in, whine out"

True, no bad students, just bad teachers.  Though, despite that, there are still alot out there that seem to find an "I" in TEAM.  Maybe they're thinking of the word "Item"...

MM


----------



## DVessey (14 Nov 2005)

Not sure which way this is going to go, but instructors first have to be able to do push ups themselves. One past instructor of mine tried doing push ups with our platoon during morning PT. It was very hard for the platoon to keep a straight face, as this DS had his arse way up in the air, completely improper position.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If Pushups form one test of the Express Test, then how can assigning them be considered abuse of a subordinate?  Is it not a task that a CF solder can be expected to perform (by day or by night, regardless of weather or terrain....)



Yes it is, as part of his physical fitness expectations, in concert with that of all of his/her peers.

But not because he salutes poorly, or because he forgets the sequence the unload after one instructional period, or because his bed isn't quite perfect .......


But, if you insist, perhaps they can also be assigned to NCO instructors for poorly written weekly asessments. Hmmm .......


----------



## Lost_Warrior (14 Nov 2005)

> I have sometimes heard that the instructor must do them with the student and other times, not.



On courses I have been on, that policy has it's loop holes.  On many occasions, we were made to hit the push up position and hold it, and do push ups in between.  

When one instructor got tired (although they would never admit it) another one would get down and replace him/her and continue the punishment with us.

I have also seen an instructor hover over a recruit and make him do 50 push ups in a row (even though I believe they are only supposed to make us do 25 "at a time") and stand there with a smile on his face as the recruit struggled.  I kind of felt sorry for him.  He didn't really do much to deserve it either...



> Same as, when conducting a run, you don't have the whole group circle back to pick up stragglers, as it is a form of Harassment.



I don't think I was ever on a course where we *didn't* do that...

I guess it all depends on your instructors.  

I have been fortunate enough to have tough, fair instructors.  It makes good soldiers.  I have seen other courses where the instructors baby their candidates.  All that does it creates whiners when the guy/girl has to sleep out in the rain or cold, or get a little physical in their task.


----------



## DVessey (15 Nov 2005)

Oh, and if instructors really want to correct physical fitness deficiences, get the subordinate doing CrossFit (http://www.crossfit.com)


----------



## paracowboy (15 Nov 2005)

having seen the results of the "Geddown and gimme 50!" Army, and the "Here is your red chit, please read. Any questions? Sign here." Army, I vastly prefer the former. 
Words on paper have no impact on a young troop. Physical punishment (not corrective training - punishment) does. Further, it promotes an attitude of "He ain't gonna break me." and develops a stronger troop. After a while, it becomes a fun game. For both parties. Especially when the PL WO is involved and does them, too.

Write me up all you want, it means nothing. If words on paper meant something, the PDR/PER system wouldn't be the bloody abortion it is.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2005)

Para,
100 % correct, I remember many a run up and down "zipperhead" hill in Pet with the towing eye from the L-5 in my hands, right MrGnr27, ;D and  it did exactly what you stated above.


----------



## Gayson (15 Nov 2005)

I suppose the push-up rule is to prevent instructors from giving out rediculous amounts of push-ups that no recruit could do.  PT as a punishment works, to an extent.  I believe that making a recruit suffer through 200 push-ups will have no more of an effect doing 50.  Also, when the instructors do it with the troops it leads by example.  It shows the troops a level of fitness they can expire to.  Also I would say that having the instructor do the punishment with you has a greater effect, not only do you get the "punishment", but also you are left with no doubt in your mind that the punishment was to great as the instructor went through it with you.

Frankly, I believe PT as a punishment is a good thing.  I firmly believe that any punishment handed out to recruits should be constructive and make them better soldiers.  This is why i hate show parading so much, what does a soldier learn from pointless cock as they get in and out of uniform a lot of times.

On my last course, DP2, we were NEVER show paraded.  Instead as a punishment we got to do TONS and TONS of NBC drills.  Everything from suiting up, to running with the kit on, to working on other drills with the kit on.  It sucked, we learned from our punishments, and now I find the NBC gear a lot easier to operate in.

I'm not PLQ qualified and I have never taught so I don't assume to be an expert on the matter.  When I do teach one day I would like to refrain from show parading candidates.  Instead I would "correct" troops with PT r punishments that have something to do with their failings.

Failed inspections = More inspections by me on their spare time.
Missing Timings = practice stripping weapons or peforming MEANINGFUL tasks (not show parades) under pressure.
Poor academics = more practice on the subject matter
Low fitness = PT sessions before and after classes.

Anyways, back on subject of push-ups.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> It shows the troops a level of fitness they can expire to.


Freudian slip?


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Nov 2005)

DVessey said:
			
		

> Not sure which way this is going to go, but instructors first have to be able to do push ups themselves. One past instructor of mine tried doing push ups with our platoon during morning PT. It was very hard for the platoon to keep a straight face, as this DS had his arse way up in the air, completely improper position.



Were exactly is that stated.   So far no one one has come up with an actual answer in the form of a Standing Order, CANFORGEN, CANLANGEN, CFAO etc. that states that an instructor must do the push ups as well.   My guess (and thats all it is, is a guess) is, that some course officer somewhere, on some course, some time ago, decried that all the subordinate instructors on the course he was running, must do the push ups as well.   And that, because of this one particular incident the idea that instructors MUST do the push ups as well spread, to the point where it is dogma/urban legend and no one has bothered to really question/ challenge it.

Now for someones question, what do you do if troopy can do 100s of push ups no problem.   To that I say, thats when you as an instructor have to start getting creative.   Instead of regular push ups you can use dive bombers/diamond push-ups (ie hands together)/diamonds on a helmet/ wide space (ie hand spread out twice the normal distance)/elevator push-ups/push ups wearing FFO/push ups wearing marching order/push ups with you feet raised up.   On my basic course we did all these variations, sometimes the instructors were doing them with us, other times they were right beside certain candidates "motivating" them.


----------



## Unknown Factor (15 Nov 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So far no one one has come up with an actual answer in the form of a Standing Order, CANFORGEN, CANLANGEN, CFAO etc. that states that an instructor must do the push ups as well.



And they won't find it because it does not exist.  Corrective training is up to the CO of 'insert comd here' to dictate what 'he' will support when it comes time to conduct the PRB and topic of push-ups come up.  I've worked with schools were they are supported and other where they are not - the difference between the two, the CO and how far he was willing to support his Training Cadre if at all.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (15 Nov 2005)

I am not aware of any CF level regulation regarding the use of push-ups as a punishment.   From my own experience teaching recruits in the CF, the policy for delving out punishment rested with the training authority, namely the school where training was conducted.

As with everything, a measure of common sense can go a long way.   I have seen instructors dish out an ungodly amount of push-ups to students who could clearly not do them without any regard to how effective the punishment will be.   I've also seen the opposite where a small amount was given out because the instructor was doing it with them.   Different people respond to different stimulus.   The key here is to find out what makes them tick.

I am not a fan of doing push-ups with the offending student or offending section or platoon.   The punishment is for them and not for the instructor.   The students are not going to be overly concerned with how many push-ups the instructor is doing as their focus will be on getting through the session sucessfully without giving up or loosing feeling in their arms.   I believe in leading by example but there is a time and place for it.   Push-ups are a valuble tool in re-wiring the neurons of the brain to re-inforce a lesson that needs to be learned.   An instructor cannot offer constructive criticism to his students during their performance of the punishing act if he has to do it with them.   It tends to defeat the whole purpose.

Push-ups serve two purposes:

1.   used as a corrective action "don't do that again"; and
2.   it helps to strengthen the body of the recruit (and as a side effect, it also helps to strengthen the recruits obviously weak mind since he screwed up to start with).

In Marine boot camp, we did endless sessions of push-ups during our "house of pain" sessions.   It made us physically stronger and no one died from it despite being deprived water on a few occasions.   For every upward movement we had to shout "team work" and for every downward movement we had to shout out something else.   As I watched a puddle of sweat form on the floor in front of me, all I thought about was getting through the session and how much stronger I was getting.   It helped me to develop a stronger mental attitude when faced with a physically daunting task.   In the end, it helps to build morally and physically stronger Marines, soldiers, airmen, sailors etc...

As for writing a red chit saying you were bad and have the student sign it, well I don't ever remember signing anything in boot camp because I was bad although I did a lot of push-ups for allegedly committing some offense that was deemed punishable.   The chit system in the CF is only there to document the student's progress in order to build a paper trail when you kick him out.   The chit system smells an awful lot like a hair brained idea an officer had in order to cover his own rear end because he's afraid of taking responsibility for his actions.   Now it is institutionalized across the CF as part of the counselling process.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## hhour48 (15 Nov 2005)

Hmm, I have always thought that, according to QR&Os, only your CO and/or OC have the powers of punishment; and pushups are a "motivational technique"


----------



## ggranatstein (15 Nov 2005)

I spent my summer as a course officer in Shilo and had a lot of issues dealing the "push-up problem."

At the start of the course, we (my platoon staff and I) had free reign to decide how and when we would give motivational pushups. After 2 weeks, there was a number of recruits from my and other platoons who went to the MIR with "severe upper body fatigue" - the MO complained to the CO of the school and the CO ordered that no pushups were to be done for a period of 1 week.  After the week was up, we were limited to giving 5 pushups / day outside of PT. 

We had recruits complaining that they wanted MORE pushups. The platoon staff also complained that it was stupid and they couldn't do anything... and so on..

I was of another mindset. They are many other ways to motivate troops other than giving pushups. We got creative. Weapons PT, sit-ups, pull ups, etc. If anything, it forced us to be more creative and give the recruits a better workout. 

During the whole affair, I searched far and wide for pushup directives and could not find anything.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Nov 2005)

I think pushups are cruel.  We should return to the motivational tools of yore; 50 lashes up on the halberds for farting in church, that kind of thing. Jeez man, they're pushups


----------



## UberCree (15 Nov 2005)

As a young enlisted soldier back in the day, I much prefered to get smoked for an hour or two over getting written up and having something go on my file.  Its immediate and it forces you to correct your behaviour.  The ONE time I made a safety violation on a range (I left my weapon on fire after clearing) I was taken out back in the woods and smoked for over an hour... I NEVER ever ever left my weapon on fire from that day forward.  Even today my thumb instinctively flicks the fire selector lever to safe every time I handle a firearm.  On a side note I HATE to see our troops walking around with weapons not on safe.

If your dog shits on the carpet, do you wait a few days then try to correct his behaviour?  No, you do it immediately.  Thats the positive of pushups, flutter kicks, koala, batman, iron chair, 400 jumping jacks, etc. etc. etc.
Pain improves learning in my case... I must be thick.
I guess it boils down to the old spanlking vs. non-spanking debate.  I am sure the feminist pc leadership of todays army is anti-spanking as well as anti-pt as punishment.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (15 Nov 2005)

Habitant said:
			
		

> At the start of the course, we (my platoon staff and I) had free reign to decide how and when we would give motivational pushups. After 2 weeks, there was a number of recruits from my and other platoons who went to the MIR with "severe upper body fatigue" - the MO complained to the CO of the school and the CO ordered that no pushups were to be done for a period of 1 week.   After the week was up, we were limited to giving 5 pushups / day outside of PT.



I can't even imagine going to the BAS in boot camp complaining of upper body fatigue.  The only time you go to BAS in boot camp is when you know you have something broken or you are bleeding from every orifice.  As for the CO coming down with his one week grace period and limiting the activity to 5 max outside PT, I believe this is an example of the CO not having any faith in his men.  Whatever happened to allowing the platoon commanders to use their own good judgement?  I can understand how the whole medical issue can scare the pants off the CO given the fact the CF is interested in saving money and not wanting to pay out any disability to anyone.  I don't believe in watering down training to this degree.  I'm sure we could both go on for pages on this topic given both our experiences.



> I was of another mindset. They are many other ways to motivate troops other than giving pushups. We got creative. Weapons PT, sit-ups, pull ups, etc. If anything, it forced us to be more creative and give the recruits a better workout.



Good for you for being able to find an alternative training technique.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## PJ D-Dog (15 Nov 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> As a young enlisted soldier back in the day, I much prefered to get smoked for an hour or two over getting written up and having something go on my file.   Its immediate and it forces you to correct your behaviour.   The ONE time I made a safety violation on a range (I left my weapon on fire after clearing) I was taken out back in the woods and smoked for over an hour... I NEVER ever ever left my weapon on fire from that day forward.



This is exactly what I am talking about.   



> Pain improves learning in my case... I must be thick.



It's not a question of being thick. I goes back to what I said about re-wiring the neurons of the brain.  In martial arts, there is a concept called "pain compliance".  When you associate pain with performing a certain act, then you tend not to want to perform that act again.  There are some psychological studies on this very subject out there.  I remember watching it on PBS some years ago.  Boot camp is meant to be obediance training for humans.  If you take away some of the tools, you end up with a watered down product.  If you replace push-ups with flutter kicks or hello dollys then you'll end up with complaints of lower body fatigue.  A soldier needs upper body strength in order to carry his gear, carry his machine gun etc...Although push-ups are used as part of the remedial process, it serves to strengthen the soldier both mentally and physically.  When you take this element away, you end up with a weakened product, frustrated instructors, lower standards etc.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Tracker 23A (15 Nov 2005)

I think everyone on this thread should do 30 pushups right now, stop reading/typing and begin...there I did mine, did you do yours?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Nov 2005)

Done.. but did you do them at the same time?? START OVER!!!


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> ... I NEVER ever ever left my weapon on fire from that day forward.   Even today my thumb instinctively flicks the fire selector lever to safe every time I handle a firearm.   On a side note I HATE to see our troops walking around with weapons not on safe.



That does freak people out, especially Americans on Tour....but the C-7 will not go onto SAFE unless it is loaded....sorry...Ready.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Nov 2005)

Tracker 23A said:
			
		

> I think everyone on this thread should do 30 pushups right now, stop reading/typing and begin...there I did mine, did you do yours?



Sorry, I have a chit. 

What? 

I do!


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That does freak people out, especially Americans on Tour....but the C-7 will not go onto SAFE unless it is loaded....sorry...Ready.



ditto with the m16, the yanks just have different drills.  weapons are always cocked and placed on safe regaurdless of wether they have any ammo with 'em.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2005)

Quote,
"_severe upper body fatigue"_ :

I would cut my own throat before I would hand that in..........just stupid.
I guess even the military doctors now want "in/out" as fast as possible, "Yea yea, here ya go, next!!"


----------



## medicineman (15 Nov 2005)

Imagine the 4 headed alien look the person concerned gets when I read the chief complaint on the chit.  I seem to recall a platoon pushup afternoon from hell one time because the same dweeb kept falling asleep in grenade class - started at 25 per session, worked it's way up to 40 or 50 at a go.  I think the end total that afternoon was in the 600 range - wanna complain about upper body fatigue - most of us could barely raise a fist to slap the flatulent butthead, much less punch him out.

     Ahhhh - the good old days >

MM


----------



## Hansol (16 Nov 2005)

i just did my 30.

Speaking from a potential recruits point of view, I think there are a lot of us now who are applying to the forces who are the "backlash" so to speak against this whole "pansy" way of doing things right now. I don't think I am the only one who gets sick thinking about the whole "upper body fatigue" bullshit. 

I figure that it will come around in the near future, when instructors see recruits who attempt their punishment, and don't bugger off crying about it. I think that this would trickle down to the rest of the unit, and maybe stop that whole syndrome? Thoughts? Cheers -Cameron


----------



## BSmith12 (16 Nov 2005)

I agree with Hansol but I think the pushups as a punishment is really not a punishment at all. It only makes you stronger. I'm all for it. I may not be a strong young man right now, but that's part of the reason why I'm joining the Army. I want to get into top shape and be the best I can be. I would imagine that other people feel the same way. 
                             ushup:


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ditto with the m16, the yanks just have different drills.   weapons are always cocked and placed on safe regaurdless of wether they have any ammo with 'em.


Canadians do that to: I've had to do it on every tour I've been on.

For some srew ups, their just isn't any corrective action that works better then the negative reinforcement of push-ups. When someone keeps missing timings, making them strip and assemble weapons isn't corrective action since it isn't teaching them to be on time. There is really nothing better to correct this then to dole out negative reinforcement on the spot whenever they are late. Essays, chits, and whatever other paper crap you can come up with does not do shit to fix the problem.  

I think the problem lies in the fact that you also need to give out some positive reinforcement once in a while to counter balance it and that this aspect is often overlooked.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Nov 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> I think the problem lies in the fact that you also need to give out some positive reinforcement once in a while to counter balance it and that this aspect is often overlooked.



Positive? 

Like telling a joke while they are doing pushups?


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Positive?
> 
> Like telling a joke while they are doing pushups?


I was thinking more along the line of an extra piece of baloney from the haybox ;D


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

negative reinforcement = physical punishment
positive reinforcement = no punishment.


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> negative reinforcement = physical punishment
> positive reinforcement = no punishment.


How about:

Soldier screws up = negative reinforcement (physical punishment and/or remedial training)
Soldier does his job properly = no punishment
Soldier excels at his job = positive reinforcement


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

How about:

Soldier excels at his job = more responsibility, more work. Or, in other words, promotion. Not really a positive at all, is it?


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2005)

"be the grey man, you must.  Strive for mediocrity, you should."


----------



## UberCree (16 Nov 2005)

Negative reinforcement = 100 push ups
Positive reinforcement = PT including 4 sets of 25 push-ups.


----------



## Recce41 (16 Nov 2005)

You better watch yourself. But as far as I know, there is nothing in writing. I spent a few summers down at the Leadership school. And we didn't have to do pushups if it was Extra training. For you cannot supervise the troops. I do know where this is from and going. 
All I say is suck back.
 I remember a lot on my many courses. If I had gone to Depot, you would not have to ask this question. To me more the better, but thats me. Twice investigated, and never guilty.

 :evil: :tank:


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

But are those push up proper PSP ones? 

I could pump out 50 push ups, or so I thought, no problems. Until I had to get assessed. Then I found out that PSP staff enforces the proper "footing". Didn't do as well as I should have.

I do think push ups can reenforce a message. drop a weapon=20 push up.


----------



## medicineman (16 Nov 2005)

As one of the dudes/ettes said - they aren't punishment, they just make you stronger.  Hence the term corrective training - they are correcting an upper body strength/endurance problem and improving blood flow to the brain, therefore making the person more awake and hopefully in tune with what they are supposed to be doing. ;D

MM


----------



## Doug VT (17 Nov 2005)

I prefer the use of push-ups in the"payment" sense.  For example, when working with ropes, if you step on the rope, you pay with 25.  If you do improper drills on basic para, you pay with 25.  I have been in numerous, and I mean numerous, "cock" sessions where we do many, many push-ups coupled with the 5th point of flight procedure.  Did we think it was harassment?....Nope.  Did it suck?....Yup.  It *really* sucks when the instructors switch off when they get tired!  The real problem is our gentle, tolerant, non-feeling hurting basic training/battle school.  Prospective non-hackers are making it into the mainstream and they think it's (supposed to be) all peaches and cream.  Wake-up!  This is the Army, if the thought of doing a few push-ups frightens you, maybe you should re-think your career choice.  I have no sympathy for anyone (especially in the infantry) who cannot pull off a minimum of 25 respectable push-ups.


----------



## BSmith12 (18 Nov 2005)

medicineman said:
			
		

> As one of the dudes/ettes said - they aren't punishment, they just make you stronger.   Hence the term corrective training - they are correcting an upper body strength/endurance problem and improving blood flow to the brain, therefore making the person more awake and hopefully in tune with what they are supposed to be doing. ;D
> 
> MM


Exactly! That's what I meant by my post.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Nov 2005)

If you cry and whine about doing some extra push ups/leg raises/etc for corrective training then wait a minute and let me call the Wa-wa-w-a-WAMBULANCE!!! Seriously to modern troopies going through training, suck it up butter cup and get on with soldiering.


----------



## redleafjumper (18 Nov 2005)

Having had to do a few push-ups from time to time, I never saw anything wrong with them when used in moderation as a quick reminder to not repeat the mistake as well as having a minor PT benefit.  I think the real issue is to use a form of corrective memory training that reminds people not to foul up and corrects the fault, but doesn't abuse the soldier.  I once saw a young SYEP recruit running around in a circle in a field.  I thought that this was a little strange, so I went to ask him what was up.  It was a very hot day and he was wearing a full pack.  I asked him what he was doing and he said that his course officer didn't think his boots were shiny enough so he had to go run around in circles in this field with full pack.  Apparently, he had been doing this for about an hour.  Besides being astounded, I ordered him to go get some water and I thenwent to have a meaningful talk with his officer.  Pack drill went out a long time ago, because it is abuse, pure and simple.  To see it merely 20 years ago in Canada was a real shock.  

As was mentioned, a good approach is to provide training that corrects the fault.  It was pretty clear to me why there was low retention of the SYEP types from that particular course.  The training needs to be challenging and it needs to be fun.  Good intelligent leadership works, man-handling and abuse is just a cover for lack of instructional ability and poor leadership skills.


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Pack drill went out a long time ago, because it is abuse, pure and simple.   To see it merely 20 years ago in Canada was a real shock.



Pack drill is still alive and well, the unfortunates on defaulters do it every night... what do you mean by "went out" ?


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (18 Nov 2005)

My unit still implements pack drill, however, whether it is conducted with rucksack or in FFO is for the BOS to decide.   Not that it matters, as most defaulters run to the UMS to get a no drill/marching chit minutes after they get off charge parade.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2005)

I remember one shmuck doing it overseas, he went past the MIR and straight to the Padre....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2005)

..who then should have said "See this large cross son...."


----------



## redleafjumper (19 Nov 2005)

Flogging as a punishment in British service ended in 1881, and Field Punishment no. 1 generally ended in 1917 (that's the old treat of being shackled to a wheel in cruciform fashion for two hours a day for periods of up to a few months).  Sometimes old No. 1 included being exposed to enemy fire or being forced to be up front in an assault.  

There is more than one definition of the term "pack drill".  It can mean repeated inspections of full kit, laid out as required.  It also means the archaic punishment of having someone run in circles, usually around a parade square with his rifle and a rucksack weighted down with 50lbs or so of rocks, until they fall down.  GO!!, is that what you mean by defaulters doing pack drill?  I have certainly had defaulters do the first version but certainly not the second.  Correct me if I'm mistaken here but I understood that the second version of pack drill left the CF in the 1960s.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Pack drill is still alive and well, the unfortunates on defaulters do it every night... what do you mean by "went out" ?



Kipling wrote about it in a poem called "Cells", here's the first stanza:

I've a head like a concertina: I've a tongue like a button-stick:
I've a mouth like an old potato, and I'm more than a little sick,
But I've had my fun o' the Corp'ral's Guard: I've made the cinders fly,
And I'm here in the Clink for a thundering drink
and blacking the Corporal's eye.
With a second-hand overcoat under my head,
And a beautiful view of the yard,
O it's pack-drill for me and a fortnight's C.B.
For "drunk and resisting the Guard!"
Mad drunk and resisting the Guard --
'Strewth, but I socked it them hard!
So it's pack-drill for me and a fortnight's C.B.
For "drunk and resisting the Guard."

Going for a jog in FFO is training; punishing someone by having them run around in circles until they drop doesn't serve any useful purpose in my opinion.  I believe that if there is to be punishment it should be fair, quickly implemented, and serve to correct the deficiency.  I have trouble thinking of a circumstance where what I saw would be appropriate and it certainly was not an appropriate punishment for the offence of boots not being shiny enough.  There is definitely a time and place for appropriate punishment, but let's not mix up corrective training and punishment with abuse or even torture.  These ways of doing things are far from doing a few push-ups.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> having someone run in circles, usually around a parade square with his rifle and a rucksack weighted down with 50lbs or so of rocks, until they fall down.



Don't forget making him yell "I'm an Asshat!"....


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (19 Nov 2005)

Since no one has found any "documentation" on this, I am of the mind that whoever thought up the idea that the instructor must do pushups with his/her troops, just didn't think it out.

 If you are leading PT, by all means get your lazy a** down and pump em off. If its a form of discipline then you should be supervising for proper technique and letting others know that you are disciplining the soldier and not competing with him/her.

 Not only does this form of discipline strengthen the upper body but also the mind. If you give out 25 push ups to a soldier and after 5 good ones, they quit and say screw this, you have just identified a bigger problem to deal with.

 Honestly how many of you can think back with a grin to days of helmet pushups where as soon as the PI turned his back you locked your elbows but kept counting them out.

 In the Arty we had a similar form of punishment in the form of the hand spike. If after applying an elevation or bearing to the gun, you forgot to level your bubbles, you would grab the handspike(A heavy length of metal used to move the gun trails) hold it over your head and run around the gun saying "Im a duck and im all f***ed up" until ordered to stop.

  Nobody ever died from this type of corrective punishment and everyone learned their lesson which is the entire objective.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (19 Nov 2005)

We use to call the hand spike "Mr. Happy" and you didn't want to do anything that would cause Mr. Happy to get angry......because when Mr. Happy gets angry, people......uh.....uh.....suffer inexplicable torture to the upper body.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Nov 2005)

Gee.. PJ... I'm sure your TSM was much more benevolent than that...    >


----------



## PJ D-Dog (19 Nov 2005)

My TSM was AWESOME.....I never said I had to carry Mr Happy.....what I meant is that I knew of his existance...that's it....he existed.  Of course some red hair-ring guy felt that I did not rate anything due to this and so he tried to continually discredit my leadership ability in the face of others.  Incidently, he's re-upping at 89th.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> There is more than one definition of the term "pack drill".   It can mean repeated inspections of full kit, laid out as required.   It also means the archaic punishment of having someone run in circles, usually around a parade square with his rifle and a rucksack weighted down with 50lbs or so of rocks, until they fall down.   GO!!, is that what you mean by defaulters doing pack drill?   I have certainly had defaulters do the first version but certainly not the second.   Correct me if I'm mistaken here but I understood that the second version of pack drill left the CF in the 1960s.



I've never seen rocks in the pack, usually just the kit list, and all the canteens and two quarts filled. Probably abouit 45-50lbs. And they are usually run out to the pde square and given drill  for about an hour, not made to run the whole time. Although when I did it, I would have preferred running to marking time, and trying to do about turns with a ruck on.

The inspection happens before that, so you don't "forget" to put something in! 

Apparently, we are stuck in the 60s!  ;D


----------



## Ninja9186 (19 Nov 2005)

Im in week 8 of my BMQ training right now and Ive got to say that I havent yet felt physically challenged (other than when the PSP staff let us run around the parade square at our own pace for 20 min) PT is too far spread out throughout the weeks and most of my instructors can barely do 20 push ups without nearly suffering a stroke. In turn we have only been punnished physically 3 or 4 times in 8 weeks. To be honest I kind of feel a litle bit embarrassed telling friends and family at home just how physically easy BMQ is. This is the Videogame and Movie generation and even though the real military is not like it is in the movies, basic training needs to be because the harder the challenge the more satisfying it will be to complete. We need to be yelled and cussed at, we need to be rundown into the ground physically until we can do no more. But then again thats just my opinion, allthough I can vouch the same for 90% of recruits that ive spoken to.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've never seen rocks in the pack, usually just the kit list, and all the canteens and two quarts filled. Probably abouit 45-50lbs. And they are usually run out to the pde square and given drill   for about an hour, not made to run the whole time. Although when I did it, I would have preferred running to marking time, and trying to do about turns with a ruck on.
> 
> The inspection happens before that, so you don't "forget" to put something in!
> 
> Apparently, we are stuck in the 60s!   ;D


as GO!!! stated, we don't add weight to the kit list. And we don't make anyone run with a ruck. Simple drill. One of the many reasons I dislike BOS. I suck at calling drill. (And, if the RSM is reading this, it's not an invitation for more practice, Sir. Honest. I'll just read the pam again.)


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Nov 2005)

Well, the other day my troops had a timing to meet and they didn't.  I offered them all ten pushups for every minute they were over.  We went to breakfast and after which we adopted the pushup position outside the kitchen.  I took part in doing the pushups and assisted in stopping them at regular intervals when they weren't counting together (in the armour, we emphasize "teamwork" as we live in crews).  I later mentioned to my peers what I had done and someone asked, "why didn't you let them do them alone?". 

Having done that, I realize that it all depends on the circumstances as to when you will do the pushups with the students or not.  If it were my crew coming in late after a smoke break (GRR) then I would make them do the pushups and not do them myself, BUT if if were the whole course I would feel more "leader-like" to do them with them.  As a chellenge to them that if I can do them, they should be able to.

It's unfotunate that the military has gotten to a point where someone actually has to ask the question on whether pushups are a "no-no" or not!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2005)

Quote,
_It's unfotunate that the military has gotten to a point where someone actually has to ask the question on whether pushups are a "no-no" or not!!_

5 pages and thats the best line in it.........truly unfortunate.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (19 Nov 2005)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> ...BUT if if were the whole course I would feel more "leader-like" to do them with them.   As a chellenge to them that if I can do them, they should be able to.



At the risk of being flamed to death....I understand what you are saying, but I just don't agree with it.  It tends to go against my grain.  I would not offer a challenge of that sort to the students.  If they screw up, they pay the price.  Cut and dry actually although you were trying to be creative.  As for feeling more "leader-like", well, I won't comment.

Good post and timely for the times.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## ZipperHead (19 Nov 2005)

Ninja9186 said:
			
		

> Im in week 8 of my BMQ training right now and Ive got to say that I havent yet felt physically challenged (other than when the PSP staff let us run around the parade square at our own pace for 20 min) PT is too far spread out throughout the weeks and most of my instructors can barely do 20 push ups without nearly suffering a stroke. In turn we have only been punnished physically 3 or 4 times in 8 weeks. To be honest I kind of feel a litle bit embarrassed telling friends and family at home just how physically easy BMQ is. This is the Videogame and Movie generation and even though the real military is not like it is in the movies, basic training needs to be because the harder the challenge the more satisfying it will be to complete. We need to be yelled and cussed at, we need to be rundown into the ground physically until we can do no more. But then again thats just my opinion, allthough I can vouch the same for 90% of recruits that ive spoken to.



I'm surprised it took someone of "this" generation this long to weigh in with an opinion like this. I know that when I went through ('88) the PT was a big part of the training, and having "Little Hitler" screaming at you to get dressed, from on top of the lockers, is something I will never forget. I trained pretty hard for basic training, running up to 8km to get ready (I can run over 20+ km now, but that's another story....), and it was pretty challenging. I remember doing pushups, with webbing on, our SMG's on our hands, and counting out 75 push-ups (5 for every empty casing found after our sweep of the range.... planted, I still suspect, by the DS, just for c*ck) during TQ3, and running LSD's (long slow distance) in Petawawa, and repeatedly running past the shacks, so just when you thought you were done, you weren't. 

Now, the furthest I have seen anybody run in non-voluntary formed PT was the latest Terry Fox run, where 9.2km was mandatory for everyone without a chit, and 6km for those on chit. Actually, I was pretty impressed at the concept, as I'm sure the furthest that most people had run before that was 6.3km. As for "core" exercises like push-ups, sit-ups, squats, lunges, chins, I find that, due to the testing stages in the AFS, people are starting to do more of this style of PT, rather than just strictly running (guilty!!!) or just curling the bar to blast the pipes. 

One thing I noticed as I went for a run around the base was the "birdcages" (chin up bars that form a hollow square) and chin-up bars near the entrances to the buildings. They seem to be rarely used (from what I have seen), and are non-existant in the Armour end (unless I'm completely blind and/or oblivious). I am guilty of not being able to do as many chin-ups as I should be able to do (my max in my younger days was 13, and now probably 6 or 7), and a big part of this is a lot of the PT that should be done hasn't, because it isn't part of our "culture", like it used to be. 

I'm pretty sure I was driving into work, and saw Bzz doing the pushups with his course that he mentioned. It actually brought a smile to my face, as we have let things like this slide. I have heard people use excuses as to why we shouldn't, and none of them hold any real amount of water. The reasons why are more compelling. Fitness, teamwork, correcting mistakes. People seem to be afraid that if someone gets hurt, or even dies, while doing the PT, it is somehow their (the DS/instructor/leaders) "fault". Unless you are getting medieval on someone's a$$, and denying them water, going against a chit, or being completely unsafe and ridiculous, I say fuq it: do it. If they die, they die. Odds are, if they are a 6 sandwich-eating, deep-fried chocalate bar chomping, gravy guzzling sloth, they are gonna die in the not too distant future anyway. In 2000 in our camp, we had a clerk die doing a weight-bearing (webbing/rucksack) march in Bosnia. The knee-jerk reaction from many seemed to be "cancel ruckmarches: someone died doing one!!" Yeah, like that was the cause..... I think it was buddies time to pack it in. 

We have people moaning and whining about things being unsafe (running trails muddy, roads slippery, a little dark, obstacle course had a bit of water on it, bears in the vicinity of running trails, etc), and look for any reason to avoid doing anything that might cause the least amount of discomfort. We, as a society and a military, have become soft and lazy. If it doesn't involve taking a pill, or takes longer than 20 minutes per day and sweating is involved, forget it. 

I think that if you have never been pushed to the brink of your abilities (i.e ready to physically fall down, ready to pass out, can't walk another step), you don't know what you are capable of. The human body and mind are very strong, but we are now programmed to stop doing anything well short of actual exhaustion or even remotely close to our maximum potential. The body adapts very quickly to any loads we place on it, and that is in fact the only way to become better: push your body and/or mind.

When I was teaching courses in the field, on Friday's (maintenance afternoon) I would run the 6.5km from the area we do maintenance to the shacks we were staying in. People looked at me like I had 2 heads. Then I heard that 2 young soldiers wanted to follow my lead, and were told they couldn't because there was no safety vehicle available to follow them. Give me strength..... We are at the point now where everyone is so cautious that we are paralyzed at the thought about doing things like this because of what might happen. What, get in shape?!?! I think that when it comes to "risk analysis" you have to weigh the 99.5% probability that nothing will happen (negatively) to the .5% (or less) chance that something will. People still fly in airplanes even though they still crash. People still drive to work even though there are car crashes. People still eat double cheeseburgers with fenchfries even though people drop dead of heartattacks every day. And the one line of thought that I love hearing is: "Didn't you hear about the marathon runner that died of a heart-attack?!?! I'll never do that". Yeah, what about all the people dying of alcoholism, clogged arteries from smoking and eating greasy food. I think the chances of dying of a heart attack while running are a lot less than all those others. But the one that involves exercise, well, it involves work, and determination, and drive. So that's the one that is the easiest to say "screw it!" to.

Fight the good fight: keep the troops doing PT as a form of correction. Just don't limit it to one thing. Find something that that particular individual or group needs to work on, or hates doing (which, technically I guess makes it punishment, but who gives a sh!t as long as it improves their conditioning and makes them think twice about doing something wrong). I still remember "corrective training" that I was given well over 18 years ago for things I did wrong, and still avoid doing them because of this. 

Al


----------



## Haggis (20 Nov 2005)

*Amen!!!*


----------



## DraconianGuard (21 Nov 2005)

Hi, new to boards.

Hopefully by September I can get all my stuff ready to go and join Regular forces for infantry.

But, Allan, I hope I recieve an instructor as yourself. I cannot call myself fit for duty just yet (working on it, hard). But I hope when I arrive that I experience that sort of attitude when I work with my instructors. I plan to be the man volunteering for running on the dirtiest, muddiest, and most water barren coarse when it comes down to it.


----------



## Old Ranger (21 Nov 2005)

Back when I was instructing a Basic;
I had to do the Private Pile thing with on of the recruits.

He was a power horse and could do pushups till the cows came home;
his friends on the course, could not.

Only took 25 to square him away.

Push-ups and all physical stress have there different times and places.

If balanced properly, it leads to better comradery and a better solider.

Ben


----------



## medicineman (21 Nov 2005)

Thinking of pack drill, my dad used to tell me that back in the 60's in Shilo, he had the dubious pleasure of doing pack drill with the handspike on a number of occasions - after some close order drill, he'd have to run a lap of the parade square, come smartly to a halt in front of the bomber, and say"I'm a 6 foot 2 inch useless individual - permission to carry on Bombardier?!"  My have things changed...

MM


----------



## Old Ranger (21 Nov 2005)

medicineman said:
			
		

> useless individual -........Bombardier?!"




And if I make any more comment, the "MonK" will drop fire on me ;D

And if the rating system was still active......

Ben


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Nov 2005)

As a CQCI, I have to admit I enjoy giving and participating in the CQC warm ups I do for my troops. Its 10 mins light cardio, 10 mins stretching and 20 (oops, sometimes I run over  of BODY HARDENING !!! Now in proper warm ups for CQC lessons there is no room for Wa-wa-wa-wa can't do that. The PT must be tough, challenging and incoporate the 3 systems for fighting (ATP PC, Lactic and aerobic). usually it ends up being a very intense circuit training. 
If you don't push them and train them hard then the soldiers get injured during sparring and pujil matches...

Some of the OLD ARMY needs to comeback because the CF and new people joining today tend to be physically weaker than 15-20 years ago. Doing push ups, squats, burpees, chin ups, runs in cbt boots (oh my how dare I say such filth!) other forms of extra PT through out the day strengthen and toughen the body. Hopefully everybody in the new transformation  army catches on and gets on with it. LEADERS at all levels must use common sense (don't go excess on anything or you just end up with injuries).


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Nov 2005)

ArmyRick, that just reminded me of a "lessons learned" manual that discussed physical upkeep and how important it was to unit integrity and health overseas.. I will dig around and find it.. it may play a factor in this discussion...


----------



## kcdist (22 Nov 2005)

Tried this once as a course officer in Wainwright....was good for a laugh.

'Jones' had a bad day...was the course clown, and on this day, disrupted my lecture with a few well timed (and quite funny) comments.

At the conclusion of afternoon PT, I presented 'Jones' with a chocolate bar. His punishment was to stand and eat his fat pill....wasn't allowed to improve his body along with myself and the rest of the platoon by doing a quick set of 25....

....My thoughts were never to use PT and/or pushups as punishment. There were better tools. Very few other occupations where the employees are allowed to work out during company time. Don't turn it into a negative.


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> ....My thoughts were never to use PT and/or pushups as punishment. There were better tools. Very few other occupations where the employees are allowed to work out during company time. Don't turn it into a negative.



Really great point kcdist, as was ArmyRick's earlier.  PT needs to be something positive and valued, not feared as punishment.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Nov 2005)

Pt is PT, pushups for mistakes are pushups for mistakes.. I doubt even the greenest soldiers can't figure that one out...in either instance, they can most likely do no harm.


----------



## pbi (25 Nov 2005)

When I came on board in the Reserve in 1974, giving out pushups was pretty common (instructors never joined in...). It was done both as individual and collective punishment, but to be honest I can't say it did any harm. In fact, I think as recruits we felt secretly proud of it. When I transferred to the RegF in 1982, pushups were still being given out, as was collective punishment. Again, I don't think we were harmed by either. 
Where the wheels fell off everything was, IMHO, (and like with so many other things....sigh...) some vicious-minded idiots overdid it and the the GIORM (Giant Institutional Over Reaction Machine) kicked in. Even if we could demonstrate a value for pushups as "punishment", or some benefit to collective punishment, the GIORM has done its work well and we would not even get a hearing. People would clap their hands over their ears and run shrieking from the room. (Unless, of course, they were wearing combat boots in which case they would walk briskly).


Cheers


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> some vicious-minded idiots overdid it ...



And there's the rub.

The problem is that there is not enough oversight on the instructors at the schools, too much of the training, and especially in the area of "corrective training" is left to unimaginative instructors, afraid to rock the boat with anything too innovative, and too lazy or unable to do the pushups with their troops.

When the senior NCO staff teaching in WATC on a JLC is unable, to the man, to run one, ONE km continously without stopping to puke, smoke or die, there is a problem. They are reduced to correcting with the pen.

My suggestion is that there be rules and limits put on corrective measures, and set in stone PT, for instructors and students. 

An example might be that a minor infraction (inspection violations for example) would be punished with 25 pushups per, to a max of 100 per half day/ 200 per day, any more and the instructors must participate.

For PT, the Royal Marines use a set PT schedule, and a breakdown of each exercise done in each period, in order. This would keep both the instructors in shape and get the students there. The guesswork involved in course PT means that the PT standards are entirely dependant on the staff, who may simply choose to forgo it completely, or run such a poor class there is no benefit, or concentrate on one area (running) to the detriment of all others.

My suggestions would remove the propensity of specific instructors to sadistically torture their charges, while also providing a minimum of PT for both the taught and the teachers.

The corrective pushups could be added to the TP so that if the candidates complained, they would be admitting that they were unable to complete the course requirements, and failing themselves.

Thoughts?


----------



## Sharpey (25 Nov 2005)

The Army today kills me. On my QL2 I was doing pushups on the Matawa on gravel roads and running on the beaches in combat boots! Then the PC Gods stepped in...

 The Army is in no way supposed to be easy, it's the Army! I say, suck it up! Not to sound like the jerk instructor, but isn't pushing you to your limits and increasing motivation what basic training is? All the courses I have taken in Pet particularly were the hardest running (of that course) during that particular summer...do you know the sence of accomplishment I now have from passing those courses? Top candidate on one of them. I am a skinny, non-muscular pathetic looking guy and I managed to do it. As an instructor, I get pride out of turning a regular joe into a Soldier. A Soldier is a person who at times can go above and beyond the norm a human body is used to.   

 I am not saying torture the poor troops, not saying that at all. I don't do to my troops anything I wouldn't want to do myself. But I do believe in pushing them to their limits, increasing motivation, and team building. Pushups I see as physical fitness (I personally suck at them, but still do them) and a motivational tool. Pushups are not to well liked by new recruits normally, so doing whatever caused the "motivational training push ups" would cause them to refrain from doing it again. No?

 One approach we tried last year, was instead of doing pushups (when "motivational training" was required), we went for a ruckmarch, small one, maybe 1 km. Midway, we practiced Individual Field Movements...alot....then walked back to the shacks. It was tough for them, tiring, but in the long run, they will benefit, even if they don't realize it at the time. If a troop on a tour one day says, God...glad MCpl Sharpe pounded that into my head on Basic... you get the idea.

 I believe in motivational training only if it is necessary and as long as it serves a purpose and benefits the troops being trained. If it is not required because the troops are learning the material and not dinking around, then they must have gained respect for their instructors and actually enjoy turning into a Soldier. I've seen instructors dish out "male sex organ" for no reason...guess what instructors lost the respect of their troops?

 To sum up my blabber. To the new guys out there reading this. Most instructors these days arn't out to kill you. They are there to train you. We have weird and sometimes original ways of showing it, but that's what we are there for, each instructor has different techniques. You should be able to pick out the instructors that are there to jerk you around. If you can't deal with it, then yes, the PC Army system will take care of it.


----------



## rw4th (25 Nov 2005)

> some vicious-minded idiots overdid it ...


Ding, ding ding ... we have a winner. 

I think everybody has heard some of the horror stories. Personally, I've seen instructors tie a candidate to a chin up bar and leave him there "until he manages to get himself up", I've seen candidates made to puke by forcing them to have alot of food for lunch (yes, the instructors forced each candidate to eat at least 2 helpings) and then subjecting them immediatly to intense "motivational training", and well ... I could keep listing the abuses, but suffice to say it's that kind of unconstructive "training' which has resulted in the system you see today.


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Nov 2005)

> The Army is in no way supposed to be easy, it's the Army! I say, suck it up! Not to sound like the jerk instructor, but isn't pushing you to your limits and increasing motivation what basic training is?



_Above quote from Sharpie_

Ahhh, pushing soldiers to their limits....... That is exactly the point, methinks. I would be willing to bet fairly good money that the average soldier who has gone through the "PC, safety before anything, I'll call the Ombudsman if you do anything that makes me feel uncomfortable" army has NEVER pushed themselves to the point where they literally could not do one more pushup, even with a gun to their head. Or marched until their legs collapsed. Or patrolled until they were seeing double. That's pushing yourself. To the limit. So you know where your breaking point is. Too many people quit anything when it becomes uncomfortable, and too many DS/"supervisors" are worried that something bad might happen, like the person may die. That probably falls into the .1% chance of ever happening. Let's focus on the 99.9% chance that it won't happen and do it. Unless you were literally "beasting" someone, the likelyhood of something "bad" happening is negligible, so why worry about it.

From what I have seen of soldier's coming through the system, they seem fitter, more motivated, and ready to take what is dished out, and actually be challenged. So that they ARE proud to go home on leave with a 6-pack and rippling pectorals to show off, not a beer gut from sitting around playing XBox. Imagine that. Pride in your job. Who woulda thunk. Now if the PC do-gooders could clue in and realize that we're training soldiers to fight wars, and not be Generation XBox in CADPAT, maybe we'll achieve results.

Fight the good fight.......

Al


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> _Above quote from Sharpie_
> 
> we're training soldiers to fight wars, and not be Generation XBox in CADPAT, maybe we'll achieve results.
> 
> ...



I guess it is a bit better than "generation high school dropout"

That seems to be the problem with training a thinking soldier....some of the time they out-think those who out rank them.

As for "generation X-box", I've heard more than enough of that spouting from the slack jawed, mouth breathing, IQ-matching-their-shoe-size NCOs who are unable to unravel the mysteries of the 77 set, never mind figure out a dual 522 radio setup with CI, crypto and amplifier.

The same guys who go to the field and never use a GPS, not even for practice, because they are too proud to ask a "nintendo generation" softie how to do it. Whose solution to comms going down is to threaten the signaller with a charge.

Without the technologically savvy troops that are coming through the door today, our army would be in even worse shape, as our training on the high tech equipment we do have is sorely lacking.

You can always make someone fitter, you can rarely make them smarter.


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Nov 2005)

> Without the technologically savvy troops that are coming through the door today, our army would be in even worse shape, as our training on the high tech equipment we do have is sorely lacking.
> 
> You can always make someone fitter, you can rarely make them smarter.



I agree.... more or less. I was tech savvy when I joined the army 18 years ago. I started using computers in the late 70's, and had a bit of a stop-drop after I joined the army, and picked it up again in the early to mid 90's. There aren't a whole lot of older guys (I consider myself an older guy, I guess) that embrace the technology, but there are more and more coming around to it, out of neccesity and/or the realization that it won't go away. 

Having said that, just because a person is tech savvy doesn't make them smart: today's techno-geeks are yesterday's muscle car tinkerer's..... Just because a person can get a high score on HALO2  doesn't mean he's any better at using the tech gear that we have (GPS, surveillance gear, weapons systems). UNDERSTANDING the technology and USING the technology can be two different things. I have had an easier time teaching the GPS to older soldiers who understand the basics of map & compass, than to young guys who can punch the buttons quickly but don't understand the concept of grids and azimuths. 

There are some pretty old fella's reading these boards because they understand the technology, and many members of Gen XBox who don't know shite from shinola, and would rather get hammered and beat their head against a wall..... I do know a lot of older types who refuse to learn any of the technology, because they are afraid of looking stupid (probably because they are stupid) and probably think it will go away. Good luck.....

If you can get people "on board" to the technology and get them on board to the low-tech aspects of soldiering (fitness, battlecraft, common sense), all the better. But to say either one, by themselves, is better than the other doesn't neccesarily work. A super-fit soldier who can hump all the Surveillance gear in a Coyote to an OP, but can't set it up and operate is no better or worse than a slug who can't move a single component out to the OP because they are unfit, and therefore can't get it operational. 

Al


----------

