# Afghan Experience in our Trg System



## pbi (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> One of the keys is to keep the boy's and girls together and not send them to schools to teach or on courses for a while.  Let them get back to Canada and simmer with their mates for awhile.  A long while.



I agree that we need to give these soldiers time to gear down, to bond with their families again, and to enjoy the peace (even the boredom...) of garrison life for a while. In the beginning, the best place for them to be will be amongst the soldiers they served with. No question.

But, I think it is very important that some of these officers and NCOs most definitely do go and teach while the knowledge is fresh and useful, so that our Army (all MOCs-not just the Inf) can benefit from their experience. These soldiers are our new experts on modern combat, and if we don't use them to make our Army better (and to prepare future rotations) then we are committing professional sin, and failing to honour the sacrifices made by those who were killed or injured in the process of gaining this combat experience. In past wars our Army made a regular practice of bringing combat experienced officers and NCOs out of the line and posting them to training establishments: we must not fail to do this. Canadian soldiers heading into combat need every advantage we can give them.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

I agree with you HOWEVER will the schools let them teach the new stuff or will the all knowing Inf School decide?


----------



## Blakey (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I agree with you HOWEVER will the schools let them teach the new stuff or will the all knowing Inf School decide?


Although some of these Officers and NCO's might not look favourably upon a posting there, IMHO, that's were some should be sent, the Inf School. What better a place to make a change than that?


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I agree with you HOWEVER will the schools let them teach the new stuff or will the all knowing Inf School decide?



Schools should teach within doctrinal guidelines as our doctrine *should not be *that different from what is going on overseas.  TTPs are a different story and instructor's with recent cbt experience will hopefully bring something new and fresh to the table...until the next rotation of soldiers return from overseas with updated TTP's, etc, etc.  As someone much wiser than I stated, you are only as current as the last day you were in theatre.  The theatre will continue to evolve and our response (our TTP's) will evolve with it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

Agreed but does this mean we need to look at changing how the 
BIQ is run?  Ranges, exercises (yes I realize this has started) etc?

I know I could benifit from shooting moving targets in both vehicles as well as on the grounds.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Agreed but does this mean we need to look at changing how the
> BIQ is run?  Ranges, exercises (yes I realize this has started) etc?
> 
> I know I could benifit from shooting moving targets in both vehicles as well as on the grounds.



I can't comment on what the BIQ looks like any more other than to say that I know they are changing alot of the course to reflect our doctrine of a COE vice strictly a cold war focus.  Quite a bit of money has been spent on urban warfare sites, etc.  I can't tell you if it is effective.

Does a soldier need to know how to fire his personal weapon from moving vehicle?  From a LAV?  From an armd G Wagon?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

By vehicle I meant 25mm, C6 coax, 50 mounted, not really C7.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> By vehicle I meant 25mm, C6 coax, 50 mounted, not really C7.



Seen (I was wondering...).  Is that not part of your field firing exercises?   I have to admit that most my experience has been with Coyote....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

RWS was static, LUVW not to sure, LAV sure there are battle runs but IMO its not very good, could be a lot better.  You know Shilo though, not a lot of room to maneuver.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

The last time I was on the ranges in Shilo was in 1993  :-[ and the Germans were still training BGs there...  I always felt the impact areas were quite large as compared to Wx and other trg areas in Canada (all except Suffield).  Have they restricted the ranges due to environmental concerns?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

There is a lot of places we can't go do to you damn gunners. ;D
Also the trace for a moving LAV is quite big (so I'm told).  There is only one place to do a platoon level LAV attack here and I'm not sure how much of range is closed do to the movement box.
Don't get me on hunting season.  

On a more positive note the OC wants to do live fire convoy ops (yeah good luck) which I hope works out.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

We had the hunting season and the Germans from Spring to Fall....

If there is the will to do something, there is usually a way.  Remember to factor in CMTC on your road to high readiness in terms of live fire, etc.  CMTC is coming along and will hopefully provide an excellent collective training environment for the BGs going overseas.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

Seen however the more trigger time we get at home hopefully leads us to spend less time elsewhere.

Pretty sad when the base CO says the base will accomidate all comers (regardless of training) for 3 plus weeks.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2006)

Shilo has alwasy been like that (base commander notwithstanding).  The reason, IIRC, was due to a large percentage of the training area that is leased from provincial government.  The eastern part of the ranges forms part of the larger protected area known as Spruce Woods Provincial Park).  Part of the arrangement has the training areas open to hunters during hunting season.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

Kinda sucks when your hands are tied (training wise) by these kind of policies.  Oh well carry on.


----------



## MPIKE (11 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I agree with you HOWEVER will the schools let them teach the new stuff or will the all knowing Inf School decide?



I completed my DP3 Patrol Commanders course in G-town with the Armour school in the early summer.  I can attest that the DS are the new gen of staff with current operational experience.  Although the school(s) beats to its own drum at times, these guys are bringing the lessons learned into the training system.  I for one feel better for it and more capable.  Get one of the new DS out on the training grounds away from the classroom/TTPs  and the real lessons come out.

With all the experience that is available now the Schools can't help but to adapt to the new army.  Things are changing.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (11 Aug 2006)

Alot of guys returning are getting posted to the schools. There at least 4 Snr Nco's and my Pl Comd going to the Infantry School, so that will help the system learn more  and i have also asked for a posting there.


----------



## C/10 (11 Aug 2006)

Being a reservist I have to say that any extra instruction that comes my way from the guys returning from theatre is more than welcome. I am looking forward to learning from the guys who are on their way back, and applying it to what is already in place.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Aug 2006)

As a reg force member in cmbt arms I echo your sentiments x10.


----------



## McG (11 Aug 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> ... I think it is very important that some of these officers and NCOs most definitely do go and teach while the knowledge is fresh and useful, so that our Army (all MOCs-not just the Inf) can benefit from their experience.


Not to mention that these soldiers should be getting pushed into jobs where they will start redefining & developing our doctrine (places like LFDTS) and where their knowledge of the theatre can imporve our national level support (like the CEFCOM desk officers for Afghanistan).



			
				Quagmire said:
			
		

> Agreed but does this mean we need to look at changing how the BIQ is run?  Ranges, exercises (yes I realize this has started) etc?


We should also be looking at recently returned Sr NCOs & Offr to sit on writting/review boards for qualification standards & course training plans.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (11 Aug 2006)

I asked to get posted to Kingston for that reason, but i was told that it wasn't a place for Infantry Sgt's. I think there's time for alittle change to that thinkin.


----------



## Echo9 (11 Aug 2006)

The curriculum for PLQ has already been overhauled to conform to the kind of ops that are ongoing these days.  I think that there's still the patrolling and section level battle drills (just good basic skills), but the days of digging in for a week have been replaced mostly with urban ops.

From a trade perspective, we've pretty much ditched bridging, mine laying, and reserved demolitions, and we're going really heavily into CMD, EOD search, countermine and such.  That and being such a small trade, you're not going to find that many NCO's who haven't been on ops in the last 3 years or so.


----------



## APOLLOVet (12 Aug 2006)

Good topic.

One of the things that I have observed in the process of getting pers ready to go out the door is that there is insufficient training time devoted to "real" TMST (aggressive driving, true negotiation in Pashtu with an interpreter, local culture and Islam etc). We are getting better at focusing as we get closer to deployment; however, there is still a lot to be done.

How about joint ops? How about all-arms call for fire (done live, to build confidence in ones ability to adjust fire?) How about all-arms helo gunship directing? How about aerial delivery for your CSS pers? The US have have been using CDS drops quite extensively, and I see that we have started to use them now too. Right now, the technical skills for aerial delivery are pretty thin on the ground.

I think that the overall idea of what is being posted in this thread is the right one. I would love to see people from the last couple of tours co-opted to a TMST writing board to change the basic TMST program (PSTC, LOAC, Pay and Benefits et al in addition to whatever we THINK we might need) to something that reflects what was needed in theater.

In my opinion, we cannot get enough shooting, driving, medical training, and comms skills imparted to EVERYONE. Everyone has to know basic trauma medicine (not just the medics), and everyone has to know basic troubleshooting on all the radios used in theater. You're in a sad boat if all you have is a SATCOM to call for help with, and you have no idea how to operate it.

Then, once we have this new TMST package, I think that the returning unit should be responsible for training the next unit to go (once disembarkation leave is complete). This will give the most current info at the unit level, and as things get closer to deployment, reverse TAVs from in theater should be brought in to put the polish on. These reverse TAVs should be at the Section, Pl, and Coy level, with each speciality that is deployed being represented. 

Finally, once the new unit is ready to go, the training unit should be able to offer postings to schools to the people who have just completed training the departing unit. In this manner we will have:

1. Given the departing unit the most current training possible
2. Kept the returning unit together as much as possible to allow them to "come down" from their tour
3. Given people the chance to see if they really want to be teaching full time at a school, rather than having them posted either against their will, or before they really understand what will be required of them.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2006)

1.  They do.
2.  +1
3.  10

More trigger time and more aggressive driving regardless of when we are going oversea's


----------



## rifleman (16 Aug 2006)

I think the experience should stay at the units to train for upcoming operations.

Basic and subsequent trades training teach basic skills. Personally, I would rather train to take out a large, organized modernized force and adapt that training to conditions, then only get a piece of the training I need at the time. 

Select and maintain the aim


----------



## McG (16 Aug 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Basic and subsequent trades training teach basic skills.


What about leadership training?

There needs to be a balance of experience staying in the units & getting out into the headquarters & training establishments.  The quality of our soldiers and leaders is dependant on the training we've given them (even in the "basics").


----------



## eeyore063 (16 Aug 2006)

The point was raised that the troops going over need more trigger time when shooting from weapons platforms mounted on moving veh's. I can say that in Shilo the boys that just left for tour didn't have any time shooting while moving on the RWS and there were no live shoots with the GSK's either. Guys on their way back have said that elarning to shoot on the move and even learning to use the spotlight while on the move are skills that should be cultivate while here.


----------



## eeyore063 (16 Aug 2006)

I have a question for anyone with access to the knowledge ...

How fast can the Infantry turn actual experience from theater into lessons learned, and then into doctrine? I can gues what the paper answer is but I would like to know actual flash to bang before I start slaggin' the lethargic system for prepping our troops for the last battle again and again (re:The ever changing MASTER Threat Model ... I think it is still ebing based on Haiti) :threat:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Aug 2006)

I'm a little too close to the process, but there is a process.  The information has been flowing back.  Whether it has made big changes I cannot say.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Aug 2006)

friendly advice.
spell check/proof read
fill out your profile a bit more

I have raised similiar questions on trigger time (not sure if it was in a private venue or not).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Aug 2006)

eeyore063,

I agree with whats-his-name above.   Sounds like a question to ask in your unit smoking area, not so much here.


----------



## rifleman (16 Aug 2006)

Well, back to the issue


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What about leadership training?
> 
> There needs to be a balance of experience staying in the units & getting out into the headquarters & training establishments.  The quality of our soldiers and leaders is dependant on the training we've given them (even in the "basics").



Remember that lessons learned are from the 'last'  battle and don't necessarily belong in doctrine. Some of the issues could be addressed in pre-training for an operation at the unit.

What I have a problem with is what do the troops have to know that aren't taught in the schools? Besides the usual I know better than the guys who went before me. I do agree that the scenarios could be updated but the training is not neccessarily changed.


----------



## APOLLOVet (16 Aug 2006)

Gentlemen,

WRT "flash-to-bang", I think that that is a function of what the upcoming unit wants to train with, and what they have time to implement. I know that for the PRT R0, we had Army LL guys visit us in theater about 3-4 months in, and they took a lot back with them. I also know that many PORs (both US and Canadian format) were submitted immediately upon return, and that video TTPs where we did live fire demos were circulated to both the BG that replaced us, and to the units back here ramping up.

At present I do not know of a system that "forces" training units to respond to LL or the PORs, but I do know that they are readily available. I also know that units Ops Os actively seek that kind of info whenever they can get it.

I think that some of this is a "grass is always greener" syndrome (when you have an engagement, if it was not something that had been foreseen and trained for it sticks out in your mind a lot more than something you had prepared for specifically), and also a case of there not being sufficient time or equipment to fully train the way that we want to. There are very few NYALAs in Canada at present, and as far as I know very few GSKs and up armoured G-wagens. Specific skills are always hard to maintain to the desired level without unlimited ammo/time. 

The biggest thing that we can do to prepare (in my opinion) is prepare people mentally for what they will face. Specific responses to situations will always change, since the Taliban are constantly reacting to us. If, however, we can inculcate the proper viewpoint in the soldiers and leaders as to how to think their way through a situation, they will be far better prepared to react to the unforeseen. I am a firm believer of teaching people how to prepare themselves for noise, confusion, and incomplete information; checklists always backfire.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Aug 2006)

APOLLOVet said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer of teaching people how to prepare themselves for noise, confusion, and incomplete information


a principle firmly adhered to in 3 PPCLI O Grps!  ;D


----------



## rifleman (16 Aug 2006)

APOLLOVet said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,
> 
> ...The biggest thing that we can do to prepare (in my opinion) is prepare people mentally for what they will face. Specific responses to situations will always change, since the Taliban are constantly reacting to us. If, however, we can inculcate the proper viewpoint in the soldiers and leaders as to how to think their way through a situation, they will be far better prepared to react to the unforeseen. I am a firm believer of teaching people how to prepare themselves for noise, confusion, and incomplete information; checklists always backfire...



That I can agree with, I loved the why statement in training being "so you know how to use your rifle and can pass the PWT" thats not it, the reason is so you can kill what you want to kill. This goes as far as explaining to leadership candidates that their inability to grasp the concepts in training don't just cause the member to fail but gets his troops killed. Training should be done in the field as much as possible.


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Aug 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Schools should teach within doctrinal guidelines as our doctrine *should not be *that different from what is going on overseas.  TTPs are a different story and instructor's with recent cbt experience will hopefully bring something new and fresh to the table...until the next rotation of soldiers return from overseas with updated TTP's, etc, etc.  As someone much wiser than I stated, you are only as current as the last day you were in theatre.  The theatre will continue to evolve and our response (our TTP's) will evolve with it.



Cant say how it is for the infantry anymore, but in my old trade, and in many others, the course doctrine and what was needed for overseas work were often two different things.  Despite lessons learned and valid experiences, these have to be entered into a system of recomendations before being accepted as part of new doctrine, a process that can take years without high-level influence and support.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Aug 2006)

Lessons Learned reports go from theatre to Canada on a weekly basis (sometimes more) on a variety of topics.  They get looked at by folks in Canada and some recommendations may be incorporated into doctrine, training and other areas.  At a minimum, they give the Army a look at what is going on.  If you know where to look you can find some of them (go to the LLKW).  Classification hinders dissemination somewhat, but that is the reality.  

Bring lots of ammo and water, practice your all arms call for fire and remember that the 25mm and 155mm are your friends.


----------

