# research for a new series



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

What exactly does a 'Training' CWO do, throughout the day, paperwork, etc.
I would like to speak with one if I could. Thanks.
I realized I'm too vague, sorry, new to all this.
I'm from Toronto, working in the film industry for 5years, and have been writing (and researching) a new series for two years now. It's called'The Basics' and is set on a Canadian Army Basic Training Base (fictional). I wish to depict our Army as real as possible, and draw attention to the difference between the American military (obliterate and conquer) and ours (rescue remedy). My show follows more so the ensemble cast of 5 (1 CWO-male, 1 Anglican Chaplain-male, 2 Drill Instructors-1 male, 1 female, and 1 civillian secretary-female). I am currently 9 pages shy of finishing the pilot. It needs to be finished before I can pitch the show.
Any help is greatly appreciated. 
Thanks again.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

writerchic said:
			
		

> I wish to depict our Army as real as possible, and draw attention to the difference between the American military (obliterate and conquer) and ours (rescue remedy).



Perhaps you need to do some more research on that "real as possible" part - where did you pick up this notion?

(I'm going to prempt you by saying if you mistake how Civilian Government chooses to use the military for the actual, ground-level culture of the Army as an institution, you're entire foundation is faulty.)


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

I'm sure everything i know (or don't know for that matter) is faulty.
I don't know anything of how Basic is taught, etc.
What I'm writing is a series that focuses on the relationships between these 5 characters, who happen to all work on this (fictional) base.
While I can write the 'dramas' and 'issues' surrounding their relationships, it's the setting I need help with.
I have interest from a producer at Alliance/Atlantis, and a show-runner at Fox (although I would prefer to keep this show Canadian honestly).
Thanks.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

I taught at CFRS Cornwallis from 84 -86 and put through about 510 recruits.  I tahght at CFRLS st. Jean 96-99 and taught about 500  recruits, officer cadets, and SLC candidates.  There is no major difference in military trg philosophy at the platoon level between most armies. Your basic premise is faulty.  In any case, dump the CWO, secretary and Padre, and focus on a single platoon.

Tom


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

Ok, I don't know what you meant by 'trg philosophy', sorry, many of these phrases are unfamiliar to me.
But I'm not a soldier so I wouldn't know these terms.
And why should I dump three of my main characters?
Each season I will follow 4 new recruits, two male and two female, but the 5 leads will stay each year.
I imagine some things will be far fetched, it's a fictional series, I'm making up the stories as I go along, but the setting needs to be true to form (or as close as I can get).


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

writerchic said:
			
		

> And why should I dump three of my main characters?



Because they are not one bit "true to form".  The "training CWO" is a guy a recruit will see maybe twice on a course.  The Padre is one you visit on Sunday and I've never seen a "female civilian secretary" on the parade square.



> Each season I will follow 4 new recruits, two male and two female, but the 5 leads will stay each year.
> I imagine some things will be far fetched, it's a fictional series, I'm making up the stories as I go along, but the setting needs to be true to form (or as close as I can get).



Things like the "equal gender split" (which isn't realistic) makes it sound like you're aiming to write a Soap Opera in a military setting.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Feb 2005)

writerchic said:
			
		

> I imagine some things will be far fetched, it's a fictional series, I'm making up the stories as I go along, but the setting needs to be true to form (or as close as I can get).



Pardon me for not having experience with script writing, but it would seem that the "far-fetched" parts of your plot and setting should not include the realities of the training environment, the relative positions and roles of the characters from a professional activity viewpoint, or the details that let people watch a series without getting too distorted a view of the background situations being presented. In each of your posts you have admitted being uninformed of the realities of military life and training, which is the basis for your entire plot line. Wouldn't you agree this would be like writing "E.R." without a medical professional on the staff to identify and correct inconsiistencies in everything from dress to professional terminology.

I would suggest that what you need is a technical reviewer, not simply advice to try and fill in what you perceive to be the gaps in your plot.


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

I don't wish to write a 'soap opera' (not a fan of them personally) set in the military.
And I've worked with enough writers to know that I don't necessarily have to be an expert in the field to write about it, that's what consultants and research are for.
A good friend of mine wrote the series Mutant X, I'm pretty sure there are no experts in the world on genetically enhanced super powered humans.....
I'm just asking questions, there's no need to yell at me, I'm not a bad chic, really.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

Forget the whole idea before you screw it up.

Tom


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

Wow, you're a doll to chat with,
Thanks so much for your input.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

I'm a published author in fiction and non-fiction - not a military genius, but I do have 17 years in administration plus a degree in communications - if you want to email me madorosh@shaw.ca I can give you some constructive criticisms and try in help in a constructive way.

I have to agree with most of the sentiments expressed here, however, I think good drama can be done in a fictional enviroment - JAG for example is nothing like realistic but makes for entertaining TV.

And guys   - go easy on the abbreviations - no need for "trg" and stuff like that here.   That's just intellectual/institutional laziness.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

"JAG" is basically a Soap Opera (with added shots of Jets and Submarines), so I guess I'm right.

Writerchic, why don't you start by telling us what "story" you want to present with the show - by doing so, we can get an idea of what important themes you want to pick up on from a real military environment.   Do you want to show the trails a recruit must face as he/she transitions from citizen to soldier?   Do you want to portray the relationships of the Staff who are responsible for taking kids and forming them into disciplined professionals?

I can suggest to you that your first idea (how we are different from marauding Americans) is the wrong way to go about things.


----------



## poko (17 Feb 2005)

I dont like the idear because canadien public will think that it what realy goes on. A lot of them have bad opinion of the army and i dont think that a tv show that is 1/2 true is going to help. Maybe you should ask someone in Otawa to have a permission to follow the troop for the all of there basic.


----------



## camochick (17 Feb 2005)

I don't see why so many people are jumping down this person's throat. Atleast she had the sense to come on here and post and try to get information. I am not in the military so I can't help much with that part but I would suggest things like checking out the CBC, they have some footage of basic training and such. Also the DND website used to have videos on it, not sure if they still do. I know lots of people who have just went through basic and I am sure there are plenty on the forums here you could talk to. Also, if you can I'm sure if you went through the proper channels you could visit St Jean, the big training base, or maybe a local armory that holds basic training for reservists. Good luck with the project.   >


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

Wow, much to answer, thank you for responding. I really do appreciate it.
Premise for the show, phew, where to start. (I promise not to mention marauding Americans again, I'm just happy to be Canadian I guess).
Ok, as I said, it's titled 'The Basics' double entendre there. Each season we will follow four new recruits, two males and two females, their uniques personalities and backgrounds will provide the B stories needed. But it's the personal lives of the 5 leads I wish to spotlight. I've been told that there are civillians working on a Base, is it hard to believe that one would be a female secretary somewhere? My show is being written as a drama, not a comedy. While the show 'Corner Gas' is brilliant, I'm not that talented at writing comedy.
One of my characters is a bilingual CWO from Montreal, I have his background and personality figured out, but I don't know what he would do 'at work' everyday.
That's what I'm looking for at this moment in my writing. Step by step.
Thanks,
Carolyn


----------



## camochick (17 Feb 2005)

Why don't  you call your nearest base and see if you can get an interview with someone.  I would suggest that as your best way to get the correct information.


----------



## writerchic (17 Feb 2005)

I have already toured Borden, and will contact others for info, maybe I can speak with a PA.
Thank you for that, good advice.
Bye for now.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Feb 2005)

I may be completely off-base, but wouldn't a CWO be a bit too high in the NCO chain to have a sufficient degree of interaction with course instructors (Mcpls/Sgts?) to fuel a good plot? Maybe a WO would be closer? Like I said, smack me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

No, I was going to suggest the same thing.  If you want to do a story on an NCO "at the coal face" of training soldiers a Sergeant/Warrant Officer is your best bet.


----------



## Mad Max (17 Feb 2005)

Wow, this is beautiful.... I don't mean to sound harsh, but here goes: For starters, you're a Canadian female trying to create a series about the Canadian (definitely not the American- because Americans are BAD) Military. You, by your own admission, have no background in and very little knowledge of The Military. But you want to right story lines about Canadian Army Basic Training, and you've already decided that you HAVE to have A BILINGUAL (not necessarily competent, experienced,or respected- but very definitely bilingual) CWO that none of the recruits in question would ever see. Then, you need equal numbers of male/female instructors, because, as everyone knows, at every SERIOUS training establishment, there HAS to be numerical gender equity, or the sky directly over the parade square will immediately fall, because the Political Correctness Gravitational Co-efficient wil have been seriously compromized. Next, you need the same number of male/female trainees (or recruits, or candidates, as we in the military call them) for the same reason as above, but also because, as everyone knows,there ARE an equal number of males and females in the Canadian Armed Forces, and to attempt to deny this unquestioned reality is to deny that the world is, in fact, flat- not this ROUND crap that people are talking about. I have instructed at the Canadian Airborne Centre in Edmonton; at Central Area Treaining Centre Meaford; in 2 Commando of the Canadian Airborne Regiment; in 1, 2, and 3 PPCLI; and in 2 RCR- so, as you can plainly see, I have little practical experience in the sort of instruction you're talking about. HOWEVER, you DO have a fellow non-military female on your side, so with her AND the CBC to guide you it should be excellent. Thanks.


----------



## camochick (17 Feb 2005)

" HOWEVER, you DO have a fellow non-military female on your side, so with her AND the CBC to guide you it should be excellent. Thanks."

Gotta love sarcasm, you're good at it i will admit. I love how you think that just because I am female and non military I don't have a clue. I was merely suggesting ways in which she could find out more information. I am a journalism student and   I do research on a daily basis. I thought maybe i could offer up some of the things i am learning to help a person out. I think the show needs a heck of a lot more research before it should even be pitched to anyone. I don't like how you use my gender in your statement either. So what, I am female. I would love to hear why you included that. Yeah you have lots of experience in your field and you would be great as someone to consult on a project like this. So why don't you direct your energy away from attacking people and instead try and help. If military personnelwant the public to know and understand things about them then they need to take the steps to educate them.


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

I think that it could be good.  How does one learn but by asking.  I would suggest that you might want to look at similar series that BBC put out on different segments of Military and Marines training.  Good for you Woman, don't let the lads get you down!


----------



## HollywoodHitman (17 Feb 2005)

The day a recruit sees a CWO, is the day he / she is doing the hatless dance (not hatless anymore, charge parade), or when the Base RSM is asking him / her how the food it etc. Almost always joined at the hip with the Base Commander, you'd have to make another of your main characters a LCol or higher. The civillan secretary, would usually be working for the CSM or RSM and the recruits would NEVER have anything to do with her. The thing is, I think you're trying to use the 'shiny' or glamourous (are they really?) ranks. Recruit candidates don't generally interact with anyone but each other and their instructors. They seldom ever interact with the platoon WO exept to receive general instructions and general points. The Sgts and MCpls are the ones dealing day to day with the candidates.

The Padre doesnt often enter the fray either, except like mentioned above on Sundays or when there is a social worker type problem, family issues or spiritual councelling requested by the troops....Often they will request this because it will alleviate pressure being put on them if they've screwed up and are going to be charged........eg. "I had a negligent discharge (not something that happens when he's sleeping) and I don't wanna get charged, so I'm gonna go see the Padre".........Thats not really a fair statement, but hey, I've seen it.

I'd suggest that if you want to follow a few recruits through a tour at basic, then you may want to focus on a Platoon level cast. 

There will be a Course Officer, a 2Lt, Lt or a Captain whose title would be the OC or, Officer Commanding. You'll then have a Platoon Warrant, or WO. The instructors will usually be either Sgt's or MCpls. There will be Quartermaster, or CQ to get supplies and kit for the troops etc, but they'd be a supporting cast member, but usually a Sgt, so they can sign for serialised kit etc.

You're going to run into credibility and accuracy issues if you try and follow recruits and have them interacting with senior officers, civvies and senior nco's.

You'll even run into this problem if you follow officer candidates through as well, because they're instructed their hard trades more often than not, by the WO's, Sgt's and MCpls that they will one day be leading. Maybe you wanna follow 4 Officer Cadets through their training or something, and build the cast around the 4 of them and how they get along, making the training staff and whatnot, the background or supporting characters.

I'm no writer or novelist, or screenplay genius, but I have tech advised on some rather large productions which have  and still do ALOT of research put into their shows. Right down to the smallest uniform accoutrements.

You can drop me an email if you wanna pick my brain, or take this for what you think it's worth. Good luck, but please, whatever you do, please do your best to avoid controversy and the CF......You'd be better off making a cool show based on fictional exploits of the JTF.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

Exactly; I doubt there are many parachute instructors out there with the ability to write good drama for television.   From each according to his gifts....

I think the challenge here to the serving soldiers is to put up or shut up.   Its easy to bitch about how Canadian TV sucks.   Lord knows the whining about PEACEKEEPER was loud and long here.   Well, here's a chance to help out.

I loaned uniforms to the HEROES OF THE VICTORIA CROSS television show put out by Partners in Motion, and my friend played Smokey Smith in that one.   Wasn't a perfect show, and a lot of what we suggested was ignored - or just plain done wrong.   But the effort was made, at least.   I regret I wasn't about to go out to Dundurn for the filming, perhaps some of the minor bits would have been caught - however, overall, the show was a fitting tribute to Canadian VC winners.   Nothing done in the medium of TV or film will ever be "perfect", but I can tell you all that taking a combative attitude towards that are trying to show an interest in the military will simply ensure it never gets done well.

For shame.

Since the original poster is obviously not going to get much help here, I'm inclined to lock this - unless there are some constructive posts forthcoming.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

What drives us away is the fact that the story is already written in someone's head.   That head is located at CBC (Communist Broadcorping Castration) HQ, and for your project to be "bought", it must reflect the Politico-Social reality of the Statist classes currently directing national propaganda.   We all know what that means:   No Good Will Come Of This.   But hey, maybe you can get the McKenna Brothers on it, and we will have mean drill instructors with aryan last names who wear leather CADPAT and smoke cheroots, but everything that goes wrong will be the fault of some British General, or the CIA.

Watch the first thirty minutes of "Full Metal Jacket", then ask yourself why those who knew CFRS Cornwallis in the seventies and eighties thought "Full Metal Jacket"   was funny.

Even if - with a lot of good advisors - this thing gets off the ground, you just KNOW the storylines will be hijacked by the Care Bear Gallery.   Heaven forbid reality intrude.   At least in JAG, people claim to know what a military is for and why it is needed.   Try getting THAT reality past the CBC.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Good luck, but please, whatever you do, please do your best to avoid controversy and the CF......You'd be better off making a cool show based on fictional exploits of the JTF.



Why should we pretend we have nothing to hide?   One of the strengths of the PEACEKEEPER film was that it confronted controversial issues head on.   The corporal who was made acting MCpl despite being on counselling and probation, the WO close to retirement who didn't want to look after his troops, and even a suicide. And that film was made with CF support.   Who would want to watch a show that is rah rah?   I think more men watch "soap operas" than are willing to admit it, frankly.   Stories about guns and explosions are ho-hum. Stories about interesting characters facing unique challenges are what people want to see.   That's why crap like Survivor stays on the air.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What drives us away is the fact that the story is already written in someone's head.   That head is located at CBC (Communist Broadcorping Castration) HQ, and for your project to be "bought", it must reflect the Politico-Social reality of the Statist classes currently directing national propaganda.   We all know what that means:   No Good Will Come Of This.   But hey, maybe you can get the McKenna Brothers on it, and we will have mean drill instructors with aryan last names who wear leather CADPAT and smoke cheroots, but everything that goes wrong will be the fault of some British General, or the CIA.
> 
> Watch the first thirty minutes of "Full Metal Jacket", then ask yourself why those who knew CFRS Cornwallis in the seventies and eighties thought "Full Metal Jacket"   was funny.
> 
> Even if - with a lot of good advisors - this thing gets off the ground, you just KNOW the storylines will be hijacked by the Care Bear Gallery.   Heaven forbid reality intrude.   At least in JAG, people claim to know what a military is for and why it is needed.   Try getting THAT reality past the CBC.



Blah blah blah.  If you're such an expert on how to write a dramatic presentation, what's stopping you?


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Feb 2005)

... and one wonders why the Media doesn't always portray us in a positive light...here's someone, regardless of how much thought has gone into her idea, or how accurate her pre-conceived notions are - that actually came to the boots for some input!

Isn't that exactly what we've been crying for, in other threads??    ???


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What drives us away is the fact that the story is already written in someone's head.   That head is located at CBC (Communist Broadcorping Castration) HQ, and for your project to be "bought", it must reflect the Politico-Social reality of the Statist classes currently directing national propaganda.   We all know what that means:   No Good Will Come Of This.   But hey, maybe you can get the McKenna Brothers on it, and we will have mean drill instructors with aryan last names who wear leather CADPAT and smoke cheroots, but everything that goes wrong will be the fault of some British General, or the CIA.
> 
> Watch the first thirty minutes of "Full Metal Jacket", then ask yourself why those who knew CFRS Cornwallis in the seventies and eighties thought "Full Metal Jacket"   was funny.
> 
> Even if - with a lot of good advisors - this thing gets off the ground, you just KNOW the storylines will be hijacked by the Care Bear Gallery.   Heaven forbid reality intrude.   At least in JAG, people claim to know what a military is for and why it is needed.   Try getting THAT reality past the CBC.



Slightly bitter, aren't we?


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I think the challenge here to the serving soldiers is to put up or shut up.   Its easy to bitch about how Canadian TV sucks.   Lord knows the whining about PEACEKEEPER was loud and long here.   Well, here's a chance to help out.


Hear, hear!  Instead of slagging this off, why aren't aren't more people trying to help the lady out.  It is very easy to throw stones.  Michael has issued the challenge. Does anyone have the courage to accept it?


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

Well, golly Mike, if we could only offer consructive criticism or advice in those fields of endevour we laboured in ourselves, this would be an awful boring planet, not to mention a less efficient one.   I am more than willing to listen to military ideas from people who have no intent on joining the military.   Why not?   I'll steal anybodies good ideas, if they apply.    I assume others can hear our ideas as well.   It just so happens my level of optimism varies from subject to subject (and as I age, from day to day).

Tom


----------



## Mad Max (17 Feb 2005)

Listen- You go, girl! is NOT constructive, or sacastic (definitely deserved in this context), or anything other than shameless skirt-chasing. The problem with this series concept, as I see it, is that the basic starting premise is faulty. I really don't think that the views, opinions, ideals, or experiences of ACTUAL Soldiers have anything to do with the fictional Shangri-La that YOU'RE talking about, any more than that incredibly stupid show JAG- or JAG OFF- has to do with a MILITARY LAWYER? Anyway, you sound serious about presenting your view of military reality. And you've been to BORDEN?FOR GOD'S SAKE? There's nothing really military about that place except the uniforms that most of them wear- BADLY! Don't expect   me, or any other professional soldier who's not trying to be sickeningly nice to you, to advise you on how to create a fictional Military environment that's even more pathetic than the one we have now- IN MOST CASES, and ON MOST BASES!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

Mad Max said:
			
		

> Listen- You go, girl! is NOT constructive, or sacastic (definitely deserved in this context), or anything other than shameless skirt-chasing. The problem with this series concept, as I see it, is that the basic starting premise is faulty. I really don't think that the views, opinions, ideals, or experiences of ACTUAL Soldiers have anything to do with the fictional Shangri-La that YOU'RE talking about, any more than that incredibly stupid show JAG- or JAG OFF- has to do with a MILITARY LAWYER? Anyway, you sound serious about presenting your view of military reality. And you've been to BORDEN?FOR GOD'S SAKE? There's nothing really military about that place except the uniforms that most of them wear- BADLY! Don't expect   me, or any other professional soldier who's not trying to be sickeningly nice to you, to advise you on how to create a fictional Military environment that's even more pathetic than the one we have now- IN MOST CASES, and ON MOST BASES!



Saving Private Ryan had nothing to do with reality, and yet it introduced an entire generation to their own WW II veterans - not just in the US, but the effect here in Canada was huge, too.

A TV show, no matter how fictionalized, if done well, can have a dramatic - and positive - impact on how the public views the military.

Every fictional presentation sacrifices reality for dramatic impact.  And there have been some very good ones over the years.  Band of Brothers varies wildly from reality, yet is accepted as one of the best presentations of WW II infantry combat ever made.  **shrugs**  If you're not going to put up, then I guess shut up is the answer.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

But getting down to the nitty gritty.... the Canadian Peacekeeping Centre, which occupies what was CFRS Cornwallis NS, is on hard times, and if you swung a deal to bring in jobs and dollars to that economically depressed area (which put through 5000 recruits per year in the eighties), you might get a lot of backing.   Lots of retired instructors around there for cheap advice.   No shortage   of extras, but you have to pay more for drug-free.


----------



## Franko (17 Feb 2005)

Mad Max said:
			
		

> Listen- You go, girl! is NOT constructive, or sacastic (definitely deserved in this context), or anything other than shameless skirt-chasing. The problem with this series concept, as I see it, is that the basic starting premise is faulty. I really don't think that the views, opinions, ideals, or experiences of ACTUAL Soldiers have anything to do with the fictional Shangri-La that YOU'RE talking about, any more than that incredibly stupid show JAG- or JAG OFF- has to do with a MILITARY LAWYER? Anyway, you sound serious about presenting your view of military reality. And you've been to BORDEN?FOR GOD'S SAKE? There's nothing really military about that place except the uniforms that most of them wear- BADLY! Don't expect   me, or any other professional soldier who's not trying to be sickeningly nice to you, to advise you on how to create a fictional Military environment that's even more pathetic than the one we have now- IN MOST CASES, and ON MOST BASES!



Well if your so professional point her in the right direction and help her out.

At least she wants some input. Change her mind without giving her a blast...this isn't the drill hall. 

Regards

BTW...writerchick...you should go to CFB Petawawa. At least you'll get a better feel of an operational base and how operational troop training really works. See the PAFFO, she's a good friend of mine.Borden isn't what we would call an ideal picture of CF life is like. They are in a world all on their own.


----------



## Mad Max (17 Feb 2005)

You know, I read this stuff a lot, because, as a professional soldier, I have a vested interest, as well as a prurient one, in what goes on in, around, and about the Canadian Forces. So it is with some interest that I read self-promoting, self interested supposedly objective MILITARY? types sucking up to anyone attempting to pitch a script. Let me tell you, troops, if you are REALLY interested in military matters, and not the pseudo- military stuff flying around in your obviously un-military heads, then you will stop this shameless pandering and self promotion! Saving Private Ryan? Excellent stuff! Nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here! Soldiers, NOT BANDSMEN, make the military function! Musicians have a purpose and a role, without question- but that role is NOT to decide policy or determine the validity of opinions expressed by members of the Profession of Arms. Note what I said- THE PROFESSION OF ARMS! It is my understanding that this is a Military-interest Site intended for people who have a military point of view -whether military or civilian. Tossing out critical commentary in this forum, it seems to me, is sort of like tossing an arty sim into a fish pond- you never know what is going to come bubbling up. And in this case, what has come bubbling up is a bunch of whining, self-promoting suffragettes. If any of you would like to know what it IS and SHOULD BE like going through a PROPER boot camp, drop me a line. Otherwise, grab a pink gin with a mini umbrella in it, and keep on watching...well, whatever the hell you types watch on T.V.          Out!


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

Have you read the guidelines...or are you above that?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2005)

Those of you who have seized the opportunity to respond with what you think would be a proper representation will probably have to write your own series.

For the author, I echo the vein of comment that your selection of roles for the staff may not be sufficiently realistic.  Soldiers undergoing recruit training have a very limited, albeit temporarily, world.  Most people outside the platoon might as well be shadows on a wall.  The soldiers interact chiefly with their section commanders (Sergeants) and platoon WO (Warrant Officer, not CWO).  The most likely candidate for daily interaction with a civilian would be one of the kitchen staff in the serving line.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2005)

I find it interesting that that you say you have almost finished your script and now come looking for ideas.   

I would suggest, as some have alluded to, that you change your lead characters to be more in line of what your Recruits would more realisticly run into.   Concentrate on the Primary characters for one section in one platoon.   That would give you about five central characters.   A Sgt and MCpl as section Instructors, a Platoon/Course WO, a Cpl Storesman/Administration NCO, and perhaps a Lt or Captain as a Platoon/Course Officer.   Secondary Characters would be the Sgts and MCpls of the other two Sections within that Platoon/Course; the OC (Maj), Sergeant Major (MWO), and a Quarter Master (WO or Sgt) and their staff; other characters would be your Chaplain, perhaps a MCpl/Cpl Clerk, and perhaps SMEs from outside institutions.   Of course you could add outside characters such as MPs and Canex clerks to fill in those "writers blocks".

GW


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2005)

writerchic,

I suggest you contact the Public Affairs Officer(PAffO) at the Canadian Forces Recruit School St Jean, Quebec. Pitch your idea to them and see if you can't arrange to spend a week or two at the Base. Tell them you'd like to spend time with the Staff and watch the Recruits during training. See if it would be possible to shadow some of the people you'd like to write into your show to pick their brains. This would give you a good idea what each individual does on a daily basis and how they interact with their superiors, peers and subordinates. You may also want to try interview Recruits in their first or second week, mid course and graduating week to get their perspective. You'll get a much better and clearer idea of the whole thing if you "go to the stable and speak to the horse(s). It will also be a much more rounded and truer version than you'll receive here. Good Luck, I look forward to seeing it on TV.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Feb 2005)

Mad Max,
Though I agree with most of what you said, there is the fact that ANYONE can come here and read the info. Bandsmen included.

Coming of like a fire-breathing tough-guy Neanderthal on the internet just reads pathetic to most people and turns many off that might have been interested.
I know that if she had come and pitched a show about my trade with "those" charactors I would have been all over her for her lack of homework but in a constructive way that maybe could shed a good light on our "interest".

Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## Franko (17 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Mad Max,
> Though I agree with most of what you said, there is the fact that ANYONE can come here and read the info. Bandsmen included.
> 
> Coming of like a fire-breathing tough-guy Neanderthal on the internet just reads pathetic to most people and turns many off that might have been interested.
> ...



My sentiments exactly.   

Regards


----------



## camochick (17 Feb 2005)

Mad Max said:
			
		

> You know, I read this stuff a lot, because, as a professional soldier, I have a vested interest, as well as a prurient one, in what goes on in, around, and about the Canadian Forces. So it is with some interest that I read self-promoting, self interested supposedly objective MILITARY? types sucking up to anyone attempting to pitch a script. Let me tell you, troops, if you are REALLY interested in military matters, and not the pseudo- military stuff flying around in your obviously un-military heads, then you will stop this shameless pandering and self promotion! Saving Private Ryan? Excellent stuff! Nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here! Soldiers, NOT BANDSMEN, make the military function! Musicians have a purpose and a role, without question- but that role is NOT to decide policy or determine the validity of opinions expressed by members of the Profession of Arms. Note what I said- THE PROFESSION OF ARMS! It is my understanding that this is a Military-interest Site intended for people who have a military point of view -whether military or civilian. Tossing out critical commentary in this forum, it seems to me, is sort of like tossing an arty sim into a fish pond- you never know what is going to come bubbling up. And in this case, what has come bubbling up is a bunch of whining, self-promoting suffragettes. If any of you would like to know what it IS and SHOULD BE like going through a PROPER boot camp, drop me a line. Otherwise, grab a pink gin with a mini umbrella in it, and keep on watching...well, whatever the heck you types watch on T.V.          Out!



Whining self promoting suffragettes, either you mean the fact that woman have posted on here or you are using the word all wrong. Why not put some background on your profile instead of coming in here and slagging people because apparently you think know way more than the rest of us. If you do, then why don't you offer up something constructive instead of whining about everyone else whining. The woman was mearly asking for some advice which i think most people here have tried to give her, so lay off for awhile why don't you.


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Whining self promoting suffragettes, either you mean the fact that woman have posted on here or you are using the word all wrong. Why not put some background on your profile instead of coming in here and slagging people because apparently you think know way more than the rest of us. If you do, then why don't you offer up something constructive instead of whining about everyone else whining. The woman was mearly asking for some advice which i think most people here have tried to give her, so lay off for awhile why don't you.



Well said!


----------



## winchable (17 Feb 2005)

Unless anyone offers some constructive criticisms (slinging a paragraph in never hurt either) soon this thread is about to become my victim for the day.

Any takers? Or should we just keep beating our chests, flinging feces and peeing on each other?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (17 Feb 2005)

Shut 'er down dude. The poor horse is mushy-dead. 

Writerchic has enough info on people she can talk to if she wants to do some accurate writing.

TM


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

No, lets keep it open or in "Ready Reserve."   She may want some other opinions or some detailed notes or memories, and this is as good a spot as any to ask for help.   We may be a rough crowd, but thats because we love what we do, and are protective of the much-maligned Army we do it in.

Tom


----------



## winchable (17 Feb 2005)

I'll give it a chance,
Just keep the criticisms constructive, well worded, civil and simple


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

I was in touch by email, and the best advice has been given - to visit an actual training base.  I'm sure one or two of you have PMed or emailed as well.  I think this thread has run its course, personally, but will defer to Che if he feels this can lead somewhere constructive.


----------



## jrhume (17 Feb 2005)

Heh.  "obliterate and conquer"

I didn't know that's what we were doing.  

Okay - okay.  I'll shut up.  You lot have given the lady very good advice.

Maybe she'll be like the Washington post writer (Mary Beth Sheridan) who recently spent several weeks with actual soldiers in Iraq and discovered that they weren't really 'blood thirsty maniacs'.  

Yes, she really did say that. 

In fact, she said, they were "really decent people." And even "sweet." Of course, after being shot at they were eager to shoot back â â€ a military attitude that seemed to surprise her. 

She also reported that when she asked soldiers why were they in Iraq, every single one told her, "to help the Iraqi people." Again she was surprised that the military could create such a unity of purpose even though, she said, she didn't see any "brainwashing" going on. She also noted that many soldiers had no opinion about the war. They had gone where they were ordered to go, like all good soldiers. Such an attitude seemed to dazzle her as well.

Given the right opportunity, writerchick might learn better as well.

Jim


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Feb 2005)

I'm very happy to have been proven wrong by Old Guy; good post.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2005)

Old guy, when you quote articles, it's better to set out the part quoted somehow (quotation marks, boldface, colour change, etc).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Feb 2005)

Either way you decide how to proceed with your project I wish you the best of luck and hope it is a success for you


----------



## Glorified Ape (18 Feb 2005)

Isn't this something we should be encouraging? Over and over we talk about how the CF needs more exposure in the Canadian populous to remind it of our existence. Whatever the shortcomings in plot or accuracy, it's not her lack of research, drive, or creativity to be blamed (I think the concept sounds great) but likely the overwhelming lack of information provided by the government and military literature on how life in the modern Canadian military is. If we're willing to accept videogames as a legitimate means of exposure, why the hell wouldn't we support TV efforts which will reach a much larger demographic?

Instead of trying to cut this person down and engaging in largely irrelevant discussions of our motivations behind such cutting, why don't the experienced members here (alot of which I see have a positive attitude towards such a series) offer some input (as many have) on what the relationships would be like, what military life is like, etc. This person can do us a favour by making such a series and I think, though I'm an unexperienced newb, that we should try to help her produce as accurate and interesting a series as she can, for herself and for us, instead of discouraging her by making unproductive, insulting comments and killing a thread which has the potential to do some good for the CF. 

Just a few ideas to make some small contribution, aside from the problem with the CWO I already put forward: 

1) How personal could relationships between course instructors and WO's be? Does anyone have some experience where a WO and course instructors had close, personal relationships?

2) What is the social environment between course instructors like? Does their instructional capacity lead to more professional-focused relationships than would exist between similar members in a unit, or do they often socialize and interact on levels outside a purely professional capacity?

3) What are some interesting interactions and conflicts between CF members that would make for good television, but are also realistic? 

4) Given that the course instructors are male and female, how possible is it that they would become romantically involved? What complications are presented, both officially and socially, by such an involvement? 

5) Would the addition of an officer (as an antagonist to the NCM protagonists) be helpful to producing a good series, or would it be possible to make an enticing, yet realistic depiction of course staff interaction with officers playing only supporting roles?

6) What kind of stresses really try a course staff member's resolve? What are some of the more common (and humorous, dramatic, etc.) problems that occur on course? What are some of the stupid, funny things that unexperienced recruits/ocdts tend to do on course? I could offer a few, but I think experienced members probably have a more objective outlook. What are some of the funny/creative ways that course staff can screw with the trainees and what effect do they have?

I don't know the answers to any of these since I'm about as newb as they come, short of finishing IAP, so I guess it's up to the members with a good amount of time in to answer these questions, if they're so inclined.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Isn't this something we should be encouraging? Over and over we talk about how the CF needs more exposure in the Canadian populous to remind it of our existence. Whatever the shortcomings in plot or accuracy, it's not her lack of research, drive, or creativity to be blamed (I think the concept sounds great) but likely the overwhelming lack of information provided by the government and military literature on how life in the modern Canadian military is.
> 
> Instead of trying to cut this person down and engaging in largely irrelevant discussions of our motivations behind such cutting, why don't the experienced members here (alot of which I see have a positive attitude towards such a series) offer some input (as many have) on what the relationships would be like, what military life is like, etc. This person can do us a favour by making such a series and I think, though I'm an unexperienced newb, that we should try to help her produce as accurate a series as she can, for herself and for us, instead of discouraging her by making unproductive, insulting comments and killing a thread which has the potential to do some good for the CF.



Exactly, and to go a step further, 100% accuracy isn't even essential - in fact, may be considered detrimental to most "dramatic" fictional presentations.  Which isn't a license to steal - just saying, 8 Rangers would never be sent behind enemy lines to take a paratrooper out of action and send him home, but it made for a good story.

Most military films are like that - even the most highly respected ones either compress time and space, make many characters into composites, or progress from faulty premises - in order to make a point.

If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## Glorified Ape (18 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Exactly, and to go a step further, 100% accuracy isn't even essential - in fact, may be considered detrimental to most "dramatic" fictional presentations.   Which isn't a license to steal - just saying, 8 Rangers would never be sent behind enemy lines to take a paratrooper out of action and send him home, but it made for a good story.
> 
> Most military films are like that - even the most highly respected ones either compress time and space, make many characters into composites, or progress from faulty premises - in order to make a point.
> 
> If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.



I think you're right... my suggestions (you posted before my edit went through) were somewhat based around what's possible AND could make for good television. I think the former is less important than the latter, as you said. 

Just as an aside, relating the personalities and experiences of CF members (fictional or real) to the general populous serves a valuable purpose, I think. I bought my mother a book for christmas about the Canadian experience at Medak and her interest in the CF and respect therefor went up 200%. If we could do that on a massive scale, imagine how easier it would be to get sufficient funding, popular support, etc. I think many times that it's not that the populous won't care, it's that they don't know.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

As anyone who studied drama in Grade X knows - almost all fiction is driven by _conflict_.  This can be inner conflict, or external conflict, or both.  Military advisors to TV shows and movies, from Sands of Iwo Jima to Combat! to Tour of Duty to Courage Under Fire have all wanted a pristine vision of the military made on screen.

Sands of Iwo Jima relied on participation by the US Marine Corps.  In the end, the film saved the Corps from extinction - after WW II, the USMC was on the chopping block, but popular sentiment, fuelled by John Wayne's film, are reputed to have saved them.  But their participation was mildly questioned when an advisor saw in the script that John Wayne's Sergeant Stryker physically struck an enlisted man.

The USMC swore up and down that such things never, ever happened.  A look at the book SEMPER FI, MAC paints a different story IIRC - and perhaps even Manchester's GOODBYE DARKNESS does as well?  At any rate, I don't think it was unheard of.  But the USMC relented, only when Stryker atoned for his actions later in the film, and it was made clear that he struck the enlisted man for something approached good reasons.

I've noted PEACKEEPERS as a good example of painting soldiers in a realistic light.  COURAGE UNDER FIRE actually had military support withdrawn (the M-1 tanks in the movie are actually mockups done on British tank chassis) because of certain unsavory depictions of service personnel.

A spic and span rah-rah view of the military is not only not necessarily accurate, but makes for boring drama.  Which is why most military movies focus on the exceptions rather than the rule.  The recruit who murders his DI (Full Metal Jacket) for example (has that ever really happened?  More likely recruits have died at the hands of instructors like GSgt Hartmann).  The bombardier who kills himself because his parents were in the Nazi movement back home (12 O'Clock High) (and add to that the BGen in charge of a bomb group - did it ever happen?  If so, how often?)  The sergeant who punches his company commander after being sent on a dangerous mission (The Bridge at Remagen).


----------



## Infanteer (18 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> If anyone can name a 100 percent accurate military-themed television show or movie (with allowances made for fictional characters), I'd love to hear about it.



Blackhawk Down was pretty good.  I think you could put Band of Brothers in that catagory as well.


----------



## SHARP WO (18 Feb 2005)

The idea of 100% accuracy is hard to complete, but not impossible, the story board would be amazingly huge.

Writerchic, research is your key in understanding and finding what you need, and I do have a suggestion.

I agree that a training CWO is to high maybe you should downgrade it to a trg WO, an example, the trg WO in meaford while not being directly involved with recruits will see every sort of training requirement come across his desk and has to decide whether or not it is viable and if it is within the parameters set for specific courses.

The idea of a chaplain is interesting, but as pointed out previously, unless there are extreme personal issues in a recruits life, they rarely see the chaplain except on Sunday. 

Whatever your final decision is, there will always be someone to critisize you on your idea, whether your characters are created on fiction or reality. Canada just needs to see exposure on what the Army is and what the Army is doing.

If you need help here is my background.

Education - Journalism and communications media
Current Rank - Warrant Officer (reserves)
Trade - Infantry
Courses taught - 25-30, recruit, basic infantry, basic leadership, basic officer.

Contact d_ruiter_ofthe_goths@hotmail.com


----------



## camochick (18 Feb 2005)

Wow, this thread has made a positive turn and I am liking it hehe. I eventually want to do reporting on the military but the scariest thing to me would be getting the story wrong. If i can get it right through helpful people such as yourselves it will hopefully make my job that much easier. Great ideas people!!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Blackhawk Down was pretty good.  I think you could put Band of Brothers in that catagory as well.



I didn't ask what you thought was good, I asked you to name something 100 percent accurate. Band of Brothers is my all time favourite.  Want to know how accurate it was.  Go here:   http://www.101airborneww2.com/bandofbrothers3.html

Some pretty nitpicky stuff and the author is a bit torqued that he wasn't included among the advisors, but shows some of the changes made for dramatic purposes.  SS troops in Normandy on D-Day?  Never happened, but the series shows them being gunned down by Spiers in a flashback type sequence.  The assault on Foy?  Check out the footage of the actual terrain in the documentary WE STAND ALONE TOGETHER and then the fictional attack.  The real assault was over several hundred metres of terrain.  The field in the movie is what - 200 metres across?  A good example of space being compressed for dramatic purposes (everything needs to fit onto the screen).  Did the garrison at Foy _really_ run around back and forth in white snowsuits every time someone in Company E looked through their binoculars at the town?  One rather doubts it.... etc.

Can't speak for Blackhawk Down - I did love the closeup shot of the Minimi crew with blanks in their weapon.   Kind of like Upham in SPR whose closeup revealed his MG ammo had no primers....it's all about willing suspension of disbelief....


----------



## writerchic (18 Feb 2005)

Wow, what a difference between yesterday and today, unreal.
My drama, and it is a drama, will hopefully show all of Canada, that you truly exist, and are important to us as a country. I hope it will shed light of the CF and draw some much needed attention to it.
The 'conflict' that is needed will be personal to each specific character, family or relationship or religious issues, I won't put in something that is completely unbelievable. I'm sure my consultants won't let me, nor do I wish to. But I will write about things that could possibly happen, rare if that, but could.
A disturbing article I read recently said the TO police has 2000 more officers than the Canadian Infantry has soldiers. Is that true? That's depressing. Why not show potential enlisters (enlistees?) the difficult decision it was to put your life on hold and the pride in your decision to join. Is that such a bad thing?
I'm not a journalist trying to uncover the big bad scoop, just a writer who desperately wants to see more good Can. TV, with our flag on all the buildings in the background.
For all those who were helpful, thanks for the advice and suggestions, I'll take them all.
For those who were not, if this show gets picked up, feel free to change the channel.
Carolyn


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Feb 2005)

Writerchic,

The CWO you are describing would most likely be referred to at an army training establishment as the RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major).   He is the senior Non-Commissioned Officer at the school (there is also a Commanding Officer).   He does not "teach" classes to the recruits but he sets the tone for the whole establishment.   His interaction with the recruits will be limited (as stated by others) but he will have interaction with the staff. The RSM does have an office but I would not characterize his work as being paperwork driven (the Adjutant, Chief Clerk and Coy 2ICs do that).   He will often be out and about checking on things.   The maintenance of discpline and morale are his two big duties.   The RSM will be looking after the careers and welfare of the instructors and he will be "interviewing" them from time to time.   In addition, while there are other NCOs who look after "standards" the RSM will make sure that things are running properly from a staff perspective.

Their are other senior NCOs such as the training Company CSMs, the DSM (Drill Sergeant Major) and the senior Standards NCO (often a Master Warrant Officer) who will deal with most recruit issues.   I understand, however, that for a series you are limited in the number of characters.

The school will have a civilian secretary and a chaplain.   The chaplain will get involved with recruits who are having personal problems (and being a drama I'm sure that your recruits will have these).   Having a Commanding Officer character would be useful, as he and the RSM form a team.   The CO and RSM can get involved with recruits who are failing or have failed training.   Each school is a bit different, but they will usually convene a "board" that will decide the future disposition of recruits who are having problems.   This may be delegated to lower levels but again, I understand that you do not want a cast of thousands.

If I could offer one small piece of advice, basic training does not emphasize the conduct of humanitarian assistance operations.   Army basic training is focused on transforming civilians into soldiers, not aid workers.   The field training emphasis is on warfighting.   Perhaps you could have a recruit who thought he was signing up to do humanitarian work and instead is faced with learning how to kill people and is having some moral problems (cue the chaplain)?   I've observed basic training in the US and while there are differences the basic premise is the same.

Best of luck,

2B

p.s. I worked on the staff of a training school for three years and my comments above are based on my observations of the RSM.   Hopefully you can get some advice from an actual school RSM who actually did the job!


----------



## writerchic (18 Feb 2005)

An RSM! That sounds exactly right, yes, that is definitely the description of this character.
Perfect, thankyou.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

Well, my only experience with a school RSM was to be given three days of extra duties by one after an inspection, because there was a wrinkle in my bedcover.  Hell of a way for a 32 year old man to be treated - "Take a look!   Do you see that!  Or maybe you think I'm on crack?"

And of course one of my nights of extra duties was during the course graduation party. 

The course warrant advised me that he thought the RSM was mistaken about the dates - couldn't fathom why anyone would make me miss the course party over a wrinkled bed.  So he advised me to stay in the barracks that night and come out to the party.  

So the duty NCO had to come find me half an hour after my duty was to commence.  I felt like a jackass, but so did the course warrant - who felt so bad about it that he brought me some of the barbeque dinner everyone else was enjoynig while I did my duties at the school.  ;D   Of course, the RSM HAD intended I miss the first bit of the course party, and the course warrant had advised me to forget about it in error.

 I did, however, make an entrance once my duties were over by being the only one to show up to the party with a date - one of the cuties on another course was at the school while I was doing my duties and I explained my situation.  She was more than happy to attend the party with me.

Luckily the RSM wasn't at the party that night.  (Lucky for me, that is).

My course warrant was a reservist, incidentally, while the school RSM was a regular.


----------



## writerchic (18 Feb 2005)

ONE small wrinkle? Really?
Wow, strict doesn't begin to describe it.
Good info to know, I'll have to write that in somewhere.
Thx.


----------



## big bad john (18 Feb 2005)

The RSM was reinforcing self discipline.  It is a lesson for the person who erred and their unit.


----------



## writerchic (18 Feb 2005)

I understand.
Is it quite common for a unit to suffer for the mistake of one individual?
What normally happens to that individual at fault?


----------



## big bad john (18 Feb 2005)

They are not suffering.  The unit learns what happens to an individual (remember they are learning to be a team.  Their lives depend on that...literally).  The Warrant is learning his or her short comings through this also.  It is not brutal.


----------



## ex royal now flyer (18 Feb 2005)

Judging from what I have read from the respondants to your original question, have you thought about turning your drama into a dysfunctional comedy?? ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Feb 2005)

Part of the aim of putting the group of recruits under stress is to weld them into a team.  On my basic officer training we had a rather terrible room inspection.  The School RSM stopped the inspection at my room (shared with three others).  He was so upset with what he saw he ceased the whole thing and declared us the worst he had ever seen.  

Three candidates were placed on "Show Parade" that night where they were inspected three times at one hour intervals.  Their kit (sixty odd items set to a very specific layout) would not be found "up to par" and would usually end up on the floor.  There was no way to get the kit back in shape in one hour if they worked alone.  What happened was that the whole course helped out and got the gear squared away in time.  Once the staff figured out that this was happening they stopped the inspections for the night (they had achieved their purpose, namely to bring us together).  

If the recruits stick together and work as a team they wil get through.  Going alone is not usually a good thing.  Some things in basic training can seem silly or non-sensical but they do have a purpose that is not readily understood at the time but comes into focus after the fact.  Inspections turn into a game where you have two of everything (one for show and one for wear).  If they start inspecting behind the power outlets for dust then you are doing well.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Fraser.g (18 Feb 2005)

Lets not forget the attention to detail portion of the corrective training. 
Mr Doroch was probably far along in his training by the time a corrective acton that strong was laid out for such an infration.

In the military what may look like a small detail to a civilian can turn into a life threatening one to a soldier in the field. 

Small things like "oops I forgot to pack the extra radio batteries" or setting the magnetic declination on a compass incorrectly.

Remember this is not punishment it is corrective training. An group is not "punished" for an individual but an individual can   be "corrected" for a shortfall in his or her conduct. 

A wrinkle on a bed sheet will not get a person killed but it sets up a desirable behavior within the group as a whole.

GF


----------



## writerchic (18 Feb 2005)

Things like this are already included in show ideas for future episodes.
Question: Are there 4 to a room for Basic Training?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2005)

If you are seriously going to be writing on the "Recruits" aspect, the RSM is a bit of a stretch if you intend on making him a central character.   As an Instructor at the Armour School my only real experiences with the RSM were Clearing In and Clearing Out "interviews".   The Recruits exposure to the RSM would probably be limited to the Commandant and RSMs Welcoming Speeches, a Commandants Inspection and finally Grad Parade.   Any other exposure to the RSM would probably have been a result of a serious offence.

I am sure that you will find much of value by surfing the various threads here.   There are whole stories to be found in the Recruiting and Training Threads.   Best War Stories and other topics will give you some insight as to what military life is like in the CF and Reserves.   Be very careful to stay away from the Cadet Forums, as they are the "Kids" literally and do not reflect at all on life in the CF.

If you have watched "Full Metal Jacket", "Band of Brothers", "The Boys in Company C" or many of the other American war films, you will see that the Recruit's exposure to others than his/her immediate Instructors is very limited.   Many of their problems are settled amongst their peers.

Happy Research.

GW


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Feb 2005)

PRN is correct- this was on a trades training course, not basic.

And I guess I need to point out - I certainly didn't feel aggrieved.  The bed wasn't that wrinkly, but the standard was set and I failed to meet it.  The RSM acted properly, and in the end, I felt good about it because I managed to get a date out of it!   I in fact wrote a letter of apology to the RSM for being late (after the course warrant officer told me not to bother), and the RSM returned it to me with the minute "apology accepted."  It felt like mutual respect.

My duties were three evenings as duty NCO - sitting at the entrance of the school.  Each night, the RSM left for the day while I was on duty.  I always made sure to stand to attention, look him right in the eye as he passed, and wish him a good night.  It showed him I was a professional and wasn't about to sulk, or be afraid of him.

I bring it up to illustrate some potential areas of conflict - 

a) the 32 year old soldier who really wishes he was past the stage of being yelled at to make his bed properly
b) the reservist course warrant who doesn't see the need for discipline the way the regular RSM does

I don't like to overplay the regular vs reservist thing, but the dichotomy was interesting in that case, and may be an appropriate subject for study via a dramatic presentation.  The regular/reserve issue has always been with us - whether it is in a peacetime training school like I mentioned, or deciding which general gets to command an armoured division in World War Two.

However, the roles could have been reversed also - I am sure many reserve WOs are stricter disciplinarians than some regular WOs - it comes down to personality and experience.  And, come to think of it, drama is based on personality ("character") too.  So there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to that - just write what is interesting, and at least feasible.


----------



## Cliffy433 (18 Feb 2005)

Good to see some constructive criticism after, what?, 2-3 pages of pettiness... I like the idea of focussing on a section within a platoon sized crse - that seems to work around your cast numbers... and Best War Stories is a good place to go for the odd bit of comic foil that even a drama needs.

WRT your question of 4 to a room on Basic - well, maybe in the Air Force... KIDDING!   > ;D 

It varies from school to school, most of my courses were done in LFWA TC in wainwright and the accoms were as follows:

Tent City - 10 recruits/4 sect of mod on a concrete slab in the middle of a shale field, sand-bagged down our first day on training because of tornado warnings.   Co-Ed accoms.

H-Huts - basically, galvanized steel covered buildings built in the shape of an H.   The middle bar is the main hallway/entrance and contains showers, toilets, sinks, and laundry area.   My course was in one of the struts which are further "divided" (no doors) into approx sect sized rooms (8 pers), with enough for approx 6 sections per strut.   We were a small course and the females took half the strut, males the other half, and were about 4 per section sized "room".

Bldg 599 LFWA TC - Shangri-La compared to the other two - enough room for about 8 per room but averaging 4

Barracks in Borden - RQL6A - Sergeant's course - 4 per room.   No bldg 599, but there was cleaning staff to do halls and common areas!!   See what the others meant by Borden not being "military" - but in my defense, they CHOSE their trades, and subsequently their training establishments.

tlm.


----------



## TCBF (19 Feb 2005)

I got 14 extra duties in Cornwallis for having my squad of 32 guys get up 15 minutes early on the day of the Chief Instructor's inspection.  This was in the fall of 1984.  10 Platoon, C Company,  CFRS.  I didn't bother telling the RSM that my Sgt (I was a MCpl at the time) had told me to do it.  The Sgt had gone away on course the day of the inspection and so wasn't around, and I wasn't about to blade a guy who wasn't there.  Besides, I knew the rules.  being a duty NCO in Cornwallis was great fun.  There were over a thousand recruits in house, and the platoons who were allowed in the "Green and Gold" would display their competitiveness physically.  "Off to jail with these two, and try not to slip on the blood and broken teeth", etc.  Fun was had by all.

When the Sgt got back from course, he heard about my extras and started slagging me.  I just grinned and said nothing.  One of my fellow MCpls shot his mouth off and said "Hey, he got them because of you."  Then we had to stop the Sgt - a very professional soldier - from falling on his spear.

The WW2 RCN barracks held a platoon of up to 160 people.  Whoever got off the bus/plane/train was in your platoon.  Maybe thirty.  Maybe 130.  Four squad floors.  Forty max to a floor.  Forty guys in one room:  Welcome to MY jungle, boys.  Still, it bonded them quick  I found a squad and platoon bonded much faster in Cornwallis than in St Jean, because the design of St Jean is not conducive to good basic training.  

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (19 Feb 2005)

writerchic said:
			
		

> Things like this are already included in show ideas for future episodes.
> Question: Are there 4 to a room for Basic Training?



For Ocdts. at St. Jean, the platoon is divided into pods, which consist of 6-9 rooms each with each room sleeping 1 ocdt. Depending on the pod, there are one or two common bathrooms in each pod with 1 shower, toilet, and 3 sinks, or in pods with 2 bathrooms, the aforementioned setup with the 2nd bathroom containing a bathtub w/ shower, sink and a toilet. Males and females are divided into different pods, although they're all branches of the same main hallway. The pods run in a U-shape off the main hallway, so the 2 pod entrances intersect (at the ends of the U) with the main hallway. In each pod there's a common room with a few chairs and a table. Each room contains a closet, desk, bed, chair, end table, mirror, small fan, and window. 

I understand that for recruits the setup has 10 recruits sleeping in a large room with mid-height dividers between each recruit's sleeping area. 



			
				writerchic said:
			
		

> I understand.
> Is it quite common for a unit to suffer for the mistake of one individual?
> What normally happens to that individual at fault?



From my own experience during IAP (first phase of basic officer training), alientating practices such as punishing the entire platoon for one member's mess-up weren't that common - they tended to isolate problem troops from the platoon and create hostility and animosity towards them which really does nothing but fracture the platoon and exacerbate problems. There were exceptions, but they were rare and the punishment was never so severe that it created real anger towards the offenders (especially since we all screwed up sometimes). That being said, punishing the group for an individual's mistake can serve to increase the pressure and incentive for an individual to ensure the mistake doesn't happen again. 

An individual's punishment for his/her mistake was usually embarassment at making the platoon look bad, as well as notes-to-file and the instructor's contempt. Group punishments were usually a result of group screw-ups - our standards of conduct, dress, or cleanlines weren't good enough one day, etc.


----------



## McG (28 Feb 2005)

It could be an interesting sort of juxtaposition to base a TV show on the concurrent (and typically seperte) dramas of a BMQ section and a school's HQ.   Contrast Pte Bloggin's concern that he never gets the peanut butter in his IMP to the school Commandant's problems with budgets and a burgeoning drug problem amongst bored PATS. 

While the officers do play a central role in how our military functions, maybe they could be pushed to the rear (as far as screen time) in order to show the interactions of the NCO net and how the School CWO would continually be involved in the development of his senior NCOs that were in turn responsible for the development on Canada's newest crop of non-commissioned members.   

Some of the key people that would exist in an army school would be:

Commandant - Lieutenant Colonel â â€œ is the commanding officer of the shcool
Deputy Commandant â â€œ Major â â€œ is second in command of the school
School Chief Warrant Officer (or RSM) â â€œ CWO - the senior non-commissioned officer in the school
Commandant's secretary â â€œ civi
Adjudant â â€œ Capt â â€œ senior captain in the school, responsibilities include personnel administration, policing the jr officers, and much of the schools external correspondence

Below this â Å“Comd cellâ ? would be an operations cell, an orderly room, and a standards cell.   These would make up the school HQ.   Below this headquarters would be the instructional companies or squadrons.   Each company could be responsible for running several concurrent (or overlapping) course serials that are each structured as a platoon.


----------



## pipesnake (1 Mar 2005)

Wow cool idea. I wonder how quickly I could write it. Having gone through Basic, Battleschool, etc. I think I have the research down pat. My wife is a published author and has been telling me to write a screen play for some time. Thanks!!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

pipesnake said:
			
		

> Wow cool idea. I wonder how quickly I could write it. Having gone through Basic, Battleschool, etc. I think I have the research down pat. My wife is a published author and has been telling me to write a screen play for some time. Thanks!!



Wouldn't you consider this a bit of plagiarism of writerchic's ideas and outline?


----------



## Block 1 (4 Mar 2005)

I know this is a little late but, I am  a Company Sergeant Major in a training environment now, I my be able to help you out. I also have friends that deal with CBC in ref to short military documentaries and movies. I could send you his way, plus all of his contacts are in Toronto, I think. I am also in the middle of writing my third book. Being my first military book, its called â Å“Firebase Benâ ? Its about a firebase we constructed in Sierra Leone West Africa during the 10 year war. But that's a different topic.   

darkwood@darkwood-woodcarving.com


----------

