# Recruits these days



## 2FERSapper (22 Dec 2004)

During October of this year i began teaching on my first BMQ course. I was fired up ready to go looking forward to the challenges that lay ahead. Unfortunately i quickly realized the quality of my troop through the first weekend. a Platoon of 47 quickly dropped to 41 by the end of the second weekend. Many of these recruits came with unrealistic ideas of what lay ahead of them and what seemed like no real thought put behind their choice of joining the army. After reading autobiography after autobiography i realized that many of these recruits had poor or no reasons for joining the army and no real goals or rewards they wished to achieve in and through the army. Many of the recruits myself and others expressed our doubts about quickly quit for reasons like "its not what i expected" or "i didn't want to do this". Our Course is now almost 1/2 done and we are sitting at 36 recruits. Most of them have the potential to become good soldiers and some seem like they will excel in the army. While others I'm still concerned with. I guess the real reason for this post is a question that myself and the rest of the staff on my course have been asking eachother is this. Are the recruits being lied to when recruited or are we just recruiting the wrong people? How are so many people getting into the system and clogging up courses when its clear they shouldn't be there? I Don't know. I'm not saying i don't enjoy my job. I love it. Training recruits has brought a new joy of being in the army. I love the army and teaching has just made it even better. I don't know what it is about it but taking these new recruits who know nothing and giving them the foundation for them to become soldiers is very rewarding. Its just upsetting when you see the quality of many of these candidates and the lengths we as instructors must go through to weed them out. Anyways I'm done my rant.


----------



## Meridian (22 Dec 2004)

I posted another thread on this in Recruiting.. well similar anyway..
.
Thanks for sharing.. its refreshing to hear from an actual instructor about his current course (rather than reading the spun stuff on the recruiting website.. this is what I love about army.ca).

I think that the greatest problem is that new recruits really have no REAL idea of what to expect. Look at how many  people come on here asking for "what is a day in BMQ really like?"
  While many oldschoolers immediately seem to feel like they just want their hands held....  well for me personally I look at it as properly researching in advance..

When I talk to CFRC recruiters, I feel like Im being sold. And I also feel like Im a baby for asking certain questions that really are important in figuring out whether you want to have to shave in freeezing cold water during winter indoc, or march jsut for the sake of marching, or getting yeld at for nothing and sucking it up for some inexplicable reason....   These are all things that are just done... and all have their own reasons.. but for someone new, who sees a recruiting video and gets a very basic "mission statement" for the moc....  how are they really to know?

I was an OCdt for a year, had a bunch of indoc training in different places, doing things on Griffens, etc.... but I still have very little knowledge of what an actual officer does when gets to work in the morning... how much paperwork is a lot of paperwork, how hard it is to talk to that Cpl who your eally like but is doing a pisspoor job, etc..

It all comes with experience, I recognize, but I think we should try some innovative ways to show people how it really is.
My .02

Cheers


----------



## Gayson (22 Dec 2004)

I was surprised by the way things worked when I did my BMQ last year.

I thought it was going to be more like the movies.

IMO recruits are going into the system not knowing what to expect.  I think the way to solve this issue is to provide prospective recruits more information on what training and life in the military will be like.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (22 Dec 2004)

When I did my BMQ, we started with 45 recruits.  When the course was done, we had 23.

A LOT of the people the first weekend of BMQ were all gung ho, talking about "full metal jacket" and about "firing big ass guns"..

That first morning of PT, some of them lost it.  My course droped like flies.

THis is good and bad in a way.  It's bad because it costs money to process these people and get them on course, but it's good because you weed out those who can and can't hack it..leaving behind those who actually want to be soldiers....not the ones who like to dress up and play soldier without any of the physically and mentally demanding activities that go with it.


----------



## Troopasaurus (22 Dec 2004)

My Reserve BMQ lost 9 people in the first week, mostly because they "didn't want to kill people"... i just kept asking myself why these people even went through the recruiting process. Most of the people on my course though that the Canadian military just did peacekeeping and stood around or something. Course staff made it very clear that it was quite the opposite (only 2 staff not having done a tour). After a good speech by one of our MCpl's they started to leave because he made it clear they might be called upon to kill others and they need to be ready for that. It seemed like something that should have been caught at the recruiting center were they ask them in the interview if they would be able to kill a person.


----------



## Ghost (22 Dec 2004)

LOL they didn't want to kill people.


----------



## Northern Touch (22 Dec 2004)

Man, I wish we lost some people on my BMQ.  I have no idea how some of the people I was on course with are going to make it through their MOC training.  the only people we lost was due to injuries.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (22 Dec 2004)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> Man, I wish we lost some people on my BMQ.   I have no idea how some of the people I was on course with are going to make it through their MOC training.   the only people we lost was due to injuries.



I know exactly where you're coming from. There are guys that graduated not only their BMQ and SQ with me, but their QL3 as well. i have absolutely no idea how..

I have stories of guys actually falling asleep on the range, during a relay! Some that got themselves so lost it was sad, some cant even make it half way into a run with the rest of the Section without dropping behind.  Maybe my far more experienced staff see some potential in them, and are simply giving them the chance to realize it themselves. But some simply not only dont care, they make it blatantly obvious by their attitude towards the military, which is anything but serious.

Theres too much tolerance, and I think if the quality of the troops coming in is at a below standard level, then thats how it is. Keep weeding, as thats the nature of the beast. From my own perspective, I see 10 good, solid soldiers far better than an entire Section, or even Platoon of total bags of sh**.

Sadly, the Army seems to have some sort of Quota to meet and doesnt like to see large failure rates, therefore they keep these type around.  :


----------



## ladyengineer942 (22 Dec 2004)

I am half way through BOTP (run in amongst a BMQ course)..basically alphabet soup as someone called...

I would like to share that I have such respect for the instructors on the course..they are taking time to teach us what they have learned over their time in the reserves and passing it along to us.

We have a group of ppl that come from many different units...we work and we train...even in the "rain"..and the snow is now here!

I think it all depends on the course participants...I spent many years teaching at the college level and the same course taught 10 times to 10 differenct audiences can make it a completely different course..even when the material to cover is the same.

Hang in there..and don't lower your expectations...no one if forcing us to do this...and each of us must answer why we do this...particularly when you are on a ruck sack march and the stars are still out.


----------



## ab136 (22 Dec 2004)

I'm not saying I'm going to be a fantastic recruit but, I think I know what I'm getting into.  It's going to be work. WORK. I don't understand how someone would even expect to tip-toe through the CF.  I'm new to the process but I've seen people who seem like their sleepwalking beside me.  Two people showed up for Fit tests who could not meet the min. Why show up if you can't even do the min.  When I had my interview one guy showed up in sweatpants and another thought it was wrong that she had to wait 30 minutes to have her interview; so she left.  I just kept thinking, "these people are taking someone elses' place; someone who wanted to be here". These are my experiences from two days.  I can only imagine what the RC see every week.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2004)

I used to think along these lines until you step back and look at the history of recruits.   How is it the every course seems to be weaker then then the one before it and that every new batch of recruits seems to be the worst ever?   You read the same thing whether it is the Romans, the British, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII.   Have humans become weaker and weaker with every successive generation?   I doubt it.

Recruits are usually a mixed bag - it's the nature of the game.   The transition from civilian to soldier is a bumpy one and not all are suited for such a path.   This is why basic training must be viewed not as a skills course but rather as indoctrination into the military institution.

The kicker is in the quality of the NCO training them.   Remember, a recruit is like a lump of ore - a trainer can take a pile of it and work it and form it on the forge into a decent tool, a truly professional and well grounded NCO Corps can turn out very effective weapons of steel.   Some pieces of ore will be of poor substance, not cut out for the foundry; don't fret over these ones.   The effort should be ensuring that the products that do come out of the forge are the highest possible quality you can produce.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2004)

Or to add a different perspective....

Every army gets weaker in times of peace.  New rules come in, we become more PC, physical standards go down, new safety regulations are implemented reducing the effectivness of training, etc, etc.  As soon as a war kicks in, all that crap goes right out the window.  Untill peace is declared, and we start the slow decline again.

Do I have facts and figures to back this up?  No, so don't ask   I think it's a viable alternative to the theory you proposed though.


----------



## ab136 (22 Dec 2004)

As technology proliferates in society, society seem to become more sedentary.  A perfect example of this is video game consoles.  I see soooooo many over weight kids now.  I can't understand how someone can sit for hours playing a game!!! I'm sure in years to come these will be the recruits that are trying to get in the CF doors.  Will the CF lower standards so they  have recruits for that generation.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2004)

I will buy that to a certain extent.   The military as an institution sometimes has trouble adhering itself to ever-changing currents of battle; we're more comfortable preparing for the last war.   An even worse symptom is letting the absence of battle cloud the thinking on the very reason for the Army - to fight and win the land battle across the spectrum of conflict.   When this happens, what is demanded of recruits becomes increasingly more and more out of touch with the realities of combat and the ground.   Thus, the problem isn't with the quality of the recruits per se, but rather with the doctrine or level of professionalism within the military institution (essentially, doing this is the act of professionally shooting oneself in the foot).   The overall quality of recruit doesn't change; they're always maggots who don't deserve to join the hallowed ranks of the Corps.... ;

This is the disease of military unpreparedness, and Canada has been more and more inflicted with it at the operational level since Korea ended.   Lately, it's been becoming more and more apparent at the tactical/individual level as well - this is a very bad sign, as our indiv skills have always been one of our sources of professional excellence.

Case in point - we love to jeer the American Army; it is some sort of Canadian solder "penis-envy" (especially Militia studs) to trash the skills of the average American soldier.   However, I have a buddy who recently joined the US Army and attended a a course and after his basic which was mixed with soldiers from the ranks of the Army and with guys directly from basic.   

On the first day of the course the Course Commander asks "Who here has *Combat Experience*?"   Half of the course candidates put their hands up.   What does this say for the average American soldier that we are so keen to deride when he's wearing a Combat Infantryman Badge (the CIB) and all we've done is to launch section attacks against Soviet positions in the plains of Wainwright again and again.  The US Army will have a generation of Officers making doctrine and a generation of NCO's training recruits that all have one or more combat tours.

Just because Canada hasn't been involved in any mid to large-scale battles for quite some time does not mean we're useless or tactically deficient.   Corporate memory is very strong in the military institution and Canada has done a good job of keeping what works.   However, this does not mean we can rest on our laurels - ever.   Our brothers to the South have been fighting for a good 3 years straight now, across the spectrum of conflict.   For us to ignore what they're learning because "we Canadians know what we're doing" is foolhardy at best, criminal neglect at worst.

There is no excuse on why we should have to re-invent the wheel everytime we go to war.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

I absolutely agree that it's a problem with doctrine and proffesionalism.  Right now the recruiting and training proccesses are geared toward getting numbers and teaching them the qualities they'll need in order to look and act like soldiers.  That's about it.  The chain of command at the higher levels seems more concerned with making sure nobody fails and nobody gets injured than with making sure that we're actually prepared to face some sort of threat.  Within the lower levels there's a lot of desire to DO MORE.  Instructors don't complain about the low quality of recruits, they complain about not being given an opporunity to make them better.  I know for a fact that the standard to which my course was run is a lot higher than any of the courses that I've instructed on.  I know that to a certain extent, any course that an individual goes through will SEEM harder than the ones he sees afterwards, however, this case goes well beyond that.  The reason for it is that a)  the allowed training has been modified since I joined to limit the ammount of physical training which is allowed, and to remove a number of the tests we used (eg. the BFT) and b)  my course staff consisted of three regforce Sgt's with loads of experience and a certain ex-airborne WO who didn't like being told what he could and couldn't do with his troops.  A lot of the things we were put through were against regulations even back then, but it made a profound difference in the quality of the soldiers who graduated from that course.   And I'm just talking about things like physical fitness, discipline, and teamwork.  If you want to go into why we're still teaching cold-war tactics, or SOP's which aren't even in use within our own military, that's a whole other dimension.  There is so much more that CAN be done, but it seems like every level in the chain of beurocracy needs a ridiculously large ammount of time to frst reckognize the need for change, then agree that they should probably change it, then figure out HOW they're going to change it, and then finally pass it on to the next level, which goes through the whole proccess again.

    You're right, we could deffinitely learn a lot from the americans.  Their courses are set up so that a lot of the lessons being learned in Iraq are taught to recruits in the US 3 or 4 months later.  We can't even adapt to the fact that a lot of our training methods have been outdated for a decade or more.  Only a fool ignores the lessons of others and learns only from his own mistakes.


----------



## 2FERSapper (23 Dec 2004)

I noticed someone inquired to the possiblilty of the PT standard for people join the CF lowered. My question to that is what standard. 19 push-ups for males aged 17-19 and 8 or 9 for females ages 17-19. Thats not a standard. We did a pt test first weekend of course(the BMQ im teaching) we had 1 recruit do over 40 consecutive pushups that were proper. 2 troops got over 8 chinups. and the 2km timed run was disgusting. The average on pushups was between 15-20 for the males and the females were in the range of 0-5 with the except of one female who exceeded the min requirement for males of her age. the nintendo generation has is the reason why so many of our recruits are out of shape.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

2FERSapper said:
			
		

> the nintendo generation has is the reason why so many of our recruits are out of shape.



7 years ago my course staff called US the "nintendo generation"   and at the time I could to 70 pushups.  not to dispute your argument or anything, I just find it funny that we're still using that label.


----------



## ab136 (23 Dec 2004)

Exactly the point I was geting at 2FERSappper!


----------



## SHARP WO (23 Dec 2004)

Recruits, bad to worse, that may be, but is it the fault of the new recruits? This is what could be done.

The PT system should be set low, it increases the numbers, but it should be progressive. Example, everyone starts at 15 pushups, by the end of BMQ you have to do 25 and it should be a main component of passing the course. 35 at the end of SQ and 45 at the end of BIQ/MOC. 2 km run to start, then 4,6,8 respectively. I think the Cbt Arms should have a higher standard than the rest.

We could also go to a National mandatory period of service like the Dutch or Greek Cypriots do. Once you are done highschool you spend 2 years in National service. And you could have exemptions to go with it.

SHARP WO


----------



## 2FERSapper (23 Dec 2004)

SHARP WO said:
			
		

> The PT system should be set low, it increases the numbers, but it should be progressive. Example, everyone starts at 15 pushups, by the end of BMQ you have to do 25 and it should be a main component of passing the course. 35 at the end of SQ and 45 at the end of BIQ/MOC. 2 km run to start, then 4,6,8 respectively. I think the Cbt Arms should have a higher standard than the rest.
> 
> SHARP WO



I disagree. The min standard is 25 push up intervals. Thats a min. If the recruit cant do 25 his/her first weekend they did not prepare for their course. 48th ya i was refered to as the nintendo generation 4yrs ago on my BMQ but i challange these recruits to go to CFSME when bridging was still part of ql3 engineering. All our nintendo generation troops quit...fast. I agree that PT should be progressively increased but i also think that PT should be a failing point. Why as a army do we put so much emphesis on troops meeting the standard of everything else why is pt a exception? PT should be a failing point.But once again its not and troops who dont deserve to pass, pass. They achieve standard on everything the army deems as a passing or failing point but simple runs or ruck marchs these troops cant complete. And im certin everyone knows the kind of troops im talking about.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Dec 2004)

Just because current social trends don't engender people to the arduous service of the Army doesn't mean their worthless for recruits.  I can guarantee you that cowboy veterans of the Boer War were saying the same thing about the pasty lines of factory workers that filled the ranks of the CEF in WWI.

We must ensure that our basic training institution is always adapting to the nature of its uptake.  Sure, recruits may be less physically hardy or attuned to the field - that is what the transition from citizen to soldier is all about. WO Sharp has the right idea with progressive PT requirements - remember, tear them down and then build them up.  The quality of the product entering the system does not matter, its the quality of the product that is turned out by the training establishment that does.

As well, you must take into fact that these disadvantages are offset by other advantages.  How many recruits need a serious introduction to operating a computer built around a windows operating system - argueably a important piece of kit in the information age?  Try doing that with a hardy peasent from the hills....


----------



## Tpr.Orange (23 Dec 2004)

Just seems like some slack troops with a lack of drive, that also possibly of being misinformed before signing on the dotted line. Not everyone is cut out for it. Its unfortunate they had to find that out on course. I remember on my bmq we lost 5 from my section alone. 1 because he thought he would be able to handle using a gun, and after finally being able to hold one and complete the pwt, he realized that he couldn't and left. we had 2 people leave with broken bones sustained during their own time. 1 Left because there was a family issue in regards to the family being from iran and they didn't agree with what was going on overseas. There are added pressures between the army and home life that can play on people. I think i remember our instructor saying 1 in about 7 dont finish their bmq. either from failing a test over and over or just leaving.


----------



## Bert (23 Dec 2004)

I find theres many generalizations in this thread.   Are posters referring to regular or
reserve candidates, recruits, and members, and generalizing across all bases
and units in the CF?   If so, recruit quality has been argued to death in other threads
and a search may turn up other perspectives.   

Being in the regular force (not a reserve point of view), it would be easy for me to 
crap on new recruits and members to the unit from fitness to attitude. But I've been in
for a time, they haven't and its a learning process.   I remember going thru BMQ, seeing 60 
different individuals sort themselves out, and whats left mesh into a platoon.   It takes 
fitness, attitude, willingness to learn, teamwork, and perseverance to make a decent all 
around member and it takes time to evolve over a career not just the first few months in.

Also, when in unit, leadership is vitally important to set the right tempo, lead by example,
sort out the deficiencies, and improve on it.   The Air Force has undertaken steps in
recent times as an example to improve individual combat skills, prepare members for
deployment, and increase unit fitness levels.   You should see what falls out of the wash.
Rather than complaining about it, the chain of command works on those that have difficulty
keeping up (whether attitude, fitness, or circumstance) and it gets sorted out.   I can
say that at least in my unit.

Its difficult to measure an individual from BMQ because they evolve over their careers
especially after QL3 and the importance of the chain of command to maintain unit 
standard levels.   From another perspective, the quality may not be lacking in the 
individuals, but in the units that lack cohesion or the method to maintain unit
fitness standards.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (23 Dec 2004)

Someone said earlier about how the CF is simply passing people to fill up the quotas... This is true if you ask me.

From talking to my Sgt whos done 2 tours overseas, most recently in afganistan, and got into the army in the 70s, ive talked to him about what his PLQ was like.If you failed ANYTING, a single task at ALL, you were kicked off the course, the end.He started his PLQ with 44 troops, and 16 passed.One guy at the very end tapped out of a 15km ruck march at the 13th km, after over a month long in the field or something like that, so close to the end, but he failed a task and they failed him. Thats just one example of the crazyness they had. Another MCPL from newfoundland I had on SQ whos been in for over 10 years had a similarly difficult time on his PLQ.

Fast forward to to today, a MCPL who did his PLQ this summer, told me every single person passed except for one out of 40, and they had several chances at the same tasks before they would be failed. Written warnings, verbal warning all that stuff didnt even exist on PLQs 25-30 years ago.This MCpl said his PLQ was a joke and some very poor troops were passed.

How do you go from a failure rate of almost 50% to almost 0% with many handicaps placed on the course?

The trend ive been noticing seems to be shifting toward quantity over quality. I shudder to think of what the PLQ will be like If I ever make it there.  :-\


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Someone said earlier about how the CF is simply passing people to fill up the quotas... This is true if you ask me.



I have argued this before and i will do it again.  I have seen the army end and the air force end of the spectrum and let me say that its not the case.  The course i am currently on has so far sent 3 students out of 8 home......the navs have sent home a guy home a month ago for failing his final check ride ( this is after a year-long course).  Inch and Zoomie can attest to the rate of the "choping block" during pilot training.  From what i have been told, the navy does things the same way ( i.e. NES Op QL6A).......


----------



## chrisf (23 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Fast forward to to today, a MCPL who did his PLQ this summer, told me every single person passed except for one out of 40, and they had several chances at the same tasks before they would be failed. Written warnings, verbal warning all that stuff didnt even exist on PLQs 25-30 years ago.This MCpl said his PLQ was a joke and some very poor troops were passed.
> 
> How do you go from a failure rate of almost 50% to almost 0% with many handicaps placed on the course?



It seems to me that the problem is self-compounding... the troops that do PLQ go on to instruct troops in BMQ, who in turn go on to do PLQ, who in turn go on to teach PLQ... I got fairly lucky while doing BMQ... while the course wasn't nearly as hard as the course WO wanted it to be, it was still a fairly demanding course, and we had more then 1/3rd of the course quit (I know people who've had 2/3rds or more of their course quit, but what you've got to bare in mind, is that my BMQ was fairly recent... and a weekend course at that!). Some of the stuff we did may not have been 100% kosher as such, but all of the troops who were on it agree that our instructors were excellent, and nothing that happened even came close to "crossing the line". While I've only got limited experience with BMQ (Been through one, and have seen several from a support staff persepective), I'd definitly consider my course to fairly good model of what a BMQ should be in a "modern" army.

One thing that I particularly liked from our instructors was inspections... as the age old adage goes, "No matter how perfect everything is, they'l find somthing wrong...", and this was true, but after the first week or so, everytime we were jacked up for somthing during inspections, the reasoning behind it was generally explained to us ("Your canteen cup is dirty private... this is bad because... etc.... platoon... pick up your canteen cups... find a point on the wall... toss!"). The end result was a better understanding of why anal things exist within the military, and a large pile of kit in the corner that had to be fully sorted post-inspection.

As a side note, push-ups in snow that's almost as deep as your arms are long should be mandatory


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (23 Dec 2004)

I forgot to mention one thing... well i just thought of it now, this is the reserves im speaking of, and from what I can discern, we get our budget depending on how many troops/attendance we have..... so, mo troops is mo money =p ... ahh the root of all evil.


----------



## Gayson (24 Dec 2004)

I will admit.

When I joined the army I had a hard time doing 20 push-ups.

After getting my trades qualifications I have become able to do 50 on a bad day 60+ on a good day.  In November I participated in a patrolling competition where I rucked over 40km.

Just because someone enters the army weak does not mean they will be bad soldiers.  As long as recruits are presented with a solid progression in PT, and have some motivation, they will be able to reach a good level of physical fitness.

Hey Shortbus, leave Pte. B alone.  Sure he screwed up some drills on the range, then fell asleep.  Just remember, he has a collection of M-16's in his house, don't make him angry.   >


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Dec 2004)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I will admit.
> 
> When I joined the army I had a hard time doing 20 push-ups.
> 
> ...



Some of us go the other way   when I joined I could do 70, now I'm down to 40ish.


----------



## Canuck_25 (24 Dec 2004)

Well, as a potential recruit in 6 months, i would like to voice my oppinon on the "nintendo generation"

 I agree with some that young people today are disillusioned about military life. One firend of mine quoted "when i graduate, im going to join the army and get drunk and shoot shit." Now, he has the impression of military life as in video games and movies. The true aspect of the influence on him and the rest of young people is postive for the military. Im sure the CF dosnt have posters demonstrate the hidden qaulities of military life (death of friend, hard work, yelling, ect) They post soldiers with guns, riding in jeeps, tanks and armoured viehcles, looking proud and professional. 

 As for fitness for applicants, right now, during my christmas break, I on wet days do a 10km hike through rough, jungle like terrain (lots of machete use) restoring old trails. On non wet days, i do a 6 lap run, climb the ladder to 8 or do 20 pushups (as far as i can go at the moment) and do one lap of an obstacle course. My ambition is to be selected as an infantry officer in the reserves (Rocky Mountain Rangers) to pay for UNI and for experience towards DOE. 

 As for officer selection to RMC, they seem to pick the cream of the crop sometimes. A lot of those fellows dont expect the life they saw on the brochure.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (24 Dec 2004)

> Hey Shortbus, leave Pte. B alone.   Sure he screwed up some drills on the range, then fell asleep.   Just remember, he has a collection of M-16's in his house, don't make him angry.



Not to mention a cousin with a Mig...oh yeah, and he heroically pulled someone out of a burning Iltis, in turn getting 3rd degree burns to his forehead, which oddly enough resembled a Wasaga sunburn...   :


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (24 Dec 2004)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> > Hey Shortbus, leave Pte. B alone.  Sure he screwed up some drills on the range, then fell asleep.  Just remember, he has a collection of M-16's in his house, don't make him angry.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention a cousin with a Mig...oh yeah, and he heroically pulled someone out of a burning Iltis, in turn getting 3rd degree burns to his forehead, which oddly enough resembled a Wasaga sunburn...  :



sounds like a certain someone I know from charlie company....   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (24 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> As for officer selection to RMC, they seem to pick the cream of the crop sometimes. A lot of those fellows dont expect the life they saw on the brochure.



What the heck are they expecting then ? 9 to 5 at the office...?


----------



## Canuck_25 (24 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> What the heck are they expecting then ? 9 to 5 at the office...?



 Sometimes i wonder.

 Another point i would like to make is that all of my friends wake up at 8:30 am and go to school at 9 am. Now, i find that rather pathetic i rise out of bed at 6:45 am and ready to start the day. 

 Now, one fellow who left here to go to RMC had a 90% average in school. He was president of the student council, ect. I knew that he wouldnt make it long, mainly because this fellow never left his bedroom. Im dam surprised he passed the fitness test. He was what some might call a "nerd." Basically, he quit after the first year there and now he is at a civi UNI.


----------



## chrisf (24 Dec 2004)

Hey... I consider myself a nerd...


----------



## PteCamp (27 Dec 2004)

And I also consider you a nerd.... ;D


----------



## Fogpatrol 1.0 (28 Dec 2004)

Someone on my platoon quit on the third day when we were getting our gears.  The first thing he said to me in the cafeteria on the first day was "I think I did a huge mistake" referring to himself joining the army.  On the first inspection he freaked out and cried in front of the instructor.  I think his short time in training shocked him because he spent almost 6 weeks on pat platoon and he didnt have to swing his arms or wear his combats when walking to point A to B.

All this to say that people should do a little more research before joining the army.  It's not like the informations is hard to find, there's more to know than just how much you will get paid every month.


I'm also a huge video game nerd and can do 10 shin-ups and 35 push-ups...Cheers!


----------



## Slim (28 Dec 2004)

I remember what brought home the seriousness of the army on my GMT course (SYEP 1986).

One of the new recruits in my platoon suddenly decided that he didn't want to soldier no more (a relative term as we were only about 2 weeks into training then) and told the MCPL who was in charge of the course at that time, that he was going to leave and F%CK the army ect, ect...

The MCPL looked at this punk for a moment, then said quite calmly (and I quote) "Stand still sh*thead. You're under arrest" then simply pointed to several of us in the room and told us to "restrain" the guy in question.

We did.

The guy never went to jail but didn't last long either. The instructors later told us that he had a bit of a drug problem and had, at one point, threatened one of them with bodily harm. How he was removed (police involvement) I don't know but it sure brought home for allot of us just how serious the CF was (at that time anyway)

Slim


----------



## Baloo (29 Dec 2004)

Well, I think I will throw my two cents into the conversation. I think one of the problem's could be the nature of what the potential recruits are told both by the recruiters, and in their job description. I can remember when the Sgt. first came into my high school for enlistments, and I had the usual conversation, "So, what do you do in the Reserves?", having no real idea at the time.

"You seen Blackhawk Down?"

I nod.

"Well, yeah. You seen Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, and We Were Soldiers?"

I nod again.

"That's what we in the infantry do. Fast line down from the choppers, shootin' machine guns, rocket launchers, attacking bunkers. We kick ass." Basically, he summed up all of the action sequences into the career.

Now, I realize that at one year, I am still pretty fresh. But I have yet to use a line down a tower, nevermind from a Griffon. Never used a M-72 or a Carl G. I think most Reservists nowadays never willl. But they never tell you about the 5 am reveille or the belt fed cock that occurs within the job either. Yes, I stuck through it, and it wasn't all that difficult (compared with Reg Force, or several decades ago) but I admit, for the first while, it was hard to adjust. They definitely do not mention everything in the pams. Nor should they. At the same time, I believe that more can be done to equip troops with the information they need, before wasting their time, and the CF's as well. Yes, I know the recruiters have quotas and they are good at what they do, but for the generation that learns of the military through movies, we are giving people the wrong impressions.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (29 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Not to mention a cousin with a Mig...oh yeah, and he heroically pulled someone out of a burning Iltis, in turn getting 3rd degree burns to his forehead, which oddly enough resembled a Wasaga sunburn...   :



sounds like a certain someone I know from charlie company....    ;D
Gayson, dont forget that his mom is a Vietnam AND Kuwait veteren who sustained a grenade attack and to this day has shrapnel imbedded in her thigh. Or that his house collapsed while we were in meaford due to rain.

I think the funniest was "For the love of god pte. Slow down" (he guns it for some reason) and all i see in my rear view mirror is this iltis leaping  4-5 feet in the air over a nice lip, only to come to a grinding hault due to the Crew Commanders hand brake. Mostly due to the fact that the CC had to get out to YAK before continueing the ride.

Dont get me wrong, I dont mind the guy, other than his comulsive lying. But the military isnt a place where people should be given a "break". You're either meant for it, or you arent. Yes, its "not nice" to tell them that their time is up and they just arent cut out for it, but then again, who the heck signed up for a "nice" Army anyways? 

I've passed up Ex's, partially due to the fact that certain members were going to be in my call sign (I'm not alone in this). This picture is terribly wrong, because if an individuals performance is so drastically below standard that his fellow soldiers dont even feel confident with him on Ex, how can anyone operate with them overseas? Their total disregard for their job, people around them and their performance effects everyone around them. This only leads to extremely low morale, wrong attitudes, hostility and tension.

Dont take that the wrong way, I like everyone in my regiment (to different degrees mind you), but there are a select few that in all rights should never have made it past BMQ week 1. yet they were coaxed, pushed, and practically had their hands held throughout the course. 


Rather than filling recruits heads with ideals of fast promotions, slots on JTF2, going overseas with your buddies to be a hero, or even getting drunk and having a good time, they should lean more towards the reward of hard work. Dont scare them, and tell them stories of whats to come, but make sure they are aware of the hard hard work that they are up against. Then, reinforce the fact, that all that work pays off in the end and the satisfaction of completing something in the military is rewarding in itself. Then, maybe the military will start drawing in some desirable recruits, rather than these Counter Strike Hardened kids with no grasp on reality. i think this quota attitude is whats doing the damage. Im not necessarily speaking of the Sgt's and Cpl.s that work in CFRC, Im speaking of the DND personel that draw up the recruiting, and plan the directrion that the CF will take on its recruiting campaign. truth will in most likely hood prove to be the best recruiting incentive yet.


----------



## Gayson (31 Dec 2004)

Awesome post Shortbus.

Cya at A sqn.


----------



## Love793 (31 Dec 2004)




----------



## Highland Lad (6 Jan 2005)

Quality slipping.... been there, done that, got the T-shirt (a couple, actually)


I have seen a recruit on Res crse tell the Crse WO (also the RSS WO and the Regt Recruiting O) "I just don't want to be here, John." as his excuse for sneaking out of barracks to go back to his own comfy bed (he eventually graduated the crse)


I have witnessed a candidate being jacked up for being drunk on day 2 of QL2, only to hear him tell his Sec Comd that he wasn't drunk, he had cerebral palsy(!!??!!) The same day, I witnessed another candidate being told how to properly hold a C7 rifle in the position of "At Ease", only to hear him ask "What do I do if I can't put 4 fingers along the handguards, Corporal?" (turns out he was missing his right middle finger completely and half his ring finger...)


I have been ordered to pass a candidate who not only failed to participate in the FTX, but also was responsible for a ND while acting as storesman's assistant on said FTX.


I have been investigated for harrassment of a candidate on 2 occasions that I know of. 1 told his daddy the colonel that the staff on crse forced everyone to get up at 02:00 to do laps around the barracks, that they only had 2 wool blankets apiece as bedding, and that 2 candidate rooms were missing windows - MPs actually questioned some crse staff and candidates about these allegations.


A candidate once asked me, in the middle of a lecture on Defensive ops "What if the enemies set off one of your trip flares and you don't want to shoot at them?" This one actually got me yanked out of class the next day and sat down for a lecture from the CSM about how "sarcasm is unbecoming of you as an instructor, and I don't care what you think, Pte XXX will pass this course!" (even after being arrested by the Crse WO for AWOL, this candidate was sent back to unit as a trained soldier...) (this one candidate is worth a whole month of drinking stories in the mess, with the stories of what I had to put up with... almost always answered with "you have got to be f*ckin' kidding!")


I have seen one of the best officers I've ever served with offer his commission rather than pass a few select candidates, only to be told that it was not his decision to make or to question... (they would re-take their failed PO checks at their home unit...)

AND YET,

I have personally instructed several dozen soldiers who make me proud of what I do, how I did it, and they have become not only good troops, but good friends, and guys* I would gladly lead (and in a couple of cases now, follow) anywhere, under any conditions.

Yes, the bad apples are getting through, and all too often as a result of poor screening or incompetence at CFRC or elsewhere, but the soldier coming out the other end is (mostly) equipped to do the job required. The only problem I've ever seen isn't at the instructor level, it's with the higher-ups concerned about numbers who say something along the lines of "once they get back their unit, they'll get sorted out. It's our job to teach them the skills, not to make them use the skills."

* Note that, even in today's PC army, I will use "guys" as a gender-neutral term in this case...


----------



## bhobson (6 Jan 2005)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your candid, humble opinions.

As a new recruit hopeful, I would like to respond to an item or two in this thread. 

During my interview, I was asked specifically would I be able to kill someone in the line of duty. It was laid out very clear to me. My answer was very clear that yes I could or why would I apply?

As an older fellow 43 using the minimum pt standard to myself, I met the minimum requirements upon presenting my application the recuriting proces also the process requires your signature to this fact. I surpassed those minimums during my pt test. After six months now of waiting, I still surpass those minimums but am in now way happy nor in anyway satisfied with my numbers and continually strive to do better.

I found the discussions extremely interesting and will be useful in the future.

Bob


----------



## Thompson_JM (6 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I remember what brought home the seriousness of the army on my GMT course (SYEP 1986)...
> 
> ...it sure brought home for allot of us just how serious the CF was (at that time anyway)
> 
> Slim




It Didnt Change THAT much on my QL2 (basic training) in 1999.

During our Co-op Course we had several people who near the end just stopped showing up. They were given Discharges from the CF

not the Full 5F Dishonerable Discharge but one that showed they were released for disciplinary reasons... no doubt it will still haunt them if they ever try to get into any kind of government job.. anyways, thats my story...


----------



## Ghost (7 Jan 2005)

I am embarrassed that I still am on the merit list.

It sucks that I have already failed before I even had a chance by not even getting selected the first time around.



> During my interview, I was asked specifically would I be able to kill someone in the line of duty. It was laid out very clear to me. My answer was very clear that yes I could or why would I apply?



They didn't really question me on that.
It was more you do understand that you will be requried to go to war and kill people sign here stating you do blah blah blah


----------



## marshmanguy (8 Jan 2005)

This thread has made me a little concerned.  I'm an army brat, I have many relatives that were or still are in the army, I'm in good physical condition (40 to 50 pushups) but I technically am a member of the nintendo age, despite the face i try to remain healthy.  I've never been exposed to combat of any kind.  I'm worried if I can hack it, the army is my dream and the one thing I've ever wanted to do this badly.  Also, I've been on 4 outward bound courses to date.  One was a week long winter course in Thunder Bay, and one was a roving hike with roughly 40 to 60 pounds of equipment, doing roughly 10 to 14 km a day.  Should I be worried about BMQ and SQ?  I'm not just satisfied with a pass, I want to be good at it.  What you've all said has concerned me a little about this.  What can I do to increas my exposure to the army and improve my mental and physical toughness?


----------



## Bert (8 Jan 2005)

Marhmanguy

You must understand this is a forum and inherently you'll read various opinions 
ranging from the knowledgeable to the uninformed so take it all with a grain of 
salt.  Generally an opinion is usually what somebody has when they don't
have all the fact.  If we had all the facts, then no one would need an opinion.

Having said that, physical training and maintaining a good level of fitnes is 
important for you.  

When it comes to a BMQ, SQ, and a military career, you will always do the best
you can because that is what you're going to do.  You won't need to question 
that if you maintain a positive attitude.  Thats where YOU end and the
military begins (idealistically in my opinion).

When you enroll in BMQ, you'll learn the important characteristics like teamwork,
perseverence, helping out buddy, drive and purpose, maintaining a sense of humour, 
and teamwork.  It the building blocks of a unit and a career, usuable anywhere.  My
staff in BMQ were people and role models I look up to today.

When you incorporate your attitude, the building blocks you've been taught, the
tactics/technology you've been shown, and the experiences gained, definitely
the perspective you'll have on yourself will be much different.

I'd suggest at this stage not questioning your ability as a soldier.  If the lifestyle and
opportunities interest you, then give it a try.  Others have with similar doubts,
fears, and succeeded.  After BMQ, you'll understand what I mean.


----------



## Pikache (8 Jan 2005)

"Fighting men are not made by coddling. They are made from challenges that pushes them to their limits."

I got it from a science fiction novel, yet I find it true.

I'm one of those guys who need a little bit of pressure to get that extra out of me and most of my career so far, I had NCOs who did challenge me to be the best soldier that I can be.

Yet I hear so many horror stories about terrible instructors and stupid rules and regulations that prevent NCOs from culling out the weak and push the troops so that they can be as best as they can, and should be.

Makes me want to not take PLQ. Why do a job if you can't do it properly, or take pride in it?


----------



## Bert (8 Jan 2005)

RFH, I understand where your coming from.  Yet, this opinion as its presented might 
confuse CF applicants or people considering a career.  Every era, if thats a way
to look at it, observes the next or a previous era.  No matter what, recruits 
from any era will enter the training system, fall under the CF P&Ps, complete initial 
training, get posted to a unit, and begin a career.  The "weak" and the "strong" come
out of any era. Theres alot of characteristics to consider along the way and during the 
career.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> ..........., I had NCOs who did challenge me to be the best soldier that I can be.
> 
> ...........Makes me want to not take PLQ. Why do a job if you can't do it properly, or take pride in it?



Because, if you follow the example of the NCOs who challenged and inspired you, you will challenge and inspire other soldiers like you.   The system is sometimes flawed, but, IMHO, you have a duty to take the experiences that you have and use them to motivate new members and mold new recruits. Times have changed but you can still make a difference and be proud of it.


----------



## Pikache (8 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Because, if you follow the example of the NCOs who challenged and inspired you, you will challenge and inspire other soldiers like you.  The system is sometimes flawed, but, IMHO, you have a duty to take the experiences that you have and use them to motivate new members and mold new recruits. Times have changed but you can still make a difference and be proud of it.


And I agree with you.

But I don't think I can stomach letting people who shouldn't pass graduate from courses, because I would be partly responsible for allowing those people to pass. 
What happened to 'Never Pass a Fault', eh?

Mind you, I still have not much of time in, so I shouldn't be taking PLQ. (Doesn't stop the system from sending inexperienced troops to PLQ though)


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> And I agree with you.
> 
> But I don't think I can stomach letting people who shouldn't pass graduate from courses, because I would be partly responsible for allowing those people to pass.
> What happened to 'Never Pass a Fault', eh?
> ...



And i have been in a long time so let me tell you this:

Do not be discouraged by the situation.  I have seen alot of people pass course that shouldn't have.  Thats an unfortunate reality.  But at the same time you may end up having students who start out weak but end up first rate due to the guidance you have provided. Try not to focus too much on the negatives and focus on the contribution you can make.  Sice you are new, take the time to look at your leadership and take note of what you think is good and what you think is bad. Seek out strong leaders and learn from them.  You will see what i mean.

never pass a fault ? i think it has been changed to "its our fault you passed".......lol


----------



## Highland Lad (9 Jan 2005)

aesop - I think these days, the wonderful examples we see in our political masters (and unfortunately that includes some in uniform) makes the phrase read more like "it's not my fault they passed - it's his/hers/budget/command/standards (anywhere but me)!"

"Responsibility must include equal parts authority and accountability. Without that, the word is empty of meaning." (I wish I could remember the source, but it makes very clear what's wrong in too many cases today.)


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> aesop - I think these days, the wonderful examples we see in our political masters (and unfortunately that includes some in uniform) makes the phrase read more like "it's not my fault they passed - it's his/hers/budget/command/standards (anywhere but me)!"
> 
> "Responsibility must include equal parts authority and accountability. Without that, the word is empty of meaning." (I wish I could remember the source, but it makes very clear what's wrong in too many cases today.)



I couldn't agree more !

CHIMO !


----------



## Pikache (9 Jan 2005)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> aesop - I think these days, the wonderful examples we see in our political masters (and unfortunately that includes some in uniform) makes the phrase read more like "it's not my fault they passed - it's his/hers/budget/command/standards (anywhere but me)!"
> 
> "Responsibility must include equal parts authority and accountability. Without that, the word is empty of meaning." (I wish I could remember the source, but it makes very clear what's wrong in too many cases today.)



And integrity.

CYA being too prevalent, IMO.


----------



## Gayson (10 Jan 2005)

Doing well on any course IMO requires nothing more than a good attitude.

As for the fitness standards of recruits these days, I think it should not matter how fit someone is when they join the army so long as they meet that minimal standard.  The whole point of BMQ is turn a bag-of-shit NS civvie into a working member of the military.  A  good BMQ course should have a good PT and dicipline program capable of bring a keen recruit of any level to that of a semi-well trained soldier.  Obviously a recruit who is unkeen and a bag of crap is not going to do well and their fitness good or bad won't change this.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (10 Jan 2005)

I look at Fitness Standards as a job requirement, and a display of the pride in ones job. A soldier with a low PT standard (on a personal level) is simply displaying their lack of desire to be a soldier, or at least their lack of desire to work work for it. It also proves to be an excellent way to challenge soldiers physically, and mentally. 

If someone truely wants to be a soldier, they will work for it. If they fail to meet requirements on course, its showing that they simply dont care enough to put the effort in, and therefore should be searching out a different occupation (At least on a Res level). I have very limited experience with the reg force, so I'll leave that open to those who do.


----------



## MASS (15 Jan 2005)

I Agree with a fellow member with his quote  "Just because someone enters the army weak does not mean they will be bad soldiers.  As long as recruits are presented with a solid progression in PT, and have some motivation, they will be able to reach a good level of physical fitness."   In my opinion some of you people have to wake up.  Just because you think the guy/girl beside you is a bag of sh#! does not mean that when the cr#! hits the fan this person won't be the one saving your little behind!  Remember if they can train monkeys to fly they sure the hell can train a recruit to be come a soilder.  When I was in the Army I can tell you numerous times of when somthing went bad and the preppy top shape boys ran for the barracks and the fat boy stuck around to take on the challenge and help a fellow member.  What I am trying to get at is give some of these people a chance you might be quite surprised.  (Plus what would training be without a few  S##T magnets!)
 ;D


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Jan 2005)

They get their chance.  That's what basic training is for.  The problem now is that as the standards get lower and lower, we get more and more people making it through the system who should have been booted out.  So when do you stop "giving them a chance"?  When their incompetence or inabilities get themselves or someone else killed?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (16 Jan 2005)

MASS, with that ideal in mind, why even have a selection process? The point is, if a soldier works to be better, then in my mind there is no problem. the issue is, those that either refuse to admit their faults and improve, or just simply dont want to improve and coast by. When sh*t hits the fan, id much rather be sitting with the guy who has proven himself and taken the opprotunites to show that he cares about his job, rather than the one who never seemed to care from the beginning.

I've only been in for a year, and so far when things got rough, the ones whom never put in effort, ended up being the ones to cop out. Those that worked hard on their courses, seemed to carry the load much better than those that slacked.


----------



## Bert (16 Jan 2005)

After reading the last few posts, it seems all are saying the same thing.   Drive and
perseverence.   I think thats basically understood.

To take what 48Highlander wrote a bit further, BMQ is an introduction to military life,
to learn military knowledge and prinicples and it takes mental, emotional, and physical 
challenges to make the recruit understand.   During the course, the recruit 
reflects on experiences, thus the weeding out process begins or uses drive and 
perseverence (amoung other things) to continue on and succeed.

In my opinion, BMQ is a 10 week course at the beginning of a career and qualifies the 
recruit for absolutely nothing, other than introductory concepts, skills, and the 
understanding of teamwork, cohesion, drive and perseverence.   These concepts
are vitally important to getting jobs done later in a career.

The recruit goes on to trades training and eventually becomes or is posted to his/her unit.
In my opinion again, this is the beginning of where one's true colors come out.   In
active service, the member has to perform the job on-base, tasked or deployed, work 
with others and the chain of command, work as an individual, a section, a unit and put 
to use the skills and knowledge gained from the past.   Having observed this, you get all 
kinds.   Its too easy to become arrogant and crap on others.

In my unit, we have a great and solid chain of command.     I'm proud to be a part of
it.   Members that forget the experiences of teamwork, perseverence, and drive or may
be under fitness standards, are known and sorted out fairly.   Its here I think individual 
issues should get sorted out by the unit and it works here.   I can't speak for other 
Reg or Res units or bases.


----------



## Bucksnort (30 Jan 2005)

Also has to do with todays rights.


----------



## DFW2T (30 Jan 2005)

CFN. Orange said:
			
		

> Just seems like some slack troops with a lack of drive, that also possibly of being misinformed before signing on the dotted line. Not everyone is cut out for it. Its unfortunate they had to find that out on course. I remember on my bmq we lost 5 from my section alone. 1 because he thought he would be able to handle using a gun, and after finally being able to hold one and complete the pwt, he realized that he couldn't and left. we had 2 people leave with broken bones sustained during their own time. 1 Left because there was a family issue in regards to the family being from iran and they didn't agree with what was going on overseas. There are added pressures between the army and home life that can play on people. I think i remember our instructor saying 1 in about 7 dont finish their bmq. either from failing a test over and over or just leaving.
> [ /quote]
> Hey CFN... I concur
> Not to sound like  "one that knows it all"  but I gotta say....nowadays it seems people are enlisting and think the whole F'n military owes them SOMETHING FOR SIGNING ....meaning..... so what if I can't do the push ups ....I'm here aren't I??....
> ...


----------



## Island Ryhno (30 Jan 2005)

I find that most of the posts associate poor fitness with a poor recruit. This is not always the case, I'm a big guy, I run the 2.4 like I have three legs, I've been running for years, it's not my thing, I'm not good at it, some people aren't. I can throw around a ruck like a pillow, some of the guys who run 10k 3 times a week can't lift the F**ker. I have a friend who runs 10k 4 or 5 times a week, can do pushups something fierce and has a 6 pack of abs (mine are more like a keg  :'() he dropped out of infantry training because he couldn't do the ruck marches, I didn't. I think physical fitness is important, but it is not the most important thing. When was the last time anyone here in the infantry ran 8k in combat? I think if the person has reasonable fitness levels but is great with the PO's and EO's then that makes them a good soldier.I would personally rather have someone who knows how to handle a C7 properly next to me than the stud who can run like the wind and pushup like he was humpin' Betty Lou back home but don't know shit about shit. Just MHO.


----------



## Hutch (30 Jan 2005)

Now I'm really late to this topic, I apologize, but I got to page 3 and I had to put somthing in, yes yes I should of read all then, but here are my cents in, I can't hold it in any longer.

Forgive my chopieness, my english is horriable.

I am dubbed the ninatedo generation. I have never owned, a game conseul, now computer, thats another story. Anyways to the point. 

I should state this now, my BMQ starts this friday. So I have no expiernce, and for all you care my words could mean nothing.

I picture myself an "average" recruit. I can do 20 push ups, a whole heck a lot of sit ups. Well Ill sum up my physical shape. Arms are weak as all h*ll, very little muscle. Lower body and mid body, strong, quite above average. In this way, I am not average, but bare with me.

What is a good recruit? Somone who enters BMQ that can do 50 proper push ups? Then how come they set the minium to 19? You complain about the poor quality of the recruits. What do you expect from your recruits? Lets face it, if you are going to get a recruit from the age of 17-20 you are most likely going to get somone who cannot do 50 push ups, maybe 25, therare obvousily expections. I look around my high-school and I talk to my friends about joining the army. I tell them the min. Maybe one of them can do 5 push ups. I don't hang around with a "weak" bunch, but a very (again that word) "average" bunch. 

And now out of curosity, you as a instuctor, what are you looking for? Intelligence, somone who shuts up and gives you answer you want, or the right one? Strength? 

I again forgive the chopieness and probally the lack of chorience, and point, but I had to say somthing.


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Feb 2005)

Hutch said:
			
		

> What is a good recruit? Somone who enters BMQ that can do 50 proper push ups? Then how come they set the minium to 19?



That's part of the problem.  As far as I know, some 20-30 years ago the standard was 60 pushups.  That's why you get called the "nintendo generation".  I got the same label when I joined.  Not because you yourself are exceptionaly weak, but because people in general these days tend to be weaker/more out of shape.



			
				Hutch said:
			
		

> And now out of curosity, you as a instuctor, what are you looking for? Intelligence, somone who shuts up and gives you answer you want, or the right one?



The answer I want IS the right one.  If I ask you a question, I don't particularily give a damn what you think the right answer is.  Any answer other than what I want is wrong.  You'd better learn that if you hope to pass your course.


----------



## 2FERSapper (2 Feb 2005)

why is the standard 19 for when ppl join. B/c noone would pass if it was 50. Put to 25 and i bet youd lose about 10-15% of the ppl who show up to BMQ's. And its not so much the lack of physical fitness preparidness as much as it is the lack of pyschological readiness and a proper commitment. People join the army as if its something as trivial as joining a club in highschool. its a serious orginization your joining and yet ppl dont do the proper research before they join. thats why on my inital comment i place blame on both the recruits themsleves and also recruiters who obviously are not attempting to correct the recruits or possible recruits misconceptions of what the military is all about.


----------



## ab136 (2 Feb 2005)

This is the kind of career where minimum will get you in but I don't think minimum should keep you there.  I was going to say that the minimums should be weeded out though Basic but....your right 2FERSapper, the recruiters should be doing that at the start.  You have to be prepared.  When I did my fit test the guy before me could not do his push-ups...not even close; so why show up if you can't do it?


----------



## Butters (2 Feb 2005)

Wow...

On my PT I hit 21 push-ups and the guy said ok, stop good enough... I would have only been able to maybe do a  few more. Sit ups i did 43 in 1 minute, and running... well I run 5KM 3X a week. I think i'm farily fit and ready for my BMQ that begins in 2 days. Push-ups have never been my thing. I'm really mentaly and pyshically fit... I honestly hope I do not get weeded out due to my poor push-ups. I don't see myself giving up either.



> When I had my interview one guy showed up in sweatpants and another thought it was wrong that she had to wait 30 minutes to have her interview; so she left.


Wow that's just a joke. When I went in for my interview I also had my medical on the same day. I completed my medical first and had to wait 2 HOURS! Then the Capt. that was going to interview me said he had to re-scheduale me because he was busy, I said no problem whenever your ready im ready. The following Tuesday I came in for my interview. People that do that crap need to be put on a blacklist or somthing from re-applying. Why leave after 30minutes? But yet have the balls to show up in jogging pants?

As for the nintendo generation...
When I was like 10-13 I played nintendo like a mad man, but when I hit 13 i realized wtf this crap is gay. I hardly even get on a console anymore, unless i'm at someone's house and it's already on and I need to wait for them to get ready. I personally hate all console systems and find them to be a waste of money.

not kill anyone!?!?!?!
What the heck did they think they give you a gun for? For a nice modeling pose if you happen to walk past someone with a camera? Maybe when they apply and have no CF history be forced to read a book or somthing with the history of Canada's Military. Then maybe some people will realize what it's all about. Then to make sure they got the understanding, make another part of the whole process at the RC a test on the book/hand out you read. and the recurits would have to score above 85% on it.


----------



## Love793 (2 Feb 2005)

Remember, the PT standard is a CF wide thing.  A RMS Clerk in Cold Lake, does not require the upper body strength of a Sapper in Petawawa.  Every one who is qualified in their trade knows the physical requirements of their trade.  Do I as a tanker require to be able to run for prolong distance, probably not.  Do I need the upper strength more than the infantry guy does, possibly.  Just because a candidate does not meet your expectations, day one of a course is NOT a reason look down upon him/her.  Actually, I believe it's a reason for the instructor to build that person up.  Spend less time bitching about the quality of the civie you're turning into a warrior, and more time molding him/her into one.  The worst thing any instructor can be asked, is "Did you train that F*cking Moron?"


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Feb 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> Remember, the PT standard is a CF wide thing.   A RMS Clerk in Cold Lake, does not require the upper body strength of a Sapper in Petawawa.   Every one who is qualified in their trade knows the physical requirements of their trade.   Do I as a tanker require to be able to run for prolong distance, probably not.



Everyone's a rifleman first.


----------



## Love793 (2 Feb 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Everyone's a rifleman first.



You're right, every one is a required to qualify yearly, to be able to defend them selve if push comes to shove.  However, not everyone is required to serve within a inf pl.  Everyones job has a different physical requirement.


----------



## x-grunt (2 Feb 2005)

I don't think recruits are necessarily all that different now. I was a recruit course instructor back in '80. Maybe people are generally a bit less fit, but then again I see a lot of fit young men and women around too. I think   *drive and motivation* are more important then intial fitness. Given a person who can do 50 pushups and does 50, or someone who struggles with 20 and works like a demon to push out 21, l'd give higher regard to the latter. He/she is demonstrating drive and endurance that will stand them in good stead when they're bagged out and have to perform past their comfort zone.

However, graduating from basic with just the minimum fitness level isn't okay. Does that happen? I could see it might in the new part-time militia BMQ. Training from recruit to infantry qual in the militia used to be one full time commitment and the instructors could push people to drive the bod and get fit. 

Those of you who are currently involved as BMQ instructors, how do you find the part-time format as far as quality of training and fitness?


----------



## Bert (2 Feb 2005)

48th has a point that everyone is a soldier first, MOC second.   Whether your Army, Air Force, or Navy, the
member requires the training and the ability to meet the enemy in their respective elemental situations.
However, the training, context, and day to day on-the-job activities are much different between the
elements and you cannnot equate the combat readiness or fitness of an infantry soldier and a
series 500 airman as an example.   Day to day work is so much different too.

I don't really understand why recruit fitness is such a big issue.   On my basic, there was a recruit who could do
nearly 75 push-ups and he almost didn't finish the course for various reasons.   Push-ups, in and of itself,
doesn't make a soldier.   Perhaps 48th there may be an issue of training between reg force and res but guys on my
BMQ got ramped up pretty good in PPCLI and RCR.

Also, PT fter BMQ/trades training changes at the first posting.   This is more reg force but may apply at some
level to res.   The CF states a minimum fitness standard each member must achieve.   The unit the member is
attached may have their own fitness "standards" and training.   My unit performs regular ruck marches in addition to
standard PT and occasional readiness courses.   Those that have difficulty keeping up attend additional PT classes 
or training on their own.    The unit training builds cohesion, increases our fitness readiness, and sets a fitness s
tandard as defined by our WO.   I've found different units on the base have their own methods.   

In my opinion its not useful complaining about BMQ and recruits.   At this stage their level of knowledge and
readiness whether they can do 30 or 298 push-ups isn't important.   I'm generalizing all elements.   Once
they get to their respective elements, bases, units, and sections, the standards for readiness, training, and 
operations may change significantly and I find alot of opporunity to maintain and improve members rests 
with the units themselves.


----------



## Love793 (2 Feb 2005)

Bert,  Exactly what I was trying to vocalise.


----------



## 2FERSapper (3 Feb 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> Remember, the PT standard is a CF wide thing.   A RMS Clerk in Cold Lake, does not require the upper body strength of a Sapper in Petawawa.   Every one who is qualified in their trade knows the physical requirements of their trade.   Do I as a tanker require to be able to run for prolong distance, probably not.   Do I need the upper strength more than the infantry guy does, possibly.   Just because a candidate does not meet your expectations, day one of a course is NOT a reason look down upon him/her.   Actually, I believe it's a reason for the instructor to build that person up.   Spend less time bitching about the quality of the civie you're turning into a warrior, and more time molding him/her into one.   The worst thing any instructor can be asked, is "Did you train that F*cking Moron?"


no thats not the point im trying to get across here love793. Although part of my point is about how recruits are not physically ready for course my main point apon starting this thread was that candidates(not all but most) are showing up without any serious understand of what they are getting themselves into. They watch on tv and movies glory and guts and join the army with misconceptions of what they are getting into. i had so many candidates quit BMQ b/c it wasnt what they expected. they expected to be getting to machien guns and rocket launchers right away. "why do we waste time getting taugh all this stuff" or " i didnt think id have to do this kinda stuff", or having candidates cry when recieving their weapons for the first time and being told by me they would  b in a world of sh*t if they pointed it at anyone while waiting to b marched over to their safety handeling class b/c its a weapon and its made to kill. I mean i had 3 candidates try to quit b/c i told them the purpose of the weapon is to kill so dont point it at anyone unless you intend to use the weapon and its use is to kill. 3 crying troops who wanted to QUIT b/c they didnt realize they would have to be trained how to use a weapon to kill. I mean. do research before you go and join the army. you do reasearch before you choose a car your going to buy, or the university or college your going to go to, or what company your going to use as your cell phone provider. but when it comes to joining the army it doesnt require that much though. I dono im done my rant. basicly its not just the lack of physical fitness(and not just the first weekend i mean the overlack of the troops doing pt at home between course weekends) but moreso the lack of commitment and serious consideration before joining the army


----------



## Love793 (3 Feb 2005)

2FER,

I know what point you where trying to make.  I was starting to see some shirking from others in our instructor role, and tried to re aim them towards the final goal.


----------



## 2FERSapper (3 Feb 2005)

ah well mistook the msg to be direct to me my bad


----------



## Love793 (3 Feb 2005)

2FERSapper said:
			
		

> ah well mistook the msg to be direct to me my bad



Ishould have reworded it.  Unfortunately, I was working on 4 things at once.  Probably my bad.


----------



## marshmanguy (7 Feb 2005)

"A RMS Clerk in Cold Lake, does not require the upper body strength of a Sapper in Petawawa"

That same clerk in Afghanistan should have a high physical standard cuz what if the Al Queda grew a pair and decided to take on our base in Kabul or something, I'm sure he wouldn't remain behind his desk and continue typing, hell no, he'd grab a freakin' weapon, go out and suddenly he's a rifleman with needs for physical fitness.  PT is required by all in the CF, I admit some more than others but it should be over and above the average citizen.  The "YOUR ARE A RIFLEMAN FIRST" is really being driven into us on BMQ with good reason.

By the way, how badly does a recruit need to screw up to be kicked off?


----------



## Pyromechanica (8 Feb 2005)

marshmanguy said:
			
		

> By the way, how badly does a recruit need to screw up to be kicked off?



One guy in my section got pissed off at an instructor one day and threw his bayonet shealth at him. LOL oh was he grilled.

But he's still on the course right now.

They don't try to fail you purposely. remember that.


----------



## marshmanguy (8 Feb 2005)

Your probably one my course cuz there was a guy who did the same thing.  Did the same guy cause the entire platoon to be woken up cuz he thought he lost a mag then found it?


----------



## Bert (8 Feb 2005)

Marshmanguy

" The "YOUR ARE A RIFLEMAN FIRST" is really being driven into us on BMQ with good reason."


The context that you decribe is quite true and has been debated in other threads.   After BMQ,
members continue on with elemental trade training and career path.

I am not in complete disagreement with you, but you may need to get more experience in the
wider Forces before judging or generalizing other members, their capabilities, and the support
of elemental "pointy ends".

The army, air force, and navy tailor training in their own ways.   The air force and navy do not
provide an SQ and members of these elements do not get the same level of combat
readiness training, tactical instruction, or weapon(s) familiarity as army, and especially the combat
arms.   Day to day activities differ as well.  Pre-deployment and in-theatre training may
give air/navy personnel more land familiarization.

Equating the personal combat capabilities of an air RMS clerk, a navy NET and an infantry soldier 
(premier rifleman) as examples is silly.   However, all members need and are at least provided with 
the basic readiness skills and continuing training to defend their respective elemental locations.


----------



## Pyromechanica (9 Feb 2005)

marshmanguy said:
			
		

> Your probably one my course cuz there was a guy who did the same thing.   Did the same guy cause the entire platoon to be woken up cuz he thought he lost a mag then found it?



Yo lol yeah I think so. That guy was in my section.

I'm section 2, what section are you?

PM.


----------



## marshmanguy (10 Feb 2005)

3 section.  

"I am not in complete disagreement with you, but you may need to get more experience in the
wider Forces before judging or generalizing other members, their capabilities, and the support
of elemental "pointy ends"."

I understand, I'm just trying to point out that military persons are held and should hold themselves to higher standards.  Being a clerk isn't really an excuse.  Also, my being a reservist, myself and other come into contact with the public more often than most and we must present ourselves well.  One way of presenting outselves well is with physical fitness, another is uniform, another is conduct, etc but PT is part of it.  Otherwise ya, there's really no need for a clerk to be in the same shape as a JTF assaulter, it's just not effiecient but they should not be out of shape either.  

The Afghanistan scenario I mentioned is really bizarre and probably wouldn't happen, just using it to enfore a point.


----------



## Bert (11 Feb 2005)

I understand.  Maybe the clarification should be made between physical fitness (PT) and
combat fitness (relative personal combat readiness and conditioning).   The air force is
ramping up PT with emphasis on what we call "land training" and collective unit training.
Its not bad, great for unit cohesion, but still nothing like combat arms perform.  Personally,
I'd love to go on an SQ.  Unfortunately, being air force, I'd never get to use most of
the knowledge in my regular day to day job.  Combat readiness as the combat arms perform 
takes knowledge and the continual practice of that knowledge to perfect the skills.  Air force 
and navy generally focus skills and training in other areas and wouldn't match the personal combat
readiness of the army.


----------



## captain_donut (4 Mar 2005)

Its not just them being out of shape, im a new recruit myself(half way done my BMQ)  doing my but when i'm working i work my @$$ off...however theres alot of recruits in my group that just dont give a $|-|1+. while im running my @$$ from my cot to the bathroom to clean it. the only time they care is when course senior responsibility is given to them. at A coy 1RNBR we were named the laziest class ever...and its a shame cuz of a few morons cant clean their rifle and stuff before going to bed or after breakfast


----------



## ab136 (4 Mar 2005)

Wow that's tough.  It seems like it might be taking the fun out of for you.  I hope not because from what I have read here it should be a very hard but enjoyable time.  Hope things turn around for you


----------

