# Potential Changes to Soldier Qualification Course



## Garett (1 Apr 2005)

I'm the course officer for two Reg Force SQ courses this Spring/Summer.  I've run one Reg SQ course (Summer 04) and a bunch of Reg PLQ courses.  This past Fall some direction came down from CTC that we are to "modernize" courses.  This includes ROE's, non-Combatants on the battlefield amongst other things.

This summer I am looking into incorporating:

-Vehicle Check Points
-Convoy Ops (reaction to contact / ambush)
-Urban Ops / Room Clearing (w/Simunition if they'll give it to me)
-Cordon and Search
-Lessons on: Guerrilla / Insurgency / 4th Generation Warfare and Manoeuvre Warfare

We already do Recce Ptls and Sect Attacks, but I want to add:

-Raid/Ambush
-Pl Hasty Attack
-Pl Deliberate Attack


One of my NCO's is an Urban Ops Instr so we aren't short on Urban Ops experience and resources.  We've got 5000 Simunition rounds to burn on Tuesday so I think I could get it for the course.  We also just for four extendable ladders and four breaching kits for Urban Ops.  

I do need more resources on Convoy Ops, VCP's and Cordon and Search.  If anyone has access to any Lessons Learned or TTP type document, my e-mail is garett.hallman@gmail.com

Also, if you think anything else should be covered on the SQ course post it on here or send me an e-mail at the above address.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (1 Apr 2005)

I like your ideas, just a few thoughts


> -Raid/Ambush
> -Pl Hasty Attack
> -Pl Deliberate Attack


Is this not more infantry based, and thus covered on the BIQ?

Now with the VCP, urban ops and FIBUA type stuff, i agree that it should be reincorporated into the training. It may be on teh reg BIQ, but when I did my courses(res) there was no FIBUA.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (1 Apr 2005)

Just  be sure you don't go too far out of whack with the 'official' training the troops will get on their BIQ eg. PO's / EO's. Something young troopies tend to do is say things like 'thats not how we were taught it on my other course'.......Thats a surefire way to piss off an instructor on a BIQ, especially when it's an SQ course, not a BIQ........My advice would be to give them some 'extra instruction' but make sure they all understand that they'll likely be taught different things on their BIQ's......

Some might even argue that the time spent in SQ isn't sufficient enough to properly teach the course content. Maybe hit up your PL WO and Sect Comdr's for their thoughts on the ideas.

Good luck, and please let us know how it goes. Innovative and creative extra training is always a good motivator for the youngn's.


----------



## Kal (1 Apr 2005)

Some excellent ideas, I wish even a couple of those 'modern' subjects were covered on my SQ.  As to a difference in training procedures and concepts, I say, teach them both.  That way some things may better with one one concept, but some better with the other, and it allows for the better parts to be adopted into one platform when it comes time to use it.


----------



## Garett (1 Apr 2005)

All the troops on the course are Reg Force, non-Infantry.  It is possible that the only time in their career that they will be exposed to this kind of training is on the SQ course.

I understand that, that is a lot of material to cover but really there is lots of time on the 7 week course to cover it.  For example, at the C-7 range the targets are automated so the troops who aren't firing are not "in the butts".  Some of the above material can be covered as background activity.

Also, the SQ Training Plan does not really give a lot of direction for the 4 1/2 day FTX.  Last summer we did it in a defensive context, this year I want to focus on a different task/operation every day.  The only mandated training is that the troops participate in is one Section Attack, one Recce Ptl and in a defensive occupation with some routine thrown in there.  That can be done in a day leaving 3 1/2 for other activities.


As far as the 'thats not how we were taught it on my other course' deal,  NCM/NCO's in general tend to be closed minded about doing something a different way then they initially trained.  It is difficult to break that mindset and explain to them that doctrine puts everyone on the same page, but a commander has the freedom to accomplish a mission the way they see fit.


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/B-GL-383/002/PT-019/B-GL-383-002-PT-019.pdf

Above is the link for Cbt Svc Sup Battle Task Stds:

Look at the fun you can have!

Bts
L (for logistics) 5006 B/C: React to Ambush

L 4001B/C: Attack

L 4101C/D: Defend

PM me for more info.

Tom

L 4391 B: Recce of New Loc

3004 B/C: Conduct a Dismounted Recce Ptl

6004 C/D: Handle POWs/Detainees


----------



## McG (3 Apr 2005)

Garett Hallman said:
			
		

> This past Fall some direction came down from CTC that we are to "modernize" courses.


Any significant changes to a course should come down through a new CTP (which itself may be the result of a new OSQ).  Directing a course to reinvent itself is an invitation for nightmares with standards.


----------



## Garett (3 Apr 2005)

When it comes to courses where the candidates are assessed on a number of things (ie. PLQ), we aren't changing much except the scenarios the exercises are based on.

When it comes to courses where the students are there to learn skills, we aren't going to wait for the system to catch up to current requirements.  We know what we need to do and we're going to do it....and LFDTS supports it.

Heres a good quote from the Inf Corp update that basically spells out what I'm trying to explain.

"The Infantry School like other training establishments will not have the luxury to wait for the delivery of new equipment or for doctrine to mature.  The Infantry School must consider what we can inject into our training curriculum now to assist our Army and the Infantry Corps in the transformation process."


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (3 Apr 2005)

I would have killed for extra training like that on my SQ. (Anything over the power-point week of death). As stadards kept informing us, though "this is not an infantry course".

We get alot of that stuff in coy trg, at least.


----------



## Standards (4 Apr 2005)

This appears to be a total nightmare in the making.  While I can certainly appreciate that courseware does not get updated fast enough to suit the users (having been on the user end for many years), it is still not appropriate to reinvent the wheel.

The TP exists as the guideline for the conduct of the course.  The times allotted certain subjects may sometimes be excessive, but that all depends on the group of students.  Some absorb material faster then others.  Therefore, you may sometimes find a subject has been finished with time remaining, but occasionally you will need more time to cover the topic sufficiently that all the students have a complete understanding.  Deciding to re-allocate periods to suit your own agenda is professionally and morally wrong.

I am not disputing that teaching the additional material would be nice and that many of the students would benefit from it.  However, as soon as a student fails something because insufficient time was allotted in order to fit in other subjects, it becomes your fault.  It also leaves you open to redresses (not to mention an SI in a worse case scenario).

This was some of my initial thoughts.  I will save the rest for next week at the Army Standards Working Group.


----------



## Pikache (4 Apr 2005)

I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?


----------



## McG (4 Apr 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Directing a course to reinvent itself is an invitation for nightmares with standards.





			
				Standards said:
			
		

> This appears to be a total nightmare in the making.


Well, that was a bit more literal than I expected.

Realistically though, if the Army does not want to wait to produce a new CTP, then at the very least there should be one central authority directing what deviations all courses will take from the approved CTP.   This should not be done at the course staff level.


----------



## Garett (4 Apr 2005)

> Deciding to re-allocate periods to suit your own agenda is professionally and morally wrong.



This is something that is being pushed down from higher, if I had the directive from CTC I'd post it but its on my computer in my office.  Part of the problem is that dirrections are being issued but they're open to interpretation, so you don't get standardized training which is an issue.  Also, its up to the instructors at the Pl and Sect level to track down the resources for the training (ie. new Urban Ops Instr courseware, TTP's and Lessons Learned out of Iraq etc...)



> The TP exists as the guideline for the conduct of the course.



Having run a Reg Force SQ, if the Ex's are run as per the optimum timetable, training time is wasted and the students would get more out of standing around with their thumbs up their asses'.  As professional trainers, we ensure that all material in the TP is covered to a high standard.  Then when there is time left over we add in training that we think the troops would benefit from.

I, and the majority of officers and NCO's I work with, believe the system sucks when it comes to modernizing and keeping up with the times, it doesn't work and you're not properly doing your job if you don't activly find ways to improve and add to the training.

The below link is to an article with a bit about SQ and PLQ modernization at AATC.  BGen Michael Ward, Comd (LFDTS) didn't have a problem with what we're doing so I'm pretty confident we aren't wandering down the wrong road.  It would be nice if there were more road signs though, it would make my job a lot easier.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lfaa_hq/news_desk/modern.htm


----------



## TCBF (4 Apr 2005)

"I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?"

See my above llink. ATTACK nand DEFEND are Combat Service Support Battle Task Standards.

I have BTS I am responsible to be able to do that I think I may never use, but that does NOT eliminate my responsibility for being able to perform them when needed.

As for the posts of "Standards".   You are correct, but the issue here is the BTS to be followed on a Crse with CSS students.   If the TS/TP do not specify the BTS to be followed in the field, using the CSS BTS for a CSS student load may be possible. 

Tom


----------



## kilekaldar (5 Apr 2005)

"-Vehicle Check Points
-Convoy Ops (reaction to contact / ambush)
-Urban Ops / Room Clearing (w/Simunition if they'll give it to me)
-Cordon and Search
-Lessons on: Guerrilla / Insurgency / 4th Generation Warfare and Manoeuvre Warfare"


Sounds GREAT!   ;D

Speaking as one of several new privates that I know in a support trade posted to a field support unit(and lacking SQ) this is greatly encouraging, catering exactly to our needs. Considering that we're expected to take part in defending our locations/convoys yet receive zero training in the required skills until pre-deployment work-up, such a course would exellent, saving us from having to start from scratch when getting ready for a roto. Or heaven forbid leaving on a emergency with little warning.

Wow, just when you think your about to be thrown to the wolves with a pointy stick, the army hands you a C7. I'm in shock.  

As for the comment of

"I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?"

I disagree strongly, it's highly like that any enemy we might face will be in a guerilla force practicing asymetrical warfare in a low-intensity conflict. That said they will no doubt follow act the part, and strike where they believe is the point of least resistance, affording them the best chance for maximum damage, and the minimal cassualties with good chance of escape. 
"Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the low lands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness." 
i.e. they hit the support trades who have soft skinned vehicles with light weapons. Being trained from the enemy's POV greatly educates on how to defend against their techniques, and emparting the ability to the unit QRF to turn the tables and counter attack with the enemy's own tricks is a good way of dealing with a irregular force.

As I recall from "The Other Side Of The Mountain" by Jalali and Grau the Afghani Mujahideen made an art of the hit & fade on Soviet support units, and took the most casualties when the same tactics were used on them.

Anyway, I'm just a private, so what do I know. Flame away.


----------



## TCBF (5 Apr 2005)

I met Grau at Kandahar Airfield in 2002.

Tom


----------



## kilekaldar (5 Apr 2005)

Oops, forgot to ask..

I was told recently at a briefing that SQ got canned completely because the Standards department threw a hissy fit that they where being thought differently from base to base, and now it's being tacked on as 2 extra weeks at the end of BMQ. 

Which prompts a few questions   ???
1. Is this true?
2. How does this affect us posted working privates with no SQ? Are we SOL?
3. How do you take a 10(7?) week course, compress to 2 and still call it the same thing? 
4. Will it retain it's usefullness if so much material has to be glossed over or skipped?

Thanks

PS. You met Grau? Is he researching a follow on to "Other Side of The Mountain"? Sounds like a story I'd like to hear.


----------



## TCBF (5 Apr 2005)

Mr. Grau was giving us some briefings on what led up to the state of affairs in Afghanistan.  Good speaker. i think the 101st brought him over, and he toured all of the sub units, so one day he spoke to the Recce Sqn CCs.

Tom


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Apr 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?




By this logic, we could eliminate MLOC(or whatever it is this year) for all trades but Cbt Arms. This is the military, if people are doing SQ, they are army. ALl members of the army are rifleman, then they are tradesmen. Iraq is a perfect example of this, all levels of Cbt support trades were hit with ambushes, and the such. If you had all trades confident in their skills with doing battle drills(anti ambush drills, ect.), you would have not only a good security level of your rear ech, but their moral would be higher knowing that they have the knowledge and skills to deal with any threats that come their way.


----------



## Garett (5 Apr 2005)

I've heard that they're spliting up the training so that some of the SQ material is taught on the BMQ and some will be taught when you go on your trade training course.  Since non-Cbt Arms NCO's don't go on the PLQ Land course, they do CF PLQ, that should be interesting.  I doubt they're able to teach at the same level, they don't even have to pass a Wpns lecture on their CF PLQ course.


----------



## TCBF (5 Apr 2005)

"http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/B-GL-383/002/PT-019/B-GL-383-002-PT-019.pdf

Above is the link for Cbt Svc Sup Battle Task Stds: Look at the fun you can have!

BTS:
L (for logistics) 5006 B/C: React to Ambush
L 4001B/C: Attack
L 4101C/D: Defend
L 4391 B: Recce of New Loc
3004 B/C: Conduct a Dismounted Recce Ptl
6004 C/D: Handle POWs/Detainees"

As you can see, what they learn on course is irrelevant - theunits must STILL be able t accomplish BTS, as listed, including ATTACK and DEFEND, when necessary.

Tom


----------



## Pikache (5 Apr 2005)

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> I disagree strongly, it's highly like that any enemy we might face will be in a guerilla force practicing asymetrical warfare in a low-intensity conflict. That said they will no doubt follow act the part, and strike where they believe is the point of least resistance, affording them the best chance for maximum damage, and the minimal cassualties with good chance of escape.
> "Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the low lands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness."
> i.e. they hit the support trades who have soft skinned vehicles with light weapons. Being trained from the enemy's POV greatly educates on how to defend against their techniques, and emparting the ability to the unit QRF to turn the tables and counter attack with the enemy's own tricks is a good way of dealing with a irregular force.


I'm not disagreeing with teaching support trade troops anti ambush or any related drills like that. I'm questioning the use of support trades in an offensive role, such as platoon attack. Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations. (I mean no offence to support trades, but that's just not your thing, as if you guys have to do platoon attacks, something's really wrong)


----------



## kilekaldar (5 Apr 2005)

"Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations"

I don't disagree with the lack of qualified leadership(that's a seperate issue), however when a unit gets bumped, the first responders are that unit's QRF, in a support outfit that DOES mean truckers, mechanics, sig ops, etc. in an offensive role. And frankly, if a convoy or support area get's hit the best tactic is an immidiate counter-attack by the defenders. At least that's the strong impression I get from reading about other military's past experiences with guerrilas.
The fact is that there is no more 'front line', with the advent of highly mobile warfare, the practice of 'bypassing' enemy formations, the almost garanteed presence of irregular enemy troops wandering around 'secured' areas, support elements are put in the battle zone and are juicy targets BECAUSE they aren't as adept in combat. Being able to conduct limited offensives at the platoon level should be a basic requirement for self-defence.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a dumb private.


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?


The platoon attack I can understand.   I think every soldier should participate in a couple of these as part of their trg (both from the fire base and in the assault).   I don't think the CSS would have as much to gain from learning to conduct raids.

However, these conflicting views illustrate why the decision how to change a course should not be thrown off onto the course staff.   It must be a national decision.


----------



## Garett (6 Apr 2005)

The Standards guys were out at my Simunition Ex yesterday asking us about putting Urban Ops on the SQ course.  Looks like they're going to do a day of it, not enough to get good but enough to be familiar.

Raid, Ambush, Deliberate attack:  Easier to react and defend against it if you know how it works by doing it yourself.


----------



## Pikache (6 Apr 2005)

Garett Hallman said:
			
		

> Raid, Ambush, Deliberate attack:  Easier to react and defend against it if you know how it works by doing it yourself.



I'll buy that for 5 cents.


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

"I'm not disagreeing with teaching support trade troops anti ambush or any related drills like that. I'm questioning the use of support trades in an offensive role, such as platoon attack. Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations. (I mean no offence to support trades, but that's just not your thing," 

Soldier First - Tradesman Second.  But read the BTS.  That is our Doctrine.

 "if you guys have to do platoon attacks, something's really wrong)"

Battle is a series of things going wrong.  Part of our problem is that we have never suffered a defeat in depth, where we have had Corps and Army level assetts being over run, such as what happened to the US 10th Corps in Korea.  We have no concept of this.

But, BTS are BTS, read 'em.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/B-GL-383/002/PT-019/B-GL-383-002-PT-019.pdf
> 
> Above is the link for Cbt Svc Sup Battle Task Stds: Look at the fun you can have!
> 
> ...


----------

