# Reserve DP2A / IPSWQ



## Baloo (7 Mar 2005)

Just finished this weekend. It was a good go, with a lot of valuable information being transferred to the candidates, and the staff being exceptionally well read in their drills and knowledge. The final day of firing, on Saturday, was a total of 14 hours on the C6 ranges (Caen) at Meaford. We had about 40,000 rounds of 7.62 and 4,000 of .50 Cal ammunition that we used (the Reg Force Warrant on the course was able to get a couple .50s and Reg Force weapon techs in on the course to keep them going, and let us fire a couple hundred rounds each). It was one of the single greatest days I have had in the army. Overall though, I find that there is a definite weakness in this course. A lack of time and resources contributes to an overall VERY diluted course. Half of the time, or close to it, was devoted to C7 and C9 coaching. I am not saying that it is not important or practical, in fact quite the opposite. But on a course which is supposed to be "support weapons" and labeled a machine gunner's course, it was disappointing in that respect. Would we not all be better served if the coaching was taught either on the PLQ? Strip away that fat, and you are left with valuable time to conduct 60mm mortar, 84mm SRAAW and other PLATOON SUPPORT WEAPONS. I find it unbelievable that on a course of this nature, it is confined to C7 and C9 coaching, 9mm pistol and C6 in the SF role. What about the light role? What about the mortars? Nothing on anti-armour. Seeing as these have been greatly removed or taken out completely of BIQ, I fail to see the logic in properly teaching members the skills on these weapons. The vast majority of members have never handled an 84mm outside of the PO checks, much less fired one. These are all skills that are not being utilized or are being wasted. This a major concern. This leaves with too few troops knowing about anti-armour or the wide vairety of support weapons that are actually available. The coaching is crtiical to know, but should be kept to the PLQ course. I know that many other staff members and candidates felt the same way. I am unsure of Reg Force IPSWQ for the most part, but know that it entails much more, and the Eryx. I realize that we are not going to simply be able to acquire the necessary amounts of money for that, but we need to look beyond monetary assets when it comes to training of this nature.

Oh, well, that's what I have to say. Anyone else care to chime in?


----------



## Rfn (7 Mar 2005)

Hello Baloo,

Congratulations on finishing the IPWSQ. I think it's an awesome course and was much needed in the inf.

I agree with many of your points. I dont agree with the coaching portion being too long, but I DO agree that it maybe should be restricted to PLQ Mod 3.

By the way, did you find a learning gap between the SQ and IPSWQ on the C6? What I mean is, The C6 portion on SQ is all light role, then on the range shoot you fire a 100 rnd introductory shoot. But on IPWSQ it is SF role, and the range is Range Shoot 7-12 (Sustained fire, from the C6 pam), without doing Range Shoot 1-6 (light role) first.

Did you have any trouble going from what you learned on SQ to where you started on IPWSQ?

As for the mortar, you are right, its an important skill, but it has been deemed as 'supplementry,' meaning that it will only be taught to reg force.

84mm: Done on SQ, but I believe it was removed??


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Mar 2005)

I definetly though the course was lacking in terms of actually teach platoon support weapon stuff.  Considering I went through QL2/3 (an experimental combined version at that too).  I have never fired an 84, (although I have learned the drills, somewhat), and I didn't take the old QL4 gunners course.  So I  (and few other people on my course as well) were a bit behind when it came to stuff that we were supposed to have learned on SQ  :.  Another example of shortchanging people because "there isn't enough time".


----------



## Pikache (8 Mar 2005)

I disagree on the coaching part to be left to PLQ.

For all you know, you may be in a situation where you have to be a gun commander, even if you're guiding a C9 who is your fireteam partner. You may end up being in a situation where you're number 2 on a C6 and your wpns det comd is not there, so you're the one guiding the C6.

It also help privates and corporals to think in terms of leadership little by little, and prepare them to take the next stage of their progression.


----------



## Rfn (8 Mar 2005)

RHF:

I feel the coaching part _must_ be in the PLQ, because its not only infantry that must be skilled in coaching a battle shot. That must be a skill common to every NCO that has any business calling himself Army.


> For all you know, you may be in a situation where you have to be a gun commander, even if you're guiding a C9 who is your fireteam partner. You may end up being in a situation where you're number 2 on a C6 and your wpns det comd is not there, so you're the one guiding the C6



Good point, but that is a PO check for the Inf 2i/c's course.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (8 Mar 2005)

It is sort of part of the PLQ. You should know how to adjust your own sight to bring yourself on target if you are on your PLQ. We spent alot of the MOD 3 doing marksmanship principles.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Mar 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> I disagree on the coaching part to be left to PLQ.
> 
> For all you know, you may be in a situation where you have to be a gun commander, even if you're guiding a C9 who is your fireteam partner. You may end up being in a situation where you're number 2 on a C6 and your wpns det comd is not there, so you're the one guiding the C6.
> 
> It also help privates and corporals to think in terms of leadership little by little, and prepare them to take the next stage of their progression.




eh.....coaching and being a gun commander are two entirely different things.  Coaching is conducted only on ranges.  I somehow doubt that you'll be attempting to bring your C9 gunners MPI onto the CZP while you've got hostile fire flying over your heads.

  That being said, coaching SHOULD be on the IPSWC (DP2A) for two reasons:

1)  Knowing how to coach automaticaly improves your understanding of proper firing techniques.  Anyone completing the IPSWC ispretty much gauranteed to become a better shot.
2)  Having all corporals be qualified coaches is a huge asset in training new privates.  If each firer can have his/her own coach, their marksmanship should also improve greatly.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Mar 2005)

But how many of those corporals actually retain the coaching info, or actually get to use it is another story.  As someone who took the old QL4 gunner (back with the 50),  and as someone who taught on the DP2A (mine   ) what do you think is more beneficial? Leaving the coaching part to the PLQ and concentrating on Platoon Support Weapons, or eating up time with teaching coaching techniques in such a hurried and half-assed manner the you barely remember the stuff two weeks down the road.  And/or you get people who never absorbed the info, and in all honesty they should not be employed as coach for various reason (You know what I talking about).  As I did not have the benefit of an SQ course (like many other cpls out there), I would have much perfereed the course focus on Platoon Weapons.


----------



## Standards (14 Mar 2005)

Good discussion, hopefully feedback was provided via the ECR about how some of the courses went.  A few points to put things in perspective:

Coaching during PLQ(L) consists of 1 x 40 min class of instruction and practice during the Conventional Range Practice (out of a two day course).  Therefore it's basically an introduction to the subject.

Coaching during the IPSW course (PO 204) consists of 5.7 days (out of 11.8 days PRes, 23.7 days Reg) and is allotted the pseudo code AGKS.  This means anyone who completes PO 204 is also qualified Small Arms Coach.

The IPSW course supplemental training, which the PRes does not normally complete, consists of PO 203 Fire the 60mm Mortar (2.1 days) and PO 205 Fire the SRAAW(H) (Eryx, 9.8 days).

The C-6 in the light role is taught on the SQ and is not seen again until the IPSW, therefore potentially the candidate has forgotten a lot.  Hopefully the units are providing refresher training.

The Carl Gustav is not currently part of any course.  It is therefore a unit responsibility to train their pers (otherwise they will never gain the knowledge).

Annother thing to consider, the only prerequisite for IPSW is BIQ, therefore the training audience may consist of no hook Privates as opposed to the PLQ(L) which is generally senior Corporals.

Not necessarily info that you want to hear, but it's reality (at least for the moment)


----------



## RedPheonix07 (23 Apr 2013)

I am slated for my DP2A in a few weeks in gagetown, and my course is only a week? down from 2, so does anyone know what it will consist of now that its so short? Just coaching or C6/SF Kit? Would like to know some info.


----------

