# Any new modifications to BIQ in sight?



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

I'm wondering if anyone knows whether the reserve BIQ or perhaps SQ (or both) is in the process of modification. I remember having to redo some of the same training in BIQ as I did in SQ because the curiculum repeated myself, and now that we've started doing VCPs, C&S and urban patrols, I figure the repetition can be cut back and this stuff can be taught in basic. Anyone know?


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> ........the curiculum repeated myself, and now that we've started doing VCPs, C&S and urban patrols, I figure the repetition can be cut back and this stuff can be taught in basic. Anyone know?



You will constantly be 'learning' those things over and over again, on many more Crses.  Why?  So that you will not forget them.  So that you will know them inside and out.  It could mean your life some day.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> You will constantly be 'learning' those things over and over again, on many more Crses.  Why?  So that you will not forget them.  So that you will know them inside and out.  It could mean your life some day.



Indeed, so why not sacrifice reteaching a platoon attack 8 days after first learning it, 3 days after last doing it, and teach something that they havent seen yet, like C&S, VCP, Urban Patrols or OBUA?


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Indeed, so why not sacrifice reteaching a platoon attack 8 days after first learning it, 3 days after last doing it, and teach something that they havent seen yet, like C&S, VCP, Urban Patrols or OBUA?


same reason you do anything in stages. So they learn the basics, FIRST. It has to be instinctive before you can teach more advanced steps. Otherwise, they're drinking from a firehose, and learn exactly SFA.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

Im not talking about scrapping the basics, I'm talking about eliminating the repetition.


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

"Repetition" is one of the tools of the Education System.  That is why it is used in our Method of Instruction techniques.  You will learn this, along with all those lessons you are complaining about (yet again), on your PLQ.   ;D


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> That is why it is used in our Method of Instruction techniques.  You will learn this, along with all those lessons you are complaining about (yet again), on your PLQ.



 :


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Im not talking about scrapping the basics, I'm talking about eliminating the repetition.


repetition is how it becomes instinctive. That is why boxers throw thousands of punches before they ever enter the ring. That is why hockey players skate miles before, and after, any game.

It's called "practice".


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> repetition is how it becomes instinctive. That is why boxers throw thousands of punches before they ever enter the ring. That is why hockey players skate miles before, and after, any game.
> 
> It's called "practice".



Indeed, and thats why we train with the unit. Is the course, however, not meant to introduce recruits to the types of operations they will be doing, and to make sure they can do it?


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

I suppose we can use these posts as an example to you how 'Repetition' works.  You still don't seem to have grasped it.  And  : really doesn't reinforce your argument.  Obviously, more repetition and variance of the same theme must be employed to explain the MOI that is being emphasised by the Army in its' Training System.  As Para, pointed out, it is so that you will be able to react promptly and instinctively to Orders and Situations as they arise.  This means constant reinforcement of Drills.  Repetition is the MOI used to reinforce these reflexes.  But, I am beginning to think we may have to employ the 'Brick System' of MOI in your case.   ;D


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> As Para, pointed out, it is so that you will be able to react promptly and effectively to Orders and Situations as they arise.  This means constant reinforcement of Drills.  Repetition is the MOI used to reinforce these reflexes



Is it really that productive reteaching the theory behind a platoon attack shortly after the troops just did a platoon attack (to standards), or is it more productive to teach them how to quickly set up and do a VCP instead? I think the latter is more productive, because then they leave training with the basic knowledge of how to conduct both a platoon attack and how to set up a VCP. They will not develop their skill by listening to a lecture about platoon attacks as they would if they do a platoon attack. That time can be better spent showing them what a VCP is like, then in the field they can practice both.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2006)

So, that first time you successfully "met the standard" as a rifleman in a platoon attack, can you say you also understood it enough to be paying attention to what was going on outside the little circle of section commander's direction and your responses to understand the bigger picture?  There are few enough opportunities to teach something as complex as the team actions of 30+ soldiers responding to complex external influences (some of which obvious to the individual soldier in basic infantry training and many not so).  It is essential that we reinforce such learning to the extent that you cannot only "do" your own job, but start to understand the jobs of those around you and what they are reacting to as well.  If it happens, your second (for that matter maybe your first) real platoon attack may find you in a position which isn't a mirror of the last formal course training event you participated in.  Repetitive training lays the groundwork for a "thinking soldier" for whom the basics don't have to be closely supervised, because that thinking soldier not only "performs" but also "understands."


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> So, that first time you successfully "met the standard" as a rifleman in a platoon attack, can you say you also understood it enough to be paying attention to what was going on outside the little circle of section commander's direction and your responses to understand the bigger picture?



Actually, I did quite understand what was going on when we did the first theory class, and then further when we first did a walk through of it in the field. Thats why the theory class 3 days later was not productive, I found. Thats why I'm asking this question. Why not replace that second theory class with a theory class on something new like VCPs or C&S so that when the troops leave basic they already have a good idea of what's going on, and then back at the unit time could be spent practicing it rather than teaching it from scratch.

If someone were to teach you over and over again the theory behind a section attack, would it help you? I dont know about you, but I do know that, to me, its not something that you forget quite easily. I wont get better at a section attack by hearing the theory behind it, I'll get better by actually doing it...


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2006)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Actually, I did quite understand what was going on when we did the first theory class, and then further when we first did a walk through of it in the field. Thats why the theory class 3 days later was not productive, I found. Thats why I'm asking this question. Why not replace that second theory class with a theory class on something new like VCPs or C&S so that when the troops leave basic they already have a good idea of what's going on, and then back at the unit time could be spent practicing it rather than teaching it from scratch.
> 
> If someone were to teach you over and over again the theory behind a section attack, would it help you? I dont know about you, but I do know that, to me, its not something that you forget quite easily. I wont get better at a section attack by hearing the theory behind it, I'll get better by actually doing it...



And can you assure us that every one of your peers is equally astute as you claim yourself to be?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (22 May 2006)

> And can you assure us that every one of your peers is equally astute as you claim yourself to be?



And if they are not, how are they to properly learn and conduct other operations not taught during their basic courses? 
I'm not saying practice doesnt make perfect, quite to the contrary. Repetition is necessary, and thats why we train at our units. Thats where, IMO, the repetition should be. As I've heard, the courses are meant to introduce the new troops to such operations, and the training they do at the unit is to perfect their performance in these operations. Would it not be of more value to teach the theory behind a platoon attack once, and then teach the theory behind a C&S so that back at the unit they can take it to the next step and actually practice it to make the troops better at performing them instead of spending time each year teaching the fresh troops the theory of C&S, from scratch, while the troops who've done it the previous year would benifit more from actually conducting one?


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> And if they are not, how are they to properly learn and conduct other operations not taught during their basic courses?
> I'm not saying practice doesnt make perfect, quite to the contrary. Repetition is necessary, and thats why we train at our units. Thats where, IMO, the repetition should be. As I've heard, the courses are meant to introduce the new troops to such operations, and the training they do at the unit is to perfect their performance in these operations. Would it not be of more value to teach the theory behind a platoon attack once, and then teach the theory behind a C&S so that back at the unit they can take it to the next step and actually practice it to make the troops better at performing them instead of spending time each year teaching the fresh troops the theory of C&S, from scratch, while the troops who've done it the previous year would benifit more from actually conducting one?


 they will be taught to run *after* they've learned to walk properly. And they will learn to do other types of operations *in* their units, according to the SOPs *of* those units. It ain't broke. Nuthin' to fix. Tryin' to get them to drink from a firehose is counter-productive. Hell, we still have to spend a year after they get to us from Battle School, teachin' 'em the basics.

Trust us. We been doin' this for a while.


----------



## Shamrock (22 May 2006)

Paracowboy...I'm disappointed in you.  New soldiers arrive with their core skills imparted by video games and correspondence courses, thus giving the army instant gratification with recruits.  It also allows it to skip inculcative phases of training and move right along to more advanced concepts.  Thus, _Battleschool_ is an anachronism, clearly evidenced by a reserve recruit's bemoaning a theory class during a BIQ and rapid mastery of core skills us old farts took years to achieve.

The new, appropriate, term should be Concept of Ops Educational Centres.  It's much less mean and implies hugs are included.

(Edit grammar)


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

And for that C/S Kenny, you will get a Chocolate Kiss placed on your pillow in the morning when the maid makes your bed.


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

I stand corrected, and hang my head in shame.


----------



## grayman (23 May 2006)

Well Done!!!


----------

