# Soldier Qualification Location



## Dacier (3 Feb 2003)

Does anyone know the location for the training for the soldier qualication course that is taken after basic training? 

Does it depend on trade?  I‘m joining the PPCLI.  So would it be in Wainwright or in still in St. Jean, and just be a continuation of Basic Training?


----------



## Argyll_2347 (6 Feb 2003)

I wouldn‘t know for the regs, but my SQ course was at Meaford this past summer for 4 weeks.

Also, question on a related note:  I am planning to transfer to the regs in a couple of years (once I finish high school) and I heard that you have to do a lot of the courses over again.  Which ones in particular do you have to do again?  I have done so far BMQ and SQ.  I plan on doing my MOC Infantry course this summer.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Feb 2003)

I know that for us Engineers, if you do QL3/5(R) and then transfer to the Regs you get QL3(Reg) written off. Not sure if the same is true of the other trades. I‘ve also heard rummors that if you have JLC/JNCO now PLQ while in the Res. when you transfer to the Regs, you don‘t have to do it over then only thing you will loose is you "Master Jacks".

Hope this helps.


----------



## Gelan (9 Feb 2003)

I‘m currently on the SQ course in Meaford and I was told by the base commander before christmas that Meaford will run all the SQ courses on top of the RCR Infantry BIQ course which is a 9-week course now.

It doesn‘t matter if you‘re PPCLI or not, everyone goes to Meaford for the SQ. There are 2 patricia‘s on my course now.

As a side note, St. Jean is a joke. Do not think that the basic training course is anything like a real course. You‘ll find out what real training is like when you get to meaford. There you‘ll finally learn something, rather than sit in a class learning about some Sisip crap.


----------



## Recce41 (9 Feb 2003)

Gelan
 You‘ll think twice about SISP, when you get injured and cannot work. You are one of the lil D#$% Heads that think they know it all. Yes basic is gone down, but it because other D#$% Heads complained it was too hard. 
 As for SQ training I have a Fellow Sgt in the Recce Cell there, so smarten up. SQs are being done where ever there is room. They will be done in WayneWright, Meaford, Gagetown, Valcartier, and I think Shilo. There was a plan to have them in Petawawa also. But I think thats scraped. 
 I was in Gagetown, and there is 1 Armour , 1 In, 1 Eng SQ course there now.


----------



## Jungle (9 Feb 2003)

Gelan, you are right. BMQ in St-Jean is very different from, say, 20 years ago. But then, so are the people joining. Still, a lot of people are failing it, for different reasons. Most are completely out of shape, and have never been camping or other outdoor activities. Imagine if we did things the same as before: the failure rate would be well over 50%...
On a final note, BMQ is now considered a transition period from civilian life to the military, no more, no less. Nobody likes it, but the CF have to adapt to society...


----------



## Argyll_2347 (9 Feb 2003)

So, is the BMQ and SQ courses exactly the same for reserves and regs?
BMQ does C7, NBCD, Military Law, etc.
SQ does C9, C6, Carl G, Grenades, Offensive/Defensive, etc.

And they are both 4 weeks?


----------



## the patriot (10 Feb 2003)

One could argue that the standards on basic training have gone downhill as compared to courses that were run a decade ago.  There seems to be a "Beavers/Cub Scouts" mentality that is permeating the military ethos in St. Jean.  Well, as it has been mentioned by Jungle.... it isn‘t like it was 20 years ago and so are the people joining.  No worries, I am certain the the course Platoon Warrants‘ will not let things turn into "Club Med".

-the patriot-


----------



## McG (10 Feb 2003)

> Originally posted by Dacier:
> [qb]  Does anyone know the location for the training for the soldier qualification course that is taken after basic training?   [/qb]


This likely depends on when you finish BMQ and where the next SQ will be run.  All the area training centers (Wainwright, Meaford, Valcartier, Gagetown, etc) run the course.  You will likely be loaded on the earliest available course.



> Originally posted by Argyll:
> [qb]  So, is the BMQ and SQ courses exactly the same for reserves and regs?
> BMQ does C7, NBCD, Military Law, etc.
> SQ does C9, C6, Carl G, Grenades, Offensive/Defensive, etc.  [/qb]


The Reg and PRes courses will have differences.  It is my understanding that the Reg force course will incorporate a Dvr Wheel and combat signaller course.  Have a look at:

Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) Course Details
Soldier Qualification (SQ) Course Details
 


> Originally posted by the patriot:
> [qb]  One could argue that the standards on basic training have gone downhill as compared to courses that were run a decade ago.[/qb]


I would.  However, I believe the standards have gone uphill from courses two years ago (or at the very least, the course content has recovered).  As Jungle and the patriot have identified, BMQ is now a transition period from civilian life to the military.  It lays the foundation to develop an excellent soldier.  When a soldier arrives for SQ, that transition period is over.

I remember watching new soldiers arrive in the Regiment knowing progressively less each successive year.  Essential soldiering skills were cut from QL2 (Machine guns, Carl G, M72, personal NBCD drills, digging a fire trench, etc) and not always made-up in later training.

The SQ course will ensure that all these "lost skills" are again taught to the same standard to everyone in the Army.  It may even ensure that all soldiers learn more fundamental skills right from the beginning of their careers.


----------



## Jungle (11 Feb 2003)

McG is right. In the long run, it is also my opinion the Army will be better off with the BMQ / SQ / MOC combo than the QL-2 / QL-3 one. This way, everyone in the Army will have the knowledge and skills to carry out basic combat duties. Time will tell, but i doubt all units (mainly non-cbt arms ones ie: SVC Batts, Field Ambs, TAC Hel Sqns etc...) will carry out continuation training to maintain those skills. Humans are lazy animals...


----------



## combat_medic (12 Feb 2003)

I‘m with Jungle. I really like and agree with the BMQ-SQ-MOC combo. In my basic training, we never covered support or platoon level weapons, and it took me years of nagging my CoC to get trained on them. Also, I think this is a step in the right direction of taking training back up to the level it was at 10+ years ago. Of course, 10 years ago there was no SHARP or other stuff to make room for.

Some changes aren‘t always bad.


----------



## gate_guard (15 Feb 2003)

combat_medic,
Under the assumption that you are a medic, what purpose is there for you to have the knowledge of platoon support weapons?  I have yet to complete a company attack, platoon attack, or even section attack with any medics in attendance.  

guard  :flame:


----------



## aa (15 Feb 2003)

Well, I suppose it depends on where you work and what role the medics have. In the Airborne I never did a platoon attack WITHOUT a medic in attendance. Our medics (which operated at Platoon vice Coy level) jumped with us, patrolled with us, carried at least as much weight as the infantrymen and were never further away than Pl HQ. Also, every Airborne medic that I ever knew reilied on his rifle, not a red cross, for protection and was expected to be able to defend himself and be an active participant in everything we did. That meant knowing how to use all weapons and being intimately familiar with the tactics of the infantry (not to the same level as the infantry, of course, but still able to keep up). 

I would say instead of mocking a medic who wants to know how to use support weapons, it should be encouraged and that those types of medics should be sought out for infantry units. Most of the medics that I know hate the "bedpan cleaning" medic jobs and are some of the hardest troops I‘ve served with. The fact that the CF for a long time didn‘t emphasize being  a COMBAT medic isn‘t their doing,  units (and individuals) can go a long way to turning a good medic into a good combat medic by simply involving them in all training; if your medics aren‘t "hard" soldiers, that‘s as much your unit‘s fault as it is the medics‘.  I know quite a few medics (some with torches on their sleeves or who are now operators of another kind ) who could teach most infantryman a lot about their own job.

Careful who you slag, gate guard, combat_medic may save your life one day (then again....maybe she won‘t!)


----------



## Jungle (15 Feb 2003)

> Everybody works, everybody fights.


Your signature says it all. Not only can a medic save your life by carrying out combat first aid on you, but could also do it by manning the C6 or 84 when things go wrong and they have been trained to use it.


----------



## gate_guard (15 Feb 2003)

Before this turns into one of those ugly threads that are so entertaining, I was not "slagging" combat medic. I can only speak from my own experience, and unfortunately I‘ve had the displeasure of working with a lot of medics who, frankly, couldn‘t pull their own weight (and could stand to lose some).  Maybe my point of view is go all the way (everybody works, everybody fights) or go home.  From what combat medic was stating it sounds like he/she received standard courses and, in my opinion, this is a waste of resources because it isn‘t in the requirements of being a medic (unfortunately).   How about giving QL3 infantry types more training on platoon weapons (ie rounds and range time) first.  

guard

ps that‘s not to say that anyone of any MOC shouldn‘t approach an infanteer and ask how a C6 or 84 works so that, if need be, they can fire it.


----------



## aa (15 Feb 2003)

No worries, I‘m not really trying to start a bun fight here.

I couldn‘t agree more about people not being able to keep up or do the job, and that goes for every trade. The failure is in the system. At some base hospital there is a keen young medic who would much sooner be in a "combat" position while a battalion is stuck with a slug. It comes down to making the MedA trade, and many others, more combat oriented. 

That being said, the infantry chain of command should be going out of their way to train those persons under their control in whatever skills are necessary to do the job. 

_________________________________________

"Under the assumption that you are a medic, what purpose is there for you to have the knowledge of platoon support weapons? "

_________________________________________

I‘ve heard that sentiment many times, and I still assert that it‘s the wrong attitude for the infantry to take. It should be REQUIRED that the medics, signallers, and other "hard" support positions conduct this kind of training. I know that the infantry troops aren‘t getting the rounds downrange that they need, but it‘s worth it to get your medics and others out there in order to help foster that combat attitude (yeah, I know it won‘t help in some cases- a slug is still a slug)

As I said, Gate Guard, I‘m not looking to start fight here, I just hope that you get to work with some good medics soon, and you‘ll realize just how critical they are and how great it is to have them right there with you....


----------



## combat_medic (15 Feb 2003)

gate_guard: Unlike most medics, I AM in an infantry company, have been enemy force, gone on patrols, learned FIBUA, hand-to-hand combat. and nearly ALL of this has been on my own time and of my own initiative. 

I‘m a firm believer of soldier first, trade second. I know full well that if the $hit hit the fan, our prospective enemies would no more respect a red cross then they would disarmament treaties. I‘m also working on getting my infantry qualification, because I know that being a medic is little protection, and I‘d be d@mn sure to defend myself. And if I‘m in the HQ of a fighting patrol, wouldn‘t you rather I have an idea of how to patrol rather than compromising the entire mission by being stupid?

You ask why I need to know support weapons? Even in an ideal scenario where a medic is in the rear and NOT taking fire, I may come upon a weapons det. who‘s been taken out, and may be trying to get them evac-ed. If I have some C6s and Carl Gs beside me, would I leave them there to be captured, or would I unload them and take them with me, as per proper SOPs? Also, if I‘m fully aware of the dangers and problems with infantry fighting, doesn‘t that prepare me better for the potential of injuries? 

I‘ve had the blisters, and trench foot, and burns, and frostbite, and hypothermia, and all of that from actually going out with the guys. This not only makes me more skilled in being able to help them, but more sympathetic in my treatment. Also, I‘ve worked hard to earn the respect and confidence of the people that I work with and work for, and that makes them more willing to trust me.


----------



## aa (15 Feb 2003)

Well said combat_medic. It‘s just as important to have confidence in your medics as it is to have confidence in the other members of your platoon, and that means they have to earn that respect by showing that they can not only do their job but keep up with the pace of the fight, and truely understand the people they are treating. It‘s just unfortunate that Gate Guard‘s medics aren‘t doing that. I think that  anyone who has served in the Airborne and has seen how the medics there worked  would agree that the medics there were part of the team. Perhaps something for the army in general to look at.


----------



## Gryphon (15 Feb 2003)

well, i don‘t know about other support trades, but i know that in the Comm Res, we did our SQ in which we learned the LMG (C9), the GPMG (C6), and the Carl G. We also did the Gas Huts. We also did tactics, hand signals, and other field things, and then we spent a week in the field.

I thought that it was standard for everyone to do the SQ


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2003)

It is standard for everyone.  However, there was no SQ course prior to last summer.  Prior to the SQ course, several trades were not being trained in many essential soldier skills.


----------



## Gelan (22 Feb 2003)

> You‘ll think twice about SISP, when you get injured and cannot work


I completely understand the need for SISIP, but if you actually participated in the "class" I was in, you would be appalled at the waste of time it was. they actually made us throw paper airplanes around the room. Excuse me, I did not join the army to throw paper airplanes around a classroom.



> You are one of the lil D#$% Heads that think they know it all. Yes basic is gone down, but it because other D#$% Heads complained it was too hard.


That‘s too bad you have that impression of me. Honestly,  I‘m aware of my complete lack of knowledge in this aspect of life, and that‘s why I‘m in training. I have not, nor will ever claim to "know it all." I added to this thread my opinion of the course at St. Jean along with my experience on the SQ course.



> As for SQ training I have a Fellow Sgt in the Recce Cell there, so smarten up.


No disrespect is meant, but why are you telling me to smarten up? You have only one post on the internet to base your opinion on my character. If you want, ask my Sect Comd(Sgt. Bruce C.I.), or other staff on my course for an opinion of me. THEN you might have something reasonable to base such a comment on.


----------



## bomber12 (3 Mar 2009)

Instead of making a new topic I well revive this thread. 

I read somewhere on this forum that SQ was now part of BMQ. Is this at all true? I cant remember what topic this came up in but I read something about this.


----------



## dangerboy (3 Mar 2009)

SQ is not part of BMQ, for Infantry Soldiers it is part of there Infantry course but for everyone else it is a separate course. There is currently a SQ running right now in Wainwright with one more due to start in 3 weeks (if they can get the instructors).


----------



## bomber12 (3 Mar 2009)

oh ok. So infantry qualifaction and soldier qualifaction are the put into the same course? I will figure it all out once I get into it. Wasnt BMQ a 10 week course or something like that and its now a 13 week course?


----------



## Kevin_M (3 Mar 2009)

It's called BMQ (Land) now. Everyone calls it SQ still though.

I am currently doing PRes course now. They took of the Carl G (disappointing, hopefully I'll get to use one eventually). Now have M72's instead.


----------



## dangerboy (3 Mar 2009)

Kevin_M said:
			
		

> It's called BMQ (Land) now. Everyone calls it SQ still though.
> 
> I am currently doing PRes course now. They took of the Carl G (disappointing, hopefully I'll get to use one eventually). Now have M72's instead.



The army officially calls it ARMY NCM DP 1 – SOLDIER QUALIFICATION , just for your info there is also slight differences in the training plan for the regular force and the reserve one.


----------



## MedTechStudent (4 Mar 2009)

Your SQ is integrated right in with your DP1 Infantry course.  You do it prior to your official battle school.  The SQ I did consisted of all support trades.  It was 4 weeks for me.

PPCLI so you will probably be at Wainwright Alberta, HOWEVER, 6 of the infantry guys on the DP1 course that I shared the floor with in Gagetown were PPCLI and they were still sent there for their DP1.  So no way to know for sure.

No SQ is not part of BMQ as far as I know, I just did it three weeks ago.

Cheers, Kyle


*Edited To Add* ...bomber12, BMQ is 13 weeks now, they occasionally rumor about taking out the field portion of it which would shorten the course to 10 weeks....I don't see that happening, I think those three weeks in the field are invaluable and for some, they are the only time they will be in those conditions....however, I am a lowly Private and its way above my pay grade...and to quote Angels In The Outfield, "It could happen..."


----------



## Snaketnk (9 Mar 2009)

I think I may be confused here.

Some people seem to referring to DP1 as SQ, or DP1 as the old BIQ. Is there some kind of inconsistency in the nomenclature between Reg Force and PRes? In the Reg Force (In the Combat Arms, at least), DP1 is the course that makes you trade qualified. All Combat arms with the exception of Infantry do an SQ prior to doing their DP1. For Infantry, the content of the SQ course is integrated in the DP1 Course.

Having gone through Battleschool last year, and knowing people that just finished battleschool, I feel my info is the most recent right now.

Also, MedTechStudent, the SQ course is NOT done prior to your official battleschool course. The content of the course is spread out throughtout the course (weapons at the start, defensive positions near the end, patrolling/signalling/tactics throughout). As for those prospective PPCLIs you met in Gagetown, they are NOT there for their SQ; they are now running Reg Force Infantry DP1s in Gagetown.

As for which Training Centre you'll go to; They usually send you to the one affiliated with the Regiment you've chosen to join, but now that the Training Centres are no longer Regimental BattleSchools (they're no longer affiliated with a specific regiment, you'll get the occasional PPCLI/Vandoo go through Meaford/Gagetown and the Occasional Royal through Wainwright.

BMQ is 13 weeks (14 if you count week 0 - admin)
SQ is 4 weeks (Weapons+Field)
Infantry DP1 is 14 weeks (7-10 weeks in the field with the new TP, depending on Course Staff)


----------



## MedTechStudent (9 Mar 2009)

Yes, thats right.  My mistake.  It was only after that I realized it was some of my mates in the Artillery that had just completed their SQ before starting their trade course.  They said they had the same staff for both, it was just technically two separate courses one directly after the other.

Cheers, Kyle.

Speaking of that DP1 Course, their grad is something like 10 days away so if any are around.  Good on ya boys!


----------



## Fusaki (9 Mar 2009)

> Some people seem to referring to DP1 as SQ, or DP1 as the old BIQ. Is there some kind of inconsistency in the nomenclature between Reg Force and PRes? In the Reg Force (In the Combat Arms, at least), DP1 is the course that makes you trade qualified. All Combat arms with the exception of Infantry do an SQ prior to doing their DP1. For Infantry, the content of the SQ course is integrated in the DP1 Course.
> 
> Having gone through Battleschool last year, and knowing people that just finished battleschool, I feel my info is the most recent right now.
> 
> Also, MedTechStudent, the SQ course is NOT done prior to your official battleschool course. The content of the course is spread out throughtout the course (weapons at the start, defensive positions near the end, patrolling/signalling/tactics throughout). As for those prospective PPCLIs you met in Gagetown, they are NOT there for their SQ; they are now running Reg Force Infantry DP1s in Gagetown.



I think the confusion arises because just a few years ago infantry guys actually did do SQ.  In 2003 I did a 6 week SQ and a 10 week BIQ.

-If I understand it correctly, up untill 1996 the RCR Battleschool qualified guys on a 16 week course between basic training and being posted to Battalion.

-From 1996 up untill 2001 or 2002 the course name changed to QL3, which was also a 16 week course.

-After that it became 6 weeks of SQ and then 10 weeks of BIQ, which - at least when I went through - was still referred to unofficially as "Battleschool".  At some times I've heard the word Battleschool refer to both SQ and BIQ combined, other times the word only meant BIQ.  The reality of the situation is that both courses were run one right after another, with the same candidates and the same course staff.  The first 3 weeks of SQ was the cock phase where we got rid of the weak ones, then later on in BIQ the staff shifted to more of a mentoring approach.  For all intents and purposes, SQ+BIQ was actually one 16 week course.

-Then sometime over the past few years infantry guys stopped doing SQ and BIQ and started doing DP1.


----------

