Author Topic: U.S. Basic Training compared to CAF  (Read 6565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 324,649
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,825
U.S. Basic Training compared to CAF
« on: February 16, 2018, 13:52:03 »
The US Army is redesigning its Basic Training https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/09/low-discipline-new-soldiers-prompts-army-redesign-basic-training.html to deal with sense of entailment.

They have noticed ""What leaders have observed in general is they believe that there is too much of a sense of entitlement, questioning of lawful orders, not listening to instruction, too much of a buddy mentality with NCOs and officers and a lot of tardiness being late to formation and duties".

Some of the changes are:
  • Increased Drill and Ceremony - to instill discipline
  • Increased Field Training Exercise
  • Increased Physical fitness standards
  • Increased amount of tactical combat casualty care training
  • Removal of hand grenade qualification and land navigation course qualification as graduation requirements

Be interesting in about two years to see what effect these changes have.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2018, 15:50:22 »
I think this is the basis for the new measure and curriculum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O02WseVFBw8

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2018, 17:34:33 »
I understand the rational for much of this, but totally disagree with the last bullet point.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2018, 06:46:38 »
Agreed, especially on the navigation part.

Can't find their your way around, or read a map?  Unable to use your cell phone because it'll bring artillery raining down on your position?

Troops need to be able to navigate.  Period.  Basic soldier skills 101 there. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

LightFighter

  • Guest
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2018, 08:37:57 »
Another article I saw regarding this, mentions that Infantry OSUT(combines basic and AIT course) will still have nav and grenades as a requirement.

For everyone else, it looks like they will still get the training, just not have it as a PO Check.. so you pass great, or if you fail the land nav course that’s ok too.  I’m guessing it will be up to the units they get posted to after training to give members more time learning this stuff when they conduct annual training/IBTS?



Quote
Recruits will still receive the same amount of training in these areas, Frost said.

"Just because we took it off as a graduation requirement does not mean they won't be conducting hand grenade or land navigation training," Frost said. "They are going to learn all the technical aspects of the hand grenade, and they are going to learn tactical employment and they will throw a live hand grenade.

"With land navigation, it's the same thing they are still going to conduct land navigation training; they are still going to conduct the day course they are still going to conduct the night course."
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 08:42:04 by Pickle Rick »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,911
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,356
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2018, 09:03:34 »
Quote from: CBH99
Troops need to be able to navigate.  Period.  Basic soldier skills 101 there.

Disagree.
Troops being able to navigate on their own means they may be more inclined to desert their post. 
If they have to rely on their squad leader or platoon commander for navigation then they'll be that much more loyal   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,607
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,976
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2018, 10:43:10 »
How long will it be until some whiz kid in Ottawa wants to slavishly copy the US?
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 435,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,572
  • Crewman
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2018, 10:50:41 »
How long will it be until some whiz kid in Ottawa wants to slavishly copy the US?

Probably within ten seconds of the release of this info. 

They need some justification on their PER to move out of their windowless cubicle.   ;D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 435,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,572
  • Crewman
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2018, 10:56:53 »
Disagree.
Troops being able to navigate on their own means they may be more inclined to desert their post. 
If they have to rely on their squad leader or platoon commander for navigation then they'll be that much more loyal   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 :rofl:

Such a Soviet Era mentality.  Only the 'top dog' knows what is happening and where to go.  Once the 'top dog' is taken out of the picture, all their troops are leaderless and in chaos.


Much like taking out the Kiowa and totally screwing up the Cobras/Apaches.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2018, 14:08:32 »
I agree in general with what the US Army is trying to do, and I wonder if the CA isn't having its own issues with the sort of people it recruits. It would be interesting  to hear from our posters who are dealing at the coal face on this.

Caveat: historically, every adult generation thinks the one following it is weak, dissolute and "could never fight a war  like we did".


However, I'm totally in agreement with Thucydides about the last bullet: bad decisions.

First, the nav issues. Years ago at the LFWA BSL they briefly took land nav out as a critical requirement during the Infantry Section Commander Course. I accompanied one of the recent graduates on a recce patrol in the depths of Vancouver Island woods: not very inspiring. He was lost shortly after exiting the patrol harbour. I asked the Pl WO after what was wrong, and he explained the missing PO. I was gobsmacked. IMHO in the age of increasing cyber threat by our most capable potential enemies, we need all soldiers to be able to navigate and call in fires if there is no more GPS or other digitalback up.

The grenade is such a basic ground combat weapon for all arms and services (not just taking out bunkers or  crew served weapons but repelling close quarter assaults on HQs and CSS installations, which we can expect in spades.)It is also a great confidence builder to train with live, as long as its good trg which will show soldiers its strengths and its limitations.

Finally, roger on the pathological desire in some Canadians  to ape whatever the US does, whether it's a good idea or not. The US does have some excellent ideas in training, but so do we, and we should not be in a hurry to abandon hard-learned truth.


« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 14:12:55 by pbi »
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2018, 14:51:16 »
Just bad stuff all around. I have taught recruit courses where the nav was done as a self study package, and sure enough when it was time to hit the field, none of the troops knew how to navigate (Luckily as the course 2I/C I could make some adjustments to others aspects of the timetable and "sneak in" some hands on training by the section commanders).

I have also seen the results as an instructor at Leadership company. Many Infantry PLQ candidates (regular and reserve) simply are very poor at navigation, and it was one of the leading causes of failure in the patrol phase. The non infantry PLQ is even worse, candidates were not even required to find the objective, which is disturbing when you realize that an engineer, medic, EME or artillery MCpl needs to get to a certain location on time to deliver support or effects. I haven't taught there in several years, and can only hope this deficiency was corrected.

As for grenades, the fact people don't train with live grenades means most people simply have no understanding of what a grenade actually does (I'm sure most people come to a grenade range for the first time expecting the Mk 36 nuclear grenades depicted in Hollywood movies). I expect that if it does come to a fight, especially to repel attackers at a supply site or so on, more people will end up killing themselves with grenades than any enemy.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2018, 15:23:30 »
Just bad stuff all around. I have taught recruit courses where the nav was done as a self study package, and sure enough when it was time to hit the field, none of the troops knew how to navigate (Luckily as the course 2I/C I could make some adjustments to others aspects of the timetable and "sneak in" some hands on training by the section commanders).

I have also seen the results as an instructor at Leadership company. Many Infantry PLQ candidates (regular and reserve) simply are very poor at navigation, and it was one of the leading causes of failure in the patrol phase. The non infantry PLQ is even worse, candidates were not even required to find the objective, which is disturbing when you realize that an engineer, medic, EME or artillery MCpl needs to get to a certain location on time to deliver support or effects. I haven't taught there in several years, and can only hope this deficiency was corrected.

As for grenades, the fact people don't train with live grenades means most people simply have no understanding of what a grenade actually does (I'm sure most people come to a grenade range for the first time expecting the Mk 36 nuclear grenades depicted in Hollywood movies). I expect that if it does come to a fight, especially to repel attackers at a supply site or so on, more people will end up killing themselves with grenades than any enemy.

Roger all. Maybe I am a dinosaur (Ok, well....I AM a dinosaur...) but to me it is shocking that any Army officer would consider writing a syllabus or delivering a training course with such a fundamental deficiency as ignoring or weakening nav training. Now, I took a long time to become useful with a map and compass, but eventually I did. It's not easy, but taking it out of fundamental training is absolutely not the answer.

On the grenades, I have first  hand experience of the value of live grenade trg. I was blown up (along with several others) in a grenade trg accident in USMC Pendleton while trg for Croatia. I became quite skittish and nervous about grenades: I didn't even like carrying them. About a year later we did some very good grenade live fire field training, with minimal (but quite safe) protection between us and The Jelly Beans of Death. I got my confidence back through that trg.

Finally, dumping fundamental IT onto the unit receiving the new soldiers is a very bad idea. Unless things have changed significantly, units don't have time to do the training system's job for it. The CO wants and needs soldier who can roll right into section/platoon/combat team, as fully functional team members. This is not just a US problem: I watched it go back and forth when I was still in CA.

What are people thinking about?  Really.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 15:34:45 by pbi »
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,663
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2018, 15:42:58 »
I have been quietly steaming here, recalling what the CF did to itself in trying to create a common basic recruit course starting in the late 60s. The first version was only six weeks or so long, and based on eliminating material that was not applicable to all three (or at least two) former services did not include weapons training and replaced combat first aid with the St John's Ambulance course. The rationale for this was that we were never going to fight again, so the greatest likelihood of injury was in an industrial setting, so teach civilian first aid.

Over time it added a week or two, and after the FLQ Crisis, the rifle returned. Still, there was very little in the nature of field craft and basic tactics. In time it improved, but the official CF position was that FMC should have its own programme to teach army stuff. It was all very logical and briefed well for the little green people who were running the individual training system. 

The basic officer course paralleled this philosophy, and all sorts of people seemed to have held their collective nose over the whole thing to conform to the spirit of unification and the elimination of unnecessary training.

Discussions on the utility of this could be counted upon to liven up happy hours.

In time it got fixed, but it was a frustrating mess for more than a few years. It was so screwed up, that hopefully it could never be replicated, or could it?

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2018, 15:54:02 »
I have been quietly steaming here, recalling what the CF did to itself in trying to create a common basic recruit course starting in the late 60s...

In time it got fixed, but it was a frustrating mess for more than a few years. It was so screwed up, that hopefully it could never be replicated, or could it?

No evil is so vile that it cannot be repeated by people who think they know better.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2018, 16:04:34 »
Disagree.
Troops being able to navigate on their own means they may be more inclined to desert their post. 
If they have to rely on their squad leader or platoon commander for navigation then they'll be that much more loyal   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious.....

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2018, 16:09:45 »
I'm thinking by the tinfoil hat, he's kidding...   ;)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2018, 16:28:07 »
I'm thinking by the tinfoil hat, he's kidding...   ;)

Oh is that what that is?  Lol guess I need to become a bit more emoji savvy

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2018, 18:49:03 »
"Chaos 6" takes it up to "11". Much like Olympians or SoF troops train constantly to stay at peak performance levels, the Army and Marines are going to eliminate "make work" and do lots more training:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/12/james-mattis-favored-close-combat-lethality-task-f/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=20180326&utm_term=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert

Quote
Mattis-favored Close Combat Lethality Task Force primed to transform infantry
By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 12, 2018

A task force favored by U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is on a mission to transform combat units into war-fighting machines unlike anything on the battlefield today.

Troops throughout history are all too familiar with the saying, “Hurry up and wait,” but the Close Combat Lethality Task Force in many ways seeks to make it a memory. A cross-service group at the highest levels of the Pentagon has already been allocated $2.5 billion in resources to develop a wholly new kind of infantry unit.

“Time-honored extra duties such as handing out towels at the gym, raking sand, standing gate guard duty and picking up litter will no longer consume the time and energy of infantry soldiers and Marines,” Army Times reported Wednesday.

In short, Mr. Mattis’ envisions combat forces that are focused at all times on honing their craft to achieve overmatch in the close, tactical engagements.

“The secretary of defense has dedicated a great deal of time and effort,” Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said. “He has tasked us with gauging the readiness of the entire force, enforcing decisions, making changes in force structure. We’re no longer just an oversight bot.”

Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales added that everything is “on the table” in terms of achieving the task force’s goals.
“The readiness reporting system at the small unit level fails us,” Gen. Scales said, Army Times reported.

The task force plans to consider, for example, who should be allowed in combat units and the length of time infantrymen should be allowed to serve within their military occupational specialty.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2018, 19:04:44 »
Less chickenshit, more focused effort.  Sounds sensible to me.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,911
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,356
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2018, 19:11:23 »
Good article, I hope the concept takes off. 

Quote
Time-honored extra duties such as handing out towels at the gym, raking sand, standing gate guard duty and picking up litter will no longer consume the time and energy of infantry soldiers and Marines,” Army Times reported Wednesday.

I don't think guard duty should ever be considered or used as a punishment.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 165,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2018, 17:39:22 »
This seems to be the follow-on to the discussion above.

https://www.stripes.com/news/soldiers-to-shoot-more-stay-longer-in-infantry-school-1.534745
Quote
Soldiers to shoot more, stay longer in infantry school

By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES   Published: June 26, 2018

The Army will add two more months to infantry school, marking the biggest change to the institution in nearly a half-century in a move the service says is designed to develop a more lethal force.

In July, the Army will extend its one-station unit training from 14 to 22 weeks in a pilot program, so that new recruits will get more weapons and combat training, said Col. Townley R. Hedrick, the commandant of the Army Infantry School, told the Army’s internal news service on Monday.

Between July and October of 2019 the expanded course will be introduced throughout the infantry school, the Army said.

The decision to reform the Army’s training of infantry soldiers came after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis emphasized the need for a more combat-ready ground force.  Soldiers will train more with their M4 rifle, the M240 machine gun and the M249 squad automatic weapon, Hedrick said in a statement.

“So across all the infantry weapons, they will get more bullets,” he said. “And they will also shoot more at night, rather than just doing a day familiarization fire.”

For 44 years, infantry school has been a 14-week program that dedicates 10 weeks to basic military training and four weeks to developing special infantry skills. Under the new program, soldiers will receive more field training experience to help them understand how to better maneuver as a squad and conduct day and nighttime operations, the Army said.

An individual day and night land navigation course has been added, which is expected to improve the “mental and physical toughness of soldiers,” Hedrick said.

Also, vehicle training has been extended from one day to a full week to ensure troops can handle their designated combat vehicle, whether it’s a Stryker or a Bradley.

More intensive specialty school training could also soon be on the way for the Army’s armor and engineer schools, which are conducting internal reviews on how to expand initial training, the Army said.

Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,371
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2018, 18:07:41 »
Ancient historical perspective when I did basic in 1972 it was 8 weeks long followed by AIT at Ft Polk was another 8 weeks.Women then had their own basic.It was the tail end of the draftee Army and certainly training people who didn't want to be in the Army was hard.Now its an all volunteer force and we shouldn't have to extend the length of training,unless we have to teach the pc art of soldiering.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 477,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,317
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2018, 07:48:33 »
I have been quietly steaming here, recalling what the CF did to itself in trying to create a common basic recruit course starting in the late 60s. The first version was only six weeks or so long, and based on eliminating material that was not applicable to all three (or at least two) former services did not include weapons training and replaced combat first aid with the St John's Ambulance course. The rationale for this was that we were never going to fight again, so the greatest likelihood of injury was in an industrial setting, so teach civilian first aid.

Over time it added a week or two, and after the FLQ Crisis, the rifle returned. Still, there was very little in the nature of field craft and basic tactics. In time it improved, but the official CF position was that FMC should have its own programme to teach army stuff. It was all very logical and briefed well for the little green people who were running the individual training system. 

The basic officer course paralleled this philosophy, and all sorts of people seemed to have held their collective nose over the whole thing to conform to the spirit of unification and the elimination of unnecessary training.

Discussions on the utility of this could be counted upon to liven up happy hours.

In time it got fixed, but it was a frustrating mess for more than a few years. It was so screwed up, that hopefully it could never be replicated, or could it?


There was some logic in the 1960s proposals ... I think even you and I might agree that our basic training (25ish weeks, as I recall, followed by basic (Group 1) infantry or artillery or signals, etc) skills traiing which could be another 25ish weeks for some skills) was expensive and, arguably, amounted to 'over-training.' We were, I think you will agree, the best trained soldiers in the West: better than our British confreres and massively superior in every single respect to the US Army. I think the same could be said for the Navy and the RCAF.

The notion was explained, at a Mess lunch table as I recall, of a common to all, short (eight week) recruit phase after which sailor, soldiers and airmen would all go their separate ways for short (2 weeks for the RCAF, six weeks, each for the RCN and CA(R)) special to service recruit courses followed by extended Group 1 courses. We would still be the best trained troops in NATO but sailors, soldiers and airmen would reach ships, units and flight-lines in something like eight months rather than a year after joining.

Of course, as you and I both know, it all fell victim to a 'machine' that put integration ahead of everything else including sensible military standards.

My, very personal, opinion is that common, integrated training is a waste until CWO's course/senior staff college. It would, I suspect, be better and maybe even cheaper to let the RCN, CA and RCAF design and conduct their own recruit courses to meet their own needs. I doubt that in today's fiscal/resource climate we would see very much over-training.

(I, very personally, again, would love to see ALL of St Jean, including CMR, given away to the province of Quebec to provide education and training for immigrants. Do language training in Ottawa/Gatineau, ALL officers pass through RMC (Kingston) (even CFRs and those doing degrees at CivvyU) and recruits are trained in individual service schools, etc.)

A few months ago I stopped by a military display here in Ottawa and chatted with some soldiers from Petawawa. I was impressed with their bearing, knowledge, powers of expression and so on ... I think we have good, well trained people, today ... at least as good and you and i were in our day, even though they have had less formal training than we had 60 years ago. I believe it is possible for training to be efficient and effective, but it doesn't have to be integrated, at all.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2018, 09:55:35 »

If anything, it might be better if our own basic was 4 months similar to this: https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/soldiers-of-the-idf/from-civilian-to-soldier-the-combat-training-process/

Having a larger cross force pool of combat arms trained members would not be a bad thing. Infantry soldiers, who are specialists for a number of reasons but especially their bond in section levels after QL 3, are specialists whether anyone wants to go there as a discussion or not. But a larger force of proficient-at-arms and basic security and defence tactics ( manning a checkpoint, digging (!! 😀😀😀) and occupying a position, driving a truck, etc.), using the CarlG, etc. does not need to be restricted to just the army.




Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 23,797
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 339
Re: US Army Redesigning Basic Training
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2018, 21:10:21 »

There was some logic in the 1960s proposals ... I think even you and I might agree that our basic training (25ish weeks, as I recall, followed by basic (Group 1) infantry or artillery or signals, etc) skills traiing which could be another 25ish weeks for some skills) was expensive and, arguably, amounted to 'over-training.' We were, I think you will agree, the best trained soldiers in the West: better than our British confreres and massively superior in every single respect to the US Army. I think the same could be said for the Navy and the RCAF.

The notion was explained, at a Mess lunch table as I recall, of a common to all, short (eight week) recruit phase after which sailor, soldiers and airmen would all go their separate ways for short (2 weeks for the RCAF, six weeks, each for the RCN and CA(R)) special to service recruit courses followed by extended Group 1 courses. We would still be the best trained troops in NATO but sailors, soldiers and airmen would reach ships, units and flight-lines in something like eight months rather than a year after joining.

Of course, as you and I both know, it all fell victim to a 'machine' that put integration ahead of everything else including sensible military standards.

My, very personal, opinion is that common, integrated training is a waste until CWO's course/senior staff college. It would, I suspect, be better and maybe even cheaper to let the RCN, CA and RCAF design and conduct their own recruit courses to meet their own needs. I doubt that in today's fiscal/resource climate we would see very much over-training.

(I, very personally, again, would love to see ALL of St Jean, including CMR, given away to the province of Quebec to provide education and training for immigrants. Do language training in Ottawa/Gatineau, ALL officers pass through RMC (Kingston) (even CFRs and those doing degrees at CivvyU) and recruits are trained in individual service schools, etc.)

A few months ago I stopped by a military display here in Ottawa and chatted with some soldiers from Petawawa. I was impressed with their bearing, knowledge, powers of expression and so on ... I think we have good, well trained people, today ... at least as good and you and i were in our day, even though they have had less formal training than we had 60 years ago. I believe it is possible for training to be efficient and effective, but it doesn't have to be integrated, at all.


We face two problems with your proposal, first support trades that are 'purple", second the RCAF and RCN would drop anything field related in a heartbeat. When I went through BMQ in '01 I ended up shooting an extra mag of 5.56 because I would "never touch a weapon again".  Fast forward 6 years as I was "CC" in a Bison in Kandahar with a C6 that I had never actually fired before.

We either need to get serious about dividing troops by element, or we need to stick to a core training that emphasises "army" jobs training. Nobody should even be deployed to a war zone with weapons they have never used before, or even been exposed to beyond pre deployment training.