CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?

[Infanteer]

I've heard this saying before, but what does it mean? Should we all be able to become infmn/gnrs or crwmn at a moments notice? Or is it that members of the CS and CSS should embody the attributes of service before self. We are all soldiers within the areas of our responsibilities, dedicated, loyal, mission oriented and ready to fight,   but if you want to get paid, eat, get kit, have your vehicle fixed, your wpn repaired, get patched up if you get hurt or be flown or shipped to theatre, the primary job of CSS is to do just that: support.

I think I would define it has emplacing realistic combat standards across the Army.   Fitness, marksmanship, baseline tactical awareness, and a proper "soldier mentality" should be something that all soldiers need to routinely focus on and practice with.   The Combat Arms troops (especially the Infantry) merely jump to the next level and make it their raison d'etre (as the CS/CSS guys make support theirs), but it doesn't disqualify all Army pers from having a basic understanding of what I'd term "combat survival, something I think requires four things;

• Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
• Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
• Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
• Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

I'm sure we've all seen first hand many examples of people not ready to do any of this.   In my opinion, these four principles are part of the uniform.

There was a good article in the Marine Corps Gazette a while back on how the Marines did this at the basic training level.   I'll see if I can find it, but unfortunately MCG articles aren't available publically.

 

[dutchie]

• Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
• Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
• Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
• Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

That's about as accurate and consice as can be expected. That is precisely what 'soldier first' means to me as well. However, going from where we are (in a general sense) to that is a bit of a tab, I think.

As I said many moons ago in another related thead, before we can expect CSS troops to be able to meaningfully contribute to the fight (literally), than we first must convince them to put the firing pins back in their weapons. The 'soldier first' mantra has been paid only lip service until now amonst the rank and file, where it counts. From my somewhat limited experience, tradesmen/women do not think of themselves as riflemen first. It's almost as if the 'army stuff' was just required learning by this silly institution so that they can learn how to fix a truck/drive a truck/cook/etc.

I'm not picking fights here, I've actually heard that, more or less, from a variety of CSS types at various times. Of course, I have also met many 'switched on' CSS types, and many shitpump cbt arms types.

We have to decide if these trades have to be filled with soldiers, or if civvies should do the work. If we go civvie, offer the CSS troops of that trade a transfer to the civvie equivelant. Right now, there are too many civies in green pajamas driving trucks and filling out 638's. Once we decide we need trained riflemen in every Army position, train them as such (addressed somewhat with SQ), and require retention of those skills.

Failure to do so = recourse into SQ.

 

[Donut]

I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.

I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF

The more civilians we place overseas, the more force protection our facilities need, correct? 

If Johnny Potwolloper from Little Grass Falls can't even aim and fire a weapon in the face of an imminent threat to Camp Whatever, and our BDF plan calls for 600 rifles on the berm, then we need to make sure that those 600 rifles are there, whether it's a switched on cook, an MSE Op, or a Jimmy, or a member of one of our LIBs.  What that means, though, is that we need to make sure those Jimmies, Drivers and Cooks can take up arms in a defensive role, instilled with those 4 qualities.

DF

 

[dutchie]

I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.

I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF

Fully agree with you, BTW. Just playing devil's advocate.

What you get out of a soldier (or a training system) is equal to what you put into it.

 

[Donut]

Caesar, I didn't think you'd lost your mind.

Once again, this has opened a discussion of the balance between soldier and tradesman.

This isn't just a matter of training time, but of mindset, attitude, deportment.

This has been flogged several times.

There's no doubt there are institutional shortfalls that contribute to this: training time and budget,  deployment rates, pers shortfalls, etc. there is a shortage of warrior ethos in many of the support trades, mine among them.  The fact that so many support trades spend most of the major ex's "administratively" deployed, is another factor.

BUT, when my (apparent) mission is to provide no duff medical(replace with transport, comms, etc.) support on exercises, I'm ON the exercise, but not OF the exercise, and I know that short of general mobilization no one under me is going to be deployed without significant soldier training, and we barely have training time to get them competent in one of the skill sets, but not both...we have a problem.

DF

 

[dutchie]

we barely have training time to get them competent in one of the skill sets, but not both...we have a problem.

So this begs the question:

How much of a reduction in skill at the secondary trade are we willing to accept to achieve this higher standard of rifleman? IE, is it ok to have a trucker who's not as good of a driver, but is an excellent rifleman? Is a reduction necessary?

I think how far we're willing to degrade that secondary skill depends on the trade. I for one want my medic to know wtf they're doing, no doubt.

One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.

How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?

 

[Donut]

Caesar, that brings up a solution that's never even crossed my mind, even though it may not be applicable outside my trade.

We're trying like the dickens to get civi paramedics into the health services reserve.  That's all well and good.  We've GOT civi paramedics in just about every other trade, Infantry, Divers, Arty, Engineers just to name a few, but we DON'T let them practice as medics.

It seems to me that the Res Inf MCpl, who soldiers a couple of weeks a year, but works EMS the rest of the time, is going to be your best bet for a combat-oriented, situationally aware, rifle-shooting, bad-guy-zapping, life saving medic.  But, since he's not a medic, we can't employ him as such.

On the other hand, you have a civi paramedic in the health services reserve.  He does the civi ems thing 50 weeks a year, and does the major exercise as a medic, in a no-duff role, the remaining two weeks.

I'd put foreward that they would both provide an excellent standard of care, one would be more familiar with a cf amb or evac, but the other would be the far better medic to have on hand when the crap has hit the oscillator.


Hmmm.  a new perspective.

DF

 

[S McKee]

I think I would define it has emplacing realistic combat standards across the Army.   Fitness, marksmanship, baseline tactical awareness, and a proper "soldier mentality" should be something that all soldiers need to routinely focus on and practice with.   The Combat Arms troops (especially the Infantry) merely jump to the next level and make it their raison d'etre (as the CS/CSS guys make support theirs), but it doesn't disqualify all Army pers from having a basic understanding of what I'd term "combat survival, something I think requires four things;

• Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
• Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
• Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
• Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

I'm sure we've all seen first hand many examples of people not ready to do any of this.   In my opinion, these four principles are part of the uniform.

There was a good article in the Marine Corps Gazette a while back on how the Marines did this at the basic training level.   I'll see if I can find it, but unfortunately MCG articles aren't available publically.

Well put. I Agree. That's pretty much how I see it.

 

[TheNomad]

And how does any of that relate the idea that these people are less deserving? 

These are not bravery awards, they are turning up awards.  If people want gongs because they want to feel heroic they need to do something heroic, being an infantryman is not in itself heroic, nor is being shot at. 

How would you deal with a CSS soldier who had to engage the enemy - is he now somehow more deserving?  How would you deal with an infantryman who did not have the opportunity to engage the enemy - is he now somehow less deserving?

 

[exrigger66]

Very well written Roy.  Could not have said it better myself.  Airborne!

 

[TheNomad]

I agree 100% with the soldier first mentality, but if anything the lack of training being provided by the government could be construed as making the CSS troops more deserving.

After all the suggestion is that these troop are not properly prepared to go to war and yet they are being sent - thus they are more deserving of the gongs.

Lets not get too hung up on the roles people play in an operation, they are all there because the work needs to be done for the operation to be a success.  Thus they are just as equally deserving as everyone else. 

I did my time in the infantry and as an MP so I have seen it from both sides.  Good infantry are they key to most military operations, but it does not make them especially deserving for doing their job.

How about all gongs are done away with except real gallantry awards - so it would be medals for heroes and nothing for the rest?

 

[Timmy!]

I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

Amen...I follow that saying. I make sure my troops are able to fight.

 

[GO!!!]

One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.

How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?

Simple.

Little Johnny has some personal motivation, and chose to have two skill sets. He did not stop at a 40 hr week, he worked two jobs.

I also find it interesting that you seem to think that this is some sort of phenomenal effort worth mentioning - I've seen Mechanics on Para courses, and the Maintainers digging in and defending quite well. I've also seen 031s troubleshoot, get the parts and fix their own assigned vehicles, and infanteers learning to weld. No biggie, just guys who would rather learn than play cards.

The bottom line is, that all of the parties involved above took some time and effort to go the extra mile. The army cannot make you go the distance, they can only make rules and make you follow them. We all know these people, who achieve the minimum, laugh, and go home.

The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.

 

[Michael OLeary]

One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.

How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?

You will also note that his two skill sets were given to him by two very different organizations, with differing institutional requirements, separate budgets and completely separate intentions to employ him in only one role within each organization.

The Army didn't train him to do both and then plan to maintain both skillsets throughout his career. Similarly, his civvy job isn't training and employing him to both do pay and manage the loading dock.

It's not a valid comparison. You don't get to have two trades because the Army only employs you in one trade at a time, with all of the attendant requirements and costs for career management, courses and jobs.

 

[TCBF]

Know why we have all this wog bashing?  Because we have always been LUCKY.  We didn't lose tens of thousands of soldiers surrendered in Singapore, or the Sixth Army in Stalingrad, or  X US Corps in Korea (read "The River and The Guantlet" by SLA Marshall).  We have never had a major defeat where a Canadian Corp Support Command (or equiv.) was overrun.  Or been in a modern war where we did not have air superiority.

We have had some occaisions where Armoured Regts had to scrape together cooks, clerks and fitters and form an assault troop for a brief period, but not on the same scale that other armies  had to do as a front collapsed. 

Lets hope our luck holds out.

Tom

 

[armyvern]

Simple.

The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.

Good...waiting to have all you guys loaded onto your CSS trades courses. So that you can do my job (properly and legally-that includes the appropraite paperwork to issue/redemand/purchase whatever you toss your friends over the counter) whenever required overseas and at home.

Funny how lots of people like to quote the Soldier's first...Tradesmen second factor and tell us useless CSS trades to get off our duffs...use our initiative and learn this after hours if we need too.

Apparently, after I'm done with my *sarcasm on* 1.5 hour lunch breaks, coffee breaks, computer playing, and general DFn my nice comfy chair at work...I'll be going out to teach some of those pointy enders my skill sets after regular working hours and on weekends....so that they can be better qualified to take care of their peers kit requirements, ensure their peers' field pay gets into the bank on time. Apparently they can do our jobs better and have all the answers. What's good for the goose....but before I can teach....I'm going to have to go round up all those pointy enders who seem to fn live in the Tim Horton's around here during regular working hours. Or call the home numbers of the many staff who aren't giving a lecture right now and rouse them from their residence.

Give me a break and get a little realistic shall we?? This place is incredible in it's ability to continuously slam those CSS trades of which you are so obviously so mis-informed about. A simple trip to any Timmies here at any time during working hours and a quick glance at exactly which cap badges overwhelmingly adorn said berets at the tables would very quickly dispell this little myth that gets perpetuated so much around here.

 

[GO!!!]

Good...waiting to have all you guys loaded onto your CSS trades courses. So that you can do my job (properly and legally-that includes the appropraite paperwork to issue/redemand/purchase whatever you toss your friends over the counter) whenever required overseas and at home.

My quote was intended to bash the lazy in both CSS and Cbt Arms trades, and denote that our Reserves are not the multi - talented soldier phenomenons that a post earlier had implied.

There's nothing I hate more than people claiming that my job is easy, or that they could do it better, but  IMHO, being able to run and hit a target with reasonable accuracy is a minimum requirement for all soldiers, as is a certain degree of flexibility and adaptation.

Many have said it before, and I agree, but the Marines have it right when they make every man a rifleman first.

 

[dutchie]

I also find it interesting that you seem to think that this is some sort of phenomenal effort worth mentioning - I've seen Mechanics on Para courses....

The bottom line is, that all of the parties involved above took some time and effort to go the extra mile. The army cannot make you go the distance, they can only make rules and make you follow them. We all know these people, who achieve the minimum, laugh, and go home.

The goal is to have as many of the latter as possible deployed, and as many of the former compelled to release.

Well, the example I mentioned was someone I know, so forgive me for drawing on personal experience. Your examples are equally valid. As for the rest of this, completely agree. Especially the last sentence.

You will also note that his two skill sets were given to him by two very different organizations, with differing institutional requirements, separate budgets and completely separate intentions to employ him in only one role within each organization.

Ok, are you arguing for or aginst my point? I'd think it would be easier to train someone in two different skill sets if it were done form one source, one budget, etc. The 'left hand knowing what the right is doing' idea.

The Army didn't train him to do both and then plan to maintain both skillsets throughout his career. Similarly, his civvy job isn't training and employing him to both do pay and manage the loading dock.

It's not a valid comparison. You don't get to have two trades because the Army only employs you in one trade at a time, with all of the attendant requirements and costs for career management, courses and jobs.

Right, but were talking about being skilled in one area (say, Admin Clerk) and competant in another (Rifleman). I am not suggesting that all trades attain and maintain the same skills as a Infantryman.

 

[Michael OLeary]

You said:

So this begs the question:

How much of a reduction in skill at the secondary trade are we willing to accept to achieve this higher standard of rifleman? IE, is it ok to have a trucker who's not as good of a driver, but is an excellent rifleman? Is a reduction necessary?

I think how far we're willing to degrade that secondary skill depends on the trade. I for one want my medic to know wtf they're doing, no doubt.

One other bit: Lets say Johnny is a reserve Infantryman, and a damn good one. Knows his poop, stays fit, done a tour or 2, and is well respected by his peers, superiors, and the regs/res alike. He also has a civie job as a pay clerk, and is also well regarded in his civie job.

How is it that the reserve world, and the civie admin world, were able to produce a dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person, but the all-mighty CF has trouble in the same area?

In the first part you make reference to varying degrees of skill.

In the second half of your post you specify that this double-barrelled training system, albeit not executed intentionally by either agency, has produced your hypothetical "dual-qualified and skilled soldier/person." You left the inference that he was equally skilled in both areas, else why the emphasis on skills and attributes in each trade?

"Johnny" has also achieved thus by (hypothetically again) voluntarily working 60-80 hours weeks balancing his civilian job and his reserve training schedule. I suppose he also has the ideal employer that kept bringing him back on board after his "tour or 2" as well.

But all of this is talking about the possible mechanics at the lower end of the career spectrum. What happens when his civilian job promotes him and he has less time for the military - his skills might remain but his contribution draws down to a lower level. The realities of life won't let him maintain this balance forever.

I emphasized the two separate agencies because neither of them committed time and enegry to training him in two areas while planning to maintain high skills levels in one and "competencies" in the other. That's why CSS trades get excellent training in their technical duties, and a minimum skill set in a "secondary role" like the self-protection and local protection duties which many erroneously consider to be "trained like infantry soldiers." Their focus, institutionally and individually, is on their primary role. 

My question is, what, exactly, are you proposing? Do we train every CSS soldier as a field soldier as well (beyond SQ and with progressive duties and responsibilities in field work and combat skills) and then hold up their primary career development because after a few years in a base finance office they had skill fade and forgot how to strip a C-9? Don't we put everyone on pre-deployment training to check that skill fade before they need it?

Where is the advantage to increasing the emphasis on field training for all CSS soldiers, regardless of where they are currently employed? This ultimately comes at a cost of time and energy devoted to their primary duties.

Perhaps you should tell us how much of a reduction is skill is acceptable and what the minimum corrective action (in your opinion) should be.

 

[dutchie]

But all of this is talking about the possible mechanics at the lower end of the career spectrum. What happens when his civilian job promotes him and he has less time for the military - his skills might remain but his contribution draws down to a lower level.

I was merely pointing out that the 'one person, 2 skillsets' idea was do-able. I was not suggesting that 'Johnny' was the ideal soldier, and I didn't intend for the example to be taken as far as you have taken it. To do so misses the point: having 2 skillsets is possible.

The realities of life won't let him maintain this balance forever.

Which is why it should work even better in the reg force/singular employer world.

My question is, what, exactly, are you proposing? Do we train every CSS soldier as a field soldier as well (beyond SQ and with progressive duties and responsibilities in field work and combat skills) and then hold up their primary career development because after a few years in a base finance office they had skill fade and forgot how to strip a C-9? Don't we put everyone on pre-deployment training to check that skill fade before they need it?

1-Enhance the SQ training program to include convoy ops, OBUA, more patrolling, etc. I heard a review of the TP was underway, not sure if any of this has been added.

2-Spend more time training CSS troops as Riflemen. That means more field exercises, live fire, rangetime, etc.

3-Due to way more field time, Johnny can't keep up with all the paperwork at the Orderly Room. If necessary, hire more Admin Clerks, contract out some work, etc.

In short - establish a standard we want in ALL CSS troops, enhance the SQ TP to achieve the 'attain' component, and do regular (not just annual) training to 'maintain' the standard. Those who fail to meet standard go through the normal process that troops on course go through for PO failures (PRB).

How does that sound?