In my opinion Major Palmer's thesis regarding a new proposed training scheme for PRes army officers could be a solution to our issues of getting our officers trained effectively and up to standard.Rick Goebel said:It is interesting that, in the latest edition of The Infantry Corps Newsletter (http://www.ducimus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Infantry-Corps-Newsletter-Volume-2-Issue-2-final.pdf), there are two articles on Infantry officer training.
One, from the Infantry School, introduces an increase in course length for the BMOQ-A from 10 to 11 weeks and an elimination of the option to take the course in modules. There are reasons advanced for this including "Finally,improved mental robustness is a major goal of the course, not only to improve success on BMOQ-A, but to improve the candidates’ ability to succeed on their next phases of training and throughout their career."
The other, by a senior officer of a reserve infantry unit, advocates shortening and rescheduling officer training for reservists, including BMOQ-A, because "It is important to keep in mind that no PRes officer, not even an undergraduate university student, has infinite availability."
Clearly, there is at least some conflict between providing the best conceivable training for potential reserve officers and increasing the pool of potential good infantry officers.
What are your thoughts on this?
Well said Ayrsayle well said.Ayrsayle said:At the risk of stoking a lot of passionate responses (and all of my commentary is general - there are always specific exceptions):
At some point, I believe the Army needs to come to some degree of understanding that the product you obtain from a part-time soldier is different then the product you get (or will be, as time goes on) from a Reg F soldier. A Reg F member has no "other job" to complete with for time/focus and his focus is to be a soldier whereas a PRes member's participation is subordinate to their other needs (earning a living, etc).
Either we embrace the "Everyone trains to the same standard" entirely (and make an unfair demand on Soldiers who only get part time training/development in comparison to their Reg F counterparts) or we train the PRes and the Reg F to different standards and accept that they are not simply able to "plug and play" in all capacities. Some PRes Members can make up the gap either through additional effort or exceptionalism - but in general (from my limited exposure and observation) are pushed along in their careers at a rate faster then their Reg F counterparts without truly having a chance to master their current rank level, etc (Which also happens in the Reg F - but there is usually more options to choose from as to whom gets promoted).
I recently got to listen to the Commandant of the Infantry School's take on it last year and his take on it was fairly straightforward: with a nearly 50% failure rate during Infantry Officer training, how do we better prepare members for success? His arguement was more training earlier, with a renewed emphasis on mental resiliance.
Working in a PRes Unit - I see what happens to a great number of individuals who complete their Phase 2 training then wait a year without following up on the skillsets - often equals a quick return home from training. However, a reservist doesnt have the ability to complete all the training back to back.
Both arguements presented above are valid, depending on which viewpoint you feel the training should take.