Junior Soldiers

[ArmyGuy99]

IMHO the cadet system WAS a great idea.  It instilled, loyalty, discipline, integrity, team work etc...  However it has changed so much that those of us "Old School" (before '99) wouldn't even recognize it.

It would still be possible though to ramp up the Cadet system perhaps for the Senior Cadet NCO's?? ( Say Sgt. and Up).  Perhaps expose them a little more to the "Real Army" during the summer, and maybe get them into the Co-op Program as well during the school year.  Would help with the enlistment numbers we need, and create some great junior leaders.

 

[TheNomad]

I think you should stop using the word cadet in comparison with junior entry soldiers, they are two very different creatures. 

I hope this helps explain the difference.  Cadets are a youth organisation with military overtones sponsored by the Ministry of Defence.  Cadets go camping as part of youth activities and are not members of the armed forces.  Just like Boy Scouts are not soldiers, cadets are not soldiers either.

On the other hand, juniors were servicemen, albeit of a young age, but full time soldiers just the same, and subject to the same military discipline as everyone else in the forces.  As Daftandbarmy tells junior soldiers do life firing section attacks etc as well as all the rest of the infantry (in my case) stuff.  Remember upon leaving junior service the former junior Soldier / Leader / Apprentice were posted straight to the field army as fully trained (IMO much better trained if a JLdr) soldiers.  The minimum initial colour service for a junior was 9 years (IIRC), although at age 18 they had an option to reduce this to 3 years in line with adult recruits.  Not quite the same as a couple of evenings a week and and maybe the odd camping trip.

 

[lone bugler]

point taken, nomad, cadets and junior servicemen arn't the same. But allow me to clear a few things up. first of all cadets do not go camping, camping is roasting marshmallows and a song by the fire, so you call building bivwacks, learning aircrew survival, orienteering, proper radio communication and search techniques camping. Second of all I believe members of the British army cadet force do a mean section attack and other battle drills. which as medtech pointed out is exactly what the canadian cadet system need more of. that being said there is actually incentives for being in cadets long enough when joining the CF. Although I believe this makes cadets think they are better than fresh recruits (which is completely false), it does mean the DND recognize the cadet program as something useful.

 

[daftandbarmy]

point taken, nomad, cadets and junior servicemen arn't the same. But allow me to clear a few things up. first of all cadets do not go camping, camping is roasting marshmallows and a song by the fire, so you call building bivwacks, learning aircrew survival, orienteering, proper radio communication and search techniques camping. Second of all I believe members of the British army cadet force do a mean section attack and other battle drills. which as medtech pointed out is exactly what the canadian cadet system need more of. that being said there is actually incentives for being in cadets long enough when joining the CF. Although I believe this makes cadets think they are better than fresh recruits (which is completely false), it does mean the DND recognize the cadet program as something useful.

Having been both an Army Cadet in Canada (who went to the UK on the UKLF Cadet Leadership Program), and a platoon commander of Junior Soldiers in the British Army, I can tell you that it wouldn't be much of a stretch to turn the older cadets in Canada (Silver/Gold Star and equivalent) into good Junior Soldiers. Terms of engagement would obviously have to change but, with the right leadership and training program, 'kids' who are between 16 and 17 1/2 years of age will make excellent soldiers. Are the programs similar now? Except for some of the basic drill, fieldcraft, adventure training and basic leadership/citizenship stuff (and the outright enthusiasm of the participants), of course not. Could they be? You bet.