New PLQ/DP2B structure- More modern training

[Jarnhamar]

Currently the Infantry DP2B course and, if i'm not mistaken, the PLQ infantry mod 6 course teaches/tests junior leaders on 3 things (among others of course but these seem to be the main ones?)

Patrolling (recce and fighting patrol), section attacks and routine in the defense.

These of course are important but shouldn't we also teach our junior leaders how to conduct more modern (for lack of a better word) forms of these?
Recee/Fighting patrols ---> Mounted and foot patrols. Raids. Centered around built up areas.  
Routine in the defense ---> Vehicle checkpoints and routine at the gate
Section attacks ---> OBUA and other section level tactics

I'm not suggesting we do away with the origional set but I think it would bennifit our junior leaders more (especially in the reserves) to be introduced to this kinda stuff at a much eairlier level.

I don't recall where I read it but I remember a comment along the lines that no one in the world is going to challange the US in the air or in large tank battles. We need to start training our guys to deal with what they see in Iraq and Afghanastan and I don't mean the work up training with locals complaining about speeding SFOR vehicles or oh no my neighbour shot my dog.

 

[KevinB]

You cannot get rid of the basic warfighting skills.

Personally I find VCP's to be basic and a few hours classes will get the idea down - no sense wasting tiem iunless its part of a small party shafting -- whoops - tasking...

 

[DELTADOG13]

I see your point of view towards the "Three block War" aspects of training. However as KevinB stated this course is designed to train combat leaders at the junior level. Operations that we have conducted as of late have centred more on blocks 1 and 2 and not of 3. 3 being WAR. However as of recent events and our deployment to Kandahar I believe we will see more of 3 soon. Therefore when you deploy most of the skill sets that these soldiers have learned on the new PLQ Inf can be transferred to OPs other than War scenarios with a mimimum of training. We can't train every soldier for all contigencies. What we can do is make them a living, breathing, thinking on their feet NCO. Nuff said.
Cheers!

 

[PhilB]

The DP2B has been phased out for the PLQ Inf. The "hard asses" for this course include section attacks, patrolling (recce and fighting), a defensive task (one of; occupation, withdrawal,routine), controlling direct fire (controlling mg fire),controlling indirect fire (calling in arty), and FIBUA

 

[Garett]

In the defence Reserve Demo guard is also an option and in FIBUA all troops have to lead a successful attack.

From experience, as a sidenote,  its almost impossible to fail someone off the PLQ Inf, PLQ Land and CF PLQ.

 

[GO!!!]

I think that Ghost has a point.

Why are we still doing trench break - in on our leadership courses?

Could that time not be better spent on more relevant trg?

Or is our trg cadre simply unable to teach anything more advanced than Korean War tactics?

The argument that "basics" will make great leaders is losing credibility fast. No one in the CF has performed the "basics" in a theatre in fifty years. That means that we are not gaining anything from the instructors "experience" they are teaching straight out of the pam - word for word. Since we all agree that the pam is outdated - why do we follow it.

A quick study of recent missions will find that the troops there recieved almost no relevant trg at all prior to deploying, with almost every task being new and SOPs being done on the spot, because none existed. Only with the PRT has this begun to change - but they still wasted precious weeks on doing section attacks, so that they could mount up in the LUVWs and start patrolling.

Flush the basics. We need to overhaul IBTS completely, and with it, the leadership courses. I have a feeling that this wont change until a bunch of us get killed though, and someone finally steps up and says that it was due to inadequate training more than inadequate kit.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thanks Go.

Of course we need to still teach our junior leaders section and section level attacks, patroling, routine etc..
(This probably applies to reserves more)

I still think we should introduce more modern applications much sooner.  I know the PLQ infantry mod is longer than the DP2b which is being phased out and I'm not sure what exactly is taught on the mod 6.  I think we should find extra time for training.  Instead of just doing one recce patrol, have the candidates required to do two. A recce patrol in the woods and a mounted recce patrol.  Instead of just one or two  fighting patrols at the end of the course against 2 enemy force guys sitting in a truck representing a RRB site, have one raid against an RRB site and one raid against a house with suspected weapons inside.

A common comment i've heard is 'they will learn this stuff back at their unit'.  That doesn't happen very often. The unit has way too much on the go. In 3 years at one reserveunit I was with i can remember doing one 'moden' excersise involving vehicle check points.  The rest of it has been us being attacked by the granovians who have tanks and fast air. Section attacks against 2 man listening posts.

Another point is when this stuff is taught on leadership courses the candidates are around staff who have been *doing* this stuff for 20 years. When a soldier gets back to his or her unit (in the reserves) they run a good chance of being taught this stuff by a 21 year old master corporal who is reading the lesson plan from a book verbatem.  RSS staff aside, reserve units don't usually have that much experienced soldiers to draw from.

From experience, as a sidenote,  its almost impossible to fail someone off the PLQ Inf, PLQ Land and CF PLQ

It might differ from place to place but the DP2B and plq infantry i've seen all summer have been loosing guys fairly often.
or did you mean an instructor failing a student on purpose?

 

[GO!!!]

It might differ from place to place but the DP2B and plq infantry i've seen all summer have been loosing guys fairly often.
or did you mean an instructor failing a student on purpose?

The CF has made great strides in the arbitrary failing of leadership candidates just because the staff hated them. All that is required is for the candidate to fail is for them to fail a PO check twice and go to the PRB. If you, as an instructor, can't find faults in a candidate - guess what - he deserves to pass!!

Incidentally Mr. Hallman, what is the pass rate for Militia Ph I and II?

I've watched a good number of cpls fail leadership courses, and for a number of reasons - not all of them justified, so stating that "it's almost impossible" for someone to fail is both false, and indicative of poor instructional technique.

 

[Standards]

This is what PLQ (Inf) teaches IAW with the current TP (08 Jul 05).  The number in brackets indicates the number of total periods, including practice and PCs.

PO 201 (CF) (33) - Lead Subordinates.
PO 205 (CF) (17) - Plan Operations / Activities.
PO 206 (CF) (41) - Conduct Operations / Activities (Small Party Tasks - hard assess).

PO 206 (28) - Control Direct Fire (includes: tactical employment of MGs, fire control orders, record fire tasks, etc).
PO 207 (21) - Control Indirect Fire (includes: call & request fire).
PO 208 (93) - Conduct Patrolling Operations (includes: navigation, patrolling theory, battle procedure, raid, ambush, passage of lines, etc).
PO 209 (57) - Conduct Dismounted Offensive Operations (includes: hasty attack, trench/strong point clearance, deliberate attack, etc).
PO 210 (60) - Defend the Main Defensive Area (includes: protective minefield, sect routine, site & employ AA wpns, etc).
PO 211 (49) - Conduct Transitional & Unique Operations (includes: woods clearing, relief in place/withdrawal, reserve demolition, urban ops, etc).
EdO 201 (2) - Describe Infantry Doctrine & Tactics.
Edo 202 (1) - Describe Combat Arms Doctrine.
EdO 203 (2) - Analyse Current Threat.

This program was put together because the infantry corp decided that they needed additional training from what was provided by the PLQ (L).  However, there have been some complaints that 44 days is too long for the course (note: this applies to both PRes and Reg F courses, however PRes can also take the course in 4 x 11 day blocks).  I wouldn't disagree that adding in additional material would be nice, but to play devil's advocate, what do you suggest is deleted in order to make the time available?

 

[GO!!!]

I would suggest dropping the five weeks of theory that candidates must get through at the beginning of the course, which happens in the classroom, and includes such info as a 3-5 period safety brief and innumerable lists which are totally irrelevant to the rest of the course.

Teaching Cpls Infantry and Cbt arms doctrine is great, but not at the expense of actual field training opportunities.

On my leadership trg, we struggled to pay attention in classes that were opened with "my name is Sgt. *****, and today we will be covering safety, you will use this for, um, for the test tomorrow"

In addition to this, various types of trg should be flushed completely, such as the trench break in, use of mines, and anything involving trench warfare. We don't use mines in the infantry anymore (other than claymores) and no one has dug or attacked a trench system since Korea.

In addition to this, the priorities seem a bit skewed. Why are you only assessed on one recce patrol, but innumerable paper tests on theory and tactics?

Why are manoever groups centered on the section, as opposed to the platoon?

Why are LUVW and other mounted platforms in the platoon context not covered?

And finally (and my biggest pet peeve) why are NCOs who are in such poor physical condition that they cannot keep up to their charges on very short patrols permitted to teach on such an important course? Careers are on the line and the assessor in many cases is gasping for air and sweating all over the assessment form.

We could free up approximately 15 - 20 days of field time if the classroom portion was whittled down or made into a study package.

IMHO

 

[proudloudCND]

yes there is redundancy in the plq mod 6.Big deal reduncy is all over the cf.Let the soldiers and their after action reports make the suggestions for changes for they are the ones who have just finished the course.O.k. now remember the addage "Suck it up" and take what you learn on these courses from mod 1 to mod 6 and apply it so you can be the most succesful nco you can be.Nothing will ever be perfect in this militaary and it can never be, do to ever changing tactics of our enemies.

 

[paracowboy]

yes there is redundancy in the plq mod 6.Big deal reduncy is all over the cf.Let the soldiers and their after action reports make the suggestions for changes for they are the ones who have just finished the course.O.k. now remember the addage "Suck it up" and take what you learn on these courses from mod 1 to mod 6 and apply it so you can be the most succesful nco you can be.Nothing will ever be perfect in this militaary and it can never be, do to ever changing tactics of our enemies.

absolutely. I don't want to hear of anyone trying to work for change or improvement again.

 

[PhilB]

I agree with para there is a lot of relativly unimportant information on this course, the lectures on counselling and interviews etc could all be moved to mod 2 or mod 5. The lectures that we were forced to sit through on the "opfor scenario" including the whole To&E of notional "stromian" formations is absolutly pointless. The day spent learning how to lay a protective mine field, something we are not allowed to day, is wasted. I am undecided about trench warfare as the Brits and Americans assualted a large scale Iraqi trench in gulf war 1. The fibua portion needs to be beefed up, the portions on static defense can be removed etc. As with the instructors physical shape aside. MCpls that took their leadership course the summer before have no business teaching a leadership course.

 

[Sully]

I think Advanced Winter Whimis should be the main effort for our PLQ.

 

[KevinB]

Excellent points by GO!!!.

My idea of basics and other maybe different -- my biggest concern is that VCP crap woudl be come doctrine and someone may be accessed for how he set up his Bosnia era vehicle checkpoint.
  *note it is impossible to cover all AI's of a Afghan VCP (which is kinds stupid anyway if you've been there) in a 6 week course.

It should teach junior combat leadership.
  PERIOD  - I think the teaching should be broken from the leadership issue.

1)Explain combat physiology and pyschology - the effect on body and mind
2)Skills and Drills (relevant to Closing With and Destroying in TODAY'S environment)

 

[Infanteer]

GO, Kevin - good stuff.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[paracowboy]

GO, Kevin - good stuff.

Cheers,
Infanteer

nonsense! We should be teaching more drill! How else will troops learn to form into a hollow square properly? Also, more time should be devoted to teaching potential leaders how to deal with subordinates with hurt feelings.

 

[KevinB]

I'm sure you voluteer to be the demo instructor for the Hurt Feeling Sympathy course  ;D
"Suck it up you stunned C**T"

 

[Britney Spears]

We should be teaching more drill! How else will troops learn to form into a hollow square properly?

Wth bayonets fixed too! 

 

[gate_guard]

Uh oh, I sense that Infanteer is about to repost his commando course thread again. Seriously though, just to rehash Kevin's idea, why not a combat leadership course designed specifically for infantry which enhances not only personal fieldcraft and warfighting skills but leadership as well (Ranger course anyone?). Leave all the range safety, law, drill and lecture stuff to a combined arms course (PLQ?) and take the mod 6 for infantry and turn it into it's own course. Those with the drill and lecture quals can teach courses, those with the combat leadership course can lead troops, those with both can teach the combat leadership course. And let the rear echelon types keep on digging trenches on their mod 6, you know, stay fresh on those basic soldier skills and take cool pics...