- Reaction score
Why ? Or are you being Army specific here ?Jarnhamar said:I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.
I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training.
On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.
Jarnhamar said:I'd never try and excuse shitty training. Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason.
Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around.
Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things.
As well plq candidates shouldn't be driven to the point of being zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exhausted.
Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO.
This is what I am getting at. Are we just punishing people for being top performers because we can and always have, or can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and say the QSP for the PLQ/JLC is producing better leaders ?