"Soft" Training
- Thread starter Infanteer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
On the first one, he's right: as long as basic remains a CF-purple lowest common denominator course, we will have weak basic training-we cannot change it to a higher standardor other "players" besides the Army will complain. On the second, IMHO he is wrong in the sense that both the US Marines and the US Army dedicate effort and study to instilling a concept of ethics. When I was at Quantico, I picked up a Marine wallet card that displayed the Marine warrior code. The first line was "Marines obey the law". Not "Marines obey orders" but "the law" . I do not think we paid near enough attention to moral and ethical behavouir in our Army in the years leading up to Somalia, with the result that unethical behavouir became entrenched at various levels (not just generals...) and required a series of very nasty,messy and painful scandals to expose. We have (of course...) over reacted to a certain extent, but IMHO that is the nature of most militaries trying to fix major internal problems.
Cheers.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 6,325
- Points
- 1,260
I agree with Morton, mainly, on the first point. While I accept that we need 'modest' purple standards â “ so long as we do purple training, I do not accept that the standards cannot be higher than, I suspect, is now the case.
I do not advocate a return to The RCR Depot circa 1960 but, over the years, I had occasion to work with the products of RCN and RCAF recruit schools and it is my belief that both had pretty good standards in general service knowledge, drill, dress & deportment and discipline. The discipline, drill and dress were not army 'style' but I will assure you than young sailors and airmen had â “ maybe still have: a strong sense of duty and a commitment to doing their jobs as well as they possibly could, under whatever conditions prevailed, without much supervision (less, I think, than we supplied to equally junior folks in the army) â “ not a bad standard of discipline, if you ask me.
I believe that we did dilute standards to too low a level; I believe, also, that attempts to raise them were challenged by some people â “ especially from the technical branches. I believe, further, that then advocates of higher, better recruit training standards backed off too quickly. I believe that YOU â “ all of you serving officers and NCOs â “ CAN raise the standards â “ the purple standards â “ if you believe that they need to be raised and if you are willing to work to present and defend that thesis in the face of people who know that better or tougher or higher equals more expensive. You must be ready, able and willing to argue that money must be taken from something which is also important to pay for better recruit training.
I agree with pbi re: training in ethics. I recall, very clearly, being told, as a young recruit, that discipline â “ imposed on the parade square and, later, learned in our sections, platoons and companies - would always help us to do the nearly impossible: obey a lawful command which would be almost unimaginable to the gaggle of 18 year olds assembled there, in Wolseley Barracks. Great emphasis was placed on the word lawful by NCOs who felt that we should have hung Kurt Meyer and his minions for unlawfully murdering Canadian prisoners. I believe that the Somalia imbroglio represented several coincidental failures: in leadership, in discipline and in basic training.
Clearly, I believe that we should train recruits to the highest common standards which should include good standards of general service knowledge, fitness, dress & deportment, drill, weapon handling, marksmanship, ethics, military law and discipline. I know it will cost money which must come from somewhere â “ either from 'new' money, which cannot, then, be applied to address other critical problems, or by reallocating from existing programmes.
I do not advocate a return to The RCR Depot circa 1960 but, over the years, I had occasion to work with the products of RCN and RCAF recruit schools and it is my belief that both had pretty good standards in general service knowledge, drill, dress & deportment and discipline. The discipline, drill and dress were not army 'style' but I will assure you than young sailors and airmen had â “ maybe still have: a strong sense of duty and a commitment to doing their jobs as well as they possibly could, under whatever conditions prevailed, without much supervision (less, I think, than we supplied to equally junior folks in the army) â “ not a bad standard of discipline, if you ask me.
I believe that we did dilute standards to too low a level; I believe, also, that attempts to raise them were challenged by some people â “ especially from the technical branches. I believe, further, that then advocates of higher, better recruit training standards backed off too quickly. I believe that YOU â “ all of you serving officers and NCOs â “ CAN raise the standards â “ the purple standards â “ if you believe that they need to be raised and if you are willing to work to present and defend that thesis in the face of people who know that better or tougher or higher equals more expensive. You must be ready, able and willing to argue that money must be taken from something which is also important to pay for better recruit training.
I agree with pbi re: training in ethics. I recall, very clearly, being told, as a young recruit, that discipline â “ imposed on the parade square and, later, learned in our sections, platoons and companies - would always help us to do the nearly impossible: obey a lawful command which would be almost unimaginable to the gaggle of 18 year olds assembled there, in Wolseley Barracks. Great emphasis was placed on the word lawful by NCOs who felt that we should have hung Kurt Meyer and his minions for unlawfully murdering Canadian prisoners. I believe that the Somalia imbroglio represented several coincidental failures: in leadership, in discipline and in basic training.
Clearly, I believe that we should train recruits to the highest common standards which should include good standards of general service knowledge, fitness, dress & deportment, drill, weapon handling, marksmanship, ethics, military law and discipline. I know it will cost money which must come from somewhere â “ either from 'new' money, which cannot, then, be applied to address other critical problems, or by reallocating from existing programmes.
U
Uberman
Guest
I can't really comment on what the basic training is today and how it compares vis a vis other military's training but from what I hear on the various posts the training began to change around 1990 to reflect more of a human rights approach, political correctness etc. I always apprecitated the "theatre of war" style of training ie. "if you cannot perform X then you will not be able to defeat the enemy in the theatre of war and Pte. Bloggins beside you will be a pile of red goo". Now maybe our role as a military has changed, perhaps we don't need to be training a fighting army when our goal is peacekeeping. That seems to be the overwhelming commentary arising out of, and since, the Somalia affair. Perhaps a more "respect" oriented training where your NCO treats you with more respect, asks you for permission to touch you, no yelling etc. carves out a better peacekeeper. Personally I found the "fear of God" to be a good motivator and instilled the sense of urgency required to get the job done without too much thinking. If the old adage "no one gets left behind" and "you're only as good as your slowest man/woman" maintains then I would think the training cadre has a responsibility to ensure our slowest man meets a bare minimum that doesn't place the rest of the troops in jeopardy in the theatre of war, if in fact that's where we are going. From my understanding of peacekeeping today, is that it carries many of the same risks as an operational theatre of war - especially when you take into account that the UN sends troops in nowadays without necessarily being invited. The whole sovereignty issue seems to have died with the Rwanda affair. UN troops appear to be fair game now.
With respect to the second point, Geez - when I was soldiering, if any of our soldiers even found the micron of a second to consider whether the order was an "ethical" one they would be in a world of hurt. The point of soldiering was to cover your fire team partners ass and to ensure your section survived. Ethics didn't come into play when firing and covering. We didn't care who was firing at us from the trench, a grenade was going in it. Now thats for soldiering - if by ethics they mean don't rape the civillians and pillage, then no, that is not, and should not be an individual judgment. Those are universal truths - that type of behaviour is unacceptable and a disgrace to the uniform.
Here's one for ethics - in 88/89 we moved from the FNC1 to the C7. The FN fired a 7.62 and pretty much stopped the enemy in his tracks. The C-7 on the other hand fired a 5.56 round that would not have as good stopping power. Around the same time the Army came out with it's Shoot to Live line of thought - take an enemy out with a FNC1 and his buds say 'crap' and soldier on, hit one with the C-7 and two of his buds try to administer first aid. Ergo your chances of defeating the enemy with the C-7 are better. In the heat of a conflict, one does not have the luxury of being able to evaluate whether to lay fire on a sniper position that is picking off your mates. If civilians are near then they should be taken into account as a collateral matter, but the fact is the sniper has to be taken out and the soldiers priority is to remove the threat as instructed. As my favorite Warrant Officer once said, "Ladies, this is not a democracy"
With respect to the second point, Geez - when I was soldiering, if any of our soldiers even found the micron of a second to consider whether the order was an "ethical" one they would be in a world of hurt. The point of soldiering was to cover your fire team partners ass and to ensure your section survived. Ethics didn't come into play when firing and covering. We didn't care who was firing at us from the trench, a grenade was going in it. Now thats for soldiering - if by ethics they mean don't rape the civillians and pillage, then no, that is not, and should not be an individual judgment. Those are universal truths - that type of behaviour is unacceptable and a disgrace to the uniform.
Here's one for ethics - in 88/89 we moved from the FNC1 to the C7. The FN fired a 7.62 and pretty much stopped the enemy in his tracks. The C-7 on the other hand fired a 5.56 round that would not have as good stopping power. Around the same time the Army came out with it's Shoot to Live line of thought - take an enemy out with a FNC1 and his buds say 'crap' and soldier on, hit one with the C-7 and two of his buds try to administer first aid. Ergo your chances of defeating the enemy with the C-7 are better. In the heat of a conflict, one does not have the luxury of being able to evaluate whether to lay fire on a sniper position that is picking off your mates. If civilians are near then they should be taken into account as a collateral matter, but the fact is the sniper has to be taken out and the soldiers priority is to remove the threat as instructed. As my favorite Warrant Officer once said, "Ladies, this is not a democracy"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Uberman said:
From my experience at basic and SQ, you have to earn the respect of the NCO, and it usually starts to show near the end of the course, if you've earned it. There is no asking for permission to touch you either, if they need you to move, or face another direction, they'll move you, or yell until you move yourself.
Most of the NCOs instructing basic and SQ are from the "old army" so old habits die hard. We still get bits and pieces of what it was like, lots of pushups and physical punishment, oops I mean "physical training", but I'm certain the courses are not as "hard" as they used to be, physically, judging by some of the stories we were told. You don't want to bust up the soldiers during training, and run them to exhaustion because then you degrade the effectiveness of the soldier.
Sense of urgency is one of the main things pushed at basic/SQ and they use all kinds of motivators, "Fear of God" works pretty well, like threats of taking away your weekend, and CBing you seem to get the troops to point B on time. No one gets left behind is what we were taught and the same with you're only as good as your slowest man/woman. The section/platoon has to come together and help make the slowest faster and stronger. Of course there are exceptions and shit pumps that you just have to cut loose, but thats for the best of the platoon anyway.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
At this point, I would like to provide a bit of a backgrounder as to some of the reasons why the CF recruit training has become watered down.
In 1985, a Human Rights Commission was set up to examine government practices in each department. This was a direct result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being entrenched in the Canadian Constitution which was adopted earlier in that decade. Amongst other things, the commission had to ensure that all federal government departments followed equality rules under the charter.
In 1989, DND was called to task on the fact that females were not allowed in combat arms and were not significantly represented in those trades. The commission recommended and DND complied with the directive to open up these trades to women. Also, recruit training was looked at and recommendations were made based on the commission's interpretation of "human rights".
I believe that it is at this point the CF became even more purple than what it had been. I also believe that it is all our collective faults for letting it happen the way it did, but hind sight is twenty-twenty.
When the commission looked at what DND was doing and how it was doing it, I don't think they took into account the fact that DND is not just another government department. They just treated it with the same fashion as they probably did for transport Canada. Most Canadians do not understand military culture and are shocked to realize what it really is.
When those recommendations were given to the DND minister and CDS of the day, I'm sure all they saw was their jobs on the line. This is a prime example of how the CF military culture is not strong enough and does not get burned into the individual psychy as deeply as it should. I'm sure they resisted but only to a certain point.
I believe that since Canadians have an inherent identity crisis to begin with (this is only true while living in Canada), it is only natural that our military culture should suffer in some of the same ways. Let's face it, most of our military traditions were passed on to us from the Brits. We need to redefine ourselves militarily and adopt that warrior mentality that we so desperately need in the CF. We need to get away from the perception that the CF will only perform humanitarian/peacekeeping missions etc...
Having gone through basic in 1989 and then went on to teach basic in the early to mid 1990s, I saw major changes in the course package from year to year. Although the training days were increased, the course content was decreased and removed were such things as C9, M72, M84 and a lot of field craft. It was replaced with extra drill and even more endless classes on the Geneva Convention. What was missing was time to instill Corps Values in the soldiers. We were not making our mark on the recruits in terms of CF Corps Values. I personally made my mark on them and made sure they understood but the CF Corps Values are not institutionalized. The CF is compartamentalized due to the regimental system. The only thing they had in Cornwallis similar to corps values was the "learn to serve" motto. But that goes away after you leave boot camp and enter a regimental battle school.
When you consider that Battle School is tougher than recruit training, that says something about how our training is out of balance. It should be the other way. Training should become easier as you gain more experience even while going through the accession pipe line (boot campt to completion of trade school).
As I see it, one of two things needs to happen:
1. Return recruit training responsibility to the individual regiments i.e. RCR train their own, Arty trains its own etc...
The downside to this is obviously the fact that we will end up with different standards of recruit training depending on which unit you belong too. We already have that problem with the reserve system since it depends in which region you are and who runs the schools.
OR
2. Adopt a model of centralized recruit training (one on each coast) similar to that of the Marine Corps. Mold Canadian recruits the same way that Marines are molded and give them a common military culture to adhere too. Give them CF Corps Values to live and serve by. Give them unrelenquishing discipline, teach them how to shoot and kill. Train them to be real soldiers and not a reasonably hand drawn facsimilie of what it used to be. Segregate male and female training until trade training courses. Remind them of who they are every day of their careers.
Some of the problems with this lies in the regimental affiliation. Marines are Marines first and then they belong to a unit etc...They do things the Marine Corps way and not the "insert your unit name here" way. That concept needs to be translated into Canadianeeze so as to strengthen our military culture so that we can have something to give our recruits that they will never loose. It will be inside them forever. Ask any former Marine if he is still a Marine and the answer will be YES. Here, we are given an identity and it can't be taken away from us. The CF could learn some pretty good culture building lessons from that.
PJ D-Dog
In 1985, a Human Rights Commission was set up to examine government practices in each department. This was a direct result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being entrenched in the Canadian Constitution which was adopted earlier in that decade. Amongst other things, the commission had to ensure that all federal government departments followed equality rules under the charter.
In 1989, DND was called to task on the fact that females were not allowed in combat arms and were not significantly represented in those trades. The commission recommended and DND complied with the directive to open up these trades to women. Also, recruit training was looked at and recommendations were made based on the commission's interpretation of "human rights".
I believe that it is at this point the CF became even more purple than what it had been. I also believe that it is all our collective faults for letting it happen the way it did, but hind sight is twenty-twenty.
When the commission looked at what DND was doing and how it was doing it, I don't think they took into account the fact that DND is not just another government department. They just treated it with the same fashion as they probably did for transport Canada. Most Canadians do not understand military culture and are shocked to realize what it really is.
When those recommendations were given to the DND minister and CDS of the day, I'm sure all they saw was their jobs on the line. This is a prime example of how the CF military culture is not strong enough and does not get burned into the individual psychy as deeply as it should. I'm sure they resisted but only to a certain point.
I believe that since Canadians have an inherent identity crisis to begin with (this is only true while living in Canada), it is only natural that our military culture should suffer in some of the same ways. Let's face it, most of our military traditions were passed on to us from the Brits. We need to redefine ourselves militarily and adopt that warrior mentality that we so desperately need in the CF. We need to get away from the perception that the CF will only perform humanitarian/peacekeeping missions etc...
Having gone through basic in 1989 and then went on to teach basic in the early to mid 1990s, I saw major changes in the course package from year to year. Although the training days were increased, the course content was decreased and removed were such things as C9, M72, M84 and a lot of field craft. It was replaced with extra drill and even more endless classes on the Geneva Convention. What was missing was time to instill Corps Values in the soldiers. We were not making our mark on the recruits in terms of CF Corps Values. I personally made my mark on them and made sure they understood but the CF Corps Values are not institutionalized. The CF is compartamentalized due to the regimental system. The only thing they had in Cornwallis similar to corps values was the "learn to serve" motto. But that goes away after you leave boot camp and enter a regimental battle school.
When you consider that Battle School is tougher than recruit training, that says something about how our training is out of balance. It should be the other way. Training should become easier as you gain more experience even while going through the accession pipe line (boot campt to completion of trade school).
As I see it, one of two things needs to happen:
1. Return recruit training responsibility to the individual regiments i.e. RCR train their own, Arty trains its own etc...
The downside to this is obviously the fact that we will end up with different standards of recruit training depending on which unit you belong too. We already have that problem with the reserve system since it depends in which region you are and who runs the schools.
OR
2. Adopt a model of centralized recruit training (one on each coast) similar to that of the Marine Corps. Mold Canadian recruits the same way that Marines are molded and give them a common military culture to adhere too. Give them CF Corps Values to live and serve by. Give them unrelenquishing discipline, teach them how to shoot and kill. Train them to be real soldiers and not a reasonably hand drawn facsimilie of what it used to be. Segregate male and female training until trade training courses. Remind them of who they are every day of their careers.
Some of the problems with this lies in the regimental affiliation. Marines are Marines first and then they belong to a unit etc...They do things the Marine Corps way and not the "insert your unit name here" way. That concept needs to be translated into Canadianeeze so as to strengthen our military culture so that we can have something to give our recruits that they will never loose. It will be inside them forever. Ask any former Marine if he is still a Marine and the answer will be YES. Here, we are given an identity and it can't be taken away from us. The CF could learn some pretty good culture building lessons from that.
PJ D-Dog
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
On the contrary, I suggest that this is the ill-informed view of those (largely outside the military and in particular outside the Army) who have no idea what military operations in peace support, peace enforcememt and combat situations involve. The Canadian military has been in all of these types of operations in the last decade, and we have come back time and time again (as have both our US and British allies) to the conclusion that the well-trained professional combat soldier is the most effective person to deploy. We can take a good professional soldier and teach him add-ons like local language and culture, local political situation, Rules of Engagement (ROE), etc. under the normal Theatre/Mission Specific Training (TMST) process. The discipline and common sense he applies in dealing with situations are products of his training as a professional soldier. I defy you to take a "peacekeeper" (whatever that is imagined to be...) and have him fight effectively when things go bad, as they all too often do. There is no neatly drawn line between these types of operations: the term "3 Block War" was coined to capture this reality.
Right you are.
And it still is, it's just that we (and the US, and the UK) maybe spend a bit more effort these days considering whether killing civvies and levelling blocks of houses contributes to the desired effect or not. But, in the end, most ROEs I am familiar with give you the power to use deadly force regardless of the presence of civilians-you will just have to face the consequences. In fact, Law of Armed Conflict does not absolutely protect even a religious building or hospital if the enemy chooses to use them as fighting positions.
Right on PJ D-Dog. We have had a pretty good bash on another thread about the superiority of the Marines in this regard, as well as the desperate need in the modrn operational enviroment for "soldier first". I believe that it is within our power to do this too, if we really want to, but we scare ourselves with the boogeyman that "the civvies" or "the politicians" won't let us. Rubbish: as long as we are logical, smart and fair and can prove a need, we have nothing to worry about. We have an excellent warrior history, every bit as proud as that of the Corps, and we need to instill that instead of silly rubbish about being "peacekeepers". As the past CO of the RCR battalion in Afghanistan, LCol Don Denne said: "when I hear that word "peacekeeper" it makes me cringe".
Cheers.
U
Uberman
Guest
All of this reminds me of "A few Good Men". - I don't necessarily agree with the manner of training in this fictional scenario, however it does underscore the balance you have to strike between being an equal opportunity employer and ensuring the so-called wall is protected in a soliloquy / monologue only Jack could deliver.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have read some Psychological literature on basic training - in a nutshell - if you do not break the recruits down completely before building them back up again, you end up with sub-standard soldiers. The "kindler, gentler" approach does not work - they have noticed PTSD rates increasing in lock-step with decreasing standards in basic. There are some really good web references to this too.
All the bleeding hearts will say "Gee there's got to be a better way".
"Well - if you have one - let's see it" is my response. We've been running basic training this way since the Romans (Anyone here ever read the graffiti about Sargeants on Hadrian's wall?) In the past 2000 years - no one has come up with a better way to build an effective, ethical, loyal soldier. No one. Lord knows the lefties have tried, but watering down basic too much may result in inneffective, morally questionable soldiers.
I went through Basic in 1976 and it was HARD. (Less so than the 'old days' according to my course NCOs - heh heh). I have spoken to fresh meat from last year - and the differences are scary.
PJ D-Dog's comments are bang-on, the HRC watered us down and we didn't fight back - we should have.
I am still waiting for someone to show me a better way, but in the meant time - going back to hard (same for everyone) basic, or recruit training centres a la Marines is a good start...
... Sorry for the rant, I really didn't want to get into a "back in the day" thing here, I think I vented too much, now I'm tired.... ;D
All the bleeding hearts will say "Gee there's got to be a better way".
"Well - if you have one - let's see it" is my response. We've been running basic training this way since the Romans (Anyone here ever read the graffiti about Sargeants on Hadrian's wall?) In the past 2000 years - no one has come up with a better way to build an effective, ethical, loyal soldier. No one. Lord knows the lefties have tried, but watering down basic too much may result in inneffective, morally questionable soldiers.
I went through Basic in 1976 and it was HARD. (Less so than the 'old days' according to my course NCOs - heh heh). I have spoken to fresh meat from last year - and the differences are scary.
PJ D-Dog's comments are bang-on, the HRC watered us down and we didn't fight back - we should have.
I am still waiting for someone to show me a better way, but in the meant time - going back to hard (same for everyone) basic, or recruit training centres a la Marines is a good start...
... Sorry for the rant, I really didn't want to get into a "back in the day" thing here, I think I vented too much, now I'm tired.... ;D
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
The Army, err the "CF", is never going to be able to train the way we want to. As long as the military is a petri dish for the social engineers, it's only going to get worse. The fact is, it's a soldiers very loyalty to his country that led to this. The government tries out all their new programs on the forces first, because they know we'll eat 'em and smile, and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" As for the Regimental system, it's worked fine for the Brits ever since Cromwell got a grip on things...
CHIMO, Kat
CHIMO, Kat
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 29,881
- Points
- 1,260
I went thru Recruit and Besic in 1987 - back then it was "your here to kill Russians.."
Strip and assemble the FN C1A1 was done with Sgt's 'encouraging us' with "hoards of screaming red chinese are coming over the hill" amongst others and physical 'correction' for improper drills.
I was teaching a reserve basic in Pet in '94 and said a similar line while instructing a C9 class and the course took a collective gasp.
I think a ballance has to be struck in training - between mindless abuses, yet still create a warrior.
As much as negative reinforcement gets slammed - I can still do C1 howitzer drills as #1-3 for mark and record etc. and I have been out of that trade for 11 years - I guess that Sgt beating (literally) into me the drills paid off.
For me its hard to focus if your unwilling to come to grips with the fact the be-all and end-all of your mission is to KILL the enemy
Strip and assemble the FN C1A1 was done with Sgt's 'encouraging us' with "hoards of screaming red chinese are coming over the hill" amongst others and physical 'correction' for improper drills.
I was teaching a reserve basic in Pet in '94 and said a similar line while instructing a C9 class and the course took a collective gasp.
I think a ballance has to be struck in training - between mindless abuses, yet still create a warrior.
As much as negative reinforcement gets slammed - I can still do C1 howitzer drills as #1-3 for mark and record etc. and I have been out of that trade for 11 years - I guess that Sgt beating (literally) into me the drills paid off.
For me its hard to focus if your unwilling to come to grips with the fact the be-all and end-all of your mission is to KILL the enemy
U
Uberman
Guest
You can bet your last donut that the enemy is training to kill us. In this day and age, he / she doesn't have the shiny bells and whisles, the cadpat or other advances that give our troops an edge. He / she probably doesn't have a military budget and has to rely on wits, being creative and being unconstrained by ethical boundaries. The enemy is no doubt very driven by convictions, isn't getting paid and can't look forward to block leave. My guess is they can probably field strip their weapons and ours. For all intents and purposes, training to fight the fictional Russion 82nd mortar / rifle battalion is gone with FIBUA replacing trench warfare. If and when our troops encounter this enemy, I hope we have sufficient training to bring them all home. I had read the post with the 3VP and US Marines doing training in California - it provides some hope that if the training isn't received as a recruit, then its received OJT.
fibuahttp://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29323.0.html
fibuahttp://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29323.0.html
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 360
Uberman said:
Except for the last item, this sounds a little bit like some of the language I've heard used to describe the CF.
Uberman said:
Further, this bit could be applied to Canadian reservists!
- Reaction score
- 11,706
- Points
- 1,040
>carves out a better peacekeeper
In the worst case, keeping the peace means winning the war (or campaign, or battle, or firefight) in order to impose peace. Every worthwhile peacekeeper must therefore be a proficient warfighter.
In the worst case, keeping the peace means winning the war (or campaign, or battle, or firefight) in order to impose peace. Every worthwhile peacekeeper must therefore be a proficient warfighter.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,140
Kat Stevens said:
We can train the way we want to, but we cannot do it selectively. On another thread: "Whither Our Warriors-The Lowering of Standards" the debate raged around standards being lower. They are not lower unless we choose to allow them to become lower by being selective in when/how they are applied.
Designing and implementing standards takes time, effort and money away from other activities. We already have the EXPRES Test, BFT, IBTS, BTSI, a myriad of CTSs, ELOC, MLOC, DLOC, TMST, Army Fitness Standard, JTF2 Coopers Test, Pre Para Fitness Test, Firefighters Fitness Test, etc. etc. as validated, viable and achievable standards. Instead of re-inventing the wheel everytime someone Purple doesn't measure up, we should re-double our efforts to test to and enforce the standards we already have, and universally at that. Fund the training. Provide the resources and facilities to train to the standard.
Are you a Reservist? Achieve the same standard as your Reg F brethren. Doing PT on your own time? Great! Here's a ½ days pay per month as compensation (but you'd damn well better pass the BFT or we claw it back as an "administrative deduction"!). Worried about losing your civvy job if you get hurt? Here's legislated pension and liability coverage for you when you train on your own.
One Army.
One Standard.
