OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 19,354
- Points
- 1,260
Along with mortars, TOW, Assault Pioneers, et al
We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,231
- Points
- 1,260
daftandbarmy said:A lot of people point at the Royal Marines and marvel at their fitness program but, having been part of their system for a couple of years and seeing it in action, they freely acknowledge that some of of the main secrets of their success in this area is the fact that:
1) They have a 30 week training program, one of the longest in the world, which allows them to very gradually ramp up recruits to the high levels of fitness (and other infantry type skills of course) required without injuring them or chasing them away, and
2) They have an in-house cadre (a 'Specialty Qualification' as they call it - the 'Club Swingers') of Royal Marine PT instructors, who are all Royal Marines themselves as well, who are professionally trained to ramp people up fitness wise.
I don't see why we couldn't do the same, especially given the low standards of fitness in our average recruits (and elderly Majors) these days.
Your points 1) and 2) were very much liken the Army that I joined well over a half century ago ...
Recruit training was, as I recall, 25+/- weeks long ~ three "phases" of eight weeks each, I think; I'm happy yo be corrected.
Army physical training instructors were regimental NCOs who were specially trained in the occupation, in health and safety and in motivational techniques. My memory is that they actually wanted to make us fit without injuring us.
I guess that a typical recruit platoon started with, say, 30 would-be soldiers; by the end of the first phase about ¼ of the platoon had been "back-squaded" ~ sent back to the a PAT platoon to try again ... a few from injuries, one or two for being terminally stupid, but most because they couldn't meet the steadily increasing physical fitness requirements. We lost another¼ in the second and third phases, most, i both cases, replaced by soldiers who had been "back-squaded" to us from a more senior platoon.
My recollection is that no-one who started was seriously over-weight or "weak," but most of us were not fit enough, and that included a lot of guys from rural areas, even First Nations guys who were pretty used to hard work and privation "out on the land."
Anyway, there was enough time to make us all, well almost all, except for those who were terminally stupid or had really bad conduct, fit enough ... 25+/- weeks was longer than needed to teach basic discipline and skill at arms and fieldcraft/battlecraft; fitness was why it took so long.
IF the CAF wants fit men and women then it has to make the resources available, and training time is a resource with a cost attached to it. IF then CAF doesn't want to spend the resources then I can only conclude that the most senior national leadership doesn't care about winning the next war.
- Reaction score
- 272
- Points
- 880
Quirky said:
No. No you haven't. You may think you have, but you have not.
Pers heading out of work on long-term leave (Extended sick leave, MATA, PATA, post deployment leave [with a theatre PER to cover their tour time], LWOP for education or spousal accompaniment, etc etc etc) who do not have an observable amount of time actually at work receive EXEMPTION PERs. Exemption PERs are neither scored nor ranked. Exemption PERs cause a member's place on the merit list to be 'frozen' - they move neither up nor down the merit list - they sit exactly where the last fall merit boards PRIOR to their departure on leave had them merit listed at. If on MATA or PATA and that gal or guys merit number is reached for promotion, that individual will be promoted with the relevant effective date. That promotion was earned BEFORE the individual went on extended leave (guys & gals) and both guys and gals receive those non-scored exemption PERs for their time not at work.
Likewise, any guy or gal who is at work for an 'observable' period of time during the FY gets a PER that scores their actual performance while actually at work - guys and gals. Not a shred of difference between men and women here.
It has zero to do with any old boys club and your sarcasm is noted. You do realize however that not every Canadian, thus not every recruit is raised with the same ethical and moral standards that you were apparently raised with right? Some have higher than yours and some have lower. OP HONOUR is about getting ALL CAF members to a COMMON minimum standard. Given the continuance of instances, some obviously still need the step up to that common standard.
Jarnhamar said:
Let's dispel some myths. After 3 decades past the CREW trials that I joined under --- it's high time.
For 30 years, I've heard bitching about lowering standards and women getting undeservedly promoted ahead of their male peers just to reach quotas. How the EXPRESS Test and FORCE with their gender-different testing results in women moving ahead of their male peers undeservedly, creating a worse-off CAF etc etc.
You know what? Facts on the ground don't back up a single one of those things. For the amount of times I've seen it posted on this site (often by the same individuals) or heard it said, EVERY WO & above in the CAF should be a woman by now.
I live it every day. I am a female in the Canadian Army (there are many). I am a female CWO in the Canadian Army (there are a few more). I am a female Formation Chief Warrant Officer in the Canadian Army (I am by myself in this respect). I am the only enlisted female in the Canadian Army serving in a Senior Appointment (I'm talking non-commissioned). Based on the message I received last week, I will continue to be the sole Cdn Army female in an SA until APS 19, at least, if something doesn't change between now and then.
A quick review of my fellow Cdn Army Snr Appt CWO peers' bios indicates that all of my male peers in this group took approx 29-30 years to reach this level. It took me 29.5. I'd say that's pretty damn equal despite all that "biased fitness and PER points" I've apparently been receiving my entire career" that some so frequently like to banter about.
Some would say there should be more of me - ie women - in this group. I say perhaps, but not too many people - male or female - are willing to put up with the pace, the frequency of postings (or the many unaccompanied [9 years of that straight for me]) that one undoubtedly goes through to make it to this level. Extremely hard work and dedication and a priority to do what is asked of us whenever and wherever it is asked of us. One doesn't need to always be happy about it, but do it anyway as that is what I signed up to do.
Someone has also suggested that I am the first female in the Canadian Army to make it into the Senior Appt level (you no longer belong to your branch or trade, wear the crossed swords as my collar dogs, become a MOSID 00351 etc). I have no idea whether that is true or not and I wouldn't begin to know how to find out of it is factual or not, but I do know that it took sacrifice to get here, exactly as it did for the men. My peers are actually quite the awesome bunch of gents too. I didn't reach this level any faster than any of them reached this level, nor did I get here any slower.
30 years. 30 years since the CREW trials, and we're still hearing the same tired myths about women getting promoted faster, undeservedly, treated easier, and it's simply not factual.
If we want women to join the CAF, and to retain them, then those myths and non-factual statements about women not desrrving that promotion they worked for and earned, or that somehow fitness testing sees them vault wrongly ahead of men coming from their supposed peers have got to stop. The facts and the stats don't back up what you both seem to be putting out there.
- Reaction score
- 9,825
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=ArmyVern]
30 years. 30 years since the CREW trials, and we're still hearing the same tired myths about women getting promoted faster, undeservedly, treated easier, and it's simply not factual.
If we want women to join the CAF, and to retain them, then those myths and non-factual statements about women not desrrving that promotion they worked for and earned, or that somehow fitness testing sees them vault wrongly ahead of men coming from their supposed peers have got to stop. The facts and the stats don't back up what you both seem to be putting out there.
[/quote]
Great post. Reading my quoted comments above I should have worded it better. I've personally never once suggested women get promoted faster then men in the CAF whether in person or on this site. My comment here about no longer going to discriminate against, was solely targeted towards the planned FORCE test incentives that would see members scoring silver gold and platinum given PER points where the simple change of ones gender could bump them up two incentive levels. Which I believe is unfair and discriminatory. It seems the CAF isn't going through with that after all (something the head PSP person related to me) but it doesn't appear to be official yet. As far as I'm aware fitness testing has never had anything to do with promotions in the past.
If you don't mind me asking whats your views on the concept of a female only recruit platoon with female only instructors?
30 years. 30 years since the CREW trials, and we're still hearing the same tired myths about women getting promoted faster, undeservedly, treated easier, and it's simply not factual.
If we want women to join the CAF, and to retain them, then those myths and non-factual statements about women not desrrving that promotion they worked for and earned, or that somehow fitness testing sees them vault wrongly ahead of men coming from their supposed peers have got to stop. The facts and the stats don't back up what you both seem to be putting out there.
[/quote]
Great post. Reading my quoted comments above I should have worded it better. I've personally never once suggested women get promoted faster then men in the CAF whether in person or on this site. My comment here about no longer going to discriminate against, was solely targeted towards the planned FORCE test incentives that would see members scoring silver gold and platinum given PER points where the simple change of ones gender could bump them up two incentive levels. Which I believe is unfair and discriminatory. It seems the CAF isn't going through with that after all (something the head PSP person related to me) but it doesn't appear to be official yet. As far as I'm aware fitness testing has never had anything to do with promotions in the past.
If you don't mind me asking whats your views on the concept of a female only recruit platoon with female only instructors?
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
Jarnhamar said:
Ok, here's one thing I learned...if you hang around the Army long enough, everything comes back. Sometimes it's hard to stifle a nasty cynical old-guy smirk when the latest "revelation" gets announced.
War Story!! Ref the .50, I was once on a night mounted patrol with US MPs around the Bagram area. I noticed that while some of the HMMVWs had MK19s or SAWs mounted, a few had .50 HMG. When I asked the Pl Comd why, he explained that at the close quarters of a village street, the rounds of the Mk19 would not arm before they hit the dirt wall and fell on the ground. The .50 would tear right through dirt or cement block walls, or anything else, and get at the baddies in a very efficient and effective way. Hmmmmm, I thought....so why did we get rid of it again? Like we got rid of the 60mm?
Ok sorry that was a tangent that probably belongs somewhere else....
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,772
- Points
- 1,210
pbi said:
Navy and Air Force included.
The RMS phase is gone and we are now back to Finance and HA.
The Navy is doing a big amalgamation of the Engineering trade and mark my words in 15 years there will be a study as to why we need Hull techs and Electricians hived off to their own subtrade.
Got to keep those "Leading Change" PER points open for future CPO's and Flag officers!
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
FSTO said:
Here is an old quote, variously attributed but usually to the Roman Gaius Petronius:
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later
in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress
while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Sound familiar? "When in doubt, shuffle things about"
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,154
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
The RCN still has .50s. When you guys bring them back and need some help re-learning it all, let us know
- Reaction score
- 272
- Points
- 880
Jarnhamar said:
In my original post, please see the first poster that I quoted. That statement of mine was in reference to his claim.
As for your last sentence here, I'll put my thoughts up as soon as I can pull off enough dedicated front-time with my laptop.
V
Vern, first of all congrats on being a formation Chief. If your dedication to people on this site is any indication, it is well earned.
Anyway, I have personally seen an example of a woman getting ranked vastly higher than she should have been because she was pretty and most of the NCOs and junior officers were pretty infatuated with her. She was MOI, and she was acting lacking in the rank and on her first PER in rank . She was nice and pretty good at her job. So I don't want anyone to think, I think she was just a pretty girl. It isn't the only time I have seen something like that just the most blatant version I have seen. It does happen and it causes strife with in a unit. However, it generally happens at the lower ranks to younger, pretty women. There is a pretty good body of evidence that pretty women get promoted faster but tend to not get promoted as high.
In general, I think one of the biggest issues with all this stuff is the lack of transparency and accountability. If you see something that looks like our favouritism (of any stripe) and say something you are told that PERs are individual evaluations even though you know they did a ranking board prior to writing the PERs. And the only recourse is a long drawn out grievance process which will likely hurt your standing in the unit and your PER next year. I think the new direction that you shall not rank personnel prior to completing the PER helps. More transparency would go a long way to dispel rumours and catch the instances of pure favoritism when they do happen.
Anyway, I have personally seen an example of a woman getting ranked vastly higher than she should have been because she was pretty and most of the NCOs and junior officers were pretty infatuated with her. She was MOI, and she was acting lacking in the rank and on her first PER in rank . She was nice and pretty good at her job. So I don't want anyone to think, I think she was just a pretty girl. It isn't the only time I have seen something like that just the most blatant version I have seen. It does happen and it causes strife with in a unit. However, it generally happens at the lower ranks to younger, pretty women. There is a pretty good body of evidence that pretty women get promoted faster but tend to not get promoted as high.
In general, I think one of the biggest issues with all this stuff is the lack of transparency and accountability. If you see something that looks like our favouritism (of any stripe) and say something you are told that PERs are individual evaluations even though you know they did a ranking board prior to writing the PERs. And the only recourse is a long drawn out grievance process which will likely hurt your standing in the unit and your PER next year. I think the new direction that you shall not rank personnel prior to completing the PER helps. More transparency would go a long way to dispel rumours and catch the instances of pure favoritism when they do happen.
ArmyVern said:
- Reaction score
- 272
- Points
- 880
Tcm621 said:
Agreed. I haven't personally seen that, but it's not on. That being said, I have seen some of the
It's too bad that a few instances of that taint the way every other hard working and deserving individual is regarded and/or treated.
I also believe the new PER system will help guys and gals be fairly assessed across the board and will also serve to weed out those few instances of cliquing within regiments etc.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 39,249
- Points
- 1,160
ArmyVern said:
cough <ring knockers> cough ;D
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
I clearly remember the protection of hockey players. I recall one company merit board in the early 1980s when we had to rate a hockey playing NCO nobody had even seen in the last few months. He was given a good score. This was resented at company level as unfair and illicit, but grudgingly accepted as something the Regiment wanted. Personally I think it was a symptom of a garrison army.ArmyVern said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Tcm621 said:
Unfortunately, there are many directives that specifically state that units are not to hold merit boards and that units are not to hold PERs or reference PERs for annual evaluations. The nature of the beast is that merit boards, regardless of direction, dont seem to want to go away. But you're right- merit boards do hurt transparency and allow for favouritism.
As for your example of the female- I'm sure there are cases of favouritism towards females (and minorities) just as there are cases of favouritism towards males, the difference is that while there are many males there are far fewer females (or minorities), so the pool against which they are judged is naturally lower, raising the implicit bias that are held. If you've only worked with 1 female and she's bad, it's natural to attribute that with all females. For what it's worth, I've seen endless examples of males who have been promoted due to their BBB profile (backyard BBQ buddy), being athletes (hockey players was mentioned, but I can think of a volleyball player and swimmer that have also fallen into this category), or being in great physical shape (but terrible at their jobs) that should never have.
As for the comments about physical fitness that have been on the thread- yes there is a physiological difference between men and women, with men generally being higher in upper body strength (though IDF studies have shown that females have been able to achieve similar results to males after basic training). However, the CAF standard is the FORCE test and the CA standard is the FORCE combat test. That's it. That's all. The other physical standards are trade related (to mostly infantry) but not official standards. When discussing the requirement for physical strength surpassing the basic standard than there is no administrative argument to be made. However, I do understand that some trades (infantry and combat engineer specifically) require more physical strength due to the nature of the task. I leave artillery out as it requires a specific upper body strength requirement for the gunline (lifting a 155 shell) but the remainder of the trade doesn't have this requirement and, tbh, lifting a 155 shell isn't an obstacle for females. Armour, I would argue, is similar for physical strength as it is largely related to stamina, which has less to do with upper body strength and more with cardio. The remainder of the CAF, in a real sense, has far less physical fitness requirement past the FORCE tests.
For argument sake, there are a total of 5400 infantry soldiers in the 9 Battalions (600 pers/Bn based on my knowledge of 2 VP being at 550 right now). Lets say there's another 1000 in ERE postings, bringing the infantry branch up to 6400 soldiers or a bit lower than 10% (9.4%) of the total of the CAF. If the infantry branch was even 10% female (540 soldiers) than the CAF would need to have 16,460 females in the other MOSIDs to hit the 25% mark. As there are many studies that show that females make better pilots than males, perhaps the delta could be made up in the pilot world.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 39,249
- Points
- 1,160
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Women make pretty good tank drivers too:
Mariya Vasilyevna Oktyabrskaya (Ukrainian: Марія Василівна Октябрська; 16 August 1905 – 15 March 1944) was a Soviet tank driver during World War II. She was the first of the few female tank drivers to be awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's highest award for bravery during combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
daftandbarmy said:
and snipers. Perhaps the infantry can make the delta up with female snipers a la the Soviet Union?
https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/06/20/lady-death-and-the-invisible-horror-the-female-face-of-war_786422
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Battalion
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
IIRC, the IDF took women out of direct combat roles as they determined once the enemy discovered they were up against women, it made them fight harder. This was, needless to say, counter productive for the IDF.
Similar threads
