It has been a long time since I last posted and things have certainly changed around here.

Harry; I've crossed sabres with J.Cox and came out with a few cuts and scrapes and with the full knowledge that many people can say that they can separate one part of their lives from another but very few can. I hope that you are one of the latter.

I am asking for opinions on this forum tonight regarding the creation of instructional programs by personel that, while they beleive that they are doing great work, fail to recognize serious shortcomings in training programs. I would even suggest that some of the creators of these programs may even have their heads lodged firmly up their butts (but that would be inflamatory and uncivilized).

Systems that work in the past (by that I mean the programs that created a complete, trained soldier in their respective trades) are being constantly undermined by NEW and BETTER programs that leave the soldier anything but trained and in most cases dangerously ignorant of the realities of warfare. I am constantly reminded by 'higher' that we are not training for war so the training levels should be modified to reflect the environment. I am concerned about soldiers that wear the rank of trained Pte and not able to effectively communicate a Contact Report or Adrep on a simple single net. Or soldiers that have had their training so watered down that they are unable to effectively use any small arms weapon they encounter in the modern battlefield.

I fear for the future of our young men and women while I participate in the QL2 basic instructional programs being delivered and mandated by the very people that see the difference and are unable or unwilling to change it.

As always, now more than ever before

Dileas Gu Brath

I'm curious...if you know all this going in, why go in at all? I have a neighbor in the tree removal business that has the biggest wood chipper I've ever seen. It's mounted on a ten ton rig and can eat 24 inch diameter trees without dropping a single RPM. Knowing it is the single most dangerous piece of equipment in the county I generally steer clear of it (unless I want to escort a couple of my least favourite people through the 'In' door). Why in the name of all reason would you voluntarily subject yourself to an environment that will possibly get you killed and if you don't have the decency to die, won't look after you when they punt you out the door?

I admire your voracity to adapt and overcome but I question the value you place on your life and the lives of others around you.

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath

I have to agree with the Master on this one. Dying for your country is something you have to think long and hard about before joining up. Are you willing to risk your life to protect your country? The truth is that alot of people are'nt. I had to think long and hard about it before I even stepped into a recruiting office. As to your remarks, Canada would'nt suffer horrendous casualties due to inadequately trained troops, but due to lack of manpower if anything. Yes the training is getting progessively easier, in my humble opinion. And this needs to change. I consider the privelege of wearing Her Majesty's uniform an honour, and although I don't want to die for my country, I would defend her against any foe to the death.

The remaining 36 candidates were debriefed and asked to resign if their resolve wasn't strong enough to defend the country they had sworn to protect and defend. 30 did resign. The 6 that stayed went on to become good NCO's but didn't stay around long (a couple of years).

This story is real, it happened just as I described it. It was a wake up call to me about how much I could depend on the soldier next to me and to take nothing for granted.

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath

Mud Crawler, Out

Early in my career something similar happened on a very intense course, we lost three guys, who ended up being repatriated and two got out.

But in the same vein, lets think about what happened to Matt Stopford. A WO doing his job, men under him whom he was responsible for, especially when placed in harms way. These very soldiers decided that he was putting them at risk, so they decided to remove him from the theatre of operations by poisoning.

Is this a legitimate response to imposed operational stress, a belief that maybe he was putting their very lives on the line. Was this a cowardly attack on an individual by soldiers softened by imposed neglect by an aloof chain of command, or subverted through systemic cynicisms?

Was this attack justifiable under the circumstances? Was this act attempted murder or wilful intent to injure? Even more was this treasonous conduct? To complicate this, when described as a simple act of omission or primal survival by subordinates, the chain of command has decried that the statute of limitations has expired.

If however it is an attempt on the life or well being of the person, or even treasonous, is there no statute of limitations?

SECURITAS

OCKNOD

I got sworn in on thursday

As JR MACDONALD said, about being young and putting wanting to put his life on the line to be a man.

Well that's kinda like me, i'm a very ignorant person. I have alot of Blind Faith in others. Last time I checked, fighting is what were being PAID to do. It's not about being the big man, it about our profession.

didn't someone say that he loved those "Just cause" orders? see, now as long as we got guys with that attitude, we'll be just fine.

My name is Travis Silcox, and I will be going to Wainright for a QL2/3 course, if any of you reading are instructors, don't worry about bending or breaking the rules in two when training me.

As for the Content of QL 2 and QL 3 courses; Warrior/IBTS/MLOC/whaterver-you-want-to-call-it-this-year training set out several fundamental skills and knowledge that all soldiers should know and be competant to perform. This includes all personal, section and Pl/Tp weapons, mine awarnes, first-aid, basic bush craft, orienteering, some field craft, personal NBCD, and limited radio voice procedures. If everyone must know these things, then everyone should be formaly taught these things. This is not happening for all trades through the current course structure. Common material should be kept in a common course and not uploaded on to seperate QL 3 courses.

I don't like much of the current mentality to fitting researve courses into two weeks. Yes it is important to make courses short enough that the personel can attend. It should not be done by asking what can be removed from a course so that it will fit into two weeks. It should be done by grouping related topics and dividing the course into two or three week parcels. To some extent this is being done, but I see too much emphasis on the "what can we cut" approach.

Chimo!

LFRR Web Site

It can also be accessed from the DIN but be aware the you are supoose to enter your Name, Rank, and E-Mail address (If you want a say) and I guarentee you that that web site is monitered.

Following that and this tread, (and this deals more with Reserves than Regulars) there are two paths that are being advoacted with a great difficuty of finding middle ground. It boils down to Quantity over Quality. One side being that ournumbers are so low that we must encourage to get people in trained (ie QL2/3 over one summer period) and the other side wanting a more in-depth approach with muti-summer approach taking appox 2-3 yrs to get a QL3 trained soldier.

Before anyone jumps in a says that reducing course lengths waters down the reserves rember thae avaerge stay is appox 4 yrs and taking 1/2 to 3/4 of that just reach QL3 is counter productive. For those just joining or have limited TI think about it do you want to be on a course with 10 or 40 people. Do you want to carry out a section attack with you and your two buddies?

It comes down to that at this point in time there is no easy solution and nobody is right or wrong if advocating quantity or quality. I wish that the army would just make a decision one way or another and follow it through. Unfortunatly in the organization (the Canadian Army) and country we are in (consesus building is suppose to be our forte) we will end up with a bastarization of both where neither side is satisfied and we end up with limited numbers of haf-assed trained soldiers. I hope I'm wrong.

Ubique

quote:

---

Originally posted by JRMACDONALD:
I, personally, believe this massive rush to join won't occurr.

---

I respectfully disagree. There is a lot of great raw material out there, but they don't join the Army in peacetime - there is no money in it for them, and the "adventure" of serving in Croatia or Cyprus or even Jamaica is secondary to their pursuing civvie careers.

You cite the example of WW II. The WW II Canadian Army had a solid backbone of Militia troops, but there was a lot of great raw material that came off the street.

I am not about to go into the argument of how much training time we'll have in the event of another war - your question was solely whether or not there would be mass enlistments in an emergency. I say there would be; true emergency will always be a better incentive than any peacetime incentive . What attracted the 30+ quitters in the excellent example given above? It obviously wasn't the thought of doing something important.

Peacetime armies and wartime armies are very different things. I would daresay most enlistees from 1939-1945 would never have dreamed of joining the Militia in the 1930s given the chance.

The example perhaps is a poor one, as Militia troops today get paid a lot more money and do have better incentives, but I still have a gut feeling that many people (and guys I went to high school or have worked with have said this to me) could not be bothered with the military in peacetime, but would join in a second if our national interest was at stake.

This is just my (mostly uninformed) take on it. It just strikes me that (again) in WW II, the biggest hell raisers in England (ie the most unmilitary and undisciplined) were among the best combat troops on the Continent. Give them something "important" to do and they will come.

I'll close by disclaiming that I do think peacetime armies are important, and peacekeeping is a very important mission for us to perform - not for our own direct welfare, but for our standing in the world community (face it, we won't influence people and win friends by making great movies) and of course the humanitarian aid we provide those who can't help themselves.

But you won't convince a lot of great guys and gals of that until it really hits the fan.

Chimo!