Furthermore, if basic training is for 16 days, what on earth did they do to the infantry course?! What have they done to it?!

-the patriot-

[ 31 May 2001: Message edited by: the patriot ]

Our course did get a little extra training where we were put into another platoon as the third section. The plattoon we were put into was on the old, longer (better) course which gave us some oppertunities to hop in and get a little extra training.

If anyone knows what state the QL3 infantry course is in could you drop me a line? Thanks

We in the reserves are facing the basic dilemma of not enough trained people on the floor. So QL2/3 have been made to fit into a one summer period, so we can have a trained, usable soldiers for fall training. It is the classic quanatity over quality. (as an aside the reasoning for a QL3 trg soldier is beacuse of policy a QL2 is almost unuserable in a meaniful role in the field with the unit.

We have discussed this on this forum before and everyone, and I mean everyone has an opinion on this. And here's the kicker, both sides are right. However this is the system we are faced with now.

My opinion is give the soldiers the basics now, and let the units develop them during collective trg. we concentrate to much on the individual and not enough on the collective (shades of the borg)

However if anyone has been following the threads on the LFRR board, these same questions are coming up and some of the powers that be are answering and it seems there is a plan afoot to revamp the entire reserve trg from Pte to Maj to make more streamline and unit friendly.

Ubique

For those not farmiliar with this debate, I will quickly outline the two sides (but may do niether the justice they deserve as a result of my brevity).

Those who are Pro-Quantity belive that we must get people in the door and qualified to fill postions within their units as soon as possible. If people cannot be placed into these positions and are forced to wait for months to a year in a holding Pl, we will loose them and a critticle mass within the reserves. traditional course subject matter which is removed or reduced in the career courses will be made-up for at the home units

Pro-Quality proponents argue that units are not doing the lost training, nor do units have the time and reasources to conduct the training. The results of quantity production, leave reserve units with a majority of substandard soldiers who cannot be brought up to expected standards of profficiency. More time and reasources should be put into the individual soldiers at the start of thier careers so that they arrive at the units ready for collective training, and not as a burden requiring units to dedicate to individual trg.

I am in the pro-quality camp, however, either philosophy could be made to work depending on the approach taken. I would also lend serious credibility to an argument which would suggest that pro-quantity would work best for large units with lots of resources, and pro-quality would work best for small units with fewer resources.

I gathered some information on a few other points raised here during my Meaford visit. While up there I spoke with a training & development type officer and came across some information on the time length of the QL2. As RCA stated, there reason for so much being cut from the course was to accomodate reserve unit requests for faster production of troops. However, due to complaints about insufficient time, the QL2 course will be streched from 16 days to 20. For this to fit the time table, the QL3 courses will be cut from 24 days to 20. Some trade-off, eh?

That is short term. In the long term there is thought of adding a new course between what are currently QL2 and QL3. Because the QL2 is a common basic for the CF and QL3 is trade specific basics, this new course would be common Land force basics and all militia would take it. A large portion of this course would consist of support weapons and other subjects usually mentioned in the phrase "what ever happened to subject X that used to be taught on QL2?" Usually Subject X is required for MLOC, such as the Carl G or the GPMG.

Hopefully a basic Army course (QL2b ?) would also cover other subjects have never made it into the QL2 course. One that comes to mind, as an Engineer, is basic mine awarness.

[ 05 June 2001: Message edited by: McG ]

Chimo!

Little known fact. The QL2 is not owned by the Army but by the CF and is set up as an all services, all components course (one size fits all. with all that entails)

Up till 98-99 the reserve QL2 did a fine job in 30 days. It worked well for the Arty as we added the 21 day QL3 and we had at rades qual trooper in 51 days (1 summer)

However the Air and maybe even the Navy thought the QL2 didn't teach the proper items. Therefore in 98-99-00 we had the QL2 that still ran 30 days but dropped the extra items (ie C7, support weapons) and added the supply system, pay, leave allowances etc- but not SHARP, the one lecture that should be taught on basic as opposed to the unit). The missed lectures were moved to the QL3
thereby lenghtning them making it impossible to get a trained soldier in one summer.

We now arrive at summer 2001. The units complained (with justification) that the QL2/3 now was too long. So we now have son of QL2- the 16 day wonder (haven't seen the CTP so can't comment). The 16 days is suppose to lead into the QL3 (combat arms at least.)[I'm guessing this just aan interm crse]

However there maybe light at the end of the tunnel as mentioned in my last post with a revamped trg cycle.

So nobody gets me wrong in my quantity argument. I want a trained soldier at the end of one summer but that training must include everything taken in MLOC, drill (plenty of,) and a 13km ruck march. There is no reason that these can't not be accomplished in a summer period. And as to the no fail policy. There is no such thing. It is a preception that everyone promotes, but look in the CTP and it states the pass criteria. If someone bends the rules, it is not the systems fault. When I get my soldiers back from the ATCs, I want trained soldiers not a rabble (which is what you get if standards aren't met)

Thats all for now, everyone have a good weekend. (I know I will)

Ubique

I wonder if all these politicians and bean counters have any idea of what they're doing. They see numbers on paper, meaningless in their little insulated realities. They don't seem to realize that those numbers are crippling our fighting force, the very thing that makes their cushy comfortable lives possible. Someday, the Armed Forces may be needed again to protect this country or another, and good men and women will die so that penny-pinchers and politicians can live their fat, lazy lives in peace and security. It makes me sick.

I'll quit before I get wound up for a rant, but it is disheartening to think that CF would give their lives for these people, and get nothing but animosity in return. Disheartening to say the least.

I see this as a move, which will (hopefully) reverse the trend of lower quality soldiers arriving at units and not having been trained in all the basic soldiering skills expected of them. If it works, it will satisfy my complaints.

Chimo!

"If you've followed some of my posts on the LFRR board, then you know that I have argued strongly against "watering down" training for the reserves.

However, this discussion thread was started by someone about to join the CF Army Reserve as a new recruit. It isn't, I think, the right place to be arguing the value of what he/she is about to undergo. It will, no doubt, be more challenging than expected in many ways, and easier than feared in other ways. It always is and always was.

Note, that I argued about the "effectiveness" of the training in my last post. "Hard" and "difficult" are two very subjective terms. I've taken, taught and written long courses and short courses. The long ones weren't necessarily the harder ones. Duration has little to do with "difficulty".

Likewise, quite frankly, the content of the course has little to do with challenge in many cases. Some people find an MBA very difficult, others do not. I did my "recruit" training in 1983. It was hell for me... others slept through the whole program. What I found difficult, others breezed through. What I didn't even notice, forced still others to quit.

Have standards declined in basic training courses? I think they have. Have they declined past a minimum necessary level? I don't know and, frankly, I don't think anyone else does either. This is not a black and white world. We cannot say that throwing a grenade within 10 feet of the target will work, but 11 feet won't. Real life and real war don't work that way.

Quite frankly, most of my regular force courses felt like 20 days worth of good content crammed into four months of training.

Does the fact your course was shorter than the one before it mean it was easier? I don't think so. Maybe your course had kick-*** instructors and the longer one didn't. Maybe the longer course was too long. It is definitely possible to overdo training.

All soldiers, coming off all courses have a sense of accomplishment, if the course was run well. If they don't, then look to poor instructors as the principal culprit.

The soldiers returning to their units this coming fall after their basic training will be proud of what they've done and it should show. Before you crap on them, remember how you felt when you came back -- and how the previous year's "veterans" crapped on you -- and the year prior to that crapped on them.

On a seperate note, there were candidates who voluntarily withdrew from the block QL2 course because friends had told them that the weekend course run by thier home unit would be easier.

Chimo!

This thread (standards of QL2/3) has lasted for so long in so many guises that it could almost constitute a web page all by itself.

Obviously this is a topic that embraces the very core of our exsistence as professional soldiers (full/part time not withstanding) and makes us all a little uncomfortable when in a 'civilized' discussion (without all the table pounding, life threatening and swearing a good mess debate could muster) about the subject.

A great many people on this page have had many years of TI to establish their opinions regarding this topic and become incensed when challenged by calm reason and logic. I know, I'm one of them.

I believe that this stems from our (my) passion for a system that HAS worked in the past and feels (again, that emotional stuff) that the system has become a shell of its' former self and that we (I) fear for its' current memberships' survival in the operational fields of the future.

What I personally fear is that when 'the balloon goes up' I will lose my life or my friends will lose their's due to the shortcomings of forethought by the higher command groups and not for the lack of skill and professional soldier instincts bred into me as a young soldier.

Are the skills required to effectively survive and dominate the modern battlefiled being trained into our 'new and younger' soldiers? From all the accounts on this page (and many others) I would respectfully suggest not.

Dileas Gu Brath