• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Joining The Infantry

Is our infantry a bunch of “grunts”

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • No, we have an intelligent infantry

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Some are intelligent, most are not

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Most are intelligent, some are not

    Votes: 7 43.8%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Inspir

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
English (or French) Language Arts and Mathmatics. More so to score an outstanding aptitude test score, that way you can qualify for infantry. And if down the road you want to switch trades you can switch to any trade you want.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
375
Points
860
When I was working in recruiting at my unit (ages ago) - one of the most common difficulties people had with the CFAT was the math portions.

It wasn't that the math is hard.  It's that after high school, you don't use specific math skills very often - or in my case, at all.  I don't remember needing to ever do calculus or algebra once I finished high school, or find the square root of X or find the Y of an isosceles triangle, etc.


I wouldn't say there is any specific class you should focus on more than others.  But keep in mind, most applicants (that I observed, anyway) really struggled with the math part...mostly because they had simply forgotten how to calculate certain types of answers.  Good spelling & grammar is important also, it's unbelievable how bad it is with the younger generation who has come to rely on spellcheck & autocorrect to fix their writing. 

My  :2c:     


Glad your interested in a career with the CF, wish you all the best :)
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
332
Points
930
Agree with the advice given so far. I think it's a myth that you don't need good grades for Infantry, because in my experience the reverse is actually the truth. In addition, you're competing with everyone else for a spot, so the more qualified you are, the better your chances.

As previously stated - Language, language arts, and math, specifically algebra. To that I would add physics and history. The ability to read and write well, and to understand complex concepts, are core skills that will become more important the longer you serve, and the further you progress.

My only other piece of advice: have a plan B, and ensure you're situated for both plan A and B. It could take some time before you're actually in the door, so have a plan for something in the interim. You also need a plan if things don't work out for you.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
152
Points
710
CBH99 said:
When I was working in recruiting at my unit (ages ago) - one of the most common difficulties people had with the CFAT was the math portions.

It wasn't that the math is hard.  It's that after high school, you don't use specific math skills very often - or in my case, at all.  I don't remember needing to ever do calculus or algebra once I finished high school, or find the square root of X or find the Y of an isosceles triangle, etc.


I wouldn't say there is any specific class you should focus on more than others.  But keep in mind, most applicants (that I observed, anyway) really struggled with the math part...mostly because they had simply forgotten how to calculate certain types of answers.  Good spelling & grammar is important also, it's unbelievable how bad it is with the younger generation who has come to rely on spellcheck & autocorrect to fix their writing. 

My  :2c:     


Glad your interested in a career with the CF, wish you all the best :)

I had to re-write my CFAF about a decade ago (originally wrote it in '88...with a pencil and paper  :eek:).  The math portion, I focused most of my 'review/refresh' on fractions and that helped me a lot.
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Kai2644 said:
Sorry if the answer to this can be found on another forum (if anybody could refer me to those forums) I am interested on joining the Canadian Armed Forces after High-School, I am looking to join the infantry and become an infantry soldier. I would like to know if there are any specific classes I should or need to take in high-school (I am im Quebec) to either have a better chance of being accepted more quickly into the infantry or just being accepted in general, I am interested in a full time job or joining the regular forces, thanks.

Take all the same courses you would as if you intended to go to University and do well in them. One of the biggest mistakes many people in the past have made is to assume they didn't need good grades or even to complete high school to join the Army.  Yes, many did join like that, but quite often they struggled because they didn't have good study skills to make the many hours the Army spends teaching and testing them an easy part of their service, or they lacked the self-discipline others gained through good scholastic performance that helped with the transition to meeting the demands of military life.

Good school grades increase your choices and opportunities, both within the military and afterward. Keep in mind that not everyone stays in the military, sometimes leaving after short service by their own choice, or as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

The Army will put you in a classroom again and again on courses throughout your career. It will expect you to absorb information, extrapolate from it, and prove that you can retain it in written and performance testing. It will also expect you to demonstrate your ability to communicate in writing and to develop this as your career advances. Use your opportunity now in school to lay down the basic skills that will help you with these demands later in the military. All of these skills will be assets no matter where you end up, in the military or afterward.
 

Tmoney902

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Good day everyone. I recently got accepted into the CAF leave for basic nov16. I basically would just like other opinions on if my career plan sounds good. So i am 27 will be 28 in Jan. I chose infantry as that is what i see myself being in the military. Love the outdoors hunt as much i can when work is not bogging me down. I am in very good shape. I love mentally and physically demanding jobs.

I worked as a warehouse manager for the last 7 years i managed two companies warehouses with two teams of guys from all ages. We had great teams best i ever worked for. I learned alot of leadership skills in my career there. Anyway i will stop rambling... i want to do a few years in the infantry not sure how many yet we will see how my body takes it. Somewhere down the line i would like to become an instructor or something along those lines in the combat fields. So i do not burn myself out before im 45. Does this sound reasonable? I am also interested in other trades if i do have to switch down the road i plan on staying in until im old and grey or no longer capable.

Also im not too old for infantry at 28? Am i? Iv read lots about older guys going in infantry. I have no problem being bossed around by younger guys. I bossed people twice my age for years i see it as a respect thing. I dont take it personal. I get along with all ages more older then younger but i can get along with then younger guys too.

Thank you all for any advice.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
260
Points
1,130
Tmoney902 said:
Also im not too old for infantry at 28? Am i?

This may help,

Am I too old to join/do well/fit in? (Merged thread)
https://army.ca/forums/threads/207.0
14 pages.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
232
Points
710
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers.  He followed in the footsteps of Bill Slim, famous for his disregard for Elite Tree Climbers, but, unstinting in his support for ensuring the infantry was a priority selection, well educated, trained and respected.

A US General is the latest to come to the same conclusion.  He wants all Army and Marine infantry, especially Light Infantry, to be treated more like Rangers and moved up the SOF scale.

"We went to Marine Force Recon, we looked at Delta Force, and it seems to me that the sweet spot in that is the Ranger Regiment.

"You don't turn them into individuals like you do with Delta. It's still a team sport at the Ranger Regiment level, but you give them the resources and the exceptional ability to recruit, select, train and retain, and you get to a level of competence, frankly, that is unparalleled in the world."

"Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000," he said. "How much of a difference is that going to make in our ability to fight wars in the future? I'll tell you ... in terms of outcomes and success on the battlefield at a lowest possible cost, I think it's far more impactful than a new aircraft carrier or a new fighter."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Chris Pook said:
"Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000," he said. "How much of a difference is that going to make in our ability to fight wars in the future? I'll tell you ... in terms of outcomes and success on the battlefield at a lowest possible cost, I think it's far more impactful than a new aircraft carrier or a new fighter."

Sage words... coming from a land lubber...
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,224
Points
1,060
Chris Pook said:
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers.  He followed in the footsteps of Bill Slim, famous for his disregard for Elite Tree Climbers, but, unstinting in his support for ensuring the infantry was a priority selection, well educated, trained and respected.

A US General is the latest to come to the same conclusion.  He wants all Army and Marine infantry, especially Light Infantry, to be treated more like Rangers and moved up the SOF scale.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html

If you've ever seen 'Special Forces' try to dig in and manage a defensive position, you would soon understand why we need 'normal' infantry - and other supporting arms and services - and alot more of them.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
232
Points
710
daftandbarmy said:
If you've ever seen 'Special Forces' try to dig in and manage a defensive position, you would soon understand why we need 'normal' infantry - and other supporting arms and services - and alot more of them.

And thus the reason that Bill Slim has always been my hero.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,224
Points
1,060
Chris Pook said:
And thus the reason that Bill Slim has always been my hero.

I guess the point is that we all have an important role to play as part of a bigger team. When we forget that, lots of the wrong people get hurt unnecessarily.

Anyways, if they try to 'upskill' their regular infantry to Rangers/SOF, I'm guessing they'd lose over 50% in the selection process.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
47
Points
480
daftandbarmy said:
Anyways, if they try to 'upskill' their regular infantry to Rangers/SOF, I'm guessing they'd lose over 50% in the selection process.

I think Slim, among others, was against forming specialized infantry units such as commandoes, as opposed to re-rolling. Special Forces is a different matter. In Malaya during the 40s and into the 50s, the Brits tried re-rolling troops from the Parachute Regiment as SAS without selection, but it was not successful because perfectly good infantry soldiers can have difficulty operating in small numbers deep behind enemy lines.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,224
Points
1,060
Old Sweat said:
I think Slim, among others, was against forming specialized infantry units such as commandoes, as opposed to re-rolling. Special Forces is a different matter. In Malaya during the 40s and into the 50s, the Brits tried re-rolling troops from the Parachute Regiment as SAS without selection, but it was not successful because perfectly good infantry soldiers can have difficulty operating in small numbers deep behind enemy lines.

Well, kind of...

No real problems with the Parachute Regiment companies, which came later, but there were with some of the earlier SAS drafts. All in all, the Malayan Scouts were successful, and led to the post-WW2 rebirth of the SAS, but points to the need for a more thoughtful and well managed approach to creating a SOF capability:

http://wingedsoldiers.co.uk/sas-malaya.html

 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
806
Points
910
There’s a place for SOF and a place for good old fashioned close with and destroy the enemy infantry.  The roles are different and you need the capabilities of the infantry to take and hold key terrain.
 

IRepoCans

Jr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
130
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who was in 1/75 for a few years. He was of the opinion that what made the Ranger Battalions (and thus the Regiment) great at their core role (airfield seizure) upon founding and the subsequent Special Operations Direct Action Force role they acquired as a result of the GWOT, was that they were in fact an infantry force.

But he said, what separated the Regiment from all other infantry formations (and Special Forces) within the U.S. Army was the Ranger standard and the ability to RTU (what they call RFS or release for standards) anyone back to the big army. Unlike Special Forces (who have unique MOS's) where lower performing members can only really be kicked around to other elements under the SF umbrella unless they committed an offense for which they could be discharged from the Army.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
915
Points
940
Chris Pook said:
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers. . . .

I think you may be referring to Col DA Nicholson's article in the 1973 Mobile Command Newsletter "Where, oh where have all the Tigers gone?"

There's a reprint of it in the RCR Regimental Rogue here (along with several companion artilcles/letters on the subject: http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/oldtiger.htm#Where

The article at the time brought about considerable debate amongst us subbies who were fully convinced we'd all be tigers if the damn field officers and above weren't constantly putting the brakes on us. I fondly remember one mess dinner at 3rd Horse which was also attended by the last graduating Artillery Air OP course where the damage to our crested stemware and general mayhem in the mess was monumental. By the next morning's coffee break most of us had already signed chits for a half dozen glasses each but notwithstanding this, the CO decided it was necessary to call all of us up on the carpet collectively (including the padre) to tear a strip off our asses for our debauchery. I marked him down in the back of my mind as not being a Tiger. In those days it was clear that while some messes (and units) still understood the "fun and games night" concept others were already being run by bureaucrats.

:cheers:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
375
Points
860
Ó Donnghaile said:
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who was in 1/75 for a few years. He was of the opinion that what made the Ranger Battalions (and thus the Regiment) great at their core role (airfield seizure) upon founding and the subsequent Special Operations Direct Action Force role they acquired as a result of the GWOT, was that they were in fact an infantry force.

But he said, what separated the Regiment from all other infantry formations (and Special Forces) within the U.S. Army was the Ranger standard and the ability to RTU (what they call RFS or release for standards) anyone back to the big army. Unlike Special Forces (who have unique MOS's) where lower performing members can only really be kicked around to other elements under the SF umbrella unless they committed an offense for which they could be discharged from the Army.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y6Y3jPO-Cg


An interview with General McChrystal on an excellent podcast called London Real.  I only included one part, but the entire interview is available to view for free.

In the interview he makes several remarks about how throughout the various organizations he went to throughout his Army career, the Rangers were the closest in actually being what they said they were.
 
Top