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

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Eaglelord17 said:
We are going to pay a blood price for the lack of training we are providing our troops one day.

Even just when they dumbed down BMQ-L and took the C6 out I noticed troops had substantially worse handling for the C9 due to a lot less time with it. I have had to stop more than a few people from losing teeth trying to take the mainspring out of a cocked MG (2 arty, one infantry).

Now they have completely removed BMQ-L from support trades. Should be going the opposite way and over training, especially on the combat basics. Much easier to have received that training and never need it, than not have it and end up dead.

One of the things Canada was always known for was having well trained troops who just had poor equipment. Now we are having poorly trained troops, with poor equipment.
Click to expand...
This came up at work today, and the consensus was it's easier/smarter to train a supporter to do the BMQ-L stuff before they deploy than it is to use time/resources on the BMQ-L stuff and not have the time/resources to train for their primary support functions.

I'd prefer to have a Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., that knows the job inside and out, rather than a crappy Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., who can shoot well.
 
Furniture said:
This came up at work today, and the consensus was it's easier/smarter to train a supporter to do the BMQ-L stuff before they deploy than it is to use time/resources on the BMQ-L stuff and not have the time/resources to train for their primary support functions.

I'd prefer to have a Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., that knows the job inside and out, rather than a crappy Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., who can shoot well.
Click to expand...
Dead techs do no work. I still don’t see why we need to cut it out of initial training, it is our bread and butter.

How sad a state is the military in that we can’t even provide the basics to defend yourself? We are assuming we will have time for workup training. Depending on what happens there is a possibility we will not have the time.
 
Furniture said:
This came up at work today, and the consensus was it's easier/smarter to train a supporter to do the BMQ-L stuff before they deploy than it is to use time/resources on the BMQ-L stuff and not have the time/resources to train for their primary support functions.

I'd prefer to have a Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., that knows the job inside and out, rather than a crappy Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., who can shoot well.
Click to expand...
I agree in part. For folks who do not regularly go out on exercise to refresh their field skills it makes little sense to teach them things they may never need or need a dozen years down the road when they have forgotten the initial training anyway. It's not quite the same as riding a bicycle. For them it's definitely better to make it part of their predeployment training. That of course presupposes that a) there is time for adequate workup training; and b) that the people running the workup training are able to tell apart those that need the training and those who've been undergoing it regularly for years. All too often, the Army is incapable of thought at that granular level.

🍻
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Dead techs do no work. I still don’t see why we need to cut it out of initial training, it is our bread and butter.

How sad a state is the military in that we can’t even provide the basics to defend yourself? We are assuming we will have time for workup training. Depending on what happens there is a possibility we will not have the time.
Click to expand...
You can teach a tech/supporter to be proficient enough in a couple of weeks, and barring an invasion of Canada, we will have a couple of weeks.

The CAF is already short, so work piles up. If we take the people fixing the pile-up out of the shop/office to teach them skills they won't actually need any time soon we make things worse. We also increase the likelihood that we lose people, as they will get tired of playing silly buggers, rather than doing the work they signed-up to do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do basics like C7/C8/pistol ranges and stuff like First Aid, but trench digging, range cards, MGs, etc., should be unit based. The 2 RCHA Met Techs should know how to do basic soldier tasks, but the 4 OSS ones don't need that training. If they get posted to 1 RCHA after 4 OSS, they can get the training at the regiment.
 
See I disagree with that approach because it never happens. The CAF sucks at individual management and the idea that you get the training at the unit is laughable.

Take your example of one individual getting posted to a regiment. Is a regiment going to do a whole bunch of training for a single soldier? Or are they just never going to receive the training? What quality will the training be? Every regiment will end up with their own standard which some shall be subpar. If we simply want techs with no field skills why even have them in uniform?

You also assume those techs will have a couple weeks before deployment to work on those skills instead of working on trying to prep everything for combat. The only time in their career where there will be plenty of free time is before they complete their trades course. Once they get trade qualified the work won’t really stop for them.

When they took the C6 out of BMQ-L they said it would be taught at the unit level which depending on your unit never happened. Trench digging is a critical skill for support trades as you are supposed to dig a trench for your defensive. Digging a shell scrape is a critical skill which can keep you alive.

It is much easier to refresh a skill even years later than it is to teach it from scratch.

If the concern is we will lose people because we made them do basic army training, those aren’t the people we need in the army, that is just dead weight like those people who fought not to deploy when Afghanistan started.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
If the concern is we will lose people because we made them do basic army training, those aren’t the people we need in the army, that is just dead weight like those people who fought not to deploy when Afghanistan started.
Click to expand...

What? Really?
 
Eaglelord17 said:
See I disagree with that approach because it never happens. The CAF sucks at individual management and the idea that you get the training at the unit is laughable.

Take your example of one individual getting posted to a regiment. Is a regiment going to do a whole bunch of training for a single soldier? Or are they just never going to receive the training? What quality will the training be? Every regiment will end up with their own standard which some shall be subpar. If we simply want techs with no field skills why even have them in uniform?

You also assume those techs will have a couple weeks before deployment to work on those skills instead of working on trying to prep everything for combat. The only time in their career where there will be plenty of free time is before they complete their trades course. Once they get trade qualified the work won’t really stop for them.

When they took the C6 out of BMQ-L they said it would be taught at the unit level which depending on your unit never happened. Trench digging is a critical skill for support trades as you are supposed to dig a trench for your defensive. Digging a shell scrape is a critical skill which can keep you alive.

It is much easier to refresh a skill even years later than it is to teach it from scratch.

If the concern is we will lose people because we made them do basic army training, those aren’t the people we need in the army, that is just dead weight like those people who fought not to deploy when Afghanistan started.
Click to expand...
Ummm OK Who? Trades ? Help us out understanding this somewhat vague statement.
 
You could teach Cbt skills one weekend a month until the crse is finished. Get the local PRes Inf unit to run it.:D One weekend a month for a 5 day week is not much to ask.
 
Rifleman62 said:
You could teach Cbt skills one weekend a month until the crse is finished. Get the local PRes Inf unit to run it.:D One weekend a month for a 5 day week is not much to ask.
Click to expand...

Dude... we couldn't even get our RSS staff out on a weekend, and it was their job ;)
 
I can say there were construction engineers that chose not to deploy into Afghanistan due to fear and not signing up for going into a war zone. I can also say that weapons training and small arms tactical training at 2CER in 2006 was impressive. We would not be a hinderance to any group or location we were sent to in theatre to support. We trained alongside Field Squadron that deployed.
In 2009 with 5RGC our 7 months of holding benches to the floor. 2 range days 5 mags each. No time at ranges with C9 or C6. Within days of landing in Afghanistan and closing down Haggi Beach our guys were stuck in a 29hr tic that damaged mine plow tank and other assets. Force protection was taking heat casualties and had to trade off with techs and others to provide security.
Although not in theatre when the Chinook was shot down. I’m sure our RCAF techs were not trained to a high standard and proficiency to be confident outside of the wire collecting parts and prepping recovery of that aircraft.
There is no excuse for not training people to be proficient on personal weapons and familiar on both C9 and C6. Especially those purple or support trades.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
As I recall the Reserves where beating people off who wanted to join to go to Afghanistan and I recall seeing here that the Infantry trade was oversubscribed at the time.
Click to expand...

Our units were like bus terminals, with people coming and going like the wind....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bossi
Real war story from Iraq (not Hollywood)
Replies
2
Views
5K
Fruss
F
Back
Top