Competition out of limits?

[Nox]

By contrast, the Canadian Army now seems to be a collection of the uneducated. Too many of our soldiers have not finished high school. Often our officers are not so well educated either. A study, which was part of the "Report to the Prime Minister" prepared for the Minister of Defence in early 1997, found that Canadian officers were badly under-educated in comparison to their US counterparts. For example, 39% of US officers have a Graduate Degree, as opposed to only 6.8% of Canadian ones. Some 39.9% of Canadian officers have less than a BA; this is only true of some 10% of US officers. Moreover, given the necessity of a solid education in the Naval and Air Force environments, Canada‘s under-educated officers would appear to be much more common in the Army.

The 101st‘s personnel are bright. They need to be. At the cutting edge, warfare has become very technical indeed. For a start, every vehicle, crew-served weapon or squad in the Division is equipped with a GPS set. For those unfamiliar with the Global Positioning Satellite revolution, it means that you cannot be lost... ever. With a small hand-held receiver, you can always know exactly where you are on the map within seconds. Some Canadian soldiers are familiar with GPS sets too, but hand-receivers are few and far between -- and are often privately purchased anyway. The radios that every Air Assault trooper knows how to use are a marvel as well. The SINCGARS system is light, easy to use, and has a number of features that most of our Army‘s Vietnam-War era radios don‘t share. All sets are frequency hoppers, with automatic encryption/decryption, and burst transmitters. Thus, their communications are safe and secure while still being easy to use. These radios can be plugged into a GPS set to automatically report position, and can also be jacked into one of the tough light portable computers that shares data throughout the division. Canada‘s long delayed modern equivalent system is just starting to creep into service -- years late and without the "plug-in" additions that the Americans enjoy.

Also...

In a word, Canada does not adequately train individual soldiers anymore. Therefore, it can not train sections, platoons, companies or battalions. The building blocks of combat ready formations no longer exist. The corporate memory of readiness for the operations of the 1970s and ‘80s is fast going, and Canada probably could not now assemble a modern battle-ready force without extensive foreign help beyond the provision of equipment.

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000_06_02_Military_Eagles.html

Personally I think it‘s bull ****, but maybe you guys have a better opinion, considering you‘re actually in the military as to I‘m not (I‘m a kid still).

 

[Marauder]

Well, first off, there is a very important distinction between being "educated", and being intelligent and competant. I know lots of people with Masters and PhDs (piled higher and deeper) that I wouldn‘t trust as a snotsleeved #4 rifleman. All graduate school proves is that you can play the "scholarly" game and specialize in some ultraspecific topic that probably doesn‘t have any application to the real world at all out side of academia. I just graduated university, and I don‘t think a BA (which really only gets people ready to go to law school or teachers college, if they want a real job) is necessary to lead a platoon, or a company for that matter.

As for never being lost with a GPS, give it to some civ off the streets, and he will just lemming the thing to death. When the batteries fail and he has no replacement batteries, or he drops or drowns it and it become NS, he‘s going to wish he had an "old century" map and compass, and a passing familiarity with using the two for basic land nav. Using new technology is great, but throwing away the old-fashioned, time-tested approaches to doing things is irresponsible and stupid. Tech is great, until some ghost in the machine renders it unuseable. Then things go downhill fast. Just because it‘s shiny and new, doesn‘t mean I want to lug it around.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

I agree, technology is good, overreliance is bad.

Eventually (if not already possible) somebody might find a way to jam GPS signals, or worse, mislead soldiers to ambushes etc... What happens then? Throughout history, new weapons and technology has always been countered in some way. But no person can change your map from a distance (but maybe the terrain ) or change the Earth‘s magnetic field.

Plus, I doubt Canada needs to radically revamp its training standards to accomodate better radios etc... I doubt basic skills such as proper radio communication will be affected by advanced radios. Knowing how to fix it when it breaks down however, would be useful to know .

 

[atticus]

Isn‘t the Mackenzie Institute the one that said the CF would no longer exist in 10-20 years?

 

[xFusilier]

Agreed that a degree does not make you a better platoon commander or company commander, although I do remember a guy on my ISCC who had the troops shout "cogito ergo su" as they fell in for battle, but I digress.

Where education does come into play is that both civillians and military personnel make a number of the decisions that affecct us at the departemental/interdepartemental/PCO/PMO. Where officers have to be able to get their point across against people who know how to play the acedemic game, and know how, to paraphrase Slim Pickens use their mouth in pertty ways. Therefore it could be argued that there are roles which military officers play for which a graduate degree would not only be appropriate but allow officers to better represent the military‘s goals and aims.

 

[Yes Man]

Well I don‘t see how I would make a better officer this year than I would have last year, but I guess this system prevents the people who are very low on the IQ scale from being an officer.

In regards to equipment, I do think that I would be better to learn to use modern technology rather than learn the old methods of doing things. I mean the advantages you can get from using modern piece of equipment out weigh the possibility of failure and with the extra time, and money it would cost to teach people the manual way of doing things, I would probably be better investment to just make a better gadget.

 

[bossi]

A degree is not the "be all and end all", but it‘s an achievement - a demonstrable sign that somebody can start and finish something tangible.

However, as stated above, education does not equal intelligence.

And, when your GPS craps out ... how many people still know how to use their wrist watch as a compass ... ?
(no - digital watches won‘t work, Nintendo Ninja)

 

[chrisf]

"vietnam era radios"

I can only assume that‘s referring to the PRC-77s... which we don‘t use...

 

[bossi]

Hmmm ... that‘s probably because Nox posted an old essay that was published way back in 2000 ...

 

[AlphaCharlie]

And what about great (and i mean GREAT) officers in WW2? Most of them didn‘t have a college education (although some came out of West Point) and they were great leaders.

It‘s all about practical knowledge, not what your college average was. being a 95% Law Graduate doesn‘t make you a better section commander.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

We‘d have to be stretched pretty thin for officers to be section commanders

Plus, isn‘t it a requirement now for new officers to either be working towards or have a degree at this point?

Is it because higher education teaches/promotes organizational and theoretical skills that are essential for operations planning?

 

[48Highlander]

I‘m not too sure about the officers but I know all the NCM‘s within my unit are well educated and fairly intelligent. And I‘m sorry, but after talking to the US Marines in Kentucky, I find it difficult to beleive that the educational level of an average US soldier comes even close to ours.

 

[Korus]

And, when your GPS craps out ... how many people still know how to use their wrist watch as a compass ... ?
(no - digital watches won‘t work, Nintendo Ninja)

Hah! I was so thrilled when I discovered how to do that.

 

[ZipperHead]

I hate the argument that you can‘t use a digital watch as a "compass". You can‘t use a normal (analog) watch as a "compass" for that matter, unless you can get the arms magnetized, therefore getting them to point to magnetic north. Using a watch (analog, digital, or drawing the hour hand on a piece of paper along with the 12 o‘clock position) to determine which way north can be done is not the same as it (the watch) being a compass. Yes, I‘m picking fly-sh!t out of pepper here, but I‘ve heard that tired old saw too many times in the past, and would like to try to bury it.

Allan

 

[bossi]

Fascinating, Allan.
So, in other words you‘re saying that pointing the hour hand at the sun, and then bi-secting it and 12 noon doesn‘t point North (in the Northern hemisphere)?

Oh, by the way - I may be picking fly-sh!t out of pepper here, but I didn‘t say "magnetic" compass - you‘re the one dug yourself into a hole when you leapt to an incorrect assumption in that regard
(compass - noun - a navigational instrument for finding directions).

 

[Duotone81]

Originally posted by bossi:
[qb] Fascinating, Allan.
So, in other words you‘re saying that pointing the hour hand at the sun, and then bi-secting it and 12 noon doesn‘t point North (in the Northern hemisphere)?

[/qb]

That‘s a pretty cool skill to know. I didn‘t know that and I‘ve done A LOT of surveying!

Thanks Bossi.

No more arbitrary azimuths for this guy.

 

[muskrat89]

I remember it from my Boy Scout handbook!

 

[kinthelt]

Originally posted by bossi:
[qb] Fascinating, Allan.
So, in other words you‘re saying that pointing the hour hand at the sun, and then bi-secting it and 12 noon doesn‘t point North (in the Northern hemisphere)?
[/qb]

Hold on. Let‘s run a little thought experiment here.

Let‘s make a simplifying assumption that time zones don‘t exist, so we won‘t have to worry about being at either the eastern extreme of the time zone or the western extreme (which could ruin our calculations by 10.83 degrees). Our watch is currently set to astronomical local time.

Now, assume it‘s noon (1200 hours). Both the minute hand and hour hand will point to the "12" at the top of the watch. We point the hour hand toward the sun, which will be directly south. Now we make a 0 degree bisection, and deduce that north and south are the same direction!

 

[devil39]

Originally posted by bossi:
[qb] Fascinating, Allan.
So, in other words you‘re saying that pointing the hour hand at the sun, and then bi-secting it and 12 noon doesn‘t point North (in the Northern hemisphere)?

Oh, by the way - I may be picking fly-sh!t out of pepper here, but I didn‘t say "magnetic" compass - you‘re the one dug yourself into a hole when you leapt to an incorrect assumption in that regard
(compass - noun - a navigational instrument for finding directions). [/qb]

I don‘t think that is what he‘s saying. I read that if you wish to know an approximation of North, in the Northern Hemisphere, draw an analog diagram if need be to assist in your bisection exercise.

It should be quite possible to visualize this without an analog watch, however those "ironman" wearing types may need to draw a picture.

 

[Duotone81]

http://smct.armystudyguide.com/Skill_Level_1-AUG2003/lnt14.htm

Ooohh, in the northern hemisphere, when you bi-sect the angle made between the hour hand and 12:00 the line points south. Not north. Well if you did walk far enough you would be heading north eventually!