From CWO Richard - C&E Training Requirements

[aesop081]

(UK baloon corp, which eventually became the RAF was also an engineer branch )

anything new and dangerous usually passed thru the engineers hands - so we could figure out how to make it work and how to best utilise it.

Geo, you remember those old 6 Fd Coy recruiting posters featuring engineers laying telegraph cable at the gallop ?

 

[geo]

Heh.... ayup.
That's why the sigs, the infantry AND the airforce march behind the Engineers on any ceremonial occasion

 

[aesop081]

Heh.... ayup.
That's why the sigs, the infantry AND the airforce march behind the Engineers on any ceremonial occasion

that and being lower forms of life......

 

[geo]

Heh

 

[glenndon]

EME Branch trades would be closer to combat arms status than Linemen. . .  I do believe on my Intro to Defence Management course it stated that besides the actual combat arms trades, all EME trades were required to do the PLQ Land portion as well as the PLQ stuff everyone else does (too add to the letter at the beginning of the thread that stated only Veh Techs required it).

Also, what is the status of SQ training to those sigs people around?  MOST of the new Pte's are coming to my tech shop at JSR with SQ training.

Glenn

 

[aesop081]

EME Branch trades would be closer to combat arms status than Linemen. . . 

Thats like two bums on a street corner aguing over which one of them is more like Donald Trump.......... :

 

[geo]

LOL.... you know what?.... I can picture just that!!!

:rofl: :cheers:

 

[Radop]

Also, what is the status of SQ training to those sigs people around?  MOST of the new Pte's are coming to my tech shop at JSR with SQ training.

Glenn

SQ is required for all soldier's who could be employed in a combat arms unit (or so the theory goes) and for the most part, new sigs must go through SQ between Basic and QL 3 training.

Whether linemen are a combat arms trade or a combat support trade is of little relivance to this topic.  The topic is training levels to be able to deploy to a theatre of operations such as that seen in Kandahar Province.  I don't recall seeing any discussion in CWO Richard's memo about whether trades should be combat support arms or combat arms.  Further to this, were are you getting the information as I haven't read anything that said who was and was not combat arms.  I believe that any of the trades that state that our secondary role is to fight along side infantry units, makes us a combat support arms.  The only MOCs I consider combat arms (IMHO) are Infantry, Artillery and Armoured.  Sig Ops have to fight along side the infantry sub-units sometimes down as far as the Platoon level. 

All of our trades could see combat.  The question is are our soldiers ready???  I don't think they are.  After what I saw in Kabul in 03, I would have said yes but after being in Kandahar, I would say no.  The insurgency is getting smarter and smarter and so must we by changing our tactics and training to meet the desired safety threasholds while performing our capabilities at a high level, we need our soldiers to preform their best under changing circomstances.  To add to the complexity of this already complex situation, we must also win the hears and minds of not only the Afghanis but also the people back home to assure all that we want and intend to give Afghanistan a lasting peace.

 

[geo]

Given that green, blue and black trades all have something to contribute to the mission in Afghanistan, I believe the CDS has dictated that all troops - air, sea AND land are to be given the rudimentary training that is provided in the SQ course..... then junior leaders are to be put thru their paces on the "land" part of the junior leaders course....

 

[Canadian Sig]

Given that green, blue and black trades all have something to contribute to the mission in Afghanistan, I believe the CDS has dictated that all troops - air, sea AND land are to be given the rudimentary training that is provided in the SQ course..... then junior leaders are to be put thru their paces on the "land" part of the junior leaders course....

We have guys in my unit ( me included ) who have multiple tours overseas but have never taken SQ, LET, or a specific BMQ(land). I don't imagine that they will be going on SQ anytime soon so there will continue to be guys deploying who have little to no combat training.

 

[Radop]

We have guys in my unit ( me included ) who have multiple tours overseas but have never taken SQ, LET, or a specific BMQ(land). I don't imagine that they will be going on SQ anytime soon so there will continue to be guys deploying who have little to no combat training.

Most were written off during that little exercise in Wainwright in 03 called BTE.  Some of you needed waivers from Ottawa to take you.  It was all transparent to the Pte and Cpls.

 

[geo]

well....

The CDS dictates to his commanders what he thinks is right and what he'd like to see
Then it's up to those same said commanders to look after business... if, at the end of the day some of the troops are found to be lacking then some members of the leadership will have some explaining to do....

 

[Radop]

Yesterday, I had an interesting conversation with a commander going over to Afghanistan next rotation.  He will have a staff of 28 people working for him.  He leaves in Jan to start training for the deployment.  As of yesterday, he is short 16 people to round out his staff.  He doesn't expect to get people until one or two weeks before they depart for overseas due to key manning possitions that will have to be handed over here in Canada first then train second.  Now these are senior staff officers and NCOs but still may find themselves going out on convoys to evaluate PRT or FOB sites.  The same thing is happening for sigs pers when someone is needed for filling positions that become vacant due to injury while training (because for the most part, there are no alternates).  Some of these people are only getting the PSTC training and going over.  These people are deploying outside of the wire out of necessity.  We need training in the schools to be realistic and benificial to the soldiers not at pre-deployment training.  That period should only reinforce what they already know.  All too frequently, it is not.

 

[211RadOp]

I don't agree that the training should lie with the schools. Yes the initial training (SQ) should lie with CFSTG, but the indepth training on specific matters should lie with the units to complete. Taking a week of training to go over convoy ops, veh search, IED awarness etc is not enough. The units should take much longer to train the individual. Now I do recognize that, especially here, that this is not practical for various reasons, last minute replacements, other operational commitments, but the CO of each unit should, IMHO, should incorportate it into thier BOTP.

 

[hank011]

Well a position came down for volunteers and this time the excuse is "You dont have the required training". It is the same position that came down 4 months ago but the acronyms for the quals have all changed.  
Oh well, not my problem.
Having discussed this with co-workers from across the country, the story is the same everywhere; too many 226 techs competing for very few positions on deployments. Not to mention that the unit gets no benefit or replacement while someone is deployed so I understand the reluctance to submit names unless specifically tasked.

 

[George Wallace]

This is where the thing we call "Continuation Training" has to be innovative and credible.  It is the Unit's CO and Trg O's responsibility to keep the unit personnel trained.  This may require some imagination on their part.

 

[LineJumper]

+1 to that Canadian Sig. Green C&E trades (with the exception of those dirty linemen and their combat arms trade status) are combat support trades, the emphasis on COMBAT support <--Hey, I resemble that comment!

 

[Radop]

+1 to that Canadian Sig. Green C&E trades (with the exception of those dirty linemen and their combat arms trade status) are combat support trades, the emphasis on COMBAT support <--Hey, I resemble that comment!

What does that have to do with anything.  Combat support means that you support front line soldiers!!!  You are expected to be able to do your job along side infanteers.  A coy signaller joins the fight while providing comms to higher and lower.  One of my former Ptes, now a Cpl, was wounded in battle and will probably be released as the injury may cause him an eye.  A MCpl was in the Coy 2IC's vehicle during a battle run when the vehicle went over an IED.  He broke his ankle and hip, the gunner lost his legs and the 2IC had his ankles shattered.  When I was in Kandahar last summer, there were 3 sigs who were awaiting their wound stripes.  These are only the ones I know of.  There are probalbly more.  So to make a statement like we are only Combat Support means you don't know what that means!  We can be part of the F Eche.

 

[LineJumper]

Someone needs a time out. I guess slagging Lineman is a cool thing for pimply bums to do.

 

[LineJumper]

Oh yeah, the only reason I replied to this string was because it has my RSM's name on it. Someone I've jumped with, so many moons ago.