Lack of field training!

[Unknown Factor]

Although the arguements will continue and I no doubt am going to open up a whole can of worms with this one I have to state it anyway.

With so many threads being debated I have to ask the question(s).

-What has happened to field training exercises, ammo and schools?

-Could not a lot of the questions that are being raised not be resolved through training rather than the establishment of a new unit?

-Without doctrine what are you really capable of anyway?

* This is the reality that I train in everyday, the young armchair generals that have it all figured out and how to fix it.  I'd argue that the system works, people just have to be willing to accept that they may not be the solution. Give the soldiers more opertunity to train and it'll show you who belongs. Everything starts with field training, without it skills can't be passed along, a leaders intent can never be understood and we stand more and more behind the 8 ball durring post deployment workup - which would be greatly un-necessary if field training existed in the first place. *

 

[claybot]

Great topic, I remember deploying on RV for 10 weeks in the summer and 3-4 week winter Ex.
Lots of good training starting with about 2 weeks on section, 2 weeks on platoon, 2 weeks at company including FTX, 2 weeks at brigade level including FTX then final FTX. Alot better than the standard exercise's of today that are from 3-6 weeks long and still trying to get all that training in.

Even the the upcoming BTE in Wainwright is only 6 weeks.

As for Ammo at one point the C9 gunners would get their full load of 3 boxes now there lucky to get 2, as for the extra ammo that was carried by the rest of the section forget it.

I recall one Live fire ex after Germany that was platoon level attack into a trench system with 60mm mortar firing WP and 84mm with RAP Rounds live grenades a fantastic exercise with minimal saftey staff.

Now you see more saftey staff than actual people firing.

It would seem that as the quality of our training diminishes the amount of safety staff for any given range increases

A standard training system for all Infantry (French and English) (Light and Mech) is the way to go but sadly this will never happen, to many of the Old Guard are still in place.

 

[GO!!!]

It would seem that as the quality of our training diminishes the amount of safety staff for any given range increases

A standard training system for all Infantry (French and English) (Light and Mech) is the way to go but sadly this will never happen, to many of the Old Guard are still in place.

I agree with the safety aspect of what you are saying. On our last Coy live fire, there were 119 firing troops in the trg audience, and two busloads of pylons (immobile, orange objects) following them around. The kicker was the 10-12 COs and RSMs just "observing" and getting in the way. When the coy began to pull off of the objective after the raid, a number of "check fires" and "slow downs" had to be given as troops ran back to the rally point and tripped over safety staff who could'nt get out of the way. If anything, this made the training more dangerous, and confusing as the Staff yelled at the troops and the firebase as they tried to keep up with their assigned element.

Trg safety is important, but not at the expense of realistic training!

In regards to a standardised trg system - it is not the way to go. If anything, light and mech should be split, in order to concentrate on what each does best. We cannot afford to train like we did in the good ole days, and screaming through the fulda gap to face the commies. It takes years to train a good LAV crew, and the same to train a solid core of light infantry NCO's. A common trg system would be a waste, as the Light Bns were forced through mechanised ops every year, and the Mech units were forced to dismount for a few weeks. Both would be wasting their time half of the time. We need a seperate trade for Light infanteers, to shield their skill set (airmobile, airborne, mountain etc) from the mech units, and achieve a greater concentration of these skills in the light Bns. This would be good for the Mech units as well, as they would be able to train more often as formed units, without the distraction of courses (listed above) which are totally irrelevant to mechanised ops.

 

[George Wallace]

Go!

One point that you are missing, is the fact theat Mech, and for that fact, also Armoured, Troops have to know how to survive without their vehicles.  In war, there is a strong possiblility that their vehicles will be destroyed or disabled and they will have to be able to operate without.

 

[GO!!!]

George,

While I will defer to your knowledge and experience on this one, one question - why do armoured units (I'll use the LdSH as an example, as I am most familiar with them) never perform dismounted ops or training, with the exception of Recce Sqn and the Assault troop?

I've never even heard of a tank crew putting on webbing and leaving the veh behind. - has it happened (on ex or op) in the recent past?

 

[paracowboy]

George,
yeah, the guys who drive to war need some training in how to survive without their cars, but GO!!!'s point is still a good one, IMO. The 'cross-training' aspect was wasting everybody's time and scarce resources. Today's armoured vehicles are so much more hi-tech than the ones we remember that they require extensive training in their use.
By the same token, today's dismounted stuff is so much more in-depth than the stuff I was first trained in, that there's really no resemblance to the drills I was first taught. And it's constantly evolving as wqe get first-hand knowledge from our experiences, as well as those of our allies in the grown-up armies.

I suggest intense, but brief, low-level training in dismounted stuff for the tankers and mech guys, and low-level famil training in the use of LAVs for the Light boys. Enough that the veh-borne troops can fight and survive without wheels/tracks long enough for the cavalry to arrive, and enough for the Light fighters to get in and out of a LAV without tripping the halon.

Ideas? Rebuttals? Am I Ray Oliver?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

George,

While I will defer to your knowledge and experience on this one, one question - why do armoured units (I'll use the LdSH as an example, as I am most familiar with them) never perform dismounted ops or training, with the exception of Recce Sqn and the Assault troop?

I've never even heard of a tank crew putting on webbing and leaving the veh behind. - has it happened (on ex or op) in the recent past?

It does happen (or did) quite often.  However, the question begs to be asked - what type of dismounted training are we talking about?  Typically, a disabled tank or armoured vehicle has a crew of four.  There's limited merit in training that crew in dismounted collective (ie: section and higher) infantry tactics above that level when tactically they'll never be put to use.

Having said that, armour leaders (MCpl on up) receive some limited infantry training - largely as an assessment tool - and there is certainly a requirement for extensive training in many, many infantry skills (crew survival, sentry, defence preparation, patrolling, pers and section weapons, etc., etc. spring to mind) at the individual level.  We're undoubtedly falling down in that regard, as are many other branches.

As paracowboy points out, "real" infantry training is a tad too in-depth for other trades to pick up on the fly.

 

[George Wallace]

Para

Those are the along the lines that I am advocating.

GO!!!

The Army of the West, the Strats in particular, are different, as many will show with other examples, I am sure.  In the distant past, we in C Sqn, RCD, in Gagetown did conduct dismounted patrols.  Most of the time it was inter-Troop "rivalries" that produced the "necessity", not actual templating.  (Our Troop for instance, Recce'd another Troops location in Monument Wood and conducted a Patrol in at Zero Dark Thirty to tie Smk Grenades to their suspensions and perhaps undo a Muff Coupling or two and withdraw undetected to witness the Chaos in the morning.)  It was not uncommon for us to have to dismount to Recce Defiles, like the Otnabog.  However, it is true that Musleheads, seldom get off their steeds.  Recce, Assault Tp, and of course those on CLC Crses did most of our dismounted jobs.  

I know that the RCD have, when their VOR rates were high, or when a strong CO was around, conducted lots of dismounted trg.  Now, it is even more popular, as the tanks are gone and with the 'New Equipment Establishments' (one Sqn of equip for three Sqns) it has become a necessity.

 

[Haggis]

If anything, light and mech should be split, in order to concentrate on what each does best. We cannot afford to train like we did in the good ole days, and screaming through the fulda gap to face the commies. It takes years to train a good LAV crew, and the same to train a solid core of light infantry NCO's. A common trg system would be a waste, as the Light Bns were forced through mechanised ops every year, and the Mech units were forced to dismount for a few weeks. Both would be wasting their time half of the time. We need a seperate trade for Light infanteers, to shield their skill set (airmobile, airborne, mountain etc) from the mech units, and achieve a greater concentration of these skills in the light Bns.

In the "good ole days" we didn't have Light and Mech Bns.   We had mech and dismounted Bns.   The LIBs only came into being with the dissolution of the Airborne Regiment.   In the "old days", everyone was mech and everyone trained in the "Mounted" and "Dismounted" roles.   (As an aside, this is where much of the confusion lies with Reserve Infantry training.   This training formerly focussed on the dismounted role (with Reservists using the MLAPC or FunTon WIFV), which became confused with the light infantry role, two totally different animals.   It's only quite recently that Reserve Infantry training has become light oriented.)

Many will say that when an infantry unit dismounts, it becomes "light".   Not so.   The most glaring difference is that dismounted Infantry still   have their vehicles to fire them onto the objective.   Light don't.   Scales are different and the training methodology is different, too.

The biggest reason we don't have separate "light" and "mech" career streams is that we're too damned small.   (Even if we empty out every HQ, Armoury, School and Training Centre when you count every Regular and Reserve Infantry soldier together, we are still smaller in numbers than the RCMP.)

 

[GO!!!]

Haggis,

I would be lying if I said I was overly concerned with militia trg, but in regards to the regs, I agree with you, the abscence of vehicles does not a light unit make.

I believe the streams could be easily seperated, by seperating the trade into two seperate courses 031L and 031M. Include LAV driver/gunner in the Mech stream's trade school, and, say, Mountain ops and a basic recce in the Light stream. This way we could keep our training standards up at the schools, and not place the burden of training on the units that presently exists.

I also think that size is as much our ally as our enemy. Our small size means that it is not an enormous undertaking to train most of a unit in a certain task, and that it can be done, in coy size in a year or two. If the schools are unable or unwilling to conduct this type of training, then perhaps the possibility of re - allocating their budgets and instructors to individual Bns should be looked at, leaving the schools to conduct lower level traing, and allow the field units to train their own specialists, much like what happens on the recce and mtn ops courses.

 

[Haggis]

I suggest intense, but brief, low-level training in dismounted stuff for the tankers and mech guys, and low-level famil training in the use of LAVs for the Light boys. Enough that the veh-borne troops can fight and survive without wheels/tracks long enough for the cavalry to arrive, and enough for the Light fighters to get in and out of a LAV without tripping the halon.

I think your point is quite valid and bears serious thought.  But one of the hallmarks of a Canadian soldier is his well rounded professional education.  By specializing an officer or NCO in either the light or mech world limits his career opportunity and re-employability.  What do I mean by that?  A mech trained officer or NCO will, by our "train to need" mentality, be denied any courses or training that would make him light capable.  Conversely for his light comrade.  Members could conceveably be stuck in the same unit for life; promotions and progression would be limited far more than would be fair to either the solider or the Army.

Our allies to the south have found that specialization is the high tech way to go.  They've also found that it's hugely expensive both in dollars and manpower.  The Marines have it right IMO: First and foremost you're a rifleman.  Then you are a tradesman (Infantry is a "trade".  ;D)

I would be lying if I said I was overly concerned with militia trg, but in regards to the regs, I agree with you, the abscence of vehicles does not a light unit make.

I used this simply as an illustration that it's easy to confuse "light" with "dismounted".  In those days the majority of Reserve leadership courses were run by Regs and even many of them had difficulty making the doctrinal split.  The exception were the Airborne Regiment instructors, the early "light" infantry.  Reg or Res, I've found that course taught by true "Light Fighters" are more physically demanding... and more fun.

I believe the streams could be easily seperated, by seperating the trade into two seperate courses 031L and 031M.

This was considered about 12-15 years ago and I remember discussing this possibilty in the Mess during my QL7. There was talk that we would be the last "pure mech" QL7. (FYI I was a "light" guy on a course whose content was geared for mech.  Once we ditched the tracks, tho... )

It was theorized that if us "light" guys (there were about 9 on my course and countless others before and after) could sufficiently grasp mech stuff then maybe there wasn't going to be sufficient "Return on Investment" to separate the 031 into sub-trades at that level.  This was in the pre-LAVIII days, so much has changed since then.

I also think that size is as much our ally as our enemy. Our small size means that it is not an enormous undertaking to train most of a unit in a certain task, and that it can be done, in coy size in a year or two. If the schools are unable or unwilling to conduct this type of training, then perhaps the possibility of re - allocating their budgets and instructors to individual Bns should be looked at, leaving the schools to conduct lower level traing, and allow the field units to train their own specialists, much like what happens on the recce and mtn ops courses.

Yes we don't have a lot of "bayonets" but we also don't have enough people to do the staff work that needs doing right now.  When you take into account the amount of staff effort, this would be an enormous undertaking.    We're not talking about re-writing a three week course, but re-inventing the way our entire Infantry Corps (Reg and Res) thinks, trains and, eventually, fights.

I know you're not too interested in Reserve training but any changes in the Reg F impact the Reserves as well.  No matter what we do as an Army, there's only one "pam" for all of us.

 

[paracowboy]

true, but if we simply trained our soldiers to be soldiers we would already have a firm foundation of basic Infantry skills to build upon. That is what the Marines do, and what we pay lip service to.
And as for trade employability limitations, so what? That is the point. We cannot train people to be well-rounded in both mech and light infantry anymore. Both are too demanding. We would have two seperate trains for them to board.

By having an actual basic soldier package that works (sort of the Warrior program, but enforced), we could then build, by way of short but intense training packages, on these skill sets to give the mech and armour dudes the skills necessary to fight when forced to dismount, and could give the opposite to their counter-parts who walk into a fight.

 

[MOOO!]

I think what we need to do more in field training is with other trades. Use engineers with the infantry more and have arty do drills off the infantry, fire mission calls (notional fire missions unless live fire of course).  Get the MPs to do collection and set up of POW cages med evacs with Helo's and take the admin staff out and have them set up a place and walk them through gate and sentry duties and new convoy drills and actions on.

We have to brush up our readiness with the recent events overseas and that means more active field training with the most realistic training with all trades in the loop.  We all have been told we need to work together but how many of you have done all trades realistic training in the last little while? I know I haven't.

We should do more, and I know the money pains as the Regts say gets in the way, but if you do Brigade or BG EXs why not intergrate as many aspects of these groups into it.  New perspective for some and refresher for the rest of us.