No more rifles on drill/grad parade?

[GK .Dundas]

I've written a few thoughts down - I will post later this evening I hope.

AND NO I didn't use a hammer and chisel.....

That's right ! It was a stylus and wax tablet.

 

[OldSolduer]

That's right ! It was a stylus and wax tablet.

Absolutely correct and living in the cardboard box!!! Luxury!!!!

 

[Furniture]

Absolutely correct and living in the cardboard box!!! Luxury!!!!

Luxury! Each night dad would strangle us and dance on our graves!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

@Furniture I can see your points and I appreciate you constructing a proper rebuttal that isn't essentially "Drill bad... me no likey."

Perhaps Mr. Heyller's grand experiment has finally shown its cracks. There is a massive divide between the CA/RCAF/RCN on what we value and what we believe is critical for our people to focus on.

I value technical expertise in my trade, just as much as I value people paying attention to detail. There is no room for error with electricity, radhaz, or cybersecurity. Binary processes don't care if it's "good enough," either it's done properly or it's wrong.

My inspections on course were very much detail oriented. If it wasn't 12 inches, be it 11.9 or 12.1, bed was flipped. You got it to 12 inches because that was what you were required to have. Drill is the same way. You're either in step, or you're not.

The demand was for our best and that demand was perfection. Most of our problems in the CAF started when "meh...good enough" became the norm. I'm not even a Greybeard in the CAF and I have seen the decline and it spills into everything we do.

Perhaps I'm a dinosaur, but I didn't join the CAF to be a PS in funny clothing; I joined to be a soldier. Soldiers march, soldiers are held to a higher standard, and soldiers aren't content with "good enough." I certainly am not.

 

[Furniture]

@Furniture I can see your points and I appreciate you constructing a proper rebuttal that isn't essentially "Drill bad... me no likey."

Perhaps Mr. Heyller's grand experiment has finally shown its cracks. There is a massive divide between the CA/RCAF/RCN on what we value and what we believe is critical for our people to focus on.

I value technical expertise in my trade, just as much as I value people paying attention to detail. There is no room for error with electricity, radhaz, or cybersecurity. Binary processes don't care if it's "good enough," either it's done properly or it's wrong.

My inspections on course were very much detail oriented. If it wasn't 12 inches, be it 11.9 or 12.1, bed was flipped. You got it to 12 inches because that was what you were required to have. Drill is the same way. You're either in step, or you're not.

The demand was for our best and that demand was perfection. Most of our problems in the CAF started when "meh...good enough" became the norm. I'm not even a Greybeard in the CAF and I have seen the decline and it spills into everything we do.

Perhaps I'm a dinosaur, but I didn't join the CAF to be a PS in funny clothing; I joined to be a soldier. Soldiers march, soldiers are held to a higher standard, and soldiers aren't content with "good enough." I certainly am not.

I don't disagree with anything you said, I just think we can teach people that right is the only acceptable standard, without pounding pavement and tossing beds.

We aren't taking in "jail or the military" types anymore, so perhaps we need to adjust the base standard.

I'm all for a system of defaulters for people who fail to reel-in lessons at an acceptable rate, I just think it should be targeted at those who need the extra training, rather than just the standard for all.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I don't disagree with anything you said, I just think we can teach people that right is the only acceptable standard, without pounding pavement and tossing beds.

We aren't taking in "jail or the military" types anymore, so perhaps we need to adjust the base standard.

I'm all for a system of defaulters for people who fail to reel-in lessons at an acceptable rate, I just think it should be targeted at those who need the extra training, rather than just the standard for all.

My dude, what are they "defaulting" to?

The standard set out in Basic training that is established as the baseline for CAF members to perform to.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you spend all your time marching up and down the parade square you won't have time to check your pay statement or bank account so you'll never notice the pay problems.

thankfully the lack of drill made us ever so aware of how much a Clusterf**k Phoenix was/is. Perhaps all the EX types were to busy on the parade square to notice?

 

[Good2Golf]

Except for the ADM in charge of Phoenix…she was busy spending the performance pay she received that year…

 

[Remius]

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong drill on basic training. Basic drill for basic training. Anything else more advanced can be saved for experts to teach anyone who might on the off chance have to do something a bit more complicated.

If anyone thinks that drill on basic and the odd parade is a « retention » issue is just as deaf and blind as those that don’t see the real retention issues.

I do get it though that if you are doing drill all the time every time so much that you can’t do your job, I get it. And I can see how that can impact your quality of life. Drill isn’t the problem. Anyone thinking it is is making excuses.

Just join the public service. We don’t do drill there.

 

[btrudy]

Meanwhile, the engineer in me would like to point out that there is no such thing as exactly 12 inches; no matter how measured, there will always need to be some sort of acceptable tolerance range within which variation is acceptable. 12.00001 inches isn't exactly 12 inches, but you sure as heck aren't going to be able to tell the difference.

But at the end of the day, perfect is the enemy of good enough. If you hit a dude with a rifle round and it's half an inch to the left of where you were aiming... guess what, that'll still do the trick.

I especially hate it when you get into the notion of "everything must be perfect" when it comes to things that are inherently subjective, like staff work. No, just because things aren't worded exactly the way that you might have worded it doesn't make it wrong, especially when something has to go through multiple levels of review and everyone along the way has a different notion of what perfection is.

We, as an organization, spend wayyy too much effort chasing an impossible goal of perfection, when we only need to be good enough. And it's burning people out, driving them to leave for other employers.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Meanwhile, the engineer in me would like to point out that there is no such thing as exactly 12 inches; no matter how measured, there will always need to be some sort of acceptable tolerance range within which variation is acceptable. 12.00001 inches isn't exactly 12 inches, but you sure as heck aren't going to be able to tell the difference.

But at the end of the day, perfect is the enemy of good enough. If you hit a dude with a rifle round and it's half an inch to the left of where you were aiming... guess what, that'll still do the trick.

That level of variation is acceptable.... when you can dial in to centre of mass with consistency and accuracy.

Even when I was doing shoots on the C6/9, "a lot to the everywhere" doesn't really work due to the fact that rounds get chewed up fast and barrels overheat.

Much like telling my kid to work on his free-throw, you practice and drill to perfection because no one talks about the "almost game winning shot."

I especially hate it when you get into the notion of "everything must be perfect" when it comes to things that are inherently subjective, like staff work. No, just because things aren't worded exactly the way that you might have worded it doesn't make it wrong, especially when something has to go through multiple levels of review and everyone along the way has a different notion of what perfection is.

Staff work is meant to get the point across in a way that the decision maker can digest it and make a decision quickly. If you present them with something that's not accurate, brief, and clear... you've wasted time.

Is it pedantic? Yes. Is it effective? Also yes. Like shooting, drill, and everything else you deride about military life apparently; it takes practice, effort, and repetition.

We, as an organization, spend wayyy too much effort chasing an impossible goal of perfection, when we only need to be good enough.

Perfection isn't attainable, thats the point. The pursuit of perfection is what keeps effective militaries winning the day. I'm sure there are enough Russian conscripts finding that out the hard way: good enough training, good enough kit, good enough leadership, good enough rations....

The day I stop expecting my troops to pursue excellence and perfection is the day I have failed them as a leader. Does that mean when they fail, they are derided for it? No. Incremental improvement is pursuing excellence and perfection.

And it's burning people out, driving them to leave for other employers.

Where they will face the same hard reality that you're not being paid for good enough. You will be fired and given a security escort to boot. I understand the work dynamic is changing with Gen Z, but I don't see it changing as quickly as we assume.

Do we need to be smart about how we employ and retain talent? Yes. But that is also understanding that for every "9-5, let me dress how I want" Killick out there, there is one or more that have become disillusioned by how far things have slid down the slope of "military standard."

We need to see both sides of the prism if we are truly trying to fix the situation we currently are in.

 

[kratz]

I would have thought December 6 would be a better day for such a remembrance ceremony? The Montreal École Polytechnique massacre.

​

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I would have thought December 6 would be a better day for such a remembrance ceremony? The Montreal École Polytechnique massacre.

​

Wrong thread, mate...

 

[Castus]

If one posts like reddit I will respond like reddit. You ignored my level responses to the remainder of the thread and attack me one my response after I was attacked....

If you think that being told 'don't get old because you might not like being attacked by the youth' was an attack on you, I'm not sure what to say. I think that you miscalculated.

Do we need to focus on the "core demographic"? No. We need to focus on expanding the institution's appeal beyond the core demographic, because relying upon the outdated model of said core demographic clearly isn't working. We're bleeding personnel for a reason.

People need to wake up and smell the damned coffee. Society is shifting, and people's attitudes towards work is absolutely one of them. In particular, Gen Z's attitudes towards employment is drastically different. Trying to shift to doing the way we did things 30 years ago will have the opposite of the intended effect.



It's almost like warfare has changed since we used to line up and march towards the enemy who also helpfully lined up. Drill is no longer a functional operational requirement. Warfare has changed, so how we train for warfare should change too. "We've done this for thousands of years" is actually a pretty stupid reason to keep doing it; if your methods haven't changed in that long, then they're clearly outdated.

We have failed to recruit and retain because we have alienated the core demographic of the military - driving legions of good soldiers out of the military, I know a great deal of them from a variety of trades and units - and military service is not especially interesting to most of those outside of it. These are facts, and I would posit that the military remains over half from rural Canada, when Canada itself is an overwhelmingly urban country. We can make military service more interesting to urban Canadians, but it takes time and much effort, particularly from an empowered public affairs posture which any Canadian government has little interest in granting.

Younger generations are cynical because they have been taught to be, not because the inherent arc of progress has shaped them in that way. Our institutions and the way we do things matters, and we have been granted a fantastic, honourable tradition which we ought to preserve as a default. If we make changes, they need to be for clear, valid reasons.

Societies attitudes towards work is shifting, the requirements of the CAF are intensifying not decreasing however.

Education and training is how you adapt recruits to the CAFs requirements because otherwise they will not be capable of doing so. Right now we are in a weird place societally where we argue for ‘collective’ rights yet try to treat everything and everyone as a individual. The CAF doesn’t need a bunch of individuals, we need people to act as a collective. To foster a group identity.

This is why you are supposed to get broken down on basic and brought back up to the standards and requirements we need. I would argue that a military culture is more needed now than ever due to how little patriotism, pride, and honour exists in our society at the moment.

Warfare hasn’t changed. At the end of the day Ukraine looks a lot like Korea or WWII just with a bit fancier kit. ‘Outdated’ is a buzzword used by those who in many cases don’t know what they are talking about. Part of the problem is people struggle with why we do things because we have failed to explain them properly.

I second this line of thinking. Frankly, we need to focus on fundamentals when it comes to the main job. That is, for the Army, to either close with and destroy the enemy or support in a variety of ways. This is the second part of why so many good soldiers have left in the last five years - we have become an Army that doesn't do the job, that does not relentlessly focus on being excellent.

I take serious issue with the line that we must 'meet Canadians where they are at' or 'be reflective of society'. The Canadian Armed Forces should recruit, train and employ people at their best, working to make them so through well wrought and well run structures. We ought to be trying to make our soldiers elite. We certainly were some of the best infanteers in the world when I joined, and our quality of soldiers was incredibly high. This is what we ought to strive to regain.

It takes far less resources (time, money equipment) for a Bn of infantry to execute a Trooping the Colour parade than it does a full level 5 BTS BG attack.

Both require precision, dedication, strict adherence to orders, teamwork, and faith that every soldier will do their individual duty to accomplish the collective effort. The difference is that you can do one more often without blowing through your training budget in a month.

I'll paraphrase former Major General Commanding the Household Divison Sir Simon Cooper, who said that parading at Horse Guards was more than just pageantry, it was like being a gladiator coming into the arena. It was a direct call out to the enemies of the realm that this is what they faced should they try to bring harm to the UK: a unified, professional force that will kill you with the same precision, efficiency, and dedication it takes to execute the parade.

It's more than just square bashing for the sake of vanity, it's to build the cohesion and discipline needed to be that force that can effectively and efficiently complete complex tasks as a group.

Does that include the RCAF, RCN, and the tech specialists? Yes. Why? Same reason as above. If I cannot trust that you're not going to cock up a march past in column of route, what confidence should I have that you'll be competent in the performance of your load station?

If you cannot perfect the simple things, the harder stuff will be done sloppily, recklessly, and dangerously

Hear hear, well said.

 

[btrudy]

Younger generations are cynical because they have been taught to be, not because the inherent arc of progress has shaped them in that way. Our institutions and the way we do things matters, and we have been granted a fantastic, honourable tradition which we ought to preserve as a default. If we make changes, they need to be for clear, valid reasons.

Clear and valid reasons like the fact that we're hemorrhaging people and that maintaining the the status quo will lead to a complete inability for us to do any aspect of our core mandate?

Is that a good enough reason to prompt change?

Younger generations are cynical because they've been taught to. Sure.

And they've been taught too by experience. Every experience that they've been shown is that employers can't be trusted to look out for their best interests, and that they need to look out for themselves, including jumping ship for other employers when it makes sense. And I certainly can't blame them.

If we want to de-cynicize people, then we need to actually transform ourselves into the type of employer that they want to stick around with. The only thing that will make people less cynical about employment in the CAF is by actually making working in the CAF a better overall experience.

I second this line of thinking. Frankly, we need to focus on fundamentals when it comes to the main job. That is, for the Army, to either close with and destroy the enemy or support in a variety of ways. This is the second part of why so many good soldiers have left in the last five years - we have become an Army that doesn't do the job, that does not relentlessly focus on being excellent.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason for that primarily boil down to a lack of personnel to do so adequately? It's of course a vicious cycle; we can't focus on operational excellence when we barely have the people to keep the lights on, but that drives people out.

Hence the requirement to focus entirely on A) training which has direct impact on operational capabilities (e.g. not wasting time on marching around), and B) measures which make the CAF overall a more attractive employer, be it in terms of compensation, postings, eliminating toxic leadership, or just stop doing petty annoying shit like sending people's memos back 6 times with useless "corrections". Leadership that actually takes the reconstitution directive to heard, rather than doing their best to ignore it so they don't need to change anything about the way they do things.

I take serious issue with the line that we must 'meet Canadians where they are at' or 'be reflective of society'. The Canadian Armed Forces should recruit, train and employ people at their best, working to make them so through well wrought and well run structures. We ought to be trying to make our soldiers elite. We certainly were some of the best infanteers in the world when I joined, and our quality of soldiers was incredibly high. This is what we ought to strive to regain.

Dude, face it, if your approach is that we need to only take in the best of the best and train them hard to make them better... what are you proposing we do to keep them?

I don't particularly think that it's a prudent strategy to act as a revolving door, taking people in, training them up, and then doing little to nothing to prevent them from leaving for better employers. That's of course assuming that we're able to get them in the door in the first place. Because, again, changing attitudes towards work life balance may primarily affect retention, but they absolutely come into play with recruitment too, because people talk.

The #1 challenge facing the CAF is our staffing levels, and the only way we're ever going to be able to fix that is to mould the way we do things in order to make ourselves an employer of choice; not just to get new people in the door, but to prevent folks we already have from choosing someone else.

 

[OldSolduer]

OK got some questions for y'all. And many of you make good points, on both sides.

If you are on a SA range and its time for the declaration, do you have all the soldiers lined up in an organized fashion? Like in three ranks? And they all do the drills to clear the weapon?
Or do you just have them stand where ever and you have to guess who has been cleared?

You're tasked as a Mcpl to move your platoon from Point A to B with personal weapons - a short distance of about 1 km for arguments sake. Would you fall them in and march them in an orderly fashion or just let them figure it out for themselves?

As a point, when an infantry platoon attacks its as a formation - controlled chaos actually BUT the Pl Comd has his Battle DRILLS firmly implanted in his mind as does his 2I/C and his section commanders and his troops. THAT attack started on a parade square by doing foot drill and weapons drill.

Point - the bad guys in Afghanistan weren't all locals in man jammies. Many of those Taliban and other groups were trained in terrorist camps Like Tarnak Farm IIRC. They were committed to their cause. . As Chairman Mao said "The guerrilla is a fish and the people are his sea". Afghanistan was not a conventional war, and the West tried to fight it like that. I can speak more about insurgencies but I will refrain for now.

Practicing section attacks is ok but it does get old fast. Especially in garrison on the sports field. Its best to practice that sort of thing in the field on ex.

 

[Furniture]

OK got some questions for y'all. And many of you make good points, on both sides.

If you are on a SA range and its time for the declaration, do you have all the soldiers lined up in an organized fashion? Like in three ranks? And they all do the drills to clear the weapon?
Or do you just have them stand where ever and you have to guess who has been cleared?

By the time troops are doing a declaration they are no longer holding firearms, at least on every range I have been to.

You're tasked as a Mcpl to move your platoon from Point A to B with personal weapons - a short distance of about 1 km for arguments sake. Would you fall them in and march them in an orderly fashion or just let them figure it out for themselves?

You would easily have them fall in, and then tell them to carry their weapons at the "shoulder" with a 5 second demo... There is zero need to teach ground, order, or present arms for that scenario... Really, if the MCpl/troops can't figure out how to move from A to B with rifles, the CAF is well and truly screwed.

As a point, when an infantry platoon attacks its as a formation - controlled chaos actually BUT the Pl Comd has his Battle DRILLS firmly implanted in his mind as does his 2I/C and his section commanders and his troops. THAT attack started on a parade square by doing foot drill and weapons drill.

When I learned how to lead an attack team into a fire I didn't first learn how to form them up, present hoses, or ground Draeger's. We learned how to do the actual job. Wet stuff on hot stuff, sometimes "painting", sometimes "penciling", sometimes taking a defensive posture.

That was it, I went to the DC school, experts taught me how to lead an attack team, and I left the DC school... There was zero marching up and down the square.

As I said earlier, if marching up and down the square is key to making a good infantry soldier, make it part of battle school. I can assure you, nothing from drill makes a Met Tech better at Met Teching... What makes a good Met Tech is doing Met Tech work like briefings, observing, maintaining kit, and forecasting the weather.

If someone is smart enough to predict the sea state three days from now, they can learn how to carry a rifle for a parade when required.

 

[Infanteer]

How much drill do the Ukrainians do right now?

 

[OldSolduer]

How much drill do the Ukrainians do right now?

That I can’t answer.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

How much drill do the Ukrainians do right now?

I posted this further up in the forum