PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Britney Spears]

Well you're deffinitely right about the too much micro-management bit.  Seems like everyoe above the rank of Sgt feels that the only way to justify their existence is to constantly harass and "correct" anyone they outrank.

Is it one of THOSe parade nights for ya eh?  ;D

 

[48Highlander]

Yeah I know tess, it just seems to have gotten worse over the last few years.  Or then again, maybe I'm just noticing it more than I did when I was a Cpl/Pte.

 

[MdB]

Not that I can give you any advice about this subject (I'm really not in right now...), but I'm currently reading a very, very interesting document titled In the Breach (edited by Lt.-Col. Bernd Horn) coming from the Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts (http://armyapp.dnd.ca/dlsc-dcsot/main.asp).

The points of view come as much from NCOs as from officers, give you insight on leadership. The document is meant to share these leadership experiences among the defence community.

I thought giving it because there's some papers from MWO, CWO, CSM, that talk about how it was before and how it is today in the infantry (or their respective unit) and where are weaknesses. One thing I remember (I'll go search and quote it later) is that an CSM said there was a great lack of physical fitness among subordinates and some were in fact "calling sick" when too hard PT or exercices were held. Which greatly surprised me, since the basics of infanteering is about PT first and foremost.

One other thing is that some paper was on lack of live-fire/WES training, about a couple of times a year and the confidence subordinates lack in their weapon (or weapon handling) resulting from this lack of training.

Cheers,

 

[big bad john]

The announcement below is a new US Army policy.

A shortage of sergeants in some specialties has prompted a new Army policy in which corporals and specialists could be automatically promoted without a board. Under the Army's semi-centralized promotion policy approved Feb. 23, all eligible specialists and corporals (with 48 months in service and a year in grade) will be placed on a promotion list. Then, if a military occupational specialty falls beneath 100-percent strength at the E-5 level, some Soldiers on the list will be automatically promoted. The new policy could potentially affect about 19,000 corporals and specialists currently in the active component, according to G1 personnel officials. Commanders will have the ability to remove a Soldier from the Sergeant Recommended List if a Soldier is not trained, or otherwise unqualified. There will be a 15-day window after the automatic promotion list is generated for commanders to remove names. Even under the new policy, most promotions to sergeant will still go to those who appear before a promotion board. To read a related article, click here.

 

[pbi]

I am usually one to resist the knee-jerk slagging of today's Army by "the old gang", and I know all too well that the supposed "good old days" were not absolutely "good". But, having said that, I have to confess that deep down inside I am getting worried about what our soldiers think is expected of them. Have we, through decades of   PSO, raised a generation of soldiers who think that going on ops means living in a nice Weatherhaven or an ISO container, eating three well-prepared meals a day, having internet and phone cards, and coming home after six months and not a day longer?

What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in? I am not talking about"SF" training: just good hard Inf work.

I am the very farthest thing from a commando or a snake eater: I never served a day in the CAR. In fact, in the words of one of our more illustrious posters here, I am an "old soft leg". But, all that aside, I really wonder what our younger troops today are capable of. Does our training demand enough of them? Can they boast about how tough it was? Could we hunt down and defeat a hard-living, hard-fighting guerilla-type enemy in rough terrain?

These are NOT rhetorical questions: they are not intended as veiled insults. What do you folks think?

Cheers.

 

[big bad john]

I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.  Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.  They were politely and emphatically told NO!

When I was at BATUS, I offered to arrange some slots on the All Arms Course at CTCRM.  The unit I offered it to was delighted, Command unfortunately was horrified that they had even discussed it.

Another attitude I found distressing was a Colonel who told me that if Canadian Troops were fired on during Peacekeeping missions, they might have to return fire.  that upset him.  I then spoiled his day by informing him that UK Forces wouldn't just return fire, we would eliminate the threat permanently. 

Different strokes...

 

[George Wallace]

pbi

I am on the fence for that question.  I know some who would have no problems, and others that wouldn't last two hours.  It seems to be a crap shoot what you get today.  It also depends on the Unit or Sub-unit and their Esprit de Corps.

Gw

 

[Infanteer]

I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.   Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.   They were politely and emphatically told NO!

I'm a big believer in the "Commando" approach to basic training - although I can't find it now, I've proposed that we move to a variation of an all-arms, combat oriented Basic Training program that transforms civilians into fighting soldiers (as opposed to our current system which is "teaches military skills at the lowest-common dedenominator

 

[Heathan]

WOW...I did not expect such a response. What i meant about old school is the difference between the SQ/BIQ and the "Old School" TQ3 "Battle school". I have read, as I am sure many have, the problems, short falls, or down-right problems there are with the SQ/BIQ training done for an infantry soldier. Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ? Why wouldn't the previuos training and experience eliminate the need to put that person on a course desiged to bring up to speed today's new rifleman. When field training commences, ???, wouldn't it be nice to train instead of confirm that everyone knows how to orientate a map.

 

[Britney Spears]

Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ?

Well, if you're as old as you say you are, then all the weapons that you learned on the MG course (C2, C5, .50 Cal) have been taken out of service, so you're really not qualified to shoot ANYTHING (except 9mm maybe)........... ;D

Maybe they should put you though the recruit course again, since we now have different uniforms and you need to know how to dress yourself?

What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in

Any young infanteer who deserves his hook should jump at the chance of excercises like this. If he/she doesn't then he/she didn't join for the right reasons (see my other comments on PT standards)

Come on boys and girls, its training, most people don't actually DIE during training, so if you're not having fun, just get a desk job and stay home.

Now back to the "marching barefoot through a blizzard to the messhall everyday like we use to do in the old army" thread.

I spoke to a crusty old WO once about the "old army". Guess what he said? "Meh, it was pretty much the same old, except the kit and pay wasn't as good"

I think later the RSM took him aside and had a word with him, because he never gave THAT response to any of the new troops again. Or maybe he was drunk......

 

[MdB]

Ok, here's my update. Concerning new days vs. old days, I was refering mostly to Chapter 5: A Regimental Sergeant-Major's perspective, by CWO Steve Anderson in In the Breach (http://armyapp.dnd.ca/dlsc-dcsot/main.asp), pp. 65-72. I will not comment here since I'm really on the receiving side than on the giving. I'll let you read this, it's worth it.

My other point was concerning weapon handling and marksmanship training. In Chapter 7: Have we lost the esprit de corps in the infantry battalion? (pp. 77-82), MWO Mark Baisley comments:
"I believe the infantry standards of our soldiers have degraded over the past decade.  The two critical standards that all soldiers put a lot of faith in are their shooting skills and their physical fitness.  Shooting is the infantrymen's trademark.  But over the past decade, this skill has been neglected.  In the past, a rifle company would spend approximately three weeks at shooting camps firing both personal weapons and section weapons to the point where no soldier was content until he/she acquired a marksman score.  At that time, they were all capable and competent in making their own sight adjustments as well as being extremely proficient in their handling drills.  These are things that can be corrected with little difficulty provided that we are given the time and ammunition.

Today our ranges consist of just enough ammunition for a few warming shots, twenty rounds for grouping and zeroing and then only enough ammunition for the personal weapons test (PWT).  The result of this is a lower number of marksmen in the companyâ ”surprising considering that we are firing a very forgiving weapon.  Money is an issue, but for the soldiers it's very difficult for them to understand how this can be when they know that they require more time on the ranges to perfect the very skills that their lives may depend on.  This is evident when we conduct live fire exercises and the troops give a realistic assessment of their performance and request to re-do the event to improve their performance."

It's only an excerpt and, again, it's really worth it reading the entire chapter as it gives you the entire MWO Baisley's perspective.

 

[Grunt_031]

Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ?[

Rank has nothing to do with it, we had Mcpl's that were on the course because C6 SF is preq to DP2B and the Small Arms Coach portion is preq to DP3A. If you were a CPL with old MG, Small Arms Coach, Basic Mortarman, and PWT 2 9mm Pistol you would not have to do it over or otherwise you would have a reason to bitch.

Some of the past IPSWQ we have run, if you had the old course code you would be attending and not assessed on that particular portion of the course. I used a number of these guys as demsortators. It is up to the unit to decide if you complete the entire course or portions of it. And just because you have these previous qualification doesn't mean jack. I had a few qualified MG guys that failed the TKT and then failed the C6 SF handling test. And that is with their MG course and doing the classes over again.

 

[Grunt_031]

The SQ/BIQ have failed to meet the demands of the Infantry. Although at first was a good concept, like most plans it did not survive first contact. The SQ was to meet the needs of the Army in giving the Army Support/Supporting arms with the basic field skills. Unfortunately it has drag down the standard of the infantry with it.

SQ was section level tactics in all phases of war, all wpn up to platoon support in light role , basic TCCS, Basic Dvr wheel.

BIQ was to use the building blocks of SQ, with the understanding that the troops had mastered section level ops, and build up to platoon level including the remaider of the platoon light wpns.

Some problems of the SQ/BIQ that I have experienced.

1. The SQ could be taught by ANY army pers of any MOC and long as they had JLC. This created a problem with school manning with all army pers now having to take SQ before proceeding on with their trades training. E.g. There was a Sgt Army Trucker that was JLC Qualified but never served in a field unit except the one he was tasked from, which he was posted to 2 weeks earlier. Cooks and Clerks. Not high standards for Section level. This is being alleviated somewhat by assigning all 031 only candidates to the same SQ/BIQ with all 031 instructors.

2. The SQ had Comms and Dvr Whl cut due to budjet and equipment restraints. probably the only good thing that had came with the course at the time.

3. The staff of training centres are not all/mostly infantry such as the old battle schools. Although there are alot of good non 031 instructors at the training centres, their bread and butter is not infantry.

4. BIQ the only hard assessed Pass/Fail is the PWT 3. Even then you can shoot 3 or 4 times, usually on weekends until you passed, this is up to the CO at the PRB.

5. Most of the subjects on the BIQ are scored/rated/assessed as familiarization or participated in.

6. What was explained to me by the leadership of the TC, when a soldier leaves the TC, the troops are still Private (Basic) and not consider trained until year 3 or end of 1st BE. They are not considered suitable for deployment until they achieve trained status. It is up to the units to provide additional training.

7. The field exercise is 5 days with a minimum quota on the amount of sleep they must get.

We still have gotten some good troops, but we have gotten alot of garbage that would have been weeded out under the "old system".

 

[Heathan]

  The SQ/BIQ have failed to meet the demands of the Infantry.......... We still have gotten some good troops, but we have gotten alot of garbage that would have been weeded out under the "old system".

This is more along what I am feeling as a reference to "old school" 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in? I am not talking about"SF" training: just good hard Inf work.

I know the answer - you would have 3 VP in 2000.

Dave
3VP 98-00

 

[Baloo]

I have to admit, that while the army probably has decreased it's reputation as a meat grinder, at least in the infantry, I have to disagree that it is "Pink, Fuzzy". At least from what I have seen. In my own experiences, my section / platoon instructors were always from my own unit (BMQ through to DP2A). This had several effects: it made the course staff drive us harder than troops they would probably never see again, and motivated us to always give 110% (yes, I know the physically impossible nature of this...), whether it be in the parade square, or in the field. Were there bags? Yes, and there always will be. But I found that, especially on the field ex's, and those with the unit, we were driven hard, and to excel. BIQ was full of patrolling, defensive manuevers, recce, and VERY little sleep. All infantry stuff. Yes, I will be the first to acknowledge that this might be shunned by some as "only the militia", but I have the opinion that it can be just as hard, if not harder at points for reserve training because there is a smaller time frame for training, so on ex's, classroom, and whatever, it is always go, go, go. I doubt that in the summer I ever got to bed earlier than 23:00. During Stalwart, our first operation was an assault on a fortifed enemy position. I distinctly remember the 30 hours were spent with 1 IMP, 1 canteen and a whole lotta marching. Am I complaining? Never. I loved it. This weelend, for DRU, my platoon pretty much shouldered the burden for every other group there (yes, I am looking at you 32 Brigade!), and it was cold, long and very tiring pursuing an enemy force up and down snow covered terrain. It was awesome, and certainly not "Fuzzy". I am sure that many an elder commented on the 'Fuzzy" nature of the army when corporal punishment was taken out of daily routine.

Granted, I will always be the first to admit, that I am not Reg Force, and have limited experience (little over a year now). But I feel that I have the ability to thoughfully contribute, and I am calling it as I see it. You cannot deny that there will always be good and bad troops. However, the combat arms, trade training and the units can all contribute to making this experience more physically and mentally challenging. No matter how some of you may feel about it, the infantry will always be a select group, that regardless of what might be said, is of a mentally and physically exhausting standard. From what I can tell, it is not the CF as a whole, but the units and training centres that will provide the tough, straining experiences that make us all better soldiers.

Well, that is my thought for the day.

 

[Bartok5]

I know the answer - you would have 3 VP in 2000.

And I am happy to confirm that nothing changed when you left 3VP Dave.  If anything, we picked up the pace! 

PBI's hypothetical exercise certainly sounds very much like a typical 3 PPCLI training deployment.  Come to think of it, that exercise also sounds and awful lot like Op HARPOON - just add the mountains, heavier loads and a lack of oxygen to really max out the gut-check.....

I am sure that the "Third Herd" are just as lean and mean as ever under the current CO.  And I have no doubt that the officers, NCOs and soldiers of 3 RCR and 3 R22eR are cut from the same cloth.  Clearly, there are still places to pursue "old school" hard-core infantry soldiering within the Canadian Army. 

Mark
3VP 99-02

 

[KevinB]

If you were a CPL with old MG, Small Arms Coach, Basic Mortarman, and PWT 2 9mm Pistol you would not have to do it over or otherwise you would have a reason to bitch.

WE ALL had to do it - in the first PSQW 1VP ran about half where in my boat - just checking the box for the sake of checking a box - we already had the qual's - talk about good value for your dollar  :

 

[pbi]

Dave and Mark C:

OK-fair enough on the Light Battalions: recall that I was asking an honest question, not attempting to cast aspersions, so I am happy to hear that assesment from you guys (who are far more current than I...). I had kind of thought things would be good in the LIBs, and I did have Afghanistan (OEF) in mind.

But, what about the average bayonet in a mech battalion? I'd be interested to hear (particularly from WOs/NCOs) what people think about the soldiering qualities of the average troop today. Again, this is not a dirt-hunt: I am genuinely interested.

As for the Army Reserve, I agree wholheartedly that there is some excellent Inf training done in some Bdes and units: I have seen some of it, and I did some of it when I was a Res soldier myself. However (and please do not take this the wrong way...) my primary concern in asking this question is the status of our higher-readiness troops, who we can reasonably expect should be at a much higher level of training than our Res friends.

Comments from anybody serving in mech bns right now, or at one of the TCs?

Cheers

 

[Baloo]

As for the Army Reserve, I agree wholheartedly that there is some excellent Inf training done in some Bdes and units: I have seen some of it, and I did some of it when I was a Res soldier myself. However (and please do not take this the wrong way...) my primary concern in asking this question is the status of our higher-readiness troops, who we can reasonably expect should be at a much higher level of training than our Res friends.

No problem. Just thought I'd add my $0.02. No disrespect taken.