billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteever WORKED for TRADOC? if you had you'd know how silly that statement is...
Do you intend to elaborate or are you just interested in being a sarcastic troll. I have never felt the need to insult anyone on this sight for their views so I do not understand why people like you do. Do not bother responding to this unless you are prepared to grow up and post like an adult.
Richards
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
your post clearly shows you have no clue how the training plans, courses and materials ARE developed, and no i'm not going to bother to educate you. Get a job working for/with TRADOC for a few years before you make such absurd statements. But perhaps illustrating your ignorance on the subject IS your intent?
edit one example: if i spin around i can see the combined military experience of some 800 years all working on updateding A SINGLE MOS's training.. guess what? not a single social worker involved anywhere... but ALOT of retired/former CSMs, Warrants and Field grade officers...
My comment was based on my experiences at the RCR Battleschool in Petawawa, and at the RCA Battleschool in Shilo. We saw over the years that our military in Canada was suffering from too much interference that was not perceived to be in the best interest of the forces. Many of the changes being made appeared to be made in the interest of soothing lobby groups and left wing media who seemed to cry about any appearance of unkindness in recruit training. Recruits who normally would not have made it through the system suddenly started to, and physical standards plummetted. Whether or not "social workers" were the ones implementing the changes is irrelivant. The changes appeared to be made in the interest of public relations "Look how nice and accepting and wonderfull, our forces are" rather than on any sound logic.
The point I was making was that we saw changes that were not being made in the interest of the forces, but in the interest of presenting a softer image. Our system is somewhat different from yours so we may be debating apples and oranges. Either way I have no interest in online screaming matches, so if you wish to fire off another PA I will not bother responding.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Zenister 0
actually the changes were made due to the general lack of material (in a good economy fewer of the ‘best and brightest’ are willing to enlist) and the evolution of process and production based techniques to minimize the loss of raw recruits due to poorly thought out, badly implemented 'legacy' (“we’ve always done it that way….”) training methods with little bearing on modern combat or the roles the recruits will be required to perform.
The application of ‘result based process” to military training has revolutionized what a recruit can learn before he joins the active force, and the skill set to create an effective soldier (and therefore effective units/combat systems) is significantly more complex than it was as little as 10 years ago. In manufacturing, you find a defect in your base material you throw it away and get another. That is NOT AN OPTION in the development of a competent fighting force, as you can’t simply 'get another' recruit. Every failure is one less soldier available to fight and wasted resources in the training process.
You CAN take that recruit and apply modern, more efficient, task specific training to produce a soldier who IS able to fill a required military role (if not the original one he signed up/was enlisted for) that 'frees up' a 'more suitable' recruit to do the task the first one performed poorly on..
These changes are about not wasting what is in reality “irreplaceable material”, i.e those willing to devote some portion of their lives to military service (the foundation of an all volunteer force) and yes to a certain extent that means treating them more 'gently'. However ‘more gently” does not mean the end result is a less effective soldier.
For the most part the beatings, degradation and derision commonly used by previous decade’s trainers did little to nothing to create a better soldier; it simply contributed to a larger number of drop outs AFTER the military had already invested a significant amount of time and effort on them.
if the Canadian military is making changes for purely cosmetic/social reasons (that are not supported by good production process with the practical application towards training the specific skills your military requires) their system is more screwed than I’d ever expected..
The application of ‘result based process” to military training has revolutionized what a recruit can learn before he joins the active force, and the skill set to create an effective soldier (and therefore effective units/combat systems) is significantly more complex than it was as little as 10 years ago. In manufacturing, you find a defect in your base material you throw it away and get another. That is NOT AN OPTION in the development of a competent fighting force, as you can’t simply 'get another' recruit. Every failure is one less soldier available to fight and wasted resources in the training process.
You CAN take that recruit and apply modern, more efficient, task specific training to produce a soldier who IS able to fill a required military role (if not the original one he signed up/was enlisted for) that 'frees up' a 'more suitable' recruit to do the task the first one performed poorly on..
These changes are about not wasting what is in reality “irreplaceable material”, i.e those willing to devote some portion of their lives to military service (the foundation of an all volunteer force) and yes to a certain extent that means treating them more 'gently'. However ‘more gently” does not mean the end result is a less effective soldier.
For the most part the beatings, degradation and derision commonly used by previous decade’s trainers did little to nothing to create a better soldier; it simply contributed to a larger number of drop outs AFTER the military had already invested a significant amount of time and effort on them.
if the Canadian military is making changes for purely cosmetic/social reasons (that are not supported by good production process with the practical application towards training the specific skills your military requires) their system is more screwed than I’d ever expected..
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites