The Support Trooper course has similarities to the Recce Patrolman course, but there are differences as well.
I did not suggest combining that training. What I suggested was a common course followed by an Armd specific course. If my nomenclature was unclear, perhaps this is better:
- Cbt Arms Pnr Qual + Armd Sp Tpr Crse = Sp Tpr Qual
Support/Assault Troop has a different role than Assault Pioneers or Engineers.
And a MBT driver has a different role than an Armd Engr Op, but both start with the same D&M because of the substantial overlap in knowledge, skills and tasks.
As you note the basic demolitions package exists. We plug that into our course but do not let that drive how the course is delivered. I mentioned earlier that we had very successful and useful Assault Troops that did not have demolitions.
Your arguments only seem to accept demolitions as an area of common overlap. Again, the overlap in knowledge, skills and tasks is much greater, extending to targetry fabrication, limited mine warfare, obstacle construction, breaching, and on.
Right now, there is no approved QS or TP for Asslt Tpr or Sp Tpr (same for Asslt Pnr as well). In the current climate of restraint, it seems more likely that new QSs will be approved if they show economies and efficiencies. A common course does that. A common crse also increases the gene-pool to support self-sustainability of the qualification across a bde. This does seem to be the right answer:
Kat Stevens said:
I don't really know where the beef is here... Get the basic pioneer and assault trooper CTPs, identify all common POs to the two, find instructors and book a bus to Wainwright for a couple weeks. RTU to fill in the empty spots in-house. Economy of effort and all that rot.
We have already seen what the Infantry Corps hopes to have packaged in a 20 to 25 day course here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1909/post-1162087.html#msg1162087
Remove the small boats and some urban fortifications, and you are still left with a full course. What remaining from that list would you suggest Asslt Tprs should not be capable of doing?
Engineers only and demolitions are empire building.
Not sure where this comes from. I don't think you will find an Engineer who believes only Engineers should use explosives within a Reg F context. I have seen plenty of BDC and BCIC offered up to various combat arms, but receiving units then allow this capability to go unsustained and to wither away.