Soldier first or trade man ??

[poko]

I was told that we are a soldier first. I say let us be. The SQ is a OK course but only if it thought but people that know what there talking about. Not to take anything out of the trade people ( I'm one of them ) but when i did my SQ I had a Sgt from the PPCLI for instructor but some people had just trade man. I know for a fact that i learn more then they did. I was thinking about a solution to the problem have every body do there first BE as infantry and allow them to re muster after the 3 year then we will all be qualify soldier and be able to relay help if we where needed. That what i think. Any input or comment are welcome.

 

[big bad john]

I am prejudiced, in the Royal Marines all Marines must qualify as Commandos before any specialist training.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Oh if we could we would.  Frankly I think if potential recruits knew that had to do their time we would have less applicants.

 

[ps387]

Everyone in the forces is a soldier first...definitely. And financials aside, I don't think it would hurt to put everyone through SQ. However, when it comes to reality, it's hard enough to get people in the door. You are likely going to lose a great number of talanted people simply at the prospect of a few years as an infanteer, nevermind those who can't hack it and quit. Whereas those same people may very well be top notch in their chosen trade and an asset to the CF. (Hypothetical of course and just my opinon.)

 

[poko]

But would you think that it would weed out the people that the army does not need. I dont want to be mean or nothing but iam sorry i dont think people with a weight problem should be in the army. 3 year of infantry would tin them out or they would just quit. Then you would only have the realy one  :warstory:  that pass the 3 year. I know the army is laking people but would you rather have 1 good guy insted of 5 bad one i know i like quility better then quantity.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well, if you believe that only those with the proven fitness and determination to complete a Basic Engagement in the Infantry should be considered, why stop there? Perhaps we should also restrict it to those with the MTAP scores suitable for any trade, so we're not limiting their future employment where we need them afterwards. If we're going to restrict their initial employment choice in your proposed recruiting approach, we might as well use that as a common theme and make sure we only recruit and train personnel suitable for any trade in any position.

 

[Love793]

I agree, every one regarless of their job is a rifleman first.  That being said, not everyone has to be able to take part in coy attack.  Coy defensive yes, offensive no.

As for the SQ course, I feel that every one regardless should have go throught it (including bandsman).  15 years ago, when I was going through Air cadets and wanted to be a Hornet jockey, my father (a retired Reg and Resrve Infantryman) kindly answered that question for me, when I asked why an airforce guy has to be able to qualify on the service rifle.  His answer went like this, "When you punch out of the aircraft, there are no silk sheets and hotels avail on the the other side of the FEBA."  He also went on to explain that the infantry company that has to go and recover the guy, would probably greatly appreciate a guy who knows how to keep himself and others around him alive.

For this reason, I feel that every one Army, Navy, Airforce, and CIC should take the course.  Unfortunately, it would add another 8 weeks to the reg force training, for the airforce and navy and would probably not go over well with the been counters.

 

[pbi]

Actually, I would not inflict Army training on the Navy or the Air Force: I would let them develop their own people in accordance with their operational needs, the way most militaries in the world do. We waste everybody's time with this "purple" nonsense. The Army should train all of its own people to its own standards,from square one, to be sure that the operational needs of the Army are being met. Under that system we could ensure that all soldiers were trained as soldiers first, and thought of themselves accordingly. What the Air Force and the Navy did would be none of our business as long as they contributed operationally ready forces to the joint team. Unification, IMHO, confused force generation with force employment, and we have been paying for it ever since.

Cheers

 

[1feral1]

Being part of RAEME, we are soldiers first and tradesmen second. Always have been and always will. We play the game hard as anyone, and have earned the respect of other Corps within the Army during peacetime training and on operations.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Block 1]

I firmly believe that we should all be soldiers first. I look at the British Army for an example, although their trg is somewhat different but the intent is good.  Anyway I found myself in Africa, one year sharing a trench with two UK soldiers in the area of  the KONO, this area was at the time a Revolutionary United Front, stronghold, located in the East side of Sierra Leone West Africa. The man to my right was from the Royal Marine Commandos (RM) an outstanding solider, the man on my left was a Combat Engineer electrician, another outstanding soldier. Now he was a electrician by trade but he was trained as a solider first before his engineer training and before his electrician training. At this point in time he is no longer a electrician but rather an Infantryman like the rest of us at least for the next few moments anyway. Was he as good as the (RM) or Canadian Infantry, of course not, but one thing that struck me was his comment when I asked what the .....is a tradesman doing out here,  there's no power lines for some 200 miles. He looked over and said â Å“Ay Mate I a soldier first and will do my part just as you will when it comes down to itâ ?  Then he explained his level of training and that everyone is a soldier first in the UK Combat Engineers. 

Well some of us in the CF now have forget that. And from time to time we have to be reminded, but the bottom line is just that we are all â Å“SOLDIERS FIRSTâ ? especially in this day and age. And if you haven't noticed that wave of realism that is now sweeping across the CF again and will become entrenched in out training once more very soon.          :soldier:   

 

[Radop]

Oh if we could we would.  Frankly I think if potential recruits knew that had to do their time we would have less applicants.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

I would say navel bowsain or Stoker for navy, combat arms for army and don't have a clue for the air force.

 

[NCRCrow]

In the Navy, we qualify as a sailor first by doing an OSUT (Ordinary Seaman Under Trg) which covers all the trades on the ship.

Previous to that we do the Damage Control Package(see Truth, Duty & Valour today) and naval traditions.

On the ship,prior to starting any trades trg, u must qualify through intensive boards to do your duties.

Followed by First Aid, C7, Whimis and repeat all the above.

I haven't even touched on QL-4 Packages that must be done and evaluated.

Sailor first, tradesman second definately applies here.

U Army guys wouldn't want us Sailors showing u up in the field would u? >

 

[Infanteer]

I'll agree with PBI in that a good start would be to move away from St Jean "Lowest Common Denominator" training and let each branch do its own unique Basic Training Course.  "Purple" badges and the same course are not essential for Joint Capability (this is what Unification was striving to do, wasn't it?)

 

[Bert]

I too would agree with PBI.   Unfortunately, the CF isn't likely to entertain distinct BMQ streams
for the Army, Navy, Airforce similar to the American system as an example.   However,the
implementation of MOSART may suggest a "return" of unification concepts.

It brings up an interesting issue regarding the new MOSART- MOSID, the purpler trades, and trade
qualifications between the elements.   As another example, ATIS, LCIS, and NET techs all take
the same basic trade content, i.e. radios, radars, IT, A/V, and telephony systems are all similar.  
On base or at sea, the elemental situations distinguish these techs from one another.   On overseas
land deployments, ATIS, LCIS, and in some cases NET techs, may be found supporting Army units
(or vice-versa).   ATIS and NET techs are not trained at the same level of person combat readiness
as LCIS or harder Army trades.   If mixed deployments of Army and Air Force personnel (not really
actual units but individual taskings) frequently occur, then the combined training of similar
cross-elemental trades may need to be the same and begs the question, why distinguish ATIS,
LCIS, and NET by element at all?

MOSART, from my understanding, may allow for a common qualification of similar trades between
the  elements making them definitely purple, interoptable, and essentially "unified".    This fear or
speculation of what MOSART could mean came up in a recent unit meeting with the Chief.    
It may be difficult to say what MOSART-MOSID may bring in the coming years,
perhaps the consolidation of training, but our unit wanted to keep the ATIS trade BLUE.

 

[pbi]

[quoteCan anyone here shed light on this subject, why is it that bandsmen are the only (apart from Chaplains, but that makes sense) trade in the army that does not do SQ]
A further question might be why the band branch (in the Canadian Army today, not 50 years ago...) has no operational/deployment role. Please do not say "stretcher bearers" as this is not a role for Canadian bandsmen today, nor has it been since probably Korea. You will not find bands on any current operational unit TOE, and to best of my knowledge RegF members of that MOC do not undergo any real field or operational training.  Dos anybody have different facts about our MOC bandsmen today?

Cheers

 

[ZipperHead]

Part of the problem that I see, WRT "purple trades" is the fact that any of them, at one point or another in the career (especially at leadership trg time) could be in one element (air, land, sea), do that training (leadership), and then move on to another. I will give the example of a medic I know (no, not my wife). He did his "leadership" trg while with the Navy (I will try to keep the sarcasm out of that oxymoron), and was consequently posted to 1 Bde. We taught together on a SQ course a few years back in Wainwright, and he was at a severe disadvantage to all those that did their CLC, JLC, PLQ, etc with the army. When it came to weapons handling, he had to be shown the difference between the "plastic one" (C9) and the "wooden one" (C6), and his take on discipline and leadership certainly differed from those that had an army upbringing. Another instructor on the course, whose wife was another "purple" trade, fascinated (or was it nauseasted?????) me with the tale, that while she was on her "leadership" course, they were given carte blanche on what they taught for their skill class: she taught knitting, and a plumber taught how to replace a toilet. Fascinating stuff, all of which can be had on Martha Stewart Living, or Holmes on Homes........ I somehow doubt she knew how to strip (or teach for that matter) a C7. My wife (the medic) told me how there was a guy on her JLC, who "through no fault of his own" had never touched a C7 in his career (except basic training) and had to learn it the hard way: right before he taught a class on it.

As I mentioned, I taught on a SQ course 2 years back, and I have to admit, I learned a lot on it. I helped construct a Stage 6 trench (I had only seen them in Demo positions before). And because my 2ic was a keen Para Coy MCpl, I learned some fighting patrolling and other things from his tool bag. I knew for a fact that those soldiers were going to be better trained (as a soldier) than almost all the Cpl's and possibly some MCpl's at my unit (if not even higher ranks.....). Of course, all 44 students on the course were going PPCLI, so it was basically a mini-BIQ for them (no point in treating them like lambs, before they would get to the slaughter), so I'm not sure if it would have been an identical course if it were 44 cooks-to-be, or 44 supply-tech-wannabes, but I would think it would have been up there. Most of us instructors were very glad to see that the system was going in this route, until we found out that not every SQ course was running the same way. The other SQ course running just ahead of ours didn't have the same personalities involved (I'll leave it at that.......) and they had somewhat differing philosophies than the majority of our course staff had (we'll not get into the MOC's involved....). As well, we heard that on some bases, the SQ courses would be run entirely by "purple" MOC's. I have seen CSS unit's try to "out-infantry" the infantry on exercise (cam all the time, fully tactical all the time, etc), so I would hope that they would get the gung-ho types, who would "keep it real". But I am too much the cynic for that hope. Having said that, I have seen some of my Armd Corps brothers teaching in a less than gung-ho spirit, so I know that it isn't limited to one "realm".

As for all this army training scaring people away from the military (ie tradesman), has anybody put any thought into how many gung-ho people are scared away from the huggy-kissy training that is (or more hopefully, is no longer) conducted??? I see a lot of good soldiers frustrated by the lack of esprit-de-corps and good training, jumping ship for greener pastures, be it OT or civilian jobs.

Too many people feel that if you train a tradesman to be a soldier, it somehow pushed all that fancy training out of their brain, and they couldn't possibly be able to retain the skills required to be able to scramble a egg, or remove the screws from the back of an instrument panel..... Or the attitude that they won't need to "man the line" or conduct a section attack. Does the name Jessica Lynch mean anything to anybody? Or how about the great number of CSS trades killed in Iraq by ambushes and suicide bombers? The oft repeated stor of people in Bosnia not keeping firing pins in their C7's because they were ordered to, to cut down on ND's, is too crazy to NOT be true. And since those people were purported to be from the NSE (National SUPPORT Element) I don't think that there were too many "hard" soldiers in that clag.

What I know (which is admittedly little) about the Marine Corps philosophy (A marine first.....) is what the way ahead should look like for us, and from what I've heard coming out of the new CDS, this WILL be the way ahead (for the next two years, until a regime change, anyway). There will be much gnashing of teeth, threats of release, holding of breath until faces turn blue, etc, etc.

Al

 

[c_canuk]

The oft repeated stor of people in Bosnia not keeping firing pins in their C7's because they were ordered to, to cut down on ND's, is too crazy to NOT be true. And since those people were purported to be from the NSE (National SUPPORT Element) I don't think that there were too many "hard" soldiers in that clag.

and I thought it was bad when the ammo lockup was emptying the rounds out of EVERYONE's mags... I kept seeing visions of everyone running around weapons slung carrying 2 handfulls of rounds should the russian mafia strike back at us, everytime I turned my weapon in.

 

[Standards]

Firstly, my opinion is definitely soldier first.  Once you have an understanding of those skills, then you can move on to your trades training.  However, just like anything else, soldier skills are perishable and require periodic maintenance.

Secondly, a few comments on some of the previous, particularly with regard to the SQ course:

1.  As per the QS and TP, at least one of the Sect Comd's or 2IC's must be Infantry.  Therefore their most certainly should not be serials run entirely by "Purple" trades.

2.  Regarding the band, I recently visited an SQ course while they were in a C-6 lesson.  The instructor was wearing an Infantry unit cap badge and gave an excellent lesson.  If she hadn't told me I wouldn't have realized she was in the band.  My point being yes, it can be done and not all members of the band are deadwood.

3.  As far as instructors not knowing the subject matter, that is what IST (Instructor Standardization Training) is for.  That gives the Course WO the opportunity to assess his personnel and bring them up to scratch (not that it should be necessary - but reality always enters into things).  It's also why most schools allocate two weeks for IST prior to course commencement.  Obviously PRes units cannot afford this much time, but generally at least a couple of days should be allocated (actually with PRes it's often easier as the WO already knows the instructors and who the weak link is - if any).

As I touched on in another thread a while back, some of this will soon be a moot point as the content of the SQ is being absorbed back into the BMQ (making it a longer course).  I don't expect it to happen for this summer (and I hope it doesn't as it will be a scheduling nightmare), but it should be in place by next summer.  This means that all candidates will be doing "SQ" type material, not just those from the Army (by the way, I don't have any more details nor am I involved in the re-writes, so that's as much as I know about it so far).

Cheers.

 

[Drummy]

PBI,

I joined in 56, so not really the time period you are asking about, but I did my first 4 yrs as an Infantryman(Bren Gun and Inf Sig Drv Op) and then remustered to the Music Trade. I was scheduled to do a 10 week Jr NCO course, but remustered before it started.

After the remuster, the only formal courses I had in the next 23 yrs were the Band Jr NCO course(2 weeks) which dealt mainly with Mil Law, drill, and one day(afternoon) in the field learning where trenches would go in a defensive position.   ;D   We also did a 2 week course run by EMO learning to get casualties out of ruined bldgs. Then for about 3 yrs, there was an annual refresher of about 3 days on the EMO stuff, along with the First Aid stuff.

We had Korean vets in our band(and I'm sure the other bands), and I can't recall any of them talking about being stretcher bearers. I think that the position of stretcher bearers was a duty of Unit Volunteer Bands. Not sure of that though. Since WW2, Regular Force bands have been used mainly as public relations tools, in addition to their military musical duties.

As an aside, when I changed to the bandsman trade, there were 13 Army bands, 4 Navy Bands, and 4 Airforce Bands, all at a strength of 50. Now we are down to 6 total with strengths of 35. Don't know how many Reserve bands there are. In addition to those Brass/Reed military bands, there were many unit/base Volunteer bands, a lot of which have been disbanded.

Hope that helps a little.

Drummy

 

[pbi]

Drummy: thanks for that. Your post roughly parallels what I thought. I was not trashing bands: I am a great lover of drill and ceremonial and military music: some pieces of martial music can raise the hair on the back of my neck or bring a tear to my eye. We had a truly excellent band in the PPCLI and I for one was sorry to see it go.

What I know (which is admittedly little) about the Marine Corps philosophy (A marine first.....) is what the way ahead should look like for us, and from what I've heard coming out of the new CDS, this WILL be the way ahead (for the next two years, until a regime change, anyway). There will be much gnashing of teeth, threats of release, holding of breath until faces turn blue, etc, etc.

This argument by some that "soldier first, tradesman second" would scare the technically minded away from joining begs the question of how the USMC, with similar or greater technical support requirements than we have, manages to do it. A Marine is a Marine first, MOC second. I bet we could do it if we recruited the right way, and got rid of the idea of the "purple" tradesman, which actually puts the individual in a rather unfair situation, as well as denying that there is anything unique about service in the naval or land combat environments.

Cheers