Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,078
- Points
- 1,010
I have no doubt that fitness and healthy lifestyle should form part of our basic training, as much as it ought to be taught in High School across the country, but mostly is not. And that is not "element" specific: it applies to all three elements just the same.
This said, there is no denying that the Army, as a rule, requires a higher level of strength and endurance than the other two elements and that as a result, physical fitness (including strength training) forms a greater proportion of their use of time. Those are not valid reasons for splitting basic into elements, however.
Nevertheless, I do agree that we are at a point where basic should be re-split from "training command" and back to each element, for the following reasons:
1- at least two "elements" feel that before they can employ personnel coming out of basic, they have to be taught further basic knowledge required of the element. I say at least two because I don't know if the RCAF has the equivalent of the Army's BMQ-L or the RCN's NETP. Would it no be easier for these two elements to simply incorporate the BMQ and their own first phase into a single whole taught in one - slightly longer -shot?
2- Splitting the courses would make it possible to carry out such courses at "elemental" bases - the RCN in Esquimalt and the Army at one or two Army bases around, the RCAF perhaps at Trenton? This way, with instructors readily available without a need for postings involving moving, a larger number of recruits could probably be trained faster - and training scaled up or down easily as the need arises without the bottleneck that is St-Jean when increases in numbers are required quickly.
3- Finally, with the current concept of the Army, RCN and RCAF acting as the official Force Generators in their respective element, what is the point of making them responsible for all of a member's training, except the very first step? Shouldn't they have control over the totality of the training of the personnel under their element?
This said, there is no denying that the Army, as a rule, requires a higher level of strength and endurance than the other two elements and that as a result, physical fitness (including strength training) forms a greater proportion of their use of time. Those are not valid reasons for splitting basic into elements, however.
Nevertheless, I do agree that we are at a point where basic should be re-split from "training command" and back to each element, for the following reasons:
1- at least two "elements" feel that before they can employ personnel coming out of basic, they have to be taught further basic knowledge required of the element. I say at least two because I don't know if the RCAF has the equivalent of the Army's BMQ-L or the RCN's NETP. Would it no be easier for these two elements to simply incorporate the BMQ and their own first phase into a single whole taught in one - slightly longer -shot?
2- Splitting the courses would make it possible to carry out such courses at "elemental" bases - the RCN in Esquimalt and the Army at one or two Army bases around, the RCAF perhaps at Trenton? This way, with instructors readily available without a need for postings involving moving, a larger number of recruits could probably be trained faster - and training scaled up or down easily as the need arises without the bottleneck that is St-Jean when increases in numbers are required quickly.
3- Finally, with the current concept of the Army, RCN and RCAF acting as the official Force Generators in their respective element, what is the point of making them responsible for all of a member's training, except the very first step? Shouldn't they have control over the totality of the training of the personnel under their element?
ff topic: I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating that I'm somehow advocating that retaining musicians was a sound choice; it wasn't a one or the other proposition anyway.
