• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
Jarnhamar said:
2IC should have been nailed for a leadership failing and IMO hauled in front of the OC to explain why they should be allowed to remain on the course.

Strongly disagree with this. It's training, it's okay to fail and it's where the failing is supposed to occur. We should be challenging people more and giving them more opportunities to fail, not scuttling someone because they thundered in.

They should have been counselled, mentored in whatever way they will respond best (shamed, encouraged, whatever it is that is going to make them step up to the challenge), and then put through the ringer again until they overcame their deficiency or proved they are incapable. The error here was not in giving them a second chance, it was in lobbing them a softball.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,459
Points
1,060
Course critique from my CLC we almost unanimously brought up that a 2 i/c should also be hard assessed, as a good one can save you and a shitty one can scuttle you. That was 30 years ago, good to see some thing never change.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,262
Points
1,260
Target Up said:
Course critique from my CLC we almost unanimously brought up that a 2 i/c should also be hard assessed, as a good one can save you and a shitty one can scuttle you. That was 30 years ago, good to see some thing never change.

It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though.

Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now). 

You are never, ever, going to use logisticians to advance to contact and clear trenches; if you are using us all doctrine has failed and rear echelons are now in the wrong position and our position is probably dire to begin with.  But we should be able set up camps and ordinance parks, conduct CLPs and DPs and hold the ground we are on.  All of these can produce easily relatable scenarios that Log troops can find commonality in and gain some real world value for future deployed employment.

I stand by to recieve the diluge of: "but I know a cook who says they stormed a taliban filled wadi with a C7 in one hand and lobbing grenades with the other; while in the stan so we all need to operators operating operationally ALL THE TIME". 

As for the post-pandemic part, I think we are going to see allot of our archaic processes and necessities get vetted and rightly so.  We are a terrible institution for doing things just because that’s the way they have always been, instead of optimizing and improving.  I have no doubt we all have examples of that.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
ballz said:
Strongly disagree with this. It's training, it's okay to fail and it's where the failing is supposed to occur.

It's okay to make mistakes and fail. (teaching someone how to deal with failing is important too Imo)

I don't think this is just a little mistake.
 2ic had a mental break down and fucked off on me 
That should lead to a big discussion on whether someone is ready or capable of being a leader.


 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,126
Points
1,110
Halifax Tar said:
It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though.

Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now). 

You are never, ever, going to use logisticians to advance to contact and clear trenches; if you are using us all doctrine has failed and rear echelons are now in the wrong position and our position is probably dire to begin with.  But we should be able set up camps and ordinance parks, conduct CLPs and DPs and hold the ground we are on.  All of these can produce easily relatable scenarios that Log troops can find commonality in and gain some real world value for future deployed employment.

I stand by to recieve the diluge of: "but I know a cook who says they stormed a taliban filled wadi with a C7 in one hand and lobbing grenades with the other; while in the stan so we all need to operators operating operationally ALL THE TIME". 

As for the post-pandemic part, I think we are going to see allot of our archaic processes and necessities get vetted and rightly so.  We are a terrible institution for doing things just because that’s the way they have always been, instead of optimizing and improving.  I have no doubt we all have examples of that.

I agree with you somewhat. I don't think branches should be doing their own thing, but I agree that we could improve the way we teach PLQ.

We need people that can function in their jobs, while deployed forward. We don't need to pretend that our support pers are going to be storming the beached on D-Day. Participate in a section attack, but not lead one.

On my PLQ my assessed run was patrol that comes under fire. I was assessed on my ability to control my people, "lead" a section attack, then reconsolidate and continue the patrol. I'm a career Met Tech that was assessed on my section attack by a career AVN Tech. So you can likely tell how useful that was as a teaching moment, and how effective my assessment was...

That said, other people had tasks like setting up a gate guard, or roadblock, and then dealing with scenarios designed to add pressure. In my opinion that was a much more useful way to go about things, as it presented a very realistic scenario.

(helmets on) Back in Kandahar all of us apart from the medic were expected to stand sentry shift at Spur, or in the field. As a Cpl I was expected to handle odd situations as they came up, so expecting support trade MCpls to be able to do it is both realistic, and practical. (helmets off)
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Furniture said:
On my PLQ my assessed run was patrol that comes under fire. I was assessed on my ability to control my people, "lead" a section attack, then reconsolidate and continue the patrol. I'm a career Met Tech that was assessed on my section attack by a career AVN Tech. So you can likely tell how useful that was as a teaching moment, and how effective my assessment was...

I think the important part here is that the section attack is a 'scenario', much like the ones you also note below, and that each of those scenario's is assessed using the same assessment form/guide (assumption on my part, from my PLQ instructor experience).  The 'tactics' part would be non-assessed, which should 'level the playing field'.  You're assessment by the AVN Tech...he/she was scoring you on generic aspects such as "devise plan", "communicate plan", "lead sub in completion of mission", etc the same as any other scenario would.  My hard assessed small party task was 'load the MLVW with course stores'.  I had to go thru the same steps/procedures and follow the same SOPs as everyone else, although some people had scenarios that were different (set up CCP/FA station, set up defensive stores, etc).

Even on an airfield, you could end up "fighting thru the enemy" and consolidating afterwards.  It is likely?  I say "no". Is it possible?  Always.

That said, other people had tasks like setting up a gate guard, or roadblock, and then dealing with scenarios designed to add pressure. In my opinion that was a much more useful way to go about things, as it presented a very realistic scenario.

This scenario rotation is important;  it fights boredom and 'everyone is learning' throughout the rotation.  My CLC in '93, we did section attacks by day, recce patrols by night.  Guess how long it took for things to get boring?  Not having had the benefit of those various scenarios when I did my JL trg, I am a huge fan of them.  And I believe, course critiques are a very important part of the continuous improvement process; ones that get lip service will result in that same level of change in the QS/TEP.

 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,934
Points
1,360
Halifax Tar said:
It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though.

Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now). 

You are never, ever, going to use logisticians to advance to contact and clear trenches; if you are using us all doctrine has failed and rear echelons are now in the wrong position and our position is probably dire to begin with.  But we should be able set up camps and ordinance parks, conduct CLPs and DPs and hold the ground we are on.  All of these can produce easily relatable scenarios that Log troops can find commonality in and gain some real world value for future deployed employment.

I stand by to recieve the diluge of: "but I know a cook who says they stormed a taliban filled wadi with a C7 in one hand and lobbing grenades with the other; while in the stan so we all need to operators operating operationally ALL THE TIME". 

As for the post-pandemic part, I think we are going to see allot of our archaic processes and necessities get vetted and rightly so.  We are a terrible institution for doing things just because that’s the way they have always been, instead of optimizing and improving.  I have no doubt we all have examples of that.

I disagree that branches should train themselves.  That's incestuous and I've worked in a few organizations that self-validate and have seen the problems that can create.

PLQ is supposed to be a common course, the problem is it's basically a JInfantry course that doesn't acknowledge that there are other tasks carried out by different environments/trades that are just as difficult. 

I personally think PLQ should be environment specific and that the environments should focus on leadership specific to that trade. 

Damage Control scenarios would be a great thing to test Navy Pers on for instance.

Likewise, I think PLQ should put a greater emphasis on problem solving, logic, development of communication skills, etc.  There are tonnes of ways to do this that don't involve anything occupation specific.

Attached is an example of something I did with 1st year RMC Cadets as an instructor at RMC.

I ran a simulation using the game Diplomacy.  Cadets were broken in to teams of eight and were given the task of running a specific Nation through a campaign against their peers who also controlled specific Nations.

There was no dice involved and the focus of the simulation was to practice/develop the following skills:

Teamwork
Logic
Coordination
Interpersonal Communication
Decision Making

I built the boards and developed the activity myself.  It's fairly easy to do stuff like this and people actually learn something about themselves and others in the process.  The Simulation was executed and Administered by a number of fourth year Cadets.





 

Attachments

  • received_10156443128703552.jpeg
    received_10156443128703552.jpeg
    966.6 KB · Views: 95
  • received_10156443128763552.jpeg
    received_10156443128763552.jpeg
    972.7 KB · Views: 91
  • received_10156443128728552.jpeg
    received_10156443128728552.jpeg
    564.7 KB · Views: 81

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
Eye In The Sky said:
Even on an airfield, you could end up "fighting thru the enemy" and consolidating afterwards.  It is likely?  I say "no". Is it possible?  Always.

But does the AVN Tech etc that did a leadership course 15 years ago really need to "lead" the fighting? Wouldn't it be better for them (regardless of rank) to fall in on a section led by an experienced (and current) Cbt Arms/MP/Security Forces type?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,727
Points
1,060
reverse_engineer said:
But does the AVN Tech etc that did a leadership course 15 years ago really need to "lead" the fighting? Wouldn't it be better for them (regardless of rank) to fall in on a section led by an experienced (and current) Cbt Arms/MP/Security Forces type?

Until that Cbt Arms/MP/Security Force type gets shot in the face. In a gun fight I'd rather have lead something a couple times 15 years ago than have to lead it never seeing anything close to that.

As someone said earlier, no one is expecting a cook (unless they're Steven Segall) to lead a doctrinally perfect Section Attack on their PLQ. What's being expected is to show someone has sufficient emotional stability, effectiveness under demanding circumstances and situational awareness. Its the same as a CCP, it doesn't need to be the medic at the chokepoint, anyone can be that leader with some basic knowledge of how its supposed to function and leadership skills to set up that medic for success.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,126
Points
1,110
Humphrey Bogart said:
I disagree that branches should train themselves.  That's incestuous and I've worked in a few organizations that self-validate and have seen the problems that can create.

PLQ is supposed to be a common course, the problem is it's basically a JInfantry course that doesn't acknowledge that there are other tasks carried out by different environments/trades that are just as difficult. 

I personally think PLQ should be environment specific and that the environments should focus on leadership specific to that trade. 

Damage Control scenarios would be a great thing to test Navy Pers on for instance.

A pet peeve of mine from my time on the left coast is the navy's obsession with DC to the exclusion of all other types of training. The navy needs far more FP training at all levels, and it needs to be exercised regularly. The standard 1600 "fire" in the wardroom flats/cabins, fridge flats, 2 stores, etc. is useful, but a few FP exercises every week wouldn't kill anyone.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,090
Humphrey Bogart said:
II ran a simulation using the game Diplomacy.  Cadets were broken in to teams of eight and were given the task of running a specific Nation through a campaign against their peers who also controlled specific Nations.

So thirty years from now when those cadets still hold grudges against each other and act out against each other when they command the various CAF L1s, we now know it was all your fault.  (Diplomacy betrayals run long and deep...)
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
PuckChaser said:
Until that Cbt Arms/MP/Security Force type gets shot in the face. In a gun fight I'd rather have lead something a couple times 15 years ago than have to lead it never seeing anything close to that.

As someone said earlier, no one is expecting a cook (unless they're Steven Segall) to lead a doctrinally perfect Section Attack on their PLQ. What's being expected is to show someone has sufficient emotional stability, effectiveness under demanding circumstances and situational awareness. Its the same as a CCP, it doesn't need to be the medic at the chokepoint, anyone can be that leader with some basic knowledge of how its supposed to function and leadership skills to set up that medic for success.

Fair enough on all points, PC.

My final thoughts: The enemy will (in many cases) be the one that dictates who gets shot in the face, so it could just as easily be the 20 year CFL with no PLQ that has to lead. So maybe everyone that wants to deploy or stay in past their BE (and become a Cpl) needs to successfully complete PLQ? Also, emotional stability and effectiveness are variables that can change due to a multitude of reasons. Perhaps things like that need to be objectively re-assessed at regular intervals. It would definitely weed some out, but as others have said, maybe that wouldn't be so bad? Anyways, just my half-baked ideas. I no longer have any skin in the game. Good luck to those of you that do.

Cheers.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,126
Points
1,110
Eye In The Sky said:
This scenario rotation is important;  it fights boredom and 'everyone is learning' throughout the rotation.  My CLC in '93, we did section attacks by day, recce patrols by night.  Guess how long it took for things to get boring?  Not having had the benefit of those various scenarios when I did my JL trg, I am a huge fan of them.  And I believe, course critiques are a very important part of the continuous improvement process; ones that get lip service will result in that same level of change in the QS/TEP.

While I agree that scenario rotation is important, it is also possible to rotate the "events" of a scenario while keeping the basic scenarios more realistic. It's hard to feel pressure to perform well when you are doing something so ridiculously out of touch with reality that is comical.

Like was mentioned by Humphrey Bogart, more realistic element/occupation based scenarios make far more sense. You get better "buy in" from the troops if there is a reasonable chance they may be asked to do something remotely similar to PLQ tasks in the real world. Otherwise the scenarios become a joke, and valuable lessons can get lost in the absurdity.

To be fair, maybe I'm a bit biased because the only thing I learned on PLQ that hadn't been taught better by Army Cadets was the CFPAS system.

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Furniture said:
While I agree that scenario rotation is important, it is also possible to rotate the "events" of a scenario while keeping the basic scenarios more realistic. It's hard to feel pressure to perform well when you are doing something so ridiculously out of touch with reality that is comical.

The CAF needs students to put valuable feedback in with course critiques and the staff need to have a vested interest in making the training better, every course, or it goes stale.  Like, the AF DRSET courses like ETHAR (not much point in me spending 180+ slides on IED stuff from Afghanistan when I am training for the fight, airborne, inside Iraq and Syria.).

To be fair, maybe I'm a bit biased because the only thing I learned on PLQ that hadn't been taught better by Army Cadets was the CFPAS system.

AirCom Academy PLQ? 
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,126
Points
1,110
Eye In The Sky said:
The CAF needs students to put valuable feedback in with course critiques and the staff need to have a vested interest in making the training better, every course, or it goes stale.  Like, the AF DRSET courses like ETHAR (not much point in me spending 180+ slides on IED stuff from Afghanistan when I am training for the fight, airborne, inside Iraq and Syria.).

Agreed, and I have seen examples of both sides failing at this.

Eye In The Sky said:
AirCom Academy PLQ?

Indeed, it was a lot of fun but not of much value. It was also 12 years ago, so things may have changed.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
I don't know when it changed, I don't think that long ago but PLQ is being run in your own environment.  They are also working on making at least a portion of it element specific.  I believe some mbr's who were air force or navy and posted to Pet, Edmonton, Shilo etc used to be put on the course there if available but now they are sending those people to Borden, Halifax and Esquimalt.

 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,126
Points
1,110
stellarpanther said:
I don't know when it changed, I don't think that long ago but PLQ is being run in your own environment.  They are also working on making at least a portion of it element specific.  I believe some mbr's who were air force or navy and posted to Pet, Edmonton, Shilo etc used to be put on the course there if available but now they are sending those people to Borden, Halifax and Esquimalt.

It's been that way since about '08. Even though Gagetown was running PLQ serials on a regular basis I was sent from there to Borden because I wear a blue hat.

There are some people that end up on other element's courses for various reasons, but since at least '08 that has been the exception.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
Very recently I was overseas when Canadian soldiers (support trades) who weren't normally carrying weapons had to grab them and secure their compound/camp. It was just a training event but insider attacks and infiltrators are a very real threat. Where I ended up had a legitimate alarms and support dudes didn't have the luxery of letting other people deal with it.

There's a pretty big chance that if things go squirrely it's going to be Canadians securing their own shit. Not the US (who can be shockingly F-ed up) or a British hired- private security company from south Africa who don't speak English.

CAF members who may find themselves carrying a gun while deployed either every day or in emergencies need more training than laying in the prone on a sunny afternoon shooting paper 100 meters away. Leaders who may find themselves in charge of those soldiers with assault rifles and live rounds need exposure and training organizing and directing them. Clerks aren't failing PLQ for tactics.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
Furniture said:
There are some people that end up on other element's courses for various reasons, but since at least '08 that has been the exception.

I believe you need to request it and have a valid reason to do outside your element.

 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
Jarnhamar said:
Very recently I was overseas when Canadian soldiers (support trades) who weren't normally carrying weapons had to grab them and secure their compound/camp. It was just a training event but insider attacks and infiltrators are a very real threat. Where I ended up had a legitimate alarms and support dudes didn't have the luxery of letting other people deal with it.

There's a pretty big chance that if things go squirrely it's going to be Canadians securing their own crap. Not the US (who can be shockingly F-ed up) or a British hired- private security company from south Africa who don't speak English.

CAF members who may find themselves carrying a gun while deployed either every day or in emergencies need more training than laying in the prone on a sunny afternoon shooting paper 100 meters away. Leaders who may find themselves in charge of those soldiers with assault rifles and live rounds need exposure and training organizing and directing them. Clerks aren't failing PLQ for tactics.

Bingo - you won the internet for the day.

I fully agree - EVERYONE on deployment needs to be trained to carry weapons with live ones in the mag attached to the weapon. Muscle memory must be developed by drills and practice until its second nature.
 
Top