We are driving good soldiers out of the Army

[Michael Dorosh]

radiohead may have the wrong attitude but he makes some good points.  If someone wants to sign up to learn how to repair radios or learn an actual trade he can use on civvy street when his BE is up, you are not going to entice him with the promise of 2 years of pepperpotting, first, before he ever touches a radio or any tool of his chosen trade.

Do CSS troops need to know soldier skills?  Yup, Jessica Lynch (good example) taught us, once again, just that.  But there is a  line to be drawn. 

Anyone who thinks that Canada can successfuly institute a Marine Corps model of 'rifleman first' is mistaken, and I seriously doubt that even the Marines have been able to successfully institute such a policy. Are we so sure they don't have as many so-called "pogues" as anyone else?  A friend of mine married a girl who joined the Marines on the strength of her treaty card; I don't recall her doing many hard core infantry exercises - I believe she was a rad op as well.

As wrong as it may be, or as dangerous should a real conflict come up, you are not going to get guys to join the Army to learn how to cook, by making them serve in infantry sections before their trades training. 

Does any Army in the world actually do that?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I've heard this a couple times throughout my short career, and its always hit home. Soldiers first, tradesman second.  I'm not the strongest guy in the world, but I don't mind the infantry stuff, hell I admire the guys that can do it day in and day out. Everyone in the CF should be combat ready, be it able to fire a weapon, or man a defensive position, or participate in a section attack. War doesn't just hit the front line boys and girls, the battlefield is always changing. What you once thought was a rear-ech position, could be within a few hours the new front line. How fast can you tear down your TV/VCR setup and get the hell out of dodge?

If we lose a few soldiers because of this, fine. They don't have the soldiering attitude the CF needs. And for those that join expecting a desk job? Basic is a rude awakening.

But is it realistic to expect anyone to do this for two years as is being suggested, before taking any trades training?  Good luck with your recruiting and retention.

I love how easy it is for people to say "hey, we don't need people like that."  Last time I checked we were critically short of a lot of skilled tradesmen.  What about padres, dentists and doctors?  Shall we have them commanding rifle companies to "earn" their rank?  That ought to entice a doctor making 150,000 a year or more on civvie street to sign up for half that.

 

[Jungle]

... but if for a second I thought I would have run around and do infantry BS for two years before I got to my trade.. that would be it.  

Be careful with that language here... When (or if) you are nominated on a PLQ, I would like you to tell the instructors you don't need all that Infantry BS. You should be excused from leading Recce patrols, section attacks etc.. because you are WELL ABOVE all this, you are a technician !!!  :
Well guess what tech, bullets don't discriminate, and the enemy don't care what trade you are. Be ready to defend yourself and those around you, the Infantry can't always be there for you... we have other BS to take care of. And work on that attitude...

 

[George Wallace]

But is it realistic to expect anyone to do this for two years as is being suggested, before taking any trades training? Good luck with your recruiting and retention.

Don't agree with you at all, especially with the current situation in Borden where people are in PAT Plt for two or three years (Their complete first BE) doing garbage sweeps and any other odd job because the courses are so backlogged they can't be course loaded for that long.  Send them to Meaford and teach them Infantry skills, and better prepare them for their PLQ courses that they will have to take in the future to advance.

Paying a Recruit to sit on his arse in Borden for three years is WELFARE.

GW

 

[Infanteer]

Michael

Two issues at point:

1) The fact that Support Guys need more Combat Training.

2) The proposal that all soldiers do a stint in a Combat Arms unit first.


Point 1)  At least you insist on the fact that the CS and CSS needs more fighting skills; that is what the thrust of my response to Radiohead was.  It would be best that these skills were inculcated early, as Matt Fisher and I have explained here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18947.15.html

Point 2)  This is something I believe in that may, under the current way of looking at things, fall into the "nice to have" catagory along with all officers serving in the ranks first.  Although I feel this one would be a harder sell, I see no reason that anyone who was genuinely interested in the Army could not serve out a couple years at the tip of the spear.  In my experience, the best mechanics, cooks, or intel guys I've run into have always had some sort of combat arms background.

Next time a guy wants to join to be a mechanic, tell him to work on a vehicle and then lob some mortars at him and see if he still thinks the Army is a great place to be a tradesman.  If he doesn't, obviously his idea of "a good trade and a good career" doesn't mesh with the reality on the ground.

Irregardless of that idea, the fact remains that CS and CSS are not trained to operate in a hostile environment.  I've seen some pretty bizarre things first hand, and I am sure we could fill a thread with stories about clueless guys in the rear.  Even with the current organization of branches and careers, I feel that the Army as a whole could benefit from the proposal I had in the above link.

Like I said earlier, all the attitude of "Why should we learn the C-6?" and "the usual Combat Arms BS cock" leads to is fat ass wogs in uniform, Jessica Lynch, and dead soldiers who didn't know what hit them.

Does any Army in the world actually do that?

The Royal Marines would probably be the best example.  One of the RM Commandos (Battailons) that fought its way into Basra had a RSM whose trade was a clerk; but he was a Marine first and was able to fill the role of top NCO in a fighting unit in a wartime operation.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Be careful with that language here... When (or if) you are nominated on a PLQ, I would like you to tell the instructors you don't need all that Infantry BS. You should be excused from leading Recce patrols, section attacks etc.. because you are WELL ABOVE all this, you are a technician !!!  :
Well guess what tech, bullets don't discriminate, and the enemy don't care what trade you are. Be ready to defend yourself and those around you, the Infantry can't always be there for you... we have other BS to take care of. And work on that attitude...

Jungle, you highlighted the wrong part.  He said "for two years" before learning his trade!  Do you agree that all tradesmen need two years of intensive infantry training before learning their chosen trade, or disagree?

From some of the infantry training I've seen in my tiny corner of the CF, I'd be inclined to think it BS too, though I wouldn't be dumb enough to say so in a public forum.  I've seen way too many scripted exercises where guys pepperpot over open prairie, no artillery support, no AFVs...is this really an effective expenditure of resources - for two years?

Teach a trade first, then ensure that all supporting units do realistic exercises, yes, including the defence of their own positions, patrols, etc.  But I think - and apologize if I am misreading him - that the original supposition, no matter how poorly phrased, was that doing things in reverse will only continue to chase away decent applicants.

Infanteer - how many of those "tip of the spear" clerks, mechanics and MSE Ops have you actually met?  I don't doubt you list the most desirable option, but how realistic is it?

The Royal Marines are a very small elite, so your example is not particularly meritorious.  I am referring to the entire armed forces of any given nation.  You can point to the Army Rangers for clerks (check out the one in Blackhawk Down) and one of our ASC clerks has his para wings.  That's not why most CSS types join, for right or wrong. 

I personally enjoy going to the field with my unit; I'm not great at it but I do what is asked of me and try and learn something each time I go out.  I've also noticed with chagrin that many clerks seem to have chits about field service.  Their loss, I think, I know the FOA comes in handy and the entire reason we have these support trades is to directly support the infantry.  There is simply no other reason for any trade in the army to exist were it not for the infantry.

But I don't fancy myself being one of them - I get the feeling they would prefer it that way too.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think George Wallace has an excellent point. We have guys sitting out their whole 3 year contracts without getting a trade. It's army welfare. How long to marines do the infantry stuff before switching to a trade? I thought once their qualified they go off an do it, not sit as a grunt for 2 years? I'm not sure though.

Raidoheads attitude probably pisses off most people on this forum but you can't fault his honesty. Personally I think it's a bad attitude and in operations it will get people killed but that attitude is common place in the CF wether we like it or not. I read the post and an example comes to mine. A soldier walking around camp with a stuffed bear from home poking out of her pocket. Yes i'm sure it has centimental value but theres a place for it and carrying it around base like a mommy kangeroo isn't one of them. She somehow even made her cadpat uniform seem un-military.

It's a brutal attitude and it's one that will get people killed. Thats not us comming up with shit thats lessons learned from the US. But it's a brutal attitude that is deeply ingrained into the Canadian Forces.  I don't blame people like Radio head for their tradesman first soldier last attitude, i blame the CF for allowing  it. These guys are allowed to join so they do.

 

[Jungle]

Jungle, you highlighted the wrong part.

No, I did not.

 

[PuckChaser]

The PAT Platoon idea is excellent. Those soldiers could be much more effective learning other soldiering skills. Perhaps 2 years before trades training is too much? Maybe more attention in the individual units needs to be spent on soldiering skills, and not so much rehashing old trades info. I'm sure there is room to fit a week of MLOC every couple months into the training cycle.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think George Wallace has an excellent point. We have guys sitting out their whole 3 year contracts without getting a trade. It's army welfare. How long to marines do the infantry stuff before switching to a trade? I thought once their qualified they go off an do it, not sit as a grunt for 2 years? I'm not sure though.

Raidoheads attitude probably pisses off most people on this forum but you can't fault his honesty. Personally I think it's a bad attitude and in operations it will get people killed but that attitude is common place in the CF wether we like it or not. I read the post and an example comes to mine. A soldier walking around camp with a stuffed bear from home poking out of her pocket. Yes i'm sure it has centimental value but theres a place for it and carrying it around base like a mommy kangeroo isn't one of them. She somehow even made her cadpat uniform seem un-military.

It's a brutal attitude and it's one that will get people killed. Thats not us comming up with shit thats lessons learned from the US. But it's a brutal attitude that is deeply ingrained into the Canadian Forces.  I don't blame people like Radio head for their tradesman first soldier last attitude, i blame the CF for allowing  it. These guys are allowed to join so they do.

I think there is a big difference between a complete oxygen thief, and someone who simply wants to learn a trade first and not, as you point out, "sit as a grunt for two years."

There's nothing for anyone to get pissed off about.  I agree that ALL soldiers regardless of trade need to know how to survive in the field.  That includes weapons training.  MLOC is a start.  But how much stuff do even the "grunts" not do?  Are we even allowed to dig anymore?  I've not seen as much as a shell scrape since basic training.  The first thing I noticed about pictures of truckers from Iraq was that they dug in every night.  I'm all for realistic combat training for everyone, but two years?  I don't even remotely fathom that.  It should be ongoing once a soldier is trained in his trade and parading with his unit.

I notice even the infantry are trying to make do with training without such things as tanks and artillery by calling themselves "light infantry".  I notice these year my unit will be focussing on lots of missions you would see "light infantry" carrying out.  But I think there is still a BS quotient there - you really want to demand a guy take two years to do infantry training, and then only have him do half of what he would really do in a war anyway (no digging, no co-ordination with supporting arms, no armoured vehicles, blah blah blah)?  And expect him to stick around for two years hoping to learn something he is actually interested in?

This is why corporals don't run the army.

 

[Infanteer]

From some of the infantry training I've seen in my tiny corner of the CF, I'd be inclined to think it BS too, though I wouldn't be dumb enough to say so in a public forum.  I've seen way too many scripted exercises where guys pepperpot over open prairie, no artillery support, no AFVs...is this really an effective expenditure of resources - for two years?

No, but the fact that you've seen unoriginal leaders conduct piss-poor training exercise doesn't invalidate the claim that service in an effective combat arms unit will be helpful to any soldier?

how many of those "tip of the spear" clerks, mechanics and MSE Ops have you actually met?  I don't doubt you list the most desirable option, but how realistic is it?

A base mechanic who used to be a gunner in E Battery in the Airborne Regiment; a (former Infantry) Intel MCpl who stayed in an Iltis in the middle of figgen nowhere because some idiot decided to get stuck in a minefield; a Photo tech who ruined his knee in the Infantry and still wanted to serve.  I could keep going on; I've actually met quite a few.

The Royal Marines are a very small elite, so your example is not particularly meritorious.  I am referring to the entire armed forces of any given nation.  You can point to the Army Rangers for clerks (check out the one in Blackhawk Down) and one of our ASC clerks has his para wings.   That's not why most CSS types join, for right or wrong.

Well, if we insist on calling ourselves "mediocre" and "conventional" as compared to a "very small elite" then we will be exactly that; mediocre and conventional.  There is nothing wrong with raising the bar.  If you have to winnow away the chaff to get the good soldiers of any trade or branch, then so be it.

Perhaps Wesley could answer this a bit better, but I see the Australian Army has some sort of way of incorporating support trades into their combat arms branches.  Going to an Army website and drawing up a file regarding Infantry career structures, I see "Combat Clerk" and "Storeman" incorporated under the Infantry branch.  Perhaps this approach (melding the tradesmen with a combat arms regiment) can provide an effective middle ground to the proposal?

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/stayarmy/Index.htm
 

I personally enjoy going to the field with my unit; I'm not great at it but I do what is asked of me and try and learn something each time I go out.  I've also noticed with chagrin that many clerks seem to have chits about field service.  Their loss, I think, I know the FOA comes in handy and the entire reason we have these support trades is to directly support the infantry.  There is simply no other reason for any trade in the army to exist were it not for the infantry.

But I don't fancy myself being one of them - I get the feeling they would prefer it that way too.

I think you're underestimating your contributions.  The main thrust of the proposal is that it will allow a good number (hopefully, a critical mass) of support pers to gain the sort of perspective on combat, their role in it, and the Army in general that I highlighted in your post.  A first posting seems to be the most obvious and effective way of doing so (other forces have done it) but I am willing to accept other ideas (such as a variation of the Australian one I posted above).

 

[Infanteer]

There's nothing for anyone to get pissed off about.  I agree that ALL soldiers regardless of trade need to know how to survive in the field.  That includes weapons training.  MLOC is a start.  But how much stuff do even the "grunts" not do?  Are we even allowed to dig anymore?  I've not seen as much as a shell scrape since basic training.  The first thing I noticed about pictures of truckers from Iraq was that they dug in every night.  I'm all for realistic combat training for everyone, but two years?  I don't even remotely fathom that.  It should be ongoing once a soldier is trained in his trade and parading with his unit.

I notice even the infantry are trying to make do with training without such things as tanks and artillery by calling themselves "light infantry".  I notice these year my unit will be focussing on lots of missions you would see "light infantry" carrying out.  But I think there is still a BS quotient there - you really want to demand a guy take two years to do infantry training, and then only have him do half of what he would really do in a war anyway (no digging, no co-ordination with supporting arms, no armoured vehicles, blah blah blah)?  And expect him to stick around for two years hoping to learn something he is actually interested in?

Remember, two years in a combat arms unit would most likely see an operational deployment.  It is not the training that we are looking for in the proposal, it is the inculcation of a fighting soldier that just doesn't seem to be present within a great percentage of CS and CSS troops (As Radiohead so ably proved).

 

[Jarnhamar]

I never thought support guys should do two years of infantry, i was asking how long marines do the rifleman stuff before they get their trade.

i know canada wouldn't be able to do what the marines do, i would suggest an infantry minded course between basic training and their trade school. thats it.
Don't make a clerk spend  years as a grunt BUT give them the skills and training to save their own ass AND mine.

If theres one thing we've learned i';s that support trades will see the same type of fighting, ambushes and enemy soldiers as combat arms do. No way around that. If they are not prepared for it they will die and cause others to die.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't know where the two (2) years of doing "Grunt Stuff" came from, but I do know that there should be a "Basic" course that all will take prior to any Trades training, be it Armour, Fire Fighter, MSE OP, AESOP, FCS Tech, LCIS Tech, Postie, whatever; that will give a basic Infantry training.  By the time any "Tech" is an ACTING LACKING MCpl, they should have some 'ground pounding' experience.  They will be much better prepared for their PLQ if they did.  For the last few years, we saw all people nominated for a CF CLC Crse that were on a Land Establishment, no matter what their Branch or trade, have to do a common Crse with Infanteers, Gunners, Sappers and Troopers.  Unfortunately, this year we are going back to our old ways, and Trades people are getting a very watered down, simplified version (a disgrace).

I am sure that a three to six month indoctrination for Trades people would be more than adequate to train them to defend themselves.  It would be nice if we could fill the Cbt Arms and then use them as the pool for people to LOTREP/OT/Medical Remuster to a Trade thereby having "Field" trained and experience people going into the Trades.  Let the "Pointy End" have some opportunities to get a Trade for Retirement.

GW

 

[Matt_Fisher]

In my company our CS Marines (Veh. tech's/radio operators/corpsmen) were attached to the individual platoons where applicable and took on riflemen roles primarily and when their particular skillset was needed did their job, then went back to being riflemen.  Actually, we had a Lance Corporal in our headquarters section who was an admin clerk, but during OIF served as a spotter for one of our sniper teams.  This is more an exception than it is the norm in the case of the clerk gone spotter.

The Marine Corps is far from perfect in alot of ways, and we do have our share of pogues, however they generally tend to handle themselves better in hardship/combat environments than their US Army and CF CS/CSS colleagues.

The reason for this I think?  Marine recruit training puts you in such crappy situations everyday, yet you learn to persevere and carry on to get the job done.  By the time you get into combat you're like "This situation is pretty bad, but you know what, I've been scared/dirty/hungry/tired before in boot camp and I got through this and I'm there for my friends and they are there for me.  And unlike at Boot Camp where you couldn't get back at the Drill Instructors, I can shoot back at the enemy here!"  ;D

 

[ackland]

For a good reason as to why CSS trades need feild training look at history. The Marines in the philpines when you had pilots acting as rifle men in trenches. I think that is all the justification for this that we need. Get them trained in teh basics and make them employ it. Instead of weapons training MLOC stands make them participate in a full out grunt style exercise once a year. help them maintain their skills better than knowing how to fire a C-7.

 

[logau]

A lot of nonesense in this thread.

Unfortunately for both regualrs and reserves - these skills are subject to fade - if you don;t do them on a regular basis as you are not as good as you once were and the whole team decreases in capability - whatever your trade or skill.

The skill is probably ighest in the sodlier with 3-5 years field experience.

After that he/she/it is either promotable or stuck like some of us tend to be through being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All that said check out this - the only person going to train you for the next war is YOU and your own curiosity

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_04-13_toc.htm

SANK YOU! as they say in the Japanese Navy   ;D

 

[KevinB]

I think several hit the nail on the head here. 

And added bonus of forcing CSS pers into the CBT ARMS first was the undersatnding they are in the ARMY.  I can speak from experience overseas, that half of this army thinks it is on a holiday ath the gov't expense - while the 0trades are out beign run ragged doing the job.

The best CSS types I have met are ex 0 trade folk - for they have an underastanding of what we do and thus the desire to participate as part of the team.

 

[Satelliteslayer]

All mbrs of the Army MUST have the skills reqd to operate and defend themselves in the field; therefore everyone requires the requisite training.

While I do not agree w/ Radioheads view as to what he is in the Army to do, I do think that we must temper this with a sense of realism.

All pers must know how to dig a slit trench for pers protection, They should also know how to dig a fighting posn to stage 6; however It is not likely that a CSS trade is going to be manning one for long periods of time in a def posn.

The fact is CSS are there to do their trade, YES they must be able to perform as a Cbt soldier but they must also be good at their trade. This is were balance comes in.

I think what infuriates the vast majority of Cbt Arms is the lack of willingness on the part of some CSS troops to even gain a modicum of skill in tasks that will lead to their own survival. This puts pressure on Cbt troops to not only save themselves but also their CSS brethren as well.

I also agree that fmr Cbt soldiers that xfer to CSS trades are, by and large more switched on. As a fmr 011 Recce who is xfering to CSS all I can say is, "try and take my wpn away from me, I dare ya".

 

[IPC10]

Well I guess sooner or later I would try to add to the conversations around here....

The resignation of the CO of 1 PPCLI will hopefully draw attention to the worsening problems in our forces.   In particular our Combat Arms is slowly becoming emancipated.   Couple of points to ponder.....

A while back in this tread Michael Dorosh made the comment:

â Å“Company sized units aren't capable of high levels of cohesion?   Tell that to the Special Forces around the world.â ?

Apples and Oranges I believe.   A quick search of the internet reveals some interesting facts on our new army transformation.   There is a startling large amount of similarity in the various PowerPoint presentations between the US Army and the Canadian ones.   This goes down so far to a number of the bullet points are identical.   The issue here is that the US Army gets to play with it's new Units of Action â “ brigade sized while the under-strength leadership in the CF has to make due with Company sized formations to achieve the same results.   Do Coy sized units lack cohesion â “ on their own no.   The Australian Army has been down this road though.   It deployed company sized units on a number of different tasks.   The problems that they encountered wasn't with cohesion within the company it was upon re-integration with the parent units.   A study reported that this action had a huge detrimental effect on the espirit d'corps of the parent units (Bn sized).   The Aussie's say it doesn't work, why do we think it can (then again they bought tanks)

The Canadian Army is not set up to operate this way.   Last year the big travelling road show that was going to sell this concept to all of us had an great example where they took a HQ Elm, Rifle Coy and Admin Coy from a Light Bn, a LAV Coy from a Mech Bn, a Recce Sqn from an Armd Regt, and a gun bty from the Guns.   Does anyone really think that an Admin Coy from a Light Bn has the wherewithal to supply LAVs, Coyote's and gunners.   Does an Armd Ech understand how to supply an light formation.   (Problem was apparently solved by fixing the offending slide)

A couple of posts later Lance Wiebe made the comment:

â Å“A Unit should be a self-contained combat team.â ?

They were, we called them Infantry Battalions and Armoured Regiments.   These units had all of the different pieces to fight and win.   Now we've taken the Assault Troops away from the armoured and the Combat support platoons away from the infantry.   Before we had an Infantry Bn with its own guaranteed intimate indirect fire support, guaranteed intimate direct fire support, guaranteed intimate pioneer support.   Not now.   Infantry lost mortars â “ the arty cannot pick up this task of guaranteed intimate indirect fire support.   If they do, who does the traditional arty tasks â “ you know like counter battery and such?   If the engineers have to busy themselves with task normally performed by the infantry pioneers â “ who is doing their engineer tasks?   (I understand that the Engr currently don't have much to do so they must be looking for more work....)


As for the whole CSS in combat issue, the Force Employment Concept clearly states:

â Å“Combat Service support (CSS) soldiers must have the weapons, sensors, communications and combat skills to protect themselves and their resources....In short, CSS units must learn to think and train like combat units.â ?

The kicker to all this was following a presentation by a couple of Platoon Commanders with combat experience (CF had to bring them in from Britain and the US) a Field Grade Officer made the comment that it was good to listen to the presentations as it validated our training.

No it didn't....it validated theirs....