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

Rick's Napkin Forces Challenge

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
271
Points
880
Yeah, I think a lot more could be done on the conventional side for training.

I don't know so much as a mini selection or watered down selection simply because they aren't trained troops yet - and while you can included aspects from those - I think the biggest gain is tailoring the courses to a modern and practical desired outcome.

Personally I saw a LOT of wasted training time on courses - I also think a lot of archaic stuff needs to be stripped from the syllabus.
Part of the issue (in my opinion) is the system is really bad at acknowledging the reasons that certain things where added.

Frankly I'd launch pretty much all kit and quarters stuff out the window - it was designed to teach attention to detail, and these days that time could be much better used to teach that in a relevant way.
Foot and rifle drill I'd par down to a skeleton.

I'd start weapons training with the pistol - its harder to shoot better (weight to trigger ratios) and also requires much better safety disciple - plus pistols and pistol ammo is cheaper ;)

Bayonet training would be gone, but more medical and comms training, as well as general weapons proficiency.

I think you could get a significantly more skilled soldier in less time by revamping the method.


More to follow -
Agreed. Kit and Quarters, drill should be limited to basic (That also needs a re-vamp IMO)
I was teaching CQC basic on DP1 Inf Reg course, I feel that should go to basic.
I like the emphasis on pistol shooting. On that note, if we had the cash, I think all infantryman should carry a sidearm.
Also teaching brigade structures and theory (and even infantry battalion) was really a lot of blah, blah, blah memorize this for a written PO check then forget type of idea for the troops.
Small arms lessons were valuable. Range time was valuable.

I remember when CWO (now retired) Parrell encouraged us to take BASIC infantry candidates through the newly built kill house resulted in alot of standards and other office dinosaurs freaking out. WE did it. Not a single casualty. not even close. The UOI did a great job.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,033
Points
1,090
A couple of other gleanings

Lieutenant-General M. N. Rouleau

Lieutenant-General M. N. Rouleau, CMM, MSC, CD
Slight derail here, but where the hell did he get that sweater and why the hell are the rest of us peons saddled with the crap from Logistik?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,783
Points
1,260
Slight derail here, but where the hell did he get that sweater and why the hell are the rest of us peons saddled with the crap from Logistik?

SOF

Agreed. Kit and Quarters, drill should be limited to basic (That also needs a re-vamp IMO)
I was teaching CQC basic on DP1 Inf Reg course, I feel that should go to basic.
I like the emphasis on pistol shooting. On that note, if we had the cash, I think all infantryman should carry a sidearm.
Also teaching brigade structures and theory (and even infantry battalion) was really a lot of blah, blah, blah memorize this for a written PO check then forget type of idea for the troops.
Small arms lessons were valuable. Range time was valuable.

I remember when CWO (now retired) Parrell encouraged us to take BASIC infantry candidates through the newly built kill house resulted in alot of standards and other office dinosaurs freaking out. WE did it. Not a single casualty. not even close. The UOI did a great job.

I think the first move is to de link the common basic and send it back to the elements.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
Always gets the coolest kit
I think the first move is to de link the common basic and send it back to the elements.
I think the question needs to be asked is what is needed from a service common recruit?
When you can answer that you can tailor the course - and then each element can have their own training after the fact.

Personally I think service common Training should be vastly more expansive than it is, but a large portion of what is in the the syllabus now taken out and burned.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,783
Points
1,260
Always gets the coolest kit

I think the question needs to be asked is what is needed from a service common recruit?
When you can answer that you can tailor the course - and then each element can have their own training after the fact.

Personally I think service common Training should be vastly more expansive than it is, but a large portion of what is in the the syllabus now taken out and burned.

The first question is do we need a common service recruit ? And what's the value ? I can tell you the Navy would be better doing its own thing and would get more bang for the buck.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
The first question is do we need a common service recruit ? And what's the value ? I can tell you the Navy would be better doing its own thing and would get more bang for the buck.
I would say absolutely.
Typically services will drop things they don't feel are required. No person can live in the water or the air - so everyone needs to live on land - there needs to be some common core Land skills.

I am sure the Navy and Air Force would drop a lot of stuff related to land work if they could - they would justify it because they feel they don't need it - then all of a sudden the Navy needs to secure an area around their ship in a foreign port - and fails miserably, or the AirForce can run FARP's or secure a aircraft etc.

Personnally I would also want recruits to know navigation by stars - something generally the Navy is much better at - as well as the fact the Navy does a much better job with most things aquatic - and there is value having Naval input into a common recruit/basic.

Also in the same way I would recommend trashing the Infantry BattleSchools - I believe (based on experiences at both the RCR and PPCLI BSL's) that separating these things leads to cliques and divisive activities and cultures.

Each Element can actually bring a lot to the table for a common core entry course - for the good of the CAF as a whole it should be done -- but not in a manner like Cornwallis or St.Jean did with a terrible syllabus designed to check antique boxes.


I didn't used to have that view point - but having been around a bit and getting to observe training from 5I's Militaries SOF, Intelligence, and Conventional Forces (all elements) I have come to the conclusion that no one entity has the answer, and the best approach is a collective one.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,783
Points
1,260
I would say absolutely.
Typically services will drop things they don't feel are required. No person can live in the water or the air - so everyone needs to live on land - there needs to be some common core Land skills.

I am sure the Navy and Air Force would drop a lot of stuff related to land work if they could - they would justify it because they feel they don't need it - then all of a sudden the Navy needs to secure an area around their ship in a foreign port - and fails miserably, or the AirForce can run FARP's or secure a aircraft etc.

Personnally I would also want recruits to know navigation by stars - something generally the Navy is much better at - as well as the fact the Navy does a much better job with most things aquatic - and there is value having Naval input into a common recruit/basic.

Also in the same way I would recommend trashing the Infantry BattleSchools - I believe (based on experiences at both the RCR and PPCLI BSL's) that separating these things leads to cliques and divisive activities and cultures.

Each Element can actually bring a lot to the table for a common core entry course - for the good of the CAF as a whole it should be done -- but not in a manner like Cornwallis or St.Jean did with a terrible syllabus designed to check antique boxes.


I didn't used to have that view point - but having been around a bit and getting to observe training from 5I's Militaries SOF, Intelligence, and Conventional Forces (all elements) I have come to the conclusion that no one entity has the answer, and the best approach is a collective one.

I don't disagree with you, and I don't think the RCN does either. We have created port security teams and enhanced boarding parties as well as maintaining ships BPs and ships FP plays a huge role in a ship's working up and deployment cycle. We have a huge FP contingent on foreign port duty watches.

The caveat here is these are all secondary and post primary specialty employment tasks. And other than the ranges none of that is taught in St Jean.

I would rather see a Naval recruit learning the customs and traditions of the RCN as well as dress and drill for the first month (+/-) of basic and spend the second month (+/-) doing seamanship, damage control, ranges and 404s.

Ideally we should be able to produce a Naval recruit that only needs initial trades training after basic. Who can then be pushed to the fleet for employment.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
I don't disagree with you, and I don't think the RCN does either. We have created port security teams and enhanced boarding parties as well as maintaining ships BPs and ships FP plays a huge role in a ship's working up and deployment cycle. We have a huge FP contingent on foreign port duty watches.

The caveat here is these are all secondary and post primary specialty employment tasks. And other than the ranges none of that is taught in St Jean.

I would rather see a Naval recruit learning the customs and traditions of the RCN as well as dress and drill for the first month (+/-) of basic and spend the second month (+/-) doing seamanship, damage control, ranges and 404s.

Ideally we should be able to produce a Naval recruit that only needs initial trades training after basic. Who can then be pushed to the fleet for employment.
IF I was King (or back to the Galactic Space Emperor bit), I would want my Army and AF pers to know how to do Port Security - and BP aspects -

I found it very interesting that seeing a ship wasn't exactly like a HR mission - in that fact you need to control the bridge and engine room - plus - so you now have three internal teams - plus any external security needed.

Also I noticed the Army (inc a lot of SOF) are terrible at Port Defense scenarios - as they rarely fully grasp the water based threats - and are not prepared well for the various threats than can come from on and under the water.

In additional to that Damage Control stuff - because frankly in a Country with 3 Ocean borders - the odds are if you are fighting anyone - the water will have a significant part - either going to fight - or people coming at you to fight.
Plus it also helps then understand how to then attack a ship. and defend it.

The AirForce add stuff too - they can give some great 4 and 5 star Hotel recommendations ;)
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,534
Points
1,140
I am sure the Navy and Air Force would drop a lot of stuff related to land work if they could - they would justify it because they feel they don't need it - then all of a sudden the Navy needs to secure an area around their ship in a foreign port - and fails miserably, or the AirForce can run FARP's or secure a aircraft etc.
There is a lot of redundancy between the NCMGS, Environmental Specs and Occ Specs. Get rid of those and you'll save a ton of time and money.
Also in the same way I would recommend trashing the Infantry BattleSchools - I believe (based on experiences at both the RCR and PPCLI BSL's) that separating these things leads to cliques and divisive activities and cultures.
Ditch the Regimental system entirely and you'll save another ton of money. It's divisive and culturally linked to our colonial and oppressive past. Not Woke at all.
Each Element can actually bring a lot to the table for a common core entry course - for the good of the CAF as a whole it should be done -- but not in a manner like Cornwallis or St.Jean did with a terrible syllabus designed to check antique boxes.
Some of those boxes have to be checked to conform with legislative and policy requirements. Those need to be reviewed and culled first.
I didn't used to have that view point - but having been around a bit and getting to observe training from 5I's Militaries SOF, Intelligence, and Conventional Forces (all elements) I have come to the conclusion that no one entity has the answer, and the best approach is a collective one.
SOF cannot be mass produced and still ensure quality. However, if you are only generating a force of 15K (as opposed to the 120K we have now), you can raise the quality without worrying about quantities as much as in the past. Not everyone in the new force has to be Tier 1 or Tier 2 quality but they can certainly be more capable and well-rounded than those of today. However, maintaining that level of quality will be time consuming and expensive.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,534
Points
1,140
IF I was King (or back to the Galactic Space Emperor bit), I would want my Army and AF pers to know how to do Port Security - and BP aspects -
That's exactly why the FOBs were built in Farnham about 10 years ago. This was the same time that bayonet fighting was added to the CAF common BMQ syllabus and many of the small party tasks revolved around FP.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,895
Points
1,060
I'd start weapons training with the pistol - its harder to shoot better (weight to trigger ratios) and also requires much better safety disciple - plus pistols and pistol ammo is cheaper ;)


More to follow -


Too bad there wasn't a weapon that fired pistol ammo but could be handled like a rifle.

1637680204371.jpeg

799px-Sterling_SMG2.JPG
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
Too bad there wasn't a weapon that fired pistol ammo but could be handled like a rifle.

View attachment 67272

799px-Sterling_SMG2.JPG
Ugh - no thanks.

I would opt for 9mm AR-15 style weapons before the C1 was returned.
Mainly as for manual of arms - why teach multiple systems when you don't need too === I would also get .22LR AR's for short range training.

Even I, lover of the MP-5SD,dumped it as fast as I could when an AR style suppressed .300 BlackOut could do the same role - but better.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,895
Points
1,060
Ugh - no thanks.

I would opt for 9mm AR-15 style weapons before the C1 was returned.
Mainly as for manual of arms - why teach multiple systems when you don't need too === I would also get .22LR AR's for short range training.

Even I, lover of the MP-5SD,dumped it as fast as I could when an AR style suppressed .300 BlackOut could do the same role - but better.
But I loved the Smig. :cry:
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,783
Points
1,260
IF I was King (or back to the Galactic Space Emperor bit), I would want my Army and AF pers to know how to do Port Security - and BP aspects -

I found it very interesting that seeing a ship wasn't exactly like a HR mission - in that fact you need to control the bridge and engine room - plus - so you now have three internal teams - plus any external security needed.

Also I noticed the Army (inc a lot of SOF) are terrible at Port Defense scenarios - as they rarely fully grasp the water based threats - and are not prepared well for the various threats than can come from on and under the water.

In additional to that Damage Control stuff - because frankly in a Country with 3 Ocean borders - the odds are if you are fighting anyone - the water will have a significant part - either going to fight - or people coming at you to fight.
Plus it also helps then understand how to then attack a ship. and defend it.

The AirForce add stuff too - they can give some great 4 and 5 star Hotel recommendations ;)

I guess my question here is why ? Is there a reasoned purpose to training an Air Weapons tech how to do port security ? Or an infanteer ? Granted the infanteer probably has no how at OFP anyways. Or do we want this because certain empires feel they need to inflict their existence on everyone else ?

If we need people to take on tasks outside their core competencies (like trades training) we have specialized courses for that.

Lastly a lone warship trying to tie up in an opposing and openly hostile port is so far out of the realm of true scenarios I think we need to take it with a grain of salt. A big grey floaty thing sitting stationary in a wide open space is a huge target and one that would be easily defeated. Anyone who has transited the Suez will attest to that.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
I guess my question here is why ? Is there a reasoned purpose to training an Air Weapons tech how to do port security ?
I'm talking a simple overview - I feel in a small military one needs to understand more than being one cog in the machine.

Or an infanteer ? Granted the infanteer probably has no how at OFP anyways. Or do we want this because certain empires feel they need to inflict their existence on everyone else ?
No just a simply intro, so 1) they can appreciate how others work 2) if needed in extremis they have some basic knowledge that can be rounded out on site.
If we need people to take on tasks outside their core competencies (like trades training) we have specialized courses for that.
I'm not talking about teaching courses - I am talking about a brief demonstration during the Common Entry Course.
Lastly a lone warship trying to tie up in an opposing and openly hostile port is so far out of the realm of true scenarios I think we need to take it with a grain of salt.
Lone warship in a neutral port that gets attacked has occurred several times in the last decade.
I would assume the USS Cole thought it was a grain of salt issue too.
A big grey floaty thing sitting stationary in a wide open space is a huge target and one that would be easily defeated. Anyone who has transited the Suez will attest to that.
Sometimes you don't get to pick the fight -- the fight picks you.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,242
Points
1,160
I guess my question here is why ? Is there a reasoned purpose to training an Air Weapons tech how to do port security ? Or an infanteer ? Granted the infanteer probably has no how at OFP anyways. Or do we want this because certain empires feel they need to inflict their existence on everyone else ?

If we need people to take on tasks outside their core competencies (like trades training) we have specialized courses for that.

Lastly a lone warship trying to tie up in an opposing and openly hostile port is so far out of the realm of true scenarios I think we need to take it with a grain of salt. A big grey floaty thing sitting stationary in a wide open space is a huge target and one that would be easily defeated. Anyone who has transited the Suez will attest to that.

With the right time and attention you can train just about anyone to be a good 'point target' guard force.

The issue, as always, with organizations like the Navy and Air Force is capacity: just not enough bodies for a long term 'cordon' maintenance program.

In peacetime, this can be contracted out to a certain extent.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,783
Points
1,260
I'm talking a simple overview - I feel in a small military one needs to understand more than being one cog in the machine.


No just a simply intro, so 1) they can appreciate how others work 2) if needed in extremis they have some basic knowledge that can be rounded out on site.

I'm not talking about teaching courses - I am talking about a brief demonstration during the Common Entry Course.

Lone warship in a neutral port that gets attacked has occurred several times in the last decade.
I would assume the USS Cole thought it was a grain of salt issue too.

Sometimes you don't get to pick the fight -- the fight picks you.

Ya we cover that with FP. I thought you were talking about entering and docking opposed.

This would be a great aspect of an RCN BRT, now a days it fits in with seamanship which is taught during NETP.

I would argue the smaller the we get the more we should concentrate our efforts. It's of no value be so so on lots of things, let's be the best at few things.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,696
Points
1,110
I would argue the smaller the we get the more we should concentrate our efforts. It's of no value be so so on lots of things, let's be the best at few things.
The smaller one gets, the more others need to cover down.
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
271
Points
880
Lots of valid insight here.

KevinB, how much would you see mountain ops skills being important in a smaller and more skilled force?

FJAG, your artillery background, what would be the ideal fire support gun/howitzer for such a small force?

Halifax Tar, I have no Navy experience other than camping out on the USS Pensa Cola in the 90s, then doing a USMC beach landing on a LCAC (boring, didn't see a thing), is there a difference between a navy for protecting your own waters and doing expiditionary roles?
 
Top