C3 Howitzer Replacement

[dapaterson]

Would there be value in a more active training regimen for Army PAT pers?

If there are sufficient staff to run training outside of getting soldiers qualified while waiting to get qualified there are some foundational problems.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I recall the Reserves where beating people off who wanted to join to go to Afghanistan and I recall seeing here that the Infantry trade was oversubscribed at the time.

Which revives my suggestion of training reserves for Vital Point, FOB and Line of Comms defence. We can find those people when the Chinese Balloon goes up. And we can keep them on the shelf until needed. Techs of all descriptions are another matter entirely. Those techs take a lifetime building up those skills and compete in the civvy world.

Should all our techs be at risk of enemy fire? Should all of them be in uniform? How many frontline tech jobs can be eliminated through remote work or by eliminating frontline repair of kit? Swap broken systems for working systems and return broken systems to the rear for salvage if possible. CQ doesn't carry spare parts. It carries spare kit.

The Navy and the Air Force escort civilian ships and aircraft through war zones.

 

[markppcli]

This came up at work today, and the consensus was it's easier/smarter to train a supporter to do the BMQ-L stuff before they deploy than it is to use time/resources on the BMQ-L stuff and not have the time/resources to train for their primary support functions.

I'd prefer to have a Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., that knows the job inside and out, rather than a crappy Geo Tech, Veh Tech, Int Op, etc., who can shoot well.

I don’t see how it’s exclusive ? Also who delivers that training and when ? I don’t understand the link that having them do BMQ-L renders them less effective, since at no point is anyone saying “right we’re adding 3 weeks to GeonTech Dp1.” In the same being they’re removing that weapons and basic tactics training from BMQ-L and not doing it on PLQ so who exactly is supposed to deliver this training “before deployment.” It’s going to be ad hoc, half assed, and ineffective.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The sad part is that we already know what will happen in a dire emergency. There's a good chance that the troops will be sent with out that training.

 

[Rifleman62]

Like the Russians.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am going to sound like a broken record, but the SYEP program is a great model to adopt for people awaiting paperwork/clearance. Every large urban centre can run a basic course using Reserve/Regular staff. Teach them the basics of drill, looking after themselves, teamwork and basic military structure and how to do paperwork. Basic rifle handling and drill with dummy rifles. Start them on a PT regime to bring them into shape. These candidates then go to BMQ with a understanding of the military and prepared for it, both physically and mentally. This will result in more and better candidates joining the military and less failures near the end of BMQ. At worse if a candidate is a wannabe AQ, they have only learned how to mop floors and not stick a rifle in their eye.
Make the course part of the responsibility of the various brigades, candidates can opt for going Reserve or Regular force at the end of the course and completed paperwork. Run one course in the summer for students and another at a different time for more mature applicants (Maybe even a weekends only course, for those with a fulltime job) That's about 20 courses a year with say 30 students each = that's 600 prepared candidates.

Get the above sorted out and you could possibly include similar courses for basic trade training for infantry, artillery and Naval candidates. Using Reserve units as well. All the course could use a set instructional regime, so there is consistent output.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I actually wonder if this how it unfolded for contemporary observers just prior to the deployment to Honk Kong in 1941.
Carrying on a very peace time way of doing things while the rest of the world is at war.

 

[Old Sweat]

I would hesitate to cite Hong Kong without a lot of detailed research. Closer to home, our individual training system poise-unification was badly screwed up. At one stage small arms were not issued or taught, and with a viable internal security threat, the "land element" was tasked to protect the other elements' bases, etc. In Shilo at the school the TQ3 wing (old RCA Depot) taught GMT, but this eventually was cut.

After the FLQ Crisis of 1970 SA, etc was reintroduced, but not with a lot of enthusiasm. The emphasis seemed to lean towards manning drop in centres, etc, and leave was an afterthought. On paper, troops were supposed to get two weeks annual in the summer, but this was not taken seriously. Personal example, in 1973 I took over D Bty in May, went on practice camp, and then went to Italy for an attachment to the IT Mountain Artillery, still using mules. After that a brigade exercise in Pet, a break for leave, another practice camp, then off to Norway for mountain shooting and a FTX with Brigade Nord. Back to Pet for another practice camp, then three months of support to trials, with weekends with Ontario reserve arty regiments. From Labour Day to St Barbara's Day, I had one day off, though I was able to get the troops about a free weekend per month, and my BSM paralleled my situation.

This was a bit unusual, but not that much. There was a lot of blind eye turning higher up the chain, and not that high. Oh, and no accumulation authorized in those days. There was a later attempt to fix it, but the damage had been done. Now, no HHTs or moving grants or whatever, very, very slow promotions in gunner land that lasted five years or more, and one grieved for the screwing our troops were getting. Somehow, they stuck it out and excelled i[n the field.

 

[quadrapiper]

If there are sufficient staff to run training outside of getting soldiers qualified while waiting to get qualified there are some foundational problems.

Was thinking of something vaguely akin to the SYEP scheme described above, but situated for post-BMQ pers: a "bridge" or skills-maintenance scheme that might incidentally help with retention and reduce the perception of PATs being neglected.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I actually wonder if this how it unfolded for contemporary observers just prior to the deployment to Honk Kong in 1941.
Carrying on a very peace time way of doing things while the rest of the world is at war.

Some interesting parallels:
A totally unprepared army with little equipment and antiqued and inadequate training scheme
The Navy was the priority at the time.
The army was sent to Hong Kong due to a unexpected change in world geopolitics in order to appease an important ally
Those troops were poorly trained and equipped.
The Canadian military and government were unaware that the British had already determined that HK was undefendable against a Japanese assault.

Could it happen again? Oh yea.

 

[Kirkhill]

Like the Russians.

If "like the Russians" then Radar Techs and Loggies are handed rusty rifles and sent to fill up the files of the infantry.

 

[GK .Dundas]

If "like the Russians" then Radar Techs and Loggies are handed rusty rifles and sent to fill up the files of the infantry.

Optimist , you actually expect to get rifles ?

 

[Spencer100]

Optimist , you actually expect to get rifles ?

first one gets the rifle, next one follows and picks up the rifle and shoots.

Seems like a plan

 

[Furniture]

I don’t see how it’s exclusive ? Also who delivers that training and when ? I don’t understand the link that having them do BMQ-L renders them less effective, since at no point is anyone saying “right we’re adding 3 weeks to GeonTech Dp1.” In the same being they’re removing that weapons and basic tactics training from BMQ-L and not doing it on PLQ so who exactly is supposed to deliver this training “before deployment.” It’s going to be ad hoc, half assed, and ineffective.

BMQ-L doesn't make them less effective, wasting time on training in perishable skills they are unlikely to use makes them less effective, and makes them less likely to want to stick around. This also goes back to something I said in another thread regarding BMQ-L, taking trained technicians and throwing them back on basic training V2.0 is a 100% guaranteed way to make them hate the training, the army. If BMQ-L had been split into a "for recruits" version, and a "for a trained Technician" version some of the dissatisfaction issues might have been mitigated.

If the CAF can't manage to figure out pre-deployment training for people, we have bigger issues than what a few weeks of digging, shooting, and walking can fix.

 

[markppcli]

BMQ-L doesn't make them less effective, wasting time on training in perishable skills they are unlikely to use makes them less effective, and makes them less likely to want to stick around.

Again how is it making them less effective. If these skills need to be trained then how are they useless?

This also goes back to something I said in another thread regarding BMQ-L, taking trained technicians and throwing them back on basic training V2.0 is a 100% guaranteed way to make them hate the training, the army. If BMQ-L had been split into a "for recruits" version, and a "for a trained Technician" version some of the dissatisfaction issues might have been mitigated.

Well its intent is to be part of the training system. It should be BMQ to BMQ-L to DP 1. I echo the above comments that if living outside and shooting a machine isn’t what they signed up for I’m at a loss as to how valuable they are to us.

If the CAF can't manage to figure out pre-deployment training for people, we have bigger issues than what a few weeks of digging, shooting, and walking can fix.

We have a pre-deployment system, but it up until now hasn’t had to take into account that it needs to teach basic soldier skills to all supporters, who are busily engaged in doing their job making sure the deploying troops can get out the door. All of these skills are critical, yes even the walking, and while easy to look down your nose at, we have seen the requirements in response to attacks on KAF, road side engagements, ect that prove we need more not less.

 

[Furniture]

Again how is it making them less effective. If these skills need to be trained then how are they useless?

They aren't needed by all, and should be taught as required rather than just to make life easier for the people who do pers management.

Well its intent is to be part of the training system. It should be BMQ to BMQ-L to DP 1. I echo the above comments that if living outside and shooting a machine isn’t what they signed up for I’m at a loss as to how valuable they are to us.

Then be prepared to have no Drs., clerks, MMTs, etc... There is a lot more to the CAF than living outside and shooting. My trade has about 240 positions, around 30 are with the army. It's silly to train 240 people to be field soldiers, when less than 1/4 of them will ever be posted to an army unit. They do valuable work for the CAF, but it doesn't tend to involve a lot of shooting.

We have a pre-deployment system, but it up until now hasn’t had to take into account that it needs to teach basic soldier skills to all supporters, who are busily engaged in doing their job making sure the deploying troops can get out the door. All of these skills are critical, yes even the walking, and while easy to look down your nose at, we have seen the requirements in response to attacks on KAF, road side engagements, ect that prove we need more not less.

Perhaps the CAF/Army should work to make it's pre-deployment training and selection better, rather than trying to make people who aren't soldiers into soldiers. We need more training when it's needed, not more army training for the sake of army training.

I was one of the support people who ended up outside the wire with a gun battery, I learned what I needed to know before I went over, despite being a short notice addition. Could my training have been more effective? Yes. Would doing a SQ immediately after BMQ, but 6 years prior to deploying have helped? Not at all.

 

[markppcli]

They aren't needed by all, and should be taught as required rather than just to make life easier for the people who do pers management.

Not what I asked. Once again how does it make them less effective ?

Then be prepared to have no Drs., clerks, MMTs, etc... There is a lot more to the CAF than living outside and shooting. My trade has about 240 positions, around 30 are with the army. It's silly to train 240 people to be field soldiers, when less than 1/4 of them will ever be posted to an army unit. They do valuable work for the CAF, but it doesn't tend to involve a lot of shooting.

Up until a year ago all of those pers did BMQ-L now it’s an issue ? Absurd. BMQ-L / SQ isn’t just shooting, I’m concerned more about their ability to do anything to protect themselves, respond to an attack on camp, do some combat first aid… ect. Preferably taught formally and to a standard.

Perhaps the CAF/Army should work to make it's pre-deployment training and selection better, rather than trying to make people who aren't soldiers into soldiers. We need more training when it's needed, not more army training for the sake of army training.

What do you mean by selection here ?

Deployed field units need to have their equipment functioning, we can’t just side line everything for a month to make sure all support pers in a Bn can get through BMQ-L. Likely we’d give them some dog shit power point and call it a day. That to me is insufficient.

I was one of the support people who ended up outside the wire with a gun battery, I learned what I needed to know before I went over, despite being a short notice addition. Could my training have been more effective? Yes. Would doing a SQ immediately after BMQ, but 6 years prior to deploying have helped? Not at all.

Having never done that training I don’t know that you’re really in a position to say it. It’s a mix of “I never learned it and I was fine”

 

[Furniture]

Not what I asked. Once again how does it make them less effective ?

Less effective in that they are spending time that should be used for their primary function learning to do tasks that they are unlikely to need 99% of the time.

Up until a year ago all of those pers did BMQ-L now it’s an issue ? Absurd. BMQ-L / SQ isn’t just shooting, I’m concerned more about their ability to do anything to protect themselves, respond to an attack on camp, do some combat first aid… ect. Preferably taught formally and to a standard.

For some occupations it was an issue all along.

I have no issue with teaching things to a standard, I have an issue with wasting training time on training that isn't relevant or timely. If people are posted to a field unit, or a unit that goes to the field to support field units, send them on a BMQ-L. Posted to a wing or ship? Don't waste time on training that isn't relevant. I'm not demanding that all army pers do NETP in case they get posted to a ship, or are being transported by ship.

What do you mean by selection here ?

I mean the people posting troops around and tasking them for deployments should be planning ahead, and identifying the people, and spares so that they have sufficient time to do the required training before they head out the door. Last minute additions should be the exception, not the standard.

Deployed field units need to have their equipment functioning, we can’t just side line everything for a month to make sure all support pers in a Bn can get through BMQ-L. Likely we’d give them some dog shit power point and call it a day. That to me is insufficient.

In reality, we don't tend to post entire support sections in and out of field units on a regular basis. As members get posted in they can be loaded on a course at the end of the APS. Again, I'm not arguing that there should be no training, I'm arguing that it should be delivered as needed rather than as a blanket "all members of ___ MOSID shall have BMQ-L".

Having never done that training I don’t know that you’re really in a position to say it. It’s a mix of “I never learned it and I was fine”

Well... I did learn how to shoot the MGs, throw grenades, react to an attack on the camp/convoy.

Since you're not in a support trade, are you really in a position to comment on how we should be trained and employed?

I suspect that neither of us is going to change our opinions on this, so I'll bow out.

 

[markppcli]

I suspect that neither of us is going to change our opinions on this, so I'll bow out.

Fair enough I’ll do the same, cheers

 

[GR66]

Again, the joys of reunification and "Purple" trades.