- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
Caution: Geezer Eruption
In there 1950s and '60s the consensus, amongst the politico-military grownups was that we were gonna fight the "big one," complete with nukes, fairly soon. Those politico-military grownups had been part if the leadership tweak IN 1939-45 and in 1950-53 som they knew what worked and what didn't. They also understood the society in which they operated and they knew that young people were, at least, often aimless or disconnected from their parents' values or even delinquents and they knew that those kinds could be first rate sailors and soldiers. Both the Navy and the Army developed "apprentice" programmes - the RCN's was more ambitious but, I think, based on very limited knowledge I hasten to point out, that the Army's programme (two years after successful 9th or partial 10the grade) was better.
The Army's programme, as I recall, as confined to 4 corps: Artillery, Engineers, RCEME and Signals. The graduation requirement were that the apprentice soldier must have advanced one (general programme) academic grade and earned a trade. The aim was to build a solid, career NCO cadre.
I'm going to say that the "green monsters" as we called them - apprentice soldiers wore a green band on their epaulettes - was a resounding success, going well beyond achieving its aim. It was cancelled because it didn't fit with either unification or, slightly later, late 1960s/early1970s, with the government's general anti-military/there'll be no war stance.
Personally, I'm not worried about recruiting officers - especially not fighter pilots - in peace or war. But our lack of young men and women in the hard sea trades and combat soldier trades scares the f_ _k outta me.
I think the the "big one" feels closer than ever and I also think that the CF "feels broken" as someone else said about a bigger issue and my sense is that the biggest problem is that we cannot or have decide not to try to attract the people who make the best sailors and soldiers.
Im know I'm old and old fashioned, but I think I know what works.
Both the Navy and the Army developed "apprentice" programmes - the RCN's was more ambitious but, I think, based on very limited knowledge I hasten to point out, that the Army's programme (two years after successful 9th or partial 10the grade) was better.
The Army's programme, as I recall, as confined to 4 corps: Artillery, Engineers, RCEME and Signals. The graduation requirement were that the apprentice soldier must have advanced one (general programme) academic grade and earned a trade. The aim was to build a solid, career NCO cadre.
But what would those unskilled, delinquent 17-20 year olds do in the modern world to earn their pay and opportunities in the forces? What would attract them in the first place?
For the Army, as we are re-discovering, it actually doesn't take very much to make an effective field soldier. A few weeks training and you have someone that can fall in on a battalion and start standing sentry or lugging ammunition for crew served weapons, maybe aspire to becoming a driver, a mortarman, or maybe, eventually even, a gunner.
For the Navy, what is the equivalent? Small boat sailor? Boarding parties? Riggers? Local security force when in foreign ports? Home ports?
For the Air Force - well the Air Force needs its own army - the RCAF Regiment. - Base security at home and abroad.
An 18 year old, granted a conditional minimum security clearance for a couple of years of low level service would have ample opportunity to prove themselves and also to observe other people doing jobs they might find interesting.
Should those people be immediately inducted into the Reg Force? Or should they be inducted into a Class C Reserve Force until they have proven themselves?