Discipline

[meni0n]

What we usually had was, if a troop screwed up and he was doing push ups, everyone just joined him in doing pushups. What kind of buddies just stand there and watch you do pushups ?

 

[Pikache]

I think this thread belongs more into the general discussion forum.

I think effectiveness of disciplinary measures depend willingness of troops to accept discipline.

But because of measures to ‘protect‘ troops from abuse by instructors, it‘s gone so far that instructors have very few means to enforce discipline. (And have to be pretty creative for team disciplinary measures. C*** inspection for one)

New recruits these days come from a society of ‘Me, Myself and I‘ and supposedly army is suppose to teach them this mysterious thing called ‘Teamwork‘, but how can you teach recruits discipline and teamwork when an instructor cannot give push ups to entire course? (correct me if I‘m wrong)

If a troop gets little stressed out, he can run to the chaplain. (a troop got a pass from chaplain saying he can go back home on a weekend for a family BBQ) If an instructor gives a troop a bit of hard time and the troop decides to run to the chaplain, woe be to the instructor.
I‘m not badmouthing the chaplains, but they are being used to by pass and even undermine discipline.

It now takes a troop 3 failed PO checks per course to get recoursed. The amount of paperwork to RTU a troublesome troop is great that by the paperwork is done, the troop has graduated the course.

So, the way I see it, at the end of the course, there‘s three groups.
There‘s the average group, those who do what is asked and passes the course.
There‘s the above average group, those who want to be motivated and works hard.
Then there‘s the bags of junk who doesn‘t care and thinks army is some sort of joke and is undisciplined and don‘t care about teamwork.

These bags return to their units, and it becomes up to the unit to slowly drive these bags out. (never mind the hours and money wasted on these bags)

Frankly I am shocked at some troops talking back to sergeants and master corporals and are unfazed by someone with a leaf. Of course, good NCOs have their own ways and personality to sort these bags out, but not all NCOs have that.

I‘m all for using the full power of military justice (charge them until their tongues drop).

Perhaps a week trip to Club Ed (even if they are new recruits) will sort them out.

 

[Jungle]

Originally posted by gate_guard:
[qb] There are no bad troops, just bad leaders and discipline is a tool for leaders to use. It most cases, disciplinary actions would be prevented if leaders were doing there job. [/qb]

Would you mind sharing your apparently wealthy experience in Leadership with us ???
So you don‘t think there are dumba&&es out there in the Junior Ranks ??? Well, let me tell you: there are dumba&&es at all levels.
The problem we have right now is that a large number of Leaders DO NOT use disciplinary (or administrative) action to correct deficiencies. Some people think Leadership is a popularity contest...
And then there are "followers" who always think they can do much better than their Leaders... but they have never been put in a situation where they have to make a decision.
Remember hindsight is always 20/20.

There are no bad troops, just bad leaders

You talk like a union representative

 

[winchable]

Could anyone throw out a situation where corpporal punishment would be a viable means? Either where it has been used historically, or where they think it could be beneficial today.

I don‘t really advocate it, but with training for a violent profession such as the military, I could see where those who might advocate it are coming from.

Although I believe even historically, corporal punishment was limited to those in the field and on active service, not trainees or the like.

 

[OLD SCHOOL]

If there was more ‘private‘ punishment then you would not have a need for much ‘corporal‘ punishment. :warstory: Learn early and learn well. I miss the good old days when soldiers were trained without being able to yap on about knowledge of their rights.
You have offended me Mr. NCO and I am going to report you! WTF? This is the Army sunshine, everything is offensive and if you want to report me you had better be a fast runner ‘cause I don‘t give headstarts. Let‘s go for a little tab in the woods while you think about that.
Send them home to momma I say. :crybaby:

 

[max flinch]

I think there are plenty of ways to apply consequences to undesirable behaviour in a group of troops without resorting to corporal punishment; ie, beating someone. Good old fashioned exercise works really well, within limits (of which there are plenty these days). I never read or heard of anyone dying from doing pushups, nor did I ever read of fatal injuries suffered whilst leopard crawling in the mud.

Gate Guard,
If an individual does something on course that merits remedial attention from staff, there‘s already a rift between that person and the rest of the troops. It falls into two sides of the same equation: The individual should have been working to ensure that they conformed with the rest of the team (polished boots, clean rifle, whatever). The rest of the troops should be working to ensure that they collectively take care of everyone - "Hey, need a hand with those boots?"
As for your delightful assertion that there are no bad troops (only bad leaders), that really seems like an effort to relieve each and every F**ckee of responsibility for any action they may or may not take. "Gee, corporal, I‘m sorry I shot my fireteam partner. It‘s your fault - you should have been right there to tell me not to point my weapon in an unsafe direction. Can you get me a glass of water?"

 

[dwild40]

As for actual corporal punishment. Well...an instructor or superior was never officially allowed to strike a subordinate, I cannot not say it did not happen. I got into trouble for beaning a guy with a piece of chalk who was disrupting my class on M72‘s. He received a scratch and it did draw a drop of blood.
However that aside, corporal punishment by definition impies a physical aspect. Therefore does saying to a subordinate for an infraction of some kind "drop and give me 50" costitute a part of corporal punishment? Emphatically NO!! It is to serve as a reminder to that subordinate never to forget. Striking, hitting, or whipping does, and that would not be condusive to a team that functions and is built upon mutual respect. It would only breed resentment and for the loose cannon, revenge.
Most fiction is based on reality and W.E.B. Griffin‘s series of books "The Corps". ( Great read BTW ) One of them, Book 3 I believe, is a story about recruits getting their training under a sadistic Corporal. This Corporal would never be sent overseas with his subordinates because he would have been killed by them. So when his abuse was revealed he was quietly transferred to an administrative position.

 

[Infanteer]

Gate Guard,

Remember "Possum"; he proves that statement is false.

Its been my experience that the general rule of thumb is that in the Army on average there will be:

10% of guys who are extrememly motivated and will do well without supervision. These guys usually tend to congregate in the professional, high-speed organizations

and

10% who are bags of **** who need constant supervision and take up 90% of the leadership‘s efforts. In really good units these guys usually can‘t cut it and are sent off somewhere else where the damage they can cause is migitated.

Finally

The other 80% will be squared away under the proper motivation and good leadership, or experience poor morale and less than satisfactory effort if they suffer under poor leadership. I think this 80% is wehere the somewhat inaccurate dictum "There are no poor troops, only poor leaders" originates.

-----

As for my views on group punishment, I feel it is necessary in basic training to highlight to the rest who the non-hackers are before they end up on operations and go coo-coo.

As well, group punishment can act as a good stressor on courses that require it.

 

[chriscalow]

well said.

 

[gate_guard]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb]
10% of guys who are extrememly motivated and will do well without supervision. These guys usually tend to congregate in the professional, high-speed organizations

and

10% who are bags of **** who need constant supervision and take up 90% of the leadership‘s efforts. In really good units these guys usually can‘t cut it and are sent off somewhere else where the damage they can cause is migitated.

Finally

The other 80% will be squared away under the proper motivation and good leadership, or experience poor morale and less than satisfactory effort if they suffer under poor leadership. I think this 80% is wehere the somewhat inaccurate dictum "There are no poor troops, only poor leaders" originates.[/qb]

I disagree, I think this statement arises from the other 20%. The middle group will do what you tell them regardless. It is challenging the switched on, piss and vinegar types and boot****ing the retards where a leader proves he can bring his section together. If he can‘t, no matter the level of competence in the section, they will underperform. Infanteer, prime example is a guy who didn‘t quite make it onto our tour (leader type). There was nothing wrong with his troops, he failed in his duties as a leader, plain and simple.

Obviously there are exceptions, there always is. Some troops are beyond help, they shouldn‘t be in in the first place.

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb]
As for my views on group punishment, I feel it is necessary in basic training to highlight to the rest who the non-hackers are before they end up on operations and go coo-coo.

As well, group punishment can act as a good stressor on courses that require it. [/qb]

I think your confusing group training and group punishment (I include plain old cock in the group training category). I‘m referring to situations where the entire group is punished for the actions of one individual. Again, I‘m not completely against this, sometimes the rest of the group will sort out that individual. But if that is not working, at some point you have to address the individual. You can‘t keep punishing the group for that one individuals continual screw ups. Instead of bringing the group together, it will isolate that individual, who possibly just needed some extra training and was a slow learner. Again it all ties back to leadership qualities. A leader has to be aware of the needs of his troops, he has to punish when appropriate, but also find out the cause of the problem.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When I joined up in the reserves back in 76-77 I had a M/BDR from the Reg force who was definitely â Å“old schoolâ ? If you screwed and did something stupid, you could expect a smack on the back of the head in an instant. However if he felt that you were being unfairly abused, he would be the first to back you up and protect you, you were â Å“his troopsâ ? and no one screwed us around. Basically, hard discipline without care/love is useless. The troops would rather be a with a gruff trooper who they respected than a â Å“PC typeâ ? that would sell them out at a moments notice.

By the way I had some unofficial â Å“corporal punishmentâ ? applied to me with the help of the canvas belt from the 51 pattern webbing, shortly after I joined. I had been a mouthy little Pri*k until then. I actually became good buddies with the person who did it. He also didn't go to far overboard and made sure it was just enough to get my full and undivided attention.

 

[gate_guard]

Originally posted by Max Flinch:
[qb]
Gate Guard,
If an individual does something on course that merits remedial attention from staff, there‘s already a rift between that person and the rest of the troops. It falls into two sides of the same equation: The individual should have been working to ensure that they conformed with the rest of the team (polished boots, clean rifle, whatever). The rest of the troops should be working to ensure that they collectively take care of everyone - "Hey, need a hand with those boots?"[/qb]

Exactly, but if the situation does not rectify itself, at some point continually punishing the group for the continual failures of that individual is pointless. This is the time to address the individual instead of continually punishing the group.

Originally posted by Max Flinch:
[qb]
As for your delightful assertion that there are no bad troops (only bad leaders), that really seems like an effort to relieve each and every F**ckee of responsibility for any action they may or may not take. "Gee, corporal, I‘m sorry I shot my fireteam partner. It‘s your fault - you should have been right there to tell me not to point my weapon in an unsafe direction. Can you get me a glass of water?" [/qb]

No, your referring to the few losers who shouldn‘t have even applied to the CF. But just to play along, name one time the aforementioned scenario occured? Better yet, just give me one example of a troop who went up to his section commander and asked for a glass of water. Try to keep your examples in the realm of reality and I‘ll be more than willing to discuss and debate them.

 

[Jungle]

Originally posted by gate_guard:
[qb]

Originally posted by Max Flinch:
[qb] But just to play along, name one time the aforementioned scenario occured? Try to keep your examples in the realm of reality and I‘ll be more than willing to discuss and debate them. [/qb]

Cyprus, early 80s, Foxtrot gate (main entrance to BBC in Nicosia) a PTE plays draw with his 9mm pistol. Shoots his partner dead. This kind of stuff happens in reality.
You still haven‘t shared with us your Leadership experience... what‘s the matter ???

 

[gate_guard]

Jungle,
You took my post out of context. Your post looks fine and dandy when you delete half of what I said. I did not say that incidents such as the one you mentioned don‘t happen. I did however object to Max Flinch‘s example where a guy has an nd (yes it happens) but then turns around to say "Sorry Corporal, but you should have been there to stop me. Can I have a drink of water?" Now I know you‘ve been around the proverbial block so maybe you can tell me if, in your experience, some guy popped off an nd, turned around and tried to pin it on the nearest higher rank, then asked them for a glass of water. If you think that is a good example to base ones argument on then I‘ve already talked myself out of this one.

As for leadership experience, not much, a mere 4 months as a section commander in the militia. I wouldn‘t count this nearly as valuable as the experience of serving under some outstanding NCOs who would prove at least one side of my argument in a heartbeat. Does this make me an expert? No, and I don‘t claim to be.

 

[Jungle]

Max flinch used that example to illustrate your statement about there being only good troops and bad Leaders. I don‘t think he meant for it to be a "real life" example.
Now what I‘ve seen happen is, a Trooper going down and he tries to draw one of his superiors with him (harassment complaint comes to mind)... same thing as someone drowning.

 

[Infanteer]

I‘ve lost track of what we are argueing about.

 

[gate_guard]

Infanteer‘s right, this thread has digressed. I‘ll make my final comments on it and then leave it for another thread. It seems that people are focusing on my comment that there are no bad troops, only bad leaders. Firstly though, don‘t make the mistake of equating this to there only being good troops and bad leaders, two completely different concepts.

I realize now this statement is too general and perhaps a little outdated for todays army. It doesn‘t account for battalion politics, for the odd useless troop who‘s beyond motivation and common sense, as well as the responsibility of the troops to follow without hesitation the decisions of their commander.

However, this statement is not meant to be used as an excuse for a troop who failed in his duties. It‘s a challenge for the leader to gauge how effective he is in performing his duties. This applies in garrison and in the field. When something goes wrong, ie a troop screws up, aside from immediately addressing the situation, the next step for a leader should be to ask himself, "Is there anything I could have done?" then further act on it. Sometimes there was something that could have been done, sometimes not. It can be a lonely place at the top but such is the burden of leadership.

 

[1feral1]

The DFCE (Defence Force Correction Establishment) is the ADF‘s gaol locacted in the Holsworthy area of Greenhills, at the former School of Military Police, now known as the DPTC (Defence Police Training Centre), which teaches all services of police for the Army, RAN and RAAF in one location.

Australia has similar ways of inmate treatment as in Canada and the UK. Return rate is about 3%, and look at this compared to civvy gaols here in Australia, Canada and the UK.

If only they could run civvy gaols like the military ones, the crims here in Australia, would think twice about re-offending.

Back in Canada in the late 1970‘s, when I got in a wee bit of strife for helping tear down some Valentine‘s Day decorations in an unruly manner, in an Air Force OR‘s boozer. I was fronted up with others at the local MP shack, and above in big bold writing over the door was the words "DISCIPLINE BY EXAMPLE". I was shtye sacred, and was lucky to get off with a warning. The OC however had other plans, and we brush painted cam patterns on Dueces for a few nights for punnishment.

I am a believer in the Defence Force system of punnishment.

Sadly its getting soft here too, and everyone has to be politically correct. In my view politically correctiveness is the language of cowards!

I think thats one thing we can all agree on here.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[winchable]

Thanks for bringing topic back on track Wes.

 

[Pikache]

Just saw clearance diver selection course ep for Truth, Duty, Valour.

OMG they made candidates do push ups and sit ups if they messed up. Funny how it seemed their atmosphere of doing things seemed more army than army.