PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[marshall sl]

Well you are entitled to your opinion. How ever my contribution was just as valid as yours. We did the best we could with what the CF and the Govt gave us.Our biggest beef was that we couldn't get the same training as the Regs. I have several friends that went reg force and are still serving.Some in some rather interesting places.I won't say where in an open forum.

Our reasons for joining were no less than yours I bet. If you are basing your opinion on the present cadet program I can't speak to that. The program in the 70s was far differant than today. The lessons I learned there have stood me well in my career in Corrections. The Leadership training,Self Discipline has enabled me to face some scary situations as a line officer and a supervisor.

But i guess each generation thinks the one before it was cluless. But we can't be all bad we trained the guys that trained you.    Ask Danjanou he'tell you.

Cheers

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

In that case, the Cadets should simply sit quiet rather than comment on hear-say be it true or false. If they're Cadets, why are they here argueing over something they've never experienced, if they are as clueless as you say? (I wouldnt argue it) I believe its been said COUNTLESS times on Army.ca, "Stay within your lanes." Far too often people are jumping the gun to chew out a Cadet for their ignorance...they're kids. Simply set them straight and be on with it, rather than argue relentlessly with them.

BUT, this has gone off track. The topics on Infantry, not the Cadets or their never-ending knowledge of it.

 

[the 48th regulator]

enough with the cadet bashing already!

What a bucnh of super soldiers we have.  What were you doing at their age??  Learning to plug in yer nintendo or coleco vision no doubt!

One guy makes a flub and we got the legion of super heroes on his ass. 

tess

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Was this directed at me?

 

[the 48th regulator]

no, at everyone doing the bashing,

why?

tess

(Note I modified)

 

[dirky]

I dont know if any of you guys know this but in the cadets there is a new special forces section i believe.  I had a fellow tell me that the real turned on cadets can be selected to do special duties overseas.  Anyone heard of this?

 

[the 48th regulator]

go away dirky, it's getting tired.

tess

 

[dutchie]

I never said the cadets sucked, were usless, yada, yada, yada....I said that on GMT/QL2/BMQ/SQ/BIQ one should not advertise that they were a cadet (unless they like cack), and that one should forget what they learned, as it will make learning the proper army way easier.

carry on.

 

[ArmyRick]

48th Regulator, I am not bashing cadets.  My point is they shouldn't comment on how modern day infantry training is conducted until they complete said training themselves.

I agree with cadets but I think the program needs an overhaul IMO ( I was an army cadet for three years,86-89, but I left because all we ever did was drill, drill and more drill)

Marshall, no your generation did not train me, I was a patricia and that was where I learned my soldiering skills.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Ceaser,

The proper way....oh sorry I missed that on my " Proper way training course" roger that...didn't mean to offend..

ArmyRick,

Then my Post really doesn't affect you, does it now. What cadet unit do you go an volunteer to help with the overhaul?  I commend that.  With all of the experience we have to offer, it only benefits future generations of troops entering the reg force or reserve ranks.

tess

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    I admit, I was in when they started applying the human rights rules to soldiers.  I opposed it, as did most of us who trained under what is now called the "old school".  That is a bit of a laugh in itself, my father was part of the old "soldier apprentice" program in the fifties, and waxes quite eloquent about how hard they had it, and how the army went to s***t before he left.  I guess every generation bitches that "the new army is too soft", its been going on for a few centuries or so, and will keep going on after they bury all of us.  I know that we had to train harder, and under harsher conditions than are imposed now.  I don't think that the best of our troops will ever shy away from using any field training to sharpen themselves into the best soldiers they can.  Whatever drives you to the combat arms, compels the best of you to push yourself to the limit, and beyond.  Infantry training has been designed to show you how to function at a high level, well beyond what you think your limits are.  It is all well and good to take the 72hr grinder out of training, and the ruck marches, but lets face it, infanteers are going to find themselves facing situations requiring that level of endurance for real in the field, and the accidental deaths, or combat losses that occur because they didn't have the experience with exhaustion drills that have preserved soldiers for generations before.  Its better to find your limits in training, with NCO's that can teach you how to milk that last ounce of effort and focus, than on deployment, or exercise where a miscue could result in your or other losses.  I just don't think softening the training is doing the troops any service.

 

[Lim0]

Is hook another word for a chevron?

 

[infamous_p]

yes it is

 

[COBRA-6]

I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.   Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.   They were politely and emphatically told NO!

I think this mindset goes right to the national level, not merely the infantry. Our recruiting efforts and courses are not designed to attract "warriors" or even "soldiers", how often do you even see weapons in recruiting advertising? If you look at other forces out there (USMC, Royal Marines) they challenge people to join, if they think they're up to it, and tell them up front how hard and demanding the training will be if they do... where as we seem to accept anyone and then try to bring them up to standard... I just don't think the higher-ups want our recruiting and training systems to be an elimination process... it's easy to see how this has a trickle-down effect on the whole forces (with exceptions of course), from the amount of live-fire training we do, to fitness standards being enforced... I hope our new CDS and his vision of a expeditionary force will swing the pendulum back the other way....

 

[Heathan]

     I admit, I was in when they started applying the human rights rules to soldiers.   I opposed it, as did most of us who trained under what is now called the "old school".   That is a bit of a laugh in itself, my father was part of the old "soldier apprentice" program in the fifties, and waxes quite eloquent about how hard they had it, and how the army went to s***t before he left.   I guess every generation bitches that "the new army is too soft", its been going on for a few centuries or so, and will keep going on after they bury all of us.   I know that we had to train harder, and under harsher conditions than are imposed now.   I don't think that the best of our troops will ever shy away from using any field training to sharpen themselves into the best soldiers they can.   Whatever drives you to the combat arms, compels the best of you to push yourself to the limit, and beyond.   Infantry training has been designed to show you how to function at a high level, well beyond what you think your limits are.   It is all well and good to take the 72hr grinder out of training, and the ruck marches, but lets face it, infanteers are going to find themselves facing situations requiring that level of endurance for real in the field, and the accidental deaths, or combat losses that occur because they didn't have the experience with exhaustion drills that have preserved soldiers for generations before.   Its better to find your limits in training, with NCO's that can teach you how to milk that last ounce of effort and focus, than on deployment, or exercise where a miscue could result in your or other losses.   I just don't think softening the training is doing the troops any service.

   This Sums it up in the view of Pink Fuzzy Vs. Old School. 

 

[CH1]

For my 2 cents, being old school (class of 68) & having been trained by WWII & Korean vets, I after 30+ years am learning from the "younger generations".  There is both good & bad points on both sides.  I for one DO NOT miss cleaning the parade square with tooth brush & eraser, or doing 4 kazillion laps around said square with full pack & C1 over head.

From my perspective, the newer generations have as much expertise to offer us as we to them.  These newer generations have had to do way more with a lot less than we did (funny how perspectives change over time).  So I salute them.

The day I quit learning, is the day I have died.  As I prepare to trail arms to the rear, I applaude these people, as they carry the torch forward.

I do not agree with the political masters version of what an army is nor how some of the Trg is structured (or not).  But as we did before, the new does today. 

"Ours is to do or die, not to question why" & "There's no life like it", apply the same today as in my father's time (39 - 75), or my time (68 - ?).

Nuff said.......cheers

 

[pipesnake]

Actually I am curious to find out what has changed since I got out. I did RCR battleschool in Pet in 1988/89 over the winter. They had no problem force marching us many miles, giving us little sleep (5 hours in 5 days on whatever the defensive ex was called), or doing things to cause us physical discomfort or pain. One time they made us do those pushups, in a line with the next guys legs on your shoulders and using your fists on pavement, and one guy broke his hand. My section commander used to smash his pace stick into your tows if you weren't standing at attention properly. They made us dig trenches in the frozen sand. That stuff was like cement. It took me two days to dig it and I couldn't sleep until I finished. I got frost bite. Anyway it was all pretty fun. Good regular solidier stuff I thought. After I went to the NECIC team and we amped the training much further doing 10 mile ruck marches (actually running not marching) every Monday and Friday.   In between we just ran in civvy kit, shot, trained etc. for 8 to 10 hours a day. Don't they do this stuff anymore? That was the good stuff man. I hope my tax money is not being used towards the wussification of the military.  

 

[Baloo]

Well, not like a whole lot of your tax money is going there anyways, now is it?

 

[pipesnake]

Too true. I'd be willing to give more too, as long as I knew it wasn't going toward some nancy-pink-skirt-wearin' mutation of soldierin' ;-) 

 

[Heathan]

I really feel that the new soldiers do not posess the maturity that the 031 trade should have. This trade serves the purpose of fighting battles yes but we are also the face of Canada for the most part when we are abroad. I dont think that the new young soldiers posess the life experience or maturity to be placed in this role. When I see the word "integrity" being spoken on one breath and " dont admit a thing" or "deny, deny, deny" spoken on another I wonder what message is being sent to the new soldiers, further more when you see different dicipline standards being applied due to rank I wonder what message that sends as well. I should also state that I have seen 18-20 year old soldiers with more maturity and skill than soldiers twice thier age, but unfortunatly they are not as many of these individuals as I would like to see. One possible way of, and I mean no offence to those who apply, eliminating some of these faults could be by having one standard for enrollment, when I say this I mean you need to be smart enough for a nice tech trade, strong enough to be a combat soldier, and responsible/mature enough to be that face of the military the media portrays. By doing this you would get a better soldier. I think this way because if you adhere to the one standard and get a person who picks 031 you will get a good 031, not a person who wanted to be a medic but didn't have the education required for that trade. You accept a person and tell them what holes need to be filled and then based on their choice they can pick the career path they choose. Whats worse, having someone taking whats left or getting what they want? I know its a bit off the topic but technology, in my opinion, has lowerd the intelligence in areas of todays youth. By having the internet you have removed the need to do hard research, with spell check and grammer check in most word processors you eliminate the real need to understand the english language and apply it, with the software out there who needs math skills or art skills? These points seem way off topic but in a way the generations that grow up with this are the same ones coming in to service now. I never ever thought about an internet cafe within Bn lines.