Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Infantryman or Corps Speciality First??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    ollie
    not dead yet

  • ollie
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry View Post
    http://www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html

    A very good article about the rather shambolic basic training for CSS troops in the US Army.
    there are one or two points in that article i recognise from recruit training here !!!

    Leave a comment:

  • Barry
    Lt General

  • Barry
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    Barry i am sure i am correct with my previous statement about u.s forces ,but i am open for correction. Perhaps a few of our stateside members would care to jump in on this one???
    http://www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html

    A very good article about the rather shambolic basic training for CSS troops in the US Army.

    Leave a comment:

  • apod
    Commander in Chief

  • apod
    replied
    Barry i am sure i am correct with my previous statement about u.s forces ,but i am open for correction. Perhaps a few of our stateside members would care to jump in on this one???

    Leave a comment:

  • Barry
    Lt General

  • Barry
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    EVERYBODY is a rifleman first .This has been the ehos of the u.s army and marines for decades
    Just to be nitpicking, that is not the case in the US Army. There, infantry go to one place for basic training, artillery, armo(u)r and cavalry go to another (both very good, with proper training), and CSS units go to a place that's basically a joke.

    The US Marines, on the other hand, do it the right way: Everyone does the same basic training (segregated for males and females), regardless of speciality. This is also the case in the PDF: Everybody becomes an infantry Private first, and then trains for their specialty. If we're really gonna be integrated, we have to do everything the exact same as the PDF, even if it does mean that the CIS will have to wait another year for their specialists (which would be cut out if civvie qualifications were accepted with a conversion course, but that's another debate altogether......)

    Leave a comment:

  • apod
    Commander in Chief

  • apod
    replied
    No laoch,i actually came on hear and just made a sweeping statement without reading any of the previous posts. I sympathise with the you on the frustrating lenght of time it takes to qualify a specialist in the rdf,but unfortunately thats the nature of the beast.as for what you said to greyfox its easty know that you are are a remf as only a remf would make a statement like that.And at the risk of starting a flamewar lets not also forget the the job of every other unit in the army is to support the infantry!
    If my thinking on rifleman first,specialist second is so wrong in your expert opinion than how come it is the ethos of some of the most combat experienced armies in the world?

    p.s nothing personal with the remf comment .just didnt like the grunt thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Most of the 3* syllabus covers basic soldiering skills. The major elements that may not have as much revelance for the corps units are the LMG and some tactics (platoon level). The LMG takes up a fair bit of time but the platoon level tactics are actually a fairly small part of the syllabus.

    Everything else in the syllabus is relevant to all RDF soldiers including drill, fieldcraft and map reading.

    Leave a comment:

  • Laoch
    $unit =~ s/11cis/62cis/gi

  • Laoch
    replied
    apod,

    Did you actually read my post ? You obviously missed the "Yes all soldiers should have a basic understanding of infantry soldiering and be proficient with the Styer rifle" part. To go further proficient to section level tactics. Beyond that is a waste of time for a corps soldier. It already takes us 2 years to train a Communication Operative to Radio Specialist level and a further year to add the Network Systems Specialist modules and whether you like it or not that is the primary role of a Field CIS Coy and therefore the primary role of its members.

    Leave a comment:

  • apod
    Commander in Chief

  • apod
    replied
    Sorry Laoch,but you are talking out of your arse about corps training being primary.
    EVERYBODY is a rifleman first .This has been the ehos of the u.s army and marines for decades,and by virtue of the way the pdf trains it's people ours too.In the pdf wheter you are enlisted or cadet ,army/navy or air corps you are trained as a rifleman.Granted the aircorps and navy do less of it,but they still do it.And long may it continue.
    All you have to do is look at recent conflicts to see that quiet often front lines get blurred and it is not all the pbi that have to fight.In iraq the resupply convoys of loggies were targeted as a soft option .Through no fault of the own british m.p,s had to fight in Majar al Kabir.In somalia on the day of the ranger ,the rescue convoy consisted of cooks and other loggies.Do i need to keep giving examples.
    Yes the corps training is vital and i know i couldnt do half of the stuff that techies etc do,but rifleman first ,specialist second.:wink:

    Leave a comment:

  • turbocalves
    jang-a-lang

  • turbocalves
    replied
    the majority of your marks we for your performance as i/c of a section and how you conducted yourself out on the ground which is an inf thing, then moi, then gt's. but the point i'm trying to make is we can stll focus primarily on corps activites and still perform quite adequately in an inf capacity- but inf should focus on inf and let us al get on with our specific roles

    Leave a comment:

  • turbocalves
    jang-a-lang

  • turbocalves
    replied
    Originally posted by greyfox View Post
    corps training is secondary every one regardless of unit or rank should be able to function as a rifleman first. recruit to 2* training is not suffecient to do this.
    Well on my pots cse 58 started 33 finished there was 1 engineer 1 medic 2 gunners from the AD and 3 gunners from the regiment. Of the top 7 of these on the course 3 were from corps units, i was one of them, i'll be the first to admit i've had limited Inf training. As such i should have finished at the other end of the list, but i didnt this begs the question- What level are the average Inf Pte at, if a gunner with limited Inf training can hump it in the sh*t with the grunts and do a better job of it than the majority of real grunts? its not exactly inspiring, especially when i spend a lot of my time doin arty training.

    P.S this is not meant as an attack onthe Inf as i nearly transfered to them once, and also i've good mates there who are hard core!

    Leave a comment:

  • Laoch
    $unit =~ s/11cis/62cis/gi

  • Laoch
    replied
    Grunt

    Originally posted by greyfox View Post
    corps training is secondary every one regardless of unit or rank should be able to function as a rifleman first. recruit to 2* training is not suffecient to do this.
    greyfox, I bet you are a grunt because only a grunt could come up with a statement like that. Yes all soldiers should have a basic understanding of infantry soldiering and be proficient with the Styer rifle but the corps training being secondary is bullshit. A CIS soldier's primary function in wartime (and peacetime) is the provision of communications, the medic's primary role is first aid etc ... etc ... Going by your thinking we would all be out shooting our 60 rounds and there would be no one to organise the resupply and no one to deliver it.

    Leave a comment:

  • greyfox
    the gunney

  • greyfox
    replied
    corps training is secondary every one regardless of unit or rank should be able to function as a rifleman first. recruit to 2* training is not suffecient to do this.

    Leave a comment:


  • JAG
    replied
    Basic training should come before corps training- i.e. do basic, then do corps training, whether your corps is infantry, cavalry, medic etc etc.

    Hence the term "basic"

    If recruits decide to go infantry instead of anything else, good for them. It cuts both ways, wannabe infantiers can decide to go medical instead.

    Leave a comment:

  • The Joker
    Lt Colonel

  • The Joker
    replied
    Thats all very well and good. But are you going to give the Corps units extra man days so they can complete their corp training? If not then this puts them at a serious disadvantage. I am all in favour of centralised training, but if it means that corps well have less time for their specific training then it wouldnt agree with it.

    Also, if this idea goes ahead, then I can see alot of people staying in the Inf Units and leaving the corps alltogther. End result will be that we recruit them, then they decide that want to do Inf stuff instead. Yippe

    Leave a comment:


  • JAG
    replied
    Originally posted by The Joker
    I would be more inclined for a centralised corp training camp rather than just an infantry one.
    Soldiers are soldiers first, everything else second- whether that be driver, medic, cook, clerk or cavalryman

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X