- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I've heard the CDS isn't happy at all with the new BMQ/SQ/BIQ smozzle. Please tell me this is true.
Mods please move if this is in the wrong place.
Mods please move if this is in the wrong place.
Is QL2/QL3 making a comeback
- Thread starter Scoobie Newbie
- Start date
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
MGen Natynchuck as Comd LFDTS gave us a briefing in May. He was talking about some part of indiiv trg and tried to use the DP nomenclature. He became tongue tied and reverted to what everyone understood. To be fair, he was with the americans for two years so he was removed from its development.
I don't like it either...
I don't like it either...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Should I keep my fingers crossed then?!?
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,964
- Points
- 1,160
Such a move could be a blessing or disaster. For the infantry, the SQ is of little consequence. If trg matterial is not covered on BMQ, then it will be covered on BIQ. However, SQ is responsible for putting the "army" into the basic training of so many other occupations (especially non-cbt arms). I would rather see the requirement for SQ expanded to more occupations, and BMQ/SQ should be run back-to-back as one course. All army, purple, and non-aircrew air force occupations would be required to do SQ. After all, if the base comes under attack, the airforce const tech & ACS tech will have to fight the land fight.CFL said:
Done.CFL said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
QL2: basic soldier, C7, drill, rank structure
QL3: trade
how much simpler can that be
QL3: trade
how much simpler can that be
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,964
- Points
- 1,160
except that QL2 is not basic soldier. It teaches to the lowest standard across soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We could do with one course if all SQ were included in BMQ and the CF decides it is willing to train its naval wpns techs, boatswains, NES Ops, etc as soldiers (and not just sailors).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Ok you would know better then me but I thought QL2 trained everyone in the basics. C7 handeling, drill, dress/deportment, rank structure, (its been awhile) maybe even a section attack then the QL3 focused on the element and specific trade whether it be Cmbt Arms or Airframe tech.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,964
- Points
- 1,160
There may be other options. I've proposed that the students should make a seamless transition from BMQ to SQ (not a single day of PAT Pl between). Another option would be to send all Navy & aircrew on BMQ, and send Army and the remaining Air Force on SQ. In this case, the "new SQ" would include all of our current BMQ & SQ into one course with one CTP.
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
McG
>All army, purple, and non-aircrew air force occupations would be required to do SQ. After all, if the base comes under attack, the airforce const tech & ACS tech will have to fight the land fight.<
I support fully more combat training in BMQ. However, the focus of the training shouldn't be placed squarely on the
new BMQ (BMQ+SQ), but on continual training throughout a career.
Having been through a reg force BMQ, I can say after graduation we are were qualified for absolutely nothing. This isn't
to say we never got what we were supposed to learn and we did get the basics as laid out in the course. Expanding BMQ by three
more weeks (if this is already done) isn't going to further qualify the recruit anymore. Granted, the more context the better.
The combat arms know that weapon familiarization, the combat skills and tactics, and the continual training and practice of
those skills leads to competence and qualification. This is the bread and butter of the combat arms, and a lesser degree to the CSS.
No matter what you can stuff into a 10 week or 13 week BMQ will not produce the combat skills or familiarization sought without
advanced continual practice
Think of it this way. An air force recruit goes through BMA and SQ. Spends the next four years in OJT, rotation, and technical
courses to work in an operational capacity. For any combat proficiency, the combat skills learned in SQ, tactics and weapon
familiarization, has to be maintained over these years or its arguably a waste of time. The air force recruit will not ever have the
necessary combat training to match that of the combat arms. In this respect, what standard of combat proficiency should all
military trades (navy, army, air) have and how can it be maintained?
To me the problem isn't whats taught in BMQ or SQ. Its really about providing initial skills and realistically maintaining a
standard of those skills over a career.
>All army, purple, and non-aircrew air force occupations would be required to do SQ. After all, if the base comes under attack, the airforce const tech & ACS tech will have to fight the land fight.<
I support fully more combat training in BMQ. However, the focus of the training shouldn't be placed squarely on the
new BMQ (BMQ+SQ), but on continual training throughout a career.
Having been through a reg force BMQ, I can say after graduation we are were qualified for absolutely nothing. This isn't
to say we never got what we were supposed to learn and we did get the basics as laid out in the course. Expanding BMQ by three
more weeks (if this is already done) isn't going to further qualify the recruit anymore. Granted, the more context the better.
The combat arms know that weapon familiarization, the combat skills and tactics, and the continual training and practice of
those skills leads to competence and qualification. This is the bread and butter of the combat arms, and a lesser degree to the CSS.
No matter what you can stuff into a 10 week or 13 week BMQ will not produce the combat skills or familiarization sought without
advanced continual practice
Think of it this way. An air force recruit goes through BMA and SQ. Spends the next four years in OJT, rotation, and technical
courses to work in an operational capacity. For any combat proficiency, the combat skills learned in SQ, tactics and weapon
familiarization, has to be maintained over these years or its arguably a waste of time. The air force recruit will not ever have the
necessary combat training to match that of the combat arms. In this respect, what standard of combat proficiency should all
military trades (navy, army, air) have and how can it be maintained?
To me the problem isn't whats taught in BMQ or SQ. Its really about providing initial skills and realistically maintaining a
standard of those skills over a career.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,964
- Points
- 1,160
Bert,
No disagreement that standards need to be maintained & skills practiced after the training is complete. However, as this thread was about initial trg, I presented my opinions on where the basic standard should be set (so that it can be practiced and retained throught the mbrs career). If we are going to look farther down the road, I would suggets that all the occupations, which I recommended for SQ, should also do the PLQ (Land) instead of the CF PLQ.
No disagreement that standards need to be maintained & skills practiced after the training is complete. However, as this thread was about initial trg, I presented my opinions on where the basic standard should be set (so that it can be practiced and retained throught the mbrs career). If we are going to look farther down the road, I would suggets that all the occupations, which I recommended for SQ, should also do the PLQ (Land) instead of the CF PLQ.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I think that the biggest issue with Basic Training ( It shall be known as that, to avoid confusion) is that by cutting it down in both length and continuity, we are instilling in recruits(and most new recruits are not cbt arms) the attitude that they are not *really* soldiers, and that their little 3 day yomp in the woods is just some minor unpleasantness which must be tolerated in order to move on to lucrative and subsidized trades training. To bring up a tired old cliche amongst us, the USMC basic training instills the idea that every Marine is a rifleman first. The point of this is not that every Marine is technically proficient in the use of the rifle, that's just a PO check, but that every Marine KNOWS, deep down, that they are soldiers first and tradesmen second. I recently (well, not that recently) had the pleasure of working with a soldier who had just gotten back into the army(with the same rank) after getting out of the CAR 10+ years ago. Our weapons, the C7 Rifle and the C6/C9, were completely new to him, but all it took was a half hour refresher on the weapons drills and he was kicking *** and taking names like any of the old Commandos. With this attitude in place, problems like poor physical fitness amongst the CSS troops would disappear. No self-respecting combat soldier would allow his PT standards to laps like some of the troops we make fun of, even if he never touches a rifle for 10 years. I've never seen a 031 go down that path even if they remuster into a CSS/Air force trade.
Basic training today imparts all the technical knowledge needed to operate a rifle and whatnot, but without instilling any zan-shin it's just a bunch of disjointed tests that any monkey with opposable thumbs could pass. Our Infantry Battle Schools are still doing a fine job for new infantrymen (and presumably the other cbt arms are too), but the CSS trades need to get this right off the bat, during basic training, maintain it, and again during leadership training, because the day-to-day activities and extensive technical education of the CSS trades do not allow for it to be developed over time. This intangible attitude, I feel, is more important than making all the clerks and sig ops do PWT3s on all the weapons every year. It would be nice, but there's no point untill the soldier attitude is there.
I imagine my points have been brought up before in other Basic training related threads, but hey I'm feeling talkative tonight.....
Basic training today imparts all the technical knowledge needed to operate a rifle and whatnot, but without instilling any zan-shin it's just a bunch of disjointed tests that any monkey with opposable thumbs could pass. Our Infantry Battle Schools are still doing a fine job for new infantrymen (and presumably the other cbt arms are too), but the CSS trades need to get this right off the bat, during basic training, maintain it, and again during leadership training, because the day-to-day activities and extensive technical education of the CSS trades do not allow for it to be developed over time. This intangible attitude, I feel, is more important than making all the clerks and sig ops do PWT3s on all the weapons every year. It would be nice, but there's no point untill the soldier attitude is there.
I imagine my points have been brought up before in other Basic training related threads, but hey I'm feeling talkative tonight.....
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
It may be useful to consider initial training with continual training. Using Britney's example of the ex-CAR returning
to 031, someone that has been through BMQ, SQ, BIQ, perhaps deployments and advanced training in CAR
will not forget "soldier first, tradesman second" because that was his bread and butter for many years while in
the service. The US Marines have a specific training evolution based upon Marines needs. Recruits going through a
CF BMQ (air, navy, army) get generalized service training. To attempt to develop a "soldier first" attitude takes
not only initial training, but continual weapons/tactics training, and it may not sink in for some until a tasking or
deployment. Its good to talk the talk but the idea is to walk the walk too.
In my view, for navy and air force anyway, it may be more useful to take concepts in SQ and BIQ and merge
specific weapon familiarization with tactics. Once a basis for soldering is established and the recruit is posted,
maintain the standard with trips to the range (more than once a year), section tactics during unit PT once a
week, and a land combat familiarization courses once a year.
The same issue applies to the PLQ (Land). Obviously, the air or navy Cpl in-training will be less efficient than the
army Cpl in this course, particularily the combat arms, which the combat arms Cpls experience all the time. This doesn't
develop a soldier first attitude for the air and navy if they don't apply it in context afterwards. Land,
air, and sea units have different cultural characteristics.
For the air force and navy to develop a higher standard of land combat readiness, to me the issue lies in the
continual practice within the elemental perpective rather than an intensive course (BMQ/SQ/PLQ (Land)) every
few years.
to 031, someone that has been through BMQ, SQ, BIQ, perhaps deployments and advanced training in CAR
will not forget "soldier first, tradesman second" because that was his bread and butter for many years while in
the service. The US Marines have a specific training evolution based upon Marines needs. Recruits going through a
CF BMQ (air, navy, army) get generalized service training. To attempt to develop a "soldier first" attitude takes
not only initial training, but continual weapons/tactics training, and it may not sink in for some until a tasking or
deployment. Its good to talk the talk but the idea is to walk the walk too.
In my view, for navy and air force anyway, it may be more useful to take concepts in SQ and BIQ and merge
specific weapon familiarization with tactics. Once a basis for soldering is established and the recruit is posted,
maintain the standard with trips to the range (more than once a year), section tactics during unit PT once a
week, and a land combat familiarization courses once a year.
The same issue applies to the PLQ (Land). Obviously, the air or navy Cpl in-training will be less efficient than the
army Cpl in this course, particularily the combat arms, which the combat arms Cpls experience all the time. This doesn't
develop a soldier first attitude for the air and navy if they don't apply it in context afterwards. Land,
air, and sea units have different cultural characteristics.
For the air force and navy to develop a higher standard of land combat readiness, to me the issue lies in the
continual practice within the elemental perpective rather than an intensive course (BMQ/SQ/PLQ (Land)) every
few years.
