Originally Posted by polar

Originally Posted by The_Duke

If they miss the original training and the catch up training event(s), you have to question how much they really wanted to mobilise in the first place.

If it's working then I have no need to question it. Just seemed a big change in culture was possible but it seems now we (well infantry) are going through a major culture change.

Not so much a culture change, more an acceptance of the reality. The harsh truth is that the lads we mobilise will be in harms way on a day to day basis for 6 months. People are generally accepting that the old ideas of "bags of enthusiasm will carry us through" are no longer valid, if they indeed ever were. We have more weapon systems, more kit, more TTPs to manage etc.

I'd probably question if this was too much and with a question of why are we bothering with TA at all. Repetitive/catch up training must imply waste of resources, repetitve training, etc.

Too much? No. Just about enough is probably closer to the truth. Some elements of training are repetitive, but how much range time, med training etc is too much? Doing the V&S lessons again for the umpteenth time is getting repetitive though, I'll grant you! It is about the duty of care piece, and also narrowing the training gap so that the TA soldiers joins the receiving unit in the best possible position to concentrate on the MST having already nailed the basics.

I know from my time with the infantry, people baulked at putting on courses that lasted 4 weekends or more, normally settling for week long courses instead.

I would love to do it in week long packages for the continuity of training aspect, but you are then asking people to use all of their civvy annual leave for TA training just before they mobilise for 11 months. Weekends and Tuesday nights are manageable, but need the buy in from those who want to deploy.

I can't help but feel weekend training is not viable, a potential solution is summer challenge followed by a similar event the following year teaching the weapons not taught the year before. Ideal candidates being students ..... who can't deploy.

This plan leaves you with 2 camps committed to build up training, with loads of scope for skill fade in between. We currently have a commitment for 9 weekends over 5 months plus training nights, and then a 2 week battle camp post mobilisation but before release to receiving unit.

I know which is the easier sell for home and work!

If it's working then, as it appears it is .... I'll shut up

Too early to tell for certain, but it appears to be working - it just means that the Trg Off and SPSI need to keep on top of who has done what, when they can catch up etc, etc. If they get beyond recovery having been warned of missing too mcuh training, they get interviewed and removed from the mobilisation list. No room for "too cool for school" or "I've been before so don't have to train again" types.

I do like the sound of it though. Just trying to think how that could be applied to RSigs (esp. BOWMAN) training. Gut feeling would be to push for a full BOWMAN package and same infantry trg upto and inc CIC standards.

Suppose first things first, need to get some people to realise they ain't got a new radio in the CLANSMAN way of doing things. Have one troop having done Open Office training and the others are still putting unclass freq's into radio's

Originally Posted by polar

I do like the sound of it though. Just trying to think how that could be applied to RSigs (esp. BOWMAN) training. Gut feeling would be to push for a full BOWMAN package and same infantry trg upto and inc CIC standards.

Polar, I know that you must see this discussion going on in the TA Infantry and instinctively wonder how the R.Signals could try the same approach. I think though that this might be a case of apples and oranges and what the DInf has implemented here is a solution tailored to a specifically Infantry problem. Deficiencies in training can no longer be allowed to be corrected in theatre with on the job learning. The conditions and situations faced by combat Infantrymen in Afghanistan no longer afford us that sort of breathing space.

Perhaps if SOinC were to identify a specifically Signals problem with TA soldiers (trade knowledge?), then he would come up with a specific Signals solution. Maybe extended trade camps? Whatever, I don't think emulating the Infantry is going to help you bridge that gap.

Ref my bold; making your guys train to CIC standard, how many do you think would have a problem carrying the same weight and scales of equipment and do you think that it could be implemented across the whole Corps?

2 Sig Bde have implemented a course of action to deal with what Polar is suggesting, but only to get everyone who was not CS op to that trade by running 4 trade camps per year. Unfortunately it will only get them to 'baby BOWMAN' level with a BOWMAN PET, but Simple and Complex vehicle fits and COMBAT are just further PETs which can be done via RTWs and or annual camps.

Originally Posted by timpegasus

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

I think for people coming through phase one as I have just done some major changes need to be made to prepare recruits/ suts for trade training/ CIC and onwards. Time spent doing PT, NBC and (excessive) Values and Standards etc at the expense of map reading and first aid is precious time wasted.

To be going to CIC without having the structure of a section, platoon, Coy, Bn etc explained let alone even a verbal explanation of what happens in a a section attack seems to suggest that the emphasis is not in the right place - to my mind at any rate.

In peacetime there would be time to pick up a lot of this later on but surely now it needs to be prioritised....

Time wasted doing PT and NBC(CBRN)?

These are things you need to do PT especially,CBRN is going to be another massive thing trg wise,you cant scrimp on these things and expect to pick up on them later!

When I did depot donkeys ago we were schooled in all aspects,wpns,fizz,drill,plt/sect attacks,recces everything and my battalion followed that on and these were in the days way before Herrick/Telic!

Things have obviously changed since then,but you need the fizz element to be able to get to where you want on the map you can read!

It was certainly like that when I joined first time too but there was a credible NBC threat then!

I'm not suggesting that physical fitness isn't important but having recruits in phase one in a gym doing ball games isn't going to make a difference to their fitness - they have to get on top of it in their own time. Taking them out doing CFTs is more relevant. I did Phase 1 in a one week package (= W/e 1-6) and pretty much every day we spent an hour in the gym doing some sort of activity. Add on 15 minutes each side to get changed plus half an hour to get everyone from the lecture theatre to the gym and that is two hours out of the working day that could have been spent on map reading and first aid. The Recruit ain't going to sort those out in his own time but he can sort out his fitness that is then tested on PFA/CFT.

I still think that map reading and first aid are priorities over CBRN. They were even back in the 80's when there was a very real NBC threat.

I've done 9 w/es of Phase 1 and Inf range package . I have had 1/2 an hour of map reading and no first aid. I have however played "mixed sports" and done lots of ball games and gym sessions plus several hours of CBRN. I still maintain that the priorities are just really wrong if we're trying to get recruits up to speed for deployment - which is what I am constantly being told.

Originally Posted by RP578

Polar, I know that you must see this discussion going on in the TA Infantry and instinctively wonder how the R.Signals could try the same approach. I think though that this might be a case of apples and oranges and what the DInf has implemented here is a solution tailored to a specifically Infantry problem. Deficiencies in training can no longer be allowed to be corrected in theatre with on the job learning. The conditions and situations faced by combat Infantrymen in Afghanistan no longer afford us that sort of breathing space.

Perhaps if SOinC were to identify a specifically Signals problem with TA soldiers (trade knowledge?), then he would come up with a specific Signals solution.

Ref my bold; making your guys train to CIC standard, how many do you think would have a problem carrying the same weight and scales of equipment and do you think that it could be implemented across the whole Corps?

No I'm not looking at that way, I'm replacing infantry with TA every time I read a post in this thread ... and then place a Signals slant on it.

The basic thing people have said is (borrowing your wording). The conditions and situations faced by TA in Afghanistan no longer afford us that sort of breathing space..

On cap badge specifics, infantry should lead on nuts and bolts soldier stuff and Sigs on BOWMAN. I don't think allowing a TA RSig soldier be anything but fully trained on BOWMAN before they can be deployed, we can then learn from each other. I know my old CLANSMAN infantry Sigs dets were trained to a higher standard than my RSigs dets, that was wrong and still is wrong by higher I mean on core VP and Radio skills common to us all. I also suspect the infantry class 1 pte is still taught more in depth VP than RSigs (oops now I am going on a cap badge specific rant)

p.s. that last bit might also be a local unit comment (both inf and Sigs ... as I know Yorks are better than other infantry regts )

Originally Posted by polar

Originally Posted by RP578

Polar, I know that you must see this discussion going on in the TA Infantry and instinctively wonder how the R.Signals could try the same approach. I think though that this might be a case of apples and oranges and what the DInf has implemented here is a solution tailored to a specifically Infantry problem. Deficiencies in training can no longer be allowed to be corrected in theatre with on the job learning. The conditions and situations faced by combat Infantrymen in Afghanistan no longer afford us that sort of breathing space.

Perhaps if SOinC were to identify a specifically Signals problem with TA soldiers (trade knowledge?), then he would come up with a specific Signals solution.

Ref my bold; making your guys train to CIC standard, how many do you think would have a problem carrying the same weight and scales of equipment and do you think that it could be implemented across the whole Corps?

No I'm not looking at that way, I'm replacing infantry with TA every time I read a post in this thread ... and then place a Signals slant on it.

The basic thing people have said is (borrowing your wording). The conditions and situations faced by TA in Afghanistan no longer afford us that sort of breathing space..

On cap badge specifics, infantry should lead on nuts and bolts soldier stuff and Sigs on BOWMAN. I don't think allowing a TA RSig soldier be anything but fully trained on BOWMAN before they can be deployed, we can then learn from each other. I know my old CLANSMAN infantry Sigs dets were trained to a higher standard than my RSigs dets, that was wrong and still is wrong by higher I mean on core VP and Radio skills common to us all. I also suspect the infantry class 1 pte is still taught more in depth VP than RSigs (oops now I am going on a cap badge specific rant)

p.s. that last bit might also be a local unit comment (both inf and Sigs ... as I know Yorks are better than other infantry regts )

I love you :D

Polar, what do you think the role of a TA sig soldier, whether a siggie or up to Sgt is in AFG? Inf sig are always leaps ahead of Signals on VP and HF/VHF, it's the nature of their job. Constantly using radios is not all a signals soldier needs, he/she must be proficient in a whole host of comms equipment, not just BOWMAN.

I've just finished teaching VP on a trade course and can assure you that not everything in the PAM is covered, simply due to it not being relevant to Signals soldiers per say. Had I been teaching VP to Arty or Eng then it would have been written and structured for them.

Originally Posted by devilish

Polar, what do you think the role of a TA sig soldier, whether a siggie or up to Sgt is in AFG? he/she must be proficient in a whole host of comms equipment, not just BOWMAN.

The only guide I have at hand is the regular class 3 course, yes their objective is a whole host of comms equipment and theory but that gets delivered as full BOWMAN package, WAN's LAN's etc are all covered through BOWMAN.

I know I'm using broad terms, but surely the objective of infantry training is now to deliver a trained soldier with no skill gaps. In Sigs terms that means BOWMAN emulating both TA infantry training (ethos/theorectial objective) and Regular Royal Signals (physical objectives).

Briefing tonight on "Workplace Training Status" so all is klaar!

mostly.....