Infantry Training Standards

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by sixty_three, Jan 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. With the pressure on Infantry units with tour rotation to Iraq and Afganistan do you think training is suffering or do you think it has improved ?
    The British Forces must be one of the best operational trained forces in the world at the moment as we are doing most other nations "dirty work" for them while they refuse to asist with sending troops to help out.
    I would like to think we are improving our standards and our forces get the respect from other countries they deserve.On on the kit issue why dont the politicians just give our boys the tools to do the job and support them as they should

    Cheers
    63
     
  2. Good point sixty_three, however, there's no better training than operational training.

    As for the kit list bit. It's the governments way of saving money. All the time Infantry Units cope due to their professionalism and typical British "lets get on with it attitude" the government won't do a thing.

    The Government would rather spend money of foreign illegals scrounging money off the good ole British tax payer than spend it on our troops. But thats another story and I'm already starting to wind myself up.

    Happy New Year.

    BT.
     
  3. Operational experience can sometimes be an two edged sword, yes there is no substitute to the two way range but sometimes the specialities of particular op work cause memory fade in other important training activities. As an "old boy" who experienced back to back tours in the days when we fought in places cold and wet not hot and sunny, I found that my patrolling and limited contact drills were spot on, but some of my core skills suffered
     
  4. As an outsider I would say that the guys on the ground who are most likely to get shot at should never be given anything less than the very best kit available. I personally find it strange to spend X millions on each Typhoon aircraft & then say that troops on the ground should not have all they want.
     
  5. Oh, and the new Trident missile - but thats the Labour Government for you eh. The Army at the bottom of the pile.

    BT
     
  6. Trident aside, you must not have read that the RN are to lose 6 more escorts in the coming few months, as well as a cancellation of two further destroyers in a addition to those that were cut back in the last round of 'rebalancing'.
    I think the Andrew are getting the worst of the defence cuts by a fair margin.
     
  7. <<<With the pressure on Infantry units with tour rotation to Iraq and Afganistan do you think training is suffering or do you think it has improved ?>>>

    I think you may be asking the wrong question here. The question should not be the standard of training so much as the relevancy of what is being taught. When I did my basic in 1958 we were taught the same core skills as were taught during WWII, these skills were relevant because it was thought that if another conflict arose it would be the same type of warfare. Nowadays our lads are fighting a completely different sort of war so the question is "Are they being trained for the modern type of conflict?"

    If the corps tradesman go on new equipment familiarisation courses, does the infanteer go on new warfare familiarisation courses?
     
  8. DPM

    DPM Old-Salt

    There's no doubt - the speed that ops are occuring is to the detriment of low level, core skills and drills, as well as BG and formation staff work.

    I (fairly) recently deployed on a fairly significant tour having had to bin any significant live firing in lieu of RAAT. We judged advanced cross country driving techniques more important despite the threat, a choice I stand by as I know that it saved my life at least once (complete hydraulic failure 2m from a 1000ft drop - the driver kept control having practiced it in N Wales).

    I'm not convinced that ops are the best training. You need solid foundations to build on, and there's nothing like an external 'audit' like CAST, TES, BATUS, etc to shake up a BG. On ops, in my experience, you become a little stove piped. Not good if the ops you deploy on are NI, FRESCO, then AF with little prep... And not good in the so called 3 block war.

    dpm
     
  9. I think DPM has hit the nail on the head. :salut:

    Having just returned to regimental duty having been away for some years I have to say that training standards in the field army appear to have fallen, and that is directly attributable to a lack of training. The lack of training is due to a lack of time in which to do the training (we are too busy on ops or supporting ops) and when we have the time we do not have the money (as was the case in 2001/02). :frustrated:

    Current ops often do not cover the full spectrum of high intensity war fighting, especially at battlegroup plus level and more so in the case of our armoured fraternity. It is a source of much concern to our Lords and Masters; we have company and battalion commanders who will complete tours having not practised their craft. I am aware in my garrison of CR2 gunner who have not live fired on the move in 18+ months.