Recruit Training; time for one stream for the Infantry and one for the Corps?

#1
This has been mooted before and ( ignoring the G7 issue of lack of Training Staff) I do wonder if this would make sense?

Infantry recruit training at ATUs takes nine weekends vs. six for the Corps, and they are expected to be more robust and fitter at the end of their training.

The Infantry stream could, for example, spend more time in the field and have a more demanding ( = less undemanding, Your Grace) level of fitness. This would help avoid the "shock of capture" as recruits get to CIC and face the realities of Regular Infantry JNCOs...

BB
 
#2
This has been mooted before and ( ignoring the G7 issue of lack of Training Staff) I do wonder if this would make sense?

Infantry recruit training at ATUs takes nine weekends vs. six for the Corps, and they are expected to be more robust and fitter at the end of their training.

The Infantry stream could, for example, spend more time in the field and have a more demanding ( = less undemanding, Your Grace) level of fitness. This would help avoid the "shock of capture" as recruits get to CIC and face the realities of Regular Infantry JNCOs...

BB
Isn't it already streamed ???? (6 -v- 9 weekends)

In the asymetric battlefield all personnel should be combat capable!
 
#3
I'm not partuculary clued up on the TA so you will have to forgive me if I am talking bollox but isn't this the case already?

Tradesmen should be taught basic soldiering ie: the ability to shoot straight etc (think RAF Regt) whilst Teeth Arms (does that phrase even exist anymore) should have a more robust training with the emphasis on fitness, living in the field etc.

If I have a broken Lanny I expect the REME to be able to fix it not run around the square with the engine above his head.
 
#5
The answer is yes. Standardize basic trg for all recruits and standard training for all corps (that includes you Inf, Armd and The Regimental Corps of Artillery). Its almost time for us to catch up with being a modern army.
 
#6
Preaching to the choir, all arms should go through the same phase 1 training only to specialise for phase 2.
 
#7
I'm with BB. Regular infantry recruits are streamed through Catterick in recognition that of all the trades, that of combat infantryman is the one that is the most different from anything in civilian life and thus warrants extra indoctrination. We should reflect this in the Reserve.
 
#12
This has been mooted before and ( ignoring the G7 issue of lack of Training Staff) I do wonder if this would make sense?

Infantry recruit training at ATUs takes nine weekends vs. six for the Corps, and they are expected to be more robust and fitter at the end of their training.

The Infantry stream could, for example, spend more time in the field and have a more demanding ( = less undemanding, Your Grace) level of fitness. This would help avoid the "shock of capture" as recruits get to CIC and face the realities of Regular Infantry JNCOs...

BB
Personally I'm of the opinion (and bear in mind that I am of the ex light blue persuasion) that all those who join the Forces, be it Army, Navy, or Airforce should be trained to the point that they can function as a rifleman, then do their trades training as whatever they joined to be.
 
#14
Personally I'm of the opinion (and bear in mind that I am of the ex light blue persuasion) that all those who join the Forces, be it Army, Navy, or Airforce should be trained to the point that they can function as a rifleman, then do their trades training as whatever they joined to be.

See point above. Why, specifically?

Why does a sailor need to know how to basha up or fire a LAW? Why does an RAF ejection seat fitter need to know how to do a platoon attack? Doesn't it make more sense to work out logically what someone needs to do their job and then train them in that?

Or am I missing something?
 
S

syledis

Guest
#15
What about those times in the past when cooks, storemen, clerks etc had to plug gaps in the front line?

How can they do that and instill trust and confidence in those around them if they doubt their abilities and training?

Soldier first, every time.
 
#16
What about those times in the past when cooks, storemen, clerks etc had to plug gaps in the front line?

How can they do that and instill trust and confidence in those around them if they doubt their abilities and training?

Soldier first, every time.
My point exactly. Had the RAF done this in the 30's, then perhaps the Fallschirmjäger would have had a wee bit more trouble on Crete in 41.
 
#17
Absolutely agree, but the question posed by BB was whether all recruits should go through the same training or whether (TA) infantry recruits should be trained separately and by implication differently. It wasn't whether all soldiers should be capable of taking their place in the line. Everyone already receives basic soldier training-that's the point of Phase 1, yes? Then if they need extra training for a specific environment or threat level then they get it as and when needed-largely as happens now for Herrick. Also, there is a difference between, say, needing to be trained to work with the infantry in ground holding/manoeuvre units and needing to be trained to man a sangar or respond to an attack on a MOB.

Why waste huge amounts of time and money training, say a clerk, as an infantryman, for him to then not use those skills for three or four years afterwards and then need to be retrained anyway? And why train huge numbers of people in a skill they will simply never use? E.g on H4, 7000 troops deployed into Helmand, of which 168 were available at any one time for offensive ops outside the wire, plus maybe about the same number engaged in pretty punchy FP in the pl houses-the other 6600 odd were used to administrate them and protect the MOBs. (16 AA Bde's own figures). Are you saying we train every single last one of those 6600 men and women to do a task they are guaranteed not to ever do? Why?
 
#18
Given that CIC is not the end of training for infantryman and it will take a year plus to produce a soldier ready for mobilisation. 6 common weekends will not cause harm.
You could say training a TA infantryman in peacetime is too expensive and long..... and doing the full regular course is a better option?
 
#19
Given that CIC is not the end of training for infantryman and it will take a year plus to produce a soldier ready for mobilisation. 6 common weekends will not cause harm.
You could say training a TA infantryman in peacetime is too expensive and long..... and doing the full regular course is a better option?
Not only totally missing my point, but a gargantuan change of subject as well!
 
#20
Back OT...

I'm not saying that Corps should not have an exposure to Infantry training, even though they don't really at the moment.

Lets assume that the Phase One training for then stays as is, maybe even - dare I say it - DS'd by Corps. What I think makes sense is to have a separate Infantry stream; maybe with some overlap in eg. V&S, taught en masse, but a clearer focus on Infantry skills and fitness levels, DS'd by Infantry.
 

Latest Threads

Top