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

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Bravo_Bravo, Oct 28, 2012.

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. 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. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Weeknds 16 are exactly the same for Inf and Corps.
     
  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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  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.
     
  8. I'd rather see all recruits go on to do CIC then decide what they want to do afterwards.......
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. *Banging head on desk, wishing he hadn't checked thread*
     
  10. Not so sure how that'd work with a six-stone AGC wannabe, to be honest.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. You might like to re-read my original question...
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. Isn't training everybody to be an infantryman when they aren't going to be infantrymen a waste of time and money?
     

  14. 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?
     
  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.