Quieter? Gentler? Could some civvy 'tree hugger' please explain to me how a parade of 300+ soldiers are going to perform slick, soldier-like drill, moving as a single body of men (okay I know we have women as well!) without the person in command being able to shout?
Could some civvy 'tree hugger' please explain to me how a parade of 300+ soldiers are going to perform slick, soldier-like drill, moving as a single body of men (okay I know we have women as well!) without the person in command being able to shout?
While I don't read anything new in the report -there isn't anything in there that NCO's haven't been aware of and using for as long as I've been in- the softy-softy tone is bothering me.
I believe we mustn't be gentler with our recruits, we need to toughen up. Why? Because the recruits we're training nowadays are much-much softer than we were and we were softer than our instructors. This probably goes back to Roman sergeants bitching about their touchy feely legionairs...
It can, off course all be explained away. A higher standard of living and social improvement over yesteryear leads to a society not used to physical hardship and thus missing the mental edge needed to cope with it. Because of this people become nicer to one another. That's all fine.
But soldiers need that mental edge, because they still have to function under physical and mental hardship. We need to train our soldiers by exposing them to violence and the threat of pain. If we don't they will fail in combat. We need to instill stamina in them by forcing them to keep marching while cold, wet and hungry while we shout at them at the same time. Because that's the only way to teach a 21st century youth, who is used to central heating, the modern school system and an urban lifestyle how to be a soldier. The 'Playstation Generation' is not particularly suited to Army life. This is a NATO wide problem. I don't think it is something the Afghan National Army suffers from. Third world armies do have some advantages to us.
So, while we need to adapt our training to deal with the material we have to work with, that doesn't mean we ought to become gentler in our approach to our recruits. I do believe we need to make the learning curve less steep, I also believe we need to be tougher near the end. The shock of going from a modern schoolboys' life to an Army recruits' one should be kept small. After that the pressure should become increasingly high. Think of boiling lobsters, you start with cold water...
surely the 1st bit of your army life (shouting and all) prepares you in some way for the battlefield (albeit in a small way), whats next? asking ali talibani to shoot a bit more quietly incase they scare the new soldiers off
This is a complete non starter, as previosly mentioned these schemes and ideas pop up from time to time and they never come to anything. Anyone remember the cards that were meant to be issued to recruits when they felt things were going a bit too far?
Thereâs a balance to be drawn and all the points raised so far have merit but I always considered that we could get more from young soldiers in the cold and wet up a Welsh hill than could be achieved on the square.
Quite what mincing about on the early morning âwarm upâ confusion ever achieved (apart from wrecking my knees) is still beyond me.
Throughout my service I was always suspicious that much of traditional drill was in fact an ego trip for bellowing cursing self-serving inadequates, rather than a military necessity. I wanted soldiers who could think; not automatons.
Letâs be honest enough to recognise that quick obedient reaction can be achieved without wholly depending on quaint wooden soldier parades.