Scarecrow
August 7th, 2003, 03:30 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
Ran Targas
August 7th, 2003, 10:15 AM
Basic exists to:
1) remove your pre-programmed, civilian, post-pubescent knee-jerk responses to authority and orders (do what you're told and do it NOW)
2) instill discipline and trust in your seniors
3) remove your preconceptions of true pain and misery and teach you to overcome the real thing
4) teach you to bond with total strangers in order to survive any ordeal (and find your place in the group)
5) remove your high standards for personal needs and replace them with the necessary; sleep, food of any kind, toilet paper, and clean water
There sure are a lot of lessons you take away from boot camp. If you've never seen the difference between spit-and-polish new grads and the punks that are just reporting in, it is an education in itself.
1) remove your pre-programmed, civilian, post-pubescent knee-jerk responses to authority and orders (do what you're told and do it NOW)
2) instill discipline and trust in your seniors
3) remove your preconceptions of true pain and misery and teach you to overcome the real thing
4) teach you to bond with total strangers in order to survive any ordeal (and find your place in the group)
5) remove your high standards for personal needs and replace them with the necessary; sleep, food of any kind, toilet paper, and clean water
There sure are a lot of lessons you take away from boot camp. If you've never seen the difference between spit-and-polish new grads and the punks that are just reporting in, it is an education in itself.
Antares Administration
August 7th, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
....
How long does it last?
There is a lot of variation. In most western armies, 8-16 weeks.
What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills?
1. Gets you to give up any 'me-first' preconceptions that you may have grown up with.
2. Gets you thinking as part of a team.
3. Develops a lowest common denominator that subsequent more specialized training can build upon.
Sorts of skills? Drill, Physical fitness, Marksmanship, basic unarmed combat, basic maintenance of clothing and equipment, fieldcraft and survival, navigation, etc.
Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Yes, all do it. Pilots, lawyers, cooks, whatever - all receive that basic common denominator training. Officers vs. men? In some countries, you can't become an officer without having spent some time in the ranks first. In others, officers are selected seperately. Their courses are similar, but include more detailed military history and knowledge, leadership and problem solving, etc. From service to service? Depends on the country and the service. In Canada (speaking from first hand experience), all services take the same basic training, with one stream for the Officers, and another for the Men. I originally trained as an Aerospace Engineer, but I did my basic officer training with guys from all specialties, who became submariners, infantry, fighter pilots, intelligence officers, lawyers and supply specialists to name a few.
Hope it helps,
Paul Nemeth
AA
....
How long does it last?
There is a lot of variation. In most western armies, 8-16 weeks.
What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills?
1. Gets you to give up any 'me-first' preconceptions that you may have grown up with.
2. Gets you thinking as part of a team.
3. Develops a lowest common denominator that subsequent more specialized training can build upon.
Sorts of skills? Drill, Physical fitness, Marksmanship, basic unarmed combat, basic maintenance of clothing and equipment, fieldcraft and survival, navigation, etc.
Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Yes, all do it. Pilots, lawyers, cooks, whatever - all receive that basic common denominator training. Officers vs. men? In some countries, you can't become an officer without having spent some time in the ranks first. In others, officers are selected seperately. Their courses are similar, but include more detailed military history and knowledge, leadership and problem solving, etc. From service to service? Depends on the country and the service. In Canada (speaking from first hand experience), all services take the same basic training, with one stream for the Officers, and another for the Men. I originally trained as an Aerospace Engineer, but I did my basic officer training with guys from all specialties, who became submariners, infantry, fighter pilots, intelligence officers, lawyers and supply specialists to name a few.
Hope it helps,
Paul Nemeth
AA
Father Fletch
August 7th, 2003, 01:39 PM
While Ran Targas' response includes most of the major philosophical reasons for Boot Camp/Basic Training/Recruit Indoctrination, it leaves out some of the practical reasons.
A recruit should leave basic training with knowledge of the rank and grade structure of the service he has joined. A recruit will be familiar with the common infantry weapons and basic tactics of his service, even if he joins a maritime or aviation service.
In a space-based military he will also learn basic vacuum emergency procedures.
Many services in modern times also have recruits learn some hand-to-hand combative skills, even if it is only bayonet training.
Some services will inculcate the recruit with the history and traditions of that particular service, i.e. The US Marine Corps, the British Royal Navy, the French Foreign Legion. Etc.
In large empires, Russia, America, England, France and the Third Imperium there are often language barriers that need overcoming. Services will often have basic language classes for minority members of the empires to learn the main/majority language of the service.
Officers will usually go through a similar version of this training, with the demands often being higher for them, since they are supposed to be the best and brightest.
Two books I highly recommend to give a feel for military life in a space-based service are
Space Cadet and Starship Trooper, both by Robert Heinlein. He was a graduate of the US Naval Academy, class of ’37, and served in WW2. While his politics are not for everyone, his writing is top notch, IMHO.
A recruit should leave basic training with knowledge of the rank and grade structure of the service he has joined. A recruit will be familiar with the common infantry weapons and basic tactics of his service, even if he joins a maritime or aviation service.
In a space-based military he will also learn basic vacuum emergency procedures.
Many services in modern times also have recruits learn some hand-to-hand combative skills, even if it is only bayonet training.
Some services will inculcate the recruit with the history and traditions of that particular service, i.e. The US Marine Corps, the British Royal Navy, the French Foreign Legion. Etc.
In large empires, Russia, America, England, France and the Third Imperium there are often language barriers that need overcoming. Services will often have basic language classes for minority members of the empires to learn the main/majority language of the service.
Officers will usually go through a similar version of this training, with the demands often being higher for them, since they are supposed to be the best and brightest.
Two books I highly recommend to give a feel for military life in a space-based service are
Space Cadet and Starship Trooper, both by Robert Heinlein. He was a graduate of the US Naval Academy, class of ’37, and served in WW2. While his politics are not for everyone, his writing is top notch, IMHO.
kaladorn
August 7th, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Father Fletch:
A recruit should leave basic training with knowledge of the rank and grade structure of the service he has joined. A recruit will be familiar with the common infantry weapons and basic tactics of his service, even if he joins a maritime or aviation service.Familiar being the operative word. A CRM-0 wouldn't be out of place. As I recall from our training, we got a few weeks of common training, the the non-infanteers split off. Most of them never handled firearms much after that. For the record, I don't consider most "trained" infantryman to be good shots - that tends to require some prior skill or a good level of individual coaching. Sure, you can put rounds downrange in the appropriate manner and handle IAs (Immediate Action drills), but the ability to hit a target accurately requires a bit more than that.
And needs to be kept in practice.
In a space-based military he will also learn basic vacuum emergency procedures.
Also, power-out zero-G vacc suit drills would be mandatory. I'd think all space services should grant their members vacc-1 and zero-G environment-0 at least from training (arguable high-G for performing when the grav comp is down....). Yes, I know you have compensators and grav plates... but what if the power plant is offline or the plates malfunction or are damaged? You still need to know how to move and not hurt yourself and to be ideally combat effective.
Many services in modern times also have recruits learn some hand-to-hand combative skills, even if it is only bayonet training.Interestingly, I know a member of the US SF community (currently active). He tells me HTH training is very much de-emphasized. There is some, but he says you are mostly encouraged to pursue it yourself if interested. Quite simply, a pistol with a silencer (or an SMG or AR) is so much better that HTH isn't such an issue - when the same guys also have to learn great amounts of survival, land nav, recce, languages, fwd obs, weapons, comms, mech, etc.
Yes, you'd probably get a Hand Combat skill (possibly Brawling or Small Blade). Bayonets don't exist (or are a joke) on most bullpup weapons.
Some services will inculcate the recruit with the history and traditions of that particular service, i.e. The US Marine Corps, the British Royal Navy, the French Foreign Legion. Etc.
And any unit that is training its own members will try to work in some 'unit espirit' into the training.
In large empires, Russia, America, England, France and the Third Imperium there are often language barriers that need overcoming. Services will often have basic language classes for minority members of the empires to learn the main/majority language of the service.
Excellent point.
Officers will usually go through a similar version of this training, with the demands often being higher for them, since they are supposed to be the best and brightest.In some respects. They are expected to be combat leaders, so they are expected to perform some tasks to a very high standard, many of them leadership and care-of-troops related. OTOH, I've seen some of their standards in some other particulars and wasn't always as impressed. I think on the whole the results are about the same, just with a wee bit different emphasis. At least in countries where the normal army training for enlister persons has a high standard.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Let me add a few things:
Most training has as a purpose to break the person of thinking like an individual and thinking as part of a team. This goes counter to instinct so you have to be 'broken down' (tired out, mentally exhausted and open to anything that will make the situation better, shown you can't win as individuals) and then 'built up' (shown that as a team you can accomplish the previously undoable, given to know that each member has skills and is improving). You become dependent on your buddies and they on you and this develops a sense of responsibility that keeps people going in tough situations where they might give up if only their own selves were in peril, but they'll fight on or march on or whatever if others are depending on them.
Let me also add that instruction can be done without abuse. I met a crusty WO1 who could make you feel pretty low and inept without ever saying a cuss word or raising his voice. But he did get you to improve, as being subject to his disappointment and his accurate analysis of your failings was not pleasant.
Basic teaches you how to be 'minimally militarily competent'. Beyond that, you need to add phases of basic and advanced trade training (being an infanteer, for instance, is far more than knowing which end of a rifle bullets come out of - add in recce, fwd obs, commo, mech, hvy wpns, etc). Officers have to add all sorts of 'leadership stands' and other testing related to the care and maintenance of men and also a lot of legalistic stuff to do with what their responsibilities are under international conventions and various civil laws. But that's all beyond the scope of basic.
Basic is about turning the 'me' into 'us'. It's about making you capable of recieving and benefiting from the higher levels of instruction in your trade. It is about teaching you about limits and how artificial they are and how you can go beyond them with the right motivation. And it is about getting you in shape - let's not forget that - many a sedentary youngun has been turned into a lean, mean, fighting Muh-rine!
A recruit should leave basic training with knowledge of the rank and grade structure of the service he has joined. A recruit will be familiar with the common infantry weapons and basic tactics of his service, even if he joins a maritime or aviation service.Familiar being the operative word. A CRM-0 wouldn't be out of place. As I recall from our training, we got a few weeks of common training, the the non-infanteers split off. Most of them never handled firearms much after that. For the record, I don't consider most "trained" infantryman to be good shots - that tends to require some prior skill or a good level of individual coaching. Sure, you can put rounds downrange in the appropriate manner and handle IAs (Immediate Action drills), but the ability to hit a target accurately requires a bit more than that.
And needs to be kept in practice.
In a space-based military he will also learn basic vacuum emergency procedures.
Also, power-out zero-G vacc suit drills would be mandatory. I'd think all space services should grant their members vacc-1 and zero-G environment-0 at least from training (arguable high-G for performing when the grav comp is down....). Yes, I know you have compensators and grav plates... but what if the power plant is offline or the plates malfunction or are damaged? You still need to know how to move and not hurt yourself and to be ideally combat effective.
Many services in modern times also have recruits learn some hand-to-hand combative skills, even if it is only bayonet training.Interestingly, I know a member of the US SF community (currently active). He tells me HTH training is very much de-emphasized. There is some, but he says you are mostly encouraged to pursue it yourself if interested. Quite simply, a pistol with a silencer (or an SMG or AR) is so much better that HTH isn't such an issue - when the same guys also have to learn great amounts of survival, land nav, recce, languages, fwd obs, weapons, comms, mech, etc.
Yes, you'd probably get a Hand Combat skill (possibly Brawling or Small Blade). Bayonets don't exist (or are a joke) on most bullpup weapons.
Some services will inculcate the recruit with the history and traditions of that particular service, i.e. The US Marine Corps, the British Royal Navy, the French Foreign Legion. Etc.
And any unit that is training its own members will try to work in some 'unit espirit' into the training.
In large empires, Russia, America, England, France and the Third Imperium there are often language barriers that need overcoming. Services will often have basic language classes for minority members of the empires to learn the main/majority language of the service.
Excellent point.
Officers will usually go through a similar version of this training, with the demands often being higher for them, since they are supposed to be the best and brightest.In some respects. They are expected to be combat leaders, so they are expected to perform some tasks to a very high standard, many of them leadership and care-of-troops related. OTOH, I've seen some of their standards in some other particulars and wasn't always as impressed. I think on the whole the results are about the same, just with a wee bit different emphasis. At least in countries where the normal army training for enlister persons has a high standard.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Let me add a few things:
Most training has as a purpose to break the person of thinking like an individual and thinking as part of a team. This goes counter to instinct so you have to be 'broken down' (tired out, mentally exhausted and open to anything that will make the situation better, shown you can't win as individuals) and then 'built up' (shown that as a team you can accomplish the previously undoable, given to know that each member has skills and is improving). You become dependent on your buddies and they on you and this develops a sense of responsibility that keeps people going in tough situations where they might give up if only their own selves were in peril, but they'll fight on or march on or whatever if others are depending on them.
Let me also add that instruction can be done without abuse. I met a crusty WO1 who could make you feel pretty low and inept without ever saying a cuss word or raising his voice. But he did get you to improve, as being subject to his disappointment and his accurate analysis of your failings was not pleasant.
Basic teaches you how to be 'minimally militarily competent'. Beyond that, you need to add phases of basic and advanced trade training (being an infanteer, for instance, is far more than knowing which end of a rifle bullets come out of - add in recce, fwd obs, commo, mech, hvy wpns, etc). Officers have to add all sorts of 'leadership stands' and other testing related to the care and maintenance of men and also a lot of legalistic stuff to do with what their responsibilities are under international conventions and various civil laws. But that's all beyond the scope of basic.
Basic is about turning the 'me' into 'us'. It's about making you capable of recieving and benefiting from the higher levels of instruction in your trade. It is about teaching you about limits and how artificial they are and how you can go beyond them with the right motivation. And it is about getting you in shape - let's not forget that - many a sedentary youngun has been turned into a lean, mean, fighting Muh-rine!
far-trader
August 7th, 2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Also, power-out zero-G vacc suit drills would be mandatory. I'd think all space services should grant their members vacc-1 and zero-G environment-0 at least from training (arguable high-G for performing when the grav comp is down....). Yes, I know you have compensators and grav plates... but what if the power plant is offline or the plates malfunction or are damaged? You still need to know how to move and not hurt yourself and to be ideally combat effective.
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear. We are talking BASIC not special forces training. I doubt the Imperial Navy even provides Vac-Suits for every crewman aboard, unless the depressurize the whole ship before combat is something you use IYTU. Just my opinion of course smile.gif
Also, power-out zero-G vacc suit drills would be mandatory. I'd think all space services should grant their members vacc-1 and zero-G environment-0 at least from training (arguable high-G for performing when the grav comp is down....). Yes, I know you have compensators and grav plates... but what if the power plant is offline or the plates malfunction or are damaged? You still need to know how to move and not hurt yourself and to be ideally combat effective.
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear. We are talking BASIC not special forces training. I doubt the Imperial Navy even provides Vac-Suits for every crewman aboard, unless the depressurize the whole ship before combat is something you use IYTU. Just my opinion of course smile.gif
Zutroi
August 7th, 2003, 08:25 PM
No personal experience, but a good friend of mine served inthe USArmy Cavalry. He summed up basic in one word:
Prioritize.
He was always given too many things to do, and not enough time to do them, thought the whole thing was total BS, and then found himself in Kuwait - trying to do too many things in not enough time!
The daughter of some of my friends just graduated USAFA, and is currently learning to strap a Texan II to her shapely posterior prior to doing the same thing with an F15 or F16. As an officer-in-training she had the advantage of eventually learning exactly what was being done to her, so she could do the same to the next batch of cadets.
Cadets are inundated with huge quantities of stupid/useless/trivial information that must be assimilated, memorized, and prepared for immediate recall at any time. She said the object was to get into the habit of 'detail-oriented' thinking.
redface.gif appologies for any errror or omisions, I'm currently enjoying a VERY LARGE, well deserved Rum-and-Coke, and am in no condition to properly proofread my posts... graemlins/file_21.gif
Prioritize.
He was always given too many things to do, and not enough time to do them, thought the whole thing was total BS, and then found himself in Kuwait - trying to do too many things in not enough time!
The daughter of some of my friends just graduated USAFA, and is currently learning to strap a Texan II to her shapely posterior prior to doing the same thing with an F15 or F16. As an officer-in-training she had the advantage of eventually learning exactly what was being done to her, so she could do the same to the next batch of cadets.
Cadets are inundated with huge quantities of stupid/useless/trivial information that must be assimilated, memorized, and prepared for immediate recall at any time. She said the object was to get into the habit of 'detail-oriented' thinking.
redface.gif appologies for any errror or omisions, I'm currently enjoying a VERY LARGE, well deserved Rum-and-Coke, and am in no condition to properly proofread my posts... graemlins/file_21.gif
kaladorn
August 7th, 2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear.[/QB]1. Not swimming can kill me in some circumstances, but I may be able to grab a boat. Not breathing is a different story.
2. I'm not sure your native land, but here *all* of our military personel (army, navy, etc) have to pass a swim test. So if you want to pass basic, you'd better learn to swim.
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear.[/QB]1. Not swimming can kill me in some circumstances, but I may be able to grab a boat. Not breathing is a different story.
2. I'm not sure your native land, but here *all* of our military personel (army, navy, etc) have to pass a swim test. So if you want to pass basic, you'd better learn to swim.
far-trader
August 7th, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear.1. Not swimming can kill me in some circumstances, but I may be able to grab a boat. Not breathing is a different story.
2. I'm not sure your native land, but here *all* of our military personel (army, navy, etc) have to pass a swim test. So if you want to pass basic, you'd better learn to swim. </font>[/QUOTE]1. That's a point, but grabbing a boat (IMTU) would equate to jumping in a boat (space craft type) or survival bubble (life vest equivalent).
2. smile.gif Same as yours as it happens eh, and I did know we do but I wasn't too sure about the rest of the world. I am certain (well, pretty sure) that historically anyway it wasn't a requirement (even I think as recently as WWII but I might be mistaken) Actually I thought that was just for sea duty but wouldn't preclude you from shore duty but I could very well have that wrong. Also you don't mention if they actually teach you to swim in basic or if its just an expected requirement. Not picking an argument, just curious and it pertains to the question. Also I'm not sure what the level of ability is they require to pass, would a single lap dogpaddling all the way do? Again just curious, if you have the information at hand.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I think I have to disagree here. That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swim, or every submariner in the use of deep dive suits and/or scuba gear.1. Not swimming can kill me in some circumstances, but I may be able to grab a boat. Not breathing is a different story.
2. I'm not sure your native land, but here *all* of our military personel (army, navy, etc) have to pass a swim test. So if you want to pass basic, you'd better learn to swim. </font>[/QUOTE]1. That's a point, but grabbing a boat (IMTU) would equate to jumping in a boat (space craft type) or survival bubble (life vest equivalent).
2. smile.gif Same as yours as it happens eh, and I did know we do but I wasn't too sure about the rest of the world. I am certain (well, pretty sure) that historically anyway it wasn't a requirement (even I think as recently as WWII but I might be mistaken) Actually I thought that was just for sea duty but wouldn't preclude you from shore duty but I could very well have that wrong. Also you don't mention if they actually teach you to swim in basic or if its just an expected requirement. Not picking an argument, just curious and it pertains to the question. Also I'm not sure what the level of ability is they require to pass, would a single lap dogpaddling all the way do? Again just curious, if you have the information at hand.
Dynamo
August 7th, 2003, 11:19 PM
Well US Coast Guard Boot Camp is 8 weeks long, (although it used to be longer). You learn how to be a soldier, close order drill, how to make your bed, shower fast and iron everything you own. They also show you how to roll your undies into a little package just about the size of a soda can (thats a t-shirt, socks and a pair of boxers).
That takes about a week or so to get down, while they teach you how to march, customs and courtesies and the basic ins and outs of Military life. Cap that off with a pretty intensive physical fitness program and lots of class time spent learning about Seamanship (everything from the correct way to paint to knotwork and survival techniques) Firefighting, Small arms instruction, Vessel identification, watchstanding and 20 or thirty other types of classes and you'll find out that there is no limit to what you can pack information into empty heads. Its graduated and gets more and more complicated as you go on. Each lesson builds on the previous one. Basic really gets you in shape for the fleet, but 99% of what you learn happens at your first unit.
That takes about a week or so to get down, while they teach you how to march, customs and courtesies and the basic ins and outs of Military life. Cap that off with a pretty intensive physical fitness program and lots of class time spent learning about Seamanship (everything from the correct way to paint to knotwork and survival techniques) Firefighting, Small arms instruction, Vessel identification, watchstanding and 20 or thirty other types of classes and you'll find out that there is no limit to what you can pack information into empty heads. Its graduated and gets more and more complicated as you go on. Each lesson builds on the previous one. Basic really gets you in shape for the fleet, but 99% of what you learn happens at your first unit.
Eric
August 8th, 2003, 12:48 AM
If you want a good resource I`d suggests that you read Star Ship Troopers. At least half that book was about training. It`s tough stuff. Out of the 2000 recruits about 180 graduated :eek: and I think 13 of the failures were deaths. One of my favorites was the surprise survival training. They were basically abducted from the barrack, dumped in the woods naked and told that they were expected back in a week.
phydaux
August 8th, 2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swimWell, we do. Or, at least when I was in USN boot camp, we got "drown proofed."
It went like this:
One day we were marched to the base swimming pool. We were sent, one by one, up the ladder of a high dive board. We were then told to jump off. If anyone hesitated, they were pushed off. once we hit the water, we were told to tread water in place for 30 seconds. After treading water, we were told to swim to the center of the pool. Then we were told to swim, underwater this time, back to the edge and climb out.
There were life guards, both around the pool and in the water. If anyone sunk they were dragged out of the water and sent back the next day. you had three tries to "get it" and if you didn't, they told you "Sucks to be you if your ship sinks" and sent out to the fleet.
Basic is just that - basic. It's more indoctrination than any useful training. I got to spend one hour with a .45 pistol in Basic, then I never touched a pistol again the whole time I was in. If anyone WAS expected to carry/maybe shoot/ a gun, they got several days "real" training long after basic was over, as well as regular refreshers.
That's a little like saying the Terran wet Navy should be training every sailor to swimWell, we do. Or, at least when I was in USN boot camp, we got "drown proofed."
It went like this:
One day we were marched to the base swimming pool. We were sent, one by one, up the ladder of a high dive board. We were then told to jump off. If anyone hesitated, they were pushed off. once we hit the water, we were told to tread water in place for 30 seconds. After treading water, we were told to swim to the center of the pool. Then we were told to swim, underwater this time, back to the edge and climb out.
There were life guards, both around the pool and in the water. If anyone sunk they were dragged out of the water and sent back the next day. you had three tries to "get it" and if you didn't, they told you "Sucks to be you if your ship sinks" and sent out to the fleet.
Basic is just that - basic. It's more indoctrination than any useful training. I got to spend one hour with a .45 pistol in Basic, then I never touched a pistol again the whole time I was in. If anyone WAS expected to carry/maybe shoot/ a gun, they got several days "real" training long after basic was over, as well as regular refreshers.
phydaux
August 8th, 2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Zanrain:
Out of the 2000 recruits about 180 graduated :eek: and I think 13 of the failures were deathsPlus, it's good to keep in mind that is a fictional account of training on becoming Super Soldiers.
Sure, the washout rate at SEaL School is about 70%, but that's well AFTER both Basic AND regular job training.
Out of the 2000 recruits about 180 graduated :eek: and I think 13 of the failures were deathsPlus, it's good to keep in mind that is a fictional account of training on becoming Super Soldiers.
Sure, the washout rate at SEaL School is about 70%, but that's well AFTER both Basic AND regular job training.
Ran Targas
August 8th, 2003, 08:00 AM
^ I apologize to FF and Scarecrow for waxing philosophic and not getting down to the brass tacks ...
First, usmilitary.about.com (http://www.usmilitary.about.com) is an awesome civilian resource for details on basic and follow-on training
- Combat arms (USA/USMC) officers and enlisted normally attend the same or similar basic training with greater emphasis on leadership and tactical prowess for the officers. The Marines believe every Marine is a combatant and all Marines receive the same basic infantry training. In the case of SEALS, they attend training as a group with the officers assuming leadership responsibilities for his team.
- USN and USCG basic concentrates less on combat related training and more on team building, discipline, and shipboard skills (swimming!, firefighting, communications, seamanship, terminology, etc.). There is some attention given to weapon orientation, as ships have security forces, but markmanship is not the Navy's strong point.
- USAF basic training involves lots of volleyball, first aid for paper cuts, properly adjusting the lumbar support on your chair, how to best take advantage of AMC flights, and how to wear those really cool ascots! graemlins/file_23.gif
Seriously, the above website should answer a lot of your questions.
First, usmilitary.about.com (http://www.usmilitary.about.com) is an awesome civilian resource for details on basic and follow-on training
- Combat arms (USA/USMC) officers and enlisted normally attend the same or similar basic training with greater emphasis on leadership and tactical prowess for the officers. The Marines believe every Marine is a combatant and all Marines receive the same basic infantry training. In the case of SEALS, they attend training as a group with the officers assuming leadership responsibilities for his team.
- USN and USCG basic concentrates less on combat related training and more on team building, discipline, and shipboard skills (swimming!, firefighting, communications, seamanship, terminology, etc.). There is some attention given to weapon orientation, as ships have security forces, but markmanship is not the Navy's strong point.
- USAF basic training involves lots of volleyball, first aid for paper cuts, properly adjusting the lumbar support on your chair, how to best take advantage of AMC flights, and how to wear those really cool ascots! graemlins/file_23.gif
Seriously, the above website should answer a lot of your questions.
kaladorn
August 8th, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Dynamo:
spent learning about Seamanship (everything from the correct way to paint to knotwork and survival techniques) I was just writing up a Merchant and a Nautical Force character respectively recently and realized what a great skill (from my own mariner moments) that rope-use was. I realized it probably falls under Artisan or maybe is a new skill under MegaTraveller, though one might argue for it under the Environment cascade also.
spent learning about Seamanship (everything from the correct way to paint to knotwork and survival techniques) I was just writing up a Merchant and a Nautical Force character respectively recently and realized what a great skill (from my own mariner moments) that rope-use was. I realized it probably falls under Artisan or maybe is a new skill under MegaTraveller, though one might argue for it under the Environment cascade also.
kaladorn
August 8th, 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
2. smile.gif Same as yours as it happens eh, and I did know we do but I wasn't too sure about the rest of the world. I am certain (well, pretty sure) that historically anyway it wasn't a requirement (even I think as recently as WWII but I might be mistaken) Actually I thought that was just for sea duty but wouldn't preclude you from shore duty but I could very well have that wrong. Also you don't mention if they actually teach you to swim in basic or if its just an expected requirement. Not picking an argument, just curious and it pertains to the question. Also I'm not sure what the level of ability is they require to pass, would a single lap dogpaddling all the way do? Again just curious, if you have the information at hand. [/QB]Well, I don't recall if there was instruction or it was just an expectation. But even in the infantry I had to pass a swim test. I think they gave you plenty of warning and suggested you learn to swim or at least dogpaddle enough to stay afloa t for the mandatory time. Now, my SCUBA course had a much more stringent (and even it wasn't too bad) swim test involving staying afloat for two minutes and swimming 10 lengths of the pool. SEAL training is insane... they do hundreds or thousands of flutter kicks daily IIRC. Those boys have legs like ironwood.
As one of the other fellows pointed out... basic is sometimes 'basic'. I don't know if they ever washed anyone from the infantry for failing the swim test, but you did want not to fail it since you'd have to take it again.
So Swimming-0 might be appropriate if nothing else. Which is why I argue for zero-G env-0 for any space trade.
PS - In the navy or CG, unless I'm a diver or small boat guy, I'm not going swimming unless the ship sinks (or I choose to or have to do a rescue). OTOH, if the engineer shuts down the AG plating, I'm in zero-G. If the engineer turns off the diesel on a modern DD, I don't suddenly have to swim....
2. smile.gif Same as yours as it happens eh, and I did know we do but I wasn't too sure about the rest of the world. I am certain (well, pretty sure) that historically anyway it wasn't a requirement (even I think as recently as WWII but I might be mistaken) Actually I thought that was just for sea duty but wouldn't preclude you from shore duty but I could very well have that wrong. Also you don't mention if they actually teach you to swim in basic or if its just an expected requirement. Not picking an argument, just curious and it pertains to the question. Also I'm not sure what the level of ability is they require to pass, would a single lap dogpaddling all the way do? Again just curious, if you have the information at hand. [/QB]Well, I don't recall if there was instruction or it was just an expectation. But even in the infantry I had to pass a swim test. I think they gave you plenty of warning and suggested you learn to swim or at least dogpaddle enough to stay afloa t for the mandatory time. Now, my SCUBA course had a much more stringent (and even it wasn't too bad) swim test involving staying afloat for two minutes and swimming 10 lengths of the pool. SEAL training is insane... they do hundreds or thousands of flutter kicks daily IIRC. Those boys have legs like ironwood.
As one of the other fellows pointed out... basic is sometimes 'basic'. I don't know if they ever washed anyone from the infantry for failing the swim test, but you did want not to fail it since you'd have to take it again.
So Swimming-0 might be appropriate if nothing else. Which is why I argue for zero-G env-0 for any space trade.
PS - In the navy or CG, unless I'm a diver or small boat guy, I'm not going swimming unless the ship sinks (or I choose to or have to do a rescue). OTOH, if the engineer shuts down the AG plating, I'm in zero-G. If the engineer turns off the diesel on a modern DD, I don't suddenly have to swim....
BMonnery
August 8th, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow The average British squaddie does the 24 week long Combat Infantry Course (Singular) at Catterick, which is shorter than the old split into 2 phases at different locations (with greater retention). Those joining the Marines are lucky if they finish their course in 30 weeks (it frequently drags on further). To reach Corporal a British squaddie need to attend the 15 week long Junior Tactics Company at Brecon, which is about as tough as Ranger School ( http://www.atra.mod.uk/atra/INFBATTSCH/itcwales/Structure/Junior_Division/index.htm )
American Marines have a 13 week basic training course (about the length of the British Phase 1 Training Course), those not going to Marine Infantry attend a 17 day *basic* infantry course, while the infantry training battalions run 52 day courses for the infantry.
The US Army have a 9 week Basic Course ( http://www.jackson.army.mil/BCT/overview.htm). Fort Benning run a 13-14 week Infantry Course, but from my reading of the course content this is also a singular course. (http://www-benning.army.mil/itb/ )
So, in the West 14-24 weeks for the normal Combat Infantryman.
In all three cases a common basic training phase existed until recently, the British dropping it for infantry for good reasons (and I assume the same for the US Army).
Bryn
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow The average British squaddie does the 24 week long Combat Infantry Course (Singular) at Catterick, which is shorter than the old split into 2 phases at different locations (with greater retention). Those joining the Marines are lucky if they finish their course in 30 weeks (it frequently drags on further). To reach Corporal a British squaddie need to attend the 15 week long Junior Tactics Company at Brecon, which is about as tough as Ranger School ( http://www.atra.mod.uk/atra/INFBATTSCH/itcwales/Structure/Junior_Division/index.htm )
American Marines have a 13 week basic training course (about the length of the British Phase 1 Training Course), those not going to Marine Infantry attend a 17 day *basic* infantry course, while the infantry training battalions run 52 day courses for the infantry.
The US Army have a 9 week Basic Course ( http://www.jackson.army.mil/BCT/overview.htm). Fort Benning run a 13-14 week Infantry Course, but from my reading of the course content this is also a singular course. (http://www-benning.army.mil/itb/ )
So, in the West 14-24 weeks for the normal Combat Infantryman.
In all three cases a common basic training phase existed until recently, the British dropping it for infantry for good reasons (and I assume the same for the US Army).
Bryn
BluWolf
August 9th, 2003, 12:36 AM
I would agree with everything said here but cannot over estimate the degree of esprit De Corps that was emphasized at (US) Marine boot camp.
It was hard as hell but also an absolute blast!!
One thing I would like to add to the "flavor" or should I say approach in just about any basic trainging course. While they are obvioulsy all physically and mentally challenging they are NOT intellectually challenging.
Do to the wide vaiety of backgrounds most armed forces deal with just about any basic training course will be geared to a third-sixth grade reading level (US implied here).
When I went on to some of my advanced training I found the most difficult thing was staying awake in any class room setting.
It was hard as hell but also an absolute blast!!
One thing I would like to add to the "flavor" or should I say approach in just about any basic trainging course. While they are obvioulsy all physically and mentally challenging they are NOT intellectually challenging.
Do to the wide vaiety of backgrounds most armed forces deal with just about any basic training course will be geared to a third-sixth grade reading level (US implied here).
When I went on to some of my advanced training I found the most difficult thing was staying awake in any class room setting.
kaladorn
August 9th, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by BluWolf:
One thing I would like to add to the "flavor" or should I say approach in just about any basic trainging course. While they are obvioulsy all physically and mentally challenging they are NOT intellectually challenging.
Without trying, I posted very high scores on all the basics (rank struct, military law, etc). I scored high enough on my entry tests, the sergeant reviewing them said 'so, you're going officer?' I said 'eh?'. He said people with these kind of entry scores usually do. I of course declined. I figured even if I wanted an O rank eventually, I wanted some time-in in E ranks first. I still remember one part of the entry tests... a 75 question test with 22 mins to complete. They said not to worry about finishing. I was done in 16 mins and scored 72 (I didn't answer one about cyphers and I actually got two wrong). But a lot of folks apparently didn't even finish it.
Do to the wide vaiety of backgrounds most armed forces deal with just about any basic training course will be geared to a third-sixth grade reading level (US implied here).
When I went on to some of my advanced training I found the most difficult thing was staying awake in any class room setting.CF (when I joined) had requirement of a grade 12 education. Having trouble getting people, they dropped to grade 10 (for infantry anyway). But we all know how good a job of the 3Rs modern schools do, so we can imagine why they 'aim low'.
And I also have to concur about the doze-o-rama. The classrooms I was in were usually hot, had poor air circulation, had people who were good at things but poor at instruction (or should I say at least uninspiring rather than 'poor'?). And you usually had done some physical stuff too... so you tended to zone out and take open-eyes naps... kind of like Engineering School.... ;)
One thing I would like to add to the "flavor" or should I say approach in just about any basic trainging course. While they are obvioulsy all physically and mentally challenging they are NOT intellectually challenging.
Without trying, I posted very high scores on all the basics (rank struct, military law, etc). I scored high enough on my entry tests, the sergeant reviewing them said 'so, you're going officer?' I said 'eh?'. He said people with these kind of entry scores usually do. I of course declined. I figured even if I wanted an O rank eventually, I wanted some time-in in E ranks first. I still remember one part of the entry tests... a 75 question test with 22 mins to complete. They said not to worry about finishing. I was done in 16 mins and scored 72 (I didn't answer one about cyphers and I actually got two wrong). But a lot of folks apparently didn't even finish it.
Do to the wide vaiety of backgrounds most armed forces deal with just about any basic training course will be geared to a third-sixth grade reading level (US implied here).
When I went on to some of my advanced training I found the most difficult thing was staying awake in any class room setting.CF (when I joined) had requirement of a grade 12 education. Having trouble getting people, they dropped to grade 10 (for infantry anyway). But we all know how good a job of the 3Rs modern schools do, so we can imagine why they 'aim low'.
And I also have to concur about the doze-o-rama. The classrooms I was in were usually hot, had poor air circulation, had people who were good at things but poor at instruction (or should I say at least uninspiring rather than 'poor'?). And you usually had done some physical stuff too... so you tended to zone out and take open-eyes naps... kind of like Engineering School.... ;)
Shadow Bear
August 9th, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
Shadow Bear
August 9th, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow I went through two basic training camps, one for the USCG and one for the USAF. At the time they were both 16 weeks long. They both featured physical training, disipline, testing markmaship and military courtesy and law.
The USAF trained us with the M-16 only while the USCG trained us to use the M-16 and the .45 semi-automatic pistol. Usaf gave us very basic fire fighting (what type of extinguisher to use on what type of fire) the USCG trained more extensively including actually using the equipment to fire an oil fire in a inside a steel structure (simulating a fire inside the vessel's engine room). Knot tieing and line handling were also given in the USCG. The USCG required swimming and jumping from a high diving platform to simulate jumping off the side of a vessel. USAF stressed testing and classification for advanced training and job placement.
Both services as mentioned above gave you too little time and too much to do, taught team work, how to wear and care for the uniform, how to recognise ranks and other services, the Uniform Code of Militray Justice, 10 basic orders, drilling, and a complete rebuilding of your self image.
Being enlisted I cannot speak to what the officers were taught. Keep in mind most officers go through an academy (West Point, Anapolis or the Air Force Academy) but during war time there was something called a 90 day wonder program that produced officers quite quickly.
The next step after basic would be a class A school, 16 weeks of intensive training in your specialty. 4 months of basic and 4 months of advanced training, a few weeks leave in between and tranist times between bases, waiting for a new class to start and you could easily wrap up a year before arriving at your first duty assignment.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow I went through two basic training camps, one for the USCG and one for the USAF. At the time they were both 16 weeks long. They both featured physical training, disipline, testing markmaship and military courtesy and law.
The USAF trained us with the M-16 only while the USCG trained us to use the M-16 and the .45 semi-automatic pistol. Usaf gave us very basic fire fighting (what type of extinguisher to use on what type of fire) the USCG trained more extensively including actually using the equipment to fire an oil fire in a inside a steel structure (simulating a fire inside the vessel's engine room). Knot tieing and line handling were also given in the USCG. The USCG required swimming and jumping from a high diving platform to simulate jumping off the side of a vessel. USAF stressed testing and classification for advanced training and job placement.
Both services as mentioned above gave you too little time and too much to do, taught team work, how to wear and care for the uniform, how to recognise ranks and other services, the Uniform Code of Militray Justice, 10 basic orders, drilling, and a complete rebuilding of your self image.
Being enlisted I cannot speak to what the officers were taught. Keep in mind most officers go through an academy (West Point, Anapolis or the Air Force Academy) but during war time there was something called a 90 day wonder program that produced officers quite quickly.
The next step after basic would be a class A school, 16 weeks of intensive training in your specialty. 4 months of basic and 4 months of advanced training, a few weeks leave in between and tranist times between bases, waiting for a new class to start and you could easily wrap up a year before arriving at your first duty assignment.
Kensai
August 10th, 2003, 08:17 AM
The armed forces you've all been mentioning are all professional forces belonging to first-world nations; here's a bit from someone who's been a conscript in a developing/near-developed nation.
First of all, let me note that conscript forces are not necessarily inferior to professionals - witness the armed forces of Israel, and of course both the US and UK used conscript forces in WWII to good effect.
In Singapore, all medically fit males are enlisted into the armed forces for National Service at age 17, with educational deferment common. Most enter when they're 18-19. They serve for 24 months, with an additional 6 months tacked on if corporal rank or higher is achieved during service. They are then liable to 13 years' reserve training with their unit, and then discharge to a reserve division until age 40 (55 for ossifers).
Even before enlistment, while youngsters are still in school they take a fitness test every year. Those who fail this test - which involves situps, shuttle run, chin-ups, broad jump and a 2.4 km (1.5 mile) run - undergo a two-month Pre-Enlistment Program which is dedicated to physical fitness. Then they join the rest of their cohort (who therefore do two months' less NS) for a 12-week Basic Military Training program.
BMT focuses on physical conditioning (including route marches of up to 24 km [15 miles], obstacle course runs and yes, swimming), basic fieldcraft, weapons training - which incorporates a Trainfire tactical marksmanship program - drill and discipline, teamwork, first aid, and ethics and responsibility. Yes, we *are* taught the rules of the Geneva convention!
After BMT infantry go on to Advanced Continuation Training (8 weeks), then a trade school/specialization (8 weeks); officer cadets go to OCS for 32 weeks.
I personally was an infantry-battalion signaller and BMT was a good foundational experience; although it's true that most of the knowledge and skills of infantry warfare were gained later, they were built upon that strong foundation, sort of the way you need to be able to read and add before you can do advanced calculus....
First of all, let me note that conscript forces are not necessarily inferior to professionals - witness the armed forces of Israel, and of course both the US and UK used conscript forces in WWII to good effect.
In Singapore, all medically fit males are enlisted into the armed forces for National Service at age 17, with educational deferment common. Most enter when they're 18-19. They serve for 24 months, with an additional 6 months tacked on if corporal rank or higher is achieved during service. They are then liable to 13 years' reserve training with their unit, and then discharge to a reserve division until age 40 (55 for ossifers).
Even before enlistment, while youngsters are still in school they take a fitness test every year. Those who fail this test - which involves situps, shuttle run, chin-ups, broad jump and a 2.4 km (1.5 mile) run - undergo a two-month Pre-Enlistment Program which is dedicated to physical fitness. Then they join the rest of their cohort (who therefore do two months' less NS) for a 12-week Basic Military Training program.
BMT focuses on physical conditioning (including route marches of up to 24 km [15 miles], obstacle course runs and yes, swimming), basic fieldcraft, weapons training - which incorporates a Trainfire tactical marksmanship program - drill and discipline, teamwork, first aid, and ethics and responsibility. Yes, we *are* taught the rules of the Geneva convention!
After BMT infantry go on to Advanced Continuation Training (8 weeks), then a trade school/specialization (8 weeks); officer cadets go to OCS for 32 weeks.
I personally was an infantry-battalion signaller and BMT was a good foundational experience; although it's true that most of the knowledge and skills of infantry warfare were gained later, they were built upon that strong foundation, sort of the way you need to be able to read and add before you can do advanced calculus....
PapaGolfWhiskey
August 10th, 2003, 08:50 AM
As an historian cousin of mine has it The singapore/Swiss/Israeli model isn't that much different from the model Sam Hughs had for Canada.
Every able bodied person concripted young and then kept in training via militia service until needed.
We didn't follow it but...
The Solomani Confederation Does have a 'homeguard'
Every able bodied person concripted young and then kept in training via militia service until needed.
We didn't follow it but...
The Solomani Confederation Does have a 'homeguard'
Kensai
August 11th, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Garf:
As an historian cousin of mine has it The singapore/Swiss/Israeli model isn't that much different from the model Sam Hughs had for Canada.
Every able bodied person concripted young and then kept in training via militia service until needed.
We didn't follow it but...
The Solomani Confederation Does have a 'homeguard' Indeed - note that the nations that actually follow this practice are small in both land area and population as compared to their neighbours, hence the need for a high MPR (Military Participation Ratio).
Switzerland requires it because it's surrounded by large and traditionally belligerent neighbours and it wants to hang on to its neutrality; Israel is in a more or less constant state of war for its survival.
Singapore's strategic situation is similar to Israel's with less unfriendly neighbours; we have fought the Indonesians (the Confrontation) in a low-level conflict involving mainly attempts at terrorist attacks by Indonesian commando units. Fortunately President Sukarno died....
Another correspondence is a high emphasis on individual manpower quality and the use of high-tech force multipliers, which is essential to a citizen army if you want to have a society left after the war. Simply put, we can't afford to take many losses - the nation would collapse.
Historically this system was inaugurated by the Prussians in their army reforms after Jena-Auerstadt. Napoleon didn't allow them a large standing army so they had to train large numbers of men while not keeping them under arms for long enlistments. The fruits of this project were seen in the Waterloo campaign, which was ultimately won by the combination of British professionals and Prussian conscripts. The militarization of Prussia also led to the 1861 and 1870 wars, and thence to the Naval Race of the late 19th century, and was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of the Great War, and thence WWII.
Which just goes to prove that many times the 'only way out' isn't a very good way at all in the end....
As an historian cousin of mine has it The singapore/Swiss/Israeli model isn't that much different from the model Sam Hughs had for Canada.
Every able bodied person concripted young and then kept in training via militia service until needed.
We didn't follow it but...
The Solomani Confederation Does have a 'homeguard' Indeed - note that the nations that actually follow this practice are small in both land area and population as compared to their neighbours, hence the need for a high MPR (Military Participation Ratio).
Switzerland requires it because it's surrounded by large and traditionally belligerent neighbours and it wants to hang on to its neutrality; Israel is in a more or less constant state of war for its survival.
Singapore's strategic situation is similar to Israel's with less unfriendly neighbours; we have fought the Indonesians (the Confrontation) in a low-level conflict involving mainly attempts at terrorist attacks by Indonesian commando units. Fortunately President Sukarno died....
Another correspondence is a high emphasis on individual manpower quality and the use of high-tech force multipliers, which is essential to a citizen army if you want to have a society left after the war. Simply put, we can't afford to take many losses - the nation would collapse.
Historically this system was inaugurated by the Prussians in their army reforms after Jena-Auerstadt. Napoleon didn't allow them a large standing army so they had to train large numbers of men while not keeping them under arms for long enlistments. The fruits of this project were seen in the Waterloo campaign, which was ultimately won by the combination of British professionals and Prussian conscripts. The militarization of Prussia also led to the 1861 and 1870 wars, and thence to the Naval Race of the late 19th century, and was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of the Great War, and thence WWII.
Which just goes to prove that many times the 'only way out' isn't a very good way at all in the end....
PapaGolfWhiskey
August 11th, 2003, 12:32 PM
Hmmm that's very interesting. Although I can see your chain of reasoning I don't buy the implied (and I'm certain tongue in cheek) conclusion that Mass Consription = World War.
but you never know... Aparantly under Bush American high schools must forward all their new student registrations. Bush want's accurate records of all the persons soon to be of prime conscription age? hmmm...
Anyhow. OT - meanderings on my part.
Something not mentioned earlier in this thread is Basic training's use as a screening process.
It is right there during basic that the combative elites, and Leader type are selected and seperated from the lifers at lower rank.
Garfield "private-for-life" White.
but you never know... Aparantly under Bush American high schools must forward all their new student registrations. Bush want's accurate records of all the persons soon to be of prime conscription age? hmmm...
Anyhow. OT - meanderings on my part.
Something not mentioned earlier in this thread is Basic training's use as a screening process.
It is right there during basic that the combative elites, and Leader type are selected and seperated from the lifers at lower rank.
Garfield "private-for-life" White.
bryan gibson
August 11th, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
---------------------------------------------
All of the above entries have good points...as a vet of two services and having had the opportunity to work with several countires while I was in, including the Specwar community, it can all be summed up into a few basic points:
Basic training does all as stated above; simply put, its most important point ( and universal quality) is teaching teamwork.
Disregarding the service specific skills ( air forces seldom focus on firearms, where as armies usually do, for example) BMT also allows a weeding out of those who will not or are incapable of adapting to the military method.
often overlooked is that BMT is where recruits recieve their first seriuos medical screenings, and uniform medical care, bringing all recruits to a basic medical health standard.
also overlooked, Basic is where the recruits are also exposed to a basic standard of conduct, as basic is designed to instill a sence of discipline of work ethic. Some services, such as the army, instill discipline form external sources ( its better to do your job as the consequences of failure are bad, be it enemy action, you DI, whatever) whereas others (especially the elite services, or the more technical; ones, like the air force or navy)prefer to instill internal discipline, such as doing the job for its own sake and pride in accomplishment. Either way, this is often where the recruits will finfd themselves - for the first time for the most part- held to a standard, usually higher than they might set themselves.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how?
Regards
Scarecrow
---------------------------------------------
All of the above entries have good points...as a vet of two services and having had the opportunity to work with several countires while I was in, including the Specwar community, it can all be summed up into a few basic points:
Basic training does all as stated above; simply put, its most important point ( and universal quality) is teaching teamwork.
Disregarding the service specific skills ( air forces seldom focus on firearms, where as armies usually do, for example) BMT also allows a weeding out of those who will not or are incapable of adapting to the military method.
often overlooked is that BMT is where recruits recieve their first seriuos medical screenings, and uniform medical care, bringing all recruits to a basic medical health standard.
also overlooked, Basic is where the recruits are also exposed to a basic standard of conduct, as basic is designed to instill a sence of discipline of work ethic. Some services, such as the army, instill discipline form external sources ( its better to do your job as the consequences of failure are bad, be it enemy action, you DI, whatever) whereas others (especially the elite services, or the more technical; ones, like the air force or navy)prefer to instill internal discipline, such as doing the job for its own sake and pride in accomplishment. Either way, this is often where the recruits will finfd themselves - for the first time for the most part- held to a standard, usually higher than they might set themselves.
Kensai
August 13th, 2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Garf:
Hmmm that's very interesting. Although I can see your chain of reasoning I don't buy the implied (and I'm certain tongue in cheek) conclusion that Mass Consription = World War.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Tongue was certainly somewhat in cheek. Tracing the causes of the Great War is one of those tasks that will generate employment for academics - and dusty academic papers - for a long time to come.
However it does have to be noted that increased militarism does come at a price - which is commonly in the form of increased tension with one's neighbours. We still haven't learned the lessons of arms races, and a little judicious application of game theory demonstrates quite clearly that there is a fundamental logic to the arms race that tends to disaster.
And as for those who claim that the Cold War arms race wasn't a disaster - it certainly was for the Soviet Union, and for the economies of most of the developing world - and arguably for the American as well.
In any case, I'd like to concur that it is during BMT that recruits are selected for leadership positions - and also for technical positions. You don't want someone with a subpar IQ servicing your heavy weapons, do you? graemlins/file_28.gif
It's especially important for conscript forces because you get most of the male population coming in, and there's a real need to identify the right man for the right job. Of course, it still leads to strange situations, like when you end up with a company OC who works for his 84 gunner in civilian life... no joke, it happens!
How is this relevant to a Traveller campaign? Well, imagine the roleplaying possibilities - especially if you overlay it with a hereditary nobility... IMTU I have a military that resembles that of Great War Britain, with mostly noble officers, a few "temporary gentlemen" raised from the ranks, and a mass of commoner rankers... who unfortunately have recently begun to develop greater social consciousness - Socialist movements abounding. Easter uprising anyone? Much fun to be had by all!
Hmmm that's very interesting. Although I can see your chain of reasoning I don't buy the implied (and I'm certain tongue in cheek) conclusion that Mass Consription = World War.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Tongue was certainly somewhat in cheek. Tracing the causes of the Great War is one of those tasks that will generate employment for academics - and dusty academic papers - for a long time to come.
However it does have to be noted that increased militarism does come at a price - which is commonly in the form of increased tension with one's neighbours. We still haven't learned the lessons of arms races, and a little judicious application of game theory demonstrates quite clearly that there is a fundamental logic to the arms race that tends to disaster.
And as for those who claim that the Cold War arms race wasn't a disaster - it certainly was for the Soviet Union, and for the economies of most of the developing world - and arguably for the American as well.
In any case, I'd like to concur that it is during BMT that recruits are selected for leadership positions - and also for technical positions. You don't want someone with a subpar IQ servicing your heavy weapons, do you? graemlins/file_28.gif
It's especially important for conscript forces because you get most of the male population coming in, and there's a real need to identify the right man for the right job. Of course, it still leads to strange situations, like when you end up with a company OC who works for his 84 gunner in civilian life... no joke, it happens!
How is this relevant to a Traveller campaign? Well, imagine the roleplaying possibilities - especially if you overlay it with a hereditary nobility... IMTU I have a military that resembles that of Great War Britain, with mostly noble officers, a few "temporary gentlemen" raised from the ranks, and a mass of commoner rankers... who unfortunately have recently begun to develop greater social consciousness - Socialist movements abounding. Easter uprising anyone? Much fun to be had by all!
kaladorn
August 14th, 2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Kensai:
And as for those who claim that the Cold War arms race wasn't a disaster - it certainly was for the Soviet Union, and for the economies of most of the developing world - and arguably for the American as well.
Argh. I sort of agree, but then again not. In one sense, the Cold War served to prevent the not-so-Cold-and-perhaps-far-too-Hot-as-in-Radioactive War and as a consequence, perhaps it wasn't a failure, but a triumph, though Pyrrhic.
In any case, I'd like to concur that it is during BMT that recruits are selected for leadership positions - and also for technical positions. You don't want someone with a subpar IQ servicing your heavy weapons, do you? graemlins/file_28.gif
BMT doesn't get 'em all though. We had guys in our infantry unit during MILES training claiming multiple kills during a day of training. Turns out about half were friendly. That didn't really seem to bother them. I noted those involved and decided I'd make a point to be behind them at all times.
It's especially important for conscript forces because you get most of the male population coming in, and there's a real need to identify the right man for the right job. Of course, it still leads to strange situations, like when you end up with a company OC who works for his 84 gunner in civilian life... no joke, it happens!
Regularly!
The other thing is (as you've pointed out) some Conscript forces can be quite good. Sam Hughs (another poster alluded to his plans) thought they were the only answer. And yet professional forces seem to have some good points. And conscripts have had a bad time in places (ie Vietnam). I'm not sure what distinguishes (except after the fact) good Conscript programs from bad....
How is this relevant to a Traveller campaign? Well, imagine the roleplaying possibilities - especially if you overlay it with a hereditary nobility... IMTU I have a military that resembles that of Great War Britain, with mostly noble officers, a few "temporary gentlemen" raised from the ranks, and a mass of commoner rankers... who unfortunately have recently begun to develop greater social consciousness - Socialist movements abounding. Easter uprising anyone? Much fun to be had by all! Or was that "Ine Givar", you say? smile.gif
And as for those who claim that the Cold War arms race wasn't a disaster - it certainly was for the Soviet Union, and for the economies of most of the developing world - and arguably for the American as well.
Argh. I sort of agree, but then again not. In one sense, the Cold War served to prevent the not-so-Cold-and-perhaps-far-too-Hot-as-in-Radioactive War and as a consequence, perhaps it wasn't a failure, but a triumph, though Pyrrhic.
In any case, I'd like to concur that it is during BMT that recruits are selected for leadership positions - and also for technical positions. You don't want someone with a subpar IQ servicing your heavy weapons, do you? graemlins/file_28.gif
BMT doesn't get 'em all though. We had guys in our infantry unit during MILES training claiming multiple kills during a day of training. Turns out about half were friendly. That didn't really seem to bother them. I noted those involved and decided I'd make a point to be behind them at all times.
It's especially important for conscript forces because you get most of the male population coming in, and there's a real need to identify the right man for the right job. Of course, it still leads to strange situations, like when you end up with a company OC who works for his 84 gunner in civilian life... no joke, it happens!
Regularly!
The other thing is (as you've pointed out) some Conscript forces can be quite good. Sam Hughs (another poster alluded to his plans) thought they were the only answer. And yet professional forces seem to have some good points. And conscripts have had a bad time in places (ie Vietnam). I'm not sure what distinguishes (except after the fact) good Conscript programs from bad....
How is this relevant to a Traveller campaign? Well, imagine the roleplaying possibilities - especially if you overlay it with a hereditary nobility... IMTU I have a military that resembles that of Great War Britain, with mostly noble officers, a few "temporary gentlemen" raised from the ranks, and a mass of commoner rankers... who unfortunately have recently begun to develop greater social consciousness - Socialist movements abounding. Easter uprising anyone? Much fun to be had by all! Or was that "Ine Givar", you say? smile.gif
Dynamo
August 14th, 2003, 07:45 AM
Shortly out of boot camp I was assigned to a Cutter untill I made enough rank to go to A School. This can be anytime between six months and 2 years. But I also had scads of other training on the job. Plus all cuttermen were required to go to advanced shipboard firefighting school and Buttercup (Both run by the Navy).
Firefighting school is great, 2 days of classes and a fire course with live flames. You wear all you shipboard fire gear (OBA's, Firesuits, the works) Learn how to handle a hose as a firefighting team and put out multiple fires. You also get to see the effect of a wild hose and learn techniques to stop it.
Buttercup is a damage control school that was so much fun that I'd love to do it again and again.
The goal is to keep the a mock up of a ship the USS Buttercup afloat,in the dark, while water pours in and the ship begins to list. You really get caught up in the moment and its just the most fun you could have.
I also got qualified tying down Helicopters, working hydralic cranes, Being helmsman (and master helmsman) of a 270 foot cutter, working rigging, and maintaining avionics survival equipment. We learn our boat backwards and forwards from watertight bulkhead to watertight bulkhead.
good times.
Firefighting school is great, 2 days of classes and a fire course with live flames. You wear all you shipboard fire gear (OBA's, Firesuits, the works) Learn how to handle a hose as a firefighting team and put out multiple fires. You also get to see the effect of a wild hose and learn techniques to stop it.
Buttercup is a damage control school that was so much fun that I'd love to do it again and again.
The goal is to keep the a mock up of a ship the USS Buttercup afloat,in the dark, while water pours in and the ship begins to list. You really get caught up in the moment and its just the most fun you could have.
I also got qualified tying down Helicopters, working hydralic cranes, Being helmsman (and master helmsman) of a 270 foot cutter, working rigging, and maintaining avionics survival equipment. We learn our boat backwards and forwards from watertight bulkhead to watertight bulkhead.
good times.
Kensai
August 14th, 2003, 11:42 AM
MILES... arrghh... I hate MILES. Piece of crap equipment that wouldn't work half the time, and is bulky, heavy and awkward. Used to curse heck out of it, especially when it would spontaneously activate and stick you with that horrible high-pitched whine after 48 hours without sleep. And the lasers are blocked by foliage, which really screws things up in a tropical rainforest... can you tell I hate MILES?
Besides which, it can't simulate improvised weaponry such as field-expedient landflame mines... that requires an official with a godgun and a sense of humour. graemlins/file_23.gif
As for whether a conscript force will be effective in real combat - there's no way of telling whether a professional force will stand up either. By most accounts there's very little to choose from between draftees and regular forces when it comes to intestinal fortitude. Regulars, of course, get the edge in skills.
Personally I did an eight-week signaller course after washing out of NCO training with a badly sprained ankle. The School of Signals was a dream compared to the rest of my time. Lots of electronics to fool around with, female instructors (some of whom actually LOOKED female) and lots of free time, with nights off on offer every time you aced a test.
Of course, after it all ended I went to an operational unit that's equivalent to a line battalion in the 101st Air Assault Division, and boy did I make up for it. But the pride, discipline, esprit de corps and self-respect one learns are priceless. Go Scorpions!
Besides which, it can't simulate improvised weaponry such as field-expedient landflame mines... that requires an official with a godgun and a sense of humour. graemlins/file_23.gif
As for whether a conscript force will be effective in real combat - there's no way of telling whether a professional force will stand up either. By most accounts there's very little to choose from between draftees and regular forces when it comes to intestinal fortitude. Regulars, of course, get the edge in skills.
Personally I did an eight-week signaller course after washing out of NCO training with a badly sprained ankle. The School of Signals was a dream compared to the rest of my time. Lots of electronics to fool around with, female instructors (some of whom actually LOOKED female) and lots of free time, with nights off on offer every time you aced a test.
Of course, after it all ended I went to an operational unit that's equivalent to a line battalion in the 101st Air Assault Division, and boy did I make up for it. But the pride, discipline, esprit de corps and self-respect one learns are priceless. Go Scorpions!
mark_rotteveel
August 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the armed forces. A moment of your time if you would be so kind.
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how? The Basic training(or Recruit School) in the Royal Australian Navy went for 12 weeks. It covered ship identification, and location markings on ships. Ships Husbandry. Fire Fighting. Damage Control. NBCD. Rank/rating markings. Naval traditions. Drill (of course). A day at the rifle range. First Aid. uniform/kit maintenance. Survival At Sea. Swimming.
There was a lot of the drill/PT - every day :(
At the end of the recruit school everyone went off to do their categry training... I can't think of anything else we did (it was back in 1986)
I was wondering what Basic Training is essentially. How long does it last? What is it for? What does it teach you? What skills? Do all personnel go through it or just enlisted people? If Officers do it aswell, does their Basic Training differ from Enlisted Basic Training? If so, how? Does Basic Training differ to any great degree between services? If so, how? The Basic training(or Recruit School) in the Royal Australian Navy went for 12 weeks. It covered ship identification, and location markings on ships. Ships Husbandry. Fire Fighting. Damage Control. NBCD. Rank/rating markings. Naval traditions. Drill (of course). A day at the rifle range. First Aid. uniform/kit maintenance. Survival At Sea. Swimming.
There was a lot of the drill/PT - every day :(
At the end of the recruit school everyone went off to do their categry training... I can't think of anything else we did (it was back in 1986)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét