BMQ Reserves 2010 - 2017

[OldSolduer]

In 1975 I went through 11 weeks basic trg.....and we did not do a defensive ex. The point of BMQ is to train to the basics, and a defensive ex is not "basic". It's a waste of time and resources.

Our defensive ex was on TQ3 aka DP 1.1.

One more time troops:

It is useless to have raw recruits - in BMQ - fire 100 rounds "familiarization". Waste of ammo and time. Period.

They will have forgotten the drills in a month and need refresher training, if not complete retraining.

If you have a course of 30 pers that's 3000 rounds and time that could be better spent teaching infantrymen to properly employ the C6 in the SF role.

That's 60 grenades that could be better utilized on pre-deployment trg.

We never touched a grenade nor a machine gun in Basic. There is no need to during Basic Training.

 

[PuckChaser]

Why have a BMQ-L at all then? Push everything onto the DP1 packages (which at least in the Sigs world are incredibly full already).

You're looking at it from a Combat Arms prospective, Jim. The CS and CSS troops need this training somewhere, BMQ-L is the perfect place to do it. Combat Arms should not have to do BMQ-L at all, instead their DP1 courses is the perfect place for it, IMHO. Your run of the mill medic, SigOp, Sup Tech that can reasonably expect to be "outside the wire" need to have completed this training as a basic soldiering skill prior to being thrown onto predeployment training. Predeployment isn't the time to learn new skills, it should simply be confirmatory IBTS in a streamlined fashion, focusing more on the level 2-6 stuff.

Downloading more training on units (especially PRes) that can barely complete all mandated IBTS in a full training year is just going to produce substandard soldiers which are absolutely useless to the RegF until time is wasted teaching basic skills.

We need to expect our soldiers to retain more knowledge, not less.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Why have a BMQ-L at all then? Push everything onto the DP1 packages (which at least in the Sigs world are incredibly full already).

You're looking at it from a Combat Arms prospective, Jim. The CS and CSS troops need this training somewhere, BMQ-L is the perfect place to do it. Combat Arms should not have to do BMQ-L at all, instead their DP1 courses is the perfect place for it, IMHO. Your run of the mill medic, SigOp, Sup Tech that can reasonably expect to be "outside the wire" need to have completed this training as a basic soldiering skill prior to being thrown onto predeployment training. Predeployment isn't the time to learn new skills, it should simply be confirmatory IBTS in a streamlined fashion, focusing more on the level 2-6 stuff.

Downloading more training on units (especially PRes) that can barely complete all mandated IBTS in a full training year is just going to produce substandard soldiers which are absolutely useless to the RegF until time is wasted teaching basic skills.

We need to expect our soldiers to retain more knowledge, not less.

Won't work for PRes DP 1 Engr our course is already too long at approx 8 weeks......

 

[MilEME09]

Won't work for PRes DP 1 Engr our course is already too long at approx 8 weeks......

You would also be hard pressed to move it on other courses in the RCEME branch, maybe RCEME Common but thats more intro to being a tech and what a MRT is.

 

[Smirnoff123]

I agree that there isnt to great of a training value shooting the 100 rounds, but it does allow the troops to put all of their skills learned on the weapons to use. I dont think that this is a waste of ammo when lots of rounds somehow never find their way back into circulation.

 

[MilEME09]

I agree that there isnt to great of a training value shooting the 100 rounds, but it does allow the troops to put all of their skills learned on the weapons to use. I dont think that this is a waste of ammo when lots of rounds somehow never find their way back into circulation.

I agree, and some units may not get to shoot them often if at all, I know my unit just did a C9/C6 range in may, first one in about 6 years. rumor is we trade our machine gun ammo to the infantry and armoured recce unit's for more C7 ammo for our PWT's

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree that there isnt to great of a training value shooting the 100 rounds, but it does allow the troops to put all of their skills learned on the weapons to use. I dont think that this is a waste of ammo when lots of rounds somehow never find their way back into circulation.

100 rounds doesn't even scratch the surface. It's about 20 x 5 rd bursts.

And yes I am being infantry centric, but that's what I do.

I do agree that signallers, CSS, medics etc need to know how to use the C6 in the Light Role. The officers and NCOs need to know how to tactically employ the C6 as well. That they may or may not know.

There was, years ago a TQ4 MG course for the infantry that covered the .50 and the C6 in the LR and SF Role. Now that the .50 is gone (let's bring it back) we now have a Weapons Det Member course that covers the C6.

 

[Container]

100 rounds doesn't even scratch the surface. It's about 20 x 5 rd bursts.

And yes I am being infantry centric, but that's what I do.

I do agree that signallers, CSS, medics etc need to know how to use the C6 in the Light Role. The officers and NCOs need to know how to tactically employ the C6 as well. That they may or may not know.

There was, years ago a TQ4 MG course for the infantry that covered the .50 and the C6 in the LR and SF Role. Now that the .50 is gone (let's bring it back) we now have a Weapons Det Member course that covers the C6.

Why did they remove the .50?  Is the idea that we re using the c9 to teach the basics and then bringing people up to speed on the other weapons platforms?

The first time I was in we covered everything. Now it feels like we re glossing over things- I'm trying to learn how to implement mg's rather than just manning it. Hard with limited exposure no?

 

[dangerboy]

Why did they remove the .50?  Is the idea that we re using the c9 to teach the basics and then bringing people up to speed on the other weapons platforms?

The simple reason is that we no longer have the .50 Cal in the Infantry.

 

[OldSolduer]

The simple reason is that we no longer have the .50 Cal in the Infantry.

Which IMO is a mistake.

Reach out and touch someone..... With a hunk of lead and copper. Nasty.

 

[MilEME09]

According to my friend who is about to do his IPSWQ (reg force) the C16 is now there instead of the 50. Do I agree? No but the army has been doing a lot of stupid things like that

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I'm thinking this may be also a time issue. If you hope to get more than high school students on summer break into the reserves then you need to break up the course lengths.

When I was in the reserves and involved in recruiting we often had people come in, hoping to try the reserves as a part time job, or as a personal challange to themselves, but couldn't commit the 1 or 2 months of training because their regular jobs didn't allow them to take that much time off. From time to time I even had people take a month leave of absence from their full time job to go and do their BMQ and then have the BMQ course canceled, which put them in a bind where they had to either try and change the LOA or possibly end up with no income for a month.

I see both sides of the arguement. Yes, these are skills that are neccesary for reserves to operate in deployed roles, however if they hope to attract people outside of the normal high school candidate pool then cutting the course length would help. Breaking it all into more bitesized pieces and pushing the theory portions of courses in DL packages is probably a bigger help to the reserves than it is an improvement to Reg courses. On the other hand, the longer reserve soldiers take to aquire the minimum training needed to be employable or deployable has a risk too. In the unit I was in, turn over for new troops seemed to be around 20%, meaning if you didn't get average soldiers fully trained by year 5 they probably weren't going to be deployable during their careers.

 

[Marchog]

So, anyone else here doing reserve BMQ on October 3 in Toronto?

 

[P.Holland]

I am.  Just got the good news today.

 

[Marchog]

Congratulations. See you there!

 

[scarypunk]

Who is loaded up for this?

 

[KerryBlue]

I'm really hoping to be, just waiting for my background check to come back. Who are you with?

 

[scarypunk]

I am with the Camerons.

 

[KerryBlue]

Ah cool, I was hoping to be a Cameron but they filled all their spots. So hopefully I will be with 33 CER, which is good in a way because once I finish university I'd love to go RegF and be an Combat Engineer.

 

[P.Holland]

False alarm, I am afraid.  Just got word today that the course is full and they couldn't get me in.