- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sorry about that, but I was speechless, particularly knowing how many op waiver requests are in the offing for the West's next venture to the 'Stan...
Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
GAP said:
Yeah.
"When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry."
The way I'm interpreting this, and I may be wrong, is join to be a clerk, do BMQ, SQ (like normal) then DP1 infantry, do a tour and then your pushed out of the infantry. So, you have to do a tour as a grunt to be a Mat tech later. It just doesn't seem right to me.
What about people who join a trade 'cause they have civilian training in that field; eg. guy joins to be a veh tech, is a licensed Mechanic in the civilian world and has a lot of experience and just wants to serve his country... as a mechanic.. he has to do a tour first? That means that after training and a tour he will have been out of a shop, away from his trade for over 2 years. Like I said; just doesn't seem right.
But thats just me.
- Piper
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Maybe they should start clearing out the schools in the CF. I am reg force infantry posted to a school and have never been to A-Stan yet. My last tour was Haiti in 04 (for a half tour). I know task force 1-07 is undermanned but no one has canvassed the infantry at my unit to see if we would be willing to go. In my opinion all reg force staff should be replaced by those who have the best and latest experience.
- Reaction score
- 5,903
- Points
- 1,360
Infanteer said:
In case some have forgotten.......
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/3-JTF2-Violates-Spirit-of-Landmine-Treaty.html
- Reaction score
- 18,824
- Points
- 1,260
Patrolman -- its in the works -- I heard there will be a 3 year max at the schools and they are trying to feed the 1VP and 1RCR (plus the 2VP hanger's off from both tours ;D)
into the schools to give some current combat experience
into the schools to give some current combat experience
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It pains me to agree with Teddy, but the emoticon thingy he used about some it up.
IF the schools listen
Infidel-6 said:
IF the schools listen
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
One of my C-9 gunners, on his first contract, has 2 tours to Afghanistan.
No courses cause he's always doing work up training.
He has fired the 25mm very effectively ( really really effectively ) ( twice ) at the enemy.
No course. ( doubt it'll get written off for him )
Absolutely one of the best troops most of us know.
He's getting out.
Multiply his story by....alot.
No courses cause he's always doing work up training.
He has fired the 25mm very effectively ( really really effectively ) ( twice ) at the enemy.
No course. ( doubt it'll get written off for him )
Absolutely one of the best troops most of us know.
He's getting out.
Multiply his story by....alot.
- Reaction score
- 4,715
- Points
- 1,160
MJP said:
Bingo!
Before we recruit 10,000 new soldiers let's retain the good ones 'we' are driving out due to systemically inept management.
Not having been in the CF, is the problem that qualified people are not getting promoted because, while they have the time in and fit the bill, they have not attended the appropriate NCO, etc courses? Easily solved. Promote them, then worry about the courses or parts of courses they require.
If they have the time in, good evals, good recomendations, can do the job, why wait. The beauracracy will sort itself out later, but right now promote them and get busy training them on an ad hoc basis. If they re-up to stay in, provide them with a bonus system.
my 1¢, I need the other
If they have the time in, good evals, good recomendations, can do the job, why wait. The beauracracy will sort itself out later, but right now promote them and get busy training them on an ad hoc basis. If they re-up to stay in, provide them with a bonus system.
my 1¢, I need the other
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Obviously, the statement was either not well thought out, or did not capture the full expression of the thought behind it.
If he's saying that soldiers shouldn't have to do multiple tours in a short time, sure. If it's no multiple tours at the same rank level, then that's perhaps also defensible. However, almost by definition, you want your section, and company commanders (and just as importantly 2i/c's at all levels) to have multiple tours in their backgrounds. 2 or 3 tours spread out over 10 years does not constitute an extreme stress on the system (though certainly 1 tour can be more than enough for many individuals- if the tour is traumatic enough).
In terms of the coming attrition problem- I'd ask those who are closer to the situation whether there's anything that can be done to avert at least a part of it. In other words, are soldiers leaving simply because they have no desire to go back to the 'stan, or is it because of chain of command issues? In either case, is component transfer a meaningful option- because the CF as a whole could stand to gain substantially from not losing this experience. If the attrition is not avertable, is the answer to switch to year long tours? That way, you're subjecting fewer people to the attrition driver. Or, does that increase the attrition rate as more people burn out?
Lots of things to ponder.
If he's saying that soldiers shouldn't have to do multiple tours in a short time, sure. If it's no multiple tours at the same rank level, then that's perhaps also defensible. However, almost by definition, you want your section, and company commanders (and just as importantly 2i/c's at all levels) to have multiple tours in their backgrounds. 2 or 3 tours spread out over 10 years does not constitute an extreme stress on the system (though certainly 1 tour can be more than enough for many individuals- if the tour is traumatic enough).
In terms of the coming attrition problem- I'd ask those who are closer to the situation whether there's anything that can be done to avert at least a part of it. In other words, are soldiers leaving simply because they have no desire to go back to the 'stan, or is it because of chain of command issues? In either case, is component transfer a meaningful option- because the CF as a whole could stand to gain substantially from not losing this experience. If the attrition is not avertable, is the answer to switch to year long tours? That way, you're subjecting fewer people to the attrition driver. Or, does that increase the attrition rate as more people burn out?
Lots of things to ponder.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
GAP said:
That is the problem and a solution. Unfortunately our system will not currently accept that solution as being feasible, except in the cases of WSE (While So Employed) in Theatre. It should behove our Leadership to sort out this problem, as they are the ones who are Course Loading the people left behind. Time for them to give up that old "I want to take this guy because I know him." and thus screw him out of Career Courses while he is on Tour, and someone else with no experience gets the Crses just because he is left behind and available. We at times are our own worse enemies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
GAP said:
Actually, there is a recognition of this, and the rules are either out, or soon to be out that Op Tours should not constitute a negative on the merit boards- including the fact that if a soldier missed a planned course due to tour, that acting/lacking would be considered if all other factors suggested that the member was promotable. Whether this rubber has hit the road yet or not is another matter.
Similar threads
