Progress in the Army

[Infanteer]

Promotion exams are sometimes suggested as a cure-all for the CF's ills, but personally I think that they would just lead to a small business in promotion exam study books and would end up being somewhat of a panacea.   What would the exam consist of that is not already covered on OPME, ATOC or AOC?    

Cheers,

2B

True, but I think it depends upon the way the exam is given.   If we are just going to plop a multiple choice exam on the table, then yes, you're right, it would be frivolous.

However, perhaps if the exam was more qualitative and forced the Officers to use all the knowledge they've gained from staff and planning, schools (like OPME, ATOC, and AOC) and actual command in order to demonstrate that they have a clear grasp on the rank they've served at and the rank they will be moving onto.   There are many examples from the past (the Prussian/German Army is a notable one) where exams were part and parcel of professional development and served to effectively raise the bar on those who made the cut and those who didn't.

It just seems to me that there is a real difference between a Lieutenant and a Captain (at least, there should be) and that having the rank as a "gimme" takes away from that fact (I know, I know the CO does have to sign off on it, but this does not amount to an objective evaluation of performance).

PS: I changed the title of the thread as it was somewhat juvenile and contained spelling errors which does no justice to the fact that it is turning into a fairly decent conversation.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Infanteer,

Among junior officers appointment means more than rank, and there is a fairly good system in place to determine appointments.  Before the new armoured officer (and the other branches as well) gets his first go as Troop Leader he has been through a very rigorous training and testing process at the School on CAP and DP 1 (the old Ph II thru IV).  I found my Tp Leading hard assessment traces in Gagetown much harder than any formal exam.  Many fail and never get to a unit.

It does not stop there.  The Sqn OC/BC and the young officer's Tp WO continue to train and develop new Tp Ldr, be he a Captain or a 2Lt.  While there is no formal test for officers departing after their first Regimental tour to see who comes back as a BC, you can bet that the chain of command looks at the officer's performance to date to make that determination.  I don't think that a formal test would add anything that a year or two of close observation in garrison, exercises and operations does not already do. 

To come back as a Sqn Battle Captain you have usually taken ATOC and perhaps even AOC.  To be one of the "big three" (Adjt, Ops O, 2IC HQ Sqn) you should have completed AOC (Kingston) and have been a BC/Sqn 2IC.  To come back an OC you must first get promoted and then take the Combat Team Commander's Course (although I think that they changed the name).

I guess my point is that we already have some rather rigorous "gateways" in place that, in my opinion, do more than a formal exam would.

All this being said, the issue of "instant" Captains is indeed a debateable one, and one often heard in the officer's mess among the Lts. 

Cheers,

2B

 

[Edward Campbell]

I lived through the promotion exam era.

I remember them with distinctly mixed feelings â “ those of who wrote (and passed) shared a real sense of accomplishment.  The examinations (Part 1 â “ written/theoretical, Part 2A â “ 'practical' (a TEWT) which was common to all corps, and Part 2B â “ mostly practical which was special to corps) were difficult and, I suppose, they really did 'prove' that those who succeeded could, at least, recite (regurgitate) the canons.  They were also hideously expensive â “ small battalions of retired colonels had to be recruited every year to mark the written exams and brigades and garrisons ground to a halt every year while senior officers DS'd the Part 2s.

I really do not have a firm grasp of the current system â “ my sense of it is that there is a mix of required OPME courses and the 'gates' 2Bravo described.  I think those 'gates' are better than the old Part 2 exams.

I think there might be some room for a couple of 'tests' (of some sort) to ensure that all army officers understand (can explain?) those canons (which still exist in some form or another).  Maybe OPME and whatever else does that.  I think OPME, if I understand it (at all, much less correctly) is good for important subjects like Military History and Modern Great type subjects like geography, politics and economics.  I just wonder if we have a good way â “ like the Navy's sea command exams â “ to ensure that officers really do know the nuts, guts and feathers of administration and logistics as well as tactical or operational principles and until level staff procedures.

I remain convinced that we have got the 'time' wrong.  I think we need to extend the time available to junior officer to 'learn their craft' â “ which is, I suggest, best done as a lieutenant so that the captain rank is not, in fact and in the eyes of too many people, a gimme.  I would like to see lieutenant lengthened to four, maybe even five years â “ with a big pay raise after, say, a couple of years of fully satisfactory service.  Those senior lieutenants (in jobs like Recce Pl Patrol Det commander (are they still officers?), Pioneer Pl Comd and IO) are 'trained' but still being 'seasoned' as officers, I think.  Maybe there isn't 'room' for that any more.

 

[Infanteer]

I suppose, they really did prove that those who succeeded could, at least, recite (regurgitate) the canons.

I would hope that competitive exams would not be structured in a way that promoted regurgitation as opposed to thinking.   If they are, then we were probably not doing something right as they are probably no different than the "multiple choice" exam that I pointed out above as being frivolous.

(This rationale also justified my reasoning for not really studying at all in University - I was pleased with my marks because they were based upon what I learned and not what I remembered.... )

Anyways, the "gateways" 2Bravo alluded to a very real indeed - my only caution is that these gateways may tend to be technical and only cover half the story.  What I'm alluding to with exams is perhaps "higher order" thinking - ie: the Canadian Army espouses the "two levels up" approach to leadership in order to support the notions of "mission command" and "commanders intent" - perhaps potential Captain's should be examined on matters pertaining to unit command, etc, etc.

I'm not saying that the more technical aspects of combat leadership (battle procedure, combat estimate, etc, etc) are any less important because they are indeed vital.  However, I believe that we do need to emphasise "higher order thinking" in the Army, especially the Officer Corps, to ensure that we are maximizing professionalism.  This was valid in the Prussian Army of the 19th century which built its professionalism around the Kriegsakadamie which all other standing Armies attempted to replicate in some form.  It still is valid today; I remember Enfield telling me a story about his University professor who used to do work with the US Executive Branch - during a lecture he recalled that of all the government officials he dealt with, Air Force officers were probably the most impressive people he met because of their combination of real-world military experience (the "technical" side of the profession) along with general intellect (stemming from high US military standards for education, I believe the US Airforce sets the bar even higher in this regard).  To me, it appears that competitive exams may be a way to further this end.

Anyways, there are many different references to competitive exams for promotion.  Some tend to be off the cuff (such as the ones that you alluded to) and some tend to be a little more solid (for example, Martin van Crevald suggests competitive examination as an objective tool for determining who should attend Staff College).  I'm sure with all the military papers, journals and articles out there, someone has explored to concept in greater detail.  I'll look around and see what I can dig up.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Martin van Crevald suggests competitive examination as an objective tool for determining who should attend Staff College ...

Cheers,
Infanteer

In my day - when the earth was still cooling, etc - Capt to Maj exams were also Staff College entrance exams - thus sparing us a third set which had plagued our seniors.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A good, meaty discussion!  Before I paint myself into a corner here I'll say that I am all for having well-educated officers who have earned their ranks/appointments through merit and rigorous training.

I've had a few exams in my reserve/regular time so far, although none have been "promotion exams."  I'd say that the first few exams were more practical in nature (hard assessments in Gagetown).  These weed out the folks who cannot think on their feet or handle simple tactical problems.

The next one was the old ITC 1 exam.  This multiple choice exam tested all sorts of combat team/battlegroup knowledge.  I did the old ITC(M) course as a reservist in Gagetown.  The "test" there was to conduct an estimate on a TEWT and present to the syndicate.  I'm told that the old FOE exams were harder.

I went to the US Armor School to take their Advanced Course, which qualifies US Captains to be company commanders and perform staff duties.  This had TEWTS, eight hour written estimate exams, CAXs with appointments and a series of knowledge tests.  The Kingston course follows much of the same pattern.

My point is that we have lots of exams already.  OCs and COs also get a pretty good look at their junior officers during training.  The subbies who arrived at the Regt when I came back as a Capt had a pretty challenging couple of years (BTE, op tours).  This was much more rigorous than any staged exam.  I guess we could add an exam for Lt to Capt to make sure that they remember everything, but once again I'm not sure that it would make the newly minted Captains any better as officers.

I do agree, however, that we should not try to speed up junior officer progression, and we could even slow it down.  The "speed captains" thing is fairly new.  New officers still get at least two years of Troop Leading regardless of promotion to Captain, however, and many get three.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[aesop081]

Gents,

All this talk of examinations got me thinking and i would like to hear people's opinions on this.

In my MOC we have to complete anual category writen examinations as well as practical check rides with standards personel to ensure that we know the theory and practical procedures required to do our job. This applies to ( i beleive) all aircrew MOCs, officers and NCMs alike.

In my previous MOC we had no such system.  This always puzzled me because of the volume of knowledge we were expected to have ( in my case at the QL6A level). I always though that some sort of annual or bi-annual system of  ( at least written) examinations would keep people curent on the information they need to know. Now i am applying this to  the 043 trade but i was currious what others think about it and how it could apply to other trades in general ( not just combat arms).

Could this be beneficial ?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'll pop up for a sec, at the risk of steering this (now) excellent discussion off on a tangent...

The next one was the old ITC 1 exam.  This multiple choice exam tested all sorts of combat team/battlegroup knowledge.  I did the old ITC(M) course as a reservist in Gagetown.  The "test" there was to conduct an estimate on a TEWT and present to the syndicate.  I'm told that the old FOE exams were harder.

They were much harder and their elimination is indicative of how the standard has changed.  FOE, for the uninitiated, consisted of two eight hour written exams - Administration and Tactics.  Both consisted of "short answers", multiple choice and a full written estimate for a battle group.  You did an admin estimate for (in my case - it changed every year) a battle group deliberate attack , then on the Tactics test we did a full written estimate for a battle group in the defence.  I wrote mine in the same session, with one day between, and it nearly killed me!  I learned a helluva lot though...FOE required months of study and you ended up knowing more about (for instance) the medevac system than you ever thought possible!

I honestly believe that doing them made me a better officer, as I got to know - fairly early - about other trades.  We don't (IMHO) do that enough now.

My 2 cents.  I'll now return you to your regular programming.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Aesop-  I can speak for the Air Defence Artillery soldiers of the mid-90s.  There was a requirement to pass a aircraft recce exam annually.  One also had to keep up on trainer runs with the Blowpipe and later Javelin, IIRC.  On the field side, I recall while at the 2 RCHA, all of the field gunners writing fire discipline exams at least annually, if not more often.  Not quite a checkride or an semi-annual exam, but better than nothing.

I am a fan of checkrides and fairly frequent exams for the Air Force because we have a fairly large body of knowledge and skills to maintain (I once estimated that to be a Detachment Commander, I had to know cold about 400 pages of regulations and orders and procedures (AOIs/SMG, CADORDs, CFP 100, Wing ords, FLOPS, SHOPS), some of it conflicting, and be able to at least know where to find another 2000-3000 pages of informations (ie all of theTACNOTES). The consequences of not knowing some of the stuff could be serious and could result in loss of life. That said, I don't recommend doing checkrides where it is not warranted.  I lived thru LFCA's Warrior program in the early 90's and while that was a "checkride" of sorts and had some real good intentions, I'm not sure it was really worth all of the pain it caused.  Maybe the Army could consider checking a unit or sub-units skills on an annual basis- at WATC or something like that.  Checking each individual soldier on all of his skills each year would be a major logistical nightmare.  The flying portion of the Air Force is much smaller than the Army and it can still be a challenge every year to get all of the Checkrides done.

Promotion exams-  Not sure about this.  I do not like "gimmee ranks" at any level.  This is a constant irritant to me where we use a rank system to reward financially those with a higher level of education (in the case of DEO Officers).  Couldn't we just pay DEO Officers more, but keep them as 2Lts for the appropriate amount of time rather than jumping them straight to Capt? 
As for qualifying people for ranks- I think the best way is to use the various course already in place as the gates for promotion- ie you aren't eligible for a given rank until you pass all of your course, be it specific to your branch or OPME, whatever.

Infanteer- as an Artillery Officer, I actually learned my trade "3 or 4 up", not "2 up".  Most Capts in the Artillery attend the Artillery Staff Duties course.  This misleadingly titled course actually teaches the Artillery Battle up to the Divisional/Corps level. I played the part of the CDA (a BGen) for the final ex- it was one of the best courses that I ever attended.  I also attended the Battery Commander's Course where one has to learn the CO's job in order to be an effective BC.  Good training!  My point is that, at least on the officer side, the trg is (was) in good shape to develop Captains well beyond what they would be developed in almost any other Army in the world.  This was borne out to me when a I went to Ft Bliss Texas in 1997 at the end of my Instructor-in-Gunnery Course.  We were given a scenario in their Janus down there where we (8 Capts) had to plan and execute a Bde advance to contact and assault on a dug in MRB in about 1 hour.  We were so well trained and drilled at that point that we appointed a Bde Comd and all of the unit COs out of our Course, did a 15 minute estimate, gave orders and executed the battle.  We won- much to the astonishment of the American Staff who viewed this particular scenario as "unwinnable".

Cheers!

 

[aesop081]

Aesop-   I can speak for the Air Defence Artillery soldiers of the mid-90s.   There was a requirement to pass a aircraft recce exam annually.   One also had to keep up on trainer runs with the Blowpipe and later Javelin, IIRC.   On the field side, I recall while at the 2 RCHA, all of the field gunners writing fire discipline exams at least annually, if not more often.   Not quite a checkride or an semi-annual exam, but better than nothing.

I am a fan of checkrides and fairly frequent exams for the Air Force because we have a fairly large body of knowledge and skills to maintain (I once estimated that to be a Detachment Commander, I had to know cold about 400 pages of regulations and orders and procedures (AOIs/SMG, CADORDs, CFP 100, Wing ords, FLOPS, SHOPS), some of it conflicting, and be able to at least know where to find another 2000-3000 pages of informations (ie all of theTACNOTES). The consequences of not knowing some of the stuff could be serious and could result in loss of life. That said, I don't recommend doing checkrides where it is not warranted.   I lived thru LFCA's Warrior program in the early 90's and while that was a "checkride" of sorts and had some real good intentions, I'm not sure it was really worth all of the pain it caused.   Maybe the Army could consider checking a unit or sub-units skills on an annual basis- at WATC or something like that.   Checking each individual soldier on all of his skills each year would be a major logistical nightmare.   The flying portion of the Air Force is much smaller than the Army and it can still be a challenge every year to get all of the Checkrides done.

Agreed. I also suffered the years of the LFCA warrior program.  Good idea, bad execution IMHO. I realise that a type of "checkride" would be a logistical problem for the army on an individual basis but written exams would not be that difficult to administer.  If anything they would force individuals to keep up on the knowledge that they gained on  career courses and force them back into the pubs.  I often found that after some time, individuals do not retain what they were taught on course.  Would a regular system of written test not help keep everyone current as to what they need to know.  I realise that this does nothing for practical skills, thats a whole other bag of tricks, but i certainly think it could not hurt

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The IBTS tests are a good concept, although it is about as dry as a bowl of sand in its usual iteration.  In my militia days we had an annual Worthington competition to test a broad range of skills across several rank levels.  If annual refresher training for basic skills can be disguised as something else it can be a little more interesting.  We had a "Cav Cup" competition here at the Regt last year.  It tested a whole range of skills from weapons handling up to Tp Level recce tactics in a Sqn setting.

Going back to promotion exams, John English certainly came out in favour of them in Lament for an Army.  The Decline of Canadian Military Professionalism.  This book was written at the nadir of the Army's esteem in the 90s.  LCol English puts much of the blame for the "professional regression" in the officer corps to the termination of army qualification exams in 1966.  My take is that he sees problems with a system by which COs judge the merit of their officers on their own and he prefers having a "check" of some kind administered by a General Staff.  The Regimental system, for all its merits, can have the evil of trying to push promising officers too fast in an effort to produce generals for the Regt.  I can see how exams might mitigate favouritism.

This book makes many good points and I read it intently as a subbie when it came out.  While I found it somewhat galvanizing, at the time I found the focus on promotion exams somewhat strange.  I think that there was more than a lack of promotion exams that lead to the morale crisis in the 90s, and that it would take more than exams to fix the problem.  Will exams be able to test for ethics?  How does an exam test leadership?

Having a General Staff outside of the Regimental system is certainly an interesting idea, and that may have more real impact than a promotion test.  I personally think that some officers make outstanding staff officers but not so great regimental officers.  The inverse is often true as well.  Recognizing this early on and putting people where their talents lay might have some benefit.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[a_majoor]

The ideal result of all this is we want Captains (and all the other ranks) to be adept, well versed in their jobs, cut a dashing figure in uniform, be irresistible to the opposite sex and generally be superlative human beings.

Testing is a nice to have, but it is possible to "cram" or set up some sort of "boot camp" to ensure the testee has the best possible chance of passing the test, without actually making a better candidate. We also have all experienced "book smart" people who can quote at endless length from pubs and manuals, but would be hopeless as actual leaders. To use the latest buzz words, what we are really looking for is people who have integrated "data" and "information" into "knowledge". Since what we want is the knowledge of arms, the best way to test people is through "free play" exercises where they have to use their knowledge and experience to achieve definable goals, similar to the US Army's use of the national test centre or our eventual use of the MTC in Wainwright. Since this is bound to be rather expensive, JANUS and J-CATS simulations should also be considered as a medium for testing, and a real test against a determined, free play enemy rather than some "set" scenario where the red team conveniently drives into the KZ so the hot wash up is finished by 1800. If you don't know your stuff, or get unhinged under stress, it becomes appallingly obvious, but only electrons are getting killed.

My two cents.

 

[Infanteer]

The ideal result of all this is we want Captains (and all the other ranks) to be adept, well versed in their jobs, cut a dashing figure in uniform, be irresistible to the opposite sex and generally be superlative human beings.

Funny, I had that on my PER once.... 8)

Since what we want is the knowledge of arms, the best way to test people is through "free play" exercises where they have to use their knowledge and experience to achieve definable goals, similar to the US Army's use of the national test centre or our eventual use of the MTC in Wainwright.

All the better examples of proposals for exams include free play exercises in some way, shape or form.

 

[pbi]

I came up under the system of professional exams and I am not at all certain that they had much lasting value once you walked out of the exam room. I wrote both FOEs (Ops and Admin), passing both (one with honours). I read every single manual in the study list (you were issued- -literally--boxes of them), and I did a pre-exam review and study process on my own, religiously.

In retrospect, the great majority of what I stuffed into my head was of little value to begin with. Certainly, within a day or so of the exam, I had forgotten most of it. These exams were based on the typical view of officer training in that era: that the brain was really an info warehouse rather than a thinking device. It was considered very important to know the "what", ad nauseam, with a much lesser requirement to demonstrate proficiency in "how". The brain was to be stuffed with data: lists of principles, tables of factors, how many water trailers in the Corps Support Command. You could see this same paradigm in staff college and in the Infantry School.

As for the assertion that the old exams made us somehow "more professional": I disagree completely. That is, in my opinion, a fairly shallow appreciation of what professionalism is. The same officer corps that English appears to laud for its "professionalism" suffered IMHO with some very serious issues concerning ethics and morals and true respect for military professional education as opposed to brain-stuffing. Many officers did not IMHO take FOEs seriously, and even fewer took the "purple" OPDP program seriously. We didn't engage in these exams to learn-we engaged in them because we had to.The bare minimum effort to pass was made in most cases. Are we better as an Officer Corps in that regard today? I am not 100% certain, but I do believe that as an Army we now have a much greater respect for true learning, for professional development and for the intellectual side of our profession than we did then.

Today, (and for years now) I don't even have manuals in my office: my bookshelf contains professional reading stuff. If I take over an office that has manuals on the shelf, I get rid of them. If I really need to get hold of some crunchy factoid, as opposed to understanding a situation, I will go to a manual or on-line source, or better yet ask the guy who really knows. I would certainly never bother trying to memorize data, as our old system seemed to encouraged. I am paid to think, to reason, to develop solutions amd courses of action, then to see that they are implemented. I am paid to understand and apply commander's intent, to provide some kind of leadership role model, and to manage crises (hopefully before they explode with alligators all over the place...)

Do we need some quantifiable way of testing our leaders? Yes, definitely. I am all for the recent changes in our training system, as long as we remember what it is we are trying to do and don't fall into the "checklist" mentality that bedevilled the US Army in the days of ARTEP that preceded NTC. Simulation being, I agree, a great tool in this process, and one that in some ways can be made far more demanding we could ever afford to make an FTX at a comparable level. I would design a system that places much more emphasis on effective results within commander's intent, and much less on brain-stuffing or rote responses, The factoids should not be ends in themselves: they should be utilized in the development of effective results which are then demonstrated in a very visible and practical way, as opposed to sitting a four hour exam.

Cheers

 

[Edward Campbell]

2Bravo said: â Å“... English certainly came out in favour of them (exams) in Lament for an Army.  The Decline of Canadian Military Professionalism.  This book was written at the nadir of the Army's esteem in the 90s.  LCol English puts much of the blame for the "professional regression" in the officer corps to the termination of army qualification exams in 1966.  My take is that he sees problems with a system by which COs judge the merit of their officers on their own and he prefers having a "check" of some kind administered by a General Staff.  The Regimental system, for all its merits, can have the evil of trying to push promising officers too fast in an effort to produce generals for the Regt.  I can see how exams might mitigate favouritism.â ?

I have talked around this issue before, but 2Bravo gets to the root of one of my major concerns when he talks about that: â Å“...evil of trying to push promising officers too fast in an effort to produce generals for the Regt.â ?

Exams or lack of same are not the problem and I disagree with Jack English on their overall utility (but I agree they do check the CO's views â “ I was a CO, too and I am only too well aware of the fact that they have blind spots and prejudices and, being totally human, can practice favouritism â “ even without really understanding it themselves).

We, that great big 'we' which goes all the way back to around 1947, devised systems which reward services, branches, corps and regiments which can featherbed.  My own bête noir remains the decision to put all air crew in the air force â “ there was never one tiny scintilla of an operational requirement for this and the common training and logistics argument was always weak and never rested on anything like hard data.  It was featherbedding, pure and simple â “ on a par with having firemen in diesel locomotives.  The goal was to keep the air force numbers up â “ guaranteeing them a large share of the senior billets.  We, in the army, did it to ourselves when we decided that operational effectiveness â “ as influenced by unit cohesion and manning (personnel) flexibility â “ should be sacrificed on the alter of the gunners' cap badge.

We all take intense and justifiable pride in our individual regiments, branches and services and the men and women serving continue, in 99.9% of the cases, to give us just cause for that pride.  It is only natural that we would want to preserve and promote our regiment's positions in the military â “ especially at the senior rank levels.  We, my generation, were willing, too willing, too often to put obstacles in the path of a pure merit system in order to advance the interests of our regiment or branch or service; I plead guilty as charged.  In mitigation I offer that I was following the herd â “ there were a few voices in the wilderness back in the '80s and '90s but most of us played the game even as we decried the effect of it on our armed forces.

Somehow, it seems to me, we have to make merit more important in selection for senior appointments (commands above regiment/battalion and all senior staff appointments).  It creates a huge risk: we might end up with no artillery generals (that actually happened back in the late '70s, if memory serves â “ no gunners above brigadier, no engineers and signals above colonel â “ something like that) or, even more shocking, no R22R generals.  The cap badge politics is both fierce and bloody when those sorts of situations obtain.

Worse is the PML (do they still call it that?  Permissive Manning Levels) which reward branches (with a certain number of branch specific senior appointments) for sheer numbers.  There were (15+ years ago) too many Director of Aerospace This and Director of Land That and a top heavy personnel management bureaucracy designed, I am convinced, to guarantee a certain number of 'tied' (to cap badge) four stripe positions â “ which means enhanced opportunities for entrée into the flag/general officer ranks - for various groups.

<end another rant>

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I enjoy free-play exercises (JANUS, JCATS, SIMNET, MILES), but if we fired officers for bad results in them I would have been summed up a long time ago.  I've had Tps and Sqns get blown up spectacularily, and I've also had some pretty cool victories.  Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.  As long as we learn and apply lessons then the simulations are achieving their objectives.  A zero-defect mentality from these will lead to a risk-averse officer corps.

You can also learn some weird lessons from free-play scenarios.  In JANUS, indirect fire ruled and dug-in tanks were invulnerable to direct fire.  I "learned" as a Tp Ldr that if I fired indirect 105mm HESH from my tanks I could knock out dug-in T72s.  Did it work?  Hell yes.  Was it realistic?  I don't think so.   In SIMNET we "learned" to fight our tanks from woodlines, since we could fire from the edges and move around inside the woods at speed (the computer made woods like a big circus tent).

Helmets on.

Now, I've been thinking and we could do more at the Lt level.  When I was an Lt, our Bde Comd gave the subbies a day to run the JANUS exercise.  We were put in teams of three (one Armd Lt, one Inf Lt, one Arty Lt in each) and pitted against each other with square combat teams on a map of Suffield.  The objective was to destroy the enemy CP, which could only be in a small "goal" area in the opposing teams start line.  You could only kill the CP with direct fire.

Most teams opted for having the infantry guard the CP and send the tanks down a "board edge" to kill the CP.  Most "runs" were a revolving door, with both CPs destroyed and victory going to the fastest team.  Since the infantry could not dig-in the tank sqns could pretty much mow through them in the open.  Our solution was a little different.  We sought a meeting engagement with the aim of destroying the enemy's ability to destroy our CP.  We could then hunt down the enemy CP at our leisure.  We used our Coyotes and Leopards as bait.  We advanced with recce and tanks, found the enemy armour and promptly retreated.  The enemy Sqn chased our tanks right into the four TOW that had been following up behind.  With the enemy Leopards destroyed by our TOW we unleashed our own Leopards into a Platoon of LAV IIIs.  Our own arty focused on the enemy TOW.  We then tracked down the enemy CP and destroyed it.  Our own CP was never in danger.

We took some flak for seeking a meeting engagement, but I felt that the results spoke for themselves.  We tried something different and it did not end our careers.  If our careers had been on the line we might have taken a more standard solution.  Something like this might be a good exercise for Lts to take before becoming Captains but not as a "pass/fail."   Use it as a way to show how the different arms interact.  Give the Lts several "runs" of the simulation and have good AARs between each.  Give them the freedom to lose as long as they take the thing seriously and apply lessons learned.

Sorry, enough war stories...Helmets off.

2B

 

[Jed]

Edward C.  - Roger that ! I appreciate your well expressed view point wrt to over the hill officers etc. This perspective does not come out very often as the younger hard chargers often see things from their current line of site. A few hard years generally brings people around ! 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Edward,

Outstanding post.  I guess we were writing at the same time.  My JANUS bit looks a little silly after yours!

I can see how having higher rank positions tied to branches and regiments can lead to problems.  Branch and capbadge parochialism are problems that I see from time to time.  Perhaps it is partially a function of the competition for resources (and roles) that the CF engages in.  I think that Unification just hid the battles.  My impression is that the Regimental system came under attack in the 60s, and perhaps the extremes of regimental behaviour were the result of a siege mentality. 

Cheers,

2B

 

[Haggis]

Branch and capbadge parochialism are problems that I see from time to time.  

Perhaps this was part of the catalyst behind the fairly recent conversion of all Bde Comds and Sgts Maj to "vanilla" cap badges? Good idea IMO.  No perceived favouritism or bias based on first glances.

 

[Spctr]

I am going to be attending BMQ this summer, so I am zero experience and all of what I will be saying is based entirely on my own opinions of what I have read/seen.  So please forgive me if I am way out to lunch.

I am joining with the intention of making a career out of the forces.  Unlike most of the new generation, I have no patience with switching job careers/companies 4 or 5 times in my life.  I have a family and I want to ensure that my job has long-term security.  That was a factor in my joining the forces, job security and also I have a deep sense of pride in being Canadian and want to contribute to my country in a more concrete way than by working in the "Business" world where loyalty to country doesn't play a part at all.  As a result of all this, I am unlike the average new recruit who seems to have the impression of joining because of what the forces can give them, and not what I can do for the forces.

Anyways, that's my background for why I am joining, now onto my larger concern, promotion and advancement.  I am firmly of the opinion that a promotion should be based on merit.  I do not want to be promoted unless I have proven, time and time again, that I have the skills/training/ambition to do the job properly.  This means that someone will go has far up the ladder as he/she wants to, through demonstrating the skills and ambition for the respective position they want to remain at or pursue.  I believe that if someone does a good job at being a Captain, but doesn't want to move any further (due to politics, job, etc.) then that should be an option, with one condition.  As long as that Captain demonstrates time and time again that he is effective at his job.  I am going to be NCM so in my case I do not want to become a Corporal just because it is a "gimme" rank, I want to learn and develop the necessary skills before that promotion comes up.  I also want to be continually evaluated and encouraged to improve, even if that improvement is simply in becoming better at doing my current ranks job, a better Corporal/Private, etc. 

Ok, if you even understood half what I wrote, good for you! 

Basically, I have a motto of "Continuous Improvement."  Meaning, even if I get to the rank of Corporal and stay there for 10 years, at the end of 10 years I will be an outstanding Corporal because each year I have added to my abilities/knowledge and skills, I hate the idea of not improving myself either professionally or personally on a continual basis.  There always needs to be a goal to strive for, better education, higher rank, personal goals, etc.  Without some kind of ambition, a person will end up being a mediocre person, not living up to his/her potential, ultimately ending up unsatisfied/unhappy.  Now just in case I didn't make this clear enough, the length of time in a position does not indicate ambition/goals, someone in a single position can always strive to become better in that same position always.

Still with me?

Finally, as a new recruit, what can I look forward to as far as evaluation and advancement is concerned.  From what I am reading here, some of the earlier promotions happen almost automatically, and as far as the higher levels, is there any kind of stronger motivation than money?  What kind of encouragement can I expect at the lower end for improvement/advancement?  From what I hear, it doesn't seem like there really is a lot of motivation to get a promotion except money, and no real standard beyond a CO's "feeling" for a member's performance.  I understand a little of this as I am in charge of promoting/hiring/firing people at my company, and when a promotion or hiring is based on feeling or 1 persons opinion, too often it turns out to be a mistake.

Anyways, this isn't a criticism as such, since I have no experience with which to draw upon, but more of a concern in my future career, is there effective evaluations and encouragement throughout a military career to improve oneself, as well as opportunity to prove oneself's abilities and skills?

Thank you for your patience with a lowly recruit.