Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
» The War Diary   » General Discussions   » The Canadian Army   » 16 Day QL2 !?!* (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic is comprised of pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: 16 Day QL2 !?!*
Cdntroop
Recruit
Member # 337

Rate Member

posted 30 May 2021 21:25      Profile for Cdntroop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What is with all these changes to the courses?I recently taught on a QL2 and almost fell out of my chair when they told me I was only going to be needed for 16 days (a total of 5 weekends and a week-long excercise). Why the change? It's the worst thing to do to new recruits.... All it is doing is cheating them out of training that could quite possibly save their lives, but those penny pinchers in Ottawa always looking for a way to save a buck have decided.... you know what screw the reserves let's give them the worst equipment and on top of that lets give them no way to properly train their soldiers. Just so that in the end they can say we told you so... the reserves can't do the job. I think the CF is going to have to take a long hard look at what they're doing.... this is the army not the boy scouts.... the only way to get properly trained soldiers is to provide the equipment required and a proper amount of time to learn the material.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grunt031
Recruit
Member # 314

posted 31 May 2021 03:56      Profile for Grunt031        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What ever happened to basic training being an "indoctrination" or a "rebuilding" process that really challenged the recruit and made them see things in themselves they never could before.
Now it seems to be towards giving a recruit a little instruction on drill and hes institutionalized into the military.

Posts: 24 | From: Out West... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the patriot
Infantry Forum Moderator
Member # 144

Member Rated:

posted 31 May 2021 07:59      Profile for the patriot   Author's Homepage   Email the patriot   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it has more to do with the "politically correct" doctrine of let everyone and their mother's uncle join the military. Like the police, we'll soon have disabled people allowed in military uniform as a "milestone" (do not take offense, this was meant in jest and the reality is this might actually happen down the road). Bloggins, take that position with your wheelchair (puts a new meaning to mounted light infantry) and at 100 metres clear the trench!!!! If you fall in, maintain effective fire and clear the enemy section. We'll give you the Victoria Cross posthumously.

Furthermore, if basic training is for 16 days, what on earth did they do to the infantry course?! What have they done to it?!

-the patriot- [Fifty]

[ 31 May 2001: Message edited by: the patriot ]

[ 31 May 2001: Message edited by: the patriot ]


Posts: 286 | From: The Great White North | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
bender
Recruit
Member # 239

Rate Member

posted 31 May 2021 15:46      Profile for bender   Email bender   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just finnished up my long hard 16 day QL2 course a couple weeks ago. First experience in the military and i was expecting a hell of alot more than it was. I didn't find the course that hard actually. I was expecting the course to be demanding and come out feeling ready for QL3. Then again maybe QL3 is just as soft these days!


Our course did get a little extra training where we were put into another platoon as the third section. The plattoon we were put into was on the old, longer (better) course which gave us some oppertunities to hop in and get a little extra training.

If anyone knows what state the QL3 infantry course is in could you drop me a line? Thanks

[MG]


Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Se7eN
Veteran
Member # 276

Rate Member

posted 31 May 2021 17:24      Profile for Se7eN   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe that the QL3 course is 6or7 weeks long.


[MG] [Fifty]


Posts: 34 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 31 May 2021 20:39      Profile for RCA     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a debate that has been going on for a long time. It has nothing to do with penny pinching or political correctness.

We in the reserves are facing the basic dilemma of not enough trained people on the floor. So QL2/3 have been made to fit into a one summer period, so we can have a trained, usable soldiers for fall training. It is the classic quanatity over quality. (as an aside the reasoning for a QL3 trg soldier is beacuse of policy a QL2 is almost unuserable in a meaniful role in the field with the unit.

We have discussed this on this forum before and everyone, and I mean everyone has an opinion on this. And here's the kicker, both sides are right. However this is the system we are faced with now.

My opinion is give the soldiers the basics now, and let the units develop them during collective trg. we concentrate to much on the individual and not enough on the collective (shades of the borg)

However if anyone has been following the threads on the LFRR board, these same questions are coming up and some of the powers that be are answering and it seems there is a plan afoot to revamp the entire reserve trg from Pte to Maj to make more streamline and unit friendly.


Ubique


Posts: 198 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 31 May 2021 22:24      Profile for McG   Email McG   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just got home from a few days in LFCATC Meaford. The base change of command parade was held while I was out there, and at it the commander LFCA made a few comments to the nature of RCA's comments. His emphasis is on quantity. He had set the goal for the training center to double its output this year.

For those not farmiliar with this debate, I will quickly outline the two sides (but may do niether the justice they deserve as a result of my brevity).

Those who are Pro-Quantity belive that we must get people in the door and qualified to fill postions within their units as soon as possible. If people cannot be placed into these positions and are forced to wait for months to a year in a holding Pl, we will loose them and a critticle mass within the reserves. traditional course subject matter which is removed or reduced in the career courses will be made-up for at the home units

Pro-Quality proponents argue that units are not doing the lost training, nor do units have the time and reasources to conduct the training. The results of quantity production, leave reserve units with a majority of substandard soldiers who cannot be brought up to expected standards of profficiency. More time and reasources should be put into the individual soldiers at the start of thier careers so that they arrive at the units ready for collective training, and not as a burden requiring units to dedicate to individual trg.

I am in the pro-quality camp, however, either philosophy could be made to work depending on the approach taken. I would also lend serious credibility to an argument which would suggest that pro-quantity would work best for large units with lots of resources, and pro-quality would work best for small units with fewer resources.

I gathered some information on a few other points raised here during my Meaford visit. While up there I spoke with a training & development type officer and came across some information on the time length of the QL2. As RCA stated, there reason for so much being cut from the course was to accomodate reserve unit requests for faster production of troops. However, due to complaints about insufficient time, the QL2 course will be streched from 16 days to 20. For this to fit the time table, the QL3 courses will be cut from 24 days to 20. Some trade-off, eh?

That is short term. In the long term there is thought of adding a new course between what are currently QL2 and QL3. Because the QL2 is a common basic for the CF and QL3 is trade specific basics, this new course would be common Land force basics and all militia would take it. A large portion of this course would consist of support weapons and other subjects usually mentioned in the phrase "what ever happened to subject X that used to be taught on QL2?" Usually Subject X is required for MLOC, such as the Carl G or the GPMG.

Hopefully a basic Army course (QL2b ?) would also cover other subjects have never made it into the QL2 course. One that comes to mind, as an Engineer, is basic mine awarness.

[ 05 June 2001: Message edited by: McG ]


Chimo!


Posts: 159 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 01 June 2021 16:07      Profile for RCA     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to make this brief because Domestic Niner and I are heading out of town shortly...

Little known fact. The QL2 is not owned by the Army but by the CF and is set up as an all services, all components course (one size fits all. with all that entails)

Up till 98-99 the reserve QL2 did a fine job in 30 days. It worked well for the Arty as we added the 21 day QL3 and we had at rades qual trooper in 51 days (1 summer)

However the Air and maybe even the Navy thought the QL2 didn't teach the proper items. Therefore in 98-99-00 we had the QL2 that still ran 30 days but dropped the extra items (ie C7, support weapons) and added the supply system, pay, leave allowances etc- but not SHARP, the one lecture that should be taught on basic as opposed to the unit). The missed lectures were moved to the QL3
thereby lenghtning them making it impossible to get a trained soldier in one summer.

We now arrive at summer 2001. The units complained (with justification) that the QL2/3 now was too long. So we now have son of QL2- the 16 day wonder (haven't seen the CTP so can't comment). The 16 days is suppose to lead into the QL3 (combat arms at least.)[I'm guessing this just aan interm crse]

However there maybe light at the end of the tunnel as mentioned in my last post with a revamped trg cycle.

So nobody gets me wrong in my quantity argument. I want a trained soldier at the end of one summer but that training must include everything taken in MLOC, drill (plenty of,) and a 13km ruck march. There is no reason that these can't not be accomplished in a summer period. And as to the no fail policy. There is no such thing. It is a preception that everyone promotes, but look in the CTP and it states the pass criteria. If someone bends the rules, it is not the systems fault. When I get my soldiers back from the ATCs, I want trained soldiers not a rabble (which is what you get if standards aren't met)

Thats all for now, everyone have a good weekend. (I know I will)


Ubique


Posts: 198 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Cog
Recruit
Member # 340

Member Rated:

posted 04 June 2021 11:04      Profile for Cog   Email Cog      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I'm just begining the recruitment process, I have to say I'm pretty worried about this 16 day basic. That's just a little over 2 weeks, where it used to be a month or more. I'm trying to figure out if these cut down courses are going to train me properly or not. I sure as heck don't want to sign on for something that may put me in a life-threatening situation, and won't even give me the training I need to survive. And since I'm going infantry or combat engineer, the quality of training really worries me cause that puts me out front and toe to toe with the bad guys, where training means life.

I wonder if all these politicians and bean counters have any idea of what they're doing. They see numbers on paper, meaningless in their little insulated realities. They don't seem to realize that those numbers are crippling our fighting force, the very thing that makes their cushy comfortable lives possible. Someday, the Armed Forces may be needed again to protect this country or another, and good men and women will die so that penny-pinchers and politicians can live their fat, lazy lives in peace and security. It makes me sick.

I'll quit before I get wound up for a rant, but it is disheartening to think that CF would give their lives for these people, and get nothing but animosity in return. Disheartening to say the least.

Later.


Posts: 14 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 07 June 2021 23:02      Profile for McG   Email McG   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just some further details on the new element specific courses being developed to fit between the current QL2 and QL3's. The new course will exist for both reserve and regular force soldiers. These courses are being developed for all elements; there will be on for the Army, another for the Navy, and a third for the Airforce. In the Army, a soldier will be trained to MLOC (read "Warrior skills") level by the end of this new course.

I see this as a move, which will (hopefully) reverse the trend of lower quality soldiers arriving at units and not having been trained in all the basic soldiering skills expected of them. If it works, it will satisfy my complaints.


Chimo!


Posts: 159 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Disturbance
Veteran
Member # 280

Member Rated:

posted 08 June 2021 16:55      Profile for Disturbance   Email Disturbance   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is copied from a thread I started at specialoperations.com.
Towhey is one smart and well respected son of a bitch. He knows what the **** he is talking about.

"If you've followed some of my posts on the LFRR board, then you know that I have argued strongly against "watering down" training for the reserves.

However, this discussion thread was started by someone about to join the CF Army Reserve as a new recruit. It isn't, I think, the right place to be arguing the value of what he/she is about to undergo. It will, no doubt, be more challenging than expected in many ways, and easier than feared in other ways. It always is and always was.

Note, that I argued about the "effectiveness" of the training in my last post. "Hard" and "difficult" are two very subjective terms. I've taken, taught and written long courses and short courses. The long ones weren't necessarily the harder ones. Duration has little to do with "difficulty".

Likewise, quite frankly, the content of the course has little to do with challenge in many cases. Some people find an MBA very difficult, others do not. I did my "recruit" training in 1983. It was hell for me... others slept through the whole program. What I found difficult, others breezed through. What I didn't even notice, forced still others to quit.

Have standards declined in basic training courses? I think they have. Have they declined past a minimum necessary level? I don't know and, frankly, I don't think anyone else does either. This is not a black and white world. We cannot say that throwing a grenade within 10 feet of the target will work, but 11 feet won't. Real life and real war don't work that way.

Quite frankly, most of my regular force courses felt like 20 days worth of good content crammed into four months of training.

Does the fact your course was shorter than the one before it mean it was easier? I don't think so. Maybe your course had kick-*** instructors and the longer one didn't. Maybe the longer course was too long. It is definitely possible to overdo training.

All soldiers, coming off all courses have a sense of accomplishment, if the course was run well. If they don't, then look to poor instructors as the principal culprit.

The soldiers returning to their units this coming fall after their basic training will be proud of what they've done and it should show. Before you crap on them, remember how you felt when you came back -- and how the previous year's "veterans" crapped on you -- and the year prior to that crapped on them.

Same people -- different year. The more things change, the more they stay the same."


Posts: 41 | From: Vancouver, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 07 September 2021 08:20      Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact that a course is shorter means that instructors do not have time to correct disciplinary problems and follow-up on the correction. It means that there is not sufficient time for candidates to be introduced and adapted to the military lifestyle. It means that time on QL3 courses is lost to teaching or reteaching what should alraedy be known by all Army soldiers! It means that soldiers are arriving at their home units (after a QL3) not knowing how to dig a fire trench, fire a machine gun, or throw a grenade!

Yard Ape


Posts: 180 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
ender
Veteran
Member # 189

Member Rated:

posted 07 September 2021 11:40      Profile for ender   Email ender   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At my unit the 16 day QL2 people came home knowing almost nothing. Some of them didn't know how to reassemble a rifle bolt. They had no idea how to do a right dress or even come to attention properly. Let alone fieldcraft. On CAC (the one week summer ex) we tried to teach them some of the stuff they missed.

I know that the engineers had to take booby traps and most of mine warfare (and some of bridging) of the 3's course in order to fit heavy weapons and grenades. People in support trades never get the heavy weapons training yet are still expected to pass MLOC.


Posts: 130 | From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 07 September 2021 20:18      Profile for McG   Email McG   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of all the reserve engineer QL3 courses run in Gagetown this summer, the one which graduated candidates of the highest standard was the one which took all of its candidates form the block QL2 course. They started the course more prepared than candidates who had graduated a weekend QL2 course.

On a seperate note, there were candidates who voluntarily withdrew from the block QL2 course because friends had told them that the weekend course run by thier home unit would be easier.


Chimo!


Posts: 159 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Master Blaster
Veteran
Member # 60

Member Rated:

posted 08 September 2021 00:20      Profile for Master Blaster   Email Master Blaster   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Once more into the fray!

This thread (standards of QL2/3) has lasted for so long in so many guises that it could almost constitute a web page all by itself.

Obviously this is a topic that embraces the very core of our exsistence as professional soldiers (full/part time not withstanding) and makes us all a little uncomfortable when in a 'civilized' discussion (without all the table pounding, life threatening and swearing a good mess debate could muster) about the subject.

A great many people on this page have had many years of TI to establish their opinions regarding this topic and become incensed when challenged by calm reason and logic. I know, I'm one of them.

I believe that this stems from our (my) passion for a system that HAS worked in the past and feels (again, that emotional stuff) that the system has become a shell of its' former self and that we (I) fear for its' current memberships' survival in the operational fields of the future.

What I personally fear is that when 'the balloon goes up' I will lose my life or my friends will lose their's due to the shortcomings of forethought by the higher command groups and not for the lack of skill and professional soldier instincts bred into me as a young soldier.

Are the skills required to effectively survive and dominate the modern battlefiled being trained into our 'new and younger' soldiers? From all the accounts on this page (and many others) I would respectfully suggest not.

Dileas Gu Brath



Posts: 64 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET
This topic is comprised of pages: 1  2 
 

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Jump To:

Contact Us | CdnArmy.ca | Privacy Statement

2001 CdnArmy.ca. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0 Beta Release 2.0-pre3