To further add to the two estimable gentlemen above,
does the bit about informs being common on the streets pertain to WW II when it was hard to see a male on the streets who was not in uniform?
Does it also pertain to the period from 1946 until the mid 1960s when those in the US Armed force routinely wore their uniforms to town and on leaves and passes? I have wandered the streets in most major cities in this country in uniform and never had an ounce of trouble. Also got a lot free drinks while doing so; service was at one time appreciated instead of just being paid lip service by some as is now the case.
The wearing of civilian clothes while off duty started in the mid fifties as the nation got wealthier and Joe could afford civilian clothes. It gathered speed in the 60s because the troops didn't enjoy being hassled by anti-war protestors in and around colleges and college towns. Not because they hated being hassled (many welcomed it ;) ) but because they knew if it escalated and became a matter of record the Services were likely to make them suffer even if they were the aggrieved.
So uniforms were everywhere 60-70 years ago -- and not a military dictatorship yet. :rolleyes:
I would offer one caveat, though. I went to Little Rock in 1957, Armed, ammo, steel helmet and all that. Would you rather I had not gone along with 1200 other folks from the 101st to forestall an insurrection and to enforce the law?
The caveat; doing that to put the kids in School and then hitchhiking through Little Rock less than a year later, in uniform and with a 101st patch on ones arm was not smart... :D
Infantry OSUT is up to 17 weeks and has been for
a year or so. Another week may be added. Still not enough, I agree. About six months is required to do it right.
Noteworthy that the Germans at the heighth of WW II still kept their Infantry and Tanker training at about that length.
The relationship between length and quality of
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I am not sure I see a relationship between how long infantry training is and how good a product you turn out. I did 24 weeks in 1980 and looking back is was woeful compared to what was actually needed. Infantry basic training is still stuck in WW2, as I have expounded elsewhere.
IDF infantry is always over subscribed and IDF recruit selection is very thorough, so the raw material they have is of a very high standard compared to some NATO armies. - and basic IDF recruits do no get taught to map read!! :eek: according a friend who has just done his stint in Nachal
training is time; there are only 24 hours to a day and the more time you have to train, the better practiced (as opposed to merely exposed to the concept) the product.
That said, your basic point is valid, we are still essentially using WW II (actually WW I) training methodology. In fairness, here in the US, Initial Entry Training is better than it has ever been but there's still a lot of room for improvement. A part of our problem has been the Drill Sergeant model of training and another is the poor selection process. Both those are slowly -- too slowly -- changing but I think a major improvement might be realized in the next three to six years.
One additional problem is a lot of politically desirable training that Congress adds into training dollars; i.e. we'll give you the money but you have to teach this...
That and the inane and unnecessary details the kids have to pull that takes them away from training. Usually the smart kids on the rationale they'll be able to pass the gate tests anyway -- which of course antagonizes the smart kids who quickly figure out why they pull so many details. Relic of a large draftee Army and just wrong.