Huh, now there's something that I had never considered. I've strongly tended to perceive an almost impassable barrier between the combat arms and the administration and logistics types, especially in so far as the latter didn't have time on a three or four-year contract to do both a full-length, half-year infantry syllabus, plus their own specialized training, which in some cases can be very specialized. Not to mention that the CSS sort would not have the time to maintain even basic levels of proficiency in infantry skills.
So it comes as a bit of a (pleasant) surprise to see Ken proposing that everyone spend their initial three or four year contract in the combat arms, and then go on to CSS assignements after that. Great idea , and a lot less time arguing with some supply "tech" over trying to get basic clothing and equipment replaced when it really does need it, because he's already been there himself and knows how it goes.
Jones_RE makes a strong point about not only the need for superior physical fitness and weapons handling skills, but also how that in and of itself provides the motivation for people to really stay in the military; if they find it challenging and rewarding (in a moral, not monetary, sense), they will tend to stay. The Canadian Army used to maintain very high individual standards in the Infantry - and they could afford 2/3 rds attrition rates just on the Infantry Course itself, because people wanted to join, and if they were among the 1/3 rd or less who passed the Infantry Course (on a few courses, every single candidate failed), they wanted to stay, because they had found what they were looking for.
Right into the 1990's, infantry battalions enforced the 2x10, which was a 10 mile battle march in full kit performed within 2 hours on the first day, and then repeated on the following day (in order to test stamina and recovery); after each of the two 10-mile battle marches, the troops would immediately, without rest, undergo a 300-400 metre assault course on one day, and a live shoot starting at not less than 300 metres on the next day, and having to achieve not less than marksman doing so. Non-hackers were gotten rid of administratively.
That changed during the 1990's as a result of PC political pressures and especially the Human Rights Commission, which simply decreed that the military had to allow practically anyone who didn't need a wheelchair or strong eyeglasses to go into the infantry. Until then, the infantry had been male-only, and no one over the age of 26 could attend the infantry course. In the 90's that changed, the 2x10 and markmanship standards (amongst others) were scrapped and replaced by a lame shooting standard and a lame "forced march" of 8 miles with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes - the British Army, by contrast, still enforces an 8 mile battle march with full kit within 1 hour, 50 minutes, and an 8.7 mile battle march in full kit within 2 hours, followed immediately by a live shoot starting from 300 metres.
Needless to say, while Canadian infantry battalions were suffering up to 50% annual attrition rates of new infantry recruits after the collapse of the standards, the Brits held on rather better until the Iraq and Afghan Wars mud-sucked the vitality out of the British Army. In any case, both the Canadians and the Brits have had to lower recruiting standards to get fresh bodies, and in the Canadian case, that has meant that the standards have in effect, almost collapsed entirely - there is, for example, no longer any physical fitness requirement upon enlistement. Infantry battalions have "unofficially" had to resort to enforcing Cooper's Test in order to mitigate the worst PT problems, and I was told by a friend of mine who was still in last year that a version of the 10-miler (in just FFO - boots, webbing,helmet, rifle, but no ruck) has been brought back.
Jones_RE is right: no high soldier standards set and maintained, no reason for the squaddies to stay.
Bookmarks