First off, I've spent the last couple weeks reading many of the threads on this forum to ensure I've got a grasp of the debates and discussions that have already taken place. This is an impressive site with a high-level of discourse taking place.

I'm starting this thread as opposed to continuing the discussion from where it came from to avoid sidetracking its pages of discussion on strategy. My question revolves around these statements:

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
- Around six to eight months of good training versus our current 16-18 week norm is needed for the enlisted entrant; about a year for new officers. That will make them good enough if it's done right --and any combat adds impetus and reinforcement to all things learned and accelerates the attainment of skill. Thus it take seven to ten years in peacetime to develop 'expertise' but in wartime that can be halved in light combat as now or accelerated even more in heavy combat. It took about 18-24 months in WW II to turn marginally trained folks into pretty competent soldiers. The naturals, about 10%, can do it in weeks in sustained combat.
Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
I am my no means convinced the UK or US training infantry men in a way best suited to the needs. Does it work. Yes, but how well compared to other approaches we don't know.
There is alot of focus on how to optimize unit organization in some of these threads, but I have a feeling that organization takes backseat to training. Now, I've read the idea of PBID and such things as Wagram's ideas on training but I've yet to get a sense for the specifics that many are advocating as solutions to the problems alluded to above. Are our training systems "barely post-conscript" (to quote Mr Owen)? If so, what about them is archaic? What constitutes "the basics" that would constitute effective training for a capable soldier and how should it be taught?