Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
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?
First off, excellent question, and yes, I need to have me feet held to the fire here. I do have great deal written on this subject, but have yet to mould it into a coherent form. But....

  1. We need to focus more on a useful and defined level of individual skill and knowledge.
  2. You can't train for every condition and for every type of conflict, so it has to be explicit in training that you are providing a basis for further training, that as yet, may be unforeseen - and yet "lessons learned" keep getting re-learnt.
  3. We engage in a lot of superfluous process and procedures. Certain things at the squad an platoon level could be usefully simplified. Other things need to added.
  4. We don't seem to understand some of the basics, (fitness, marksmanship, navigation etc.) to the extent that we can define the standard and then concentrate on how we achieve the standard - run 2 miles in 18 minutes carrying 22kg - how you get that standard, does not matter. It just has to be done within time and budget.


Now I can cite numerous cases of dissonance that I have either experienced or witnessed, but that's not really my point. My point is that we seem/may not to have as good understand of what is actually required, as we think.