Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
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!! 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.