The US uses "one station unit training" for combat arms - where basic training is integrated with the actual branch-specific schooling. For technical trades and non-combat folks, they are sent to a centralized basic training first, and then dispersed to their MOS-specific school.
If you have to pick one model for everyone...
... everyone goes to basic training together and then separates out from there?
... everyone goes through OSUT and focuses on their specific MOS?
Sound off below!
By: Brant
Posts
2 comments:
Why would I have to pick one model for everyone? I'd say the way it is now makes a lot of sense - for combat arms, OSUT; outside of the combat arms, a common basic training and let'em scatter from there.
The British Army has a combined approach - they have several Army training centres to deliver basic training to groups of professions, and after basic training there are more narrowly focused training schools. But everyone has a good idea of what unit they will probably end up in when they begin training (this may well be because of the smaller size of the British Armed Forces overall, not because each Corps and regiment used to do its own training).
In Canada absolutely everyone, squid zoomie or grunt, does a common 13 week course. Then combat arms soldiers train at the Combat Training Centre in New Brunswick (only place in the world with swamps on hillsides, or so it seemed to me at the time). Other trades go to, uh, other places. I'm nost sure this is the best way to go.
Common core and then branch out to specialty. It would help if all the little troopies started with the same indoctrination. The Army would do well to truly adopt the USMC mindset of everyman a rifleman, especially with the non-linear conflicts were are engaged in these days. Everyone need to learn to shoot, move, and communicate.
Post a Comment