The Army getting even softer!

[Killer2]

but having these "softer recruits" in a real war will be the only test

I agree with what was said right there. I have two friends who went to Iraq, both of whom have either told me stories or I have witnessed in them a change that can only come with being in a war.

One was an Army MP who, before was very for a lack of a better term "girly," now that she has returned I don't see that softer side. Before she left I was worried because her stories of bootcamp were pretty easy in her words. So a softer boot camp doesn't mean even softer privates, but at the same time it doesn't mean better, just different.

I want to say we need quality people to enlist, but it is hard to test how well they will preform under those conditions before they go to bootcamp. Some crack some excel.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

you don't have the same weeding-out process that separates the wheat from the chaff.

At what point is basic training/boot camp a "weeding-out" process?

The purpose of boot camp is to produce a basically trained Marine, I imagine the Army is somewhat similar. In either case, it is not to "weed" people out.

I had this discussion with some of the guys and a few interesting points where made:

1. One thing that boot camp IS designed to do is indoctrinate you into becoming more "confrontational." One of the key components of the yelling (besides the obvious joy of yelling), is because many American youths are not exposed to confrontational situations. A study in the psychology of actually killing another human shows that an individual needs to have this indoctrination in many cases.

2. It teaches you to handle stress. One thing I learned in bootcamp is that "stuff" doesn't matter. Deal with what you can now, and let other things sort themselves out.

3. It indoctrinates you into a world of harsher discipline, harsher living conditions, harsh physical exercise, and physical demands, long hours, etc...

4. Screaming and yelling does a better job of imparting the importance of some things. The example in the article was the kid who lost his canteen. Asking him nicely probably won't have nearly the same effect on his ability to retain his canteen as someone screaming at him would have.

I can't imagine losing my canteen in bootcamp, I think the world would have collapsed upon itself and ended entirely. Had I lost my canteen, I probably would have had such an extreme azz-chewing, that I would never lose it again.
--

My personal opinion: I think this is a terrible thing. The objective standards of war will not bend to subjective modifications. The world won't take a time-out while you pull your head out of your azz.

 

[phrogdriver]

The man has a point. However, I dare say the raw material that was our recruits at the turn of the century was a whole different level of hard when compared to the doughy a$$ed youth that makes up much of the talent pool these days.

Recruits at the turn of the century were also a whole different level of dumb compared to recruits today. While you may hear jokes about young soldiers/sailors/Marines not being rocket surgeons, they are generally much brighter than Joe Blow walking down Anystreet, USA. If your comparison is to recruits of a century ago, all of them today can READ. Up until surprisingly recently, literacy was not regarded as an essential skill set for an American in general or military recruits in particular. Today's warfare is much more technically demanding than warfare 20, 50, and certainly 100 years ago. Brains go surprisingly far in combat.

In the end, I've never thought that one method of training is the end-all, be-all. Whether by stress or by physical and mental exertion, entry training in the military should be DIFFICULT. Pride and respect for one's self and the institution one is entering is based at least partially on this. Whether by an US Marine DI yelling or by the tremendous "yomping" the Royal Marines do, you have to make a recruit pay the price of admission. If anyone could do it, then what's the point?

 

[S.O.B.]

One thing that hasn’t changed is the importance of “attention to detail” in stressful situations. You have to simulate stress so that the recruits will learn to perform. If they fail to perform there has to be consequences. I think Marine DIs to an exceptional job at creating stress and teaching people to perform while under it. I know people have said in the past that OCS did nothing to prepare them for Flight School. I disagree it thought me a lot about being under stress and prioritizing what’s actually important when you can’t possibly bet everything done a 100%. That was several years ago but I’m sure OCS still serves the same function

 

[plc67]

Recruit training is very important in that it should give one a hardened mentality as well as a physically fit body.
One of the occurrences that is dropping out of the Marine Corps lore is that back during the Korean conflict the Marine Corps sent more than a few privates to combat without having gone through Diego or PI. This happened because the Marine reserves were activated and there were quite a few recruits to be awaiting their orders to boot camp. When their units were activated they were sent to their units refresher training but never attended boot camp. They were then sent with the First Marine Division to Inchon, Seoul and the Chosin. My father was an Infantry platoon sergeant with the 7th Marines and he told me that one of the Marines who hadn't been through recruit training was shot through the thigh while the Division was attacking in the other direction during the Chosin Resevoir action. He said it wasn't a bad wound at all but the kid just gave up and died. He attributed it to a total lack of preparedness due to a rush to get numbers to the front. To his dying day he said that decision involving minimally trained infantrymen cost many Marines their lives and he thought the general who implemented it was a real delta sierra.
As far as differences in training I served with a Gunner who had been in the Army before going into the Corps. He said when he got to PI the DIs were yelling and screaming and he started laughing. One of the DIs came up to him and asked what he was laughing about. He then told his Drill Instructor that he'd been in the Army and knew this was all an act and that the DIs couldn't do anything to him. The next thing he remembered was coming to with the DI standing over him saying "anymore questions, doggie?" He said he thought that the sergeant had explained them all. Once he figured out there was a difference he had no difficulty in training. We both agreed that hard training produces hard men and the tone is set on day one.

 

[Marine4life]

The best form of troop welfare is tough, realistic training. When did the Army forget this lesson?

 

[USMCBebop]

Changing World

The best form of troop welfare is tough, realistic training. When did the Army forget this lesson?

Unfortunately, they forgot that lesson when society changed. They decided to conform their training to society's new end product.

 

[junfan26]

This is a sad statement of how soft we have become. A hard man is a good man.

 

[mmx1]

An interesting point that someone else brought up; the CO is SF, which means he has experience training indigenous personnell. Maybe he's not wholly bonkers after all.

Sad comment now that we're comparing our support personnell (it's not an infantry BCT, thank god) to indigenous personell.

 

[Brett327]

A hard man is a good man.

I read that, looked at your avatar, and threw up a little bit, in my mouth.

Brett

 

[junfan26]

I read that, looked at your avatar, and threw up a little bit, in my mouth.

Brett

Man, sometimes I DO NOT THINK AHEAD.