Originally posted by Father Fletch:
A recruit should leave basic training with knowledge of the rank and grade structure of the service he has joined. A recruit will be familiar with the common infantry weapons and basic tactics of his service, even if he joins a maritime or aviation service.
Familiar being the operative word. A CRM-0 wouldn't be out of place. As I recall from our training, we got a few weeks of common training, the the non-infanteers split off. Most of them never handled firearms much after that. For the record, I don't consider most "trained" infantryman to be good shots - that tends to require some prior skill or a good level of individual coaching. Sure, you can put rounds downrange in the appropriate manner and handle IAs (Immediate Action drills), but the ability to hit a target accurately requires a bit more than that.
And needs to be kept in practice.
In a space-based military he will also learn basic vacuum emergency procedures.
Also, power-out zero-G vacc suit drills would be mandatory. I'd think all space services should grant their members vacc-1 and zero-G environment-0 at least from training (arguable high-G for performing when the grav comp is down....). Yes, I know you have compensators and grav plates... but what if the power plant is offline or the plates malfunction or are damaged? You still need to know how to move and not hurt yourself and to be ideally combat effective.
Many services in modern times also have recruits learn some hand-to-hand combative skills, even if it is only bayonet training.
Interestingly, I know a member of the US SF community (currently active). He tells me HTH training is very much de-emphasized. There is some, but he says you are mostly encouraged to pursue it yourself if interested. Quite simply, a pistol with a silencer (or an SMG or AR) is so much better that HTH isn't such an issue - when the same guys also have to learn great amounts of survival, land nav, recce, languages, fwd obs, weapons, comms, mech, etc.
Yes, you'd probably get a Hand Combat skill (possibly Brawling or Small Blade). Bayonets don't exist (or are a joke) on most bullpup weapons.
Some services will inculcate the recruit with the history and traditions of that particular service, i.e. The US Marine Corps, the British Royal Navy, the French Foreign Legion. Etc.
And any unit that is training its own members will try to work in some 'unit espirit' into the training.
In large empires, Russia, America, England, France and the Third Imperium there are often language barriers that need overcoming. Services will often have basic language classes for minority members of the empires to learn the main/majority language of the service.
Excellent point.
Officers will usually go through a similar version of this training, with the demands often being higher for them, since they are supposed to be the best and brightest.
In some respects. They are expected to be combat leaders, so they are expected to perform some tasks to a very high standard, many of them leadership and care-of-troops related. OTOH, I've seen some of their standards in some other particulars and wasn't always as impressed. I think on the whole the results are about the same, just with a wee bit different emphasis. At least in countries where the normal army training for enlister persons has a high standard.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Let me add a few things:
Most training has as a purpose to break the person of thinking like an individual and thinking as part of a team. This goes counter to instinct so you have to be 'broken down' (tired out, mentally exhausted and open to anything that will make the situation better, shown you can't win as individuals) and then 'built up' (shown that as a team you can accomplish the previously undoable, given to know that each member has skills and is improving). You become dependent on your buddies and they on you and this develops a sense of responsibility that keeps people going in tough situations where they might give up if only their own selves were in peril, but they'll fight on or march on or whatever if others are depending on them.
Let me also add that instruction can be done without abuse. I met a crusty WO1 who could make you feel pretty low and inept without ever saying a cuss word or raising his voice. But he did get you to improve, as being subject to his disappointment and his accurate analysis of your failings was not pleasant.
Basic teaches you how to be 'minimally militarily competent'. Beyond that, you need to add phases of basic and advanced trade training (being an infanteer, for instance, is far more than knowing which end of a rifle bullets come out of - add in recce, fwd obs, commo, mech, hvy wpns, etc). Officers have to add all sorts of 'leadership stands' and other testing related to the care and maintenance of men and also a lot of legalistic stuff to do with what their responsibilities are under international conventions and various civil laws. But that's all beyond the scope of basic.
Basic is about turning the 'me' into 'us'. It's about making you capable of recieving and benefiting from the higher levels of instruction in your trade. It is about teaching you about limits and how artificial they are and how you can go beyond them with the right motivation. And it is about getting you in shape - let's not forget that - many a sedentary youngun has been turned into a lean, mean, fighting Muh-rine!
and I think 13 of the failures were deaths. One of my favorites was the surprise survival training. They were basically abducted from the barrack, dumped in the woods naked and told that they were expected back in a week.
