Ive often wondered how much training the soldiers of the first modern armies recieved. Say starting at the War of independence in America up to WW2. Were many barely trained conscripts or was a high level of training maintained throughout?. Any info would be much appreciated

The first modern armies neglected the need for mental training and focused more on physical, boot campish stuff. But you'll see in WWII that tons of movies dealing with the mentality of a soldier were released and used in training; there was a whole movie devoted to helping the soldiers cope with their fear of the German machine guns and their capability of mowing down soldiers. I think one line said by the narrator went something like, "Don't be afraid of it; you'll soon realize it's bark is worse than it's bite," but in reality it's bite was just as bad and even worse than it's bite. These days the main type of mental training, at least in the U.S., is to change the way the soldier views killing...He should be able to do it instinctively, without doubting the morality of killing in the back of his mind.

Why is it then that you hear much less of soldiers cracking uder the pressure in pre world war 2 and the like ( I could be wrong here). They seemed to have more mental toughness.

depends on what you count as "modern", as the "modern way" is Roman way :) they were amoung the first pioneers of good military training.-what do i mean by this? well, lets take the super soldiers of the ancient world, the Spartans, they spent a LIFE TIME training, and honing there martial prowess, and indeed were the superiors to most nations until actics improved, and the age of Sparta was lost- the come the Thebans, and Macedonians, and so on, until we reach Rome, who was able to craft a superior army not through a life time of training, and cultural strictness, but through a few months of traing, and a Centurions strictness, similer to a drill instructor (but 100X worse...) they crafted an army whos only limatation was greedy commanders, who competed for the title of Emperor

Originally posted by Cunobelin
Why is it then that you hear much less of soldiers cracking uder the pressure in pre world war 2 and the like ( I could be wrong here). They seemed to have more mental toughness.

Some did 'crack' and break.....the 'Kasserine Pass' and some units in the opening days of the 'Battle of the Bulge' spring to mind.

But to answer your original question:-
18th & 19th century = DISCIPLINE! Troops were conditioned to stand in rigid shoulder-to-shoulder lines (Light Infantry battalions and companies being an exception).
Early 20th century = DRILL! Troops were taught to make set moves in set situations.
Later 20th century = TRAINING! Troops were trained in what to expect, and were expected to think for themselves.
Early 21st century = EXPERIENCE! Troops are now put through just about every situation possible, so they know how to react.
Late 21st century = PROGRAMMING! As combat becomes more and more automated, machines do most of the fighting! :lol:

What im really asking about is what did say first world war training for either the british or french armies consist of, what length of time did they train for? Same with the romans, did they continually train over the soldiers career or was combat the real training ground?

Originally posted by Cunobelin
Why is it then that you hear much less of soldiers cracking uder the pressure in pre world war 2 and the like ( I could be wrong here). They seemed to have more mental toughness.

another reason would be IMHO firepower before WW1 and WW2 the massed amounts and rapid firing of atrillery had never before been acheived.

i was reading about marine corps history in my recruiters office. during wwII they had 8 weeks of boot camp.

i saw gods & generals, i'm not sure if it was accurate but it looked like they were trained a little(had a book camp like scene learning drills). I'd imagine they trained them how to use a gun if they didnt already.


about the kasserine pass...i read a great article in military heritage about that, those poor immortals :) if the greeks put 10000 hoplites there it might have been different?

In World War One the avrage British infantry soldier has 6 weeks of training before being shipped to the front. The average British piolit (whom were recuirted from the infatary) had 4 hours flight training before going into combat.

Any idea what country's armed forces get the most training these days?

Proboly the regulars in any army get the same amount of training.

The average American soldier - gets 3 months training.
The average Russian soldier - gets 6 weeks training.
The average Australian soldier - gets months training.

Thats what I know anyways.

The syaing about Imperial russian from the 1700s to the middle of the 1800s qas
"Draft 3, beat 2 to death, train one."

Originally posted by Cunobelin
What im really asking about is what did say first world war training for either the british or french armies consist of, what length of time did they train for? Same with the romans, did they continually train over the soldiers career or was combat the real training ground?
during the 18th century, if there wasn't a war, the troops would train once or twice a year during the summer ussually, and weren't in active duty year round, execpt for higher ranking officers, gaurds, Royal regements(body gaurds) & police troops.
the vast majority of the troops were in reserves.

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
i was reading about marine corps history in my recruiters office. during wwII they had 8 weeks of boot camp.

i saw gods & generals, i'm not sure if it was accurate but it looked like they were trained a little(had a book camp like scene learning drills). I'd imagine they trained them how to use a gun if they didnt already.


about the kasserine pass...i read a great article in military heritage about that, those poor immortals :) if the greeks put 10000 hoplites there it might have been different?

If the Greeks had had 10,000 Hoplites to feild in that battle the war could have been won by the Greeks then and there...

How many months training for the aussies?
six weeks in russia? their army must be of considerably poor quality if that is all the training they get

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
i was reading about marine corps history in my recruiters office. during wwII they had 8 weeks of boot camp.

?

Now its 14 weeks I think not 100% positve on that one, not to mention physical testing/training every six months. Only thing I don't look forward to when I join.

A lot of milliatry training (and 99% of the harrassment) is to build unit cohesion. You fight for your buddies, not to let them down. That has to be instilled. Training on millitary tasks, like firing a wapon, is relatively minimal.

In WW1 there was almost no marksman training in any army but the British, which was small, and relatively long service. There was no budget for the bullets needed to train the troops to fire.

Eariier armies relied on disciplne, one corporal for every six or so privatees in Frederick the Great's army. Or Wellington, who charactierized his force as the scum of the earth, enlisted for drink. The lash and other brutal company punishments were routine, even in the Union army circa 1861.

There is less combat fatigue now than ealier because the conditions of the soldiers are better. WW! Trench warfare conditions were truely horrific, mud up to the ankles, or higher. Poor food, stress, inadequate leadership. for months and months at at time. The French army did mutiny.

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
about the kasserine pass...i read a great article in military heritage about that, those poor immortals :) if the greeks put 10000 hoplites there it might have been different?

Umm... I think you're a wee bit off. The Kasserine pass is in North Africa and was the site of a rout of US troops by the Afrikakorps in 1943. Thermopylae is the battle you're thinking of. That battle was fought in 480 BCE between the allied Greek city states and the Persians.