1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How much training does a professional soldier need?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by storealex, Feb 5, 2007.

?

How much time is needed before being deployed?

  1. Less than 6 months

    11 vote(s)
    17.2%
  2. 6 months

    19 vote(s)
    29.7%
  3. 1 year

    21 vote(s)
    32.8%
  4. 1.5 year

    2 vote(s)
    3.1%
  5. 2 years

    4 vote(s)
    6.3%
  6. More than 2 years

    7 vote(s)
    10.9%
  1. bigdog5994

    bigdog5994 Lady Day

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,959
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    it should be done like the spartans done it training starts at the age of 12 followed by a life time of service..

    but are you talking about boot camp or training, because soldiers never stop training
     
  2. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    Oh please your mamma...

    Do you want to discus in order to convince people you are right, or do you want to turn every discussion into mudfight, with no other purpose than ridiculing the other guy? I can do both, and since you seem hellbent on always doing the latter, this is the way I will reply to you.

    Dude, do you even realise that US is not alone in Iraq? Tell me where in this thread I mentioned the US? Tell me. This is an international forum, and I see people from all over the world, saying that 6 months is enough. It is to them I replied that I don't think 6 months is enough, and I believe you need at least a year before going abroad.
    If you're saying that no US troops are being send to Iraq, without three years of training prior to departure, well congratulations, then my words are not ment for the US troops. If you are saying that some troops leave after a period of 6 months, well sorry to say so, but I don't think that's enough.

    Gee, thank you for pointing that out, because I never thought of that before I made that comment :rolleyes:

    Did it ever occur to you that there's something like casualties compared to how many troops on the ground? :lol:
     
  3. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    As I said in my opening post, Im talking about how much training a soldier should recieve, before going to a place like Iraq, and being in situations involving combat.
     
  4. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,208
    Location:
    Mexico
    Well, how many actual combat missions do Danish units take part in compared US units? How many Danish units are stationed in the Sunni triangle compared to US units?

    Seems to me, when it comes to casualty rates, the US units are higher because they take part in more combat than other foreign troops.
     
  5. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    Again, Im not talking specific about one nations troops here. Especially not from the US combat units, which no doubt have a hard time.

    You seem to miss my point. I'll elaborate.

    If all US troops have 3 years of training before Iraq, then yes you are probably right, it's because they have more dangerous tasks. But if some of them have half the training (6 months), then it's surely no surprise that they have higher casualties than troops with one year of training behind them. If it's that they both have more dangerous tasks and half the training, then damn I wouldn't wanna be those troops.

    As I have no idea which description fits for US troops, Im not labelling them with one of the cases.

    Finally, you ask how many Danes take part in combat missions. Well, there's no doubt that there's less combat in the southern provinces than in the Sunni Triangle, but in Afghanistan we see Danish light recon forces actively hunting down the Talliban, seeing combat on a daily basis for long periods of time, and still taking few casualties, and so far no fatalities. These troops have at least 1.5 years of training behind them. Don't you think they would have had a much harder time, if they had been training for 6 months and then asked to do the same?
    In Musa Qala:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_Qala_District
    This happened:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=sd0osZoVjhU

    Had these guys been in that situation with 6 months of training, Im sure they would have fatatilies.
     
  6. Shaihulud

    Shaihulud Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    3,685
    Location:
    Kingdom of Gore
    If it is just to learn to kill, 6 mnths is good enough.
     
  7. GinandTonic

    GinandTonic Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,873
    If thats all they know they are a very poor soldier. If thats all they know they will make Iraq more dangerous with their presence not less. Hopfully this is not the case/
     
  8. REDY

    REDY Duty Caller

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,663
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Praha
    storealex, I thought that you are soldier, so why are you asking? ;-)
    I think that 3 months should be fine.
     
  9. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    Because soldiers disagree on this as well. The idea for the thread came, when I heard the former leader of our Ranger Corps, saying that it's a misconception that professional soldiers can be trained in only one year. Other officers quickly said that one year was enough, and it made me wonder what people around the world think.
     
  10. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Wow. And here I thought that kind of comeback was reserved for the playground....

    Sorry, but I consider your allegation that the US forces take more casualties because they are less trained as an insult and slinging mud.

    Well, which nation has taken the majority of casualties in Iraq? The USA. So when you say this:

    Are you honestly going to tell me you were not referring to the USA? And if you were not, then which country were you referring to? Please be specific.

    Do you have any data in regards to your point?:lol: If not, then why bring it up?
     
  11. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    I love the way when someone responds in kind to your immature BS you act like you've won the high ground.
    Why don't you read his last two posts. He didn't say that. BTW: No-one gives a flying ... if you're insulted. Learn to read and learn to make mature posts:
     
  12. spycatcher34

    spycatcher34 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    United States of America
    Being a US Marine I thought I'd throw my two cents in seeing as I will* be deployed.
    * Accoring to the new ALLMAR released by the CMC last month.
    This guy is exactly right, it doesn't matter how much actual time a person has spent in the military, what matters is the type of training they will recieve. "Non combant" releated MOS will recieve training on roadblocks, prisoner detnetion and the like during this pre-deployment stage, which can typically last 6-10 weeks. Is that enough training? Yes, I believe so, they will not be the ones out in the streets going on the patrols. That is left up to the infantry units, who recieve much more intensive and lengthy training in prepration for deployment. There is always the exception of people being pulled from their regular jobs and put in as Motor T or something else and prehaps they may not have recieved enough training there..but that is another can of worms entirely.
     
  13. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Oh, I am sorry. I didnt know you were in the practice of hurling 'momma comebacks' around the lab. I humbly apologize to all those that regard 'momma comebacks' as legitimate debate tools.:rolleyes:

    I did read his last two posts, thus I asked for a clarification and something specific. Dont like how I post? /shrug. Your problem, not mine.

    This is all you need to know Brennan.
     
  14. spycatcher34

    spycatcher34 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    United States of America
    After having been away for a few years, its a shame I come back to senseless flame wars...
     
  15. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    I only answer as Im spoken to ;)

    1. I didn't say that.

    2. Why? It's so simple. Deploy your Rangers or Seals to carry out combat missions, and they'll have less casualties than the normal soldiers, because they are better trained. Why would it work differently, if other nations armies actually trained their troops better?
    Note, Im not saying they do, but do you find it completely impossible that some nations, who spend twice as much time training their soldiers, actually have better men on the ground? Or is America capable of training the best soldiers in the world, in half the time as anyone else?

    I reffered to the posters, claiming that 6 months was enough time to train combat soldiers. I wondered if their countries actually did send soldiers to combat after only 6 months, and if this was normal practise around the world. If so, I thought it might explain why they have higher casualties. "They" being almost everyone else really. Danish units suffer remarkably few casualties, compared their colleges from other nations in the same area, doing the same job. It's been called luck, and it might be. But if, and note that Im only saying if, we actually train our combat troops for twice as long, maybe it's actually training and not luck.

    Again, if they US troops who sees combat are actually not trained for 6 months, but for a year or so, or more, these words are not meant for you are your precious army. If not, then it's only natural that lesser trained troops have higher casualties. No need to take it personally...

    I've seen the numbers and the comparisons in the newspaper, yes. But if you're asking for a link then Im sorry, but I don't know where to look on the net and Im too lazy to spend hours, just to prove a mere point, that isn't really that important to me anyway. Im affraid I can only ask you to believe me, and if you chose not to, who cares.

    Do you have links to back up all statements you ever made on CFC anyway?
     
  16. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Then by all means who did you mean?

    Better training does not always equate into less casualties. An IED does not recognize which soldiers it kills are better trained and Rangers/SEALs drive a humvee pretty much the same as everyone else.

    Casualties depend on the conflict and current mission. Transportation companies experience a higher number of casualties over in Iraq. Its not because they are trained less than Rangers or SEALs, but because they are exposed to IEDs far more than most soldiers due to the nature of their mission.

    Also, using your elite troops for routine patrols would be a misuse of their capability. You reserve your elite troops for specific missions in which their particular expertise is required. You dont want them to be attrited by doing the grunt work that the regular infantry units do.

    Of course, I think it makes common sense that not all training programs are equal. Obviously some are better than others. I am not going to say that the USAs model is better than other nations, as I have no exposure to other nations basic/initial training programs.

    Perhaps their not doing the same job. You just said earlier that the majority of US troop casualties come from the Sunni Triangle and Danish forces are not in there. If you guys were doing patrols in Sadr city things might be different.

    Again, as I pointed out in my reply here, its not just level of training that directly impacts casualty ratio. Its the mission as well.

    If you dont care enough about your own point to prove it, then why should I care about your point, or even believe it?

    Pretty much yes. My opponents usually demand I do, and I am more than happy to do so to make my point.
     
  17. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,641
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Combat training is like security, you suffer diminishing returns on investment. The most 'percentage return' you get on combat training is likely within the first week, though various skills can improve (along with fitness) for quite some time. Eventually, though (like with all diminishing curves), you get to the point where there's minimal improvement.
     
  18. Leonel

    Leonel Breakfast Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    10,348
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I would think about a year as then a soldier would be able to experience training in all seasons.
     
  19. storealex

    storealex In service of peace

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    Denmark
    Armies which sends troops to combat with less than 6 months of training. I can't be more specific, because I don't know which armies who does that.

    While all this is true, I think there's little doubt that training in fact does have a pretty big part to play. Training could also include first aid, which is handy when faced with IED's.

    That's also true, but my point was that better trained troops such as these would have less casualties, and that training therefore did matter. My point was not related to which type of job, different trooptypes should do.

    I know Danish troops aren't doing the same job as the Americans up north, but they're doing pretty much the same as the British. Both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In fact, Danish troops are almost always a part of a larger British unit and command structure, doing the same job the same place.

    Fair enough, but I don't want to spend hours, just to convince one random guy, who for all I know might not even change his opinion anyway... hell.. such a link might not even exist in an other language than Danish...

    Why shouldn't you? Is trust such a bad thing, or have I said something outrageous that you simply cannot believe?
     
  20. woody60707

    woody60707 Deity

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    @ storealex, I don't think a 4 man team of SEALs or Force Recon would be better at a patrol then say a Fire team of Marines that have just as much experience. And thats counting the fact that those types of units are the cream of the crop from the larger pool of the men in the armed forces.
     

Share This Page