🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:rl9ma21eldpd840v5tq69hu0ebr0mt2u72@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:58:37 GMT, Carter <per.ardua@adastra> wrote:
>
>>Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think what Mountain Goat's getting at Carter, is that one must train 
>>>>> to
>>>>> the point of not having to think to react to any given situation.  I'm 
>>>>> sure
>>>>> we're all in agreement that training like this is beneficial, even in 
>>>>> modern
>>>>> warfare.
>>>> I know what he is getting at.   Notwithstanding any benefits, It
>>>> is is impossible to train a soldier to react instinctively in any
>>>> given situation because it is impossible to simulate every
>>>> possible situation.  Armies realized that eons ago and figured
>>>> out that it is far better to train soldiers to analyze, plan and
>>>> prepare.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are confusing all military training with the old style close 
>>> order
>>> drill and fighting in formation.
>>
>>Actually I think that is what Mountain Goat was doing.  I'm just
>>trying to point out that all military training is not like that.
>>
> Actually the close order drill is still around and still part of
> military basic training. It's purpose is both to start you on that
> route to learning the instinctive reaction to command that can save
> your life in combat, and to build teamwork.

That's part of it. The other part is to teach how to give orders, not just 
receive them. An integral part of close-order drill (and forming up for 
morning roll-call is as much close order drill as more sophisticated 
stamping around the parade ground) is not just to condition the mass of 
troops to receive orders, but to condition the person giving the orders to 
actually give them. It's a major transition for a person who until recently 
was a private or corporal, and who stood in the ranks, to being a sergeant 
and being out in front.

> No one except maybe you thinks any army fights in such a formation
> since WW1.

Modern militaries don't fight in *those* formations, no. Not in the sense of 
closed squares advancing in careful order. But formations still exist - 
right from squads deployed in various ways (echelons, Vs, lines, columns) 
through companies or battalions two-up one back to divisions having an 
advance element, a mainbody and a rearguard. The very same contingencies of 
the military art that drove Union and Confederate regiments at many Civil 
War battlefields to carefully arrange in ranks, and to maintain on a flank 
with a neighbouring unit, still hold true today in disposition of one's own 
troops, in knowing where other friendlies are, and in very careful fire 
support coordination measures.

In other words, the discipline and teamwork that required a Greek fighting 
the Persians to carefully maintain his position in the shield wall 
translates to the discipline required to walk across a WW1 no-man's land 
behind a creeping barrage to the discipline required of a modern infantry 
squad doing CQB or a modern mechanized team conducting a hasty attack 
against a newly discovered opponent.

>>   Military training encompasses a wide range of
>>> skills from the their trades training, personal hygiene, map reading and
>>> orienteering, physical conditioning. The ability to analyse, plan and 
>>> prepare is
>>> the result of training, and the more training they have under their 
>>> belts, the
>>> more prepared they are to do that. Training and practice makes it easier 
>>> for them
>>> to do it under stress,
>>
>>Yes absolutely.  I have been there and done that both as a
>>trainee and an instructor.
>>>
>>>> That is not to say that soldiers are not trained to carry out
>>>> certain actions and drills without having to think about them
>>>> much.   An example would be the drill for clearing a jammed
>>>> weapon, soldiers practise such things so often that it becomes
>>>> second nature.
>>>
>>> That is just one of many adaptive reactions that come from training. 
>>> Good and
>>> repeated training makes a lot of adaptive behaviours comes as second 
>>> nature.
>>
>>I agree.  There seems to be people here who believe that that is
>>the only way to train soldiers.  It is not and I think you agree.

The best soldiers are not automatons. Adaptive and independent thinking is 
encouraged, and those best at it become (usually) the leaders. However, in 
any environment where a human being is asked to voluntarily subject 
themselves to danger, there does come a point where you need a mindset that 
allows a leader to order his subordinates to go in harm's way. It's no 
coincidence that police and firefighters must also operate within a system 
that is quite military.

To follow up on an example provided above - drills for clearing a jammed 
weapon. That's apt, but doesn't take it far enough. It might be more 
appropriate to speak of the drills for a squad, platoon or company in a 
specific situation. Just as having your .50cal undergo a hot tube misfire 
requires an immediate action drill, having your platoon be ambushed doesn't 
lend itself to a careful command conference either - you need to have a 
drill for that also. In actual fact, if these things are not drilled, you 
don't have a platoon of men, you have twenty or thirty bodies.

AHS