Does abusing soldiers makes them tougher?
-
Am glad to see there are other instructors who thoght like my plt sgt did.Originally posted by baer:Interesting read this thread. However see little evidence of rank and file, reservist or even instructors/trainers with their side of story.
I am on last year of active cycle (retiring as reservist next April), was BMT instructor, am infantry pioneer section commander.
BMT, when I was active, may seem like hell without the drama today. We had unwritten rules, no physical contact with trainees, no abuse of family, economic, religious or racial origins. What we did was more towards mental strengthening. Vocal abuse was after a time curtailed because foul language was deemed 'inappropriate'. There was still a lot of noise given the need to condition recruits to 'do' not 'second guess then react' to basic orders like 'cover fire' instead of taking cover.
Corporal punishment was at platoon/section level. Individual attention was only for special attention cases, known trouble makers and obvious slackers. In my 2 year and close to 320 recruits (trained within my platoon), we only had one case of 'fail BMT'. He was on SAF regular contract and thought he could just slide through BMT.
Our creed was simple, what we taught had to give each and every recruit basic survival skills in a shooting war. Basic weapon skills, discipline to follow proper orders (regardless how great the inhibitions they may have), mental stamina to carry on beyond their phyiscal limits and a fierce pride in their unit, their buddies and themselves.
In ITD half the battles were mental, handling Scholar Batches, Obese (average weight at start was 85kg). Physical training was graduated but mental conditioning was from day 1.
I never agree to hazing as it is determental. A proper sequence of "instruct", "warn" then 'punish' works within a structured framework to train soliders. The army has no time for another dunking tub incident which serves no-one except to make commando trainers feel like 'lords of the tub' with no military value whatsoever. Find it hard to believe that the trainers at 1Cdo still believe that guardsmen can benefit what was originally designed for Ranger/SAS troops.
thumbs up mate! cheers.
-
Originally posted by comberbache:
see the thing abt TKD is that it is primaryly legged based.Many of my friends who are instrutors in TKD admit it's short comings and infact they take up boxing or something like that for closer combat.
well, it depends on the unit. The Marines, Rangers, and Special Forces have [b]intensive training in military Taekwondo....they train everyday, or something like that. also, combat arms units train regularly in Taekwondo.
but REMFs like me don't really train alot in TKD, at least in my unit.... other units still do it, but it's not as intensive, as one might expect.
most koreans are trained in TKD, but i would not say WELL-trained, except for the hardcore units....
for me, i have a black belt (1st Dan) but it's really nothing.[/b]
Anyway back to topic....i believe abusing a soldier does not make them tougher.However it does make them mentally more prepared.While i'm not too sure about modern ways of toughening soldier what i do know is the classical method.The best example would be that of the men of Lakedaemon(better known as Sparta).From young they had to go through a very tough regime.Which includes being whipped,boxing and wrestling.Also when older(around 16) they would hold thick wicker shields and brace themselves while the older men(aka fully fledged warriors of age maybe 20) would charge at them in full battle armour,Spear and bronze shield.Other then that,there are daily runs in full gear(around 15kgs).Charges up and down slopes, Charging as a group with shields into trees and stuff like that. Other that training they had to go to school,work the fields alittle and all that normal stuff.
All that kind of sanatised them to the horrors of battle.Most interestingly they thought not of themselves in battle but of the guy next to them.
Comparing them to the soldiers of other city states at that time who train once a year for a week after the harvest.Those Spartans while they do and have been defeated,they did not go into battle shitting and pissing in they're pants.So i would say if you're mind has been mentally toughen by training to the horrors or war you'd be a better soldier.How to achieve that is another matter -
i can't really comment of the SAF since i've never seen it first-hand, but it seems to be pretty good....i understand it has a good reputation internationally.
What do you think of Singapore National Service? You don't have to hold back on your comment just because this is a Singaporean forum. Be as direct as possible.
from your descriptions, i think the training in the SAF is more systematic than in the korean army. in the korean army, there's alot of hazing and abuse...it makes for very tough and disciplined soldiers, but it's somewhat lacking in terms of formal training.
typically, a korean soldier goes through basic training, then to some school where he learns his job, and then he gets posted to his unit. but the training in basic and the school is, well, pretty basic - most of the soldier skills he will learn OJT (on the job training) from his seniors in his unit.
as a result of the heavy emphasis on OJT, the seniors in the unit have a lot of power and control over the new privates, because they are basically "in charge" of him.... they act like the "older brother" who teaches (and bullies!
) the new guy.
this is one of the reasons why hazing exists in the korean army.
nevertheless, the system works surprisingly well. the threat of north korea ensures that training (and hazing) is very tough and taken seriously... U.S. forces working alongside korean army have always spoken highly of us... in vietnam, despite inferior equipment and fire support (compared to the U.S. forces at least), korean forces earned a very fearsome reputation....
but i agree that hazing is somewhat "unproffessional".... sigh, but it's an old tradition and it's hard to get rid of. there have been efforts to change it and some progress has been made.... but the korean army is still, by and large, "old school"! -
Originally posted by |-|05|:
military TKD is a bit different from regular TKD. i agree with you abt TKD in general though.... also, our special forces don't practice TKD (i know i said that they do, but this fact slipped my mind at that time...) they practice something called "tukgong moosul" which is alot scarier. more emphasis on the arms, locks, grabbling, poking out eyes, choking, etc...
see the thing abt TKD is that it is primaryly legged based.Many of my friends who are instrutors in TKD admit it's short comings and infact they take up boxing or something like that for closer combat.