US Army eases boot camp rigors. 22 replies

Please wait...



50 XP

27th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,042 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago "FORT LEONARD WOOD, Mo., Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Recruits entering U.S. Army boot camps are being yelled at a lot less by sergeants, running less and allowed to sleep longer, the [COLOR=green][COLOR=green][COLOR=green]Wall [/COLOR][COLOR=green]Street [/COLOR][COLOR=green]Journal[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] reports. A team of 20 officers from the Army's training command was formed last spring to figure out how to help more soldiers survive the first six months of enlistment. Since implementing the "kinder and gentler" approach, about 11 percent of recruits don't complete their first six months of training, down from 18 percent last May. At Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., where about 11,000 new soldiers are trained each year, Col. Edward Daly said he ordered a stop to the old-style in-your-face tactics of swarming recruits to weed out the weakest. "I told my drill sergeants to stop the nonsense," Daly said. Now, in the mess hall, drill sergeants aren't allowed to order overweight privates to skip dessert, and the Army also has cut the amount of running troops do in boot camp by more than 60 percent in the past three years. However, Army officials say recruits still must, as ever, meet the same basic standards and pass the same tests for physical fitness and marksmanship to graduate." This was brought to my attention by The Daily Show, and while it doesn't seem like a big deal, does it mean anything? Obviously, recruitment is a big thing and hasn't exactly been at it's highest, and it's not a drastic step considering they still have to pass the same tests for physical fitness or marksmanship. Do you feel this is a good thing, or a bad thing, considering recruitment will go up, but this is an exchange of quality for quantity. The whole "drill sergeants aren't allowed to order overweight privates to skip dessert" sounds kind of weak :p.

Inyri Forge Advanced Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

I'm not pro-war, but saying "war is bad, we shouldn't have it" is naive, so I won't even bother.

That said, this sounds kind of dumb. A good soldier is more effective than ten bad ones, and by coddling the recruits I'm afraid that's just what we'll get. War is tough, and if Drill Sergeants aren't allowed to pass that on to their recruits I really don't think they're doing them any favors.

I'd rather skip dessert than be shot, personally.


Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

This reminds me of the late Roman empire. Mind you, the legions were not as bad in those days as some think (there were a LOT of factors destroying the empire), but if we may believe Vegetius and other writers, military discipline plumeted. And soldiers didn't want to wear their armor anymore, because it was too heavy...

And quantity over quality? Well, the late Roman army was much bigger than that of Augustus. :p

In short, no it's not a good idea.


Serious business brigade

50 XP

3rd September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

I think its a really bad idea, the last thing the US needs is sissy soldiers when fighting those bad evil terrorists..

War is hell,if you cant pass the hell of training, you shouldnt be in the armed forces.

Mast3rofPuppets Advanced Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

"Training should be like war and war should be like training".

Or something like that.

Cap'n Rommel

The Good

50 XP

7th August 2004

0 Uploads

8,766 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

"We dont end War, War ends us"

Pethegreat Advanced Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

If anything it needs to be harder. I want my tax dollars to go and fund the best the of best in men and equipment. If %40 drop out that is fine by me. The other %60 will be better soldiers.

I don't want people who should have been dropped out of training fighting.


2 excited 4 shark week

50 XP

25th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,076 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

Sissy soldiers don't win wars. If you're not enough of a man to get through bootcamp then you're not a man period. After all, you enlisted didn't you?



48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

They probably have no choice, they need more troops and making the training easier to live with is the best way of achieving that. Besides soldiers don't usually need to be huge bodybuilders or great marathon runners, as long as they don't allow very obese people in troops where they don't fit everything should be okay, after all having a brain will help too, not that I claim all musclemen are stupid, but that's often the tendency. And you wouldn't like being denied dessert after a hard day when all others would get it, the stupid rule of punishing everyone if one does something wrong might actually be okay in this situation, i.e. don't give anyone any dessert, at least not until the overweight ones start to drop in weight... Very odd if you have problems with fat people not going down in weight though, but perhaps they eat pure fat when the others don't look? :p

They made some radical changes to our system before I had to get in to decrease the amount of people taking civil service in the first weeks, e.g. we wore trainers instead of combat or rubber boots the first (two?) weeks to get fewer broken feet and toes, the bad news was that the trainers are the worst ones I've ever used, som nice and cheap Finnish design from the 1970s... The results weren't too great, feet still broke because of the worthless trainers not giving any support to them, and almost as many as earlier quit, perhaps some later than before, but since the system got an even higher curve of added pressure than before after the first weeks they still did. Of course we don't have much of requirements on who can get in, being a conscription army and all, so you would assume someone who voluntarily enlisted would have better motivation and physics, but perhaps they don't have the same pressure of disappointing your relatives and friends if you quit, and ending up in an illegal war might be bad for motivation as well. (I'd suppose they had to understand they might die when they enlist and not only understand it when there). Otherwise the addition of more football and other fun sports didn't lessen the physical gain much, but they were fun compared to e.g. the "track with several huge obstacles you run around and around till you fall down and continue" (I forgot the word...). Not that the traditional ways should be dropped, but some new methods won't kill your troops IMO.

And last, please trust those officers who decided this, they wouldn't do something like that unless it was necessary, would they? We all know they are sadistic, and why would they want to lessen their fun if it wasn't absolutely necessary? ;)

(This became more of a mindless ramble than I intended, sorry...)


I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

Never understood the concept of silently taking a yelling just because some muppets with stripes on their uniforms liked to hear their own voices. They sure as hell look funny when one yells back or simply walks away. This is not recomended if one wants to make a living in the armed forces,though.:)