jrcar
Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002 From: Seymour, Australia Status: offline
|
Which is exactly how it should be :) Actually we did have a very rigorous training for the war, and when the Divisions came home they were put through a lot of training, based on experience fighting the Japanese to that point. Most of that training was useful, some was not, but the fact was we instigated a strong training regime based on lesson learned in the Jungles of Malaya, feedback from people who had lived in PNG and the Solomons, and at least some intellectual effort. This is a tradition we had from WW1, and carry through to today in our Army. Not saying that the other Armies didn't, they did, but from what I've read ours tended to be more realistic and practical (even then the troops complained that the training could have been better). We had the benefit though of a volunteer Army overseas, and there was a noted marked decline in basic troop quality from 1944 onwards noted in the battalion diaries, so not everyone could be a super soldier! Cheers Rob quote:
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard I think a case can be made that AE = Australian fan boy Edition. Australian troops can train up to a basic experience value of 65 whereas the British and New Zealand dunces will never get past 55, and the really dense Canadians won't go beyond 50. (p. 187 of the manual).
|