Depends on the training. No 'basic' training is really training. However, the training my group went through was thorough, very few of us made it all the way, and we were definitely prepared for Vietnam. The four of us that did complete already had some small time there, but not necessarily doing what the SOG did.
Flight school dealt with the aircraft and duties of the crew. To get our wings, we had to know that helo better than the pilots. NATOPS is not a little book. The H-3 Sikorsky isn't simple, like the Huey.
The other stuff is different. Just as thorough. In some cases, such as SERE (all three we did), unless you keep in mind where you really are, and many don't, you'll be convinced you're in a POW camp, at least during Vietnam. The current crop seems to have no idea about that, beginning in the mid 70s, when standards were lowered to increase recruitment. And mommies could call MCRD or other and complain about the treatment of their kiddies. We didn't have that luxury.
One can put this into some small perspective with respect to Q's version of the globalist 16 year plan: the effective castration of the military was included, except the globs thought their programs wouldn't quite as effective as they were. That's something you can track easily.
As to basic, even back then (in the 60s), when the average recruit was in far better physical condition, it's necessary to prep them for the physical stresses, but you're right - NO training will prep them for going under fire.
You could just as easily say " I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any basic training."
How about, " I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any flight school." ?
Funny how learning needs to be tempered with experience. I wish someone could have pointed that out directly or something.
But, no, you're probably right. We shouldn't train troops at all. Nothing will ever prepare them. Especially a game.
https://www.wired.com/2008/01/americas-army-t/
Depends on the training. No 'basic' training is really training. However, the training my group went through was thorough, very few of us made it all the way, and we were definitely prepared for Vietnam. The four of us that did complete already had some small time there, but not necessarily doing what the SOG did. Flight school dealt with the aircraft and duties of the crew. To get our wings, we had to know that helo better than the pilots. NATOPS is not a little book. The H-3 Sikorsky isn't simple, like the Huey. The other stuff is different. Just as thorough. In some cases, such as SERE (all three we did), unless you keep in mind where you really are, and many don't, you'll be convinced you're in a POW camp, at least during Vietnam. The current crop seems to have no idea about that, beginning in the mid 70s, when standards were lowered to increase recruitment. And mommies could call MCRD or other and complain about the treatment of their kiddies. We didn't have that luxury.
One can put this into some small perspective with respect to Q's version of the globalist 16 year plan: the effective castration of the military was included, except the globs thought their programs wouldn't quite as effective as they were. That's something you can track easily.
As to basic, even back then (in the 60s), when the average recruit was in far better physical condition, it's necessary to prep them for the physical stresses, but you're right - NO training will prep them for going under fire.
Mental gymnastics aren't your strong suit. Were I you, Id give it up and instead see what was said instead of what I want to argue about.
Look in the mirror.
Ah, the classic "no u". Glad to know a "Vietnam vet" can still act 12.