Talk:Spray and pray

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Military history: Technology Start‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Training[edit]

Before someone yells at me for being prejudice against the US military, firstly, I am, secondly, I can back up my arguments:

The US regular force basic training is 6 weeks.

The Canadian reserve force basic training is 12 weeks, and soldiers are not considered fully trained until after a year or two of manoeuvres with the unit.

The Canadian regular force basic training is 6 months.

The latter are much more consistant with world views on basic training. It is also a matter of public knowledge (the public being much of the planet's modern militaries,) that the US basic training focuses mainly of physical training and marksmanship, whereas most other militaries focus more on creating soldiers with drive, initiatve, and intelligence. In most modern militaries a corporal or senior private is capable of leading a platoon or more, whereas US soldiers rely more on sarge's orders. This is not to say that the US has no competent or less competent soldiers, but that they do not spend enough time training them at the onset. Weatherman667 19:35, 9 September 2004‎

Your comparisons concerning training doctrine and marksman quality may or may not be valid, but it really doesn't matter. The casual relondonader still perceives this article as slanted, and there really isn't any need to go beyond noting that the US issues non-automatic M16s. The official stance of the wikipedia is not to pursue neutrality, but to represent as many points of view as possible. In light of this article's scope, however, an article on "spray and pray" as a military science term really doesnt merit a comparison of training amongst military organizations. These points of view would be better expressed in an article such as Recruit training or perhaps M16 (rifle) itself. Adding an additional point of view might suit the "equal representation" idea, but the article (admittedly, a stub) would be nearly 50% comparison of training or logic behind issuing burst-weapons, rather than 100% "spray and pray"-related material. Helicon (talk | contribs) 23:20, 2 March 2005

The above information is incorrect on every single point. US regular forces basic training is 9 to 12 weeks in length, depending on the branch. This does not include the required Advanced Individual Training, and trainees are not considered fully trained until they have achieved the pay grade of E-4, which can take up to 2 years.

As for leadership, US Soldiers are trained and expected to display initiative, intelligence and drive from the very beginning, with a leadership philosophy of "to the last man" where the lowest private is expected to be able to take charge, should it become necessary. However, all armed forces worldwide, without exception, expect their men to follow orders at least as long as they are legal. Canada is no exception.

I'm extremely curious as to where you came by your information concerning how the US Armed Forces are, as it's all pretty much wrong. In reality, you will find that the Canadian and US militaries are very similar in organization, leadership/command philosophy and even training. Sandsnake (talk | contribs) 10:19, 19 December 2006

Confusion...[edit]

Why is it that on the article page here there is the message that there is no such article, and tells me to create it (which leads to a decently written article). How can I fix this? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I have tagged the article as of disputed neutrality because of certain passages that recomend (rather than describe) certain tactics. Articles should not say what "should" be done but only what is done or what specific sources say should be done. Eluchil404 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War note...[edit]

Is that brief note that it's used (when referring to the blind firing around a corner) in GoW really needed? It isnt the only game that does it(Rainbow Six Vegas for example) and I highly doubt it was the first(though I cant back that claim up). In my opinion, remove it or put every other game that uses it in there too. And I think the former makes much more sense Capgun2713 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query on sources[edit]

I'm the gentleman who talked about the term 'spray and pray' based on my own experiences in the military of Rhodesia and the United States (and others). How would I provide a source for my comments, write a book and quote myself?Foofbun (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]