Talk:United States Army Basic Training

message: If you'd like to help create the remaining sections for individual weeks of BCT, information can be found at this URL: 
*http://www.goarmy.com/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile=
Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weeks 

message: U.S. Army AIT is for enlisted personnel, so Engineer School should not link to the Engineer Officer's Course. Also, Air Assault school is not a part of IET. The list of AIT's should lead to the correct articles that exist, or be deleted. Dirteater13 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should make the pertinent edits if you see something wrong. As for the red links though, I was hoping to encourage people to start articles for the missing schools. I just finished a massive cleanup of the TRADOC template in which I removed all red links, so that all the training articles wouldn't have them. But if a few individual articles have them, maybe thats not such a bad thing? I don't know... Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIT List Deletion/Overhaul 

message: The Advanced Individual Training article describes a part of US Army Basic Training, and is a stub. I feel it would better serve as a section of this article. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed. Also merged OSUT stub article. Advanced Individual Training and OSUT now redirect here. Equazcion (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Advanced Individual Training]] into this article 

message: to say that jackson and benning are identical is just false. benning is much harder than jackson. no doubt. i went to jackson and the  guys who went to benning told me of things that we never, unfortunately, endured at jackson. benning is harder no doubt, but the army as a whole is easier than it used to be because the recruit you get isnt as hard as he/she once was. i will say this thought, and that is that dicipline and being a good soldier is a choice. no drill sgt is going to make you a good soldier. you make that choice and i know this because although fort benning is harder, the biggest shi*bags came out of benning. they all claimed to be "real" soldiers, but they had no dicipline whatsoever and didnt live up to the army values for the most part. Ethmegdav (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure which statement you have a problem with. Could you paste a statement from the article that you feel needs to be changed? Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:23, 12/15/2007
*Personal opinions aside, BCT is not identical at every location. Some posts use a different order and length. I've reworded to reflect such. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  its identical???? 

message: daily, especially in the beginning, wake up is anwhere from 3 am to 4 am because tow the line is around 4am or 5 am.Ethmegdav (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schedule and other aspects of the experience depend largely on where you train and who's training you. I therefore chose to just post the official schedule, which in my experience was generally followed with a few exceptions (and I was at Benning). If you want to add a small disclaimer that the schedule is not steadfast and can change depending on the whims of those in charge, you are welcome to, but I wouldn't go changing the schedule based on your personal experience. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:22, 12/15/2007
*I've revised the table and posted a SOURCED schedule. The occasional deviation from the norm based on conduct etc. shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic entry. On a personal note, I never woke my recruits up at 0300- 0400. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wake up 

message: I don't know about other Basic training site but I just got back from Fort Leonard Wood and our barracks were one building with each platoon having a floor to themselves. The way this article describes them it sounds more like each platoon had there own building. I don't know about other BCT sites but thats what I experienced at Fort Leonard Wood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeman177 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably using Jackson as an example. Besides for the temporaries I stayed in, most of Jackson is full of "Starships" which are huge buildings with plenty of room. Jersey John (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barracks area 

message: I was curious about the training of the US army and the British army and how they differ both in length and difficulty? I thought that someone here may know the specific details. cheers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.76 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, what's to stop you from researching them on your own...? I know firsthand about the US Army, but not a thing about how it's done across the pond...Jersey John (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the differences between the US armys basic training and the United Kingdoms basic training (for the regulars) 

message: Do people in army line up in a more efficient way? I looked up the article about Queue and I can't find how or why people in army line up. 118.169.96.88 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was an MP (Military Police) for 9 years from 1995-2004; completed my OSUT at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. I think what you mean by "lining up" would best be answered as "Dress Right Dress"; everything, soldiers included is "lined up" "Dress Right Dress". Hope this helps. Hooah. (Or as we said back in my basic training days, "kiiiiiiiiiiil!". Hooah.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dressing is only one part of the process. Regardless, the posters question is ridiculous and that's why nobody answered it for nearly a year. Don't feed the trolls, it just makes them come back. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a special way to "line up" in military? 

message: Why is there no history of basic training? It has changed quite a bit during the years. This is especially true regarding physical contact and so called abusive language. 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No history 

message: Recently the US Army has released some major changes to the BCT system. A good source can be found at http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/the-top-ten-basic-training-changes.html?ESRC=army-a.nl, I hope someone is watching this. Sadads (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic training changes 

message: I said they're important because "a civilian who wants to know about Basic Training and the major life change it represents" would see it as just "as important -- if not more so" than the physical training, "because they're not as obvious or well-known in popular culture." Having to drink a half to one-and-a-half quarts of water every hour throughout the day is a major change from civilian life, as is having to suddenly memorize such a large volume of text for recitation. Basic Training is about the major change from civilian life, that the Army lays on in excess during Basic in order to drive it in and condition, create a new frame of reference and a new mental reflex. These aspects are as much a part of that as any of the other training aspects. I'm not seeing any particular reason to exclude them, other than you saying you don't think they're as memorable (to "vets"?). Equazcion (talk) 19:16, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Having to drink water isn't "major life change". Any good football coach is forcing players to drink water during two-a-days in the summer. This isn't unique to basic training, nor did it start wioth them. It's standard heat injury prevention that is in every Red Cross first aid book. And memorizing things? Take a chem class and you'll be memorizing the periodic tables, history has you memorizing dates and anatomy has you memorizing bones. Fact is, memorization is probably common to tons of classes, jobs and other activities in life. Again, not that unique. You claim they aren't that well know and maybe there is a reason for it....because it's trivial. In fact, that could be evidence of the trivial nature. In the end, I don't see any particular reason to include them , other than you saying they are important (to "non-vets"?). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The particular volume of water is of course the point, and none but a relatively small segment of the population would be familiar with it from that level of sports training. Chemistry classes don't require verbatim recitation of pages from memory. The argument that if something isn't well-known it's evidence that it isn't worth including... well, much of Wikipedia is made up of corrected misconceptions and little-known facts that other more official information sources neglect, which I think is one of its strengths. The "non-vet" perspective is probably more important here to an article on Basic Training, wouldn't you say? It's the non-vets who are going to want information about Basic. The fact that a vet thinks these things aren't important comes as no particular surprise, but we're writing this for those who haven't had the firsthand experience, not those who have, and the inexperienced will not know about these aspects unless we mention them. There's no reason to think they would. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *None but a small segment? Are you serious? Aside from the fact that tens of thousands of people from grade school to pro do summer training camp for football, you're completely ignoring the other sports and....oh yeah, people who have common sense from living in hot climates or the millions who've taken first aid classes. Chemistry classes don't require pages of memorizing? Um, neither does the Army. The chain of command isn't that long. 9 enlisted ranks and 10 officer ranks. Soldiers creed is about 13 sentences. Having done both basic training and a chem class, I am completely comfortable with saying chem required more, and more difficult, memorization. While you like to discount experience (and I am not using it as a source, so don't lecture me about OR), you fail to see the obvious. I was a civilian, then a soldier. I made that transition and know first-hand the major life change that happens. Of all the significant ones, drinking water and memorizing a few things, were that major. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *You again shouldn't argue from the implication that you're talking to someone who hasn't experienced both chem classes and basic training. But anyway, their being "not that major" to you shouldn't factor into the decision for inclusion. You don't think they're important, I get that. But to someone who isn't at all familiar with them, they are -- and yes, there are plenty of people who have never trained in sports. You're used to these things, and as such, you should be vigilante, when writing an article that has the inexperienced as its likely audience, to nevertheless include such things. The hardest thing for a pro to do is to write material for beginners. It's not reasonable to assume that everyone who hasn't been through military training would've at least been through sports training and therefore we can leave this out... Equazcion (talk) 20:27, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why not? You haven't gone though Army basic training, have you? You're pretended long enough, haven't you? And no, the hardest thing for a pro to do isn't to write for the beginner. I do it all the time while creating lesson plans and cirriculum for adult learners. It's actually quite simple if you know what you're doing. I'm sorry you struggle with that. Again, you've missed what I said. Aside from sports (and not at a high level), and the military training (which is hundreds of thousands of people a year), there are all the people with basic first aid, common sense or have bothered to read a book. Since you're so worried about the uninformed, which sounds more likely to you: someone wants to know about preventing heat injuries so they go to a) the article on Army basic training or b) the article on heat injuries or c) WebMD. If your answer is A.......well, then there is little we can do for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The need to drink a half to 1.5 quarts of water an hour, the requirement to do so and make a record of each quart drank, along with the risk of disciplinary action otherwise, has nothing to do with general education, first aid knowledge, nor common sense. You honestly think the average individual is generally "informed" regarding those requirements? Sure, some of it will be obvious to those who've been through other forms of physical training, but even to those people, the aforementioned aspects unique to the military won't be known. We can't assume either of the reader. Equazcion (talk) 22:25, 7 Jan 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *See, I think the amount range is trivial. Again, I said inserting something like "Drill sgts. monitor water intake to prevent dehydration" or "To prevent heat injuries, drill sgts regularly monitor trainee intake". That's it. This whole thing about specific amounts, the silliness about the construction of the cord and where it gets pinned is trivial. And yes, it is common sense for most people and first aid training. Aside from not having completed basic training, you apparently haven't completed a reputable first aid course. If you did take a course, you need a refresher, so please check with your local Red Cross office. Your whole reasoning here is that 'someone might want to know it'. Tens of thousands of people wanted to know about Jessica Simpson tweeting a pic of her stomach last week, but it's still trivia that doesn't belong in her bio. We can and should make that assumption. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a dumping ground for useless trivia and unmanageable. Further, we have editors that come in and try to make separate sections for every sentence of said trivia, highlighting the fact that the article is getting bloated with trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: *We could also resolve to only use words of two syllables or less too, but that doesn't really seem that reasonable either. A1candidate didn't say that everything needs restored.....and that's been the issue. I've asked SEVERAL times now, since the very beginning, about addressing how it could be added in, using streamlined wording. Now, after how many hundred words, you want to "get started". You're going to have to excuse me if I don't just throw a party because you FINALLY decided to try to be productive. How about this: You write a suggested replacement and we'll discuss it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  break 1 

message: Drill sergeants are the instructors that are responsible for most of the training that takes place in Basic Training. They accompany recruits throughout the training process, instructing and correcting them in everything from firing weapons to the correct way to address a superior, and are also largely responsible for the safety of recruits. They are recognizable by their distinctive headgear, often called "Smokey the Bear" hats, as they resemble that character's round park ranger-style hat.
Dude, they are correctly referred to as campaign hats.  At best, smokey-the-bear is slang; at worst, an insult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_hatjohncheverly 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hat??? 

message: Why does my Honorable Discharge have the date of basic training instead of my date of separation that was 3 years later?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.48.25 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  honorable discharge 

message: The lede claims that "the challenge comes as much from the difficulty of physical training as it does from the required quick psychological adjustment ...". This sounds like its copied directly from Army PR material. It requires an authoratiative reference citation (which would show drop-outs are equally likely to be due to NON-PHYSICAL factors (that is, many drop-outs are easily passing the physical challenges) as to failed Physical Tests. I doubt it is true. Secondly the lede claims:"...it introduces...a strict daily schedule... for which most civilians are not immediately ready." Again, the same objections a) lifted from PR b) requires authoratative reference. And again, I doubt it is true (unless, when it refers to "civilians", it means 18-22 year old children..er sorry "young adults" and if so it should say so.). The lede also seems to confuse IET and AIT. There is nothing "quick" about spending a year 'adjusting' in an AIT, for example. (And the implication that the physical demands continue after IET is just not true, in terms of intensity - which is what is being discussed.) Plus, who knows what "immediately ready" means? compared to being ready "some day"?? Sound without meaning216.96.76.79 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why would it say "18-22 year old children..er sorry "young adults" when the Army accepts enlistment well past that age? To put that in the lead would be to put false information in it. If you think those two lines are lifted from another publication, please provide the publication and we can do a comparison to it. Just saying that it sounds too well written isn't reason to remove it. It didn't take me long (read that a quick Google search) to find this article in the first few results  stating that "You would be surprised, but many people are physically unprepared for life in the military when they arrive.". Imagine what would happen if you researched it more. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual challenge. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225011130/http://www.jackson.army.mil:80/BCT/What_to_Expect.htm to http://www.jackson.army.mil/BCT/What_to_Expect.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603162816/http://www-rucker.army.mil:80/1AB/1AB.htm to http://www-rucker.army.mil/1AB/1AB.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114051626/https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/toc/school.htm to https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/toc/school.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070704224734/http://www.goarmy.com:80/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile= to http://www.goarmy.com/ProfileDetail.do?dir=/_res/xml/life/basic/&xml=week_list.xml&fw=basic&sn=week00&profile=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204013428/http://www.wood.army.mil:80/usamps/14thMPBde/OSUT_787th.htm to http://www.wood.army.mil/usamps/14thMPBde/OSUT_787th.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205104817/http://www.usachcs.army.mil:80/TNGDIR/ENLISTEDTNG/AIT1.HTM to http://www.usachcs.army.mil/TNGDIR/ENLISTEDTNG/AIT1.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221010739/http://sill-www.army.mil:80/USAFAS/index.htm to http://sill-www.army.mil/USAFAS/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Army Basic Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111131219/https://www.benning.army.mil/192d/content/TrainingOverview/index.htm to https://www.benning.army.mil/192d/content/TrainingOverview/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the Locations section, the article says there are 4 basic training locations and cites a 2010 article.  I found a 2020 article from MilitaryOneSource that says there are 5, including Fort Knox.  Can anyone confirm?  Army Basic Training: What to Expect Canute (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just questioned my Alexa, and it says that according to a site called Destination360.com, yeah, your MilitaryOneSource is correct. It is a training base. However, I don't know the training units that are over there, or even what other training programs it provides. Faith15 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: One question. I'm looking at this article, and I realize that it doesn't say anything about the NCO rank that usually handles the reception battalion phase. Like, is it a corporal, a specialist, what? Faith15 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECBN Commander? 

message: So in the section about the Reception Battalion (RECBN) period, it says it takes 4 to 10 days. However, in the actual Basic Combat Training (BCT) chapter, it says it takes 3 to 5 days. Which one is correct? Faith15 19:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confliction RECBN Timelines